The Source/ Origin of Salvific Faith

TomFL

Well-known member
Can you provide a link ? Thanks
No I purchased his work for my logos software program

If you have logos you can purchase just the commentary for 20.00

Not sure the greek text is all that helpful unless you are fluent in greek

BUt the text commentary and apparatus are 40.00

Sorry
 

civic

Well-known member
No I purchased his work for my logos software program

If you have logos you can purchase just the commentary for 20.00

Not sure the greek text is all that helpful unless you are fluent in greek

BUt the text commentary and apparatus are 40.00

Sorry
I have tge 4 volume set I just need to find it as it’s buried somewhere in my garage
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Concerning Titus 2:13 Alford supports Christs deity

Next, as to the words τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. Undoubtedly, as in Titus 2:13, in strict grammatical propriety, both θεοῦ and σωτῆρος would be predicates of Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ.

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 390.
I can't argue with y'all on this; I'm not a Greekspert...

I'll just follow...
 

civic

Well-known member
The 4 volume set is the commentary by itself I believe
Tom I found my hard copies and I have the NT for English readers so I will post what he said below word for word from pages 1426-1427.

" If the writer here identifies this expression " the great God and our Savior" with the Lord Jesus Christ, calling Him " God and our Savior" it will be at least probable that in other places where he speaks of " God our Savior" he also designates our Lord Jesus Christ. Now is that so ? On the contrary in 1 Tim 1:1, we have the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope: where I suppose none will deny that the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another. /the same is the case in 1 Tim 2:3-5 a passage bearing much [see below] on the interpretation of this one: and consequently in 1 Tim 4:10, where " is the Savior of all men" corresponds to " willeth all to be saved " in the other. So also in Titus 1:3 where "our Savior God," by whose "command" the promise of eternal life was manifested , with the proclamation of which St Paul was entrusted, is the same " eternal God" by whose "command" the hidden mystery was manifested in Rom 16:26 where the same distinction is made. "

I also looked up his interpretation of 2 Peter 1:1- he says the following on page 1671:

" I would interpret, as in Titus 2:13 [where see note] our God of the Father, and {our}Savior Jesus Christ of the Son. Here there is considerable favour of this view, that the TWO are distinguished most plainly in the next verse. "

There is more but Alford here is denying that Jesus Christ is our great God and Savior in this passage and identifies it as the Father, not the Son. He does the same with 2 Peter 1:1.

He is wrong on both accounts. And the construction in 2 Peter 1:11 is identical with 2 Peter 1:1 where in both cases the Greek is the same. And worst of all Alford doesn't even exegete or comment on 1:11 regarding our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If he was consistent then he would identify Lord in 1:11 as the Father like he does in 1:1 and Titus 2:13.

1:1- our God and Savior Jesus Christ
1:11- our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1:1
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:11
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:1
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:11
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

We have a second person possessive pronoun "Our" modifying two different improper nouns (God and Savior) joined by "and" (Kia) to identify a proper noun (Jesus) [Granville/Sharp's]. Therefore, by basic grammar, we are identifying Jesus as God and Savior. We don't even have to know the Greek to see that Jesus is being called both God and Savior/ Lord and Savior in Peters 2nd Epistle. 2 Peter 2:20 and 2 Peter 3:18 also have the same Greek construction as 1:1 and 1:11.

But for those interested in the Greek here is the comparison of 1:1 and 1:11.

τοῦ is the same.
ἡμῶν is the same.
καὶ is the same.
Σωτῆρος is the same.
Ἰησοῦ is the same.
Χριστοῦ· is the same.

And all in the same order.

The only difference is the noun "Θεοῦ" in v.1, while "Κυρίου" is in v.11.

So if he wants to deny that Jesus is "God" ("theou") in v.1, then he has to deny that Jesus is "Lord" ("kuriou") in v.11. Otherwise he's being inconsistent and dishonest with the text. To say otherwise is poor hermenuetics in Alfords case.

And I can care less what degree or doctorate one has after their name if they disagree with the above they are flat out wrong. I would hang my SALVATION on that fact. That is how confident I am of the plain reading of those texts.

@ReverendRV the argument for Titus 2:13 is the same construction as 2 Peter 1:1 and 1:11. But here is the kicker when it comes to Titus 2:13. Epepipheneia (appearing) is only used of Christ at His Coming and never used of the Father. Its the Son who is returning/coming never the Father at the Parousia. Paul also ties the two together in this passage below making them the same event with the same Person- Jesus Christ
2 Thess 2:8
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the appearence(ἐπιφανείᾳ) of his coming(παρουσίας)

hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited:

TomFL

Well-known member
Tom I found my hard copies and I have the NT for English readers so I will post what he said below word for word from pages 1426-1427.

