Use of the aorist

TibiasDad · Aug 27, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
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.

No he is not wrong! The perfect tense means that the effect that began by the act done in the past is still presently in effect. Thus, if believing is the effect that began in the past it is still happening at the time the of the writing.

Doug

FreeGrace2 · Aug 27, 2020

I said:
"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."

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

So, basically, you are disagreeing with biblehub.com then. So I'm supposed to trust your "seems to imply" opinion over biblehub.com's work? Not gonna happen.

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).

Even scholars have their "seems to..." moments. iow, they don't know either.

Regarding your obsession with "continually believes", which you take from the PIA: when a person comes to believe something (it can be anything), they don't just believe for a moment in time, and then go on their merry way not believing it.

But, everyone has changed their minds about something (it can be anything). At that moment, they no longer believe something (it can be anything) what they used to believe.

So when the Bible uses the PIA, it's just being obvious. I have never believed that the Bible would teach to believe "only for a moment in time" the gospel and you will be saved. That would be absurd, because it would be impossible to do.

Once you believe something, it takes more info before you would change your mind and not believe it anymore.

Jesus gave us an example of someone who did believe, and it was "continuous" UNTIL they changed their mind and fell away from their faith. The reason? Tests/temptations. That made them no longer believe. But before those came, they were believing continually.

In fact, it is impossible to not believe something continually. Whatever you believe you WILL CONTINUE to do so UNTIL something comes along that changes your mind/view.

Wallace further elaborates in a footnote:
-----------------------------
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.

Or, what I said. All belief is continual. No one changes their mind/view moment by moment. Believing something one moment and then something else the next moment, and then back to the first thing, and on and on. That would be absurd.

So ALL believing is continuous. Those who belief in something (can be anything) in a yo-yo fashion (belief then non-belief, then back and forth) are just totally unstable and should be avoided.

The FACT that Jesus used the PIA for 'believe' in Luke 8:13 and followed that immediately with "for a while" proves your theory wrong. Once belief, as with the second soil, there is salvation and possession of eternal life. Then, after "a while", tests/temptation/etc come along and the person loses their faith. But, since they were given eternal life, Jesus SAID recipients shall never perish.

So, your challenge now is to prove that the gift of eternal life is given at some point distant to the moment of faith in Christ. Are you up to that?

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]).

I'm not impressed. Unless you can prove that Jesus gives the gift of eternal life sometime distant to the very moment of faith in Christ, you have no point.

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).

As I have pointed out, ALL belief is continuous, except for those unstable yo-yo's who vacillate between belief and non-belief in a cycling fashion.

LoveGodsWord · Aug 27, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
I said:
"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."

So, basically, you are disagreeing with biblehub.com then. So I'm supposed to trust your "seems to imply" opinion over biblehub.com's work? Not gonna happen.

Even scholars have their "seems to..." moments. iow, they don't know either.

Regarding your obsession with "continually believes", which you take from the PIA: when a person comes to believe something (it can be anything), they don't just believe for a moment in time, and then go on their merry way not believing it.

But, everyone has changed their minds about something (it can be anything). At that moment, they no longer believe something (it can be anything) what they used to believe.

So when the Bible uses the PIA, it's just being obvious. I have never believed that the Bible would teach to believe "only for a moment in time" the gospel and you will be saved. That would be absurd, because it would be impossible to do.

Once you believe something, it takes more info before you would change your mind and not believe it anymore.

Jesus gave us an example of someone who did believe, and it was "continuous" UNTIL they changed their mind and fell away from their faith. The reason? Tests/temptations. That made them no longer believe. But before those came, they were believing continually.

In fact, it is impossible to not believe something continually. Whatever you believe you WILL CONTINUE to do so UNTIL something comes along that changes your mind/view.

Or, what I said. All belief is continual. No one changes their mind/view moment by moment. Believing something one moment and then something else the next moment, and then back to the first thing, and on and on. That would be absurd.

So ALL believing is continuous. Those who belief in something (can be anything) in a yo-yo fashion (belief then non-belief, then back and forth) are just totally unstable and should be avoided.

The FACT that Jesus used the PIA for 'believe' in Luke 8:13 and followed that immediately with "for a while" proves your theory wrong. Once belief, as with the second soil, there is salvation and possession of eternal life. Then, after "a while", tests/temptation/etc come along and the person loses their faith. But, since they were given eternal life, Jesus SAID recipients shall never perish.

So, your challenge now is to prove that the gift of eternal life is given at some point distant to the moment of faith in Christ. Are you up to that?

I'm not impressed. Unless you can prove that Jesus gives the gift of eternal life sometime distant to the very moment of faith in Christ, you have no point.

