Cheryl Schatz

Mark,

Calvinists often say that they LOVE the doctrines of grace. They are joyful that God has picked so many to go unconditionally to hell. They are ecstaticly happy that they have been unconditionally picked while the mass of humanity is given over to sin, the devil and eternal punishment. It appears that they want it this way and choose to see unconditional spiritual election. But it is odd that Paul didn’t have this same kind of joyful love of a doctrine that would see most of humanity into hell.

Romans 9:3 (NASB)
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

Here we see Paul longing for the salvation of the ones who were lost and who would stay lost so much that he wished that he could exchange himself for them so that he would be accursed and separated from Christ for them. Paul greated wished that he could save those who would not come to Christ. He would even give up a relationship with Christ if he could change their stubborn will. But this would be totally against God’s will for Paul to long for the salvation of the reprobate. Shouldn’t Paul be longing for God to give in to allow these ones to be saved rather than longing for those who have been pre-elected to turn their backs on Christ? Nothing fits together in the Calvinist system when you look closely at the doctrine of salvation. Scripture after Scripture shows a faulty foundation that cannot be reconciled even when one tries by removing the inspired words and placing uninspired words in their place.

“These are Calvinist doctrines but they cannot be proven from the actual Scriptures since to believe them one must add to what is written. That is why I don’t believe in Calvinism. I would rather believe in what is actually written in the Scriptures.”

That is a ridiculous statement. If Calvinism wasn’t proven from the scriptures then you have just condemned a lot of reformed people in Church history.

Mark, there is a huge difference between revealing the inconsistencies and the Scriptures that have been twisted with condemning my brothers in Christ. I think that this is where a huge difference comes between non-Calvinists and Calvinists. I can affirm Calvinists as my brothers in Christ even though I believe that they have been misled and are blind in many areas, but they are still my brothers in Christ. But Calvinism from its beginning has called the opposing doctrine as heresy and they removed pastors banishing them from their presence as heretics.

It would be far safer to say that you give a different ‘interpretation’ to the same passages rather than saying Calvinism is not based on scripture.

The problem is that the claims of Calvinism are just not there. I ask where is there a Scripture that says that Jesus died only for the elect and there is silence. The claims to being based on Scripture falls short in so many areas. It is true that Calvinism is based on teachings by several prominent men, but it is not based on the Scriptures when the Scriptures say nothing at all about such doctrine.

Perhaps you don’t believe in Calvinism for other reasons, since the whole theology is based on Biblical support. Be honest with yourself at least.

No, I have to be honest. I don’t believe in Calvinism because when I look at the Scriptures, they don’t say what the Calvinists say is in there. I look for even one Scripture that says that Christ died for only the elect and just like you, I can’t find a single Scripture that says this. And this is the key to the whole system because if the teaching on who Christ died for is not in the Scripture, then the doctrines based on that foundation fall to the ground as well. I love truth too much to set aside my desire for all to be saved by believing the failed doctrine that Jesus died for only the elect.

more…

Mark, you quoted me and then replied:

“How is it that those who have never had their sins atoned for are commanded to believe (apply) the atonement? Do you not see a contradiction here?”

Not at all. People are born with a corrupt sinful nature that equals eternal punishment. Now if God does not give them the gift of repentance and faith they will be condemned for their unbelief. Like I said earlier, God is not obligated to save anyone- it’s based on mercy and grace not obligation. We tell people to trust in Christ, but if God has not chosen to open their eyes then they will be punished for their unbelief. God simply leaves them in their sinful nature which by nature rejects Him. It is completely just. What is unjust, is that God would send Jesus to die for other people, but that is why God’s mercy and grace are so amazing. It is total undeserved, unconditional grace.

Mark you said a lot of words here but you did not answer my question. I will try again. How is it that God commands those who he did not provide an atonement for to believe (apply) the atonement? Why does God command something that he doesn’t want to happen? Is this not a contradiction?

“My friend, Mark, you are adding that into the Scripture, because Jesus never said it. Jesus talked about those who would come to Him, but He never said that He would only atone for those who would come. By adding to the Scripture one goes beyond what is said.”

Ok then. Well maybe you can show me where Jesus said “I died for every single person and paid the price for their sins, but it is autonomous faith which seals the deal”. I’m not the only one who tries to explain their theology. Please don’t be so hypocritical.

First of all I don’t believe in “autonomous faith” so you are asking me to prove something from the Bible that I don’t believe. But as far as Jesus dying for every single person and paying the price for their sin, Paul said that Christ died for the ungodly.

Romans 5:6 (NASB)
6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Every person is a sinner and is ungodly.

Christ died for the sins of the whole world

1 John 2:2 (NASB)
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

And God justifies the ungodly

Romans 4:5 (NASB)
5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

These are terms of all. The whole world and th ungodly. What I haven’t see is any Scripture that says that Jesus died only for the elect or that God justifies only the elect. Surely the Scripture could be clear that Jesus didn’t die for the sins of the whole world but only the sins of the elect, but we don’t find that in the Scriptures.

So it is interesting that you admit that there is a failure in the Scripture to identify an “only” term that would limit the atonement to a small group. Honestly I shake my head at the amount of Scriptures that give the inspired word that Jesus died for the “many” and some want to be convinced that they are special and that Jesus died for only them and a few others and that the God who is abounding in mercy would choose to give out only a little bit of mercy. How does that show that He is abounding in mercy? I don’t see from the Scriptures that God is pleased that the wicked go to hell because He made them that way and that He wants to show prejudicial love to only a few by choosing to save only the few. Why would anyone want to believe this when the Scriptures don’t say it? Is it possible that some want to see themselves as so special that unless God sent Jesus to die for them alone (plus a few others) then they won’t be able to feel special?

to be continued…

Mark,
I didn’t get finished through that one long comment that you made but I will continue to work on it this week. I had really hoped that I could get through it all, but with mother’s day weekend, I took off time to enjoy myself and also rest so I did not get as far as I hoped. At least I got through some of the most important points and that should help to further our discussion.

Mark, you copied my statemdent and then responded:

“Let’s have another look at the verse and compare it to what John himself said in the book of 1 John. John is not going to contradict himself.”

I agree that John did not contradict. In John 11 John is describing believers from the nation of Israel and those ‘scattered abroad’. 1 John 2:2 is describing the same thing ‘all the world’ i.e all the elect from every tribe toungue that are ‘scattered abroad’. Now answer how ones sins are propitiated but not actually propitiated since they go to hell?

It is because the death of the lamb fully pays for the sin, but God has created a plan for forgiveness that involves both the payment and the application of the payment.

God set this up because His Sovereign plan was to redeem mankind because of the image that He placed within us, but His plan included the desire that the redemption that would be fully and completely paid for every human being would not have the blood sprinkled on His altar as the payment applied except by faith of all those who have an awareness of their sin.

There are two condemnations of sin on mankind that needed to be atoned for. The first is the condemnation of Adam’s sin that has brought the sin nature within every one of us. That is universally atoned for by Jesus’ blood on mankind’s behalf so that no one will ever be in hell paying for Adam’s sin. Original sin was paid for by the last Adam. The first Adam brought sin into this world and the last Adam took upon Him that sin in order to pay for it completely.

Then there is our own condemnation of sin that is also atoned for by Christ but it is not applied onto our account except by faith. So when Jesus hung on the cross his death paid for all the sins of all people as these sins were all placed on Him. Then He was resurrected for our justification showing that His sacrifice had been accepted by God.

But God has always shown throughout the Scriptures that the payment of the price must be accepted by faith so that the blood can be applied only by faith. In the OT in the Passover, the lamb had great value but the value was not applied to the account of the house unless the blood was applied onto the doorpost. All the examples in the Scriptures show the same thing – the price is paid and then the forgiveness is applied by the application of the blood.

After Jesus died and after He was resurrected He went back into the heavens to take His blood to be applied on the altar. He is now in timeless eternity and He applied the blood on the behalf of all those who would believe. For those who refused to repent and believe, although the redemption price has been paid for them, they will not receive forgiveness because in His Sovereignty, God worked out a plan where His image is fully redeemed but He has allowed us as humans to respond to Him in faith and accept or reject that redemption. Those who reject the redemption have not devalued the redemption. The redemption retains its full value but it will not be applied for the benefit of the one who rejects God.

Think of it this way. If a man gives a diamond ring to his girlfriend and she refuses to accept this gift but leaves it in its box on the table has the diamond ring become of no value? Well for her it is considered of no value because she has rejected it and it will not be on her finger. But the diamond has lost none of its value. We cannot say that one finding the diamond on the table should throw the diamond in the garbage because it has lost its value. No, not at all. The diamond has kept its value. It is the person who rejected it who has been proven themselves to be unworthy of the value of that diamond and everything that it stands for.

Here is another example.

On December 6, 1829 two men, George Wilson and James Porter, robbed a United States mail carrier in Pennsylvania. Both men were subsequently captured and tried. On May 1, 1830 both men were found guilty of six indictments which included robbery of the mail “and putting the life of the driver in jeopardy.” On May 27th both George Wilson and James Porter received their sentences: Execution by hanging. The sentences were to be carried out on July 2nd, 1830.

