Use of the aorist

[FreeGrace2]

Grammatically, the aorist tense, in its raw, unencumbered form, says nothing about the verb's action except that it has been enacted!

Nope. In Acts 16:31 the word 'believe' is an aorist IMPERATIVE. It's a command to obey. It's a command TO BE ENACTED.

In its raw form, there is nothing definitive regarding whether is is an on going action (imperfect) or a punctiliar point of action (a singular accomplished event) or if it is a holistic expression of an entire completion of act an result (perfect), or if there is a repetitious quality or expectation.[/QUOTE]
The reason for the use of the aorist in Acts 16:31 is because on going action isn't necessary, as you have been insisting.

These potential possibilities are undefined in the raw sense of the aorist tense, but they are no excluded either; thus, the aorist is unlimited in its potential meanings, in fact the definition of aorist is unhindered, unlimited or unbounded. It becomes the immediate context that influences the the nature or intent of the author's meaning.

You just won't accept that there is no proof that ongoing belief is required to be saved.

btw, I'm certainly NOT advocating the idea of just believe for a little while and then go on your merry way. There are very dire consequences for those who leave the faith.

It's called God's divine discipline. And it's painful.

In Act's 16:31 and the surrounding context of the Philippian jailer's story, it is clearly talking about the jailer doing something that, to this point, he has not yet done, and that is to believe.

I agree. And the MOMENT the jailer DOES believe, he will be saved. btw, from other verses, we know that WHEN he does believe, he will POSSESS eternal life.

And you know what Jesus said about recipients of eternal life. They shall never perish. Why do you keep fighting that?

 

[TibiasDad]

Not at all. What you, GDL and Doug claim about the Greek is in error.

None of you have shown that the PIA of 'believe' means to "continually believe" in order to be saved, or to keep salvation. Because it doesn't mean that.

It means to believe right now.

From Dana and Mantley: The Greek New Testament: A Manual Grammar

The fundamental significance of the present tense is the idea of progress. It is the linear tense. This is not, however, its exclusive significance. It is a mistake to sup-pose "that the durative meaning monopolises the present stem" (M. 119). Since there is no aorist tense for present time, the present tense, as used in the indicative, must do service for both linear and punctiliar action. But it is to be borne in mind that the idea of present time is secondary in the force of the tense. The time element belongs to the indicative, where the present tense is really the "imperfect of present time," while what we know as the imperfect tense is the "imperfect of past time." The progressive force of the present tense should always be considered as primary, especially with reference to the potential moods, which in the nature of the case do not need any "present punctiliar" tense. In them the aorist serves the purpose for the punctiliar tense under all circumstances, since they have no temporal significance. In the indicative the linear significance of the present may sometimes be found more or less remote, being modified by other influences. The other elements entering into the resultant import of the present tense are the meaning of the verb itself and the general significance of the context. That is, in dealing with the present tense we must consider not only the fundamental force of the tense, but also the meaning of the verb root, and the significance of the context.

Doug

 

[GDL]

You're saying that if you take medicine to be cured of a disease, you must continually take medicine to continue to be cured of that disease. It simply doesn't logically follow

We're not discussing medicine. We're discussing Biblical Belief in which we are commanded to abide & endure & we are warned against falling away. Besides, some who take meds and will for life would disagree with you, so we can speak of temporary meds as well as continuous meds.

"has crossed over" is in the perfect tense, which according to the Greek lexicon means, "The perfect tense in Greek describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated."

Care to quote your lexical source? Besides, lexicons don't normally teach Greek grammar, but deal with historical definitions of words.

Again, the following is from the Greek grammar textbook - Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, by Daniel Wallace:

"I. The Perfect Tense

Introduction

Although this section on the perfect tense will be brief, one must not assume that the length of discussion corresponds to the significance of the topic. We are brief because the primary uses of the perfect are fairly easy to comprehend, though they are not insignificant. As Moulton points out, the perfect tense is “the most important, exegetically, of all the Greek Tenses.”2 The perfect is used less frequently than the present, aorist, future, or imperfect; when it is used, there is usually a deliberate choice on the part of the writer.3

Definition

The force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker). Or, as Zerwick puts it, the perfect tense is used for “indicating not the past action as such but the present ‘state of affairs’ resulting from the past action.”4

