Greek Tenses and OSAS

err - umm - yes.

Does the text say "SINCE you are already saved you will of course naturally persevere firm until the end"??

OR DOES it say "IF INDEED you PERSEVERE FIRM until the end" DHK?

That seems to be the crux of proving your point above.

These texts do not describe a casual “drift into heaven”.

But rather a “pressing on” as in Phil 3 and a “buffeting” as in 1Cor 9.

Well what did you read there?

"Naturally there is no need to worry about persevering FIRM until the end because you just naturally will"???

OR

"Better be sure to PERSEVERE FIRM until the end because only THEY will inherit..."??

Which did you actually SEE vs which did you "wish to see"?

The details above are pretty obvious to the reader DHK (believe it or not)

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is your answer? "contrary to your assertion"? I gave you an absolute truth. Hey Jim, I know the earth is round but I choose not to believe it! True belief is knowing, Jim. Saying you don't "believe" that which you "know" is an oxymoran. If you stick to this assertion you will lose all credability in a debate.

"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity".(Matt 7:23)

Do you have any children Jim? If you answer yes or no, either way it is something you "know" is true. But you would have me to believe that you could choose not to believe that you have or have not children?

If one does have children, could one later claim that they "never knew" them?

You have some real problems with trying to explain away absolute truths.

Right here is where you hit the answer, Jim. "...the object of the genuine Christian’s faith is the Truth".

The Muslim would say the same, that the object of their faith is the Truth! The difference is you "know" the Truth through the personal experience of having Jesus Christ entering into you. The Muslim does not. You have become one with Christ. Your faith is not in a book or earthly teachers. Your faith is in a personal relationship with the very Jesus Christ you find written about in our bible. Your faith is based on "knowledge"=1. Clear perception of a truth, fact, or subject. 2. That which is known. 3. Information gained and preserved.

You cannot ever "stop believing". If you think the bible says you can, then you must change your thinking because you cannot change absolute truths! The only conclusion possible is that you have misunderstood the bible for the bible cannot contradict absolute truths.

The Koran tells the Muslim that He is not Lord. It is more than that, right Jim? You know Jesus is Lord because you have been born of God. You cannot, nor would ever try to, shake Christ loose from you, would you? You feel Him working in you ever day. Is it your book against the Muslim's book? You have more than a book as the object of your faith. You have Christ in you! You have first hand personal "knowledge".

1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


1Jo 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

And why do you believe it is the truth? Because you have been born of God. "He that is of God heareth God's words:" (Jo 8:47)

"knowing" = believing, faith, hope, perserverence. I have been tempted to stop believing many, many times over the years. It is the human sinful side of our nature. But the new spirit side, born of God, would not allow it. God is part of my being. He became one with me the day I called on Jesus Christ. I am no longer the Steve I was before that moment. I became a new creature that day. I became a child of God, born of God. I cannot stop believing I am Steve. Steve is one with Jesus Christ. I have been born a child of God and that cannot change, NOR would any child of God EVER want it to change. Sure I had many moments that I wished i were free from His power and convictions. He even let my free will go running off into a sinful lifestyle for about ten years. But He never left me and I never left Him because almost everday that I went about my sinning, Jesus kept saying... "stop it! What are you doing? You know it is wrong. You are destroying your life"... All of that sinning yet I still believed. Praise God for being a Perfect Father.

You are born of God. This means your spirit has become one with the Holy Spirit. A new creature has been born. This creature cannot ever change. no more than you could change your birth of the flesh. Jesus didn't choose the analogy of a birth just for fun. It has absolute and final implications!

It is not about "force". You are one with the Spirit. Your spirit wrestles with the sinful flesh but always agrees with the Holy Spirit and crys out to God always as Father.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.


Rom 8:10 And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.


Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.


Rom 8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.


Rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.


Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.


Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.


Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

I haven't suggested as you say. One can resist the convictions given by the Holy Spirit within. One cannot believe those convictions do not exist because obviously they are feeling them and "know" that they are real. It opens no such door for the born of God to stop believing who they know they are.

