The Often Heard Modern Gospel

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist says that no human being comes into this world with a love for light and a hatred for darkness. I would disagree. I believe Adam was created with right desires including a desire for obedience, and did in fact walk righteous before God for some time. If you think for a minute that God turned Adam loose devoid of any inner desires to serve and love Him I believe you could not be further from the truth.

I noticed you have not told us how the angels sinned. What inner or outer coercion caused them to sin? Every indication is that they were pure and holy before the fall. Why does not the notion you tell us concerning God's self demand that the angels remain pure and holy?? Your theory simply does not hold water.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicst: Nothing prevents the worst sinner from coming to the light except his own free will!

HP: Nothing, according to you, BUT THE VERY "CAUSE," no less. of them coming to the light, without which you say there is no hope, i.e., regeneration. You need to re-think your opinions regarding regeneration preceding faith, repentance and conversion. Your distinction between regeneration and conversion is simply in error.

Biblicist: Again, the heart determines the desire in God as in man. Both have the power of contrary choice but neither "will" choose contrary to the immutable state of their heart.

HP: Or maybe choices of the will determine the heart. Just as Adam did and the angels that fell did and the angels that have not fallen do, and we do on a daily basis.

The sinner is not a sinner because of his nature. He has a sinful nature as a result of selfish choices as opposed to benevolence. His sinful nature is a product of his choices, not the other way around. Depraved sensibilities have served as formidable influences, but are not the cause of ones sin. The will is the seat of all sin, and that subsequent to the age of accountibility.

Even a simple look at the makeup of our 'self' will testify clearly that the inner man involves three distinctly different parts, i.e., the intellect, the will, and the sensibilities. We need to take the time to look introspectively into our mental makeup. I hope in time we can go over this matter in detail.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Self determination in God is determined by the heart of God. God's heart is immutably righteous and therefore it is impossible for God to will contrary to righteousness. Not because lack of will power but because lack of desire as his heart desires are immutably righteous and nothing externally can tempt God contrary to His immutably internal desires of His heart. In other words the nature of God determines His will.

HP: I say His will determines His nature. Can you refute that?

Biblicist: Adam was not created in a state of immutable righteousness.... Hence, there was no immutable INTERNAL desire. The fall was influenced by EXTERNAL temptations that moved him to wrong desires arising within.

HP: Did not have to have one. You say it was by EXTERNAL temptations, but Scripture tells us the battle was in the heart and will of man. Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

I would consider seeing something as good for food would be an immutable desire as long as we are in the flesh, would not you? I believe man has an immutable desire to be wise as well, and to look upon things pleasant to the eyes was a God given desire in and or itself, as were all of those desires mentioned. Desire is not necessarily sin. Desire can be simply associated with the sensibilities. Sin does not, according to James, take place until the will yields to those desires in a manner directly at antipodes with a known commandment of God.

I still see one of the most blatant pitfalls in your philosophy as not properly seeing a clear distinction between the chooser or the will and the sensibilities. That is a fundamental flaw of enormous consequences'.

Biblicist: Due to the choice to violate His innocense of sin his heart became IMMUTABLY confirmed in unrighteous so that he loved darkness and hated light. Hence, in keeping with immutable unrighteousness (Rom. 8:7) it is impossible for fallen man to will contrary to his unrighteous nature only because he "will not."

HP: Who said he violated his innocence? He was a moral agent walking and communing with God. He had never experienced sin, but He was righteous before the fall, not merely 'innocent.' Babies are innocent but are not moral beings. Adam was a moral agent, most likely created in that state, not in the mere innocence of a child.

Biblicist: Therefore, he is like God in regard to immutability of nature but conversely so.

HP: There is not a shred of Biblical evidence that the reason why sin is immutable in ones nature once one sins, that it is that way due to the nature of God being immutable. God being immutable could be so for reasons other than you give. I again say the character of God is immutable because He always chooses in a manner consistent with love. That by no means says that before God was love, and that God only can act according to the self that precede His formed intents. God is Infinite in all His attributes, we are not. Because God is Infinite does not mean we are. Just as you say His Self determines His will, I can say His will determines his Self. There is nothing there to establish any such principle as you do. God's nature and the reason why it is what it is goes way beyond the determinism you desire to make of it. It is beyond us.

Biblicist: If you can show that God "will" choose to do evil, then you can show that man "will" choose to do good. .....

