double-minded question

[koreahog2005]

Notice that Robertson also said the following about “built up” in Colossians 2:7:

Present passive participle (rooted to stay so) of epoikodomew, old verb, to build upon as in 1 Corinthians 3:10,12.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=col&chapter=2&verse=7

In your view, they are not “rooted to stay so.” Here’s what Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1973) says about the verb “root”:

vt 1 a : to furnish with or enable to develop roots b : to fix or implant by or as if by roots 2 : to remove altogether often by force < ~ out dissenters > ~ vi 1 : to grow roots or take root 2 : to have an origin or base

Remember that “rooted” is a passive form in both Ephesians 3:17 and Colossians 2:7. In a passive form the subject does perform the action. It’s not about our growing roots ourselves. Whatever “rooted” means, it’s something that God does to us. It’s not a matter of lucky or unlucky circumstances over time. God is in firm control. My impression is that He implants us. That can be done quickly. For instance, a seedling can be taken from a hotbed and implanted (rooted) somewhere else. Remember that I said in an earlier post that the Hebrew word “shathal” used in Psalm 1:3a and Jeremiah 17:8a can mean “to plant” or “to transplant.”

 

[Craigbythesea]

Remember that “rooted” is a passive form in both Ephesians 3:17 and Colossians 2:7. In a passive form the subject does perform the action. It’s not about our growing roots ourselves.

You yourself quoted me in this post as saying that the participles in Eph. 3:17 and Col. 2:7 are present passive participles, so I rather doubt that I need for you to remind me of the fact. I have also recently posted in this thread that the development of a firm root system of a tree is a function of the environment in which the tree is growing rather than something that the tree does on its own. I have also shown that Paul was using a metaphor from nature and yet you would apparently have us to believe that Paul was using a metaphor from a hotbed in a greenhouse. But even if he was, and of course he was not, even seedlings grown in a hotbed in a green house under the most ideal circumstances and conditions do NOT instantaneously develop a firm root system. And as though that were not enough, I have also posted the very words on this subject by A. T. Robertson whom you wrongly quoted to prove your point. And Roberson says that Paul was using the metaphor of a tree with a firm root system.

Christians do NOT become firmly rooted instantaneous any more than a tree does, and Paul knew that, his readers knew that, and the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to write what he wrote knew that. And we also have the three synoptic gospels that expressly teach contrary to your point of view in the parable of the sower.

However, it is obvious to me that you believe what you want to believe rather than what the Bible teaches, so it is pointless for me to argue on the basis of what the Bible says. And I could quote scholar after scholar who agree with me beginning in the 2nd century right up to the present day, and you would still insist that Christians instantaneously become firmly rooted when the fact is that they do not, and we know that they do not because the Bible teaches that they do not, and we have the empirical evidence of 2000 years of Christian experience that proves that they do not. Case closed.

 

[koreahog2005]

Oops! I misspoke when I said, “In a passive form the subject does perform the action.” Of course, in a passive form the subject does not perform the action. The action is performed on the subject. In the case of our being rooted and grounded (founded), God performed the action of rooting and grounding (founding). I don’t see where I wrongly quoted A.T. Robertson. He said that Christians are “rooted to stay so.” He was a professor at The Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville and believed in eternal security, so I think his interpretation is clear. I believe that all Christians are permanently rooted and grounded; therefore, they cannot be rooted up (plucked up). John 10:28-29 says that no one can pluck Christians out of His hand. Notice what Robertson said about John 10:28:

The sheep may feel secure ( John 3:16; John 6:39; John 17:12; John 18:9). And no one shall snatch them out of my hand (kai ouc arpasei tiß auta ek thß ceiroß mou). Jesus had promised this security in Galilee ( John 6:37,39). No wolf, no thief, no bandit, no hireling, no demon, not even the devil can pluck the sheep out of my hand. Cf. Colossians 3:3 (Your life is hid together with Christ in God).

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=joh&chapter=10&verse=28

You seem to be saying that the idea of transplanting was foreign to the folks in the New Testament. Remember that the word used for “plant” (shathal) in Psalm 1:3a and Jeremiah 17:8a can also mean “transplant.”

Craig, you said that the case was closed. Usually the lawyers are able to make a final summary argument before the jury renders its verdict. (I’m not sure who the members of the jury are; maybe all of them have lost interest by now.) Here goes:

1. We both agree that the verbs “rooted” and “grounded” in Ephesians 3:17 are passive forms. I think we agree that the passive form indicates that Christians do not root themselves. You said:

The development of a firm root system of a tree is a function of the environment in which the tree is growing rather than something that the tree does on its own.

You also said:

I am saying that the factors which cause Christians to be firmly rooted exercise their force over a period of time. Time does not cause a tree to become firmly rooted; the tree’s environment causes the tree to be firmly rooted over a period of time.

Who or what controls the environmental factors that you say positively or negatively determine the rooting? Do you believe the controller to be God, Satan, chance, other humans, or some combination? It’s my impression that Christians live in a sinful environment that is unfavorable for rooting: “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (1 Peter 2:11). The rooting has to be supernatural (from God); natural rooting (from the environment without God) is impossible. As John 10:28 indicates, nothing in the environment can cause the Christian to be plucked (uprooted) from God’s hand.

I think that God is the one who rooted and grounded Christians. Paul was writing to the “saints who are at Ephesus” (Ephesians 1:1). They were all rooted and grounded. There were and are no Christians who are not rooted and grounded. If God isn’t the one who has rooted us, then such fleshly roots won’t be enough to preserve any Christians.

2. We both agree that the verbs “rooted” and “grounded” are perfect passive participles. I have seen no evidence that they are intensive perfects. The normal type of action of the perfect tense is completed action in past time with a continuing result. The rooting and grounding have been completed and have a continuing, permanent result. I earlier used this quote from Brooks and Winbery:

Perfective action implies a state of being which resulted from a past, completed action. The completed action has produced a permanent result.

I also used some quotes from Drumwright that said the perfect participle preserves this aspect:

A perfect participle preserves the distinctive character of the perfect tense.

The perfect participle puts the emphasis on the existing result, as does the perfect tense.

Thus, the rooting is a completed action with a permanent result. God rooted us permanently.

The defense rests (unless an appeal becomes necessary).

 

[Craigbythesea]

I believe that all Christians are permanently rooted and grounded; therefore, they cannot be rooted up (plucked up).

The Bible tells us explicitly that Christians can be up-rooted and we have 2,000 years of history to prove it. Therefore your belief that all Christians are permanently rooted and grounded is a false belief arrived at by deductive logic based on a false premise.

The Pharisees saw Jesus healing on the Sabbath day and deduced that "This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath." Jesus responded by pleading for inductive logic rather than deductive logic.

John 9:13-16:

13 They brought to the Pharisees him who was formerly blind.
14 Now it was a Sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
15 Again, therefore, the Pharisees also were asking him how he received his sight. And he said to them, "He applied clay to my eyes, and I washed, and I see."
16 Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, "This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath." But others were saying, "How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?" And there was a division among them.

John 10:37, 38:

37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;
38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."


In John 9:16 we find two different groups of Pharisees who took two different views of Jesus:

The first group took a deductive view: "This man is not from God [conclusion], because He does not keep the Sabbath [premise].”

The second group took an inductive view: How can a man who is a sinner [inference] perform such signs [particulars]?" "And there was a division among them.

The first group came to the conclusion demanded by their premise.

The second group made an intelligent inference from the particulars.

Jesus asked in John 10:38 that his listeners believe the works that He did, that is, that his listeners believe the particulars, and understand that the Father was in Him, and He in the Father. Jesus asked that his listeners take an inductive view!

inductive thinking or logic is also called objective or analytical thinking.