" If the writer here identifies this expression " the great God and our Savior" with the Lord Jesus Christ, calling Him " God and our Savior" it will be at least probable that in other places where he speaks of " God our Savior" he also designates our Lord Jesus Christ. Now is that so ? On the contrary in 1 Tim 1:1, we have the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope: where I suppose none will deny that the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another. /the same is the case in 1 Tim 2:3-5 a passage bearing much [see below] on the interpretation of this one: and consequently in 1 Tim 4:10, where " is the Savior of all men" corresponds to " willeth all to be saved " in the other. So also in Titus 1:3 where "our Savior God," by whose "command" the promise of eternal life was manifested , with the proclamation of which St Paul was entrusted, is the same " eternal God" by whose "command" the hidden mystery was manifested in Rom 16:26 where the same distinction is made. "

I also looked up his interpretation of 2 Peter 1:1- he says the following on page 1671:

" I would interpret, as in Titus 2:13 [where see note] our God of the Father, and {our}Savior Jesus Christ of the Son. Here there is considerable favour of this view, that the TWO are distinguished most plainly in the next verse. "

There is more but Alford here is denying that Jesus Christ is our great God and Savior in this passage and identifies it as the Father, not the Son. He does the same with 2 Peter 1:1.

He is wrong on both accounts. And the construction in 2 Peter 1:11 is identical with 2 Peter 1:1 where in both cases the Greek is the same. And worst of all Alford doesn't even exegete or comment on 1:11 regarding our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If he was consistent then he would identify Lord in 1:11 as the Father like he does in 1:1 and Titus 2:13.

1:1- our God and Savior Jesus Christ
1:11- our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1:1
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:11
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:1
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:11
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

We have a second person possessive pronoun "Our" modifying two different improper nouns (God and Savior) joined by "and" (Kia) to identify a proper noun (Jesus) [Granville/Sharp's]. Therefore, by basic grammar, we are identifying Jesus as God and Savior. We don't even have to know the Greek to see that Jesus is being called both God and Savior/ Lord and Savior in Peters 2nd Epistle. 2 Peter 2:20 and 2 Peter 3:18 also have the same Greek construction as 1:1 and 1:11.

But for those interested in the Greek here is the comparison of 1:1 and 1:11.

τοῦ is the same.
ἡμῶν is the same.
καὶ is the same.
Σωτῆρος is the same.
Ἰησοῦ is the same.
Χριστοῦ· is the same.

And all in the same order.

The only difference is the noun "Θεοῦ" in v.1, while "Κυρίου" is in v.11.

So if he wants to deny that Jesus is "God" ("theou") in v.1, then he has to deny that Jesus is "Lord" ("kuriou") in v.11. Otherwise he's being inconsistent and dishonest with the text. To say otherwise is poor hermenuetics in Alfords case.

And I can care less what degree or doctorate one has after their name if they disagree with the above they are flat out wrong. I would hang my SALVATION on that fact. That is how confident I am of the plain reading of those texts.

@ReverendRV the argument for Titus 2:13 is the same construction as 2 Peter 1:1 and 1:11. But here is the kicker when it comes to Titus 2:13. Epepipheneia (appearing) is only used of Christ at His Coming and never used of the Father. Its the Son who is returning/coming never the Father at the Parousia. Paul also ties the two together in this passage below making them the same event with the same Person- Jesus Christ
2 Thess 2:8
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the appearence(ἐπιφανείᾳ) of his coming(παρουσίας)

hope this helps !!!
Strange the electronic copy at 2Pe 1:1 states

Next, as to the words τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. Undoubtedly, as in Titus 2:13, in strict grammatical propriety, both θεοῦ and σωτῆρος would be predicates of Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ.

Reading further however

But here, as there, considerations interpose, which seem to remove the strict grammatical rendering out of the range of probable meaning.

Oh double talk

I am disappointed in Alford

thanks
 

civic

Well-known member
Strange the electronic copy at 2Pe 1:1 states

Next, as to the words τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. Undoubtedly, as in Titus 2:13, in strict grammatical propriety, both θεοῦ and σωτῆρος would be predicates of Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ.

Reading further however

But here, as there, considerations interpose, which seem to remove the strict grammatical rendering out of the range of probable meaning.

Oh double talk

I am disappointed in Alford

thanks
Same here and I agree with your sentiments concerning him Tom.
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
Strange the electronic copy at 2Pe 1:1 states

Next, as to the words τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. Undoubtedly, as in Titus 2:13, in strict grammatical propriety, both θεοῦ and σωτῆρος would be predicates of Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ.

Reading further however

But here, as there, considerations interpose, which seem to remove the strict grammatical rendering out of the range of probable meaning.

Oh double talk

I am disappointed in Alford

thanks
This isn't the first time though Tom. I've shown you at least two times where you quoted him that he wasn't supporting you at all. One was from today.

