Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: support for the basic Daniel Wallace argument that Spirit is not grammatically personalized in the New Testament

  1. Default support for the basic Daniel Wallace argument that Spirit is not grammatically personalized in the New Testament

    Auxiliary info:

    Facebook - PureBible

    Pure Bible Forum - sister threads

    Daniel Wallace makes constructio ad sensum theory out of CT corruptions, often ultra-minority

    support for the basic Daniel Wallace argument that Spirit is not grammatically personalized in the New Testament

    constructio ad sensum

    Acts 13:2 - do personal attributes make the Holy Spirit a "person"

    blunder by Doug Kutilek on masculine grammar, supposed constructio ad sensum


    support for the basic Daniel Wallace argument that Spirit is not grammatically personalized in the New Testament

    Confessions of a member of the church of England occasioned by a laborious examination of the work of William Jones: "The Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity" (1830)
    John Shaw

    "Now it will be found, upon a careful examination of the three chapters I have mentioned, that in every instance where the masculine article and pronoun are used, the Paraclete is either the expressed or obviously implied antecedent."
    The whole section is a good read.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-16-2019 at 10:18 PM.

  2. Default

    Naselli and Gons

    The Double Standards and Self-Contradictions of Dr. Wallace

    You may be able to claim NETBible inconsistency by Daniel Wallace.

    Beyond that, look up Naselli and Gons (2011). They confirm the Wallace position that many interpreters, and some grammarians, have made a false argument claiming personality on various verses by a supposed constructio ad sensum. They add a ton of helpful historical material.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 10-11-2018 at 05:01 AM.

  3. Default

    There are various discussions in Yahoogroups WhichVersion, CARM, and now on PureBible on Facebook

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery;n5637848
    CARM - Oct, 2018

    There should be more grammarian stumblers here, and a paper that is superior to that of Daniel Wallace.

    “Prooftexting the Personality of the Holy Spirit: An Analysis of the Masculine Demonstrative Pronouns in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:13–14.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 16 (2011): 65–89.

    And I have not checked the doctrinal positions of those who get this wrong.
    What is amazing is that 110 Biblical scholars, including many grammarians, are listed as having this wrong.

    An impressive number of Greek grammarians, exegetes, commentators, and theologians have made this argument from at least the 1500s to the present.3 They span all the main branches and denominations of the church (e.g., Reformed, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic), many languages (e.g., English, French, German, Dutch), and several continents (e.g., North America, Europe, Australia).

    Here is a chronological sampling of about 110 notable adherents—some more nuanced than others:4

    ca. 1591—Martin Chemnitz (1522–86): John 15:26, when Christ speaks of the Holy Spirit in the neuter gender, “The Spirit (to pneuma) of truth which proceeds from the Father,” He then changes the gender and adds “He (ekeinos) will bear witness of Me,” signifying that He is not speaking of some created emotion which occurs in the believers, but of a person. For it is frequent and common in the sacred writings that when there is mention of persons, a term may vary in respect to the related and antecedent words by the change of the genders, for example, in Matt. 28:19, “Teach all nations (ta ethnē—neuter), baptizing them (autous—masc.)......etc... 5

    5 ’Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, trans. Jacob A. O. Preus, 2 vols. (St. Louis: Concordia, 1989), 1:138.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-16-2019 at 09:23 PM.

  4. Default

    Sample from the groundbreaking paper:

    Curt Steven Mayes, Pronominal Referents and the Personality of the Holy Spirit (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), p. 35

    Curt Mayes helpfully explains the flow of thought in this passage:

    It is necessary to begin back in verse seven. There the Spirit is introduced as the παράκλητος [advocate] and becomes the subject of an extended discussion. Αὐτόν [him] in verse seven refers back to παράκλητος, as does ἐκεῖνος [that one] in verse eight. Then verses nine through eleven explain the work of the παράκλητος (with respect to the world) which (work) was introduced in verse eight. Notice the dependency of verses nine through eleven on verse eight, as attested by the incomplete sentences in the former. Verse twelve sets the stage for another statement about the work of the παράκλητος—this time with respect to believers. Ἐκεῖνος is used in both verses thirteen and fourteen, probably with the same reference. On the basis of this sequence, then, it is this writer’s contention that ὀ παράκλητος is introduced in 16:7 as the subject of the passage and remains the subject through 16:15. Ἐκεῖνος would then refer to παράκλητος in each instance (vv. 8, 13, 14)—simple agreement, the general rule.

    And there is a nice quote in the Naselli and Gons paper.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts