An Interesting Post Against Eternal Security

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Craig.
Would you say that the verbs in Romans 8:29-30 are aorist past-perfect tense?

Romans 8:29. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30. and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Romans 8:29. Hoti hous proegno, kai proorisen summorfous tes eikonos tou Huiou autou, eis to einai auton prototokon en pollois adelfois,
30. hous de proorisen, toutous kai ekalesen, kai hous ekalesen, toutous kai edikaiosen, hous de edikaiosen, toutous kai edoxasen.

Verse 29
Proegno = aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice

Proorisen = aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice

Einai = infinitive, present tense, active voice, accusative case

Verse 30
Proorisen = aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice

Ekalesen = aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice

Ekalesen = aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice

Edikaiosen = aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice

Edikaiosen = aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice


You asked, “Would you say that the verbs in Romans 8:29-30 are aorist past-perfect tense?” The answer, as evidenced above, is that there are NO verbs in Rom. 8:29-30 that are in the aorist past-perfect tense. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as the aorist past-perfect tense.

Craig.

Corey Keating writes:

Future Perfect Tense
There is also a future perfect tense in Greek which is very rare in the New Testament. It is only formed by periphrasis in the New Testament is much like the past perfect, only the completed state will exist at some time in the future rather than in the past.[/b]

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm
I would also say that this Greek scholar is in disagreement with you Craig:

Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist

The aorist indicative can be used to describe an event that is not yet past as though it were already completed in order to stress the certainty of the event.

Rom 8:30 whom he justified, these he also glorified.

http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gtense.html

(Yes Craig, that's the actual verse that he gives as an example of an emphatic use of the proleptic aorist verb; which you failed to mention BTW).

Why would Paul make such a claim that God has already done for the believer everything from salvation to reward in Heaven if he wasn't being emphatic?

There is HUGE difference between a tense being emphatic, and the writer using the tense being emphatic. Indeed, from your use of the word, it appears to me that you do not know what the word means. And look again at the tenses of the verbs in these two verses—expect for the infinitive, which is a verbal noun, ALL of the verbs are aorist indicative verbs, signifying past action with no link to the present or the future. Paul makes NO promises here to anyone. He is simply stating as a matter of fact what God has done in the past, and he is doing so in order that the Christians in Rome might be encouraged by God’s PAST actions.

[/QB]</font>

Craig.
Let's check the context of Romans 8:28-30 shall we?

In verse 28 Paul uses the term 'them' to describe Christians. But in the next verse he uses the term 'whom' (singular). If this verse is really only about a past work of God, then who is this one person that got to Heaven that Paul is referring to?

Or could it be that Paul really wrote about every individual Christian as virtually every Biblical scholar would attest?

I am sorry though that you can't come up with a single promise from God that you can hang your hat on. That's quite sad really.

And BTW, how is your endurance work coming along?

Eph. 6:17

 

[GeneMBridges]

I would also point out that if we are as free to reject Christ after we are saved as we are before him, then logically we are still able to fall from grace after we get to heaven?

Of course the notion of symmetrical belief/unbelief is pure speculation...

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Since when can a child tell his biological father the man is no longer his father (in the sense, it is the father's seed that caused the child's existance). Their fellowship may be broken and the child not act like the father's child. But when the DNA is examined, the relationship is proven.

 

[dianetavegia]

Excellent analogy Squire!

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Recently, you discuss about Father & son.

I suggest you, read Luke 15:11-32 talk about the prodigal son. At the first place, son was with his father, also, he was WITH his father. But, a son wants to leave his father, in his own freewill decision. Father does not make his son to staying with him. Father allows his son go. Father cannot force his son to stay. Father does really love his son so much. But, he cannot force his son to stay. Father allows his son leaves in his desire. Obivously, Luke 15:11-32 telling us, everyone of us have our freewill decision. God does not make us as robot or puppet.

Son decides want to leave his father, as he turns away from his father in the far journey. While the son is in the far journey, his life becomes misery, and dark like as he is in the world - sinful. Son realized, that he is lost, and very misery. So, he decided to repent os his ways, and turn back to his father. He give up his own ways of sin. He returns back to his father.