By today’s standards, this sentence seems very harsh. Remember, no one was killed in their crimes. In the earlier days of American history the justice system more closely followed Biblical principles.
The system was both swift: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” Ecclesiastes 8:11. And harsh: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Genesis 9:6.

James Porter was executed on schedule. George Wilson was not. Shortly before the set date a number of Wilson’s influential friends pleaded for mercy to the President of the United States, Andrew Jackson, on behalf of their friend.

President Jackson issued a formal pardon. The charges resulting in the death sentence were completely dropped. Wilson would have to serve only a prison term of twenty years for his other crimes.
Incredibly George Wilson Refused The Pardon!

According to the official report, THE UNITED STATES VERSUS GEORGE WILSON (Peters 7 Report Sections 150-163) Wilson was returned to court as they attempted to “force” the pardon on him. It is recorded that George Wilson chose to:
“…waive and decline any advantage or protection which might be supposed to arise from the pardon referred to…” Wilson also stated that he “…had nothing to say, and that he did not wish in any manner to avail himself in order to avoid sentence …”

The case reached the Supreme Court. The Attorney-General made the following comments:

“The court cannot give the prisoner the benefit of the pardon, unless he claims the benefit of it… It is a grant to him: it is his property; and he may accept it or not as he pleases.”

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the following in the decision:

“A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed…

“A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential; and delivery is not completed without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.

“It may be supposed that no being condemned to death would reject a pardon, but the rule must be the same in capital cases and in misdemeanors.”

In other words, George Wilson committed a crime. He was tried and found guilty. He was sentenced to be executed. A presidential decree granted him a full pardon. But George Wilson chose rather to refuse that pardon. The courts concluded that the pardon could not be forced upon him.

From http://members.core.com/~lpm8998/man_who_refused.htm

Mark,
You quoted me and then said:

“That sounds a lot like injustice to me and any earthly judge who would act this way would have the world in an uproar about his injustice.”

That’s because you think God is obligated to save everybody- He is not. There is nothing unjust about God choosing to save some who did not deserve to be saved. In fact, this is the heart of the gospel is it not. Grace is only grace when it is underserved otherwise as Paul says, it no longer becomes grace.

God did redeem His image and this is a work of mercy that we did not deserve.

I told you Arminians don’t like it!

It is because God abandoning His own image is unthinkable and the fact that Calvinists ignore God’s obligation to Himself makes Him out to be an uncaring, unloving God who loves to create His own image to go to hell. Think about that. Is this really the God of the Bible whose “good pleasure” is to create His own image to go to hell? Why did you so easily accept that when you were an Arminian? Did you not ever think to defend God’s image and God’s name? Or were you only thinking about mankind and forgetting that within each of us is God’s image?

But anyway a few comments. The open theist sovereignty is identical to what both you and Kay say.

Mark, my friend, you are showing your ignorance here.

The open theist believes God ‘chose to limit himself’ which is identical to your description of His soveriegnty- he chose not to determine all things unconditionally.

The true open theist believes that God cannot know the future on everything because the future in some areas is unknowable. Here is an open theism quote from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

Practically, open theism makes the case for a personal God who is open to influence through the prayers, decisions, and actions of people. Although many specific outcomes of the future are unknowable, God’s foreknowledge of the future includes that which is determined as time progresses often in light of free decisions that have been made and what has been sociologically determined. So God knows everything that has been determined as well as what has not yet been determined but remains open. As such, he is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to His plan or presuppositions.

Do you see from this definition that God “limits Himself” or is it that some things are “open” and not determined so therefore not fully knowable but “fluid”? The true open theism view does not have God limiting Himself but rather that God’s foreknowledge of the future happens as events happen so that God does not know all things in advance from eternity past. It isn’t even close to what I believe.

Now I said it is logical to the Arminan position, I did not say I think it is logical. I agree with you that it is completely unbiblical. However if one holds to autonomous free-will then one can see the problem if the future is actually fixed- it’s not free at all.

There is no problem because there is two completely different levels of being. For God all things are fixed since He knows the future and He exists in the future just as He lives in the present and the past. But for our existence, the future has not yet happened so what we do now does matter. This is the same kind of mystery that is about God’s attributes of omnipresence. We cannot completely understand how God can be everywhere at the same time and that there is nowhere where He is not. But what is a mystery to us is reality with God. When we realize that the future is complete to God just as His omnipresence is the eternal “now”, we should be able to understand that we cannot comprehend God’s ways. We have to live within this time and know that for us the future is open even though from God’s side it is set.

An Arminian believes the future is fixed because they believe in divine foreknowledge.

I do not believe that the future is fixed because I believe in divine foreknowlege. I believe that the future is fixed because God lives in the future in the eternal present. It is because of God’s nature as omnipresent in every time and in every place that I believe the future is fixed. It isn’t just God’s knowledge but about God’s being.

However if the future is fixed then it is not free. See the problem? That is precisely why open theism has gained support. The rational logical conclusion of Arminianism leads there.

This is not true. We may not be able to understand how the future is already fixed in God’s eyes, but open in our experience, but God has made it clear as He deals with us in our own time existence, that we need to make decisions. If God acts as if our own time that we live in is not fixed for us so that He pleads with us to change and to turn to Him, then we need to accept that even if we cannot understand it. It is when people try to understand God’s mysteries that He has not revealed for us to understand, that is how people get confused and want to put God into a box so that they can understand Him. But we cannot put God into a box. By doing so people have fallen into error.

To be continued…

Mark,

You commented on Romans 5 and the difference between the trespass and the free gift. There is a lot to comment on here but let’s leave this until we get to Romans so that we can keep the passages separated and not so confusing as we go through them.

Mark you quoted me and then replied:

“but your position has God purposely creating people whom He has chosen them to go to hell and God has chosen to withhold from them what they need to be saved”

Regarding the first point I agree, but so does an Arminian position. God ‘chose’ people according to divine foreknowledge, so he had ‘chosen’ some to be saved and ‘chosen’ others to go to hell. The second point I don’t totally agree with. God is not obligated to save anyone, that’s the first thing, so get that out of your head.

The part that seems to have been completely disregarded by Calvinists is that God is intent on guarding His own image and His own name and for God to abandon His image by failing to provide for the salvation of those whom He created with the stamp of His image would be unthinkable. God has not abandoned His image nor has He created His image to go to hell without redemption.

It is only by his mercy he chooses to save any.

It is certainly by His mercy, but His character is one of great mercy and that is revealed throughout the Scriptures. For God to be seen as one who completely fails to give mercy to most and that is to be seen as His purpose and good pleasure, really goes against the Scriptures and the value of God’s image. For if God sent His image to hell without paying the price for redemption then He has devalued Himself and made almost all that He has created in His image as a worthless piece of trash.

Second, he doesn’t withhold anything because he is not obligated to give it in the first place- he simply leaves people in their sinful state.

His obligation is to His own name and His own image and in that obligation He is abounding in mercy.

So no God does not with-hold salvation from them. He simply leaves them,

God cannot do that. He cannot create His own image in humans and then abandon them without redemption. It is for His own name and for His own image that He must love them enough to pay the price. When Calvinists appear to say that the image of God is not worthy of redemption and that God is not obligated to provide salvation so that He can created billions of humans who have His image but as worth nothing but to be sent to hell in their sins without caring about His own image within each one of them, they fail to consider the character of God and the value of God’s image.

but for his elect he bestows his gift of grace, because that is what grace is- undeserved mercy. It seems to me that you almost believe that God is obligated to save us.

If God unconditionally elected some to salvation and unconditionally elected most to eternal damnation then His own name and image would be devalued. God has spoken that it is for His own sake that He does these things. “His own sake” is far higher a purpose than merely redeeming us. He will not abandon His image.

to be continued…

An overseer is one who protects the flock from spiritual error so that they do not become deceived and taken captive by error. Women are capable of knowing and understanding doctrine too so that the flock can be kept safe. In fact my whole ministry has been keeping Christians aware of the doctrinal errors of the cults and help Christians to witness to the cults. This is a ministry that God has given me and this is an area that overseers or elders should be good at because the spiritual safety of the flock is their responsibility. They are not to lord it over others or be seen as taking authority over others. But their wisdom in correct doctrine is a safety factor for the local body of believers. There should be ones in every congregation of believers who can help with doctrinal understanding whether the congregation meets in a building or meets in a private home. I believe that God does gift and call men and women to take a place of oversight as a watchman on the wall, watching out for the enemy and protecting the flock from the wolves.

Mark you said:

Also justification is only by faith is it not? Now I’m sure you do not believe that all people have faith in Christ, so therefore how can you say that all men are justified. This is another case where you are confusing biblical language.

Justification has been bought by Christ and paid for and because our justification was paid for the proof of this justification was shown in Christ’s resurrection.

Romans 4:25 (NASB)
25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

The question must be when justification is to be applied. It seems to me that you don’t believe that justification was accomplished by Christ on the cross and that it only came into existence when we had faith. Or do you believe that justification came at the cross? Which is it?

“If it isn’t universal in both cases, then it doesn’t make sense. We could then say that the “all” that is condemnation isn’t really for all after all.”

Not at all, the context determines how universal language is understood. We know all men fell in Adam from the context

That is all I can do tonight.
This is still more for me to answer. I will see what I can finish this weekend till I am completely caught up.

