Question: What are the conditions for salvation?

[FreeGrace2]

You quoted Wallace to prove your point that scholarly teaching backs your belief. Now you ignore Wallace's scholarly statements because he actually contradicts your belief. What a hypocrite!

No, what I am demonstrating is discernment. No human being is 100% correct in all their beliefs and opinions. Even scholars.

And I showed where Wallace contradicted himself.

So, again, what is your point?

In your post #95, you quoted me:

"I believe what the Bible says. Those who HAVE BELIEVED possess eternal life. The aorist tense refutes your faulty notion that "continuous belief" in necessary in order to stay saved. That is an abuse of the Greek present tense."

And you ignored my comment about the aorist tense.

Paul used the aorist tense to the jailer in his answer to the jailer's question of what he MUST DO to be saved. Paul didn't use the present tense.

But, so what! Even if he had done so, the present tense only speaks of what is happening CURRENTLY or RIGHT NOW, from the perspective of the speaker/writer.

And Jesus used the aorist tense in His speaking to the woman at the well in John 4 about drinking the water He had.

Certainly, one MUST continually drink literal water in order to not get thirsty again. But Jesus told her that by drinking (aorist tense) the water He provided, she would NOT be thirsty again.

How do you explain that, given your faulty thinking about the present tense?

 

[Oldmantook]

No, what I am demonstrating is discernment. No human being is 100% correct in all their beliefs and opinions. Even scholars.

And I showed where Wallace contradicted himself.

So, again, what is your point?

In your post #95, you quoted me:

"I believe what the Bible says. Those who HAVE BELIEVED possess eternal life. The aorist tense refutes your faulty notion that "continuous belief" in necessary in order to stay saved. That is an abuse of the Greek present tense."

And you ignored my comment about the aorist tense.

Paul used the aorist tense to the jailer in his answer to the jailer's question of what he MUST DO to be saved. Paul didn't use the present tense.

But, so what! Even if he had done so, the present tense only speaks of what is happening CURRENTLY or RIGHT NOW, from the perspective of the speaker/writer.

And Jesus used the aorist tense in His speaking to the woman at the well in John 4 about drinking the water He had.

Certainly, one MUST continually drink literal water in order to not get thirsty again. But Jesus told her that by drinking (aorist tense) the water He provided, she would NOT be thirsty again.

How do you explain that, given your faulty thinking about the present tense?

Did you not realize that the scriptures describe salvation in past, present and future terms? I assume you know that? Therefore for you to claim that salvation is strictly a one-time event relegated to the past goes against the whole of Scripture as the scriptures portray salvation as a process described in present and future terms - as well as in the past tense. Therefore, ongoing belief and obedience is requisite.

With respect to the woman at the well. Note that Jesus did not abide by her request to grant her living water. Instead Jesus pointed out to her the problem of having multiple husbands and her current "husband" whom she was not married to. Instead Jesus instructs her that those who worship the Father must do so in spirit and truth. In this account the woman does not receive living water, thus to use her as an example of one who will not thirst again is an inappropriate example.
Moreover, there are other scriptures that appear to contradict your claim. This verse indicates that cisterns holding living water can become broken through sin and hold no more water.
Jeremiah 2:13 - For My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, to hew for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Did you not realize that the scriptures describe salvation in past, present and future terms?

Of course I do.

Past Tense salvation: have been saved from the penalty of sin. Justification.
Present Tense salvation: am being saved from the power of sin. Sanctification.
Future Tense salvation: will be saved from the presence of sin. Glorification.

Therefore for you to claim that salvation is strictly a one-time event relegated to the past goes against the whole of Scripture as the scriptures portray salvation as a process described in present and future terms - as well as in the past tense.

You continue to misunderstand me. The "one-time event" is the moment one puts their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. It is at that moment the person is justified, saved, becomes a new creature, is born again, and indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

We know from Scripture that getting saved is a one-time event from Paul's answer to the jailer's question of what he MUST DO to be saved. Paul used the aorist tense when he said "believe". But you haven't addressed or admitted the aorist tense yet.

Therefore, ongoing belief and obedience is requisite.

This is just faulty or fuzzy logic.

Maybe you aren't aware of who will be condemned, but the Bible tells us clearly.

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

2 Thess 2:12 - and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Once a person believes, FROM THAT MOMENT, it cannot be said of them that they "have not believed". Because they HAVE believed. Even if they cease to believe later on.

Speaking of the future, Paul closed that loop as well.

Rom 8:38 - For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,

Where, in the context, or any other verse, for that matter, is the "future" defined with ANY kind of limitations?

With respect to the woman at the well. Note that Jesus did not abide by her request to grant her living water.

Seriously?? Didn't you read the text?

John 4:26 - Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

Jesus directly told her He was the Messiah.

Then, this response:
28 Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people,
29 “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Messiah?”

39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.”
40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days.
41And because of his words many more became believers.
42 They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”

How can anyone not see that the woman evangelized the town? Of course she received living water.

But you keep missing or dodging the point. Jesus told her to "drink the living water" and used the aorist tense. If she needed to keep believing, He would have said that.

Instead, Jesus told her ONE drink of His water would result in NEVER thirsting.

Instead Jesus pointed out to her the problem of having multiple husbands and her current "husband" whom she was not married to. Instead Jesus instructs her that those who worship the Father must do so in spirit and truth. In this account the woman does not receive living water, thus to use her as an example of one who will not thirst again is an inappropriate example.

You're distracted by minor details. Focus on what tense Jesus used in His figure of speech about drinking living water.

Literal (wet) water requires continuous drinking (over and over) in order to not get thirsty.

But the living water only requires ONE drink. That's what the aorist tense indicates.

Moreover, there are other scriptures that appear to contradict your claim.

OK, they "appear" to contradict me only because you refuse to accept the facts.

This verse indicates that cisterns holding living water can become broken through sin and hold no more water.
Jeremiah 2:13 - For My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, to hew for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

Why would anyone link this verse with what Jesus said to the woman? It's a different text, with a different context altogether.

Please focus on JUST what Jesus said to the woman. He made NO reference to any verse in Jeremiah or any other passage.

And v.13 refutes your own claim. The cisterns that "can hold no water" are the cisterns that the sinful people MADE THEMSELVES.

So, the cisterns that can hold no water don't refer to the "fountain of living waters".

Please address the use of the aorist tense for 'believe' used by Jesus and Paul. Your theory cannot hold, just like the cisterns hewn by the sinful people back in Jeremiah 2.

 

[Oldmantook]

You continue to misunderstand me. The "one-time event" is the moment one puts their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. It is at that moment the person is justified, saved, becomes a new creature, is born again, and indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

We know from Scripture that getting saved is a one-time event from Paul's answer to the jailer's question of what he MUST DO to be saved. Paul used the aorist tense when he said "believe". But you haven't addressed or admitted the aorist tense yet.

Again...salvation is NOT SOLELY described in Scripture as a past event. Do I have to cite scriptures for you that demonstrate that salvation is described in present and future tenses as well?? I'm guessing you are quite aware of those scriptures but leave them out for the sake of preserving your doctrine. Bad eisegesis.

Once a person believes, FROM THAT MOMENT, it cannot be said of them that they "have not believed". Because they HAVE believed. Even if they cease to believe later on.