Father still love his son so much, he is not angry with his son, because he is long-suffering toward his son, await for his son come to repentance(2 Peter 3:9).

It tells us, when Father sees his son walking toward his house, what he is doing? Does it saying, that Father tells his son, 'Go away!'? No. it does not saying. It tells us, when Father sees his son walking toward father's house, he run right away immediately toward his son, and huge his son. Same with Jesus Christ, He still love us so much while anyone is backslidding.

Son tells his father, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am NO MORE worthy to be called thy son."- Luke 15:21 It tells us, a son realizes, that he sinned against his father, and he knows, that he is not worthy to be called son of father.

Father forgives his son's sin.

Son's brother returns back to home, and he puzzles, notice his house is full of celebration and party. So, brother asks the servant, what's going on. The servant tells him, his brother is return home, and father prepares meat and celebrate for his brother. Brother becomes angry. I believe Christ's purpose of the lesson teaches us about two brothers. One brother remain stay with his father, other brother running away, brother who staying with his father, he working so hard, and he thinks his brother does not desrve it to do for his father - nothing, make him feel less and unworthy. It shows us, that brother is jealous of his brother return back and celebrates on his bother, make him feel not important.

Father hears of his other older son becomes very upset about his young son. So, he called his two sons together. Father tells his older son, and saying, "Son, thou art ever with me, all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother WAS dead, and is alive AGAIN; and WAS [/B]lost[/B], and is FOUND." - Luke 15:31-32

Christ tells us, a son was 'alive' at the first place, while he was with his father, then son decides to leave his father, in his own freewill decision, then son become lost again. So, son have to repent of his sins toward his father, and he become 'alive' again. It speak of spiritual life.

What IF.... suppose, the son remain stay in the dark and lost, not decide return back to his father, what will happen to him? He will remain always lost and dead - spiritual death. Also, in other word, what IF... the son never turn back to his father, and remain lost all the way to his death(physical), what will happen to him? He shall always remain spiritual death - lost in hell without have repentance.

Luke 15:11-32 teaching us very clear talk about conditional.

Also, it teaches us, Christ never leave us, He always with us all the times. BUT, we easily can leave Christ in our freewill decision by being rebel against Christ, and also backslidding again. Do not blame on Christ for to cause any person to become lost again. That is person's responsiblity for making decision by freewill choice.

Often, I hear osas argue, impossible for a person to become unborn again.

My understand of John 3:3, 7 speak of, 'ye must be born again', it speaks of repent of sins.

In the first place, we born with spiritual death comes from Adam - Romans 5:12. So, we must be born again - repent of our sins to Christ, then we become alive again. Can we become dead again? Yes, if we make our choice for turn away with rebel, and disobey against Christ.

I believe Luke 15:11-32 teaches us, we can become spiritual death if we turn away from the Lord. Clearly, it teaches us of conditional salvation.

Do you agree with Luke 15:11-32, what Jesus Christ saying?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[GeneMBridges]

Deaf PostTrib,

I agree with Jesus Christ saying in Luke 15:11 - 32. But not sure that what he was saying about conditional to us today, because of persons He was speaking to in that day.

Read Scriptures around story about prodigal son. We must be very careful about concluding things from parables. This is story told to draw pictures about something important to events around Jesus Christ when He tell the story. Jesus Christ here speaking to Pharisees. Others Jesus Christ speaks here are story of lost sheep and story of lost coin.

Jesus started saying these because He was with sinners and tax collectors and Pharisees came and said to "This man receives sinners and tax collectors and eats with them!" They looking down their noses at Jesus and at sinners and tax collectors. Pharisees here saying they are better than these others. They say, "We are God's favorites. These others are not worthy of God's kingdom." That was always what Pharisees did.

