Use of the aorist

Status
Not open for further replies.

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
IMO the original discussion re: Acts16:31 has been dealt with. I've seen no substantive argument dealing with the language & grammar of the verse in immediate context that makes me think differently than the conclusion that the verb tenses in 16:31 neither necessitate continual, or non-continual belief for being saved (as the verse is using saved).

John3:18 has also been presented to have debated meanings based upon interpretations of its verbs. So, can anyone fairly present their case & reference(s) citation(s) for consideration?

I'll begin by asking, does the perfect active indicative tense used in the last use of the word "believe" mean, or have to mean "never believed" as has been suggested in post #113?

I'd also ask whether or not you'd translate this word differently.


Here are a few of the English translations I have set to be displayed in the main software I've use for decades. I'm asking us to focus on the bold words for now in order to deal with my above question. If you think you need to refer to the parsing of the other verbs in J3:18 in order to make your case, please do. If you don't want to play, please don't. If you want to play disrespectfully, please don't.

These translators are mostly unified in the way they translate the word under discussion (one of the reasons I don't normally look at the NIV is exemplified here where they stylistically translate a 3rd person singular verb as a 3rd person plural, but I list it anyway).

NKJ John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

YLT John 3:18 he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

NAS John 3:18 a"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of bthe 1only begotten Son of God.

NET John 3:18 The one who believes in him is not condemned.41 The one who does not believe has been condemned42 already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only43 Son of God.

NIV 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.
 
Upvote 0

TibiasDad

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2020
769
105
63
Pickerington, Oh
✟52,822.00
Country
United States
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
So the implications is that a person is saved upon coming to faith in Christ, regardless of whether or not that person continues to believe, which is the free grace position as I understand it.

The effects of an action are not assumed any more than the action's continuance or completion. The aorist simply tells us something happened; not how or how long it took or if the action continues or ceases. But if you want talk implications, the actual last known state is that there is active ongoing belief and that alone, having active belief is the condition of the promise of salvation. The jailer and his family became believing people and were thereby promised salvation. Based on logic, and the continual scriptural mandates to hold onto the active belief we had when we first believed, there is no reason to accept that salvation is valid for one who ceases to believe. In other words, if believing is the necessary condition and characteristic to becoming a child of God, then not being an active believer is equally the condition and characteristic for not being a child of God. And if being a child of God is necessary to receiving eternal life, then not being a child of God necessarily means not having eternal life.

Doug
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
IMO the original discussion re: Acts16:31 has been dealt with. I've seen no substantive argument dealing with the language & grammar of the verse in immediate context that makes me think differently than the conclusion that the verb tenses in 16:31 neither necessitate continual, or non-continual belief for being saved (as the verse is using saved).
And this is the very point. Since that specific verb does NOT "necessitate" either kind of action, such action is NOT NECESSARY. What other conclusion would a reasonable rational person make?

However, your very carefully (lawyerly?) worded statement misses the point. Maybe intentionally, I would suggest.

From Wallace: "The aorist tense 'presents an occurrence in summary, viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence'. This contrasts with the present and imperfect, which portray the action as an ongoing proces. It may be helpful to think of the aorist as taking a snapshot of the action while the imperfect (like the present) takes a motion picture, portraying the actioin as it unfolds."

"The snapshot by itself annot tell if the action was momentary, "once for all", reppeated, at regularly recurring intervals, or over a long period of time."

It should be obvious from these statements that the use of the aorist shows that the time element isn't important. Otherwise, why use it at all IF your theory about the "continuous present" was necessary for salvation?

John3:18 has also been presented to have debated meanings based upon interpretations of its verbs.
Why should there even be any "interpretations" of the "has not believed" verb? It's very clear. It's a perfect indicative active in the negative. It means "has not believed". Which is just another way of saying "has never believed".

If you disagree, prove it.

So, can anyone fairly present their case & reference(s) citation(s) for consideration?

I'll begin by asking, does the perfect active indicative tense used in the last use of the word "believe" mean, or have to mean "never believed" as has been suggested in post #113?

I'd also ask whether or not you'd translate this word differently.
Please prove that "has not believed" doesn't mean "has never believed".

Here are a few of the English translations I have set to be displayed in the main software I've use for decades. I'm asking us to focus on the bold words for now in order to deal with my above question. If you think you need to refer to the parsing of the other verbs in J3:18 in order to make your case, please do. If you don't want to play, please don't. If you want to play disrespectfully, please don't.