BDF suggest that the perfect tense “combines in itself, so to speak, the present and the aorist in that it denotes the continuance of completed action. . . .”5

574
Chamberlain goes too far when he suggests that the perfect sometimes is used to “describe an act that has abiding results.”6 The implication that “the perfect tells you that the event occurred and still has significant results”7 goes beyond grammar and is therefore misleading. Even more misleading is the notion, frequently found in commentaries, that the perfect tense denotes permanent or eternal results. Such a statement is akin to saying the aorist tense means “once-for-all.” Implications of this sort are to be drawn from considerations that are other than grammatical in nature. One must be careful not to read his or her theology into the syntax whenever it is convenient."

It is acknowledged that there has been controversy, as Wallace points out. If I was attempting to hide it, I might have copied selectively. I will tell you that from beginning Greek through advanced Greek courses & a few decades of translating & interpreting, the instruction I received & the articles & material I have read re: the perfect tense, routinely agree with Wallace re: the tense only speaking of results in the present time in relation to the time of the speaker. IOW, neither a continuous, nor completed state should be implied by the verb tense on it's own.

I agree that John5:24 is another verse that could be analyzed. But any such analysis would be on the meaning of the verse in its close context apart from any reading of "theology into the syntax whenever it is convenient," that some of us have dealt with for many years in our own efforts to exegete instead of eisegete, and in dealing with others on such topics.

By the way, you should stop short of questioning my Biblical Faith because I disagree with you re: the interpretation of certain Scriptures. FWIW, and I don't suggest it is vital to you in any way, if you'd like to discuss Scripture, please let's just stay on Scripture. If you want to take this elsewhere as you have just done, please do feel free and I'll respond accordingly.

 

[FreeGrace2]

From Dana and Mantley: The Greek New Testament: A Manual Grammar

The fundamental significance of the present tense is the idea of progress. It is the linear tense. This is not, however, its exclusive significance. It is a mistake to sup-pose "that the durative meaning monopolises the present stem" (M. 119). Since there is no aorist tense for present time, the present tense, as used in the indicative, must do service for both linear and punctiliar action. But it is to be borne in mind that the idea of present time is secondary in the force of the tense. The time element belongs to the indicative, where the present tense is really the "imperfect of present time," while what we know as the imperfect tense is the "imperfect of past time." The progressive force of the present tense should always be considered as primary, especially with reference to the potential moods, which in the nature of the case do not need any "present punctiliar" tense. In them the aorist serves the purpose for the punctiliar tense under all circumstances, since they have no temporal significance. In the indicative the linear significance of the present may sometimes be found more or less remote, being modified by other influences. The other elements entering into the resultant import of the present tense are the meaning of the verb itself and the general significance of the context. That is, in dealing with the present tense we must consider not only the fundamental force of the tense, but also the meaning of the verb root, and the significance of the context.

Doug

This in no way supports your claim that the action of the PIA MUST CONTINUE in order to be saved.

And bcbsr demonstrated that thought to be ridiculous.

 

[FreeGrace2]

bcbsr said: ↑
You're saying that if you take medicine to be cured of a disease, you must continually take medicine to continue to be cured of that disease. It simply doesn't logically follow

We're not discussing medicine.

Oh, for crying out loud. The discussion is how YOU are abusing the PIA. And bcbsr just showed you the illogic of your claim.

We're discussing Biblical Belief in which we are commanded to abide & endure & we are warned against falling away.

Just another vague comment. Yes, believers are commanded to abide and endure. Yet, NONE of the commands say they are for salvation.

And you STILL haven't provided any verse that says so.

Besides, some who take meds and will for life would disagree with you, so we can speak of temporary meds as well as continuous meds.

He was talking about a cure. That ain't temporary.

And Jesus used the aorist in John 4 regarding a drink in a point of time that would result in eternal life. So, there you go.

 

[GDL]

And again to quote Wallace, "The aorist tense is often used to stress the beginning of an action or the entrance into a state. Unlike the ingressive imperfect, there is no implication that the action continues. This is simply left unstated." While you're saying there is implication that the action continues. So you disagree with Wallace

Sorry for any confusion. Some of my wording was a bit sloppy.