Jesus hears them grumbling and tells stories against Pharisees. He is saying that sinners are like the one lost sheep that God loves so much that he sends Jesus to to save. Jesus Christ also saying that we sinners are like one lost coin that is so important to God that He sent Jesus to find for Him and bring back safe. Jesus came to save sinners not righteous people. Point is that we are all sinners and all need Jesus. But Pharisees like the older brother of prodigal son. They complain that they are God's favorites. They do not see how God can love sinners.

The point of the story is not to tell us we can become spiritual death if we turn away from the Lord. That is too much to read into the story, I think, because the point is not about the son that came back home. The son came home. He was welcome by his father. The point is that the older brother was upset and angry with his father, but his father, like you said, was glad. Jesus is rebuking here the Pharisees way of looking down on sinners and tax collectors. He is contradicting the words of the Pharisees and the way they think God plays favorites and thinks better of them because of the way they keep the Law. Pharisees think they are not sinners at all. I think story is more about how God loves everybody and we are not to exclude others from gospel like Pharisees by looking down on them and thinking that they can not be saved like us. Too many of us think we are better than other people who sin. "They can't be saved."

Back when Luke wrote this, many then still make division between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. Many even say, you must obey Law like Jews before you can become saved. Also Jews as people think that Gentiles were not loved by God. This parable apply to that situation too.

If story meant to teach conditional, then it teaches persons lose life in Jesus Christ can reclaim life and come back. Most people teach conditional do not teach that is true. If conditional is point here, to me, most sense is made by story if prodigal son is son that leaves father and does not ever come back. The problem I have with teaching conditional here mainly is contradiction with teaching that if we let go of Jesus Christ and lose forever life, we can not ever come back to Jesus Christ that so many conditional teacher teach. They turn Bible to Hebrews 6:6 and say it is impossible to renew to repentance.

I do not think point of parable is to teach us conditional here. I do not hide, I not believe in conditional, but I think that if God do teach us this in Bible, it is not here, because of the other stories around it that Jesus is telling and all of them about the same thing to rebuke Pharisees.

One more thing ...DeafPostTrib...I am hearing person, but one time many years ago, I worked at TDD service for National AIDS Hotline and learn how to write similar to signed English. Even though I am hearing, I am glad you are here at BaptistBoard, because I always feel like part of deaf family even now after I have left TDD service many years ago. I am sorry I have not said hello to you before now.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

You say,

But not sure that what he was saying about conditional to us today, because of persons He was speaking to in that day

In that day???

No. Christ is not about about the true story what it already took - history. This passage, Christ gives us the illustration for apply to us as individuals, not just during Jesus' day, also, apply to all Christians throughout all ages.

Luke 15:11-32 is very clear teaching us of conditional warnings always apply to us as every individuals throughout all centuries.

Also, the three passages of Luke chapter 15 - lost sheep, lost coin, and prodigal son, all of these always apply to us of every individuals throughout all centuries.

Jesus use 'he' of Luke 15:5 is apply to leaders as pastors, but not just for pastors only, also apply to us. That we are responsible to deliver person from being destruction according to Ezekiel 33:8,9; and James 5:19-20 too.

Christ teaches us, that pastors are responsible to feed their flock, and protect them, make sure, none of them lost. The fact of today's showing us, many pastors failed to care their flock, they allow their flock astray away because of lack of discipleship, and encourage too. Not only for pastors, also, we are responsiblity to discipleship people to growing in the Lord. But, many of us failed them, we allow thousands or millions are on the way to hell according to Ezekiel 33:6,8-9.

The parable of a lost coin - Luke 15:8-10 teaching us, woman have a compassion over a coin, same we should be compassion over souls. Woman already own all ten pieces of silver in the place. (I added more clear illustration of this woman)One day, a woman decides go for shopping, so, she going to take ten pieces of silver with her, in the first place, she actually counted all of them exactly. While she is about to leave for shopping, she going to take all coins with her, she counting them to make sure, not miss one coin. While she counting them, she realizes, this is a missing coin with only 9 coins. She have to looking down for to find the coin. Same with us, we are responsiblity to make sure not miss a soul, also, it apply to pastors, they are responsiblity for not miss a memberof pastor's church.

Luke 15:7, 10 tell us, when find a person, then be joy over one person than many persons already repentance.