Mark you said:

Our atonement doesn’t just dangle in mid air and God is just hoping someone in their autonomous faith takes it. God completes his purpose of what Christ achieved on the cross by bringing in His flock.

So are you saying that our atonement dangles in mid air for as long as God wants and practically it has no value to us regarding faith or our salvation until a specified point in time? Are you saying that the atonement dangles in the mid air for the elect who are still subject to God’s wrath while the atonement dangles in the air not being useful to them? Why does the atonement seem to have no value at all and no power, according to the Calvinist system, until the elect are given faith?

“Yes the atonement achieved something for God’s people but it also achieved something for all sinners.”

I agree with this actually. But I do not believe it achieved the same purpose for everyone. Christ only atoned for his sheep, but non believers receive many blessings and grace because of the cross- they just don’t have their sins atoned for because they don’t actually go to heaven.

But Mark, the atonement is about the atonement. If the atonement was only about non-atonement issues, how could the atonement have achieved something for all sinners? For example would it not rather be God’s love that achieved the rain and the sun rather than the cross that achieved this? And how did the atonement bring rain and the sun to an unborn baby who dies as a reprobate and who never saw the rain or the sun?

“Eternal life is justification and yes this is given for all men.”

Cheryl, this is completely false and worries me. Being ‘justified’ is being ‘declared righteous’. Now if all men were declared righteous then none would go to hell.

But Mark what you fail to see is that Christ is the one who is the representative of all and His purchase of us back on the cross must represent us all or else He is not the last Adam. If Christ only represented a few men then He failed to be a full Adam and He is not the equivalent of the first Adam. All justification is in Christ and He purchased this for all of us.

Now as far as all men declared righteous, no this is not true. But what is true is that Christ bought the full justification and paid the full price for all men. There is no question that it has been bought. But has it been applied?

This is why I ask questions of you regarding your view of what the atonement did at the cross. Is it possible that the atonement can be fully paid and justification fully accomplished yet the one that it has been paid for for a time after the cross is still lost, still in their sin, still alienated from God, still in satan’s kingdom and still subject to God’s wrath? Is this true or is it not true?

More to come…

Mark, you said:

I see that Jesus secured my salvation on the cross by fully atoning for my sin. Because this is achieved by Christ, the Spirit then regenerates my heart to accept God’s gift of salvation.

So the question I have for you if your sins were fully atoned for on the cross, then was Christ’s payment worthless until you accepted God’s gift of salvation since it did not make you saved at the time you were born or at any time in your life until you received faith?

“So you will agree that there was a condition that must be met first before the atonement can become effective for you?”

I agree that faith in Christ is what saves me. However the atonement is the reason I am saved, not vice versa. The atonement secured salvation for God’s sheep, then when he calls his sheep they listen and follow.

But again the question is not future salvation but the uselessness that it would appear that Calvinists must attribute to Christ’s atonement during the time that a person is not saved. For how can one see Christ’s atonement when it isn’t active in salvation at a particular time in the person’s life? Did Christ atone for your sins on the cross and that atonement was enough? Or if faith is needed for salvation to come into effect, does that nullify the atonement on the cross? Can you please explain your position in a clearer fashion so that I can understand what value you place on the atonement at the time that you were still unsaved?

“Is the atonement not complete if it requires our faith? Is it just an offer and not given by Christ before our faith?”

Not at all because you see ‘faith’ as autonomous by the sound of it. The Bible sees it as a gracious gift of God.

Faith is never autonomous. God is always involved in our believing. Now I asked you if the atonement is not “given” to us before our faith. What is your answer? If the atonement is “given” to us before our faith, then how could God have seen us as in satan’s kingdom when we were atoned for? How could we be punished if we were atoned for before we had faith? If the atonement is not “given” until after we have faith, then does the atonement have no value during the time that we are “reprobate”?

Also the Bible doesn’t say that saving faith is God’s gift. The Bible says that salvation is the gift and we already went through this. If faith and salvation were both gifts and since salvation and faith are not the same thing, then the grammar would have to be plural if both were gifts. But the grammar is singular and not plural. Why would God not have made it clear that saving faith is a gift by making the term “gift” as plural? That would have been clear that all of it is a “gift” from God. But once again it seems like the Bible is made to be unclear and we have to fix it to make it right.

The atonement was 100% complete and because of that the elect put their trust in Christ.

But please explain if you consider the atonement to be 100% complete, then why do the elect not put their trust in Christ all of their lives? Why are they considered reprobate for a period of time if the atonement is 100% complete?

Mark,

You said:

“So why is it that God did not take the complete payment of Jesus at the cross and put it to your account at the time that Jesus died? Was His payment not full and complete at that time?”

Let me try to say things again. I’m not sure if you don’t actually understand what I am saying since you keep asking me the same questions.

I believe that the atonement of Christ was effective for what he came to achieve.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not asking you what the atonement was to achieve, but when this achievement came. I asked you if the atonement was achieved for you on the cross. Do I need me to rephrase this one again, or do you understand me now?

That is, he did not atone just to make salvation ‘possible’, but he atoned to make salvation effective. It is through the atonement that salvation becomes effective and purposeful.

So do you believe that you were “saved” at the cross? That your sins were forgiven before you were born?

I reject the Arminian position (now I dunno if you agree with classical arminianism) because it only makes salvation ‘possible’. It didn’t actually achieve anything.

I have just started to study the classical Arminian position, however I have not seen anywhere that it is said that the atonement on the cross did not pay for the sins of the world. If salvation is “only possible” but not fully paid for on the cross, then at what time is salvation paid for? It appears to me that you are not understanding that opposing position since it appears clear that Jesus died for the sins of the world not that He died for the sins of a few.

For an Arminian what makes the atonement actually achieve anything is my own act of autonomous faith- not God’s predetermined plan to save me.

I guess we now know why you misrepresent Arminians – from your testimony, you just don’t understand.

More to come…

Mark,

You said:

I never said i was a greek scholar…far from it.

Look at your comment #354. You said:

As a greek scholar I am surprised at your comments.

This is written as you claiming to be a Greek scholar. “As a greek scholar I am…” I just took the sentence just as it was written that you were claiming to be a Greek scholar. If you were meaning that I am the Greek scholar, then you should have said “I am surprised at your comments since you are a Greek scholar.”

Well, I will just take this as a bad sentence construction and take you at your word that you do you claim to be a Greek scholar. Good enough.

Now Eph 2:1 doesn’t fit ‘your’ criteria that’s all. It seems that the majority of Greek scholars and translators disagree with you. MAybe you can make a Cheryl Schatz translation to correct all the wrong translators in the world!

LOL! Well, I am not planning to create my own translation any time soon, but there are a lot of bad translations out there where the translator has put his own exegesis into the text instead of just translating it. 1 Cor. 11:10 is one of the worst. I couldn’t care less whether there are a bunch of translators who don’t agree with me. Truth is found in the text not in how many people have seen the same thing I have.

In fact many people haven’t seen what I have seen in the very hardest of Paul’s texts yet when they watched my DVDs many of them are surprised that they agree with my exegesis. I have had pastors write me and tell me that my rendering of the tough Scriptures on women in ministry has been the very best that they have read.

Go ahead and read what Rev Hicks writes about the series on Amazon.com here http://www.amazon.com/Women-Ministry-Silenced-Set-Free/product-reviews/B000FW4N60/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 Scroll down to the review by Michael W. Hicks. I have received this kind of review from many pastors. Here is one from a complementarian pastor who dialogged with me on the women’s issue during the time that I was writing the script. He was the very first complementarian to commend my work:

The story of creation tells us that both man and woman were made in the image of God. All people are given intrinsic value in the miraculous act of creation, and all people are loved passionately by God, regardless of gender, race, age, education, economics, etc. However, though men and women are equal in value and purpose in God’s eyes, there are passages in the Bible that raise the question of whether or not God limits the roles that are available to women in a local church family. Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free examines this question in a thoughtful and persuasive way. Through clear, concise teaching and multimedia, this series provides an excellent presentation of the arguments in favor of a woman’s freedom to serve in all roles of Christian leadership according to God’s leading. Though I disagree with the theological conclusions of this series at several points, I found the series very helpful in understanding the issues involved from a different perspective. Without a doubt, the presentation is offered with tremendous respect, integrity, and grace.
-Dr. Scott Heine, Compass Church, Goodyear, Arizona

You said:

“The concessive participle implies that the state or action of the main verb is true in spite of the state or action of the participle. Its force is usually best translated with although. This category is relatively common.”

Now we agree that the main verb is in verse 5 correct? So the action of verse 5, being alive, is true in spite of the present participle.

You are misunderstanding this. This is not meaning what you defined as “a present participle which by definition means a contrast is being made”. It is not a contrast of “truths” but both are true. We are both dead to sin and alive to Christ. And making the state or action of the verb as true despite the state or action of the participle would also mean that both are happening at the same time otherwise why would it even appear that there are contrasting truths?