These translators are mostly unified in the way they translate the word under discussion (one of the reasons I don't normally look at the NIV is exemplified here where they stylistically translate a 3rd person singular verb as a 3rd person plural, but I list it anyway).

NKJ John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

YLT John 3:18 he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

NAS John 3:18 a"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of bthe 1only begotten Son of God.

NET John 3:18 The one who believes in him is not condemned.41 The one who does not believe has been condemned42 already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only43 Son of God.

NIV 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.[/QUOTE]
What's your point? All of the translations you quoted have "has/hath not believed".

Now for your proof that "has not believed" doesn't mean "has never believed".

This gonna be good.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The effects of an action are not assumed any more than the action's continuance or completion.
And this precisely the point. IF IF IF your "continuous present" was NECESSARY for salvation, why would the aorist EVER be used, since it makes NO point about time aspect?

The aorist simply tells us something happened; not how or how long it took or if the action continues or ceases.
Right. But you insist that continuous belief is necessary for salvation. Paul NEVER said that. And he also used the aorist in Rom 10:9 in regard to salvation, and I dare say that Paul understood the nuance of aorist WAY MORE than you do.

But if you want talk implications, the actual last known state is that there is active ongoing belief and that alone, having active belief is the condition of the promise of salvation.
This is just "spinning" the facts. There was NO PIA in Acts 16:31 or in the context. So there is no "implication" of such.

The plain reading of that verse is that a person WILL BE saved from believing in the past.

The jailer and his family became believing people and were thereby promised salvation.
Yet Paul NEVER told the jailer or his family that they MUST CONTINUALLY BELIEVE in order to be saved. He made it very simple.

Based on logic, and the continual scriptural mandates to hold onto the active belief we had when we first believed, there is no reason to accept that salvation is valid for one who ceases to believe.
Regardless of your own unbridled emotions on the subject, Jesus was clear about who WON'T perish. Those who were given eternal life. You can't prove otherwise.

So, your ONLY recourse is to define WHEN the gift of eternal life is given. If you can prove it isn't given UNTIL a person is at the very end of their life, you might have a point. So, do your research and prove your theory. As it is, you have NO Scriptural evidence that supports your theory.

In other words, if believing is the necessary condition and characteristic to becoming a child of God, then not being an active believer is equally the condition and characteristic for not being a child of God.
I've already asked about reversals. And none of you 3 have given ANY evidence of reversals.

This is what occurs WHEN a person believes in Christ for salvation:

1. is justified Rom 5:1
2. is saved Acts 16:31
3. is sealed Eph 1:13
4. is guaranteed an inheritance as God's possession Eph 1:14
5. is a new creation 2 Cor 5:17
6. is a child of God John 1:12, Gal 3:26

Now, where are any verses that specifically reverses any of these 5 things?

And if being a child of God is necessary to receiving eternal life, then not being a child of God necessarily means not having eternal life.

Doug
Right. Point #6. Show me any reversal of that act.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The future tense does not refer to the future nature of a present tense reality.
Doug
:) Your "present tense" reality is unnecessary. Kinda like saying "I need to breathe". Of course you do. For salvation, one needs to believe.

And WHEN one believes, of course it is in the present.

So you keep proving nothing about your theory.

The point is that FROM the MOMENT of faith in Christ, which we call "saving faith", the person IS saved (Acts 16:31), HAS eternal life (John 3:16, 5:24, 6:47), IS a new creature (2 Cor 5:17), IS a child of God (John 1;12, Gal 3:26), IS justified (Rom 5:1), IS sealed (Eph 1:13), IS guaranteed an inheritance as God's possession (Eph 1:14) and SHALL NEVER PERISH (John 10:28).

And you cannot provide ANY verse that reverses any of these things.

So there's no reason to believe that any of them can be reversed.

How come you didn't address this from my last post to you:

"1. is justified Rom 5:1
2. is saved Acts 16:31
3. is sealed Eph 1:13
4. is guaranteed an inheritance as God's possession Eph 1:14
5. is a new creation 2 Cor 5:17
6. is a child of God John 1:12, Gal 3:26

Now, where are any verses that specifically reverses any of these 6 things?"
 
