The Tulip is broken

[Van]

Hi New Dawn, because the pronoun ("that") is in the neuter gender, it can refer back to a conceptual antecedent. D. Wallace explains all this in Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics. The conceptual antecedent is salvation by grace through faith. Salvation is the gift in view, and salvation is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God.

D. Wallace also explains why the argument presented by Kuyper is without merit, see pages 334 and 335.

Every time you see a Calvinist express the idea that Ephesians 2:8 supports its false doctrine of the gift of faith, know that Calvinism is thus supported by faulty understanding of the text.

 

[A New Dawn]

Hi New Dawn, because the pronoun ("that") is in the neuter gender, it can refer back to a conceptual antecedent. D. Wallace explains all this in Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics. The conceptual antecedent is salvation by grace through faith. Salvation is the gift in view, and salvation is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God.

D. Wallace also explains why the argument presented by Kuyper is without merit, see pages 334 and 335.

Every time you see a Calvinist express the idea that Ephesians 2:8 supports its false doctrine of the gift of faith, know that Calvinism is thus supported by faulty understanding of the text.

We all see that you think that D. Wallace is a godsend (pun intended) to Arminians for interpretation of that verse, but can you speak to Dr. Steve's post that counters that opinion?

 

[JDS]

We all see that you think that D. Wallace is a godsend (pun intended) to Arminians for interpretation of that verse, but can you speak to Dr. Steve's post that counters that opinion?

It is a silly and superflous argument in any language! The context and the theme of Ephesians, and the ethnic history of the times and common rules of language and the eternal purpose of God in forming the church from two entities, Jew first and then gentiles, will not permit faith to be the gift of God. Arguing from a greek text is a waste of time.

Has anyone ever thought about reading the context?

 

[nobdysfool]

It is a silly and superflous argument in any language! The context and the theme of Ephesians, and the ethnic history of the times and common rules of language and the eternal purpose of God in forming the church from two entities, Jew first and then gentiles, will not permit faith to be the gift of God. Arguing from a greek text is a waste of time.

Has anyone ever thought about reading the context?

On the contrary, studying the Greek is the best way to ascertain the intent of the original author. It is also the only truly accurate way to determine the context. To disrespect a study of the Greek is further proof of how little you actually understand, both of biblical scholarship, and of Calvinist doctrine.

The KJV is not "divinely inspired", it is a translation. A very good translation, but not a perfect one.

Argue all you want, you're arguing for man to have a pivotal part in his own salvation, thereby giving him something to boast of, and be proud of. God will not permit any being to glory in His Presence. Grace and Faith come from God, via His Word, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[A New Dawn]

It is a silly and superflous argument in any language! The context and the theme of Ephesians, and the ethnic history of the times and common rules of language and the eternal purpose of God in forming the church from two entities, Jew first and then gentiles, will not permit faith to be the gift of God. Arguing from a greek text is a waste of time.

Has anyone ever thought about reading the context?

Yes, and the whole chapter confirms what we have been saying.

 

[drstevej]

It is a silly and superflous argument in any language! The context and the theme of Ephesians, and the ethnic history of the times and common rules of language and the eternal purpose of God in forming the church from two entities, Jew first and then gentiles, will not permit faith to be the gift of God. Arguing from a greek text is a waste of time.

Has anyone ever thought about reading the context?

JDS, you conveniently ignore Kuyper's argument and citation of examples contradicting your assertions. Your argument from the "neuter" is absolutely inconclusive yet you parade it like you actually understand it.

Dan is a great guy and a conscientious scholar. I have met him. I am a graduate of the school where he teaching.

Argumentation from the greek text is not a waste of time or there would be no Reformation. Correcting distortions of the Vulgate (ex. do pennance versus repent) were key to recovering sound doctrine.

The translators of the KJV did not consider study of the greek a waste of time (as I have documented). Are you denigrating their passion to study the original languages to guide their translation?

So admit it. Your mind is made up and nothing will sway it.

BTW, the title of Chapter 39 in Kuypers Book is "Defective Learning."

 

[oworm]

Hi New Dawn, because the pronoun ("that") is in the neuter gender, it can refer back to a conceptual antecedent. D. Wallace explains all this in Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics. The conceptual antecedent is salvation by grace through faith. Salvation is the gift in view, and salvation is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God.

D. Wallace also explains why the argument presented by Kuyper is without merit, see pages 334 and 335.

Every time you see a Calvinist express the idea that Ephesians 2:8 supports its false doctrine of the gift of faith, know that Calvinism is thus supported by faulty understanding of the text.

Are you deliberately avoiding my question?

YOU claimed that the greek grammar precludes the interpretation that faith is a gift from God. All I am asking is that you substantiate the claim that YOU made. Can you do that without appealing to second had knowledge? Why dont you at least quote from your source material as is normal debating proceedure when citing sources other than your self?