The fact is that no definition I came across said that a present participle had to mean a contrast and the way that the text is words and with the inspired grammar, it is not wrong to take it just the way it is written. If there were no other texts that supported our being dead to sin that would be another thing, but there is. And the fact that Christ was the first one who became dead to sin and we are everything IN Christ fits quite well within the text. At the very least you should be able to say that although you can’t agree with me because you are a Calvinist, that my rendering of the passage is within the possibilities of interpretation and has no evidence that would forbid the text from being interpreted that way. I think that would be at least fair for you to admit that.

Now Eph 2:1 is an example of this is it not? Despite the fact that we were dead in our sins, God made us alive. It’s a contrast…’while you were A, God did B’,

The problem with this interpretation is that the Bible shows quite clearly that being made alive is being “in Christ” and also it is being forgiven, yet it is inconsistent with Calvinism for a unbeliever to be “in Christ” and “forgiven”. But for non Calvinist it is very consistent with our view that being made alive is only done for believers and so being “in Christ” and being “forgiven” are all things that are part of being saved and as believers. There is no inconsistency here for non-Calvinists but there are problems in the passage for Calvinism. I don’t like these kinds of inconsistencies. Didn’t anyone tell you before that Calvinism has all kinds of inconsistencies that can’t be answered? That would really bother me if I was a Calvinist.

It is not saying you are A while also B.

That is your opinion of course. But this rendering is not inconsistent with the grammar or the text or other passages that say that same thing. I believe this because of the text itself, not just because of “reason” although our Christian faith is not without reason.

But when i am in my office next week i’ll get back to you more with the other grammars i have.

Sure, why don’t you do that.

Also i comfused how quickly you dismissed ‘pote’. Surely you agree that verse 1-7 is the one sentence, and that whole sentence is reliant on the verb in verse 5. So how is that you think you can disconnect ‘pote’ from the context?

I didn’t dismiss it. It fit right in with the context. Maybe you just need to reread what I wrote. If you still don’t get it, please show me where I dismissed an inspired word.

You challenged that no such ‘extra’ grammar was present and when you are shown wrong, you simply attempt to disconnect the greek sentence, c’mon now.

The grammar clearly belonged to the next sentence and is not connected to the first by referring back. You can’t just connect two things that don’t belong together when the Greek words that it belongs to are right there. How could I in all good conscience dismiss the context of verse two in order to remove the word and connect it back to verse one? Just because it is all one long sentence doesn’t mean that everything is connected to everything else. We don’t treat language that way. If there was a clear referral back to verse one I would have admitted it. You will see that I am not a person who cannot admit an error or say that I am sorry. I will freely admit when I am wrong. But it is so clear to me that you are trying to divorce the context in order to have a piece of grammar taken away from its proper place in order to prove that the present tense is actually a past tense.

At the same time you did not give any reasonable explanation of why God would not have made this doctrinal passage clear that He is talking about a past event. You cannot use a historical present used in stories and narratives as a precedent. It doesn’t fit. God is not a God who purposely tries to confuse us with grammar that is a poor fit when He had better grammar to use.

Paul’s writings are very hard to understand and the only way that I have been successful at understanding Paul is to take the words and grammar exactly as they are written without changing Paul’s terms. It is then and only then that things come together without contradiction. If you like contradiction, you are welcome to it. I cannot stand contradiction for I believe strongly that God’s word is inspired without error or contradiction. So I keep working hard on the passage until the words and grammar can speak on their own without contradiction. I happen to think that this is a commendable way to exegete Scripture.

We dead in sins ‘in which we once walked’. What is the once walked refering to Cheryl? Verse 1-3 are all tightly knitted together grammatically, adn Paul’s conclusion is that we were by nature objects of wrath.

Yes indeed we were by nature objects of wrath when we used to walk in the sins that are not subjected to us under our feet. We are now dead to those sins and they no longer have a hold on us because of the work of Jesus. Because He became dead to sin, so we too can have mastery over what formerly master us. It just fits in the passage and with the Sovereignty and glory of God’s power over sin.

Finally i will discuss more with you what it is you think i believe about this verse. Especailly since you think Calvinism believes that being ‘alive’ is divorced from faith. These need addressing

I understand that in the Calvinist system, faith follows being made alive, but the fact is that it is a system where order is important and one thing happens after another. If it all happened at the same time, you would not be seen as a Calvinist. There is absolutely no doubt that the teaching is that one must be raised to life first before one can hear the gospel and be given the gift of faith. I would be great if you would deny that so that we could be on the same side of this issue. But then your Calvinism would have to be different than the Historic Calvinism and you would be on your own.

I’ll see if there is anything else that I can get to before I go to bed.

More to come….

Oh Mark, I feel so sorry for your wife. Give her a hug from me. My first one was a month overdue. At least that is what I was told. I think the doctor got his dates wrong. I was not living for the Lord at the time, but everyday I was on my knees praying that the time would come SOON! I was not one of those who enjoyed pregnancy although I did love having those children when I saw them.

Mark,
Thanks for taking the time to explain your limited experience with Arminianism. This helps a lot to understand why it is difficult for you to get the opposing viewpoint. It is now clear that you didn’t put the effort into understanding that position before you converted to Calvinism. It is going to make it harder for you to understand us though without a solid grounding in the view of the other side.

My Father-in-law would hold to a strong classical Arminian position.

Is he still an Arminian? Do you have debates with him too?

The crux came, when i was asked to preach at our church becasue our Pastor was away. We were at the time going through a ‘doctrine’ series, so i thought it wise (although i was probably foolish) to go through Romans 9 and look at predestination. This is when it hit me. As i studied Romans 9-11, in the context of Romans as a whole, and as i looked at various commentaries, both reformed and arminian, my whole theology fell to pieces.

From reading about your conversion, it appears to me that it happened rather quick. You were asked to preach and by the time you gave your sermon, you had already accepted this teaching of Calvinism from the Calvinist commentaries. I haven’t personally met anyone who came to a Calvinist belief by themselves just from reading the Bible. The testimonies that I have heard are always that the person either was reading through Romans and needed help so they went to a Calvinist commentary, or else they were listening to the radio or sermons from a strong Calvinist pastor. I figure that if Calvinism was really true, it could be “caught” just by reading the Bible without having to be told what the passages mean. Or God could just “drop ship” the gift of faith into one’s heart and they could become an instant Calvinist. I also have not met anyone to this point who got saved as a Calvinist. Everyone to date that has given me their testimony of conversion has been saved as an Arminian.

It also seems to me that those who become enamored with Calvinism rarely put as much effort into reading the opposition. Usually they become so in love with Calvinism that they read everything that they can get a hold of from Reformed teachers. And so many of these won’t even call themselves a Christian anymore. They are “Calvinists”.

And it seems like the more they get into Calvinism the more they despise their brethren in Christ who are not Calvinists. That in itself is a red flag to me. For if the doctrine of Calvinism is correct it should cause one to love the Christian brethren more not less. But I have been mocked and been treated badly by Calvinists just because I am not a Calvinist. These kinds of brethren tend to mock the opposition as if we are not as privileged as they are because they are really enlightened. And when they are not mocking, they are trying to convert us as if we could not be a true Christian unless we are a Calvinist. It is a really odd thing. Honestly it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I see it as an unnecessary division in the church and that makes me very sad.

Looking at the text exegetically in it’s context i could no longer hold onto what i thought predestination was. As such i began researching reformed theology and thus my whole doctrinal position shifted.

It is too bad that you didn’t work hard to see how the text could work exegetically in the passage without having to believe that God purposely created some for destruction without a care to redeem them or His image within them. I think you gave up too soon.

Many in my church were disgusted at what i had said. But it was always good in stimulating discussion and being humble and loving to those you disagree with.

Should you have been teaching this doctrine first without having done a thorough job understanding the doctrine of the church you were in? It seems like teaching this doctrine so soon without researching all the ramifications of the doctrine might have been an unkind thing done to the church. Don’t you think?

Once i began looking into the two different theologies i began to realise that much of the arminian position is based on ‘reason’ and not scripture.

I recognize this accusation as the “norm” from Calvinist books. It seems to me that what you were recognizing as only “reason” was because this is what you were being told.

Things like preceeding grace are assumed but not declared in the Bible. Like wise divine foreknowledge of faith is assumed but not declared. The inconsistencies began to flow in what i thought i believed and so i decided from that point to stick to what the Bible saids, no matter what!

The name of a doctrine doesn’t have to be there to be true. After all the “Trinity” isn’t named in the Scripture either, but is that a reason to dismiss it?

I am reading Calvinist books now and I am shocked at the amount of attacks against their brothers in Christ and the challenges that we don’t use Scriptures but on reason. That is not true. In fact I believe that the most important texts that clearly disprove Calvinism are the ones that they claim as their “proof” texts. I just can’t figure out why they can’t see it for themselves.

But I am glad that you believe it important to love the brother or sister that you disagree with. When we do that we are truly loving Jesus who is our common Lord.

i decided from that point to stick to what the Bible saids, no matter what!

That’s great. Then we are going to have a wonderful time in the Scriptures.

Hope this helps.

Sure does!

I was not converted a ‘calvinist’ in terms of theology.

What do you mean by this?