Upvote 0

TibiasDad

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2020
769
105
63
Pickerington, Oh
✟52,822.00
Country
United States
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
Of course it could happen. And will happen. But you just don't understand about God's discipline and loss of reward. To "inherit the kingdom" is what we read about in 2 Tim 2:12 (reigning with Him) and Rom 8:17b (sharing in His glory). These are rewards for faithful believers (endure-2 Tim 2:12 and share in His suffering-Rom 8:17b).

Review 1 Cor 3:14,15 and you'll read about losing reward but still being saved.

Matthew 25:31-46 begs to differ, especially verse 46 where it explains the consequence of inheriting or not inheriting the kingdom! And I caution you to recap that it is Jesus who is speaking, and he says that inheriting the Kingdom is equivalent to receiving eternal life!

Doug
 
  • Like
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And this is the very point. Since that specific verb does NOT "necessitate" either kind of action, such action is NOT NECESSARY. What other conclusion would a reasonable rational person make?

A reasonable person would conclude that the action of belief is necessary for salvation, whether belief be continuous or non-continuous. Is your opinion now that belief is not necessary for salvation?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

TibiasDad

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2020
769
105
63
Pickerington, Oh
✟52,822.00
Country
United States
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
:) Your "present tense" reality is unnecessary. Kinda like saying "I need to breathe". Of course you do. For salvation, one needs to believe.

This doesn't answer my objection, in fact It avoids the issue entirely!

If I don't keep breathing I die; if I don't keep believing I die!

Doug
 
  • Winner
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What's your point? All of the translations you quoted have "has/hath not believed".

Now for your proof that "has not believed" doesn't mean "has never believed".

So, your response is to point out the obvious about the translations I posted and suppose that I will be providing proof that the perfect tense here does not mean "never"?

What I asked for is analysis & citation for why it does or does not mean "never"?

Our job in analyzing Scripture at the level of grammar being debated here should be to state what we think the accurate translation should be, and why. Within this conclusion we should be able to accurately state what this grammar is telling or not telling us and why. I as a schooled translator and others often disagree with translators, who also routinely disagree with one another. I don't view any English translation as completely accurate. If I did, it would have saved me nearly countless hours of schooling & associated work in the Text.

I've only asked for participation in this effort in regards to one word. You either have the ability or you don't. You either choose to take a shot at it or you don't. Either is fine with me and I'm not afraid of being legitimately proven wrong. Such is the case of all who I know who are seeking the Truth.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Matthew 25:31-46 begs to differ, especially verse 46 where it explains the consequence of inheriting or not inheriting the kingdom! And I caution you to recap that it is Jesus who is speaking, and he says that inheriting the Kingdom is equivalent to receiving eternal life!

Doug
To summarize the passage;

32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

These 2 verses sets the stage for who will be gathered before Him: the saved (sheep) and the goats (unsaved).

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

Rom 8:17 mentions 2 inheritances. One is the inheritance of the child of God. That would be ENTRANCE into the kingdom. The other is the inheritance that is ONLY for those believers who "shared in His sufferings" or "endured". They will "reign with him" or "share in His glory", both obviously referring to the same thing; reward.

So, v.34 refers to entrance into the kingdom as God's children.

v.34-36 provide an explanation of what these saved people did in His Name.

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

The passage begins with sheep and goats. Now the sheep are referred to as "the righteous". However, this isn't their own righteousness, but the "righteousness of Christ", which is characteristic of ALL believers. When a person believes in Christ for salvation, Christ' righteousness is IMPUTED to them. So they are admitted into the kingdom because they are God's child and they have Christ's righteousness.

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

This verse proves that the sheep are saved people, and the goats are unsaved people.

Or believers and unbelievers.

Until you accept the fact that the Bible speaks of 2 different inheritances, you will never understand it.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I said:
"And this is the very point. Since that specific verb does NOT "necessitate" either kind of action, such action is NOT NECESSARY. What other conclusion would a reasonable rational person make?"
A reasonable person would conclude that the action of belief is necessary for salvation, whether belief be continuous or non-continuous. Is your opinion now that belief is not necessary for salvation?
<sigh>

When I wrote "such action is NOT NECESSARY", I was referring to the "kind of action" that you 3 guys keep repeating. It is that kind of action that is NOT NECESSARY.

So your question is really ridiculous. Of course belief is necessary for salvation. I've ALWAYS said that. Which you actually know. So your question was quite underhanded.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
This doesn't answer my objection, in fact It avoids the issue entirely!

If I don't keep breathing I die; if I don't keep believing I die!