The Spirit does enable one to believe, but that is not what Jesus said in John 3:3-6. Jesus said you must be born from above. He used the unchangeable act of a birth to make His point that to enter heaven you must be born of God and just as Nicodemus pointed out..."How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"...Nicodemus understood once born of the flesh always born of the flesh. Now Jesus takes that into the spiritual. Once born of the Spirit, always born of the Spirit. It cannot change anymore than your pysical birth could.

Hey AMEN! But they didn't say that they believed the Spirit didn't exist! They simply resisted the Spirit.

Compulsive? No, but this isn't about the role of the Spirit. It is about whether or not you can choose to stop believing that which you know is an absolute truth through a first hand personal experience!

I know I am steaver, but I choose not to believe it! Silly isn't it?

God Bless!

 

Here is the problem Steaver --

#1. In my post above - I show the SAME "perseverance texts" that you claim to accept and that Lloyd denies. I SHOW that the IN THE LANGUAGE of the TEXT we do NOT see "naturally since you ARE saved you will never have to worry about persevering".

This critical point (your way vs the way we SEE IT in the texts I quote) is so incredibly obvious -- you have not tried to deny it.

#2. You have found a text that COULD be construed to take an "end view" (Those who DO ENDURE are the children of God) looking backwards. But that is NOT the same thing as "never mind the subject of endurance since you will just naturally endure if you are saved". And the list of texts MOTIVATING for endurance with the "BIG IF" clause are NOT of the form "IF you are saved THEN you will endure" -- rather they are aLL of the form "IF you endure FIRM until the end THEN you will ...".

This is devastating to your case.

But back to #2 -- simply finding a text that might help make your case - is good. But the TEST of any doctrinal point is ALWAYS THE BOUNDARY conditions.

I might say "Christ is really powerful as the SON and great - but he is not God". And though I might find many texts showing Him to be THE SON and powerful - -but as SOON as I find even ONE saying "AND the Word WAS GOD" -- that whole doctrinal POV crumbles!

It is the BOUNDARY tests that test any doctrinal POV - so your finding a rare snippet that might be construed to offer some glimmer of hope to your POV - does not solve your problem.

You must win in the BOUNDARY conditions. And in this case the BOUNDARY tests for OSAS are myriad!

#3. A clear example of a direct confronting boundary for OSAS is MAtt 18 AND Romans 11.

(And Heb 6, and Gal 5).

In those cases we SEE something take place that is never supposed to happen or a warning given about something that is not supposed to exist given the OSAS POV.

As has been shown repeatedly - these texts totally debunk OSAS.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi steaver,


steaver:

"And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity".(Matt 7:23) Do you have any children Jim? If you answer yes or no, either way it is something you "know" is true. But you would have me to believe that you could choose not to believe that you have or have not children? If one does have children, could one later claim that they "never knew" them? You have some real problems with trying to explain away absolute truths.


Jesus:

(ASV) Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Jim:

I don’t know what your point is here. This does not prove your position that a believer cannot stop believing. The fact that these particular people were never saved but only pretended to be saved does not indicate that saved people cannot walk away from their salvation.


steaver:

Saying you don't "believe" that which you "know" is an oxymoron.


Jim:

To know what cannot be proven is to believe it so strongly that one can say that one knows it. If one’s belief weakens to the point that one no longer believes it so strongly, then one can no longer say that one knows it. If one continues to weaken in one’s belief, then eventually one can come to the place where one no longer believes it at all.


Peter:

(ASV) 2 Peter 1:9 For he that lacketh these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins. 10 Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure ...


Jim:

Does not the one who is saved “know” that he or she is cleansed from his or her old sins? Yet Peter says that this, once it is known, can subsequently be “forgotten.” This contradicts your theory that once a believer “knows” something, he or she forever “knows” it, much more than believes it.


Peter:

(ASV) 2 Peter 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the last state is become worse with them than the first. 21 For it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 It has happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog turning to his own vomit again, and the sow that had washed to wallowing in the mire.


