P001c_English_Rules_Out_Calvinism_Parse_II_Thess_2_13_part_3_of_3.mp4

Berean Research Institute documentary videos provide hard hitting Biblical truth that refutes cults and false doctrines in the church. English Rules-Out Calvinism uses the rules of English grammar to assist in rightly dividing the word of God, with the intent to lead people to Jesus Christ. This video will help anyone learn English as a second language, or review the fundamentals of English that are so important for understanding the true interpretation of scripture. We pray that the truth and final authority of scripture will resonate from this video into your life. http://www.bereanresearchinstitute.com

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Learn
• English
• Second
• Language
• Grammar
• Rules
• Calvinism
• false doctrine
• heresy
• Calvin
• Berean
• Research
• Institute
• Sovereign
• Grace
• Doctrines of Grace
• Lord Jesus Christ
• King James Bible
• God
• Jesus
• Holy Spirit
• Trinity
• Mike Wright

[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.

[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)

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

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**)

[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

(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.

[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.

[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)