As I have pointed out, ALL belief is continuous, except for those unstable yo-yo's who vacillate between belief and non-belief in a cycling fashion.

Nope. I am only disagreeing with your claims that are not biblical in regards to someone who believed Gods' word yesterday and no longer believes Gods' Word today receive eternal life. These claims have been proven to be unbiblical in both the Greek and the scriptures as well in scripture context in post # 135 linked and post # 138 linked. Your denial both the Greek and scripture that disagree with you is simply amazing. Sorry we will have to agree to disagree.

FreeGrace2 · Aug 27, 2020

I said:
"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."

TibiasDad said:
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!

OK. Your opinion. So what?

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.[/QUTOE]
What you are describing here is the first inheritance, as a child of God.

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".

Click to expand...

I guess you have some kind of made up Bible or something. The phrases about taking up the cross, following Him don't occur in the text.

"Now 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."

Red words speak to the inheritance as children of God. They will enter heaven.

Blue words speak to the inheritance as "co-heirs with Christ". And this inheritance is conditioned on "sharing in His sufferings".

This isn't eisegesis. It's discernment. Which seems to be rather lacking among Arminians.

Rom 8:17b is parallel to 2 Tim 2:12

"if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us;"

Red words are parallel to "sharing in His sufferings" and "reigning with Him".

v.12b "if we deny Him" is the opposite of "enduring". The result is being denied reigning with Him.

FreeGrace2 · Aug 27, 2020

I said:
"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."

TibiasDad said:
No he is not wrong! The perfect tense means that the effect that began by the act done in the past is still presently in effect.

He was talking about the present tense in John 3:18. So he WAS wrong.

LoveGodsWord · Aug 27, 2020

TibiasDad said:
No he is not wrong! The perfect tense means that the effect that began by the act done in the past is still presently in effect. Thus, if believing is the effect that began in the past it is still happening at the time the of the writing.

Doug

It seems some want to make false claims and strawman arguments no one is talking about rather than having a friendly discussion and addressing the content and the scriptures in the posts shared. Thanks Doug.

FreeGrace2 · Aug 27, 2020

LoveGodsWord said:
Nope. I am only disagreeing with your claims that are not biblical in regards to someone who believed Gods' word yesterday and no longer believes Gods' Word today receive eternal life.

Then you cannot believe what Jesus said in John 10:28. Because He said recipients of eternal life shall never perish. That's real clear.

And, are you going to explain WHEN you believe the gift of eternal life is given?

These claims have been proven to be unbiblical in both the Greek and the scriptures as well in scripture context in post # 135 linked and post # 138 linked.

That would be another opinion.

Your denial both the Greek and scripture that disagree with you is simply amazing. Sorry we will have to agree to disagree.

Well, I certainly disagree with you, but there is no disagreement between me and either Greek or Scripture.

LoveGodsWord · Aug 27, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
I said:
"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."

He was talking about the present tense in John 3:18. So he WAS wrong.

I am not arguing what you are claiming so please do not pretend otherwise. I am arguing that saving faith is always continual and present tense in order to receive eternal life. What your proposing is not biblical and you have no scripture to prove one can believe yesterday and no longer believe today and receive eternal life. This is in spite of God's Word stating specifically that a believer can depart the faith to become an unbeliever in Hebrews 6:4-8; Hebrews 10:26-39 and 2 Thessalonians 2:2-12 and elsewhere

As posted earlier Wallace further elaborates in regards to John 3:15-18 in regards to believe, believes or believing...

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).

Hope this helps.

LoveGodsWord · Aug 27, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
Then you cannot believe what Jesus said in John 10:28. Because He said recipients of eternal life shall never perish. That's real clear.

And, are you going to explain WHEN you believe the gift of eternal life is given?

That would be another opinion.

Well, I certainly disagree with you, but there is no disagreement between me and either Greek or Scripture.

Not at all dear friend. I agree with JESUS in John 10:26-28. I disagree with you. As posted earlier, you disregarded the context of v28 which is v26-27 that define "they or them" As posted earlier and showing the context you left out of the "they" or "them". In Jesus's own words "they" or "them" are those who hear His voice (the Word) and follow it *John 10:26-28. You can hand waive the scriptures, the context you have left out and the Greek in our discussion that all disagree with you all you like. Ignoring God's Word however does not make it disappear.

TibiasDad · Aug 27, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
Your "objection" is fallacious. It is only your theory that one must "keep believing" to be saved.

The entire comment was about the use of the future tense, not about believing! The future tense does not extend an ongoing action in the past (imperfect or perfect) or present tense past the present moment of writing. The future tense is about events happening at a certain point in the future, and it doesn't say anything about anything beyond that point, just like the aorist says nothing beyond the point of reference it's talking about, and just like the perfect says nothing beyond the present tense moment of the writer, and just like the present tense doesn't say anything about the action continuing or not. No tense says anything certain beyond the present tense!