No, I'm not saying I disagree with Wallace. In fact I did agree with Wallace re: the verb tense when I said:

C. As is usual in cherry-picking verses, Acts16:31 does not make the case for a one-time belief for salvation, nor does it make the case in itself for continuous belief being required for salvation.

There is nothing in the verb tense that specifically demands the action to be momentary, iterative, or durative (continuing). Such conclusion would have to made on other factors.

Then I stated my opinion ("IMO" = In my opinion) (a bit sloppily) re: other information in the verse:

1. IMO, the Ingressive interpretation makes sense for a continuous (durative) conclusion. To enter into a state of belief suggests something a state to be continued, not a momentary state.

To clarify, it is my opinion that entrance into a state, as can be interpreted by the verb parsing, would argue for the state/condition to continue. Why enter into a state that may be spoken of here, just to exit that state a moment, or a little after, Paul & Silas departed them, or sometime later? My opinion was honestly voiced only re: the concept of the "state" possibly being entered into per the verb.

Would you argue against the concept of entering into a state, or whether the state should continue? Aren't you debating for the state of being saved to continue no matter what? I'm debating for the state of belief to continue first.

 

[TibiasDad]

The reason for the use of the aorist in Acts 16:31 is because on going action isn't necessary, as you have been insisting.

It doesn't say anything, one way or the other, about the necessity of the action; that is the purpose of the aorist in its natural form in the indicative mood! In the imperative it is not so! The imperative adds new dynamics, urgency and necessity for something to happen that is not a presently occurring/a reality in order for salvation to be experienced. If the Philippian jailer is going to be saved he has to do something he was not presently doing, and that is believe, put his trust in Christ, and believe what Paul and Silas were telling him. The natural meaning of any atelic verb in its primary sense is active and progressive. To begin to do something you're not presently doing, for any unbiased mind, can be nothing but a progressive, forward moving, ongoing motion. Belief is ongoing or it is non-existent!

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"The reason for the use of the aorist in Acts 16:31 is because on going action isn't necessary, as you have been insisting."

It doesn't say anything, one way or the other, about the necessity of the action

If your claim ere necessary, why would Paul answer so sloppily and carelessly? Can you answer that?

We've already seen that WHEN one believes (having believed), the believer is sealed with the Spirit, who is a deposit which GUARANTEES the inheritance of the sealed one as God's possession. Eph 1:13,14

that is the purpose of the aorist in its natural form in the indicative mood! In the imperative it is not so! The imperative adds new dynamics, urgency and necessity for something to happen that is not a presently occurring/a reality in order for salvation to be experienced.

Exactly! To believe. That is the command. And the aorist doesn't say anything about your notion of continuing action in order to be saved.

If your notions were true, Paul would have been smart enough to use the most clear verb.

And I'll just bet that Paul knew Koine Greek a whole lot better than you do.

If the Philippian jailer is going to be saved he has to do something he was not presently doing, and that is believe, put his trust in Christ, and believe what Paul and Silas were telling him.

That's right. But you insist that one must be continually believing in order to be saved.

So then, it seems your view is that Paul wasn't all that bright and failed to be as clear as he NEEDED TO BE.

The natural meaning of any atelic verb in its primary sense is active and progressive. To begin to do something you're not presently doing, for any unbiased mind, can be nothing but a progressive, forward moving, ongoing motion. Belief is ongoing or it is non-existent!

And Jesus gave us such an example in Luke 8:13 when He used the PIA for 'believe' and then followed that immediately with "for a while".

So then, do you also believe that Jesus wasn't all that educated in which verb to use?

You just can't win. Your claims are not legitimate. Your agenda is to defend your notions about losing salvation, even to the detriment of Paul and Jesus, who, according to your claims, failed to use the proper verb tenses.

 

[TibiasDad]

Paul is answering the question as to how to be saved. He chooses to use the aorist over the present tense. Using the aorist ingressive, "there is no implication that the action continues" as a condition for salvation.

There is also no implication that it doesn't continue. But since the beginning of belief is necessarily a dynamic function, its continuation is a logical assumption and does no damage to the aorist, which takes no stance whatsoever as to any future condition of action. The aorist allows for all possibilities. The necessities of continuance are quite evident in scripture and the results of refusal to continue are equally evident. And so the aorist allows for all possibilities and one is just as likely as the other, but the rest of scripture leaves no doubt as to the necessity of continuance for salvation to be realized.