Of course they once believed but every believer has the prerogative to cease believing. Cessation of belief results in no longer having salvation.

Rom 8:38 - For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,

Where, in the context, or any other verse, for that matter, is the "future" defined with ANY kind of limitations?

Ever see the word SIN listed in that verse? FYI sin separates from God. Ever read Rom 8:13 in that passage? Every read verses 1 and v.4 which states a condition - those who walk not according to the flesh but after the Spirit?

Seriously?? Didn't you read the text?

John 4:26 - Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

Jesus directly told her He was the Messiah.

Of course He's the Messiah; that goes without saying. The fact is no where in the text is the woman described as having eternal life. V.15 states that the woman asks Jesus to "give me this water." Question for you: Does Jesus do so? No, instead he reveals to the woman that she is in sin since she is living with a man who is not her husband. In v.23 Jesus instructs the woman that true worshipers of God must worship the Father in Spirit and truth which is precisely why Jesus pointed out her sinful condition to her.

You're distracted by minor details. Focus on what tense Jesus used in His figure of speech about drinking living water.

Problem is you ignore the details.

Why would anyone link this verse with what Jesus said to the woman? It's a different text, with a different context altogether.

Same context as both passages refer to living water. Jesus pointed out the woman's sin. Jeremiah pointed out the people's sins. Perfect parallel.

And v.13 refutes your own claim. The cisterns that "can hold no water" are the cisterns that the sinful people MADE THEMSELVES.

Quite ironically, you undermine your own claim. Sinful people have chosen to sin and thus have chosen to ABANDON/FORSAKE me per v.13. It is impossible to abandon or forsake God if one was never faithful to God to begin with. As such they are broken cisterns that can no longer hold living water precisely because of their sins.
Again this supports my view and not yours that no longer believing and/or no longer obeying results in loss of salvation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Again...salvation is NOT SOLELY described in Scripture as a past event.

I never said it was. But you keep missing the point that your definition of the Greek present tense is wrong. It does NOT mean continuous action in order for the results to continue, as you claim.

Do I have to cite scriptures for you that demonstrate that salvation is described in present and future tenses as well?? I'm guessing you are quite aware of those scriptures but leave them out for the sake of preserving your doctrine. Bad eisegesis.

No, it's your bad exegesis that leaves out the FACT of the aorist tense altogether.

Of course they once believed but every believer has the prerogative to cease believing. Cessation of belief results in no longer having salvation.

The first sentence here is correct. The last sentence is not taught in Scripture. It is only an opinion, held by many. But no Scripture to back it up.

Both John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12 prove that condemnation is for those who NEVER believed. There are NO verses that tell us that those who used to believe will be condemned. In fact, these 2 verses refute such an idea.

Ever see the word SIN listed in that verse? FYI sin separates from God.

Right. But I think you miss the whole point. Since people are born separated from God at birth (Romans 5), sin isn't the issue at all. And since Christ died for all sins "once for all", even more, sin isn't the issue.

So, for sin to separate one from God only applies to believers. When a believer sins, they are separated from FELLOWSHIP with God. God doesn't hear them.

Isa 59:2 - But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.

Psa 66:18 - If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:

This can only apply to believers, since unbelievers are born separated from God; dead in their sins. So when a believer sins, the Lord won't hear him. That's separation of fellowship.

Ever read Rom 8:13 in that passage? Every read verses 1 and v.4 which states a condition - those who walk not according to the flesh but after the Spirit?

And Rom 8 is also about fellowship, or the lack of it.

Of course He's the Messiah; that goes without saying. The fact is no where in the text is the woman described as having eternal life.

Don't need such a verse. The context is quite compelling. She believed that He was the Messiah and led her townsfolk to Him to see for themselves.

To deny any of this is absurd.

V.15 states that the woman asks Jesus to "give me this water." Question for you: Does Jesus do so? No, instead he reveals to the woman that she is in sin since she is living with a man who is not her husband.

Of course she didn't understand what He was saying at that MOMENT. But once Jesus revealed her own past to her, she realized He was at least a prophet. And by the time she got back to town, she told the townspeople she had met the Messiah. And they all went out and agreed with her.

In v.23 Jesus instructs the woman that true worshipers of God must worship the Father in Spirit and truth which is precisely why Jesus pointed out her sinful condition to her.

You just need to keep reading to get to the part where she DOES acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah..

Problem is you ignore the details.

lol. You're the one who stops reading too quickly and makes conclusions on less than all the facts (details).

Same context as both passages refer to living water. Jesus pointed out the woman's sin. Jeremiah pointed out the people's sins. Perfect parallel.

Absolutely wrong. Not even a parallel. The broken cisterns were the ones made by the sinful people. You must not have read the very verse you quoted. lol.

Quite ironically, you undermine your own claim. Sinful people have chosen to sin and thus have chosen to ABANDON/FORSAKE me per v.13. It is impossible to abandon or forsake God if one was never faithful to God to begin with. As such they are broken cisterns that can no longer hold living water precisely because of their sins.

Please read the verse again. It doesn't say anything about broken cisterns that can't hold "living water", as you erroneously claim.

Here's the verse again: "For My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, to hew for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water."

The Lord says that He is the fountain of living waters. Then the Lord says the sinful people have "hewn for themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water.

What it doesn't say is "that can hold no living water", which seems to be what you keep reading the verse as.

Again this supports my view and not yours that no longer believing and/or no longer obeying results in loss of salvation.

Couldn't be farther from the truth. Those who can't read the verse accurately certainly can't understand the verse.

 

[Oldmantook]

I never said it was. But you keep missing the point that your definition of the Greek present tense is wrong. It does NOT mean continuous action in order for the results to continue, as you claim.


No, it's your bad exegesis that leaves out the FACT of the aorist tense altogether.


The first sentence here is correct. The last sentence is not taught in Scripture. It is only an opinion, held by many. But no Scripture to back it up.

Both John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12 prove that condemnation is for those who NEVER believed. There are NO verses that tell us that those who used to believe will be condemned. In fact, these 2 verses refute such an idea.


Right. But I think you miss the whole point. Since people are born separated from God at birth (Romans 5), sin isn't the issue at all. And since Christ died for all sins "once for all", even more, sin isn't the issue.

So, for sin to separate one from God only applies to believers. When a believer sins, they are separated from FELLOWSHIP with God. God doesn't hear them.

Isa 59:2 - But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.

Psa 66:18 - If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:

This can only apply to believers, since unbelievers are born separated from God; dead in their sins. So when a believer sins, the Lord won't hear him. That's separation of fellowship.


And Rom 8 is also about fellowship, or the lack of it.


Don't need such a verse. The context is quite compelling. She believed that He was the Messiah and led her townsfolk to Him to see for themselves.

To deny any of this is absurd.


Of course she didn't understand what He was saying at that MOMENT. But once Jesus revealed her own past to her, she realized He was at least a prophet. And by the time she got back to town, she told the townspeople she had met the Messiah. And they all went out and agreed with her.


You just need to keep reading to get to the part where she DOES acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah..


lol. You're the one who stops reading too quickly and makes conclusions on less than all the facts (details).


Absolutely wrong. Not even a parallel. The broken cisterns were the ones made by the sinful people. You must not have read the very verse you quoted. lol.


Please read the verse again. It doesn't say anything about broken cisterns that can't hold "living water", as you erroneously claim.

