Conditional salvation?

I am not obsessed with keeping anything. Jesus is my Savior, not me!

 

Acts 13:48. When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Rom. 13:11. Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed.

1 Cor. 15:11. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

The aorist tense in these verses tells nothing but that these people at a point in time believed; whether or not they continued to believe is not indicated by the tense used. However, we do know from other passages in the Bible that only those who continue to believe shall ultimately be saved. Does aorist belief guarantee present continuous belief for the rest of one’s life? The answer from both the Scriptures and the history of Christian civilization is a resounding no.

</font>[/QUOTE]===


I'm sorry if I'm just too dense to understand you. Help me out:

Re Acts 13:48 , are you saying of those who were ordained to eternal life and who, therefore, believed, that we cannot be sure of their final salvation because the aorist tense is used of their faith and not the present?

Of course, I do agree that belief is the requisite for salvation and that IF one stopped believing, then, that one would not be saved. But I deny that one of the elect stops believing.

And, re Augustine: That father taught that God gave some the gift of preserverance and that these could never be lost. It is true that he said regenerated ones could be lost ; but not those granted perseverance as the result of praying for that gift.

Therefore, before the 16thc some did teach that SOME once saved always would be saved.

As you know, Calvin , in contrast, taught that regeneration was only the experience of those who cannot be lost.

I want you to know that I do enjoy discussing these things with you even if we don't agree.

 

I am saying that we cannot be sure of their final destiny because that information is not given. The aorist tense merely tells us that they believed at a point in time, nothing more and nothing less.

You can deny it all that you want to, but that will not change the reality of the situation.

What you write here of Augustine is very true, but this is NOT the doctrine of OSAS believed by the very large majority of Baptists or any other OSAS group. Indeed, it is a very obscure view that was NOT adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, their dissidents, or the Reformers.

Yes, he did.

 

I am saying that we cannot be sure of their final destiny because that information is not given. The aorist tense merely tells us that they believed at a point in time, nothing more and nothing less.

===
Then you would say of the text "He became poor so that through His poverty you might become rich" (2 Cor 8:9) ,wherein "become rich," is aorist, that we cannot be sure that anyone at all will in the end be made richer because the tense is not present?

Would you say of the text Jo 13:31, "God is glorified in Him" , which is aorist, that we cannot assume that God is still glorified or forever will be because the tense is not present?

Would you say Wallace is wrong when he says that the aorist indicative can be used to present a "timeless" fact which then should be translated as present? (Grammar, 562)

===

You can deny it all that you want to, but that will not change the reality of the situation.

===

Likewise, I suppose, you can assert it all you want to, but that will not change the reality of the situation...not so?

 

My neighbor down the street made tens of millions of dollars in the stock market, only to lose most of it when the market took a nosedive, and he lost much of what was left when his wife subsequently divorced him. And the riches in 2 Cor. 8:9, to the extent that they may have been temporal, have long since perished. Only our riches in heaven are eternal.

 

The use of the aorist tense in John 13:31 has occasioned more than a little discussion among the scholars of that gospel. Raymond E. Brown writes on p. 610,

Raymond E. Brown. The Anchor Bible, Volume 29A, The Gospel According to John (xii-xxi) . New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1970.

Yes, I would say that he is wrong.

 

Can't respond to a simple request, can you? Ok.


===

How is "Now leave it alone" a "simple request"? Sounds like a command. You are in no position here to give commands.

===

You don't know what you're talking about. Their SPEECH was offensive to others according to the Holy Scriptures (Matt.15, 2 Cor.10-11)

===

Exactly what in those three chapters is your referent?

==


and EVERYTHING SAID WAS NOT SCRIPTURE. (John 21) You made a boo boo.

===

I didn't say that EVERYTHING SAID WAS SCRIPTURE. I said that what Jesus and Paul said was inspired and authoritative. You made a "boo boo."

===


My words have AUTHORITY, just as those which Paul told TITUS to manifest, which were certainly SHARP. (Titus 1) It was passed down to me. (2 Tim.2:1-2, Titus 2:15) Sorry, friend.

===

But you are not Titus either! You are removed from Paul by 2000 years of doctrinal development, language, and social conditions aren't you.

You see yourself, apparently, as understanding perfectly the apostolic tradition . So you don't mind labling everything you disagree with as heresy.

My MA in Theology is from Point Loma Nazarene University. While I am not an Armininan, I would not say that my profs are heretics, but you indirectly have said that as I recall.

My MDiv (equiv) and ThM is from Western CB Seminary. Some profs there arew "progressive dispensationalists. You indirectly , as I recall, have called them heretics.