Doug

 

[LoveGodsWord]

There is also no implication that it doesn't continue. But since the beginning of belief is necessarily a dynamic function, its continuation is a logical assumption and does no damage to the aorist, which takes no stance whatsoever as to any future condition of action. The aorist allows for all possibilities. The necessities of continuance are quite evident in scripture and the results of refusal to continue are equally evident. And so the aorist allows for all possibilities and one is just as likely as the other, but the rest of scripture leaves no doubt as to the necessity of continuance for salvation to be realized.

Doug

Good posts Doug and @GDL,

I think there is a very simple solution here that is not being considered by our friends, and that is when the scripture applications to "believe" or believing to the PIA as in the case of JOHN 3:16 for example having application to the "now" or present tense, to believing, the "now" (present tense) is a continuous state that does not end. Of course the use of the PIA has to be considered within the scripture contexts, subject matter and application for example Luke 8:11 "for a while".

Saving faith however as in John 3:16 is a continuous state of present tense "now" and the now does not end according to the scriptures. Therefore because now is an unending continuous state so must be faith, belief or believing to which it is applied.

It is sad our friend can not see this. There is not one scripture in all of the bible that says we can believe once and stop believing and receive Gods' salvation. This teaching is not biblical. It seems some are looking at a leaf in a tree, but cannot see the branch and tree the leaf is attached to or the forest to which the leaf belongs.

It is God's Word that tells us directly that unbelievers and those who depart the faith (stop believing) are not in a saved state with God and so comes crashing down the thinking of once saved always saved. Only God is true as the scriptures teach *Romans 3:4. There is no such thing as once saved always saved. We stop believing in the present tense we are not in a saved state with God according to the scriptures *Hebrews 6:4-8; Hebrews 10:26-39.

God bless.

 

[FreeGrace2]

There is also no implication that it doesn't continue. But since the beginning of belief is necessarily a dynamic function, its continuation is a logical assumption and does no damage to the aorist, which takes no stance whatsoever as to any future condition of action. The aorist allows for all possibilities.

Strain all you want. Doesn't matter. There are NO verses that teach that those who lose faith lose salvation.

In fact, the Bible teaches that it is those who "have not believed" meaning NEVER believed, who will be condemned.

Why is that? Because once a person does believe, everything changes for them and none of the changes can be reversed.

So John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12 prove that once belief, no condemnation.

OBNC = OSAS

The necessities of continuance are quite evident in scripture and the results of refusal to continue are equally evident.

Repeating your opinion will never make it come true.

And so the aorist allows for all possibilities and one is just as likely as the other, but the rest of scripture leaves no doubt as to the necessity of continuance for salvation to be realized.
Doug

Since you've STILL not provided any verse that says what you believe, there is no reason to accept your opinion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Saving faith however as in John 3:16 is a continuous state of present tense "now" and the now does not end according to the scriptures.

Where do you get the notion of "a continuous staste of present tense now"??

The PIA for 'believe' in John 3:16 works the SAME in every other verse where it occurs.

What makes John 3:16 different?

Therefore because now is an unending continuous state so must be faith

Your logic (red words) is quite fuzzy, but now I see where you're coming from.

The "unending continuous state" is not related to 'believing', but being saved.

There is not one scripture in all of the bible that says we can believe once and stop believing and receive Gods' salvation.

The Bible doesn't make stupid statements. When Jesus said that recipients of eternal life shall never perish, He covered that. But it's the Arminians who can't see the truth.

And John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12 both say that condemnation is for those who "have not believed", which is the same thing as "have NEVER believed".

So, once a person believes, they have eternal life, and they shall never perish. And they shall never be condemned.

This is what the Bible teaches.

This teaching is not biblical.

I just showed you.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Not at all. What you, GDL and Doug claim about the Greek is in error.

None of you have shown that the PIA of 'believe' means to "continually believe" in order to be saved, or to keep salvation. Because it doesn't mean that.

It means to believe right now.

I do not know why you are pretending I am saying things I am not saying, as I have only ever posted that the PIA means to believe "right now" and also must be considered in the contexts to which it is applied. I have also argued that the right now is an unending state in time that does not end in the life of a believer which is applied to belief and believing.