But as i refelct even on my own conversion i can see the truth in reformed theology. I had no interest in the things of God. I did not fear him, i did not glorify him. But at that one moment when i heard the gospel a light bulb switched on. I wasn’t serching or seeking for God. I know however, that when Jesus calls his sheep they listen to his voice. I experienced that first hand. I indeed was dead and blind, BUT GOD made me alive in Christ Jesus

Just because you weren’t seeking for God doesn’t mean that the gospel cannot be preached to you and you believe it. God is the one who allows us to hear. It is never on our own that we come to Christ.

Kay,

I loved your post! Thanks for stating things so clearly especially in the areas where Mark was not representing the Arminian position in a correct way.

Keep up the good work!

Mark,
You said:

Please don’t slay me for my spelling mistakes ‘tote’ and ‘present indicate’. They are just spelling mistakes, there is not need to go overboard.

I think that we can have a lot more lenience with you, if you just admit that you are not a Greek scholar as you claimed – that you overstated your case. It doesn’t hurt to ‘fess up and go on. In fact admitting your sins, mistakes, or whatever is the best thing to keep things above board. After all look at what has happened to Ergun Caner and his embellishments to his testimony and his credentials. He should have admitted that he lied and asked for forgiveness but instead he did a cover up job and now he is really on the hot seat including the university where he is the president http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/mayweb-only/28-11.0.html

I will comment more soon, but let just say one thing. I realise that the present indicative is not in Eph 2. The reason i brought up that point was becasue you had failed to communicate the broad range of meanings for the present indicative. And since you whole basis is “how does calvinism reconcile the present verb in Eph 2” it was neccessary to show the wider range of meanings. You had constantly challenged how the two can be reconciled, without admitting that the context decides the ‘time’ aspect of the verb.

It isn’t the context that decides the ‘time’ aspect but the kind of literature. A historical present is perfectly okay in parables because they are just stories there is no “past tense” to a made up story. And it is also okay in the telling of a story because the narrator can take the present tense in the narrative and we all understand that it is a literary device in relating a narrative story. But the historical present does not work in doctrinal literature where the difference between a continuing state of being and a past concluded action can make all the difference in the world. In this case the truth of the tense is important and God doesn’t noodle around with truth.

The fact is that Ephesians 2:1 does not fit the criteria for reinterpreting of the tense. After all God could have made it very clear that He was talking about the past as there is perfectly good grammar that would fit the bill. Therefore I asked about what Calvinists make of the tense because I believe that grammar is important and should not be ignored. I also believe that important doctrinal teaching has a second or third witness. In this case that witness would have to show that an unregenerate man is “spiritually dead” in such a way that he cannot hear or respond to God without a resurrection. I do not believe that there is any kind of a second witness to this and it is also for that reason that I reject the teaching that a man must be “born again” before he can believe in God.

Mark,
You quoted me and then commented:

“God doesn’t demand that people come to Him for forgiveness and then refuse to give them what they need to obey Him.”

Here is your wrong assumption again that God is obligated to us. Yes God does demand them to repent, yet while they are still in their sinful state they will never do it. God bestows mercy on whomever he wills and leaves the rest in their own sinful condition. This is again grace. Grace is undeserved mercy, not deserved mercy for my ‘good works’ or ‘conditions’ I have met.

I am not assuming that God is obligated to us. But while God may not be obligated to us, He is obligated for His own sake and for His own Name to redeem His own image. God has placed within us His own image and if He refused to provide an atonement for us, His own image would be rejected and devalued as worthless.

Isaiah 43:25 (NASB)
25 “I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake,
And I will not remember your sins.

Isaiah 48:9 (NASB)
9 “For the sake of My name I delay My wrath,
And for My praise I restrain it for you,
In order not to cut you off.

Isaiah 48:11 (NASB)
11 “For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act;
For how can My name be profaned?
And My glory I will not give to another.

Ezekiel 20:9 (NASB)
9 “But I acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations among whom they lived, in whose sight I made Myself known to them by bringing them out of the land of Egypt.

So God acts and deals with our sin for His own sake. A God who refuses to provide atonement for His Own Image has refused to act for His own sake. I believe that it is very clear in the Scripture that even though we do not desire God acting on our behalf, He remains faithful to His own name and He has provided that His own image in man has been redeemed in the atonement.

Those who see God as creating millions and billions of humans who God refuses to redeem the Image of God within them must provide Biblical evidence that God has no problem failing to redeem His image. In Isaiah 48:11 God says it twice “For My own sake” as a double emphasis that the ultimate and highest reason that God can act is “For His own sake”.

“But the election was not unconditionally for salvation. The election was for an earthly purpose as God’s representative on the earth.”

Nonesense. “Not all Israel is Israel”- individuals? Mercy on whom he will- mercy is grace- individuals.

I did not say a word about not being individuals. I said that the election was not unconditional for salvation. But let’s leave this one until we come to Romans 9, okay?

“However but His ultimate knowledge of what Pharoah would do is never done until Pharoah first hardens his own heart.”

Does Exodus 4 and 7 say “God foreknew what Pharoah would do and therefore after Pharoah does harden his heart, then I will harden it”, or does it say clearly “that God will be the one who hardens Pharoahs heart”. The verse is not passive and observatory. Dance all you like, but the text speaks for itself. Again please be consistent with you interest in ‘precise grammar’.

I would love to answer this one too, but that would get us into the issue of Romans and that should be where we go next after we are done John 6.

Mark,

Thanks for your apology…it is excepted.

Great! Thanks for that brotherly love.

I am a bit baffled why you have no interest in dealing with the grammar. I understanad your business, but since these passages are the ‘base point’ for all gender based arguments, i’m surprised you don’t want to dig into them.

There is no value for me in digging into the grammar of the statements of Adam and Eve when we both agree that they were blaming others.

Is there something in the grammar that you know contradicts your position?

Of course not. If there was, I would be eager to discuss it. One of these days you’ll get to know me well enough to know that I never run away from a passage that may prove me wrong. I see it as a win-win situation. If I am corrected, I win. If I am right, I win.

Maybe you or anybody else can show me something from the text then. If Eve blamed the serpent and it was truthful with no element of blame-shifting (not accepting her own responsibilty), then how can you say Adam only blame-shifted.

The issue is not whether they accepted their own responsibility. The issue is whether the one(s) that they blamed was a valid blame accepted by God. Remember that God is the ultimate judge of truth. So no matter what they said with whatever intricate grammar, the judge will be God and how He deals with their claims.

So this is my problem becasue you are equating something to Adam and not to Eve when nothing in the grammar allows for it.

Sigh! Is the problem with me that I can’t get my point across to you? Let me try one more time to see if I can allow you to hear me.

The issue is not with the grammar of the blame that they spoke. The issue has to be resolved with God and His assessment of the truth. God accepted the blame that Eve gave of the serpent. Right? And he make a curse fit for the sentencing brought about by the witnesses and the trial Judge.

Then when Adam did his blame thing, God did not present a judgment call that resulted in a curse or a “Because you did this…” And the words that God gave to Adam were about two failures that God calls Adam to be accountable for. And God does not affirm Adam’s blame so it becomes an “alleged guilt” of others that was found to have no credible evidence thus a dismissal of that case. Thus Adam’s attempt at blaming became “blame-shifting” because God didn’t agree with him.

But it’ not up to me. IF you wish to ignore the grammar that’s your decision.

Since God already made His decision and the judgment has come and gone and the blame has been dealt with, I see no need to re-examine the evidence and I wish to go with the Judge’s judgment instead. I think that is a wise and a valuable use of my time.

Now about the other passages. How do you know Cheryl, that other biblical passages support your view, when you have failed to deal with the actual passage from which other passages gain their arguments. It seems you are reading backwards.

I haven’t failed to deal with the passage at all. I went to the ultimate Judge and the ultimate evidence. Honestly it might be worth your time to start your own blog where you can add a few participles, sprinkle in a few nouns and don’t forget the verbs and bungee jump over a historical present. Maybe you can rustle up some interest there. Here, nyeh, no interest whatsoever and that is case closed.

And just off side for a moment, how’s the birthing process coming along? Any bouncing baby yet?

Mark you said:

So although this may seem messy to many people with all the technical stuff let me conclude. First the perfect indicate verb can take either past, present or future meaning depending on context.

And once again your errors show as there is no “perfect indicate” verb in Ephesians 2:1. It isn’t a “perfect” tense nor is there such a thing as an “indicate” verb.

Verse 1 is not even a present indicate but a present participle which by definition means a contrast is being made.

What on earth is a “present indicate”? No, my friend, “Being” in Eph. 2:1 is a present participle and your assertion that “by definition” this means a contrast is being made is off the wall. Where is such a “definition” to be found? I have no grammar source that gives such a definition for a “present participle” so I would like to know if you just made this up and you thought no one would notice? If you didn’t make it up, please provide your legitimate source for claiming that “a present participle which by definition means a contrast is being made.”

Here is “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research concerning the present participle:

5. PARTICIPLE. The present participle, like the present inf., is timeless and durative.
   Robertson, A. (1919; 2006). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (891).

Cheryl has not been faithful to how the greek grammar functions. She has only put forward one view of how the present indicative functions when there are many others.

Here again you (deliberately?) substitute the “present indicative” for the “present participle” right after you make up a definition for the “present participle” claiming that it is required to be a contrast by definition(!) and you have the nerve to say that I am unfaithful to the Greek?

