Todd Friel of ‘Wretched’ renown invokes the Granville-Sharp rule in explaining to Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses why, biblically speaking, they cannot be Christians.
Related Post:
The Pastor-Teacher – One Calling, One Office
Brian McLaren and the Dangers of the Emergent Church
I like Todd Friel – though he be freakishly tall
I think he misspoke, however, in his personal example of the Granville Sharpe rule. Does not the rule state that it applies when both nouns are for singular persons, but common – not proper – names only?
Nonetheless, this rule is most helpful in understanding the Truth that is sometimes obscured by our native tongue. I think it is too technical and easily blown off as extra-biblical by those who are wedded to their cults. At the same time, I agree we must be willing and able to discuss the biblical Truth of Christ’s deity with anyone.
Press on! Good teaching.
“Does not the rule state that it applies when both nouns are for singular persons, but common – not proper – names only?”
Many believe that. However, I have yet to find that in any of his (Sharp) own writings on the matter. Maybe I should look again. I’ve asked many to search and find where he stated such. No one has yet to get back to me on it. If you find something, by all means, let me know! Thanks. – JT
Joel,
Here’s an article on this topic, from Alpha & Omega Ministries: http://vintage.aomin.org/GRANVILL.html
In which we see James White exlpaining that proper names are not covered by the basic Sharpe rule:
“Basically, Granville Sharp’s rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word “and,” and the first noun has the article (“the”) while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words “God” and “Savior” at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. “God” has the article, it is followed by the word for “and,” and the word “Savior” does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ. This rule is exceptionless. One must argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised. Not that many have not attempted to do so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the above interpretation. Lets look at some of the evidence from the text itself.”
I’ve read that, thanks.