HP: You act as if thought he Spirit of God is void in the lives of individuals today. I say they have learned to do despite the motivation and desires God placed within them. Even the heathen are enlightened to some degree. Who are you to say that God has not instilled desires to love the light and hate the darkness? Even heathen in the darkest parts of the jungle know intuitively when they do wrong at times. I remember one story of some head hunters who when they killed a missionary in cold blood, they instinctively went and hid in the jungle for they knew they had done wrong. They had never heard the gospel period prior to that. Does not Romans clearly point this out? God gives to all men some desires to desire the right and eschew the darkness. He gives to all men some sense of justice, love, and other good desires. Those desires do not mean they are inherently good, but neither are they born evil.

.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
He theorizes that Adam was the only one with a free will to choose between two or more possibilities involving a moral decision.

Biblicist: Absolutely false. Fallen man has the power of choice between two or more possibilities involving decision. The power is present but the desire is not. The desire is determined by what the heart loves (loves darkness) and what the heart hates (hates light) and therefore they can not choose light ONLY because they "will not" choose light.

HP: Infants have no such capacities or abilities as you ascribe to fallen man. No wonder. They are not born fallen. They may be born with depraved sensibilities, but even then they are given some good desires as well. Because all in our dispensation follow their depraved sensibilities and sin and become guilty before God in no wise indicates that they were not in possession of some good inherent qualities/desires by God.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Nothing, according to you, BUT THE VERY "CAUSE," no less. of them coming to the light, without which you say there is no hope, i.e., regeneration. You need to re-think your opinions regarding regeneration preceding faith, repentance and conversion. Your distinction between regeneration and conversion is simply in error.

I Jn. 5:1 is but one example where "is born" represents the Aorist tense verb or completed past tense action but where "believeth" represents the Present Tense participle or incompleted progressive action. The KJV translators translated the Aorist tense to reflect SIMELTANEOUS action with the participle. However, in the bullet and hole analogy the logical cause is found in the completed action of new birth.

Ezek. 36:26-27 uses the word "cause" to explain the impact of God giving a new heart and new spirit upon the will to respond in obedience to the revealed will of God. Hence, God giving the new heart and new spirit is the "CAUSE" for human willingness to respond to God's commandments.

Hence, regeneration and conversion are inseparable and simeltaneous in action but regeneration is the logical cause of conversion.

For example, the Old Testament prophet said, "Turn us and we shall be turned" as a perfect analogy of the relationship of cause and effect between regeneration and conversion.

God is the one who turns and thus we are being turned. The heart of a lost man LOVES darkness and HATES light. Repentance is God changing the hearts LOVE for darkness to HATRED for darkness. Faith is God changing the hearts HATRED for light to LOVE for light.

I realize you have no desire to know the truth because you are set mentally to oppose it no matter what. However, for those readers who are objective and seeking the truth here is the Biblical relationship between regeneration and conversion. I could use many other biblical analogies to illustrate the same cause and effect relationship between regeneration and conversion (2 Cor. 3:3-6; 2 Cor. 4:5-6; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; Acts 13:48; etc.).

HP: Or maybe choices of the will determine the heart. Just as Adam did and the angels that fell did and the angels that have not fallen do, and we do on a daily basis.

This is irrational as well as unbiblical. The will does not stand alone or act in isolation from the rest of human nature. The will does not look at you and say, I don't know what you really desire but this is my choice and I am choosing this whether you mentally/emotionally desire this or not.

There are only two Greek terms translated "will" in scripture and both show the dominance of the heart in the action of the will:

1. Thelema - emotionally directed will
2. Boulomia - intellectual directed will

The Bible explicitly teaches that will is the heart expression "for WITH THE HEART man believeth" and "HEART of unbeleif".

The heart is the seat of intellectual/emotional DESIRES or the "intent and thoughts of the heart."

I have presented this Biblical evidence to you many times before and you never attempt to overthrow but simply respond by philosophical arguments which demonstrates you are not really bible based in your thinking.

The sinner is not a sinner because of his nature. He has a sinful nature as a result of selfish choices as opposed to benevolence. His sinful nature is a product of his choices, not the other way around. Depraved sensibilities have served as formidable influences, but are not the cause of ones sin. The will is the seat of all sin, and that subsequent to the age of accountibility.

False! The will is simply the expression of the desires of the heart "WITH THE HEART man beleiveth (act of the will)" or "heart of UNBELIEF" again it is the heart which is the seat of belief or unbelief.

God has not given you the ability to receive the truth in this area (Mt. 13:10-11) and I doubt that he will because you are so hardened against the truth.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I Jn. 5:1 is but one example where "is born" represents the Aorist tense verb or completed past tense action but where "believeth" represents the Present Tense participle or incompleted progressive action.