Therefore because "now" is a continuous unending state so is saving faith or believing as applied in John 3:16. I do not understand why you cannot see this and are pretending I am saying things I am not or do I understand why you deny the supporting scriptures that have been shared with you. You are free to believe as you wish though dear friend. Ignoring God's Word however does not make it disappear. According to the scriptures it becomes our judge come judgement day *John 12:37-48.

There is no such thing as once saved always saved according to the scriptures as saving faith is ongoing and does not end and means to "believe right now". Those who stop believing "right now" and do not return to believing according to the scriptures, depart the faith are not in a saved state before God *Hebrews 6:4-8; Hebrews 10:26-39. Believing and following Gods' Word are conditions of eternal life according to the scriptures.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The "unending continuous state" is not related to 'believing', but being saved.

No. The "unending continuous state" is indeed related to both 'believing' and "eternal life", as both believing and following Gods Word are conditions of receiving eternal life according to the scriptures *John 3:16-18; James 2:18-20; James 2:26; Matthew 7:21-27; 1 John 2:3-4; 1 John 3:6-10; Hebrews 6:4-8; Hebrews 10:26-39. You should consider what is being shared with you as if we wrong no harm done I will see you in the Kingdom, if however we are correct and scripture evidence has already been provided to show we are, then many may miss out on God's kingdom if they believed once yesterday and have departed the faith and no longer believe and follow God's Word today thinking who cares I will be still saved because I once believed. According to the scriptures it is written only those who endure temptation to the end will receive a crown of life. We do so by believing and following God's Word in the present tense to "now" which is a continuous state of believing. The rest of your post has already been addressed elsewhere.

Hope this helps.

 

[TibiasDad]

where one's fate is finalized upon coming to faith in Christ. "has crossed over" is in the perfect tense, which according to the Greek lexicon means, "The perfect tense in Greek describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated."

The perfect tense means that the results an action that was done in the past still are in effect at the time of writing. It is not a once for all action, and no Greek tense extends any certainty of an indicative condition past the present tense.

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

I have also argued that the right now is an unending state in time that does not end in the life of a believer which is applied to belief and believing.

You haven't supported your claim with Scripture. And what is "an unending state" is salvation itself. But your agenda is pushing a loss of salvation view.

Therefore because "now" is a continuous unending state so is saving faith or believing as applied in John 3:16.

Actually, you are wrong. "Now" is a moment in time. If you cough right NOW, it doesn't continue in an unending state.

I do not understand why you cannot see this and are pretending I am saying things I am not or do I understand why you deny the supporting scriptures that have been shared with you.

The 3 of you seem to agree on everything you all post.

There have been NO supporting Scriptures for your ideas, but I understand that all of you think you have done that.

You are free to believe as you wish though dear friend. Ignoring God's Word however does not make it disappear. According to the scriptures it becomes our judge come judgement day *John 12:37-48.

I'm quite comfortable with Judgment Day. Because I believe what Jesus said so clearly about those He gives eternal life. They shall never perish. That is eternal security.

And John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12 both say that condemnation is for those who "have not believed", which is the same as saying "have NEVER believed".

There is no such thing as once saved always saved according to the scriptures as saving faith is ongoing and does not end and means to "believe right now".

You still miss the fact. Jesus wasn't speaking of believing in John 10:28. He was teaching the outcome of being given eternal life. You are the one ignoring what He said.

The result of being given eternal life is never perishing. Jesus couldn't have been more clear. But your view denies what He said. Your view is that recipients of eternal life CAN perish. In direct opposition to what Jesus said.

Those who stop believing "right now" and do not return to believing according to the scriptures, depart the faith are not in a saved state before God *Hebrews 6:4-8;

That passage does not say anything about stop believing. But you'd have to read the passage to know that. It was about returning to the Mosaic Law and animal sacrifice. And it doesn't say anything about not being in a saved state. That is only your opinion.

Hebrews 10:26-39. Believing and following Gods' Word are conditions of eternal life according to the scriptures.

Neither Heb 10:26-39 or any other verse says "following God's Word are conditions of eternal life".

There is a single condition noted in many verses; believing in the Christ.

In fact, the command to follow God's Word is to believers, who are already saved.