Not only that, but the present indicate is not there, but it is a present participle showing contrast.

And once again you claim a tense that doesn’t exist “present indicate” and claim that the “present participle” shows contrast. How can you do this and keep a straight face?

So not only am I confused at how a greek scholar ignores simple greek grammar, but her interpretation in my view is unbiblical and divorces the verse from it’s context. Cheryl you will have to do much better to convince me of your interpretation and please weigh all the evidence up.

I do not claim to be a Greek scholar, but I have no doubt at all that you are not a Greek scholar. Honestly I don’t know how you can claim to be a scholar and make the kinds of incomprehensible boo-boos with the Greek.

And for the record, I know that I will never convince you of anything. First of all, I don’t need to convert you as you are already a brother in Christ. Secondly when one has to make up definitions for a Greek tense in order to try to sway an argument to his side, it seems to me that your mind is made up already because you like the idea that in Calvinism you can be of the special class of ones that God alone loves leaving billions outside of that special love. It is unlikely that anyone who has such a reason of being fully in love with “the doctrines of grace” would ever see past that love. So, no, I am not thinking that I will persuade you at all. What I am very willing to do is to challenge myself in every way possible so that I can work hard to show myself as a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Should I find out that I am wrong in an area, I am pleased to submit to correction. But I don’t submit to made up definitions of the Greek and made up tenses. That would never work with me and I am sorry that you had to do that to try to bolster your case.

Anyways, I will continue to work through the comments and then we can go on to finish John 6.

I have been thinking that working through Romans would be the most profitable thing to work on next. How about starting with Romans 5 and working our way through the chapters to end with Romans 10? I find these discussions stimulating.

I do find dialoging about the deep things of God a very valuable thing to do and it isn’t often that I get to dig deep as I have with you. For that I am most grateful.

Whew! I got finished with that long comment of yours and I am going to take a break and see what I can finish tonight. It is taking me longer than I thought, but hopefully I get through all of your comments soon.

I think that when we start Romans we should start another post because this one sure has a lot of comments to keep up with. We should keep our subjects separate so that it isn’t as confusing. Game?

Mark you said:

Now Cheryl claimed that no such ‘additional grammar’ in Eph 2 shows that Paul means a past condition. However in verse 2 is a very clear grammatical feature- ‘tote’ (once). Paul is saying you were ‘once’ like this (dead in sin), “in which you once walked”-verse 2) but are now like this (alive in Christ).

Mark, you made a mistake again. The term is not ‘tote’ but ‘pote’ and it means formerly. The term “formerly” does not refer back to “being dead” but it refers directly to the words around it “in which you walked”.

ephesians 2:2 (NASB)
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

You can’t attach the “pote” with “being dead” since it is rightfully connected to the Greek term for walked “peripateo” thus “formerly walked”. In fact this is the only place of contrast. We are dead to the very things that we formerly “walked” in.

SO yes there is an explicit grammatical word talking about a past situation- “once”

Honestly I can’t see how you could bypass the fact that “formerly” attaches to “walked” not to “being dead”. Did you think that no one would notice?

There are also numerous other grammatical features showing the contrast (besides the present participle). There is the contrast between following satan (verse 2) and Jesus.

Once again I must remind you that a present participle does not imply a contrast and I have given a commentary quote to show that. Also the contrast is to the “formerly walked” that is attached to the power of sin from satan. It is this contrast that makes the power of God which has placed sin under our feet to show the overwhelming power of God compared to the helpless power of satan to hold us in the way that we once walked.

This is expoused by the ‘sun’ compounds and ‘en christo jesou’. Also in verse 4 we get the ‘But God’ (o de theos) and then the three aorist and perfect of the verb forms in 5,6 which all underline the break between a past and a present situation.

Ephesians 2:3–6 (YLT)
3 among whom also we all did walk once in the desires of our flesh, doing the wishes of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath—as also the others.
4 And God, being rich in kindness, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even being dead in the trespasses, did make us to live together with the Christ, (by grace ye are having been saved,) 6and did raise us up together, and did seat us together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Here the “And God” is stating God’s power in contrast to what we were which has now been subjected as our old sin having been placed under our feet and at the same time as we”being dead to sin” we are raised up with Christ and seated in heavenly places. The connection to God’s resurrection power in contrast with the old sin which is under our feet flows through our postion with Christ in the heavens. The break with the past and present are with the power of the old sin that is now under our feet as we are “in Christ” and have all things subjected to us.

Although you have tried hard to make the grammar come against my view, the grammar is on my side not yours and your grammar errors show to me that you don’t really know very well what you are trying to communicate.

To be continued…

Mark,

Is there any passage that shows that an unregenerate person cannot hear God at all? Acts 10:1-4 shows Cornelius as one who was not yet a believer in Jesus, called “devout”, one who “feared” God and spoke to God “continually” in prayer. He was not deaf and blind spiritually when the angel of God showed up and called to him. And what the angel told him, he was spiritually aware of and he obeyed.

Acts 10:1–4 (NASB)
Cornelius’s Vision
1 Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort,
2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.
3 About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, “Cornelius!”
4 And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God.

Notice that the call came to Cornelius not to Peter. Peter did not send for Cornelius to come to him nor did Peter send himself to Cornelius’ house.

Acts 10:5–8 (NASB)
5 “Now dispatch some men to Joppa and send for a man named Simon, who is also called Peter;
6 he is staying with a tanner named Simon, whose house is by the sea.”
7 When the angel who was speaking to him had left, he summoned two of his servants and a devout soldier of those who were his personal attendants,
8 and after he had explained everything to them, he sent them to Joppa.

Here we have a man who has not yet been born again, act in obedience to the angel and it was Cornelius who summoned Peter. These are not the actions of a “dead” man who is unable to hear from God.

So thus the first main verb of the passage is in verse 5 “made you alive” is contrasted against the first person plural present participle in verse 1. Verse 2 says ‘in which you once walked” parallel to verse 10 which shows the new way to walk

In the full context of chapter 1 and chapter 2, the first man verb is not contrasted with the present participle of verse 1 but connected together by the theme of the power of God in setting all things under our feet. It is a unit that is consistent in its positive expression of God’s power over “all things” including sin.

The ‘kai’ (and) in verse one relates the passage back to chapter 1- a continual theme. Chapter 1 highlights God’s predetermined plan for his people to His glory and thus chapter 2 flows through with this thought.

Yes, you are right. The “kai” in verse one does relate back to chapter 1 – a continual theme of God’s power over all things and putting all things under our feet. How is it that the theme of all things under Christ’s feet and all things under our feet is consistent with us being dead and unresponsive because of sin? No, that doesn’t sound right nor is it a consistent flow. Rather it is far more consistent to say that the present tense that we are dead to sin is the power of God within those who are believers and the term “in which you once walked” is describing what exactly we are dead to – the old life and the power that sin had on us that enslaved us. But that sin is now “under our feet” by the very power of God which raised Christ from the dead.

to be continued..

Mark you said:

Note also that verse 1-10 are two greek sentences 1-7, 8-10. Thus verse 1-7 fall into 2 parts, 1-3 and 4-7. The former is called an ‘anacoluthon’ and verse 4-7 give a contrast. Thus verse 1-3 highlight the sinful nature in the past, and verse 4-7 contrasts a new nature.

This is not true. The connection between God’s resurrection power shown through Christ’s death and resurrection in Ephesians chapter 1 is carried forward to the power of our own sin. His death is therefore not a contrast to our sin, but a means of grace to overcome that sin. This way of understanding the text ties chapter one together with chapter 2 and the topic of God’s great power flows from chapter 1 to chapter 2 flawlessly.

If we take verse 1 as a contrast then God’s power is not a connection between the two chapters and instead of us being dead with Christ (which manifests as being dead to sin) and raised to a place of having all things under our feet, we would have to take Eph 2:1 as a negative and helpless place of our being dead rather than a powerful place of death to sins in Christ’s resurrection.

The other thing that makes your interpretation to be problematic is the connection to Col. 2:13

Colossians 2:13 (YLT)
13 And you—being dead in the trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh—He made alive together with him, having forgiven you all the trespasses,

Here the “being dead” is attached to being made alive AND having our sins forgiven. They are completely attached together so that “being made alive” means that our sins are forgiven. But in the Calvinistic system, “being made alive” is not a state of having our sins forgiven. Rather it is a bringing to life so that one can hear the gospel, then be given a gift of faith so that one can believe and then comes the being forgiven. Therefore for the Calvinist “being made alive” is the start of the process of salvation but it isn’t forgiveness yet. Forgiveness cannot come until the person exercises faith. The “order” of the process of salvation is very important to the Calvinist and the process does not include forgiveness at the time of “being made alive”.

So the passages of Romans 6:11, Col. 2:13 and Ephesians 2:1 all show that “being dead to sins” is a positive thing and happens at the same time as “being alive with Christ”.

to be continued….

Mark, you said:

Also the present takes a future meaning in some contexts.

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.”

‘will come’ is a present indicative, yet again the context of the passage reveals Jesus is talking about a ‘future’ event.

So no, the present indicate does not always have a present tense continuous function, the context decides that.