Folks

Van claimed in his own words that the greek grammar of Ephesians 2:8 precludes that faith is a gift from God. All I am asking is that he shows FROM HIS OWN SELF PROCLAIMED UNDERSTANDING of the text, that he parse his way through the text and shows us how he arrives at his assertion. He claimed his knowledge by implication before any mention of any other source.
Folks
Please note that I am giving Van the opportunity to uphold his debating integrity and maintain his dignity by asking him to validate his claims. He can either do that or retract his statement and humbly admit that he has little or insufficient knowledge of the greek text of Ephesians save that which he has gleaned from secondary sources.

Here are Vans assertions

Ephesians 2:8 does not in the slightest suggest faith is a gift of God, based on Greek Grammar

D. Wallace, a Calvinist of integrity, simply says whether faith is a gift of God or not, you cannot support the idea from Ephesians 2:8, or words to that effect.

"Words to that effect" are an insufficient citation. If you are going to cite a source you must quote the source verbatim. If you are willing to post longwinded assertions from your own mind then surely you will take the time to quote extensively from a source that you cite in support of your assertion!

FOLKS

Here again is Vans original assertion;

Ephesians 2:8 does not say faith is a gift of God. Greek grammar precludes that interpretation, yet it is posted again and again, as if truth does not matter. Salvation is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God through our faith in Christ.

And here are the specific posts that apply to this part of the discussion

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49073107&postcount=605

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49074429&postcount=607

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49074612&postcount=608

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49074728&postcount=609

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49074917&postcount=612

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49075418&postcount=613

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49075581&postcount=614

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49075904&postcount=616

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49085208&postcount=623

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49085208&postcount=623


And here again is my response to Vans assertion;



Van, It seemed apparent from your statement above that what you posted was out of a pre existent knowledge of the greek text? All I am asking is that you show from your own understanding of the greek grammar how the text of Ehp 2:8 precludes the interpretation that faith is a gift from God?

I am only asking that you substantiate your claim by referring to the greek grammar itself and showing from your own parsing of the text what you believe to be the correct exegesis. As a self proclaimed student of greek-implicit from your claim- you should be able to do that!

Why would you not be willing to do that since you yourself made the claim? Why would you not be willing to go to the greek text which is the closest to the original autograph that we have and substantiate your claim authoritively and exegetically? I would have thought this would be a golden opportunity to show decisivly and irrefutably from the infallible and inerrant word of God that faith is not a gift from God? Surely that would end the argument right here and now and leave the rest of us struck dumb in the face of truth?

Can you stand behind your claim Van and show from your knowledge of the greek text (A knowledge that you implicitly claimed to posses) that faith as a gift from God is precluded from Eph2:8?

 

[JDS]

JDS, you conveniently ignore Kuyper's argument and citation of examples contradicting your assertions. Your argument from the "neuter" is absolutely inconclusive yet you parade it like you actually understand it.

Dan is a great guy and a conscientious scholar. I have met him. I am a graduate of the school where he teaching.

Argumentation from the greek text is not a waste of time or there would be no Reformation. Correcting distortions of the Vulgate (ex. do pennance versus repent) were key to recovering sound doctrine.

The translators of the KJV did not consider study of the greek a waste of time (as I have documented). Are you denigrating their passion to study the original languages to guide their translation?

So admit it. Your mind is made up and nothing will sway it.

BTW, the title of Chapter 39 in Kuypers Book is "Defective Learning."

I must apologize to you folks for not making myself clear. I do not mean that it is always a waste of time to syudy the original languages. I reference the Greek and Hebrew to gain a better understanding but it is never because I doubt the English or the choice of words used in the translation, seeing as how I believe God is the preserver of words in any language. If it is his thoughts that are being conveyed by words, then I think he is definitely involved in what words are used. He cannot be happy with 100 translations, all saying enough differently to obtain copyrights.

My point though was, that this passage need only to be considered in it's context to determine what is the gift of God. If salvation has been used consistently as THE gift and faith has never been said to be the gift, why would you assume that faith is the gift of God in this passage, especially since the premise of the apostle Paul has been that from verse 1 that the gentiles were dead in their sins and God wants to give them life. The opposite of death is life. God's grace is his Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is life and salvation. He says by grace are ye saved. It is not a violation of the text to say, by the Holy Spirit are you saved because it has actually been said in other passages of scripture by God himself.

If a man is dead in sins and the Holy Spirit is life and the man receives the Holy Spirit through faith, then the man has been saved from death. Faith has not been mentioned in the chapter heretofore but grace and salvation has been mentioned because that is the immediate need of the gentiles. Why introduce faith now and say that faith is the immediate need and so God is giving it as a gift? No, life to dead gentiles is what he is giving as a gift!