Here's the verse again: "For My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, to hew for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water."

The Lord says that He is the fountain of living waters. Then the Lord says the sinful people have "hewn for themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water.

What it doesn't say is "that can hold no living water", which seems to be what you keep reading the verse as.


Couldn't be farther from the truth. Those who can't read the verse accurately certainly can't understand the verse.

Nonsense. We have been on this merry go round for a while now so let's stop the ride. The whole basis for your belief is that the Greek present tense does not mean continuous action which extends beyond the present in order for the results to continue as you pointed out. It's quite a simple matter to turn your argument around on its head and demonstrate - using your own argument that - that cannot be the case.

For the sake of argument, let's agree that your belief is correct. With that in mind take a look at 1 Pet 1:5 "who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." The words "being guarded" is from φρουρήσει transliterated as phrouroumenous. This word is a present tense participle. Peter's use of the present tense in this verse refers to born again believers describing them as those who are continually being guarded through faith for salvation. Given your view, the present tense only describes action that is taking place at the moment with no regard to the past or future. However, God's protection of His children isn't fickle, present one moment and absent the next. Our being guarded by God is not limited but is continuous, extending beyond the present time. Thus your interpretation of the Greek present tense is flawed. I suggest you rethink your view.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Nonsense. We have been on this merry go round for a while now so let's stop the ride. The whole basis for your belief is that the Greek present tense does not mean continuous action which extends beyond the present in order for the results to continue as you pointed out. It's quite a simple matter to turn your argument around on its head and demonstrate - using your own argument that - that cannot be the case.

For the sake of argument, let's agree that your belief is correct. With that in mind take a look at 1 Pet 1:5 "who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." The words "being guarded" is from φρουρήσει transliterated as phrouroumenous. This word is a present tense participle. Peter's use of the present tense in this verse refers to born again believers describing them as those who are continually being guarded through faith for salvation. Given your view, the present tense only describes action that is taking place at the moment with no regard to the past or future. However, God's protection of His children isn't fickle, present one moment and absent the next. Our being guarded by God is not limited but is continuous, extending beyond the present time. Thus your interpretation of the Greek present tense is flawed. I suggest you rethink your view.

Actually, your "example" doesn't even come close to proving your claim.

Why don't you quote from an actual Greek grammar text for support for your view? That's how to prove your point. And you haven't done that because you can't.

The present tense is from the perspective of the speaker/writer. It refers to actioin that is happening RIGHT NOW, or CURRENTLY. There is no force in the present tense that means that results of a current action are dependent upon the continuation of that action. And the aorist tense refutes such a claim.

And your "example" focused on a participle. Which isn't a verb. So let's just focus on verbs, ok? Participles are verbal NOUNS. Different category.

Let's go back to the woman at the well. Jesus spoke of drinking (aorist tense) the "water" He gives, referring to eternal life. Your theory falls flat because Jesus used the aorist tense. If your theory were correct, He would HAVE HAD TO use the present tense, and KEEP DRINKING that water. But He didn't. And you can't explain that.

 

[Oldmantook]

Actually, your "example" doesn't even come close to proving your claim.

Why don't you quote from an actual Greek grammar text for support for your view? That's how to prove your point. And you haven't done that because you can't.

That is laughable. Better for you to do you own due diligence rather than exhibit your own lack of study.
There are therefore, three fundamental tenses in Greek: the present, representing continuous action; the perfect, representing completed action; and the aroist... representing indefinite action. (Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 178.)

There are really two fundamental ways of viewing action. It may be contemplated in single perspective, as a point, which we may call punctiliar action (R. 823); or it may be regarded as in progress, as a line, and this we may call linear action (M. 109)....The aorist may be represented by a dot (.), the present by a line (_________), and the perfect by the combination of the two (.________). (Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 179.)

...essentially the tense in Greek expresses the kind of action, not time, which the speaker has in view and the state of the subject.... In short, the tense-stems indicate the point of view from which the action or state is regarded....the present expresses linear action. (Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3: Syntax, p. 59.)

[The Present Indicative] normally expresses linear action (Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3: Syntax, p. 60.)

The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless (ἔστιν ὁ θεός) or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment: γράφω 'I am writing [now]';...The present stem may also be iterative: ἔβαλλεν 'threw repeatedly (or each time)'. (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)

1) as a simple realization...without reference to continuation or repetition...: the "aorist"
2) as a nature or kind of activity in progress or habitual (repeated) or simply as this kind of activity or activity tending to a given end: the "present" or "imperfect"
3) as a completed act resulting in a "state of affairs" which is predicated by the verb as holding for the present time: the "perfect" (Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek, p. 77.)

The present tense is basically linear or durative, ongoing in its kind of action. The durative notion may be expressed graphically by an unbroken line (___________), since the action is simply continuous. This is known as the progressive present. Refinements of the general rule will be encountered; however, the fundamental distinction will not be negated. (James Allen Hewett, New Testament Greek, A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar, p. 13.)

And your "example" focused on a participle. Which isn't a verb. So let's just focus on verbs, ok? Participles are verbal NOUNS. Different category.

Of course a participle is not a verb as that goes without saying. However your own claim betrays you again. Don't you just hate when that happens? The reason I cited 1 Pet 1:5 is precisely because it does contain a participle in the present tense. Other verses which contain a participle in the present tense include Mk 9:42; Jn 1:12; 3:15; 3:16; 3:36; 5:24; 6:40; 6:47; 11:25-26; Rom 10:11; 1 Pet 1:8; 2:7; 1 Jn 5:1; 5:5; 5:13. Do you get the picture or do I have to spell it out for you?

Let's go back to the woman at the well. Jesus spoke of drinking (aorist tense) the "water" He gives, referring to eternal life. Your theory falls flat because Jesus used the aorist tense. If your theory were correct, He would HAVE HAD TO use the present tense, and KEEP DRINKING that water. But He didn't. And you can't explain that.

You only quote from passages that appear to support your view but in actuality do not when examined in broader context. Just ask yourself this simple question. Is there a CONDITION for being able to drink the living water that Jesus gives? The answer is belief or believing. One must believe (aorist) as you pointed out. The germane question though is, is that all Jesus had to say about this subject? The answer is no because Jesus goes on to elaborate in the later chapters of John.
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; the one coming to Me never shall hunger, and the one believing in Me never shall thirst at any time. (Jn 6:35)

Now in the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. The one believing in Me, as the Scripture has said: ‘Out of his belly will flow rivers of living water.’” (Jn 7:37-38)

In both of these passages, pisteuōn is a present tense participle translated as "believing." Thus in order to never thirst, the believer must go on believing. Of course one must first believe but one must also continue to believe in order to never thirst again. Your false dilemma logical fallacy is that you cite the former while neglecting the later.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That is laughable. Better for you to do you own due diligence rather than exhibit your own lack of study.
There are therefore, three fundamental tenses in Greek: the present, representing continuous action; the perfect, representing completed action; and the aroist... representing indefinite action. (Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 178.)

Right. "continuous action" from the perspective of the speaker/writer.

There are really two fundamental ways of viewing action. It may be contemplated in single perspective, as a point, which we may call punctiliar action (R. 823); or it may be regarded as in progress, as a line, and this we may call linear action (M. 109)....The aorist may be represented by a dot (.), the present by a line (_________), and the perfect by the combination of the two (.________). (Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 179.)

