Does God Infuse Righteousness Into Our Souls Or Declare Us To Be Righteous?

• Discussion:

           -Karlo Broussard of Catholic Answers wrote an article on how we should understand the word reckoned as translated in Romans 4:3. Are we to understand that term as a legal status that God declares us to be or is righteousness infused into our souls? His claims are cited in bold and are followed by a critique:

           "First, just because the Bible uses the language of God “reckoning” a person as righteous, it doesn’t follow that there is no ontological transformation—a change in what the sinner is. There is no reason why God’s declaration of our righteousness and our transformation by grace must be mutually exclusive. The two can be harmonized."

            The legal declaration of us being righteous in His sight (i.e. justification) is to be distinguished with the gradual process by which God makes us righteous (i.e. sanctification). He not only erases our record of transgressions against Him, but also transforms us to live in accordance with His will.

           "But God’s forgiveness of David’s sins [Romans 4:8, where Paul quotes Psalm 32:2] was not merely a legal declaration without some existential effect on David. To the contrary, David describes God’s forgiveness of his sins as being made “clean” and “whiter than snow” (51:7). And herein lies the key to God no longer reckoning David’s sin: the objective guilt of those sins had been removed. God’s reckoning was an evaluation that correctly corresponded to the objective reality of that which was being reckoned."

           The forgiveness of sins enables us to overcome personal guilt and be at peace with God. Everything that surrounds justification is not to be conflated with that instance itself. Forgiveness is an aspect of justification, but it does not make up its entirety.

           "There are other passages that fit the same pattern. For example, in Romans 8:18 Paul “considers” [logizomai] that our current sufferings are not worth comparing with our glory that is to be revealed in heaven. Paul’s mental evaluation of our present sufferings compared to our glory in heaven matches the objective reality about the two. In Romans 9:8, Paul “reckons” [logizomai] Abraham’s spiritual children as God’s children. Paul’s evaluation about Abraham’s spiritual children corresponds to what they really are: God’s children."

           Notice that in each of the above examples a reckoning according to reality takes place—a mental evaluation that correctly corresponds to reality. Never does the reckoning in these verses suggest a mere declaration that is not intended to match up to the reality. There are some passages in Scripture where people “reckon” something in a way that doesn’t match the true nature of the thing being reckoned (see Mark 15:28; Rom. 2:3). But in these cases the reckoning is seen as flawed."

           The King James Version translates Strong's G3049 (logizomai) in the following manner: think (9x), impute (8x), reckon (6x), count (5x), account (4x), suppose (2x), reason (1x), number (1x), miscellaneous (5x). It has a slightly wide semantic range of meaning (i.e. to reckon, count, compute, calculate).

           The term logizomai has many instances in which something is accounted, reckoned, or regarded in a manner that corresponds with reality. But this accounting term does not always have to carry that meaning. This is the grounds for the Apostle Paul’s argument in Romans 4.

           Interestingly, the form of logizomai that occurs in Romans 2:26 is an instance that can clearly be understood in a judicial or declarative sense. It would be absurd to assert that circumcision is infused into somebody. God treats a righteous man who is uncircumcised as if he is circumcised. 2 Timothy 4:16 also has a form of logizomai that can mean impute something on somebody’s behalf. So we can indeed interpret the Greek word in the sense of Christ’s righteousness being credited to our account. 

           Furthermore, opponents of penal substitutionary theory have the dilemma of explaining what it means for God to not impute sin to believers in passages such as Psalm 32:1-2, Romans 4:7-8, and 2 Corinthians 5:19. God credits righteousness to the ungodly "apart from works." Their sins have been "forgiven" and "covered" (Romans 4:7-8). This source sheds more light on the meaning of logizomai in Romans 4: 

          "...In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), the term often appears where individuals must treat a person or object as if it were something other than what it is inherently. For example, when the Levites received tithes, they were not to treat these tithes as actual tithes that had already been devoted to the Lord. Instead, they had to regard these tithes as their income and then pay a tithe to the Lord themselves from what had been given to them. Inherently, what the people gave were tithes. But the Levites reckoned them as income (Num. 18:25–32). Taking this all together, we see that in Romans 4 logizomai means to credit something to a person’s account and regard that person not according to what he has done or who he is but according to what is credited to his account."