All of this is in the context of the explanation of God through the apostle Paul of his eternal purpose of forming the church of Jesus Christ by two entities, the Jews, who had a previous relationship with God as the people of God with covenant promises of life and salvation and the Holy Spirit to indwell them and save them and secondly, the gentiles, who are described farther in the chapter, V 12, as being totally alienated from God during the same time period. This is the mystery of Christ that is being revealed in this chapter. It is about faith only as it relates to salvation, Therefore, the gift of God to dead men is Life, not faith!

 

[MamaZ]

LOL.. There is neither Jew nor gentile when it comes to salvation. For all are saved the same.. by grace through faith which is not of ourselves nor of the will of man but a gift from God and His will

 

[JDS]

LOL.. There is neither Jew nor gentile when it comes to salvation. For all are saved the same.. by grace through faith which is not of ourselves nor of the will of man but a gift from God and His will

Do you even know that you advanced my point? I could thank you but I know you were not trying to help.

 

[drstevej]

I must apologize to you folks for not making myself clear. I do not mean that it is always a waste of time to syudy the original languages. I reference the Greek and Hebrew to gain a better understanding but it is never because I doubt the English or the choice of words used in the translation, seeing as how I believe God is the preserver of words in any language. If it is his thoughts that are being conveyed by words, then I think he is definitely involved in what words are used. He cannot be happy with 100 translations, all saying enough differently to obtain copyrights.

Do you realize how bizarre this statement is?

The translators of the KJV when in doubt contacted scholars of the original languages. Deal with that fact. They reject your theory.

My point though was, that this passage need only to be considered in it's context to determine what is the gift of God.

LOL. Retreat from the greek when exposed.

Now are you now claiming that God guides you to an infallible analysis of the context and others lack your charism here? Your analysis of context is opinion.

You dig yourself in deeper and deeper.

BTW, why do you accord to the KJV translators abilities beyond what they claimed for themselves and then insult other translators as just changing enough to get a copyright?

I do not know they KJV translators personally but I do know some who have collaborated on other translations and I say you owe them an apology for trashing their motives to try to crawl out of a hole in this thread.

 

[JDS]

Do you realize how bizarre this statement is?

The translators of the KJV when in doubt contacted scholars of the original languages. Deal with that fact. They reject your theory.



LOL. Retreat from the greek when exposed.

Now are you now claiming that God guides you to an infallible analysis of the context and others lack your charism here? Your analysis of context is opinion.

You dig yourself in deeper and deeper.

BTW, why do you accord to the KJV translators abilities beyond what they claimed for themselves and then insult other translators as just changing enough to get a copyright?

I do not know they KJV translators personally but I do know some who have collaborated on other translations and I say you owe them an apology for trashing their motives to try to crawl out of a hole in this thread.

Well, I have not retreated from the Greek because I have not gone there, so that is a bogus charge. If we can not determine meanings of words and phrases in scripture by their previous use and the context in which they are used and the theme and purpose of the letters where they are found, then I think we would need inspired teachers like you to explain away the simplicity of the bible message. It just seems to me that the reformers were making a case against the catholic church for their claims of superior knowledge among the priesthood as a reason to protest. The nut did not fall far from the tree, if you ask me. Context seems not to be important to you but what Dr nuttlefinger says sure does!

It does not matter what the KJV translators says about their work. It does matter what God says about preservation of his own words. He used a donkey to speak for him and I doubt if he would have said he knew he was speaking words that God wanted said if you had the chance to ask him.

 

[frumanchu]

It does not matter what the KJV translators says about their work. It does matter what God says about preservation of his own words. He used a donkey to speak for him and I doubt if he would have said he knew he was speaking words that God wanted said if you had the chance to ask him.

So you believe incest is motivated by the love of money? That is after all the logical conclusion of the KJV translation of 1 Tim 6:10, and the context gives nothing to indicate otherwise.

Your error is no different than that of the Catholics. Just as they believe God's promise to preserve His church and His teachings must necessarily mean the perpetuation of one visible earthly institution, so you believe His promise to preserve His Word must necessarily mean the infallibility of a linguistic translation.

 

[oworm]

Why can't folks see that the Calvinist position seeks to give God all the glory in the doctrine of salvation. The doctrine of salvation periodically (And not as often as it should) throws me to the ground in wonder love and praise for the one who took a bag of dry and dead bones, a mind that was hostile to God, a will that was totally opposed to him and a heart of stone that was cold and dead and breathed into it the light and life of salvation. Revealed himself to me and awakening me from my lifelesness state and working in me that which I was incapable of?

We are often accused and berated for a faulty view of scripture. This same Scripture that reveals the LORD to us.

I fear our opponents have a faulty view of GOD.

 

[JDS]

So you believe incest is motivated by the love of money? That is after all the logical conclusion of the KJV translation of 1 Tim 6:10, and the context gives nothing to indicate otherwise.