All such is ad hominem attacks by one who thinks his words carry the weight of Paul's because he has had "the doctrine of Paul passed down to him."

Well what about the others who disagree with you? Are they not also followers of Paul's teachings or are you, and those with whom you agree, the only ones who can understand Paul?


===
They were not pontifical, but PROFITABLE "only" if you LISTEN TO THEM. You couldn't and didn't, EVEN AFTER my explanation to you about the thread and the antagonist on the thread.


===

Your words were pontifical. You consider yourself to be THE interpreter of Scripture and lable other views "heresy." That IS exactly what Popes do!

I don't care about your "explanation." You see yourself as correct regardless of what you say.

You concentrate on those texts which deal with accusing others supposing that you just must have every doctrine right and disregard those texts which encourage respect and consideration for others.

IMO there is on this forum entirely too much dogmatism. "Either agree with me or you're wrong!"

===

You had your own agenda. You wanted to give your OPINION about my speech, and how YOU THINK that I should speak. Of course, it was wrong.

===

My agenda was to urge respect yours was to get respect.

Oh, of course it was wrong. That is clear because you disagreed. Anything you disagree with just must be wrong!

===


Sorry brother, I get my SPEECH PATTERNS from the Book when dealing with those who CONTRADICT the Book. (Rude, contempible, AND sharp, BUT SOUND.) [/qb][/QUOTE]

===


Um.. yes.. what you think and say exactly equals (YOU decide what contradicts the Book) what the Book teaches...nothing bigheaded or nothing like having an agenda about that is there

Now, since you are THE interpreter of Paul and THE labler of what is heresy , I offer you an invitation to dazzle all of us with your Pauline expertise by speaking ex cathedra in another thread on, say, Philippians 2:5-8...shall we have a go at it?

[ May 11, 2005, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

Yes, I would say that he is wrong.

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]==


Do you have a grammar which says that the aorist cannot be so used?

 

UZTHD:
Would you say Wallace is wrong when he says that the aorist indicative can be used to present a "timeless" fact which then should be translated as present? (Grammar, 562)

CBTS:
Yes, I would say that he is wrong.

The aorist is used here because the aspect is perfective. It neither mandates a past tense meaning nor precludes a durative meaning.

Lexical factors also play a role obviously. Glorification can be seen as being timeless here based on the lexis of the word and the context of use - not simply the verbal aspect.

I'd look to Stanley Porter or Buist Fanning for some of the best discussion here - but I WOULD agree with the face value of Wallace's assertion.

 

===


I will have to confess the poverty of my grasp of Greek grammar. But others besides Wallace see the possibilty of an aorist representing that which is not in the simple past. EG, Dana and Mantey see the constative aorist as indicating an occurence regardless of its duration (196) and they affirm the possibility of the gnomic aorist (197). AT Robertson says the gnomic aorist may be used for that which is timeless (836, 842)and he provides NT examples of such as Mt 13:44 which would seem to relate to the eternality of one's security in Christ. So, I agree with you that just because a verb is not present tense does not mean the action is subject to a cessation.

 

UZ,

Here's a link to a superb article on Greek verbal stuff.

http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/documents/porter.pdf#search='poor%20man's%20portergreek'

There has been a lot of attention paid to verbal aspect in NT studies in the last generation.

Stanley Porter (McMaster) and Buist Fanning (DTS) are perhaps the most well-known authors here. What is significant is that they (especially Porter) a much more aspect-based (and NOT TIME-based) view of Greek tenses. This results in a bit of a rethinking of the traditional classification of tense types (gnomic aorist, historical present etc). As such there will be a bit of a break with the older school grammarians (Robertson, Moulton, Mantey etc). For example what Moulton refers to as verbal aspect would today be referred to as "aktionsart" and not properly verbal aspect.

I tend to favor the view of Stanley Porter which sees the Greek tense as being TIMELESS - that is implying only aspect. Temporal deictic information comes from context, verbal lexis, and adverbs - not tense. Thus the aorist tense refers to a "perfective aspect", an action seen as a whole from an exterior point of view. The aorist tense can be translated as past or present depending on lexical and contextual factors.

Dan Wallace was a student of Buist Fanning and generally follows his viewpoint.

 

Thanks Charles. Gary Derickson, a PhD from DTS who teaches Greek and Bible in nearby college , enlightened me a bit on how views on the aorist are changing when he informally advised me on my Unizul dissertation.

I'm an old guy, with an "old" library, who studied Theology as a past time and part time while teaching Jr High learning disabled students full time for 35 years. ( as one can see on occasion from my posts, that failed to give me much patience )

I wish that I had follwed my first love (Theology) more fully and without distraction.