Right again! Actions can be as a single action that ends, or an action that continue on. But, so what? How does that prove your claim that the results of said action MUST require the action to continue??

And if that were true, biblically speaking, then when Jesus and Paul used the aorist tense they were WRONG. They should have been consistent in the use of the present tense.

...essentially the tense in Greek expresses the kind of action, not time, which the speaker has in view and the state of the subject.... In short, the tense-stems indicate the point of view from which the action or state is regarded....the present expresses linear action. (Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3: Syntax, p. 59.)

Why do you think this supports your own view, or refutes mine?

[The Present Indicative] normally expresses linear action (Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3: Syntax, p. 60.)

The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless (ἔστιν ὁ θεός) or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment: γράφω 'I am writing [now]';...The present stem may also be iterative: ἔβαλλεν 'threw repeatedly (or each time)'. (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)

Once again, there is NOTHING HERE about results require a present tense.

1) as a simple realization...without reference to continuation or repetition...: the "aorist"
2) as a nature or kind of activity in progress or habitual (repeated) or simply as this kind of activity or activity tending to a given end: the "present" or "imperfect"
3) as a completed act resulting in a "state of affairs" which is predicated by the verb as holding for the present time: the "perfect" (Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek, p. 77.)

The present tense is basically linear or durative, ongoing in its kind of action. The durative notion may be expressed graphically by an unbroken line (___________), since the action is simply continuous. This is known as the progressive present. Refinements of the general rule will be encountered; however, the fundamental distinction will not be negated. (James Allen Hewett, New Testament Greek, A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar, p. 13.)

Again, none of this even addresses your claim that belief must be ongoing in order for salvation to continue. Zero.

Of course a participle is not a verb as that goes without saying. However your own claim betrays you again. Don't you just hate when that happens?

I'll be sure to let you know when that happens.

The reason I cited 1 Pet 1:5 is precisely because it does contain a participle in the present tense. Other verses which contain a participle in the present tense include Mk 9:42; Jn 1:12; 3:15; 3:16; 3:36; 5:24; 6:40; 6:47; 11:25-26; Rom 10:11; 1 Pet 1:8; 2:7; 1 Jn 5:1; 5:5; 5:13. Do you get the picture or do I have to spell it out for you?

Why it is important to note the particles in the present tense? Do they somehow magically trump the aorist tense? Is that your claim?

You only quote from passages that appear to support your view but in actuality do not when examined in broader context.

Oh, fiddle-sticks. Of course the aorist tense, whenEVER linked to believing, refutes your hypothesis.

Just ask yourself this simple question. Is there a CONDITION for being able to drink the living water that Jesus gives?

The same as the "drinking of that water". In the aorist tense, it's a point in time. Not continuing action.

The answer is belief or believing.

Yes. Précisely. Believing in the aorist tense. A point in time action.

One must believe (aorist) as you pointed out. The germane question though is, is that all Jesus had to say about this subject? The answer is no because Jesus goes on to elaborate in the later chapters of John.
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; the one coming to Me never shall hunger, and the one believing in Me never shall thirst at any time. (Jn 6:35)

Of course Jesus would emphasize continuing to believe. But not for salvation. For service to Himself.

Now in the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. The one believing in Me, as the Scripture has said: ‘Out of his belly will flow rivers of living water.’” (Jn 7:37-38)

In both of these passages, pisteuōn is a present tense participle translated as "believing." Thus in order to never thirst, the believer must go on believing.

Then we should just go through every verse on believing and cut out all the aorist tense ones. Nonsense.

Of course one must first believe but one must also continue to believe in order to never thirst again.

This is in direct contradiction to what Jesus SAID in the aorist tense. If your claim were true, He would have used the present tense only.

Your false dilemma logical fallacy is that you cite the former while neglecting the later.

This is a hoot! Really. All you've done is dismiss and ignore the meaning and use of the aorist tense.

btw, John 10:28 shows that my view is correct. Jesus said those He gives eternal life shall never perish.

In John 5:24 and 6:47 He said that those who believe HAVE eternal life. As in possess.

So, considering 10:28, it is clear that at the MOMENT one believes in Christ for salvation, they possess eternal life. And what did Jesus say about recipients of eternal life?

They SHALL NEVER PERISH.

Proving my claim, that from the point in time action of placing one's faith in Christ, they are eternally secure.

Case closed. Game over.

 

[Oldmantook]

Right. "continuous action" from the perspective of the speaker/writer.

Duh..the whole Bible is from the perspective of the writer(s) thus your point is quite irrelevant. One must examine the text of the writer wrote in order to determine what he meant. That should go without saying but apparently that is lost in your case.

Right again! Actions can be as a single action that ends, or an action that continue on. But, so what? How does that prove your claim that the results of said action MUST require the action to continue??

And if that were true, biblically speaking, then when Jesus and Paul used the aorist tense they were WRONG. They should have been consistent in the use of the present tense.

Oh brother another inane argument. Of course Jesus and Paul used the aorist tense. You seem oblivious to the fact they also used the present and future tense as well in describing salvation. Poor argumentation on your part.

Why do you think this supports your own view, or refutes mine?

Did you even bother to read the quote?? Do you not understand what LINEAR action is. FYI Linear action can also be called durative, continuous, or progressive action. I suggest you carefully read my citations so you may be able to comprehend for yourself.

Again, none of this even addresses your claim that belief must be ongoing in order for salvation to continue. Zero.

Durative or linear action when referenced with the requirement(s) for salvation i.e., belief, obedience means continuous action is requisite. That should be obvious but not to you for some strange reason.

Again, none of this even addresses your claim that belief must be ongoing in order for salvation to continue. Zero.

That's because you appear unable to comprehend the citation: "The durative notion may be expressed graphically by an unbroken line (___________), since the action is simply continuous."

'll be sure to let you know when that happens.

I think you're way beyond strike three at this point in the game.

Oh, fiddle-sticks. Of course the aorist tense, whenEVER linked to believing, refutes your hypothesis.

Again...you ignore that believing is also linked to the present and future tenses as well which accounts for your bad doctrine.

The same as the "drinking of that water". In the aorist tense, it's a point in time. Not continuing action.

You completely ignored what I wrote regarding Jn 6:35; 7:38. Do you actually bother to read?

Of course Jesus would emphasize continuing to believe. But not for salvation. For service to Himself.

What? For service to Himself? What the heck does that mean?? How does continuing to believe service Jesus? Now you just making things up. You have quite an imagination!! If you even bothered to read just a few verses further in Jn 6:40 you would find that continuing to believe in Him is directly linked with having eternal life - NOT SERVICE TO HIMSELF. Any questions?

Then we should just go through every verse on believing and cut out all the aorist tense ones. Nonsense.

Uhh....no. You simply include ALL the verses - aorist as well as present and future. Common sense.

This is in direct contradiction to what Jesus SAID in the aorist tense. If your claim were true, He would have used the present tense only.

