P001c_English_Rules_Out_Calvinism_Parse_II_Thess_2_13_part_3_of_3.mp4

[herald1509]

"through sanctification... and belief" is a prepositional phrase, which can modify either "hath chosen" or "salvation". Since we know that salvation comes through sanctification and belief, and it doesn't normally make sense for a choice to be made through these things, it really seems more like the prepositional phrase is meant to be adjectival more than adverbial. Am I wrong? Why do you prefer to consider it an adverb phrase?

[bereanresearch]

1. For any who may not have time to research the structure and rules of English, I have posted a fairly thorough explanation of the relevant parts of speech below, along with an analysis of their impact on this verse.

2. We must be careful not to let preconceived doctrinal beliefs - from any source - cloud our thinking about what the text plainly states.

3. You can trust God's word, the King James Bible, to mean exactly what it says - in English.

4. I encourage you to read my warnings below.

[JungleJay00]

Right on!!! God bless you brother mike

[bereanresearch]

@JungleJay00

Thanks for your kind thoughts, and for taking time to think through all of that video!!

[herald1509]

How can you prove that the "through salvation... and belief" refers to "has chosen us" and not "salvation"?

Shouldn't it be "God has chosen us to salvation, which is through sanctification and belief"? We know that salvation comes through these things. But making a choice "through" things doesn't make sense. In English, we say we make choices "based on" things, not "through" them.

[bereanresearch]

@herald1509

1. Thanks for your good questions.

2. The phrase "through sanctification ... and belief" is an adverb phrase. Like other adverbs, adverb phrases, and adverb clauses, "through sanctification ... and belief" answers one of the questions "how, why, when, where , under what conditions, or with what result". To modify the noun "salvation", it would have to be an adjective phrase instead.

(con't at 3. below)

[bereanresearch]

@herald1509

(con't)

3. In order to make this read like an adjective, you have inserted the words "which is" and thereby you have changed the structure of the sentence. You have changed this phrase into a clause, and you have changed its function as an adverb into that of an adjective. Specifically, you have made a non-restrictive, subordinate, adjective clause in place of the adverb phrase that is actually in the text.

(con't at 4. below)

[bereanresearch]

@herald1509

(con't)

4. When you change the words and/or structure, you change the meaning. Grammatically, you have no cause to make these changes. Scripturally, you have no authority to make these changes. (Prov 30:6 says, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.") So, the only reason to change these words and the structure of the verse is to try to make it say something other than what it already clearly and grammatically says.

(con't at 5. below)

[bereanresearch]

@herald1509

(con't)

5. There are other reasons, including grammatical reasons why your suggestions would not be valid, and I won't take time to analyze them in detail, because they rely upon your changes being valid in the first place, by pre-supposition, and I have already proven that they are not.

(con't at 6. below)

[bereanresearch]

@herald1509

(con't)

6. But, if you were allowed to add to God's word, and to change the grammar, and to argue for having an adjective modifier for "salvation", you would still fall short of making the verse validate Calvinism. For one thing, the preposition "through" would still introduce an adverb phrase that modifies whatever verb you are implying ("is received", "is given", "is achieved", "is attained") in your clause.

(con't at 7. below)

[bereanresearch]

@herald1509

(con't)

7. So, you wouldn't have avoided the fact that "through sanctification.... and belief" cannot serve as an adjective.

8. You acknowledged 'that salvation comes through belief'. If you think about that, you will eventually realize that, therefore, if and when belief fails, salvation will not be attained, even when belief originally existed. (Heb 6:4-6; II Pet 2:20, etc) That is also why John 3:16 says "believeth", a continuous verb, and not "believed".

(con't at 9. below)

[bereanresearch]

@herald1509

(con't)

9. Eph 2:8-9 further proves this. "Through faith" is an adverb phrase modifying the verb "are...saved". We are saved "through faith". With the same meaning and structure, God hath chosen us "through sanctification... and belief". That is how God chose to describe the method by which we can be saved. His word is consistent in using such adverbs to modify the verbs.

(con't at 10. below)

[bereanresearch]

@herald1509

(con't)

10. It is only when these plain, grammatical verses refute someone's beliefs that they try to change the meaning of the verse by changing the words and/or the structure. I encourage you to ignore what people have taught you and to think on the words that God actually used (You will need a King James bible).

11. The grammar is accurate. The meaning is clear. The doctrine is consistent throughout scripture.

[herald1509]

@bereanresearch Re point 2. But how do you know that the phrase in question is an adverb phrase and not an adjective phrase?

[bereanresearch]

@herald1509

1*. Your question is akin to asking how I know that an elephant is an elephant. I provided definition of an adverb phrase in the same paragraph that you now question. Adverbs modify verbs and they answer specific questions.

(continued at 2* below)

[bereanresearch]

@herald1509

(con't)

2*. Further, your question relies upon the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Without digressing into the absurd, if you really believe that the phrase is an adjective, then the onus would now be on you to show how it doesn't modify the verb, as I have indicated, how it doesn't answer any of the definitive questions, as I have indicated, and how it actually serves as an adjective - without reconstructing it into a subordinate clause to fabricate such a case.

[herald1509]

@bereanresearch I'm just asking a question. I reconstructed the sentence to read as a subordinate clause so that you would understand what I was asking. I didn't mean to suggest that we actually change the sentence. It seems that the phrase could be taken to modify either the verb or the noun. So that's why I'm asking how you can tell which part it modifies. Or are you saying it can be taken either way, so there's no proof?

[bereanresearch]

@herald1509

1**. Let the reader take note that, in herald1509, we have seen herein an example of a person who loves a doctrine more than the truth.

2**. The rules of grammar mean nothing to herald1509. Definitive expository means nothing to herald1509.

3**. The fact that I anticipated his follow-up question and provided the answer to it in the very paragraph he questioned speaks to his inability to read, or more likely to his unwillingness to accept, the clear English text.

(con't at 4**)

[bereanresearch]

@herald1509

(con't)

4*. The fact that I also anticipated his second follow-up question and addressed it thoroughly in my original response - despite its statistically impossible and hypothetical nature - is evidence for the strength of my position, the soundness of my reasoning and the corresponding lack of sincerity in herald1509's reply.

(con't at 5**)

[bereanresearch]

@herald1509

5**. As I have found many Calvinists to be, herald1509 is willingly blind to the plain teachings of scripture, he is arbitrarily dismissive of laws and rules (in this case, the rules of English grammar), and he is ultimately, argumentative and insincere. May the true body of Christ take heed of such wolves.

[bereanresearch]

@herald1509

(con't)

3*. All of these aspects I have addressed in detail.

4*. I'm here to consider your reply; but I understand the language well enough to know that you would be engaging in a futile effort, and I would hope that the truth is more important to you than any pre-conceived fable; so I would hope that we could move on to more meaningful aspects of the discussion.