Jim:

These people described by Peter once had a “knowledge” of the Lord, and they “have known” the way of righteousness, yet they have reverted to their previous state. This likewise contradicts your theory that once a believer “knows” something, he or she forever “knows” it.

Your theory rests on your personal definition of what it means to “know” something and on the limitations that you personally place on that definition. When I show you passages in the Bible that contradict your theory, you just ignore those passages and repeat your personal definition of what it means to “know” something, as if the only thing that matters is your definition. Well, I happen to think that what the Bible says has more weight than your definition does.


steaver:

The Muslim would say the same, that the object of their faith is the Truth! The difference is you "know" the Truth through the personal experience of having Jesus Christ entering into you. The Muslim does not.


Jim:

The Muslim who is willing to die for his belief believes so strongly that he can say that he knows, whereas some genuine Christians are not willing to suffer ridicule, much less death, for their belief. So how can you say that the genuine Christian’s “knowing” is stronger than the Muslim’s “knowing?” That’s what I mean when I say that actions speak louder than words. The fact that the object of the “knowing” is either true or untrue seems to be beside the point.


steaver:

I have been tempted to stop believing many, many times over the years.


Jim:

You haven’t crossed the line. Good for you! According to what I read in the Bible, some genuine believers do cross the line.


Jim (previous message):

If the influence of the Spirit were as irresistible as what you’ve suggested, then, given the fact that there is one Spirit and one Bible, all the numerous denominations, each of which interprets the Bible differently than the others do, could not have evolved.


steaver (in response):

One can resist the convictions given by the Holy Spirit within. One cannot believe those convictions do not exist because obviously they are feeling them and "know" that they are real. It opens no such door for the born of God to stop believing who they KNOW they are.


Jim (this message):

You’re sidestepping the point here. If the same Spirit teaches everyone the same thing, giving everyone the opportunity to believe and know the same thing, yet we end up with a dozen or more different groups, each group believing and knowing something different than what the other groups believe and know, then what the Spirit teaches everyone to believe and know can obviously be resisted and rejected.


steaver:

He used the unchangeable act of a birth to make His point that to enter heaven you must be born of God ... Once born of the Spirit, always born of the Spirit. It cannot change anymore than your physical birth could.


Jim:

Physical birth results in physical life, which comes to an end when one physically dies. Spiritual birth results in spiritual life, which, for most believers, never comes to an end. However, if one stops believing, then one spiritually dies.


Jim

 

Lloyd,

This is the 2nd thread in which I've had to say, "Amen!"

Incidentally, referring to recent posts by others, I do not like the expression "perseverance of the saints" since it places the security and focus on the believer instead of God. I use "the preservation of the saints." IMO it has nothing to do with our perseverance, but with God's faithfulness and the absolute nature of Christ's death in our behalf which covered all sin.

BD

BD

 

Lloyd,

Excellent! I've had to explain about the misunderstanding based on simplistic, 1st year Greek understanding of the Greek present tense before. Perhaps I'll add my comments in this area later... but I am waiting for a mod to respond to a need I have regarding my profile before I become actively involved.

BD

 

Most 4 point Calvinist remove the "perseverance" term found so often in God's Word AND in the TULIP acronym - and substitute PRESERVATION in its place.

It is a Bible-denying position on the Bible doctrine of "persevering FIRM UNTIL the END" -- but it is probably the BEST way to defend OSAS AND hold to assurance at the same time. (if not the ONLY way). I have said that repeatedly on the Calvinist vs Arminian board.

The Bible obviously debunks the error that would substitute PRESERVATION in the place of "Perseverance" as we saw here

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3394/13.html#000182

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is true for all religious belief systems EXCEPT Biblical Christianity. You and I personally know Jesus Christ. It IS personally proven to each born again Christian because of a personal experience of having Jesus Christ joining Himself to us and creating the new creature within.