Doug
Your "objection" is fallacious. It is only your theory that one must "keep believing" to be saved.

You STILL haven't proven your theory from either Greek grammar or the Bible. All you 3 amigos do is repeat your theory over and over.

The aorist tense of Acts 16:31 and Rom 10:9 REFUTES your theory. As well the aorist tense of "drink" in John 4.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I said:
"What's your point? All of the translations you quoted have "has/hath not believed".

Now for your proof that "has not believed" doesn't mean "has never believed"."
So, your response is to point out the obvious about the translations I posted and suppose that I will be providing proof that the perfect tense here does not mean "never"?
Uh, no. My response was quite clear. I asked what YOUR poilnt was of the translations you quoted. And then I asked for your proof that the phrase "has not believed" doesn't mean "has never believed".

And you punt. Once again. It's real clear that you can't or won't answer my questions or take up my challenges.

What I asked for is analysis & citation for why it does or does not mean "never"?
I don't believe I saw the words "analysis & citation" in your post. I could have missed it, but I don't recall any question. That's WHY I asked what YOUR point was.

Our job in analyzing Scripture at the level of grammar being debated here should be to state what we think the accurate translation should be, and why.
OK, I checked out your source for the translations and nearly all of them used "has/hath not believed".

Now, why do I have to prove that the phrase is equivalent to "has never believed". To me, that is just quite obvious. Do I have to prove that the sky is blue on a sunny day? No. It's obvious. Just look up into the sky. Unless you are color blind. Then, never mind. No one can prove any color to that person.

Instead, you have the burden to DISPROVE my claim. If I'm wrong, it should be easy to prove me wrong. Use the truth. It wins every time. So if you are correct and I am wrong to equate the 2 phrases, PLEASE prove to me that I'm wrong. And I will THANK YOU for doing so.

Remember, I don't want to be wrong any more than you do. ;)

Within this conclusion we should be able to accurately state what this grammar is telling or not telling us and why. I as a schooled translator and others often disagree with translators, who also routinely disagree with one another.
Since ALL the translations you quoted have "has not believed", can you PROVE that the phrase CANNOT mean "has NEVER believed", or not?

I don't view any English translation as completely accurate.
Well, then. Your comment makes me think of 1 Cor 15:32, which says at the end:
“Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

iow, what's the point of ANY study of the Bible with that kind of attitude?

If I did, it would have saved me nearly countless hours of schooling & associated work in the Text.
Well, I can only say that none of your "countless hours" paid off much. imho

I've only asked for participation in this effort in regards to one word. You either have the ability or you don't. You either choose to take a shot at it or you don't. Either is fine with me and I'm not afraid of being legitimately proven wrong. Such is the case of all who I know who are seeking the Truth.
I've laid out my claim about the phrase "has not believed".

Now, are you ABLE or UNABLE to prove that the phrase CANNOT mean "has never believed"?

For this is where the discussion squarely lies.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I recommend that you, dear friend, parse John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12. The English wording is "have not believed"

Actually no dear friend. I respectfully disagree but let me show why. The English and Greek wording for "believe" or better translated "believing" in John 3:18 is not past tense but present just like it is in John 3:16 and does not say have or has not believed (past tense application)... but "whoever does not believe (action is present tense to believe or believing) or whoever does not believing (present tense). Your changing the word meanings. Even the English translations do not say what your saying here.

PARALLEL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS

New International Version
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.

New Living Translation
“There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son.

English Standard Version
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Berean Study Bible
Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Berean Literal Bible
The one believing in Him is not judged, but the one not believing already has been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

New American Standard Bible
"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

New King James Version
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

King James Bible
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Christian Standard Bible
Anyone who believes in him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

Contemporary English Version
No one who has faith in God's Son will be condemned. But everyone who doesn't have faith in him has already been condemned for not having faith in God's only Son.

Good News Translation
Those who believe in the Son are not judged; but those who do not believe have already been judged, because they have not believed in God's only Son.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God.

International Standard Version
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God's unique Son.

NET Bible
The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

New Heart English Bible
He who believes in him is not judged. He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Whoever believes in him is not judged, and whoever does not believe is judged already, because he does not believe in The Name of The Only Begotten Son of God.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Those who believe in him won't be condemned. But those who don't believe are already condemned because they don't believe in God's only Son.