Once again your example is a present indicative which is not the same as Eph. 2:1. Also in John 14:3 the present tense would fit well with Jesus’ second coming in His glorified body since as God He is the I AM (continuous present tense).

Now in relation to Eph 2:1. What is important to know is that verse one does not have a subject or verb, only a present participle. As I stated earlier, the participle functions to show a contrast. It is not until verse 5 that we see Paul’s point, when he states that “But God…made us alive”. Therefore the subject and the verb of ‘umas’ (you) in verse 1 are not introduced until verse 4,5.

You are right in that the first direct verb is not until verse 5 however the term “kai” does not need to show a contrast and it is incorrect to say that the participle functions to show a contrast. That is not true. It is just as much an option that “kai” shows a close connection rather than a contrast.

The initial (kai) of both verses creates a problem. In v. 1 it might suggest a close connection with what precedes, ‘you also being dead as Christ was dead’,
A critical and exegetical commentary on Ephesians (199).

What is more probable? A contrast or a connection? Remember that chapter divisions are not in the original so with the connecting word “kai” at the beginning of chapter 2, we need to see what it is connected to which leads us back to chapter 1:

Ephesians 1:19–23 (NASB)
19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might
20 <>which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,
23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

In the preceeding chapter Paul is talking about God’s great power toward us who believe. This power is the working of God’s strength and power which was shown when He raised Christ from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavens. Everthing is put in subjection under His feet and because we are His body, everything is put under subjection of our feet because we too sit with Christ in the heavens. Is the power of sin put in subjection under our feet too?

Ephesias 2:1 seems to show that quite clearly to me.

Ephesians 2:1–6 (YLT)
1 Also you—being dead in the trespasses and the sins, 2in which once ye did walk according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience, 3among whom also we all did walk once in the desires of our flesh, doing the wishes of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath—as also the others.
4 And God, being rich in kindness, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even being dead in the trespasses, did make us to live together with the Christ, (by grace ye are having been saved,) 6and did raise us up together, and did seat us together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Because of the power of God that is shown in Christ through His resurrection, we are “in Christ” and dead to the sins that we formerly walked in. God has shown us His great mercy by giving us the resurrection power of Christ in order to be dead to the sins that once had power over us. And in the same power that made us dead to these old sins, we are also at the same time made fully alive with Christ because we are seated with Him in the heavenly places with all things under our feet. All things under our feet must include the sins that we used to control us.

To be continued…

Mark you said:

Mat 13:44 “Again the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.”

‘buys’ here is the present indicate as are ‘goes, sells and has’. The action however has occurred in the past: the man took the money, paid and the deed was done.

The use of the present in this effect relates the hearer and reader into almost a present position, yet the context shows a past action.

The action cannot be past action because it isn’t true, but a parable or “story”. This is a story telling “time” that is called the historical present. A real story can be told with the historical present, but it would then be a narrative but told as if the events were actually happening at the moment.

Historical Present—“The historical or historic present is the name given to the use of the present tense in a narrative when the verb would be expected to have been in the past tense … [It] usually occurs prior to the event or group of events that are of particular significance” The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament: Glossary.

These are termed “historical presents,” and such occurrences dramatize the event described as if the reader were there watching the event occur. Some English translations render such historical presents in the English past tense, while others permit the tense to remain in the present.
Pierce, L. Tense Voice Mood.

Surely you aren’t claiming that Ephesians 2:1 is a historical narrative story? And once again the example you gave is the present indicative (which Eph 2:1 is not) and the example is a story-telling feature that is outside of doctrinal facts.
I came across this issue many years ago when I was dealing with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and I had presented them with Jesus’ statement saying “I AM” (present tense). They said that it was not present tense but was meant to be taken as a historical present. Although John 8:58 is a present indicative (unlike the grammar of Eph 2:1), John 8:58 cannot be taken as a historical present because it is doctrinal truth and not a story telling narrative. It was meant to show Jesus as His very being is one of timeless “present” state of being and because the Jews understood Jesus in what He was saying about Himself, they picked up stones to kill him.
Sorry, Mark, but once again your attempt to claim the present indicative is the same as the present grammar of Ephesians 2:1, you are wrong again.

To be continued shortly…

Mark, you said:

I have agreed with you that the present indicate can have a linear function. However as I have stated, that is not always the case. The context, adverbs etc determine it’s function and thus is translation and interpretation. But you seem to wish to dismiss this clear fact of greek grammar. Let me show your readers just a few example to prove that the present indicate verb can be used to have a past or future meaning.

Mat 3:1 In those days John the Baptist came preaching…

‘Came’ here is the present indicate, yet the context reveals this is a past action.

I am very happy that you agree with me that the present tense can have a linear function, but you are making another grammar error when you are talking about the present indicative verb because Eph 2:1 is not present indicative. In fact instances of the periphrastic present indicative are few and are logged under the general present which is also where the historical present is found.

I will copy the screen print from the Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament Expansions and Annotations. Everyone can see that the Greek term for “to be” or “being” in Ephesians 2:1 is a present, active, participle accusative verb. It isn’t indicative. Also the kind of participle used in Ephesians 2:1 is a circumstantial participle. It expresses the conditions or circumstances under which the action occurs in the clause. The occuring action for the circumstantial participle is present.

Mark,
I need to apologize to you too. In my head I was equating blame with blame-shifting. They are not the same thing. Perhaps you too were equating the two. I don’t know. But I do need to apologize to you for not being clear on my understanding and then being frustrated with you that you couldn’t get it when I was the one who was confusing the two. You were right. Adam is accused of blame-shifting and Eve is not. The reason is not within the words of Adam or within the words or the grammar of Eve’s words, but in the very words of God. When God accepts the testimony of “blame” it is endorsed and true. When God does not accept the testimony of “blame” it is then identified as blame-shifting or in other words a lie.

I hope that makes it clear and I hope you accept my apology.

Hannah,
Yes indeed I used the wrong words. Both Adam and Eve blamed someone else. Only Adam was guilty of blame-shifting. There is a difference between blame shifting and blaming. I got caught in that one and I was indeed wrong to use Mark’s term. I stand corrected.

So there it is. Both blamed someone else. One was correct in their blame (that was Eve) because she told the truth. One was incorrect in their blame (that was Adam) and so his testimony was not the truth, it was not correct blame, it was blame-shifting.

Hannah, does this sound better?

Mark,
You said:

Again you have not dealt with any precise exegetical arguments i have raised. Please deal with them.

I have not talked about hiding sin, only you have.

Well, Mark, that appears to be your problem. When we talk about motives we need to see all that God has said about Adam and Eve. While we can pick up some things in Genesis, we have God’s revelation elsewhere that will tell us without doubt what was in the heart. Then we can read Genesis with God’s view in mind. When we ignore God’s view of Adam, for example, we are prone to go off on left field.

I’m interested in you showing me from the precise grammar of Gen 3 how you can claim Adam’s motive is bad and Eve’s good. Discuss nouns, verbs, word order, whatever it is that brings you to your conclusion.

I have no interest in this since I already have God’s opinion revealed in the Scripture. God rarely talks about motives but when He does, we need to pay attention. I am confident that God knows Adam’s heart and that God’s assessment will never be wrong and I am confident that the Genesis account will not contradict what God reveals about why Adam did what he did. I have a lot of things on my plate and discussing the grammar on this one is of no interest to me since God already revealed the truth. My time is better spent on the very important things that take a lot of work and are important for our own edification and our own salvation.

I’m not denying Eve was deceived, we agree on that. What we are discussing is the precise grammar of both how Adam and Eve respond to God.

Again God has already revealed the nature of why Eve sinned. She did not sin with rebellion in mind with her eyes wide open, but rather from deception and when we understand this, we can see that a woman who had been deceived with her non-deceived husband at her side could have had a bone to pick with the one who could have corrected her. Her statement that she sinned because of the serpent’s deception was affirmed by God and God’s affirmation and His mercy-ing Eve by bringing the Messiah through her is the revelation that is the key importance. I am not interested in going further although with any passage we can dig deeper and spend time that could be spent on other things. Since my time is extremely limited and since we already agree that Adam sinned with his eyes wide open and he was not deceived and Eve sinned through deception then it is time to move on.

Is there anything in those verses that show they are blaming another (and thus denying their own involvement).

Here are the facts. Eve did not mention Adam’s name while Adam directly mentioned God and the woman. Eve did not blame Adam. Adam blamed Eve. God did not accept Adam’s excuse. God confirmed that Eve was indeed deceived as she claimed and God cursed the serpent as a result. Eve was affirmed in her statement. Adam was not. Only one acted out of rebellion and we already know that from other Scriptures.

So unless you can “prove” from the grammar that Eve was blaming Adam, there is no need to discuss blame shifting. Both did it but only one was affirmed by God that their excuse was valid.

We are both agreed that Adam blame shifted. Where we disagree is with Eve. I have shown exegetically, using the precise grammar (and the parallel construction with Adam’s response) how one cannot say Adam is blame shifing and not Eve.

I have not said that Eve was not blame shifting. What I said is that Eve’s claim was true while Adam’s was not. Mark, you are so frustrating in that you keep claiming that I am saying something that I am not saying. Honestly, why do you do this? Are you too busy at school that you have to skim what I write and therefore you go by your “feeling” and not by the “facts”? Or is it possible that your mind is so closed that you have decided for me what I believe and nothing I say can change your decision for me? Or what is it?