Christ uses sheep as illustration for farmer or shepherd to care sheep in the fence. Shepherd who already own all sheep in the fence, as he already counted them all at the first place. When one day, in the morning, the shepheard opens the gate of the fence, let all sheep going out of the fence into the field for the daytime. Then, later in the evening, time for the shepheard to gathering all sheep together and bring them into the gate, the shepheard counting them, to make sure, not miss ONE sheep. When, after he counting them, then he realizes, there is a missing sheep. He is so very concerning about a missing sheep.

In other way of illustration on Luke 15:4-7 comparing with parent who are worrying over their missing child. Today, we often hear, and see many posts of missing people at the stores. Same as parent calling Police, neighbors, relatives, telling them, that they worry about their missing child. So, Police, neighbors, relatives are helping parents to looking a missing child. When, either Police or neighhbor find a missing child, then they become rejoice, and bring a missing child return to parent's house, then parents become very happy, so, parents calling their neighbors, relatives telling them the GOOD NEWS of their child is found, as all of them are rejoice together. same with Luke 15:7,10 telling us, we should be rejoice over ONE person which was astray and back back (repentance) over all people need no repentance(they are remain just).

The fact telling us, many churches are failed to discipleship people, we allow people are on the way to hell because of lack on discipleship, Easy Believism, also security salvation too.

Obivously, the whole context of Luke chapter 15 telling us of conditional salvation.

That chapter 15 is always apply to us throughout all ages, that we are responsiblity to care souls, not allow them on the way to their destruction.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Craigbythesea]

You asked, “Would you say that the verbs in Romans 8:29-30 are aorist past-perfect tense?” The answer, as evidenced above, is that there are NO verbs in Rom. 8:29-30 that are in the aorist past-perfect tense. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as the aorist past-perfect tense.
quote:



Craig.

Corey Keating writes:

Future Perfect Tense
There is also a future perfect tense in Greek which is very rare in the New Testament. It is only formed by periphrasis in the New Testament is much like the past perfect, only the completed state will exist at some time in the future rather than in the past.[/b]

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm

Jack, I wrote that “As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as the aorist past-perfect tense,” and, apparently, rather than take my word for it, you attempted to check out my statement. I am very pleased to see that. I wish that more Baptists would check out what they read on this message board (and other places) to ascertain the facts. However, the only thing of relevance that I find in the article for which you provided the above link is as follows:

Grammatical Number of Verbs
The concept of grammatical number is quite straightforward in both English and Koine Greek. It is the property of a verb (and nouns and pronouns also) which indicates whether the reference is to one (singular) or to more than one (plural). (Classical Greek at one time had a 'dual' number which made a distinction for 'two', besides the customary singular and plural.)
Each grammatical person (First, Second, and Third) can be either singular or plural in number.
For example: Singular Number: "For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life,...shall be able to separate us from the love of God," (Rom. 8:38-39).
Plural Number: "For we are His workmanship," (Eph. 2:10a).

Corey Keating writes that each “grammatical person (First, Second, and Third) can be either singular or plural in number.” He then gives an example where the first person can be singular (the Greek verb correctly translated “I have been persuaded” in Rom. 8:38-39), and an example where the first person can be plural (the Greek verb translated “we are” in Eph. 2:10a). Any student of Greek who has gotten past his first day of toilet training knows this. What does it have to do with eternal security, emphasis, or anything else other that the fact that Greek verbs are conjugated to express mood, tense, voice, PERSON, and NUMBER?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Jack wrote,

I would also say that this Greek scholar is in disagreement with you Craig:

Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist

The aorist indicative can be used to describe an event that is not yet past as though it were already completed in order to stress the certainty of the event.

Rom 8:30 whom he justified, these he also glorified.

http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gtense.html

(Yes Craig, that's the actual verse that he gives as an example of an emphatic use of the proleptic aorist verb; which you failed to mention BTW).

