Featured Exposition of 1 Thes. 1:4-6

Apparently you do not understand what I asked or you would not respond "nuff said". If your interpretation of the two sentences found in his comment were correct the translation of the text would be of the WHOLE VERSE because you claim the second sentence which contains his comment is concerning the WHOLE verse. But the first sentence does not contain a literal translation of the WHOLE verse does it? No! It contains only a translation of the LAST part of the verse which matches his comment going on to verse 6.

Moreover, your interpretation is IMPOSSIBLE because it requires the subject of the first part of the verse to be "our attributes" or some similar reading which IT DOES NOT CONTAIN! Instead the subject is the "gospel" and HOW the gospel did and did not come "UNTO YOU" the object of the verb.

Everything you base your interpertation upon simply has no grammatical support at all in the text. Everything you base your interpretation of Dr. Wallace's comment simply does not exist and what does exists contradicts your interpretation.

 

Van, your whole interpretation above is completely repudiated by the one word you failed to note in verse 5. The word "NOT". The gospel did NOT come in word/speech (but your whole argument is based on claiming the very opposite).

The other three words found in the text you ignored that also repudiate your whole interpretation above are "ONLY BUT ALSO."

These words deny it came MERELY in speech/word. The word "but" demands a contrast to "speech only." The word "only" denies it came in mere speech. The word "also" means it came IN ADDITION TO mere speech what is then described by the three prepositional phrases "in....in.....in".

The subject "gospel" denies it is Paul or his associates that came this way.

Everything in verses 4-6 completely repudiates your interpretation, your denial of the effectual call of God by the gospel. You have NOTHING in this text to support ANYTHING you are attempting to argue!

 

It does no matter how many uninspired men you can get to agree with your grammatically IMPOSSIBLE translation and IMPOSSIBLE interpretation.

Readers, take note that Van's interpretation grammatically replaces "gospel" as the grammatical subject in the first part of verse 5 with the PERSON of Paul, making the subject in his interpretation/translations to be a PERSON rather than the "gospel" It is the "gospel" that "came" to the elect "in....in....in....in" this manner NOT A PERSON. But you have a PERSON coming in this manner "by his demonstration...by his empowerment..." It is not "his" demonstration or "his" empowerment, but the "gospel" demonstration and empowerment. Your interpretation by its very nature would demand this is true to all the Thessalonican's who heard the gospel "in word only" as much as these "brethren" unto whom the gospel did "NOT come in word only BUT ALSO in...in...in" which completely invalidates Paul's purpose to show how these "brethren" can know "your election of God." Van's interpretation makes any distinction between them and others who heard the gospel to be no distinction at all, while Paul is clearly attempting to show distinction between them and those whom the gospel came "in word only."

First, it did not come to all "Thessalonians" in this manner, but only those identified grammatically as "you" which has for its nearest grammatical antecedent "your election of God" in verse 5 which in turn has its nearest antecedent "brethren" in verse 5. To the rest of the Thessalonican's it came "in word only." However, the whole point of Van's interpretation is to DESTROY ANY SUCH DISTINCTION that Paul is making between these "YOU" and the rest of the Thessalonican's. Thus Van's interpretation demands the gospel came to all in the same manner equally as Paul comes in the same manner to all equally and therefore the words "ONLY BUT ALSO" are completely repudiated by Van.

So the gospel did not come to all men in Thessalonica "in...in....in....in" this manner, although Paul came preaching the gospel to all men in Thessalonica. The manner in which the gospel "came unto you" (BRETHREN) is presented as evidence of "YOUR election of God" and that is simply not true of all Thessolonican's but that is precisely what Van's interpretation of verse five would demand and what Van claims.

So the manner by which the gospel came in verse 5 is RESTRICTED TO GOD'S ELECT just as Paul repeats to them in 2 Thessalonians 2:13. So, Van's second error is jerking verse 5 out of context applying it GENERICALLY to all men at Thessalonica who heard Paul preach. If that were true, then all men could know their election, IF the gospel came to all men in this manner, and that would make Paul's point in verse 4 WORTHLESS and without DISTINCTION.

Third, Van now attempts to rewrite the verse using a STATE OF BEING verb "it was" instead of the action verb "came." The gospel "came....in....in....in....in" this manner to the elect at Thessalonican, but it did not come this way to all people, but the state of being verb would demand that this is the way it comes to all people, again making Paul's words in verse 4 meaningless and without distinction or application to "your election of God."

Fourth, Van has done what ever false teacher will do with a text that annihilates their interpretation and doctrine. He isolates each aspect from the rest of the immediate context and reinterprets it contrary to the immediate preceding and foregoing context. He did this with verse 5 isolating it from the subject introduced in verse 4 and applying it universal instead of specific ("your election") as the immediate preceding context demands. He alters the contextual subject from "brethren" at Thessaloninca to "thessalonians" in general.