New American Standard 1977
“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

King James 2000 Bible
He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

American King James Version
He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

American Standard Version
He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Douay-Rheims Bible
He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Darby Bible Translation
He that believes on him is not judged: but he that believes not has been already judged, because he has not believed on the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

English Revised Version
He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Young's Literal Translation
he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

...........

Now looking at a variety of English Bible versions, I see, among others: "everyone trusting in him"; "whoever has faith in him"; "whoever believes in him"; "everyone believing into him," and "who is believing in him". Each of the alternate English renderings of the Greek phrase ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν read as conditional upon both present and continuing belief. John 3:18 is a perfect indicative active in the negative which is what I just said earlier. The scripture says no where that they never believed. You cannot get that out of the grammar or scripture. The PIA is application to the present and does not say that they did not believe or believed in the past. For this you may want to parse other scriptures like Hebrews 6:4-8 and Hebrews 10:26-39 and the linked to the scripture you added earlier (but with context added) to 2 Thessalonians 2:2-12 that all show that believers can depart the faith to become unbelievers in the present tense making them no more believers but unbelievers which now put them into the category of John 3:18 (PIA).
In John 3:18 it is a "perfect indicative active" in the negative. iow, they NEVER believed.

I do not believe that the grammar alone is capable of determining that they never believed. The present participial phrase πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ("all who believe") seems to imply a continuous action, since one might suppose that the author would have used the aorist participial phrase πᾶς ὁ πιστεύσας ("all who believed") to more aptly represent a singular historical act of belief. On the other hand, compare the actual usage of the aorist participial phrase ὁ πιστεύσας in Mark 16:16 (KJV)

I suggest you read 2 Thessalonians 2:2-12. Your disregarding the scripture context that shows that the subject matter is to those who were once believers that were deceived and departed the faith to become unbelievers. You will then see that context is prior to the 2nd coming and there will be a falling away of believers that will be deceived by false teachings (v2-3) 2 Thessalonians 2:12 is in reference to those who have fallen away and departed the faith.

The "aorist participle active" also in the negative used in 2 Thessalonians 2:12 does not say anywhere that those who had "FALLEN AWAY" to being deceived v2-3 (context) did not believe as context here is in reference to believers that have been deceived and have departed the faith to become "unbelievers" which "now" in the present tense puts them into the category of John 3:18 (PIA) as condemned unbelievers because in the present tense they are no longer believing but are now unbelievers or unbelieving.

Sorry dear friend but the Greek and scriptures do not support a view that we can believe yesterday and stop believing today in the present tense and receive eternal life. There is no scripture that supports these claims which simply denies God's Word and is dangerously unbiblical. The rest of your post was repetition already addressed with scripture within this thread so will be ignored here.

Hope this helps...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When I wrote "such action is NOT NECESSARY", I was referring to the "kind of action" that you 3 guys keep repeating. It is that kind of action that is NOT NECESSARY.

So your question is really ridiculous. Of course belief is necessary for salvation. I've ALWAYS said that. Which you actually know. So your question was quite underhanded.

You're forgiven for not being clear. You should be more precise in your wording. Precision in wording is what's important in these discussions. All we can do is take you at what you say and respond accordingly. As to form, maybe you get what you give (but not nearly in quantity matched to what you give).

Now, nor is the "kind of action" you're interpreting it to mean NECESSARY. That's the legitimate conclusion based upon analysis of the verb tense used - neither durative, nor iterative, nor momentary is a NECESSARY conclusion of the actual verb parsing and that point has been clearly & repeatedly made, clearly provided to you by more than one, and proven by at least one credible reference.

By providing you with these facts, we've actually & properly left the door open for either side of the debate to actually prove their case. Neither has done so to the other's satisfaction.

In my view (IMV), and in the view of 2 others, as I understand them, and in the way I (and I believe at least 2 others) read Wallace, you've lost the case on Acts16:31. It does not prove your case for a one-time belief, nor does it in itself prove the continuous belief case.

On one of your other mainstays, John10:28, IMV LoveGodsWord (LGW) did a nice job in stating why you were wrong in that verse by explaining what it does say. I know I've also put forth a lot of similar (but less articulate) argument against your take on that verse. Maybe Doug has also - at this point it's tough to recall.

2 down.

So, now, let's see where you go with John3:18.

Whether you believe it or not, I'm very open to you actually proving something through legitimate exegesis of a verse. I guaranty you there is much more in the grammar than anyone has done so far that you'll have to do to prove your case, but FWIW I'm open to it. I just don't think you can do it based upon what I've seen from you so far.