I have already addressed the issue here. That is, in order for the Greek text of the New Testament to be interpreted to teach the doctrine of eternal security, the basic rules of Greek grammar must be twisted and distorted until they are no longer a problem. Some people are so desperate to defend the doctrine of eternal security and the doctrine of predestination that they are willing to go to any extreme necessary, regardless of how dishonest and corrupt it may be. As I pointed out, the Greek verbs that are used in Rom. 8:29-30 are aorist indicative verbs, as even your “Greek scholar” agrees. However, that being the case, these verses to NOT say that any Christian ever has been or ever will be predestined to anything at all. But wouldn’t it be great if they did! Let’s see, now? What can we do about this? I’ve got it, let’s say that “the aorist indicative can be used to describe an event that is not yet past as though it were already completed in order to stress the certainty of the event.” The utter evil that has been committed here is interpreting Greek Grammar on the basis of one’s theology rather than one’s theology on the basis of Greek Grammar. This is absolutely outrageous!

No, Jack, there is no such thing as a proleptic aorist verb, and that is why I didn’t mention it.

 

[Craigbythesea]

In verse 28 Paul uses the term 'them' to describe Christians. But in the next verse he uses the term 'whom' (singular). If this verse is really only about a past work of God, then who is this one person that got to Heaven that Paul is referring to?

Or could it be that Paul really wrote about every individual Christian as virtually every Biblical scholar would attest?

Dear Jack,

You are basing your argument here on a translation of the New Testament rather than the New Testament itself, and much worse, you are misunderstanding the translation that you are using. Perhaps the more literal and accurate NASB, 1995, translation will help you:

28. And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
29. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30. and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Paul does not use “the term ‘them’” in verse 28. The word-for-word translation is “And we know that to the [ones] loving God. . . .” And in verse 29, as seen in the NASB translation, the word “whom” is NOT singular as you claim, but plural. And that is because it is plural rather than singular in the Greek New Testament.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Excellent analogy Squire!

No, Diane, it is not! Apostasy has nothing at all to do with a child telling his biological father that the man is no longer his father. It is a matter of the child loosing faith in his father and placing his faith instead in himself or something else other than his father.

Very many parents who have raised teenagers have witnessed the apostasy of a child. Most children eventually see the error of their ways and reconcile with their parents, but some children do not! In the natural realm the father may be partially at fault; in the divine realm only the child is at fault, and as much as the father desires the reconciliation, if the child is resolutely unwilling to be reconciled, the Father can do nothing without violating the will of the child, and I do not believe that God does that.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I would also point out that if we are as free to reject Christ after we are saved as we are before him, then logically we are still able to fall from grace after we get to heaven?

I do not believe that we will be tempted in heaven, and without temptation there can be no apostasy.

 

[Craigbythesea]

This type of behavior is not a RARE thing for you Craig...I picked just 4 random threads within the last month and found not just one or two but MULTIPLE attacks like this within single threads, no rolls eyes, not tongue in cheek comments.

Thank you for reading my posts

. If more people would do that, this world would be a better place for all of us

, and we would all have a good understanding the Bible.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Craig, the analogy goes directly to the facet of rengeneration in salvation. I hold salvation is a multi-faceted parallel occasion. To be properly understood (at least as much as a human can understand the doctrine), it must be looked at from all the facets. And even with "apostasy" the fact of the new birth remains. As children of God, we are born from above. How this occurs God only knows. I only know it is a fact.

As for the twisting of the Greek, I dare say that is a new one on me. But, so far I don't think I've seen your citation of particular scholars to back up this position. And by scholars, I mean specialists in the Greek language on the level of A.T. Robertson. Please note, I used the plural.

[ October 27, 2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Squire Robertsson ]

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As this thread has gone beyond the jurisdiction of this forum, I am moving it over to rht Baptist Theology and Bible Study Forum.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Craig, the analogy goes directly to the facet of rengeneration in salvation. I hold salvation is a multi-faceted parallel occasion. To be properly understood (at least as much as a human can understand the doctrine), it must be looked at from all the facets. And even with "apostasy" the fact of the new birth remains. As children of God, we are born from above. How this occurs God only knows. I only know it is a fact.

Yes, as children of God, we are born from above, but we are still mortal beings and the wages of sin is still death.