 

[TibiasDad]

Because once a person does believe, everything changes for them and none of the changes can be reversed.

If they don't stop sinning they have not been changed, their standing before God hasn't changed, and their eternal destiny hasn't changed either. If a person has freewill to choose to believe, then he has freewill not stop believing. And only believers (active belief) have eternal life! Besides, if God wants to reverse anything, he can and will!

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

No. The "unending continuous state" is indeed related to both 'believing' and "eternal life"

You can repeat yourself as much as you want, but it won't make the statement true. And you haven't proven your claim that the present tense means "an unending continuous state". You have no evidence.

as both believing and following Gods Word are conditions of receiving eternal life according to the scriptures *John 3:16-18; James 2:18-20; James 2:26; Matthew 7:21-27; 1 John 2:3-4; 1 John 3:6-10; Hebrews 6:4-8; Hebrews 10:26-39.

I'll say this every time you drag out your list. None of these verses say what you keep claiming.

You should consider what is being shared with you as if we wrong no harm done I will see you in the Kingdom, if however we are correct and scripture evidence has already been provided to show we are, then many may miss out on God's kingdom if they believed once yesterday and have departed the faith and no longer believe and follow God's Word today thinking who cares I will be still saved because I once believed.[/QUOTE]
Condemnation will be for those who "have not believed". John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12.

Those who have believed and received eternal life shall never perish. John 10:28

The verses I quote actually DO say what I believe. Unlike you 3.

According to the scriptures it is written only those who endure temptation to the end will receive a crown of life.

Right. That is an eternal reward, but I know that you mistakenly think it is salvation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"Because once a person does believe, everything changes for them and none of the changes can be reversed."

If they don't stop sinning they have not been changed, their standing before God hasn't changed, and their eternal destiny hasn't changed either.

<sigh> It appears that you are not familiar with the Bible. The Bible tells believers to stop sinning, yet you indicate that sin proves that the person isn't saved.

The Bible teaches very clearly that condemnation is for those who "have not believed". Which means never believed.

Recipients of eternal life shall never perish.

But you don't believe either of these statements, even though they are in Scripture.

If a person has freewill to choose to believe, then he has freewill not stop believing. And only believers (active belief) have eternal life!

You have not proven your thesis. There is no such thing as an inactive belief.

Besides, if God wants to reverse anything, he can and will!
Doug

Here's the thing, Doug. If God does reverse anything, His Word would make that very clear.

Since there are NO verses about God undoing ANY of the things that accompany salvation, why should you assume or presume that He will?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You can repeat yourself as much as you want, but it won't make the statement true. And you haven't proven your claim that the present tense means "an unending continuous state". You have no evidence.


I'll say this every time you drag out your list. None of these verses say what you keep claiming.

You should consider what is being shared with you as if we wrong no harm done I will see you in the Kingdom, if however we are correct and scripture evidence has already been provided to show we are, then many may miss out on God's kingdom if they believed once yesterday and have departed the faith and no longer believe and follow God's Word today thinking who cares I will be still saved because I once believed.
Condemnation will be for those who "have not believed". John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12.

Those who have believed and received eternal life shall never perish. John 10:28

The verses I quote actually DO say what I believe. Unlike you 3.


Right. That is an eternal reward, but I know that you mistakenly think it is salvation.

No dear friend. Condemnation the scriptures state is to those who do not believe period, always in the present tense. If someone believed yesterday and does not believe today they are an "unbeliever" in the present tense "now". All I am hearing in your posts is denial of the scriptures shared with you. Yet they are God's Word not mine. You are free to believe as you wish. We all answer only to God come judgement day *JOHN 12:47-48.

What you do with the scriptures shared with you is between you and God. You should be aware though and this is very telling, that you have not provided a single scripture that says we can believe yesterday and not believe today and receive eternal life.

Yet it is God's Word that explicitly states those who depart the faith (stop believing and following God's Word) are not in a saved state with God and do not receive eternal life. These are Gods' Word my dear friend not mine. Something to pray about. The rest of your post is repetition already addressed elsewhere through the scriptures so do not need to be addressed here.

Thanks for the discussion but I do not see this going anywhere so we will have to agree to disagree. I will leave you with the last word as I see you need it more than I do.