Deductive thinking or logic is also called subjective or synthetic thinking.

What do the terms objective, analytical, subjective, and synthetic mean?


What did Deductive thinking eventually lead to in the gospels?

Would have inductive thinking lead to a different result?

 

[Craigbythesea]

I don’t see where I wrongly quoted A.T. Robertson. He said that Christians are “rooted to stay so.” He was a professor at The Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville and believed in eternal security, so I think his interpretation is clear.

We have already been there and done that! A. T. Robertson believed in eternal security and that belief influenced his understanding of N. T. Greek grammar. Nonetheless, in spite of his belief in eternal security, he did not support your understanding of the metaphor of a rooted tree in Col. 2:7 and Eph. 3:17, and I quoted him verbatim to prove that. You have offered NO evidence of any kind that any Christian at any time in any part of the world under any or all circumstances was instantaneously firmly rooted in Christ. You are basing your entire argument upon a false premise and you are distorting and twisting the facts to support your false premise. That is exactly what the Pharisees did, as I posted above, and the conclusion that they came to was the exact opposite of the truth!

 

[Craigbythesea]

I think that God is the one who rooted and grounded Christians.

Yes, of course He is. And of course it is He who has rooted and grounded the trees. Otherwise Paul’s metaphor wouldn’t make sense. But God did neither instantaneously—He rooted both over a period of years. And of course both Paul and God know very well that even the best and most firmly rooted trees have the potential of being up-rooted in cataclysmic situations and I have personally witnessed the happening of this. Just recently many thousands of people witnessed this in the south-eastern part of the U.S. I have also most sadly witnessed the up-rooting of some beautiful old Christians who had been firmly rooted, but not firmly enough to deal with the cataclysmic situations that befell them.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I also used some quotes from Drumwright that said the perfect participle preserves this aspect:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A perfect participle preserves the distinctive character of the perfect tense.

The perfect participle puts the emphasis on the existing result, as does the perfect tense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, the rooting is a completed action with a permanent result. God rooted us permanently.

You are confusing here the present-perfect with the future-perfect—a tense that is seldom used in the N.T. The present-perfect expresses action that began in past time that is either continuing or having a continued effect down to the PRESENT time with NO guarantee of continuance in the future. Both trees and Christians that have been rooted by God are subject to future conditions that may cause them to be uprooted. Your theology does not agree with this, but that does NOT change the Greek grammar. Our theology is to be based on the grammar—and not the grammar on our theology.

 

[koreahog2005]

Appeal Number One

First, a quick sidebar conference: Comparing me to the Pharisees is a personal attack. You also said:

You believe what you want to believe rather than what the Bible teaches.

Thus, you have personally attacked me twice. I think the Judge would rule these attacks out of order due to irrelevancy. I am not on trial here. The doctrine of eternal security is on trial. Such attacks will not affect me. On another forum I have been called a heretic, so I have developed a thick skin. I have never called another person a heretic when I debated them. Personal attacks on lawyers do not usually sway juries.

Let’s return to the courtroom.

Craig, you said the following:

The Bible tells us explicitly that Christians can be up-rooted and we have 2,000 years of history to prove it.

I have not seen any passage in the Bible that explicitly says Christians can lose their salvation. Neither have I seen any historical proof over 2,000 years that any Christian has lost his salvation. If you want to present anything that you consider to be inductive evidence to the court, I will cross-examine.

You also said the following:

You have offered NO evidence of any kind that any Christian at any time in any part of the world under any or all circumstances was instantaneously firmly rooted in Christ.

I have explained the nature of the perfect tense. It generally describes completed action with a continuing, permanent result. Our salvation is a completed action with a continuing, permanent result.

Other evidence to be examined:

During the regeneration event a person becomes a new creature: “Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Corinthians 5:17). He is a new creature because he has been indwelled by the Holy Spirit. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit produces an instantaneous change in the human spirit. A Christian may backslide, but he will never fully return to the old things. The Christian is truly an everlasting creation of God. The old things have passed away and cannot be restored.