As for the twisting of the Greek, I dare say that is a new one on me. But, so far I don't think I've seen your citation of particular scholars to back up this position. And by scholars, I mean specialists in the Greek language on the level of A.T. Robertson. Please note, I used the plural.

I have never encountered even so much as one scholar of New Testament Greek who would deny that theological bias plays a part in how one views grammatical constructions, and I have posted several examples of where Greek tenses have either been ignored or twisted to fit the doctrine of eternal security. Although A. T. Robertson, Dana and Mantey, and Daniel Wallace are well known, the theological bias in their interpretation of tenses in soteriological passages is also well known.

A. T. Robertson and Dana & Mantey find in Greek eight cases in Greek, and defend their position on the basis of comparative philology. Daniel Wallace finds, as did James Mouton, Hebert W. Smyth, and Blass & Debrunner only five.

A. T. Robertson’s Grammar is not the final authority and should never be viewed as being more than an intermediate grammar. For further study of Greek Grammar, one needs to consult the specialists, for example, J. D. Denniston and his 660 page volume, The Greek Particles and Ernest DeWitt Burton’s Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek.

As for my claim that there is no proleptic aorist tense, A. T. Robertson agrees, and calls the use of the aorist tense in Rom. 8:30 “the gnomic aorist” and writes, “The real “gnomic” aorist is a universal or timeless aorist and probably represents the original timelessness of the aorist indicative.” For the names of very prominent scholars who disagree with Robertson on this point, and favor the position that I take, see pages 836-837 of his grammar. See also the very many exegetical commentaries that have been written on Romans.

 

[JackRUS]

Craig.
You wrote:

Dear Jack,

You are basing your argument here on a translation of the New Testament rather than the New Testament itself, and much worse, you are misunderstanding the translation that you are using. Perhaps the more literal and accurate NASB, 1995, translation will help you:

From which transcripts? The Received text or the Westcott-Hort Greek text?

You see, it's all really been translated at least twice.

I like the NASB. In fact I check it against my KJV study Bible for more accurate word translations from time to time. I also post in the KJV because that's what I have in CD. You don't really think I'm going to hand type that much do you?

And just as people who view the news on the TV come with their prejustices, many including you also come to the Scriptures with deductive reasoning when checking the Greek.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/6135/inductive2.htm

 

[JackRUS]

DeafPosttrib.

One big problem with your understanding of Luke 15:11-32 is that all of Jesus' parables were directed toward Israel (Mt. 13:10-15. What percentage of Israel at the time of Christ would you say was in the body of Christ?

This error falls under the heading of not rightly dividing the word of truth. Many make the error of directing passages that were directed toward Israel and apply them to believers. Mt. 24 is a prime example.

 

[Craigbythesea]

From which transcripts? The Received text or the Westcott-Hort Greek text?

You see, it's all really been translated at least twice.

I like the NASB. In fact I check it against my KJV study Bible for more accurate word translations from time to time. I also post in the KJV because that's what I have in CD. You don't really think I'm going to hand type that much do you?

There are NO differences between the Received Text and the Westcott-Hort Greek text that have any bearing at all on what we are talking about in Rom. 8:28-30. The differences between the KJV and NASB here have NOTHING AT ALL to do with differences in any Greek text. The NASB is translating here exactly the same words, but doing so more precisely. And the NASB is NOT translated from either the Received Text or the Westcott-Hort Greek text, but from an eclectic text.

P.S. The NASB, 1995, is down-loadable for $20 at E-Sword. Included in this study set is the NASB, the NASB with Strong's numbers, and the NAS Exhaustive Concordance. Over 21MB of Bible study resources! About 20 other translations into English and several different Greek texts (plus many other goodies) are down-loadable there for $0.00 (Free!).