Uh....no. If salvation were only a punctiliar action in the past, then I would agree with you. The fact is Jesus referenced eternal life NOT ONLY in the past tense but ALSO in the present and future tenses as well. And once again I'll refute your claim based on your own citations. You just cited Jn 10:28 but you somehow fail to notice that Jn 10:27 contains present tense verbs in the indicative mood. That entails that the actions of listening and following are currently taking place. Thus a believer must be in a current state of obeying God in order for the promises of v.28 to be efficacious. A believer has the choice of obeying or not obeying God at any point in time. Unbelievers have no such choice as they are not regenerated by the Spirit and have no choice but to sin and remain disobedient. That is why believers are exhorted unto perseverance and overcoming.
Col 1:23 IF indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
"If" indicates only the possibility of continuing in the faith - NOT the certainty that one will always remain in the faith which directly contradicts your belief in eternal security.

Case closed. Game over.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Duh..the whole Bible is from the perspective of the writer(s) thus your point is quite irrelevant. One must examine the text of the writer wrote in order to determine what he meant. That should go without saying but apparently that is lost in your case.


Oh brother another inane argument. Of course Jesus and Paul used the aorist tense. You seem oblivious to the fact they also used the present and future tense as well in describing salvation. Poor argumentation on your part.


Did you even bother to read the quote?? Do you not understand what LINEAR action is. FYI Linear action can also be called durative, continuous, or progressive action. I suggest you carefully read my citations so you may be able to comprehend for yourself.


Durative or linear action when referenced with the requirement(s) for salvation i.e., belief, obedience means continuous action is requisite. That should be obvious but not to you for some strange reason.


That's because you appear unable to comprehend the citation: "The durative notion may be expressed graphically by an unbroken line (___________), since the action is simply continuous."


I think you're way beyond strike three at this point in the game.


Again...you ignore that believing is also linked to the present and future tenses as well which accounts for your bad doctrine.


You completely ignored what I wrote regarding Jn 6:35; 7:38. Do you actually bother to read?


What? For service to Himself? What the heck does that mean?? How does continuing to believe service Jesus? Now you just making things up. You have quite an imagination!! If you even bothered to read just a few verses further in Jn 6:40 you would find that continuing to believe in Him is directly linked with having eternal life - NOT SERVICE TO HIMSELF. Any questions?


Uhh....no. You simply include ALL the verses - aorist as well as present and future. Common sense.


Uh....no. If salvation were only a punctiliar action in the past, then I would agree with you. The fact is Jesus referenced eternal life NOT ONLY in the past tense but ALSO in the present and future tenses as well. And once again I'll refute your claim based on your own citations. You just cited Jn 10:28 but you somehow fail to notice that Jn 10:27 contains present tense verbs in the indicative mood. That entails that the actions of listening and following are currently taking place. Thus a believer must be in a current state of obeying God in order for the promises of v.28 to be efficacious. A believer has the choice of obeying or not obeying God at any point in time. Unbelievers have no such choice as they are not regenerated by the Spirit and have no choice but to sin and remain disobedient. That is why believers are exhorted unto perseverance and overcoming.
Col 1:23 IF indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
"If" indicates only the possibility of continuing in the faith - NOT the certainty that one will always remain in the faith which directly contradicts your belief in eternal security.

It doesn't matter how long one's post is. More words don't make any of it more true.

You have been refuted by Scripture, not me. Both Paul and Jesus used the aorist tense in the context of salvation. That alone sinks your boat.

Here's an example of how silly your claim about the present tense is.

If someone is shot right now and dies, do they have to continually get shot in order to stay dead? Do you see how silly your argument is?

The present tense does NOT mean that results of an action happening right now require the action to continue on into the future. That is absurd. And you STILL haven't shown any support from Scripture for your theory.

Case closed. Game over.

It sure is.

 

[Oldmantook]

It doesn't matter how long one's post is. More words don't make any of it more true.

You have been refuted by Scripture, not me. Both Paul and Jesus used the aorist tense in the context of salvation. That alone sinks your boat.

Here's an example of how silly your claim about the present tense is.

If someone is shot right now and dies, do they have to continually get shot in order to stay dead? Do you see how silly your argument is?

The present tense does NOT mean that results of an action happening right now require the action to continue on into the future. That is absurd. And you STILL haven't shown any support from Scripture for your theory.


It sure is.

Ar you so dull of understanding since you think that only the aorist tense is used when referring to salvation. I cited you many verses which use the present tense but you simply ignore them in order to cling to your doctrine - which of course is your choice. And to top it off, you now resort to a ludicrous example of being shot since you have utterly failed to prove your point using Scripture itself. I find it quite amusing to use your examples and turn them on their heads to refute your own view. Scripture states that if a believer continually sins/practices sin [like continually getting shot], they are dead and they stay dead - unless they truly repent. 1 Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning.
Little children is John's term of endearment identifying believers - never unbelievers. He wrote let no one deceive you which is a stern warning. The warning is that WHOEVER which means anyone and everyone; saved and nonsaved - makes a PRACTICE of sinning is OF THE DEVIL. Thus a believer who is in habitual sin and makes a practice of sin is of the devil. According to your belief, one-time belief in the past [aorist] is the only thing that is necessary for becoming and remaining a child of God. John contradicts your view by stating that a child of God can become of the devil by habitual sinning. So you might want to reconsider your view and ask yourself, is what you write deceiving others?

Since you were incapable of understanding the Greek grammars I cited - which you ironically requested - I'll make it still easier for you to understand (though I have my doubts). Try to comprehend this from ntgreek.org
Present Tense
The present tense usually denotes continuous kind of action. It shows 'action in progress' or 'a state of persistence.' When used in the indicative mood, the present tense denotes action taking place or going on in the present time.

With this definition in mind, look again at Jn 10:27.
My sheep listen (akouousin | ἀκούουσιν | pres act ind 3 pl) to (akouousin | ἀκούουσιν | pres act ind 3 pl) my voice, and I know them. They follow me,
My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them. They follow (akolouthousin | ἀκολουθοῦσιν | pres act ind 3 pl) me,

In v.27 sheep refers to believers who are currently listening (present tense, indicative mood; action going on at the present time) and currently following (present tense, indicative mood; action going on at the present time). It certainly does not say believers who listened or followed in the past (aorist; punctiliar action) - according to your false belief. Thus according to the Apostle John's point of view, a believer must currently be listening to the Shepherd and currently following the Shepherd in order to be privy to the promises of Jn 10:28-29. Comprende? If not then here's another one by Professor Dale Moody in The Word of Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) in p. 356-357 that explains what John 10:27-29 really means:

“John 10:28 is frequently used as a security blanket by those who ignore many of the New Testament warnings about going back or falling away, but a literal translation of John 10:27-28, all of the sentence, hardly needs explanation, for it is a promise to those who follow Jesus. Not for one moment do I doubt this literal translation:‘My sheep keep on hearing my voice, and I keep on knowing them, and they keep on following me: and I keep on giving them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.’ Some read the passage as if it says: ‘My sheep heard my voice, and I knew them, and they followed me, and I gave to them eternal life.’ But the verbs are present linear, indicating continuous action by the sheep and by the Shepherd, not the punctiliar fallacy of the past tense.”

Game over, cased closed.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Ar you so dull of understanding since you think that only the aorist tense is used when referring to salvation.

First, there's no reason to be so crass.

Second, I've NEVER indicated that the "only" tense used referring to salvation is the aorist. Apparently you aren't reading my posts. I suggest that you do so before making such blunders.