And I also showed you twice where he states faith is a gift in his commentary. One time in the past, and one time, again, today.

But each of those times you could not accept these facts.
 

civic

Well-known member
This isn't the first time though Tom. I've shown you at least two times where you quoted him that he wasn't supporting you at all. One was from today.

And I also showed you twice where he states faith is a gift in his commentary. One time in the past, and one time, again, today.

But each of those times you could not accept these facts.
Here is my 2 cents on what happens on the forum. Most of the time those of us on opposite sides are antagonistic towards the other person if we are being completely honest with each other. I'm not that way with Tom and most of the time I avoid certain threads as they become a mudslinging fest. I think that is what is happening with you and Tom whereas it didn't happen with me when discussing Alford. I wasn't attacking Tom but Alford's position as I wasn't seeing the same things as Tom was reading. So I dug up my own hard copies and read through it on the passage and discovered his position was what I thought it was initially and just posted word for word what Alford said and Tom agreed with me regarding Alford.

Sometimes its in our "presentation" for lack of a better word whether or nor someone will be receptive to our side and look at it openly rather than with our feet dug into the sand and holding our position no matter what is being said.

Does that make sense ?

hope this helps !!!
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Scripture?

And, the ability to believe what exactly?
What abilities do men have that they are not given

If you would have followed context I noted men placing faith in a number of different things

Men can place faith in Allah and fly planes into buildings

They can place faith in Mormonism

Or the Goddess Gaia

or the Buddha

Or Hindu deities
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
Here is my 2 cents on what happens on the forum. Most of the time those of us on opposite sides are antagonistic towards the other person if we are being completely honest with each other. I'm not that way with Tom and most of the time I avoid certain threads as they become a mudslinging fest. I think that is what is happening with you and Tom whereas it didn't happen with me when discussing Alford. I wasn't attacking Tom but Alford's position as I wasn't seeing the same things as Tom was reading. So I dug up my own hard copies and read through it on the passage and discovered his position was was I thought it was initially and just posted word for word what Alford said and Tom agreed with me regarding Alford.

Sometimes its in our "presentation" for lack of a better word whether or nor someone will be receptive to our side and look at it openly rather than with our feet dug into the sand and holding our position no matter what is being said.

Does that make sense ?

hope this helps !!!
I've never attacked Tom. By the way, "attacked" is way over-used.

The fact remains he isn't receptive to "our" side even if you think he is. His entire purpose here is a one-stringed banjo of not being receptive.

When shown errors and the fact when he quotes a person, and after reading said quote it becomes apparent said doesn't support him in anyway shape or form, or say what he thought, he continues to be disingenuous about all of it. Then he continues to dismiss all evidence that refutes him, and goes into ad hominem.

Then he resorts to things like "you're lying, you're a two-time loser." Things like this.

Does that make sense? :)
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
What abilities do men have that they are not given

If you would have followed context I noted men placing faith in a number of different things

Men can place faith in Allah and fly planes into buildings

They can place faith in Mormonism

Or the Goddess Gaia

or the Buddha

Or Hindu deities
One more time Tom:

"Scripture?

And, the ability to believe what exactly?"

Not diversions, back up your statement.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
One more time Tom:

"Scripture?

And, the ability to believe what exactly?"

Not diversions, back up your statement.


Do you believe men can have an ability not given to them by God ?

You need a scripture for that ?

you were already told what some could place their faith in

How could they do it without an ability for faith
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
Do you believe men can have an ability not given to them by God ?

You need a scripture for that ?

you were already told what some could place their faith in

How could they do it without an ability for faith
One last time Tom:

"Scripture?

And, the ability to believe what exactly?"

No more of your diversions, back up your statement with Scripture without your attempt to lay the onus on me.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
One last time Tom:

"Scripture?

And, the ability to believe what exactly?"

No more of your diversions, back up your statement with Scripture without your attempt to lay the onus on me.
You were already told what they place their faith in

and you can tell me how they did it without a God given ability
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
Why did you not answer me ?

You were already told what they place their faith in

and you can tell me how they did it without a God given ability
See, these are the silly games you play and show why you aren't to be taken seriously.

I asked you to back up your statement, the problem is, you can't, and then you resort to games as I've said all along.

It's OK, Tom that you misspoke, and stated something you can't back up with Scripture. No need to try and turn it on me.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
See, these are the silly games you play and show why you aren't to be taken seriously.

I asked you to back up your statement, the problem is, you can't, and then you resort to games as I've said all along.

It's OK, Tom that you misspoke, and stated something you can't back up with Scripture. No need to try and turn it on me.

Hello

1 Corinthians 4:7 (ESV)
7 For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?

you couldn't even see the plain allusion to this verse you were given

You were already told what they place their faith in

and you can tell me how they did it without a God given ability

Hello

Whatever ability man has he has it because of God
 
Top