"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?"(2 Cor 13:5)

Christ in us is not merely a "strong feeling". It is absolute proof we are in the faith and belong to God..."prove your own selves".

It is not about proving it to another. It is proven to yourself as the scipture declares above. "Know ye not your own selves".

So we are not talking about "to know what cannot be proven". Let's stick to the fact that we have absolute knowledge of a Truth. It has been proven personally by Jesus Christ living within us. Therefore you cannot stop believing that which has already been established through first hand personal experience as being an absolute truth. You must take "stop believing" off the table when it comes to a born again Christian. It is an impossible thing!

Verse 9 is a conditional sentence corresponding to the one in verse 8; they are positive and negative reinforcements of the importance of the seven indispensable qualities of the Christian life listed in verses 5-7. The protasis here establishes that the person does not possess these qualities; the apodosis is a metaphor: he is blind. The two circumstantial participles explian first the meaning of the metaphor ( cannot see afar , Gr myopazo, from which we get "myopia"), and then the application of the metaphor: he has spiritual myopia. He never got close enough to Christianity to focus on the fact that he needed to be cleansed from his sins! It should be obvious that the object of the forgetting here is not that he was purged , since he had never been cleansed in the first place. What escaped him was "the cleansing"; he never saw that his sins had to be cleansed or washed away before he could live the Christian life.
In verse 10, Peter urges his readers to confirm calling and election , not memory. It does not seem likely that a person could forget it if his sins had been washed away by the atoning death of Christ, but the whole matter could escape his notice if he were not urged to make sure about it. We cannot be sure of calling and election if we have not been purged (vs 9) from our former sin. On the other hand, if these are confirmed by the fact that we have been cleansed from our old sins, it is certain that we shall never fall (Greek subjunctive of emphatic future negation)!

Benjamin C. Chapman, Ph.D. Former Professor of Religion, Liberty University B.R.E., Grand Rapids Baptist College; B.D., M.R.E., Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary; Th.M., Calvin Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Bob Jones University. Additional graduate study at the University of Michigan and the Universty of Manitoba (Canada).

I must go for now. i will address your other comments when time permits. Sorry I have been away for a couple of days. I have some deadlines that are consuming all of my days. As you can see, and this will play out for every passage you think supports your theory, there are very plausible interpretations for those seemingly difficult passages. Once born again is understood and settled, all of these passages that make you doubt will fall right into place. With OSAS all of the bible blends nicely together. It all compliments itself. But otherwise, it appears that the bible is in constant contradiction. I don't know why folks don't see the damage they do to the blood of Christ by teaching that it does not save to the uttermost!

God Bless!

 

Bob, do not think that the above URL, relating to a conversation between you or I debunks anything. Just because I refrained from answering your lengthy post does not mean you have proved anything. In many of your "answers" you failed to give the references of the verses you were quoting. I have taken the time to refute your positon elsewhere on another thread which up to the time of this posting has gone unanswered.
Check here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384/12.html
DHK

 

Quoting Bob Ryan, 25 Sept, "Does the text say "SINCE you are already saved you will of course naturally persevere firm until the end"??

OR DOES it say "IF INDEED you PERSEVERE FIRM until the end" DHK?

That seems to be the crux of proving your point above."


There are MANY 'IF'-texts, and they ALL presuppose "if INDEED" - like in Jn.3:16, "whosover believeth" = "if INDEED a man believeth", and that again, considers fact as basis, fact and truth, of what God had already DONE. So what remains or follows is for sure and just as assured, "If a men believeth / whosoever believeth in Him, shall not perish"; "IF INDEED you PERSEVERE FIRM until the end" it is assured you shall, it being based upon God's assurance.

But, as on any other topic, Bob Ryan has been blinded by error for most of if not all his life, he can't help.

 

This is a neat thread. I have heard people, on occasion, say that since the tense of the verb PISTEUW ("believe") used in John is present tense, in general, that it is referring to one who continues to believe throughout his life. They base this upon a basic misunderstanding of the aspect of the present tense in Greek.