           "So, when we come to Romans 4:3, where God “reckons” Abraham as righteous, it’s reasonable to conclude, in light of the foregoing analysis, that God evaluates Abraham to be righteous because in reality his faith truly has a righteous quality to it, thus making Abraham ontologically righteous. To say that God “reckons” Abraham as righteous even though he’s not, you either have to say that God was wrong in his reckoning or that you’re using the term reckon in a way that Paul does not. No Protestant wants to concede the first horn of the dilemma. And I doubt that many want to concede the second. So, rather than undermining the Catholic view of justification, God’s reckoning of Abraham as righteous in Romans 4:3 supports it."

           Following is an excerpt from John Gill's Exposition of the Bible on the text of Romans 4:4:

           "of debt: it must be his due, as wages are to an hireling. Now this was not Abraham's case, which must have been, had he been justified by works; he had a reward reckoned to him, and accounted his, which was God himself, "I am thy shield, and exceeding, great reward", Genesis 15:1; which must be reckoned to him, not of debt, but of grace; wherefore it follows, that he was justified, not by works, but by the grace of God imputed to him; that which his faith believed in for righteousness. The distinction of a reward of grace, and of debt, was known to the Jews; a the one they called פרס, the other שכר: the formerF4 they say is הגמול, "a benefit", which is freely of grace bestowed on an undeserving person, or one he is not obliged to; the other is what is given, בדין, "of debt", in strict justice."

           We are under no obligation to conclude that God was wrong to credit a righteous status to Abraham even though he was not. The Lord knows what is in our hearts. Believers are covered in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. His righteousness belongs to us. This "legal transaction" is not a lie just because it is a gift. This is not a matter of legal fiction. Christ is a real Mediator. Christ is truly our Advocate. He truly obeyed the Law perfectly. He paid the penalty for sin on our behalf. These points are all rooted in fact.

Religious Titles Of Honor In The Roman Catholic Hierarchy

           Roman Catholic priests are addressed by the name of "Father" as a formal religious title of honor. In addition, the pope uses the title "Holy Father." It is believed that doing so is following the custom of the apostles, since spiritual fatherhood was a known concept to them (Luke 16:24; 1 Corinthians 4:15). Therefore, not using such a title as "Father" is viewed as failing to acknowledge the gifts and responsibilities that God has bestowed on ordained clergy members. However, these titles of exaltation become problematic in light of Jesus Christ's teaching on this matter:

           "But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Matthew 23:8-12)

           The context of this passage focuses on religious elitism and hypocrisy. The scribes and Pharisees loved being the center of attention. They did good works with the intention of receiving praise from other people. That is, in essence, what those men craved. The scribes and Pharisees were outwardly righteous, but were depraved to the core of their being. They had no love in their hearts for God or other people. Jesus, knowing all things in His divinity, was insulted by their behavior. Human pride is an affront to the Triune majesty.

           True greatness lies in servitude and genuine love for God and others. Jesus' critique of the religious leaders of His day underscores the emptiness of outward righteousness without inner transformation. Pride and hypocrisy are fundamentally at odds with the heart of the gospel. Christ's message is just as relevant today as it was when first given. Human pride is one of the pinnacle problems existing throughout the ages. It has always been a competition of who is the greatest or who gets to control who. We all are thrilled to receive words of praise, but not so much words of criticism or rebuke.

            It is appropriate to recognize an individual as being a spiritual father, a teacher, bishop, elder, overseer, pastor, or a deacon. It is proper to note the academic qualifications of other people. Christ was undoubtedly using hyperbole when saying that no one on earth should be called father. His intent was to further strengthen His denunciation of self-righteousness. However, there is no biblical warrant for emphasizing titles to the point of self-exaltation. Interestingly, we never see people in the New Testament called "Father David," "Reverend Peter," "Doctor Timothy," etc. We have no business claiming for ourselves a deference that we do not deserve. The church is God's kingdom.