Your error is no different than that of the Catholics. Just as they believe God's promise to preserve His church and His teachings must necessarily mean the perpetuation of one visible earthly institution, so you believe His promise to preserve His Word must necessarily mean the infallibility of a linguistic translation.

Yes, I believe what the words say. Probably the difference in the two of us is belief.

If you want to cite another translation that says something different or you would like to demonstrate how the Greek is clear that the love of money is not the root of all evil, I am all eyes.

Why do you think I am strange for believing that verse?

I also believe that God so loved the whole world that he sent his ony son to die for the world and that Christ tasted death for every man and that he died for the ungodly because that is what is said. Is God going to cast ne into hell for believing what he said?

 

[JDS]

Why can't folks see that the Calvinist position seeks to give God all the glory in the doctrine of salvation. The doctrine of salvation periodically (And not as often as it should) throws me to the ground in wonder love and praise for the one who took a bag of dry and dead bones, a mind that was hostile to God, a will that was totally opposed to him and a heart of stone that was cold and dead and breathed into it the light and life of salvation. Revealed himself to me and awakening me from my lifelesness state and working in me that which I was incapable of?

We are often accused and berated for a faulty view of scripture. This same Scripture that reveals the LORD to us.

I fear our opponents have a faulty view of GOD.

Well, the 98% of the world to whom you extend no hope does not fall to the earth with thanksgiving that you are elect and they are bound to hell through no fault of their own but by predestination by a God whose will cannot be overturned. So, there would be no need for you to fall to the ground and pray for their salvation.

...but we are getting off the subject of the "gift of God". Lets get back to it!

 

[beloved57]

Hi New Dawn, because the pronoun ("that") is in the neuter gender, it can refer back to a conceptual antecedent. D. Wallace explains all this in Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics. The conceptual antecedent is salvation by grace through faith. Salvation is the gift in view, and salvation is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God.

D. Wallace also explains why the argument presented by Kuyper is without merit, see pages 334 and 335.

Every time you see a Calvinist express the idea that Ephesians 2:8 supports its false doctrine of the gift of faith, know that Calvinism is thus supported by faulty understanding of the text.

man cannot have faith of himself..he is spiritually dead , with no spiritual life..faith is a fruit of spiritual life..gal 5:

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

If any have faith its because they have been born already of The Spirit of God..which is a gift..to the church, the seed..

 

[nobdysfool]

Well, the 98% of the world to whom you extend no hope does not fall to the earth with thanksgiving that you are elect and they are bound to hell through no fault of their own but by predestination by a God whose will cannot be overturned. So, there would be no need for you to fall to the ground and pray for their salvation.

...but we are getting off the subject of the "gift of God". Lets get back to it!

"98% of the world to whom we extend no hope"? And just where did you get that percentage? Certainly not from a Calvinist. Quite frankly, that is an outright lie, and a completely fallacious misrepresentation of Calvinism, which only highlights your unreasonable bias toward that which you clearly do not understand. You've got a lot of nerve, making statements like that, as well as your veiled slam to Frumanchu, that "Probably the difference in the two of us is belief." That is clearly a veiled accusation that he does not believe scripture, which i know for a fact to be completely false.

You are clearly in the wrong, and up to your neck in offense. You keep digging your hole deeper. Your credibility has evaporated like the morning dew.

 

[oworm]

Well, the 98% of the world to whom you extend no hope

This is a misrepresentation of me personally based on nothing but ignorant assumtion.

does not fall to the earth with thanksgiving that you are elect and they are bound to hell through no fault of their own but by predestination by a God whose will cannot be overturned. So, there would be no need for you to fall to the ground and pray for their salvation.

No one goes to hell who does not deserve to be there. Again, ignorance by assumption of a faulty view.

...but we are getting off the subject of the "gift of God". Lets get back to it!

This post displays an almost complete and perhaps deliberate misunderstanding of Calvinism or anything close to a biblical understanding of the doctrine of election and predestination.

I am begining to wonder why I am wasting valuable study time with people who will not even take the time to properly represent the opposing view or credibly support their own! Prefering rather to misrepresent the opposing view and extemporate on straw arguments based on nothing more than their biased and uninformed conjectures.

The opponents of Calvinisn in this thread have proven themselves devoid of anything close to a proper representation of their argument and prefer to relegate themselves to snide comments and berating language cloaked in hatred.

 

[Van]

Oworm understands D Wallace has blown his entire argument out of the water, and that I was simply referring to the text book on Greek grammar, Beyond the Basics. So he changes the subject to my behavior! ROFLOL

A New Dawn, I have presented the truth of scripture. The Gift of faith is a false doctrine and Ephesians 2:8 provides no support for it according to Greek scholars.
The theory put forth by Kuyper was shown to be invalid.