In general the type of action (in the indicative mood) is referring to the type of action at the time of occurrence. Hence...
Present tense refers, in general, to action which is linear in the present; the imperfect tense refers to linear action in the past, and future tense refers to linear action in the future. Of course, this only refers to the indicative mood. In the other moods, the time of action is not relevant at all.

There is only one type of present tense in Greek, while there're many past tenses - aorist, imperfect, perfect. Present, imperfect and future tenses in Greek are what is referred to not as "continuous" but "linear." IOW, it reflects, in general, action which is ongoing at the time of occurrence. The other type of aspect, in general, is puntiliar or "point-in-time" kind of action. Aorist is punctiliar. Present tense is linear.

In Greek the time of the action is only a factor with what is referred to as the indicative mood - which is the normal mood. (There's also imperative [commands], subjunctive [expresses potential] and optative [rare - subjectively possible] moods.) Now, in other than indicative mood, it is true that present tense is always linear in aspect (kind of action). But in the indicative mood, context is critical to determine the aspect. The claim that the present tense in koine Greek is always an expression of continual action in the present is just not accurate and much too simplistic, as Lloyd has pointed out..

The present tense CAN indicate linear action in Greek. But even common sense tells us that it does not always do so. There is only one present tense in Greek, compared to several past tenses. If this claim were true, how would it be possible to indicate a point-in-time type of action in the present? It would not be possible. Also, similarly the future tense behaves similar to the present tense in terms of being in general linear in other than the indicative mood, so how could we indicate point-in-time kind of action that occurs in the future, such as the future coming of Christ? It would not be possible to do so.

I heard this claim a couple of years ago and did some research on it. In the indicative mood, aorist indicates simple action, generally punctiliar (point-in-time), while present tense indicates either punctiliar or linear action. It's also easy to confuse "continuous" and "linear." And they are most definitely not the same thing.

You see, by "continuous" grammarians mean the "gnomic" or "habitual" present type of a tense. Present tense aspect is NOT, in general, continuous, but linear, and not even always linear, in the indicative mood. In some cases (with the present tense) the present tense not only expresses action of a linear nature, but one that is continuing - the "habitual" present. But such categorizing is not grammatically determined, but contextually based. For example, a simple present tense in 1 John 3:8 or 9 is translated by the KJV, HCSB and others as as "everyone who has been born of God does not sin..." - a simple present tense. But the NIV translates it something like "everyone who has been born of God does not continue to sin..." The NIV has determined that this passage is a habitual present tense. (I don't agree, BTW.) The habitual present tense category is very rare, and there must be a basis from the context for selecting it. The KJV and HCSB have translated it with a linear aspect, but not with a continual idea.

The tense of the Greek verb (PISTEUW) for "believe" in Jn 1:12 is a present tense articular participle, so some have assumed in commentaries that this faith must be continuous IOT realize the promise of eternal life. However, this does not make sense logically, since the giving of this eternal and new life is aorist and takes place the moment the faith occurs. The giving is conditioned upon the believing. So if believe meant continuous faith, then the giving could not take place until death. And then we would be forced to conclude that eternal life could not be a present possession in this life since you would have to wait until death to get it. But this is obviously not the case as John 5:24 and 6:47 show. There we see that eternal life once faith occurs is a present possession. But there is also a large grammatical problem here as well. You see, "receive" is in the aorist tense and surrounded by aorist verbs denoting punctiliar action. (ELABON - aorist active indicative 3P/plural - from LAMBANO) Although believe is in the present tense (a participle), it cannot denote continuous action since it is equated with the aoristic verb "received."

But there's more in this verse to indicate point-in-time action. The word typically translated "become" in this verse is an aorist infinitive (GENESTHAI) and so it too is punctiliar and cannot mean that at some later time those who received Him would become God's children if they continue to believe. It's past tense, point-in-time action. And this aorist infinitive expresses action that is simultaneous with that of the two preceding finite aorists ELABON ("received") and EDOKEN ("gave"). IOW, the moment of someone accepting/receiving Christ, that, too, is the moment of becoming a child of God. The fact that receiving Christ means receiving him by faith is clear from vs. 7 where we read, "...so that all might believe through Him."