But now in my retirement I can for as long as I'm around do so.

Then when I'm gone, and understand as I'm understood, I will sit above on my heavenly perch and chuckle at all the mistakes I made in my doctrinal opining.

[ May 11, 2005, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

I believe that Porter places too much emphasis on aspect and not nearly enough emphasis on time, especially in the indicative mood. Greek grammar is not a function of our personal theological biases, but rather our theological view points need to be based solidly upon the grammatical principles followed by the New Testament writers.

 

UZThD wrote,

Did you know Frank Carver?

 

UZThD wrote,

 

Can't respond to a simple request, can you? Ok.


===

How is "Now leave it alone" a "simple request"? Sounds like a command. You are in no position here to give commands.

===

You don't know what you're talking about. Their SPEECH was offensive to others according to the Holy Scriptures (Matt.15, 2 Cor.10-11)

===

Exactly what in those three chapters is your referent?

==


and EVERYTHING SAID WAS NOT SCRIPTURE. (John 21) You made a boo boo.

===

I didn't say that EVERYTHING SAID WAS SCRIPTURE. I said that what Jesus and Paul said was inspired and authoritative. You made a "boo boo."

===


My words have AUTHORITY, just as those which Paul told TITUS to manifest, which were certainly SHARP. (Titus 1) It was passed down to me. (2 Tim.2:1-2, Titus 2:15) Sorry, friend.

===

But you are not Titus either! You are removed from Paul by 2000 years of doctrinal development, language, and social conditions aren't you.

You see yourself, apparently, as understanding perfectly the apostolic tradition . So you don't mind labling everything you disagree with as heresy.

My MA in Theology is from Point Loma Nazarene University. While I am not an Armininan, I would not say that my profs are heretics, but you indirectly have said that as I recall.

My MDiv (equiv) and ThM is from Western CB Seminary. Some profs there arew "progressive dispensationalists. You indirectly , as I recall, have called them heretics.

All such is ad hominem attacks by one who thinks his words carry the weight of Paul's because he has had "the doctrine of Paul passed down to him."

Well what about the others who disagree with you? Are they not also followers of Paul's teachings or are you, and those with whom you agree, the only ones who can understand Paul?


===
They were not pontifical, but PROFITABLE "only" if you LISTEN TO THEM. You couldn't and didn't, EVEN AFTER my explanation to you about the thread and the antagonist on the thread.


===

Your words were pontifical. You consider yourself to be THE interpreter of Scripture and lable other views "heresy." That IS exactly what Popes do!

I don't care about your "explanation." You see yourself as correct regardless of what you say.

You concentrate on those texts which deal with accusing others supposing that you just must have every doctrine right and disregard those texts which encourage respect and consideration for others.

IMO there is on this forum entirely too much dogmatism. "Either agree with me or you're wrong!"

===

You had your own agenda. You wanted to give your OPINION about my speech, and how YOU THINK that I should speak. Of course, it was wrong.

===

My agenda was to urge respect yours was to get respect.

Oh, of course it was wrong. That is clear because you disagreed. Anything you disagree with just must be wrong!

===


Sorry brother, I get my SPEECH PATTERNS from the Book when dealing with those who CONTRADICT the Book. (Rude, contempible, AND sharp, BUT SOUND.) [/qb]</font>[/QUOTE]===


Um.. yes.. what you think and say exactly equals (YOU decide what contradicts the Book) what the Book teaches...nothing bigheaded or nothing like having an agenda about that is there

Now, since you are THE interpreter of Paul and THE labler of what is heresy , I offer you an invitation to dazzle all of us with your Pauline expertise by speaking ex cathedra in another thread on, say, Philippians 2:5-8...shall we have a go at it? [/QB][/QUOTE]


Well, your intent finally came out.

You interjected your thoughts into a conversation which didn’t concern you or addressed to you, and have singled out one participant to the exclusion of the other. You want me, personally. That’s why you “smarted off” about a DIVINE COMMAND.

Some people are just too “learned” and naïve to understand a “commonplace” term. (Now leave it alone.) It was not a command. It was a way to “stop the ongoing bickering” about something which had nothing to do with you. BUT NO! YOU “interjected” THAT TERM to finish up with your next statement. (You are in no position HERE to give commands.)

It was a setup (straw man) from words NEVER SPOKEN BY MYSELF, “supplied” by you, to GIVE THE AIR that I commanded you. (I didn’t. You put forth the DEVIOUS LIE that I had.)

I don’t give commands here and tell people to shut up. Mouth off all you want. I CAN correct the mouthing with scripture though.