I cited you many verses which use the present tense but you simply ignore them in order to cling to your doctrine - which of course is your choice.

I didn't ignore them. What I not only ignore, but REJECT is your claim that salvation is based on continous faith. You STILL haven't shown that the present tense includes the concept that any results from a present tense action are dependent upon the action continuing.

And I gave you a perfect example.

And to top it off, you now resort to a ludicrous example of being shot since you have utterly failed to prove your point using Scripture itself.

It was a perfect example of how the present tense CANNOT mean what you keep claiming. You have to call it 'ludicrous' only because it REFUTES your false claim about the present tense.

I find it quite amusing to use your examples and turn them on their heads to refute your own view.

Not hardly. What are you talking about? Can you explain yourself?

Scripture states that if a believer continually sins/practices sin [like continually getting shot], they are dead and they stay dead - unless they truly repent. 1 Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning.
Little children is John's term of endearment identifying believers - never unbelievers. He wrote let no one deceive you which is a stern warning. The warning is that WHOEVER which means anyone and everyone; saved and nonsaved - makes a PRACTICE of sinning is OF THE DEVIL.

Of course. All sin originated with the devil. No mystery there. And believers DO sin. Jesus even addressed Peter as Satan.

Thus a believer who is in habitual sin and makes a practice of sin is of the devil.

That means he's acting like the devil.

According to your belief, one-time belief in the past [aorist] is the only thing that is necessary for becoming and remaining a child of God.

That's because that is EXACTLY what the aorist tense means. And your "definition" of the present tense DOESN'T mean what you keep claiming.

But, given what you claim here, it would follow that you DON'T AGREE with Paul's answer to the jailer then.

John contradicts your view by stating that a child of God can become of the devil by habitual sinning.

No, he never meant that. It is clear he was making the point that habitual sinning is what the devil does.

So you might want to reconsider your view and ask yourself, is what you write deceiving others?

I've been very clear. But your responses clearly indicate that you don't either read or understand my posts.

Since you were incapable of understanding the Greek grammars I cited - which you ironically requested - I'll make it still easier for you to understand (though I have my doubts). Try to comprehend this from ntgreek.org
Present Tense
The present tense usually denotes continuous kind of action. It shows 'action in progress' or 'a state of persistence.' When used in the indicative mood, the present tense denotes action taking place or going on in the present time.

You are just fooling yourself if you think that I am incapable of understanding the Greek grammars.

I KNOW the present tense includes "continuous action". But that only means action that is on-going. It DOES NOT MEAN the action MUST keep occurring for the results to occur.

With this definition in mind, look again at Jn 10:27.
My sheep listen (akouousin | ἀκούουσιν | pres act ind 3 pl) to (akouousin | ἀκούουσιν | pres act ind 3 pl) my voice, and I know them. They follow me,
My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them. They follow (akolouthousin | ἀκολουθοῦσιν | pres act ind 3 pl) me,

In v.27 sheep refers to believers who are currently listening (present tense, indicative mood; action going on at the present time) and currently following (present tense, indicative mood; action going on at the present time). It certainly does not say believers who listened or followed in the past (aorist; punctiliar action) - according to your false belief.

You can stop your phony "false belief" nonsense. I KNOW these verbs are present tense.

Thus according to the Apostle John's point of view, a believer must currently be listening to the Shepherd and currently following the Shepherd in order to be privy to the promises of Jn 10:28-29.

This is a false conclusion. There is NOTHING about "MUST". Aren't you aware of how to communicate the imperative mood? And there is NO imperative mood in either v.27 or v.28. Look for yourself.

Comprende?

It seems you sure don't.

If not then here's another one by Professor Dale Moody in The Word of Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) in p. 356-357 that explains what John 10:27-29 really means:

“John 10:28 is frequently used as a security blanket by those who ignore many of the New Testament warnings about going back or falling away, but a literal translation of John 10:27-28, all of the sentence, hardly needs explanation, for it is a promise to those who follow Jesus. Not for one moment do I doubt this literal translation:‘My sheep keep on hearing my voice, and I keep on knowing them, and they keep on following me: and I keep on giving them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.’ Some read the passage as if it says: ‘My sheep heard my voice, and I knew them, and they followed me, and I gave to them eternal life.’ But the verbs are present linear, indicating continuous action by the sheep and by the Shepherd, not the punctiliar fallacy of the past tense.”

Game over, cased closed.

What a JOKE. No doubt the "professor" must believe that salvation can be lost. How sad.

The wording of v.27 contains NO conditional clauses at all, and NO imperative moods at all.

v.27 is a description of what Jesus' sheep DO, or better, OUGHT to do.

Are you familiar with what a policy statement is? It is a statement of actions applicable to members of the unit; whether business or whatever. We find them on the inside of the restroom doors of restuarants. Having to do with hand washing. I've actually seen "all employees wash their hands".

Now, are you so naive as to think that sign literally means that every employee DOES wash their hands? No, it's a policy statement about what employees OUGHT TO DO.

Or should do.

Here's one from Scripture:
Eph 5:28 - In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

But since this refutes your theories, I expect you'll demonize this example as well.

This is what you continue (present tense) to fail to do; prove that the present tense means that the action must continue for the results to continue.

How about a football game. During the game, the action is present tense; on-going. But the action will stop. How do you fit that into your theory?

 

[Hazelelponi]

can you just give me a number?

2 things.

1.) Belief/faith,
2.) acceptance of/submission to his Lordship.

That's it. If you have been drawn to #1, then God gives you #2 also.

Romans 10:9-10
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

 

[Justin BT]

I find it interesting that you are arguing over definitions of the aorist and present tense-forms without engaging in what Scholarship in the area of biblical languages teaches on these points.

I believe that the more recent/current definitions of these verbal forms are well supported and significantly impact the discussion. (Consider for example Con Campbell, Stanley Porter, Rodney Decker, etc...)

Unless you have a fundamental agreement on the verbal tense-forms, then we are simply picking and choosing our transitional possibilities based on our own preferred theological preferences.

 

[Oldmantook]

Second, I've NEVER indicated that the "only" tense used referring to salvation is the aorist. Apparently you aren't reading my posts. I suggest that you do so before making such blunders.

Quite the contrary as you only camp on the aorist tense PERIOD. You utterly fail to explain the present tense. That is a abysmal way to form your doctrine. I quoted you 1 Pet 1:5. You didn't even understand it - AS USUAL. That verse refers to believers who are being guarded through faith for salvation. The Greek word for "being guarded" is a PRESENT TENSE PARTICIPLE. It thus states that believers are always or continuously being guarded by God for salvation. There are no breaks or intermittent periods in terms of being guarded by God. It is CONTINUOUS, LINEAR, DURATIVE action by God as He does not guard believers yesterday but fails to guard them today or tomorrow does He?? God's guarding the believer is continual - past, present and ongoing. With that in mind I cited you Mk 9:42; Jn 1:12; 3:15; 3:16; 3:36; 5:24; 6:40; 6:47; 11:25-26; Rom 10:11; 1 Pet 1:8; 2:7; 1 Jn 5:1; 5:5; 5:13 - all of which contain the word "believe" which are also rendered in PRESENT TENSE PARTICIPLES.
The punch line which you fail to grasp is that since the present participle in 1 Pet 1:5 demonstrates ongoing, continuous action - past, present and future by God in terms of His guarding - a verse like John 3:16 for example which refers to "believe" (also a present tense participle) - has the same type of action as 1 Pet 1:5. This means that believing in Jn 3:16 for eternal life is not only a one-time event in the past but is ongoing, continuous action - past, present and future as well. This contradicts your ill-founded notion that one is saved (aorist) for all time based upon a past moment of belief or that
believing for salvation is based upon the writer's view of what is happening at the present moment only and not continuing into the future. Comprende?