           We are "brethren" in Jesus Christ. That would logically deemphasize any role of exaltation in the church. No one has intrinsic superiority over another. The point is that we are all servants of Christ, not one another. He is our Master to whom absolute allegiance is owed. We are not to use titles to call attention to ourselves. They are not to be used to call attention to our accomplishments. God already knows our hearts. He knows whether or not we are faithful to Him. That should be our utmost priority in life and service. There is nothing scriptural about leaders in the church requiring others to address them by special titles of honor.

           Matthew 23:5-13 specifically forbids the love of flattering religious titles and believers striving to be placed on a pedestal. The underlying problem with insisting that we be addressed by formal titles of honor in the church is our tendency to become puffed-up. Further, ministers should not demand to be addressed by a particular title, especially when there may be older and more accomplished individuals than themselves in the assembly. Ministers may not even know everyone around themselves personally. God honors those who are humble. He despises arrogance. It is those characterized by that vice He judges.

        Lastly, nothing could be more haughty than the pope being called "Holy Father." That title in Scripture is applied only to God (John 17:11). Only He is worthy of that kind of exaltation (Revelation 15:4). It would seem that a true man of God would shutter at the idea of such a title being applied to himself by others or even thinking himself fit to possess it. No man who claims to represent Christ on this earth should feel comfortable with being called "Holy Father." If Roman Catholic officials truly are humble people, then why not give up any special titles of honor that they currently wield? Why not strive to be different than the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus Christ scolded?

A Damning Mormon Quotable

"I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting."

Elder Boyd K. Packer, Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, p. 103, fn 22

Addressing The Mormon Dogma Of Celestial Marriage

• Discussion:

           -A peculiar concept of Mormonism is that of celestial marriage. It is believed by Mormons that husbands will reign as gods in their own universes with their families and procreate for eternity. However, the teachings of Jesus Christ relating to the status of marriage in the resurrection of the dead is problematic for such an idea:

           "Some Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection) came to Jesus, and began questioning Him, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves behind a wife and leaves no child, his brother should marry the wife and raise up children to his brother. “There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife, and died leaving no children. “The second one married her, and died leaving behind no children; and the third likewise; and so all seven left no children. Last of all the woman died also. “In the resurrection, when they rise again, which one’s wife will she be? For all seven had married her.” Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Mark 12:18-25, emphasis added)

           The question posed by the Sadducees reflected the Jewish custom of passing childless married women whose husbands were deceased on to younger brothers in the same family. Christ answered their faulty premise, pointing out that there will be no marriages taking place in heaven. Humans will become immortal like the angels. There will be no need to produce offspring. See also the parallel text of Luke 20:34-36. 

           What takes place in the heavenly realm is quite unlike our experiences on earth. Jesus continues His reprimanding of the Sadducees with the following remarks:

           "But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken.” (Mark 12:26-27)

           God will give us much more fulfilling things in the eternal state than any temporary pleasures available to us in this life. He does value the institution of marriage, but it will not exist in heaven. The same is true of family units. 

           The Mormon concept of celestial marriage expressly contradicts the teaching of Christ. In fact, wives who lost their husbands on earth and chose to remarry would be guilty of committing adultery because according to Mormon theology, they would be forever bound to their first spouse.

Luke 1:1-4 And The Reliability Of The Gospels

        "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

        If Luke was able to select from a wide variety of sources in putting together an accurate account of the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, then it stands to reason that he had access to other earlier material. He also would have had contact with direct eyewitnesses to the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6).

        Luke's preface shows us that the four gospel accounts are rooted in history. He carefully sifted through oral traditions in compiling a truthful narrative. Luke did not make up things to fit an underlying agenda, but researched various claims to ensure the credibility of his message. He intended that his work be understood as history. 

        His gospel account is not a work of fiction or myth. His account is not a forgery or intended to be deceptive. Luke told the person to whom he had dedicated his work that it was to be understood as what actually took place. Thus, human imagination was not used to fill in unknown details. The author did not go out of his way to embellish things.