As yet, you have not touched on either of those verses. If you believe Adam blame shifted, tell me how you came to that conclusion exegetically from what he said. Discuss word order, grammer etc. Then do the same with Eve. After that, we can discuss other Biblical references to both Adam and Eve.

Give me a break, Mark. We both agree that both of them blame shifted. What we appear to disagree on, or maybe you just haven’t made yourself clear on, is God’s agreement or disagreement with the claim of blame. So let me ask you. Did or did not God find the serpent blame-worthy? Did or did not God curse the serpent for deceiving Eve?

“All I did was point out that Adam blamed both God and his wife, both of whom he knew were not to blame. ”

Here is what i mean. You stated this, but you have not shown exegetically from the Hebrew why you come to this conclusion. What in the Hebrew makes you believe this?

Who cares? It is a mote point and we both accept the fact that Adam blamed his wife and if you don’t think that Adam also blamed God, I don’t care. It is not worthy my time to put in the effort to teach you anything here. My time is better spent with things that really count and whether you agree with me or not isn’t of any concern to me. I have already proven my point from the Scriptures that God accepted Eve’s claim of blaming the serpent for his deception and God planted a curse on the serpent because of it. God did not accept Adam’s claim of blame.

Or to put it another way, what grammatical hints give emphasis or illusion that Adam is blame shifting?

We both agree that Adam is blame shifting so going into the finer points of Hebrew is of no interest. Just keep it to yourself and put your arguments on your own blog.

And thus, what in the Hebrew makes you conclude that Eve had pure motives?

I have already told you and you don’t believe me. God accepts Eve’s testimony and by the testimony of two (God + Eve) God curses the serpent. Deception is not outright rebellion and no place in the Scriptures does God ever question Eve’s motives as one of rebellion. That’s it. You either accept that is my argument or you do not.

“If you believe that God cursed the woman, you will have to prove it from the grammar.”

I don’t believe that God cursed the woman. Nor do i believe God cursed the man. He cursed the serpent and the ground.

Good then you will also have to agree that God cursed the serpent because of what he did and God cursed the ground because of what Adam did, but God did not curse anything because of what the woman did.

But just a snippet for after you deal exegetically with my other comments, here is one small grammatical use to show that Eve is being punished. There is a very clear infinite absolute used in God’s words against Eve. An infinitive absolute functions to give an emphatic expression. So something God saids to Eve is grammatically emphasised- but we can deal with that later.

Nope. God does not “hint” at punishment. He was outright and forward with the serpent and with Adam. He clearly stated that the effects of the curse are because of their actions and God does not hint or beat around the bush but is direct and forceful. To think that God was not direct with the woman and “hinted” at a punished and “hinted” that it might be because of something that she did, is reading into the text. It would show that God has no interest in being direct with the woman. He only cares to be direct with the serpent and the man because these are the most important, eh? And surely according to your belief God “hinted” through the grammar that the reason he (hint-hint) brought these punishments against the woman was because (hint-hint) she……?? And then after He hinted about her punishment and He hinted for the reason that He was punishing her, He blessed her by bringing the Messiah through her?

Sorry but you can always put your reasoning on your own blog and I am sure that you will find a few people who care to read about God’s hints and more hints and why God then blessed her without hinting about His blessing when He only hinted about her punishment. Oy vey! Makes my head spin.

Now on to more important matters.

Mark you said:

Regarding your claim that the Cannaanites of the conquest were given a chance to repent. I noticed you quoted Jeremiah. Now Jeremiah was a exilic prophet, who lived, what, some 500-600 years after the conquest of the land. So no, the Jeremiah text does not deal with my question at all.

The timing doesn’t matter at all because God gave the Word and He does not change. Let’s read it again:

Jeremiah 18:7–8 (NASB)
7 “At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it;
8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.

God’s shows that His purpose in coming against a sinful nation to destroy is to have repentance first rather than destruction. Since God says this about a nation that He sets His mind to destroy, and since God does not change, we can know that God has the same plan for any nation to repent before He destroys them. Just because He knows that most will not repent, doesn’t mean that His purpose changes. Now if you think that God changes from one ungodly nation to another and changes His timeless prophecy about the importance of repentance that moves the hand of God, then you will need to show that God

Also with Jonah, the time frame was way off the conquest.

The book of Jonah is undated, but many scholars believe that it is one of the oldest books in the Bible. In this book Jonah shows that the God who does not change is merciful and will respond to a nation who repents.

God also shows that He is merciful by not destroying the Amorites (part of Canaan) until their sin had reached a level where destruction was imminent.

Genesis 15:16 (NASB)
16 “Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.”

So we see God’s mercy even for a time by not destroying the Canaanites and we can be certain because of knowledge of God’s character of longsuffering and mercy that He gave them enough evidence regarding who He is at least through nature in order for them to seek Him.

Romans 1:19–20 (NASB)
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

God has done this for all.

I agree though with the aliens becoming part of the convenant people. However a covenant people were a chosen people, a loved people. Other nations were not a covenant people.

The passage I quoted is not about other nations but the people from these nations. They were given full covenant status in Israel and so they did become covenant people of all who came. Is the issue about individuals or not? You may need to decide now before we gt to Romans 9.

Now the atonement is clear in my view. Either it atoned and achieved a purpose or it didn’t. An Arminian position saids it didn’t achieve forgiveness, just that it made it possible, if people would just reach out and grab it.

I don’t know Arminians who would argue that the atonement did not achieve forgiveness. Either Jesus paid for the sins on the cross or He didn’t. If He didn’t then no forgiveness is “possible” so it should be obvious that the payment was completed on the cross.

So the question I have is this – were you a person who did not understand the atonement and only thought that forgiveness was possible? Is that why you became a Calvinist?

An Arminian atonement has the Trinity working against each other.

Oh really? Is that what you believed as an Arminian?

Jesus dies for all men, yet the Spirit does not work in all men to achieve atonement for all.

Your lack of understanding of the non-Calvinist position is amazingly lacking. You actually come across as one who was saved as a Calvinist and who has never experienced another position. Although I would like you to let me finish answering your comments before you bombard me again, I would really like you to answer Kay’s questions about your experience with Arminianism before you became a Calvinist like who you studied and read on this subject while you were still an Arminian? What books, authors did you read? Her questions are really important to me, so I would ask that you do respond even before I finish answering your questions.

So Jesus achieves for all, but the Spirit achieves for a few. See the problem.

Yes, I see your problem. You seem to have almost no understanding of the opposing position. I don’t think that is helpful for your position.

Jesus does one thing, the Spirit does another. But anyway, I’m getting ahead of my self and will wait till you give your definition of how the atonement functions.

This makes me really understand why it is so easy for some to become Calvinists. They had a lack of understanding. Or is is possible that they originally understood but the Calvinist mindset confused them and made them mixed up? I don’t know, but I wish I understood because it is really puzzling.

I don’t have much time left tonight. I will try to finish tomorrow. Just don’t give me more to answer for a bit so I can finish.

Thanks and talk to you later, amigo.

Mark you said:

Nice try! Please deal with the exegetical points i raised. You points here are arguments from silence. First and foremost we ought to deal with what is revealed, not guess on what is not revealed.

Oh yah? Then why did you say:

If you look closely at the Hebrew in Genesis 3, there is nothing in the grammar to suggest that Eve’s motive’s were good and Adam’s bad.

You are the one who challenged us that there was nothing in the passage’s grammar to show that Eve’s motives were good while his was bad. All I did was point out that Adam blamed both God and his wife, both of whom he knew were not to blame. That is a sign of a bad motive. I also pointed out that while Eve could have blamed Adam and she had every right to blame him for his silence when he had the mandate to share his understanding of the deception with her, the fact that she did not blame him showed that her heart was not against him. If Eve had blamed Adam she would also have been exonerated as a truth teller since God blames both the serpent and Adam for their actions or inactions toward Eve. The fact that Scripture does not reveal what would have been a very important point about blame-shifting in the case of Eve is important. Adam had already set the precedent on throwing her under the bus and then blaming the one under the bus. If her actions were on the same level as his surely we would have seen at least a similar reaction of Eve’s. Also the fact that God calls Adam’s blame-shifting as hiding his sin and never identifies her actions as sin goes a long way in identifying the difference between the motives of the two.

If you think i am wrong in the grammar then show me.

I can do one better than that concerning motives because God already gave us the answer. Through God’s inspired word He blamed Adam for hiding his sin (Job 31:33) and for acting in a treacherous manner (Hosea 6:7) and God gives no such heart condition for Eve, rather she was acting upon the deception that blinded her mind to the truth (2 Cor 11:3, cf 2 Cor 4:4)

This is an odd conclusion you have drawn. Who said God is to blame? Both are punished for their sin.

Adam blamed God (the woman You gave to be with me). Both were in the process of dying as this is the result of eating the poisoned fruit from the tree of death, but Eve was not punished as Adam was. Only Adam and the serpent received God’s judgment about a curse. Therefore the judgment that came at the time that God met them was given only to Adam and the serpent and not the woman. If you believe that God cursed the woman, you will have to prove it from the grammar.