This does not prove that being "born of God" happened prior to faith. Greek expert Daniel Wallace writes:

"With respect to 'aspect,' the present tense is 'internal' (that is, it portrays the action from the inside of the event, without special regard to beginning or end), but it makes no comment as to fulfillment (or completion). The present tense's portrayal of an even 'focuses on its devolpment or progress and sees the occurance in regard to its eternal make-up, without beginning or end in view.' " (Wallace Daniel B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 514).

So just because the word "believeth" is in the "present" tense we cannot assume that the new birth happened prior to faith.

The verses of which you speak are in regard to believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (1 Jn.5:1-5).

And here we see that it is "believing" these facts which result in the new life:

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

Ezek. 36:26-27 uses the word "cause" to explain the impact of God giving a new heart and new spirit upon the will to respond in obedience to the revealed will of God. Hence, God giving the new heart and new spirit is the "CAUSE" for human willingness to respond to God's commandments.

Let us look at those verses:

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them" (Ez.36:26-27).

Of course the Jews at that time will receive the Holy Spirit in exactly the same way that we do and that is by believing." Here Paul asks a rhetorical question in order to tell us exactly how we receive the Spirit:

"I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?" (Gal.3:2).

 

[The Biblicist]

This does not prove that being "born of God" happened prior to faith. Greek expert Daniel Wallace writes:

"With respect to 'aspect,' the present tense is 'internal' (that is, it portrays the action from the inside of the event, without special regard to beginning or end), but it makes no comment as to fulfillment (or completion). The present tense's portrayal of an even 'focuses on its devolpment or progress and sees the occurance in regard to its eternal make-up, without beginning or end in view.' " (Wallace Daniel B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 514).

Wallace is speaking of the present tense in abstract use or isolated use. The present tense in and by itself does not convey when a stated action begun or when it ends. All it portrays is that the action is incomplete and ongoing. Thus "believeth" is an ongoing action. However, the Aorist tense "born" is a previously completed action. Hence, logically new birth action has been completed while believing is ongoing action. In relationship to each other the Aorist tense at minimum conveys that it LOGICALLY completed its action previous to the present tense as past tense precedes present tense. In some cases it would demand CHRONOLOGICALLY that the action of the Aorist was completed BEFORE the action of the present tense began.

Let us look at those verses:

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them" (Ez.36:26-27).

What is the "cause" of obedience in this context? It is the giving of a new heart and new spirit that precedes!

Of course the Jews at that time will receive the Holy Spirit in exactly the same way that we do and that is by believing." Here Paul asks a rhetorical question in order to tell us exactly how we receive the Spirit:

"I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?" (Gal.3:2).

Simeltaneous action!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Wallace is speaking of the present tense in abstract use or isolated use. The present tense in and by itself does not convey when a stated action begun or when it ends. All it portrays is that the action is incomplete and ongoing.

But your entire argument depends on assuming that it did not begin until after a person is "born of God."

Hence, logically new birth action has been completed while believing is ongoing action.

The ongoing action of believing had a beginning and your whole argument depends on assuming that it did not begin "logically" until after the new birth.

In relationship to each other the Aorist tense at minimum conveys that it LOGICALLY completed its action previous to the present tense as past tense precedes present tense. In some cases it would demand CHRONOLOGICALLY that the action of the Aorist was completed BEFORE the action of the present tense began.

There is nothing about the "present" tense that demands that the action of the Aorist tense is completed prior to believing.

And you did not even attempt to explain the fact that it is the action of believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, which results in new life:

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

What is the "cause" of obedience in this context? It is the giving of a new heart and new spirit that precedes!

Yes, and the Spirit is only received by faith:

"I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?" (Gal.3:2).

All you can say about this is the following:

Simeltaneous action!

Yes, in "time" they are simultaneous but "logically" they are not. Since it is the "believing" of the truth which RESULTS in receiving the Spirit then "logically" believing comes first.

 

[The Biblicist]

But your entire argument depends on assuming that it did not begin until after a person is "born of God."

No I don't. It is the Aorist tense that demands new birth was an already completed action. The term "born" represents the Aorist tense.

In relationship with that Aorist tense birth, "beleiveth" is present tense. Wallace is simply saying that the present tense cannot be used to define the beginning or ending of the action of beleiving and it does not. It is the Aorist tense "born" that determines the new birth was already a completed action. In relationship with the present tense "beleiveth" which is CONTINUOUS ACTION the logical order is new birth as a completed action in contrast to believeth as a present incomplete action.