It was a perfect example of how the present tense CANNOT mean what you keep claiming. You have to call it 'ludicrous' only because it REFUTES your false claim about the present tense.

Did you not read my counter-example? You have the poor habit of either not reading or poor comprehension. See next below.

Not hardly. What are you talking about? Can you explain yourself?

You used the poor example of having someone shot multiple times to illustrate the fact that someone can be shot just once in order to be dead. You used your poor example to illustrate the AORIST tense; NOT the present tense. I countered using my own example that SCRIPTURE in 1 John 3 specifically states that like being shot repeatedly, a child of God can repeatedly sin by practicing sin and end up being of the devil. Of course you deny that since you apparently believe one can still be saved despite being of the devil. How ludicrous is that?

Of course. All sin originated with the devil. No mystery there. And believers DO sin. Jesus even addressed Peter as Satan.

Yes and believers who sin habitually are of the devil but that's a minor inconvenience according to you correct? At least they're still save according to you?? yes or no?

That means he's acting like the devil.

Big problem for you is that you totally ignore v.9 which states that that whoever is born of God does not practice sinning. Also v.10 which states that whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God. This totally refutes your notion that it merely "means he's acting like the devil." Instead it means that believers or anyone who does not practice righteousness (acts like the devil) IS NOT OF GOD. Comprende??

That's because that is EXACTLY what the aorist tense means. And your "definition" of the present tense DOESN'T mean what you keep claiming.

But, given what you claim here, it would follow that you DON'T AGREE with Paul's answer to the jailer then.

Of course the jailed was saved (aorist). But once one is saved, one must go on believing and live a sanctified life going forward. If one instead chooses to live according to the flesh instead of the Spirit, one faces spiritual death (Rom 8:13).

You are just fooling yourself if you think that I am incapable of understanding the Greek grammars.

I KNOW the present tense includes "continuous action". But that only means action that is on-going. It DOES NOT MEAN the action MUST keep occurring for the results to occur.

Nope, you've again just demonstrated your ignorance as you don't know what linear and durative means as it pertains to the present tense.

You can stop your phony "false belief" nonsense. I KNOW these verbs are present tense.

Your problem is that you misunderstand the present tense and don't even know it.

This is a false conclusion. There is NOTHING about "MUST". Aren't you aware of how to communicate the imperative mood? And there is NO imperative mood in either v.27 or v.28. Look for yourself.

This is laughable. It demonstrates your complete ignorance of the parsing in this passage. Yes there is no imperative in vs.27-28. FYI they are in the INDICATIVE mood NOT the IMPERATIVE mood!

This is a false conclusion. There is NOTHING about "MUST". Aren't you aware of how to communicate the imperative mood? And there is NO imperative mood in either v.27 or v.28. Look for yourself.

NO, you look for yourself. Apparently you can't parse a single thing. There is no imperative but there is the indicative.

What a JOKE. No doubt the "professor" must believe that salvation can be lost. How sad.

The wording of v.27 contains NO conditional clauses at all, and NO imperative moods at all.

v.27 is a description of what Jesus' sheep DO, or better, OUGHT to do.

Indeed; the joke is on you because you can't even distinguish between verbs in the indicative and imperative moods. Do you know the difference. Why did you fail to see the infinitive? Do you know what that means? Whatever little credibility you may have possessed at the beginning is now totally destroyed. You mock a professor yet you have managed to expose yourself as to knowing little or nothing.
Game over; case closed.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I find it interesting that you are arguing over definitions of the aorist and present tense-forms without engaging in what Scholarship in the area of biblical languages teaches on these points.

I believe that the more recent/current definitions of these verbal forms are well supported and significantly impact the discussion. (Consider for example Con Campbell, Stanley Porter, Rodney Decker, etc...)

Unless you have a fundamental agreement on the verbal tense-forms, then we are simply picking and choosing our transitional possibilities based on our own preferred theological preferences.

You could have just summarized what the "recent/current" definitions are and how they impact this discussion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Quite the contrary as you only camp on the aorist tense PERIOD.

Oh, just stop this nonsense. You know better than to claim such a falsehood.

You utterly fail to explain the present tense.

More falsehood. The present tense is what is occurring "right now" or "currently" from the perspective of the writer/speaker. Got it? The action can be a one time event or on-going action, which you prefer to say "continuous action".

Where you go off the rails is to claim, totally without support, that the present tense MUST CONTINUE for the results to continue. You haven't proven this or supported this ever.

Big problem for you is that you totally ignore v.9 which states that that whoever is born of God does not practice sinning.

No, the HUGE problem is on you. 1 John 3:9 doesn't teach sinless perfection. It teaches that ONLY the RE-born human spirit, which makes the person a NEW creation, cannot sin. Where do you suppose the Holy Spirit resides in believers? The only reasonable, rational and logical place would be the RE-generated human spirit.

And from that nature, sin cannot happen. Sin can only occur from the sinful human nature, or flesh.

Also v.10 which states that whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God. This totally refutes your notion that it merely "means he's acting like the devil."

Actually, it supports my claim. The problem is still with your total misunderstanding of v.9.

Instead it means that believers or anyone who does not practice righteousness (acts like the devil) IS NOT OF GOD. Comprende??

Again, the lack of comprehending isn't on me in this discussion.

Aren't you aware that people can be accused of certain behaviors that belie their status? For example, a highly accomplished person with advanced degrees and a proven high IQ can do something really silly, and be told, "you're acting like an idiot". Obviously, not true, but everyone understands the point of the statement.

Of course the jailed was saved (aorist). But once one is saved, one must go on believing and live a sanctified life going forward.

You are adding a condition that Paul didn't. Explain why you do that.

If one instead chooses to live according to the flesh instead of the Spirit, one faces spiritual death (Rom 8:13).

Except the word "spiritual" isn't even found in that verse. So, it seems you love to add to Scripture what isn't there. Just to bolster your opinions.

Since man is born spiritually dead, sin can't "make" him dead. He's already dead.

And when a man believes in Christ, he is said to be born again, and given eternal life, and is spiritually alive.

So, explain how someone who is spiritually alive because they have ETERNAL LIFE can die again, due to sin.

Your problem is that you misunderstand the present tense and don't even know it.

More total falsehoods. I've addressed the present tense. So your claim is just bogus.

This is laughable. It demonstrates your complete ignorance of the parsing in this passage. Yes there is no imperative in vs.27-28. FYI they are in the INDICATIVE mood NOT the IMPERATIVE mood!

And what does this prove or explain? btw, can you show me the conditional clauses in either v.27 or v.28? I know Arminians love to add conditions to those verses.

Indeed; the joke is on you because you can't even distinguish between verbs in the indicative and imperative moods.

What a ridiculous statement! The indicative is fact, and the imperative is a command.

Do you know the difference.

See above. And you can apologize any time.