The Bible says that Christians have received the Holy Spirit as a seal and as a pledge:

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:13-14)

Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge. (2 Corinthians 1:21-22)

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. (Ephesians 4:30)

The seal refers to a mark of approval. God the Father set His seal on God the Son (John 6:27). The Holy Spirit indwells the human spirits of Christians as a pledge of eternal life. In this context, the pledge is a spiritual down payment or earnest money, a guarantee that the Christian will go to heaven. His inheritance is imperishable and is reserved in heaven for him (1 Peter 1:4).

Christians can know for certain that they have been adopted by God and have eternal life:

The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God. (Romans 8:16)

And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:11-13)

Christians do not receive eternal life when they physically die; they receive it at the regeneration event. John 3:36 says, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life.” Eternal life is life that cannot be lost. Thus, those who have eternal life cannot lose their salvation.

The Bible says that nothing (no environmental influences) can separate Christians from God’s love:

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)

If Christians can never be separated from God’s love, then we must acknowledge the impossibility of their being burned in the lake of fire for an eternity: “And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (Revelation 20:15). The names of the elect, however, have been written in the book of life “from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8, 17:8). Thus, Christians have eternal security. They are indeed everlasting creations.

Craig, you said:

I have also most sadly witnessed the up-rooting of some beautiful old Christians who had been firmly rooted, but not firmly enough to deal with the cataclysmic situations that befell them.

Matthew 7:22-27 tells us that the house founded upon the rock will not fall, regardless of whatever cataclysmic environmental situation occurs. Those that fall were never known by God, according to Matthew 7:22-23.

Craig, you said the following:

You are confusing here the present-perfect with the future-perfect—a tense that is seldom used in the N.T. The present-perfect expresses action that began in past time that is either continuing or having a continued effect down to the PRESENT time with NO guarantee of continuance in the future.

There’s no evidence that “rooted” and “grounded” (founded) in Ephesians 3:17 are intensive presents. There’s no reason to assume that they are not standard perfect participles. Notice what Brooks and Winbery said about the permanent result from perfect action:

Perfective action implies a state of being which resulted from a past, completed action. The completed action has produced a permanent result. Such action may be illustrated by a dot and a line (. _______ ).

Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979), pages 83.

I’m not sure where you’re going with the rare future perfect tense. The future perfect describes action that will be complete in the future. This surely does not apply to “rooted” and “grounded” (founded) in Ephesians 3:17. “Rooted” and “grounded” (founded) describe completed action in the past. Notice the following descriptions of the 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.

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

The future perfect tense refers to an action or state that will be completed at some time subsequent to the time of utterance (“I will have written my English paper by the time I leave for Spring Break”).

http://www.classics.uiuc.edu/dsansone/Everything.pdf

 

[Craigbythesea]

Comparing me to the Pharisees is a personal attack.

I did no such thing. I simply pointed out that you were using deductive logic in your posts, and then proceeded to showed from Scripture how the Pharisees used precisely the same type of logic to evaluate Jesus and what the consequences were.

You also said:
quote:

You believe what you want to believe rather than what the Bible teaches.

Thus, you have personally attacked me twice.

Yes, I wrote that in reference to your responses to the data that I posted that indisputably refutes your absurd argument that the Greek Grammar used by Paul in Col. 2;7 and Eph. 3:17 proves that Christians are instantaneously firmly and permanently rooted, and I believe that your responses prove that assessment to be true.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I have not seen any passage in the Bible that explicitly says Christians can lose their salvation. Neither have I seen any historical proof over 2,000 years that any Christian has lost his salvation. If you want to present anything that you consider to be inductive evidence to the court, I will cross-examine.

During the discovery phase of a previous trial I submitted to the court numerous pages of evidence, but of course evidence in and of its self has no inductive qualities. And rather than get involved in another trial , at this time I am withdrawing from this discussion.