The same construction is used four other times by John in this epistle. We are loving God because we have been born of God. We are doing good works because we have been born of God. We are believing in Christ because we have been born of God. The very same identical construction is found in the following verses:

1 Jn. 4:7 ¶ Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth (present tense participle) is born (Aorist tense verb) of God, and knoweth God.

[/COLOR]1 Jn. 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness (present tense pariciple) is born (Aorist tense verb) of him.


1 Jn. 5:1 ¶ Whosoever believeth(present tense participle) that Jesus is the Christ is born (Aorist tense verb) of God:

You are not doing righteousness IN ORDER to be born of God
You are not loving IN ORDER to be born of God
You are not beleiving IN ORDER to be born of God

If you insist 1 Jn. 5:1 demands believing IN ORDER TO be born of God then you equally have to demand doing righteouness is necessary IN ORDER TO be born of God, etc.

 

[The Biblicist]

No I don't. It is the Aorist tense that demands new birth was an already completed action. The term "born" represents the Aorist tense.

In relationship with that Aorist tense birth, "beleiveth" is present tense. Wallace is simply saying that the present tense cannot be used to define the beginning or ending of the action of beleiving and it does not. It is the Aorist tense "born" that determines the new birth was already a completed action. In relationship with the present tense "beleiveth" which is CONTINUOUS ACTION the logical order is new birth as a completed action in contrast to believeth as a present incomplete action.

The same construction is used four other times by John in this epistle. We are loving God because we have been born of God. We are doing good works because we have been born of God. We are believing in Christ because we have been born of God. The very same identical construction is found in the following verses:

1 Jn. 4:7 ¶ Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth (present tense participle) is born (Aorist tense verb) of God, and knoweth God.

[/COLOR]1 Jn. 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness (present tense pariciple) is born (Aorist tense verb) of him.


1 Jn. 5:1 ¶ Whosoever believeth(present tense participle) that Jesus is the Christ is born (Aorist tense verb) of God:

You are not doing righteousness IN ORDER to be born of God
You are not loving IN ORDER to be born of God
You are not beleiving IN ORDER to be born of God

If you insist 1 Jn. 5:1 demands believing IN ORDER TO be born of God then you equally have to demand doing righteouness is necessary IN ORDER TO be born of God, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart
No, it is in the "perfect" tense.


You are right, I was depending on memory. However, the perfect tense is stronger than the Aorist in regard to completed action. It not only demands a completed action but one that was completed at a point in the past and stands complete right up to the present. Both Aorist and Perfect tenses are completed action.

So you still have the same problem!

1. Do people do righteousness IN ORDER to have been born of God?

2. Do people love IN ORDER TO have been born of God?

If not, then neither do people "believe" IN ORDER TO have been born of God!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So you still have the same problem!

1. Do people do righteousness IN ORDER to have been born of God?

2. Do people love IN ORDER TO have been born of God?

If not, then neither do people "believe" IN ORDER TO have been born of God!

I never said that in ever case that the beginning of an action which is in the "present" tense ALWAYS points back to the new birth. You are merely building a straw man so that you can knock it over.

I have shown that you are wrong about this and you do not even attempt to defend your views. Perhaps this time you finally will:

Here we can see that "believing" is in the "present" tense and "passing from death unto life" is in the "perfect" tense:

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes (present tense) him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over (perfect tense) from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

The present tense does not tell us when the act of believing began but we can know that it started at the same time when the believer is passed from death unto life. And that is because no one is passed from death unto life until they believe:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

You continue to refuse to even attempt to defend your assertions.

 

[The Biblicist]

I never said that in ever case that the beginning of an action which is in the "present" tense ALWAYS points back to the new birth. You are merely building a straw man so that you can knock it over.

You still do not understand the quotation you gave by Wallace! Wallace is not talking about either an Aorist or Perfect tense where action does determine a beginning and ending point of an action. He is talking about the present tense which by its very nature never points to a beginning or ending point but rather to the ongoing process. Wallace's statement has NOTHING to do with the relationship between the present tense "beleiveth" and the perfect tense verb "born" - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

My argument in 1 John 2:29; 1 Jn. 4:7 and 1 Jn. 5:1 has to do with the relationship between a completed action perfect tense verb and an incompleted action present tense participle. It is a contrast between completed versus incompleted actions not concerning the internals of the present tense action of which Wallace discusses!!!!! Wallace's statement has NOTHING to do with my argument or the relationship between a completed and incompleted action.