 

[Craigbythesea]

I believe that I should say a few more words about theological bias and distortions in Greek grammars. In an article entitled, “When Did Jesus Know? The Translation of Aorist and Perfect Participles for Verbs of Perception In the Gospels” by the Greek language scholar Daniel B. Wallace, Th.M., Ph.D., we read:

The following passages are but a sample of the kinds of texts that should show that Jesus, too, grew in knowledge: Matt 12.15, 25; 16.8; 22.18; 26.10; Mark 8.17; 12.15; Luke 9.47; John 6.15, 61; 19.28.

If we treat these adverbial participles when Jesus is the subject in a manner that is different from how we treat them when others are the subject, then our translations are suspect of theological bias. Integrity in translation demands that we not be inconsistent in this matter, even if such consistency makes us theologically uncomfortable. In this respect, the NET Bible stands apart from most other translations.

Wallace writes here that theological bias can interfere with the correct interpretation of adverbial participles. Whether you agree with him or not regarding the knowledge of Jesus, you cannot deny that theological bias can interfere with the correct interpretation of adverbial participles.


James Wesley Stivers, in his book, Restoring The Foundations, writes,

“Most seminaries teach Greek grammar from a theological bias, and their reference works are biased also.

And here is a review of Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics 5.0: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament:

Is it a grammar or an Evangelical apology ?, April 12, 2004
Reviewer: moomintroll2000 "moomintroll2000" (Beijing China)


Please do not misunderstand the provocative title of my comment: I am not saying that this book is worthless and that you should avoid buying it.

On the contrary, I think that Wallace's grammar is an invaluable work worth every dollar you spend for it. First of all, unlike other grammars, this one is as thrilling as a detective novel. Of course, unless you are deeply interested in NT exegesis, you will probably find Wallace's huge treatise anything but gripping. But if like me you are an impassioned reader of the Gospel and its original text, you will surely love this book.And the good news is that it is not for advanced learners of koine Greek only. In fact I started using it with minimal knowledge of Greek and I have little doubt that a complete stranger to the language of Luke and Paul could also glean immensely useful information from its pages provided he be a serious student of the Scriptures.

Having said that I must warn potential buyers and readers that Wallace is not an objective grammarian and linguist at all. Unlike a real scientist, he does not put aside his own religious and philosophical convictions aside and look at the NT dispassionately. What he does almost sistematically is to advance his own Protestant views of Christ and atonement and other crucial points with the help of Greek grammar. Fortunately, he does state the opinion of scholars who disagree with him but he gives them minimal space. Most of the time he does not even quote them!
A perfect example of Wallace's bias is the discussion on the use of the prepositions "uper" and "anti" in relation to the question of atonement. He mentions the fact that W.Bauer translates these prepositions by "on behalf of" rather than by "instead of" but he does not illustrate or expatiate on Bauer's point of view. Instead the reader is presented with several pages of arguments in favor of his own opinion, so that the naive reader may end up thinking that the translation favored by respected scholars like Bauer has no solid ground under it. And that is only one example among many, many others.

Of course, one could argue that many dubious points of Greek grammar simply cannot be cleared without a previous choice and that all exegesis must involve a certain amount of eisegesis. This may be true but Wallace really goes too far. Does he write for only for his small chapel? Aren't there Catholics and eastern Orthodox and Jews out there too?

Strangely enough this is a BCE(before common era)/CE(common era)book. Does Wallace not realize that these acronyms are basically anti-Christian and contribute to the secularization of our culture?

I say to all Christian authors: FOR GOD'S SAKE USE BC AND AD !!!

So my advice to you is: buy this grammar. But be sure to buy another one to know the two sides of the Biblical coin.

The point that I am making here is that in the study of the Greek New Testament using Greek grammars it is very important to be aware of the theological background of the author because the author’s theological background is going to have a very significant part in the author’s understanding and presentation of the grammar of the Greek New Testament. The twisting and distorting that the bias causes may not be deliberate, but it is a very present reality.

The doctrine of eternal security is a relative new doctrine that evolved as a consequence of a distorted understanding of several Biblical themes, including the sovereignty of God and predestination. However, the grammar of the Greek New Testament does not support the arguments put forward from Scripture in defense of the doctrine of eternal security, and novel and innovative theories have been concocted that supplant even some of the basic rules and principles of Greek grammar.