Why did you fail to see the infinitive? Do you know what that means?

Why don't you tell me?

 

[Oldmantook]

More falsehood. The present tense is what is occurring "right now" or "currently" from the perspective of the writer/speaker. Got it? The action can be a one time event or on-going action, which you prefer to say "continuous action".


Where you go off the rails is to claim, totally without support, that the present tense MUST CONTINUE for the results to continue. You haven't proven this or supported this ever.

Get informed instead of pretending that you're well informed. Only in the indicative mood is the present tense verb said to be occurring right now. Otherwise, the present tense indicates linear, durative action. Do you know what linear and durative means? The grammars I cited you give the definition but you either did not read or simply dismissed them in order to cling to your belief. Stubbornness is not a good trait to possess when forming your doctrine.

No, the HUGE problem is on you. 1 John 3:9 doesn't teach sinless perfection. It teaches that ONLY the RE-born human spirit, which makes the person a NEW creation, cannot sin. Where do you suppose the Holy Spirit resides in believers? The only reasonable, rational and logical place would be the RE-generated human spirit.

And from that nature, sin cannot happen. Sin can only occur from the sinful human nature, or flesh.

Such a red herring fallacy you propose. Just another sign of the weakness of your belief. No where in all of Scripture does it teach sinless perfection as everyone sins (1 Jn 3:8) so you bring up a red herring from left field that has no bearing whatsoever on this subject. 1 Jn 3:9 cites the PRACTICE of sin - NOT sinless perfection. Every believer sins occasionally since no one is without sin but not every believer sins habitually which constitutes practicing sin. Comprende??

Aren't you aware that people can be accused of certain behaviors that belie their status? For example, a highly accomplished person with advanced degrees and a proven high IQ can do something really silly, and be told, "you're acting like an idiot". Obviously, not true, but everyone understands the point of the statement.

Problem is that we're dealing with Scripture - from God's perspective - not people's perspective. So when God accuses or warns - you can take it to the bank as being true. Next fallacious argument?

Except the word "spiritual" isn't even found in that verse. So, it seems you love to add to Scripture what isn't there. Just to bolster your opinions.

Since man is born spiritually dead, sin can't "make" him dead. He's already dead.

And when a man believes in Christ, he is said to be born again, and given eternal life, and is spiritually alive.

So, explain how someone who is spiritually alive because they have ETERNAL LIFE can die again, due to sin.

Another weak argument from you. Perhaps you ought to take a philosophy class to brush up on logical argumentation. Paul plainly warned the BRETHREN in Rome (v.12) that IF they live according to the flesh, they will die. This is a 1st class conditional statement in the Greek. I suggest you look up what that means in terms of both the protasis and apodosis being true - if you don't know what that means. Thus Paul warns the BRETHREN that IF they sin habitually/practice sin which is the definition of living according to the flesh, they will die.
1. We both know believers can choose to sin. Unbelievers have no choice but to sin since they are unregenerated in the Spirit. If Paul were addressing unbelievers who would have used the word "Since" because unbelievers are unredeemed and can only sin.
2. Since Paul employs the word "If" it indicates he is addressing believers who have the choice - IF they should sin or IF they should not sin as we daily battle against our own flesh and desires (old man).
3. The consequence of living according to the flesh (practicing sin) is death.
4. Only spiritual death is referred to here because of the simple truth that every single person will die physically irrespective of whether they lived a life of living according to the flesh or living according to the Spirit. Thus Paul cannot be referring to physical death in Rom 8:13. He can only be referring to spiritual death for the brother who sins habitually.
5. The warning in this verse perfectly parallels 1 John 3 which warns that the one who practices sin is of the devil.
6. The promise in Rom 8:13 that those who live according to the Spirit will live (spirtually) also perfectly parallels 1 Jn 3:7 that he who practices righteousness is righteous.
7. The promise is Rom 8:13 that those who live according to the Spirit will live (spiritually) also perfectly parallels John 10:27-28 that those sheep who are listening and following the Shepherd will have eternal life.
8. Do you see an obvious common theme here? SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE. Ongoing obedience is requisite for eternal life.

More total falsehoods. I've addressed the present tense. So your claim is just bogus.

Suit yourself!

And what does this prove or explain? btw, can you show me the conditional clauses in either v.27 or v.28? I know Arminians love to add conditions to those verses.

No need for condition since the verb is in the indicative which makes it a FACT.

What a ridiculous statement! The indicative is fact, and the imperative is a command.

Indeed but obviously you negated to take into consideration what the indicative means and instead focused on the imperative mood which is not even in this passage. Talk about being totally lost as you appear to be!

 

[FreeGrace2]

Get informed instead of pretending that you're well informed. Only in the indicative mood is the present tense verb said to be occurring right now. O

Ya know, that's a real good idea. Thanks. I reviewed Wallace's grammar text on the present tense. And it was quite helpful.

First, he notes "narrow-band presents" (p.516). The action is portyared as being "in progress" or "as occurring" in the present tense (right now). One of the narrow-band presents is the "instantaneous present, also known as aoristic or punctiliar present" (p.517). He clarifies it this way: "It is normally a verb or saying or thinking (a performative present). The act itself is completed at the moment of speaking." Hm. Believing IS thinking. And it's agreeing with what is being thought of. But one doesn't perseverate on what can be thought of. So the action of believing can be thought of over and over. It's not really a continuous action. Believing fits into this kind of action as well. Just saying. Another n-b present is the "progressive present, a.k.a descriptive present" (p.518). He defines this one this way: "the progressive present normally involves continuous action (his emphasis)." He also notes this one is common.

But then, under the "broad-band presents" (p.51190, he notes one of them as a "customary(habitual or general) present" (P.521). He defined this one as "an action that regularly occurs or an ongoing state. The action is usually iterative, or repeated, but not without interruption. This usage is quite common."

Then he gives the example of the "customary present" of John 3:16 (p.522). You previously pointed out this example. He translated the verse: "everyone who [continually] believes in him should not perish".

Then he said this: "In this Gospel, there seems to be a qualitative distinction between the ongoing act of believing and the simple fact of believing."

However, there is a big problem with his obvious opinion, noted by the red words. First, he added "continually" in brackets. But he had already defined one of the narrow-band presents, the "progressive present" as one that "normally involves continuous action" (his emphasis).

So, his addition of the bracketed 'continually' to John 3:16 seems quite out of place for a broad-band present.

And to explain John 3:16 under a "customary (habitual) present" doesn't make sense, since that present is defined as "an action that regularly occurs or an ongoing state". (his emphasis on both). Believing isn't "habitual" action in any sense. Even Jesus noted that the second soil "believed for a while". btw, in v.12 the word for "believe" is an aorist active participle, and in v.13, the word "believe" is a verb in the present indicative. Clearly showing that believing isn't an ongoing action necessarily.

So all the rest of what you post seems irrelevant. It appears that Wallace got confused, or had a bad day when he wrote about the present tenses. Everyone has them, you know.

His insertion of the bracketed "continually" in front of "believes" in Jn 3:16 doesn't fit under his category of the b-b "customary (habitual) present. It DOES fit under the n-b category of the progressive present.

And..."continuous action" has NO BEARING at all on the results of that action. Or he would have included that idea. But I couldn't find it anywhere.

So, thanks for the advice. Quite helpful.