You still have the very same problem!

1. Do you have to love IN ORDER to be born again? - 1 Jn. 4:7 (perfect tense verb "is born" with present tense participle "loveth")

2. Do you have to do righteous works IN ORDER to be born again? - 1 Jn. 2:29 (perfect tense verb "is born" with present tense participle "doeth righteousness")

No! They are the consequences not the cause of the new birth and the very same struture in 1 Jn. 5:1 demands that the new birth is the cause not the consequence of beleiving (logical order).

Here we can see that "believing" is in the "present" tense and "passing from death unto life" is in the "perfect" tense:

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes (present tense) him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over (perfect tense) from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

The present tense does not tell us when the act of believing began but we can know that it started at the same time when the believer is passed from death unto life. And that is because no one is passed from death unto life until they believe:

You are proving my point!!! The present tense believing does not point to any starting or ending place. However, the perfect tense does point to a starting place but it is the starting place of regeneration when one passes from death unto life. Therefore believing starts with regeneration not that regeneration starts with believing because the perfect tense is not used for believing but for passing from death to life - regeneration. Hence, the present tense action does not precede the action of the perfect tense "born."

If one wanted to show that the act of beleiving preceded the act of new birth then the writer would have used a periphrastic construct (perfect tense verb with a present tense finite or to be verb) which would convey the fact that at a certain point in the past faith occurred as a completed action but continues as a completed action. He would then have used a simple Aorist subjunctive verb for "born." Hence, the one beleiving in Christ that he might be born of God.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

My argument in 1 John 2:29; 1 Jn. 4:7 and 1 Jn. 5:1 has to do with the relationship between a completed action perfect tense verb and an incompleted action present tense participle.

You assume that the verb "believeth" is not completed. But you fail to understand that an action in the "present" tense can indeed be completed:

"The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment" (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)

Now let us look at the verse again:

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

The action of believing is considered to be "complete" in the sense that one does not have to continue to believe in order to receive eternal life because once he believes he has already been given eternal life. And the same can be said for believing in regard to the assurance that he will not be condemned. So your point has no merit at all.

The present tense believing does not point to any starting or ending place. However, the perfect tense does point to a starting place but it is the starting place of regeneration when one passes from death unto life. .

According to what you said we must believe that a person has passed from "death unto life" BEFORE he believes despite the fact that the Apostle John says that receiving new life comes as a result of believing:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

You want us to believe that what you say about the Greek language cannot be in error but at the same time you continue to refuse to address what the Apostle John says at John 20:31.

Perhaps you can use your Greek expertise there and convince us that is does not take "faith" to receive the life which is through the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[The Biblicist]

You assume that the verb "believeth" is not completed. But you fail to understand that an action in the "present" tense can indeed be completed:

"The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment" (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)

Your very quoted authorities repudiate what you are saying!!!!!! You neither understand Wallace or Blass & DeBrunner. They are saying the very OPPOSITITE of what you are saying!

Do you understand what "durative" means?

Do you understand what "linear or progressive" means?

Do you understand what "in progress" means

These are all terms that demand INCOMPLETED ON GOING ACTION!

Now let us look at the verse again:

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

The action of believing is considered to be "complete" in the sense that one does not have to continue to believe in order to receive eternal life because once he believes he has already been given eternal life. And the same can be said for believing in regard to the assurance that he will not be condemned. So your point has no merit at all.

Wrong! The term "beleiveth" and the present tense do not demand a completed action in regard to eternal life. Why? Because both are present tense ("hath") showing contempoary ongoing incompleted action. The only thing the present tense shows is that they are both incompleted on going actions. What makes them irreversable is the perfect tense completed point of action in the past ("passed") and the future tense negative point of completed action "shall not come into condemnation". Hence what is in between these two completed actions (beginning point versus ending point) is continuous believing with eternal life.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

These are all terms that demand INCOMPLETED ON GOING ACTION!

You obviously do not know what "durative" means because the Greek expert which I quoted says that that it does not need to be durative on both sides of the present moment:

"The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment" (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166).

The word "durative" means "continued action" and my sourse says that this continued action can be in regard to only one side of the present moment so it does not mean that the believing must continue into the future.

The term "beleiveth" and the present tense do not demand a completed action in regard to eternal life. Why? Because both are present tense ("hath") showing contempoary ongoing incompleted action.

Let us look at the following verse which speaks of exactly the same thing:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).