        William Barclay wrote in his Commentary on the Gospel of Luke:

        "It is the best bit of Greek in the New Testament. Luke uses here the very form of introduction which the great Greek historians all used. Herodotus begins, "These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus." A much later historian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, tells us at the beginning of his history, "Before beginning to write I gathered information, partly from the lips of the most learned men with whom I came into contact, and partly from histories written by Romans of whom they spoke with praise." So Luke, as he began his story in the most sonorous Greek, followed the highest models he could find. It is as if Luke said to himself, "I am writing the greatest story in the world and nothing but the best is good enough for it."

        Craig Keener, in his IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, notes in regard to the prologue of Luke's gospel:

        "...Ancients often trained their memories in ways that could put modern intellectuals to shame. Orators could recite speeches hours in length; one exceptional orator even claimed to recall samples of scores of practice speeches offered by classmates decades before. Such memory was not the exclusive domain of the educated; uneducated oral storytellers could recite full works like Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey from memory. To object to all such examples because this one is Greek, that one is late, and so forth, is to dismiss all extant evidence in favor of pure speculation. We should expect the material to have been preserved. Because Luke writes while eyewitnesses are still alive, and because they were accorded a place of prominence in the early church, we may be confident that his traditions are reliable. (Eyewitness sources were accepted as the best.)"

        The Historian Daniel J. Boorstin, in his work The Discoverers, p. 480, recounts how the ancient world depended so heavily on memory in daily life:

        "Before the printed book, Memory ruled daily life and the occult learning, and fully deserved the name later applied to printing, the "art preservative of all arts" (Ars artium omnium conservatrix). The memory of individuals and of communities carried knowledge through time and space. For millennia personal Memory reigned over entertainment and information, over the perpetuation and perfection of crafts, the practice of commerce, the conduct of professions. By Memory and in Memory the fruits of education were garnered, preserved, and stored. Memory was an awesome faculty which everyone had to cultivate, in ways and for reasons we have long since forgotten. In these last five hundred years we see only pitiful relics of the empire and the power of Memory."

        This would be a strong indication that the underlying traditions on which the gospels rest are reliable. The text of Luke 1:1-4 gives us an idea as to how the authors of these four narratives went about compiling their narratives. The eye-witnesses to Jesus' bodily resurrection lived in a culture that was heavily reliant on the mental faculty of memory. We, therefore, have good reason to take the four canonical gospels as reliable accounts of the life and teachings of Christ.

A Philosophical Argument For The Immateriality Of The Soul

"...in metaphysics, he held the view that ordinary objects (tables, chairs, etc.) are ‘logical fictions’, and that what exists “in the strict and philosophical sense” are parcels of matter. Parcels of matter cannot lose parts and continue to exist as the same things, according to Chisholm. But what we think of as ordinary objects are gaining and losing parts all the time, he noted. Some molecules that once composed the table in front of me no longer do so. They have been chipped off, and the table worn away with time. The same holds for human bodies. They gain and lose parts all the time, and thus for Chisholm, human bodies don’t persist through time “in the strict and philosophical sense.” But persons – whatever they are – do persist through changes in the matter that composes a body. Therefore, he concluded, persons are not identical with their bodies, nor with any part of the body that can undergo change."

Argument articulated by Roderick Chisholm
https://philosophynow.org/issues/75/On_Roderick_Chisholm

A Discourse On Sexual Purity

         The historical, traditional view of reserving sexual intercourse between man and women for marriage has always been an integral product of divine creation (Genesis 2:20-24; Matthew 19:4-5). This plan is considered "good," since it is a part of God's created order and He is good by His very nature. That things can be misused or abused, does not make them morally impure.

         Though every human being has been assigned sexuality by bodily design, the intimate act itself is to be restricted to the confines of matrimony. This is where procreation is takes place. Thus, acts of fornication, adultery, and lust are condemned in a biblical worldview. Sexual sins are sins against our very bodies (1 Corinthians 6:18-20). They are rooted in selfishness.

         Sins of a sexual nature are graver offenses against God because they involve our very bodies. It is only from a biblical framework that the act of sex can be rightly understood. From it the act can be enjoyed to the fullest extent. Thus, in this framework, women are not viewed as objects of pleasure or used merely as baby making machines.

 
          Abstinence before marriage is proper and sensible, even from a secular standpoint. It prevents unwanted pregnancies, which can be financially burdensome. Abstinence prevents the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Abstinence before marriage results in faithful spouses and thus the proper development of families. Societal problems begin with poorly functioning families.