Now aorist infinitives strongly point to punctiliar (point-in-time) action taking place. How about John 3:16? Notice that "should not perish" is in the aorist tense providing a completed state of never perishing at the moment one becomes "a believer." A completed action of never perishing cannot be affected by whether or not the believing continues on after that. Otherwise, the lexical meaning of the words make no sense. Furthermore, a completed action of never perishing is another way of saying that the person is in a state of possessing eternal life which is what immediately follows in parallel in John 3:16 after the connective word, "but" (ALLA - strong "but"). "...whoever believes in Him should not perish BUT have eternal life". The two are clearly tied together. "Should not perish" is contrasted with "have eternal life."

So then, how could a continuous state of believing be necessary if a completed action of the aorist tense of "never perishing" results the moment one becomes a believer? It cannot be. The context here is clear, IMO. You see, in John’s gospel, the present participle with the definite article in front of it is often used to identify "the one who believes" (or, "he who believes"). The use of the present tense does not imply that the action involved cannot stop. On the contrary, the present participle is often used of actions that have stopped. In fact, an articular participle is essentially a constantive. IOW, it is behaving much like a noun... "the one who believes." It is not striving to describe the kind of action - believe, but the person doing the action - the one who believes. Hence we should be very cautious of drawing conclusions about the kind of action involved.

Thx,

BD

 

Refer Bad Dog, Sept 28 - too lengthy to quote.

Yes! But ever considered the Aorist with Future meaning? Your referring to the word "receive" - there's a case in point! Am I wrong?
Eager to read your answer!

 

Gerhard,

It's also referred to as aorist proleptic. As I understand the use of the aorist tense as future perfects, in general aorist indicative verbs do not refer to a point after the deictic point in temporal statements. Such aorists refer to a point, time, or distance prior to that time. Aorists are very rarely used as future perfects, and some argue against even the actual existence of such a thing. Can you find an example outside of Revelation 10:7, Mark 11:24, John 13:31 and Romans 8:30? In Jude 1:14 there is no dependent clause to establish a new deictic point, so though some argue for it, it's probably not valid.

For others, Gerhard is referring to the fact that the aorist tense can be used to describe an event not yet past as though it were already completed.

Bottom line, it's quite rare. I believe that you see John 1:12, 13 as such an instance. I don't buy it though, because the deictic context has to be clear. Also, since general the aorist is antecedent to the aorist time with the proleptic aorist, and rarely futuristic, to be futuristic there would have to be strong contextual evidence. Gerhard is arguing that (I believe he is) it was apparently done so as to express the certainty of a future event. I believe Gerhard is saying that John is doing this in John 1:12, 13 - expressing the future promises as if already received to make their certainty more clear.

(To others, what we're talking about here is that the time frame intended in a statement could be determined based on who said or did what when and hence be different than what one would naturally first assume.) But in John 1:12, 13 we have a strong aorist context, and only "believe" in present. And it's an articular participle as well. Zane Hodges has argued that articular present participles generally refer to completed action.

For John 1:12, 13 to fit the future-aorist framework, that would mean that none of us were really regenerated when we believed, but this is a futuristic promise, not yet realized by any of us. I think this would be hard to support and a stretch.

Bottom line, the present tense in general does double duty - as a punctiliar and a linear aspect. And it is commonly used with a punctiliar aspect sense (point-in-time). It makes no sense to be linear (or at least, "continuous") in John 1:12, 13, because the believer could not have realized any of the promises here in those verses if this were true.

Perhaps I'm understanding what you're saying - if I did I apologize.

In John 1:12 the giving is conditioned upon the believing, and the giving is an aorist tense. And don't forget about those aorist infinitives which strongly point to punctiliar action taking place.