Back later.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Actually no dear friend. I respectfully disagree but let me show why. The English and Greek wording for "believe" or better translated "believing" in John 3:18 is not past tense but present just like it is in John 3:16 and does not say have or has not believed (past tense application)... but "whoever does not believe (action is present tense to believe or believing) or whoever does not believing (present tense). Your changing the word meanings.
Biblehub.com shows the Greek word to be a perfect indicative active with the adverb "me", Greek for "not". So why do you claim it is a "present tense action"? You couldn't be more wrong.

PARALLEL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS
Given your error in parsing the Greek word, there's no need to review all the translations.

John 3:18 is a perfect indicative active in the negative which is what I just said earlier.
Your opening in this post was just the opposite.

The scripture says no where that they never believed.
I asked you to PROVE to me that the phrase "has not believed" CANNOT mean "has never believed", and all you seem to be able to do is repeat your own claim.

My claim is that both phrases mean the same thing. It's your burden to disprove my claim. It seems you are just not up to the job. So you just keep repeating yourself.

You cannot get that out of the grammar or scripture. The PIA is application to the present and does not say that they did not believe or believed in the past.
Since we BOTH AGREE that the phrase is best translated "has not believed", it is YOUR burden to disprove my claim that "has not believed" means "has never believed".

I do not believe that the grammar alone is capable of determining that they never believed.
With respect, I don't care what you don't believe. I'm not even asking for parsing the Greek. I am asking you to DISPROVE my claim that "has not believed" CANNOT mean "has never believed".

The present participial phrase πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ("all who believe") seems to imply a continuous action, since one might suppose that the author would have used the aorist participial phrase πᾶς ὁ πιστεύσας ("all who believed") to more aptly represent a singular historical act of belief. On the other hand, compare the actual usage of the aorist participial phrase ὁ πιστεύσας in Mark 16:16 (KJV)
All you've got is "seems to imply". Yeah. Sure. Why does that make me nervous about your posts?

I suggest you read 2 Thessalonians 2:2-12. Your disregarding the scripture context that shows that the subject matter is to those who were once believers that were deceived and departed the faith to become unbelievers.
Once again, I dare you to DISPROVE my claim that "has not believed" CANNOT mean "has never believed".
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Biblehub.com shows the Greek word to be a perfect indicative active with the adverb "me", Greek for "not". So why do you claim it is a "present tense action"? You couldn't be more wrong.

I respectfully disagree. You have misapplied the Greek application to context.

As further proof of this, Daniel Wallace points out:

"The idea seems to be both gnomic and continual: "everyone who continually believes." This is not due to the present tense only, but to the use of the present participle of πιστεύω, especially in soteriological contexts in the NT" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 620-621).

Wallace further elaborates in a footnote:

The aspectual force of the present ὁ πιστεύων seems to be in contrast with ὁ πιστεύσας . The aorist is used only eight times (plus two in the longer ending of Mark). The aorist is sometimes used to describe believers as such and thus has a generic force (cf. for the clearest example the v.l. at Mark 16:16; cf. also 2 Thess 1:10; Heb 4:3; perhaps John 7:39; also, negatively, of those who did not [ μή ] believe: 2 Thess 2:12; Jude 5). The present occurs six times as often (43 times), most often in soteriological contexts (cf. John 1:12; 3:15, 16, 18; 3:36; 6:35, 47, 64; 7:38; 11:25; 12:46; Acts 2:44; 10:43; 13:39; Rom 1:16; 3:22; 4:11, 24; 9:33; 10:4, 11; 1 Cor 1:21; 14:22 [bis]; Gal 3:22; Eph 1:19; 1 Thess 1:7; 2:10, 13; 1 Pet 2:6, 7; 1 John 5:1, 5, 10, 13). Thus, it seems that since the aorist participle was a live option to describe a "believer," it is unlikely that when the present was used, it was aspectually flat. The present was the tense of choice most likely because the NT writers by and large saw continual belief as a necessary condition of salvation. Along these lines, it seems significant that the promise of salvation is almost always given to ὁ πιστεύων (cf. several of the above-cited texts), almost never to ὁ πιστεύσας (apart from Mark 16:16, John 7:39 and Heb 4:3 come the closest [the present tense of πιστεύω never occurs in Hebrews]).