          Jesus did not deepen what the Law says, but brought out its true meaning in contrast with the false teachings of scribes and Pharisees. This is evident in Matthew 5 when Jesus contrasts His own teaching (Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44) with "you have heard that it was said" (Matthew 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). We need to follow the spirit of the Law, not the letter of the Law (Matthew 5:20).

         The Law already taught obedience from the heart. The Old Testament forbids hatred as well as murder; lust as well as outward adultery. Job said that he made a covenant to not look lustfully at a woman in defending his innocence (Job 31:1). Proverbs 6:25-26 emphatically says to stay away from promiscuous women. 2 Samuel 11 illustrates the deadly consequences of giving in to lust. Christ's teaching is fully consistent with the Old Testament.

Insect With Its Own Gearbox – More Proof Of Intelligent Design?

"Stunning imagery and video has been released of a tiny insect that uses a gearbox, complete with interlocking gears, to move.

“A species of plant-hopping insect, Issus coleoptratus, is the first living creature known to possess functional gears, a new study finds. The two interlocking gears on the insect’s hind legs help synchronize the legs when the animal jumps,” reported Live Science.

“To the best of my knowledge, it’s the first demonstration of functioning gears in any animal,” lead researcher Malcolm Burrows, an emeritus professor of neurobiology at Britain’s University of Cambridge, told journalists.

The imagery of the bug is certain to further fuel the scientific debate about intelligent design versus random evolutionary development, because it shows complex machinery was not developed first by humans, but in nature itself.

The discovery of the gearbox follows the discovery of an internal motor, similar to an outboard on a boat, used by certain bacteria to propel themselves.

Scientists investigating the ‘design inference’ have noted on the bacterial motors that these molecular machines are appearing at sub-cellular levels as a product of DNA coding rather than sexual reproduction and natural selection. They also argue that the biological machines are “irreducibly” complex, meaning they give no advantage to the organism unless they are working from day one.

The odds against such complex machinery assembling itself on day one are said to be so huge that it gives rise to the question of whether they are evidence of intelligent design in nature.

In the present case, the gears are assembled on the legs."

https://investigatemagazine.co.nz/4267/insect-with-its-own-gearbox-more-proof-of-intelligent-design/

A Rational Argument For The Existence Of The Human Soul

"In this discussion, many modern scientific thinkers have taken position that consciousness is an illusory faculty created by our neuronal activity. According to this position, our subjective self-awareness is wholly imagined fantasy that has no objective existence:

“Despite our every instinct to the contrary, there is one thing that consciousness is not; some deep entity inside the brain that corresponds to the “self”, some kernel of awareness that runs the show ... after more than a century of looking for it brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain, and that it simply doesn’t exist.” (Journalist Michael Leminick, Time Magazine)

“We feel, most of the time, like we are riding around inside our bodies, as though we are an inner subject that can utilize the body as a kind of object. This last representation is an illusion ... “ (Atheist author Sam Harris)

“The intuitive feeling that we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in the control room of our brain ... is an illusion.” (Dr. Steven Pinker)

These thinkers all readily acknowledge that our actual experience of reality seems to fly in the face of their description of it — hence Professor Dennett’s “problem of consciousness.” One would think that in order to draw conclusions about the true nature of this problem they would rely on carefully researched evidence and hard facts before informing us that every experience that we have (or will ever have) — from love and morality to the appreciation of beauty and free will — are fictitious. Here are some examples of what the world of science does actually offer on this topic:

“Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious.” (Dr. Jerry Fodor, Professor of philosophy and cognitive science)

“The problem of consciousness tends to embarrass biologists. Taking it to be an aspect of living things, they feel they should know about it and be able to tell physicists about it, whereas they have nothing relevant to say.” (Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winning biologist)

“Science’s biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all.” (Dr. Nick Herbert, Physicist)

Based on these honest assessments of the state of scientific knowledge on this topic one might think that these thinkers — who have a priori drawn conclusions on a subject for which they seem to have little to no evidence — would speak in far more humble and guarded tones. No one seriously suggests that protons, quarks or chemical compounds possess innate awareness. Why then do they suggest that the products of these foundational materials will suddenly leap into self-cognizance? Is this a truly rational position to hold? Exactly how many electrons does it take for them to become “aware” of themselves? Cells do not wonder about themselves, molecules have no identity and a machine — no matter how sophisticated — is imbecilic (without its programmer).