And what about the verb translated "believe" in v. 7? What tense is it? Aorist. And not just indicative aorist, it is an aorist subjunctive which ALWAYS specifies punctiliar ("point-in-time") action. (In the indicative mood, the aorist tense is fairly "simple," not necessarily saying a whole lot about the action except that something happened - in a punctiliar fashion.) But in other than indicative the focus is no longer on the time of the action, but on the kind of action in Greek - so it's point-in-time kind of action is being emphasized. An aorist subjunctyive is always clearly defined as punctiliar kind of action. (Referring to John the Baptizer... "He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that all might believe through him.")

So then, one act of faith, punctiliar ("point-in-time") action, was required for faith to be saving. Continuous faith is not required. The action spoken of here is clearly point-in-time kind of action.

ALso, consider John 5:24 and 6:47 - there we see that eternal life is a present possession. ("He who hears My words and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life. He shall not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.")

Now if Jesus guaranteed that we would not come into judgment but have passed over from death into life, how can that be conditioned on anything that occurs after our faith in Christ at a point-in-time?

Yesterday I refereed to the present articular participle as often referring to completed action, rather than linear action. For example - John 9:8 (Usually translated as, "Is this the man who sat and begged?") - has two present participles there. Was that blind man still sitting and still begging? Of course not.

Also, in Acts 16:31 when Paul said to the Philippian jailor that he should "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved..." the form of the verb PISTEUO there ("believe") is aorist.

Thx,

BD

[ September 29, 2005, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: BadDog ]

 

Think about it. John 3:16 is the most popular verse to use in sharing the gospel. But look at it in context. (3:14-17) The illustration is used of the OT story where people were being bitten and dying because of their sin. God had Moses erect a tall pole with a brass snake on it. Then when someone was bitten he need only go to that pole and look upon the snake and he was "saved."

Did that snake-bitten person in the OT need to continually look up at that serpent IOT be saved from death? No - clearly he need only look once. Similarly, when we believe in Jesus Christ at a point in time we gain eternal life. The illustration makes it clear how the present tense is to be understood there. We must be careful that we do not say that eternal faith gives us salvation, but that faith gives us eternal salvation.

Consider the thesis statement of John in 20:30, 31 which tells us why this whole Gospel was written. It says, "These have been written that you may believe (aorist tense: past tense - punctiliar - point-in-time believe) that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

As I pointed out briefly in an earlier post, what about Acts 16:31 ("Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved"), where the tense there is aorist, which has a punctiliar (point-in-time) aspect? There clearly only a point-in-time kind of action can be indicated.

But with the present tense, the tense itself does not tell us whether the action is a one-time or a continuing event in the indicative mood. Zane Hodges in his book, Absolutely Free, pp. 211, 212 points out for example that in John 6 the author uses several Greek tenses to describe the same single event - the coming of the Lord from heaven to earth. He gives as examples:

In addition to Hodges' comment regarding Robertson, I searched it and found that Robertson on pp. 864-865 has lots of comments regarding the present tense and there he comments,

So as is so often true in Greek, as in English, it is the context of a statement that is critical. What determines whether the action should be viewed as a point-in-time act or as a continuing one is not the subtle distinctives of the tense of a verb or participle. If you just consider the John 3:16 context as well as various other contexts in John, the meaning is clear - and it is most definitely not continuous.

I mentioned earlier the context of John 3:16, John 3:14-17, where the snake on a pole is used to illustrate Christ's death as the means of our salvation. Clearly this indicates that if one just looks once he is saved forever from the effects of the poison of the snake. Jesus used that to illustrate the cross and John 3:16.

Obviously Jesus was not referring to the continuance of the believing, but that the person just needs to believe - just as that Israelite just needed to look - once. So the analogy that Jesus used (or some say - John is commenting here) makes it clear that a single-moment of believe was the intention. Context makes this clear.