Thus according to Wallace, the present active participle used here (JOHN 3:15; 16 and 18) as a substantive can carry the connotation of continuous belief as a condition in order to have eternal life (and thus also not perish).
Given your error in parsing the Greek word, there's no need to review all the translations.
There was no error, I did the parsing in the previous post to John 3:16-18, Hebrews 6:4-8, Hebrews 10:26-39 and even added the context back you left out of 2 Thessalonians 2:12 to 2 Thessalonians 2:2-12 that all show that believers can depart the faith to become unbelievers in the present tense making them no more believers but unbelievers which now put them into the category of John 3:18 (PIA). When adding the context into 2 Thessalonians 2:12 it does not state what you claim neither does the Greek in John 3:16-18 which is PIA. There is no scripture anywhere in the bible that says we can believe yesterday and not believe today and receive eternal life as faith and believing in the present tense "now" is a condition of eternal life.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TibiasDad

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2020
769
105
63
Pickerington, Oh
✟52,822.00
Country
United States
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
Rom 8:17 mentions 2 inheritances. One is the inheritance of the child of God. That would be ENTRANCE into the kingdom. The other is the inheritance that is ONLY for those believers who "shared in His sufferings" or "endured". They will "reign with him" or "share in His glory", both obviously referring to the same thing; reward.

Rom 8:16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

This is one of the worst cases of eisegesis I have ever seen! There is no mention of a second inheritance (technically inheritance isn't really mentioned at all, but only implied) but only that we, as children of God, are heirs. What we are heirs of is singular in scope, we are " heirs of God"; no division, no dichotomy. We are heirs of God just as Christ is an heir. And if we are heirs like Christ, then we "must walk as Jesus walked" and "take up our cross and follow him" so that we might "share in his sufferings".

Doug
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You're forgiven for not being clear. You should be more precise in your wording. Precision in wording is what's important in these discussions. All we can do is take you at what you say and respond accordingly. As to form, maybe you get what you give (but not nearly in quantity matched to what you give).
Let's just forego the ad hominem.

Now, nor is the "kind of action" you're interpreting it to mean NECESSARY. That's the legitimate conclusion based upon analysis of the verb tense used - neither durative, nor iterative, nor momentary is a NECESSARY conclusion of the actual verb parsing and that point has been clearly & repeatedly made, clearly provided to you by more than one, and proven by at least one credible reference.
You are missisng the point again. Because the aorist doesn't consider time, there is no reason to assume/presume that there is a time element.

By providing you with these facts, we've actually & properly left the door open for either side of the debate to actually prove their case. Neither has done so to the other's satisfaction.
My point is that the aorist makes no statement about duration. If duration was necessary for salvation, it would have been negligent to use it in relation to salvation.

In my view (IMV), and in the view of 2 others, as I understand them, and in the way I (and I believe at least 2 others) read Wallace, you've lost the case on Acts16:31.
Well, that's YOUR view. If time duration was REQUIRED for salvation, the use of the aorist would be most irresponsible of Paul to use it.

It does not prove your case for a one-time belief, nor does it in itself prove the continuous belief case.
I stand by the FACT that IF IF IF PIA is NECESSARY, REQUIRED for salvation, Paul really screwed up with a very bad answer.

On one of your other mainstays, John10:28, IMV LoveGodsWord (LGW) did a nice job in stating why you were wrong in that verse by explaining what it does say.
I know what it says. But I don't recall anyone telling me what it "does say". Could you provide the post # so I can review it? Thanks.

I know I've also put forth a lot of similar (but less articulate) argument against your take on that verse. Maybe Doug has also - at this point it's tough to recall.
The "take" on John 10:28 is very clear. Recipients of eternal life SHALL NEVER PERISH.

The only thing to determine is WHEN a person receives the gift of eternal life, since Jesus was clear about being the One who GIVES it to His sheep. What is your "take"?

So, now, let's see where you go with John3:18.

Whether you believe it or not, I'm very open to you actually proving something through legitimate exegesis of a verse.
Again, I claim that "has not believed" means the same thing as "has never believed". I don't need exegesis. We both have agreed that nearly all English translations have "has not believed". So, your challenge is to DISPROVE my claim that they are the same.

I guaranty you there is much more in the grammar than anyone has done so far that you'll have to do to prove your case, but FWIW I'm open to it.
If you can prove that "has not believed" CANNOT mean "has never believed", go for it.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.