Kenneth S. Wuest writes the following in regard to the Greek words translated "whosoever believes": "'whoever believes' = 'pas ho pisteuon' = relative pronoun with a participle verb functioning as a noun, lit. 'everyone who is believing'...Contrary to objectors who insist that Jn 3:16 stipulates everyone who maintains a constant state of believing as result of the phrase 'whoever believes' = 'pas ho pisteuon', the form of the verb to believe is not a present tense form but it is actually a nominative, singular, masculine, present active participle, i.e., a participle acting as a noun indicating 'one who believes' [in Christ as Savior], i.e., a believer. The participle acting as a noun does not require a perfection of continuous action such as continuous believing in order for an individual to be qualified as a believer" (Wuest, Wuest's Word Studies, Vol. 3, [Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1992], p. 67).

This demonstrates that the "believing" in the following verse does not demand a continued action:

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

The present tense believing does not point to any starting or ending place. However, the perfect tense does point to a starting place but it is the starting place of regeneration when one passes from death unto life.

According to what you said we must believe that a person has passed from "death unto life" BEFORE he believes despite the fact that the Apostle John says that receiving new life comes as a result of believing:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

You want us to believe that what you say about the Greek language cannot be in error but at the same time you continue to refuse to address what the Apostle John says at John 20:31.

Why is that?

Thanks!

 

[The Biblicist]

You obviously do not know what "durative" means because the Greek expert which I quoted says that that it does not need to be durative on both sides of the present moment:

"The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment" (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166).

Is that what he said? Did not he say "INCLUDING, of course duration on one side or the other of the present moment" not EXCLUDING as you seem to interpret it???

If you INCLUDE both sides of the present moment as IN PROGRESS, isn't the present moment included as well?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Is that what he said? Did not he say "INCLUDING, of course duration on one side or the other of the present moment" not EXCLUDING as you seem to interpret it???

If you INCLUDE both sides of the present moment as IN PROGRESS, isn't the present moment included as well?

Do you know what the word "or" means? It sure does not mean "and."

"The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment" (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166).

"On one side OR the other of the present moment." Not both sides--only one side. The word "or" speaks of alternatives--"to be OR not to be."

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you know what the word "or" means? It sure does not mean "and."

"The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment" (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166).

"On one side OR the other of the present moment." Not both sides--only one side. The word "or" speaks of alternatives--"to be OR not to be."

I do, but apparently you do not in this context. The word "or" here is distinguishing one side from the other side of the present moment.

Do you understand what the word "INCLUDING" means? In this context it means that BOTH sides as well as the present moment are ALL being INCLUDED as "durative" and none of the above are EXCLUDED!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bibliist refuse to adddress this post as i recal. Possibly he might have a response figured out by now. Here was the question.

I noticed you have not told us how the angels sinned. What inner or outer coercion caused them to sin? Every indication is that they were pure and holy before the fall. Why does not the notion you tell us concerning God's self demand that the angels remain pure and holy?? Your theory simply does not hold water.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Do you understand what the word "INCLUDING" means? In this context it means that BOTH sides as well as the present moment are ALL being INCLUDED as "durative" and none of the above are EXCLUDED!

Here is exactly what the word INCLUDING means in the context:

"...or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment..."

This is speaking about something "as taking place in the present time."

And included in the idea of something "taking part in the present tense is the idea the 'duration" is in regard to being "on one side OR the other of the present moment.

NOT both sides, as you imagine, but one side OR the other.

Not only that, I have already given another verse which includes both a verb in the "present" tense as well as one in the "perfect" tense. But you REFUSE to discuss it because you know that it proves that you are wrong. Here is the verse:

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes (present tense) him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over (perfect tense) from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

The present tense does not tell us when the act of believing began but we can know that it started at the same time when the believer is passed from death unto life. And that is because no one is passed from death unto life until they believe:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

You continue to run as fast as you can from this and it is obvious why:

You have no answer.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is exactly what the word INCLUDING means in the context:

"...or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment..."

This is speaking about something "as taking place in the present time."

And included in the idea of something "taking part in the present tense is the idea the 'duration" is in regard to being "on one side OR the other of the present moment.

NOT both sides, as you imagine, but one side OR the other.

Your interpretation is irrational. You are actually demanding that progressive action cannot precede the present moment if progressive action occurs after the present moment and vice versa. However something in progress denies either a starting point prior to the present moment as much as after the present moment. Hence on both sides of the present moment it is in progress because the present tense denies a beginning or ending point. You are simply wrong!