Now that we've dealt with what is often referred to as the "tensual fallacy," let's look at other passages that indicate that point-in-time belief is what is required for eternal life:

Mk 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

"believes" = hO PISTEUSAS - "the one believing" - a nominative sing., masc. aorist active participle. "but whoever does not believe" = hO DE APISTESAS - a nominative sing., masc. aor. active participle (Note: the aorist tense indicates a point-in-time moment of faith in order to be saved.) But these are articular participles, indicating use more as a noun.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

"Whoever believes" = hO PISTEUON, and "But whoever does not believe" = hO DE ME PISTEUON are both - nominative sing. masc. present. active participles.

But, "because he has not believed" = hOTI ME PEPISTEUKEN - perfect tense, active, indicative, 3rd, sing. participle. Now the perfect tense signifies a completed action moment of faith (point-in-time) with an existing state of ongoing results in the present. And this is the requirement to avoid being condemned. Thus the present participle, "whoever believes" is paralleled with the perfect tense "because he has not believed," indicating that only a moment of faith is what's required IOT gain eternal life.

Acts 16:29-31 "The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." I dealt with this before, so I'll stop there.

Well, enough for now. I appreciate your patience. The reason I posted on this is because I've grown tired of hearing arguments that the tense used for believe in John is present, so hence a continual believing was intended. I hope I've given some evidence that this was not what John intended.

Thx,

BD

 

On the contrary the LINK SHOWS 1 Cor 9 debunking those who deny the Bible teaching on Perseverance.

The LINK above SHOWS Matt 13 debunking those who deny the Bible teaching on Perseverance.


The LINK above SHOWS Mark 14 and Matt 10 debunking those who deny the Bible teaching on Perseverance.

The LINK above SHOWS Gal 6 and Col 1 debunking those who deny the Bible teaching on Perseverance.

The fact that these UNANSWERED Bible points REMAIN UNANSWERED is not an argument in favor of the debunked view that denies perseverance!

The failure to reply is NOT a form of "success".

It merely SHOWS that the devastating case made FROM scripture as pointed out above is beyond dispute!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi DHK -

By contrast to that link of MINE that SHOWS Text after text debunking those who would deny the Bible doctrine on perseverance (A dcotring that Armainains AND 3 and 5 point Calvinists ALL GET)

A link that points to the texts listed above!
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3394/13.html#000182


The LINK above SHOWS Matt 13 debunking those who deny the Bible teaching on Perseverance.

The LINK above SHOWS Mark 14 and Matt 10 debunking those who deny the Bible teaching on Perseverance.

The LINK above SHOWS Gal 6 and Col 1 debunking those who deny the Bible teaching on Perseverance.



You point to a link as your "ultimate response" to those texts of scripture that says
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384/12.html

Your link above was Short and sweet DHK.

It is filled with all the evidence in your favor on this one. In fact I would say it is "exhaustively" giving the evidence in your favor that debunks the scriptures pointed out above.

Contrasting the text references given "to the point" of the actual discussion here -- vs the link you give in resonse - is left as an exercise for the reader.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bad Dog,
In agreement with what you have explained,
"constative Aorist" - simply stating something as fact of past event: "It was day ..."; and
"ingressive Aorist" stating completed change (in)to something, "It was day = it had become day". From the nature of each case it can only be 'Past Tense'.

 

That post was devoid of even one exegetical review of the texts of scripture debunking OSAS and those that deny the Bible teaching on Perseverence.

Here THE TEXTS are "again".

Is there anyone who will respond to God's Word - "yet"?
A link that points to the texts listed above!
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3394/13.html#000182


The LINK above SHOWS Matt 13 debunking those who deny the Bible teaching on Perseverance.

The LINK above SHOWS Mark 14 and Matt 10 debunking those who deny the Bible teaching on Perseverance.

The LINK above SHOWS Gal 6 and Col 1 debunking those who deny the Bible teaching on Perseverance.


Surely OSAS has at least one in its camp that does not fear the actual text of scripture and might bring themselves to actually quote it and SHOW a defense for OSAS.

One?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Simple Question for Calvinists and OSAS promoters – who is the “WE” and the “US” in the following text?

What is the meaning of “He Also will deny US”?