Why don’t you REREAD what I said when I gave those chapters, and then you can READ the chapters and find it CONTAINED THEREIN? I mean, if you’re going to argue, please know what you’re disputing about. GOOD GRIEF, you made the statement of simpletonism that THEIR SPEECH WAS NOT OFFENSIVE. (It was, by prooftext of those chapters.)

Fella, what Christian in his right mind doesn’t know that Paul and Jesus WORDS in the Scriptures are authoritative? You MISQUOTED yourself. You said, JESUS AND PAUL WERE INSPIRED AND AUTHORITATIVE.

Shucks, did you just figure out that I wasn’t Titus? Brother, I HAVE THE SAME AUTHORITY AS TITUS. He wasn’t INSPIRED TO WRITE SCRIPTURE, but had “authority”. Did you read the chapter reference? Oh, that’s right, you couldn’t figure out what you said, and MY SCRIPUTURAL REBUTTAL to it anyway, could you?

Now, you’re going to “stink up the whole mess” with the SAME LIE that you started with. HE THINKS HE’S RIGHT AND EVERYBODY IS ELSE WRONG. Good grief, we’ve heard that ploy before.

I didn’t state that. YOU DID.

I don’t understand EVERYTHING in the scriptures, and don’t profess to. That’s a ruse used by those who get caught by others who manifested their CONTRADICTION of scriptural truth by the scriptures.

Another ruse is given. I don’t label everything HERESY which I don’t agree with. I LABEL HERESY AS ANYTHING WHICH PAUL DIDN”T TEACH FOR THE BODY OF CHRIST. (Titus 3, 2 Tim.2-4)

I haven’t called any professors at any Nazarene University heretics, directly or indirectly in this thread, nor have I called any profs at your other school anything either. More bologna.

No sir ree bob, Dr.

Another distorted ruse. I don’t think MY WORDS carry the weight of Paul’s.

PAUL’S WORDS IN HIS WRITINGS ARE THE WORDS OF GOD, when spoken by him or ME. They carry themselves. Some people DESPISE them. (Titus 3)

Brother, I could care less whether or not you agree with me or not. All my job is to do, is PREACH THEM, whether anyone believes them or NOT. (1 Thess.2:13) What you “think” about the truth, doesn’t FAZE it one little bit. (Rom.3)

Another lying slander. I don’t consider myself the INTERPRETER of scripture. That is the Holy Ghost’s job. (1 Cor.2)

Remember now Doc, this thing started because YOU DON’T LIKE how I speak.

There it is. YOU DON’T CARE about any explanations. (I knew that. That’s WHY you WOULD NOT let it alone.) You care about CORRECTING ME, due to YOUR OWN disgust, hatred, and variance against the way I speak. WITH AUTHORITY.

Why you ole rascal. I don’t and didn’t reject ANY TEXTS, which YOU HAVE DONE. You EVADED them all, EVEN AFTER being corrected by them, which GAVE THE PROOFTEXT for my speech. That's what drove you to SLANDER.

Your doubletalk will drive you bugs, Doc.

I don’t have to interpret Paul to correct you. All I have to do is present the verses. You’ll be “bogged” down, whining about how I spoke to you IN PRESENTATION of them.

 

Craig,

I believe that Porter places too much emphasis on aspect and not nearly enough emphasis on time, especially in the indicative mood. Greek grammar is not a function of our personal theological biases, but rather our theological view points need to be based solidly upon the grammatical principles followed by the New Testament writers.

I think Porter's position is pretty grammatically sound - it actually explains what we see better than the older position, and ends up having to explain fewer exceptions. In addition there is linguistic precedent (several Slavic languages) for a completely aspectual tense system.

That being said it is not above questioning.

I think that the best criticism of Porter came from Chrys Caragounis. He basically said points out that Porter's nice organized system may be an overestimation of the linguistic system of the NT writers, many of whom were not even native Greek speakers. This is corroborated by the observation that the earliest Greek grammar treatises (Dionysius Thrax) describe a time-based system.

 

And with that being said, I'll refrain from posting anymore responses to UZTHD, on this thread concerning this matter.


I'm certain that we will see each other around the board. Good day.

 

Did you know Frank Carver?

</font>[/QUOTE]===


ABSOLUTELY! I was there 66-68 to do the MA ( called Pasadena College then, moved to Point Loma in the 90s, I think) and had Dr. Carver for two classes I think. I had Price for the year long course "Arminian Theology." We read and discussed the three vols by Arminius.

Back then there was NO accredited seminary or grad Theological program in San Diego so I drove from SD to Pasadena two or three times a week .

I think I still have a pic of Carver shaking my hand at graduation. Good memories!