If our decision-making faculty was indeed an illusion of the brain it should be impossible to physically affect the brain through our own willful decisions and yet research has demonstrated that the “I” can and does alter brain activity through the agency of free will as described by Canadian neuroscientist Dr. Mario Beauregard:

“Jeffrey Schwartz ... a UCLA neuropsychiatrist, treats obsessive-compulsive disorder — by getting patients to reprogram their brains. Evidence of the mind’s control over the brain is actually captured in these studies. There is such a thing as mind over matter. We do have will power, consciousness, and emotions, and combined with a sense of purpose and meaning, we can effect change.”

Why then should we not consider the possibility — the one that satisfies our deepest, most powerful and intuitive sense — that the “I” that we all experience is the human soul? And that the reason that science has not discovered its whereabouts is not that it doesn’t exist, but rather that it is not part of physical reality as we know it and as such is undetectable and unmeasurable by material means. It is certainly understandable that for those who believe that material reality is the only reality this would be an unwelcome notion. Nonetheless, I submit that in absence of any compelling alternative and with the obviousness of the reality of our self-awareness so manifestly apparent — it is the rational conclusion to draw."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rational-argument-human-soul_b_920558

Titus 2:13, The Granville Sharp Rule, And Evidence For Jesus Christ's Deity

In exploring the theological implications of the Granville Sharp Rule, we delve into the question of Jesus Christ's deity as supported by biblical grammar. The Granville Sharp Rule, named after the 18th-century grammarian, is a principle applied in Koine Greek that has significant implications for interpreting key New Testament passages.

The Granville Sharp Rule:

The Granville Sharp Rule can be summarized as follows: in native Greek constructions (i.e., not translations), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by "kai" (thus, article-substantive-kai-substantive), and both substantives are (1) singular, (2) personal, and (3) common nouns, they refer to the same entity. This rule is elucidated by Daniel B. Wallace, who states:

"In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kai (thus, article-substantive- kai-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent."

Examples In The New Testament:

Dr. James R. White provides similar clarifications of the Granville Sharp 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."

"Kenneth Wuest, in his Expanded Translation, highlights several New Testament examples that adhere to this rule. For instance, 2 Thessalonians 1:12 reads, “in accordance with the grace of our God, even the Lord Jesus Christ.” 

This construction supports the idea that "God" and "Jesus Christ" are referring to the same person.

Implications For Jesus' Deity:

In Titus 2:13, the terms "God" and "Savior" are both applied to Jesus Christ, as evidenced by the subsequent verse:

"who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds."

The Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Commentary provides further insight, explaining that there is one Greek article linking "God" and "Savior," indicating they refer to a single being, Jesus Christ:

"There is but one Greek article to “God” and “Savior,” which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being. “Of Him who is at once the great God and our Savior.” Also (2) “appearing” ({epiphaneia}) is never by Paul predicated of God the Father (John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16), or even of “His glory” (as Alford explains it): it is invariably applied to Christ‘s coming, to which) (at His first advent, compare 2 Timothy 1:10) the kindred verb “appeared” ({epephanee}), Titus 2:)11, refers (1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1, 2 Timothy 4:8). Also (3) in the context (Titus 2:14) there is no reference to the Father, but to Christ alone; and here there is no occasion for reference to the Father in the exigencies of the context. Also (4) the expression “great God,” as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as “the true God” is predicated of Christ, 1 John 5:20. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 7:21; Deuteronomy 10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making “the great God” to be the Father, “our Savior,” the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to “the glory” of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God."

The Granville Sharp Rule, when applied to New Testament Greek, provides compelling grammatical evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ. The cited examples and scholarly interpretations reinforce the understanding that Jesus is both God and Savior, a foundational tenet of Christian theology. This principle, deeply rooted in the language of the New Testament, underscores the profound connection between grammar and theology in biblical scholarship.