He uses the same tactic with the latter part of verse 5 above. The reason for Paul concluding verse five with them knowing "what mannner of men" who preached the gospel among them is because the gospel came to them as an effectual call transforming them into the very same kind of men as they "became followers" of that "manner of men" WHEN the gospel came to them in this manner.

Van, and those of his ilk can only overturn this text by isolation type tactics, ignoring and perverting inspired grammar and grammatical structure. The fact that regeneration is described as a CREATIVE act of God (Eph. 2:10, Col. 3:10; Ephes. 4:24) demands it is by EFFECTUAL CALL as that is how God creates and that is precisely how the gospel word comes to the elect of God as an EFFECTUAL CALL:

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

When the gospel comes as the EFFECTUAL CALL from God it reveals Christ "in OUR hearts" as that is what is meant by the words "in the FACE OF Jesus Christ" meaning our heart is made to SEE HIM as declared in the gospel.

 

So, what is the grammatical and theological distinction that the words "NOT...ONLY BUT ALSO" have in regard to "YOU" that would show or prove "your election of God" in verse 4 from others at Thessalonica??????

What is the grammatical and theological distinction being made by the use of "NOT ONLY BUT ALSO" in how the gospel "came unto you" as opposed to others who heard the gospel at Thessalonica???

The term "NOT" denies something? What is being denied about how the "gospel came unto you"?????

The term "ONLY" with "NOT" is repudiating a certain limitation. What limitation is being denied by how the gospel "came unto you"?????

The term "but" demands CONTRAST is in view. What is being contrasted with "you" in regard to how the "gospel came unto you"????

The term "also" means IN ADDITION TO what? The gospel did NOT come unto you ONLY IN WORD but IN ADDITION to coming in word, how did it come unto them? It came IN ADDITION TO word "only....in...in....in...in" unto "you" that demonstrates "your election of God" from other Thesalonicans.

The four prepositional phrases "in....in....in....in" do NOT characterize Paul, nor do they characterize the gospel preached by Paul IN GENERAL but characterize HOW the gospel came "unto you" in SPECIFIC so that it proves "your election of God" in contrast to those Thessalonican's it came merely in "word only."

 

Readers, notice that Van refuses to address specific grammatical evidences I have repeatedly placed before him but merely repeats his MANTRA! Only a person who is WRONG responds this way. If he were right he could address each item presented as evidence that repudiates his interpretations. He can't so he won't - we are in for MANTRA's

 

What did I predict??? Spot on again! I placed MANY detailed contextual based grammatical facts that completely repudiate his interpretation and the proof they repudiate his MANTRA is NO RESPONSE except a MANTRA introduced by a mocking statement.

If my objections were so obviously inaccurate it would be no problem to expose them BUT HE CAN'T! So more MANTRA and more mocking statements.

 

Here is a sample of some of the detailed problems to his interpretation.

 

More explicit reasons why his interpretation is completely false.

 

For you new Bible students, there is a very significant lesson for you to learn in reading the dialogue. [snipped] They isolate a word or part of text from the rest of the text because their interpretation always contradicts the complete immediate context. Then, they pursue the aspect that contradicts their interpretation by the very same method, isolating it from the rest of the text before and after, and thus redefining, rewriting it to suite their false doctrines. They simply repeat this pattern until they have nowhere left to run and then they retreat to a MANTRA demanding they have proven their point (when in fact they have been caught every time perverting the Word of God) accompanied with mocking statements. This method is the epitome of eisegesis.

 

Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. - v. 4

Paul is asserting to these "brethren" (not the Thessalonicans in general as Van applies it in verse 5) can know "their election of God", and verses 5-6 confirms HOW they can know because the Gospel did not come to them only in one manner, but in three distinctive ways that provides a basis to know "their election of God."

However, Van's interpretation of verses 5 provides NO BASIS to support this assertion by Paul in verse 4, but repudiates this assertion by interpreting the four prepositional phrases so that the gospel came TO ALL EQUALLY no more differently to them as to others in Thessalonica because he changes the subject in verse 5 from the "gospel" to the PERSON preaching the gospel. Thus the four prepositional phrases are forced to describe a PERSON's ministry which comes EQUALLY TO ALL rather to these "brethren" in a distinctive way that supports Paul's assertion they can know "their election of God." Van's interpretation denies any such basis for these "brethren" over anyone else in Thessalonica by how the gospel came to them.

The core truth here is that the "brethen" can know their "election of God" or that they are the elect simply by how the gospel to them versus how it comes to others. To others it comes in "word only" but to the elect it comes not merely in word BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT IT ALSO COMES "in....in....in" to them.

No, Van will not respond to these specifics because he cannot. Instead, more MANTRA's, more diversions, more mocking statements - wait and see!

 

As predicted just another repeated tactic - diversion! Van cannot respond to the evidences I have clearly and repeatedly placed before him. All he can do is run.

This thread concerns 1 Thes. 1:4-6 and now he is trying to derail the thread simply because HE CANNOT ANSWER the objections to his interpretation.

Is there anyone else out there who takes Van's view who is ABLE to respond to the evidence I have presented?????? Van can't, can you?