Doug

GDL · Aug 27, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
In John 3:18 it is a "perfect indicative active" in the negative. iow, they NEVER believed.

That's what you stated in post #113.

Here's the verse again:

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.

Here's are my main questions again and to be more precise I'm addressing the last use of "believe" (underlined in bold above) in the Perfect (tense) Active (voice) Indicative (mood) parsing (instead of "tense" as I previously stated it below):

GDL said:
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's your only close response worth quoting:

FreeGrace2 said:
Since ALL the translations you quoted have "has not believed", can you PROVE that the phrase CANNOT mean "has NEVER believed", or not?

I also clearly addressed that I and others often disagree with English translations. My question is not about what English translations say. And we can note while here, that none of these several English translations say "NEVER" as you have [potentially] eisegeted for us in your post #113 quoted above. My question is about what the Greek parsing of the verb actually tells us.

To be more clear, here's the Greek with that specific word in question highlighted:

BYZ John 3:18 Ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (Jn. 3:18 BYZ)

So, you've told us that "In John 3:18 it is a "perfect indicative active" in the negative. iow, they NEVER believed." (italics & highlighting is mine).

Now, since you made the claim re: the "perfect indicative active" meaning "Never", can you make your case re: "NEVER" from facts about the verb parsing, or can you not? If you don't understand my question, please feel free to tell me why, and I'll attempt to clarify it for you even better.

Please feel free to utilize and present any credible Greek grammar reference you choose & please cite, link, or copy this reference for us, so we can review it.

TibiasDad · Aug 27, 2020

LoveGodsWord said:
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] e 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]).

Amen, and amen! Watch FG2 will throw Wallace under the bus like he did Mounce in a previous thread!

Doug

GDL · Aug 27, 2020

TibiasDad said:
Amen, and amen! Watch FG2 will throw Wallace under the bus like he did Mounce in a previous thread!

Doug

Already did. Everyone who disagrees with FG2 is automatically under the bus (with the rest of the Remnant).

TibiasDad · Aug 27, 2020

GDL said:
Now, since you made the claim re: the "perfect indicative active" meaning "Never", can you make your case re: "NEVER" from facts about the verb parsing, or can you not? If you don't understand my question, please feel free to tell me why, and I'll attempt to clarify it for you even better.

Please feel free to utilize and present any credible Greek grammar reference you choose & please cite, link, or copy this reference for us, so we can review it.

Yes, indeed! He has made a proposition, meaning he has to defend the meaning proposed. He has shifted the burden of proof and made the inability of negation the reasoning for his being correct! You would think that Mounce, being on the translation committee for the NIV, which translates according to the communicative meaning, more so than the literal lexical meaning, would have inserted the word "never" into the wording if that were the actual intent of the wording, if not the literal meaning!

Doug

TibiasDad · Aug 27, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
I said:
"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."

He was talking about the present tense in John 3:18. So he WAS wrong.

The perfect tense brings the effect into the present tense from the point in the past where it began. Thus it is continuous progress from the past to the point of the present moment bringing written about!

Doug

TibiasDad · Aug 27, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
I said:
"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."

OK. Your opinion. So what?

Please reformat this post so that one can respond properly.

Doug

GDL · Aug 27, 2020

TibiasDad said:
He has shifted the burden of proof and made the inability of negation the reasoning for his being correct!

One trick pony.

Actually, at times he/she makes me smile. Very quick & adept at nonsense & baiting to sidetrack & unnecessarily repeat. As I've stated before, appreciate the zeal but without knowledge. Actually a poor proponent for Free Grace in the end, but has digested the doctrine well.

TibiasDad · Aug 27, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
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?

Again, you state something not akin to what we argue! We do not argue for a "continuous present", we argue for continuous belief and obedience to Christ which means that we must always do so presently! (When else could it be done?)

So burn your strawman and start dealing with the actual arguments and evidence. You have been presented with powerful evidence from Greek scholars of unassailable reputation by posters far more skilled than myself, and I can only hope and pray that you would learn as much from them as I have.

Doug

LoveGodsWord · Aug 28, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
The FACT that Jesus used the PIA for 'believe' in Luke 8:13 and followed that immediately with "for a while" proves your theory wrong. Once belief, as with the second soil, there is salvation and possession of eternal life. Then, after "a while", tests/temptation/etc come along and the person loses their faith. But, since they were given eternal life, Jesus SAID recipients shall never perish.

I respectfully disagree dear friend but lets see why....

LUKE 8:13 states that they believed only "for a while", so "for a while" they were continually believing (PIA). The point is that they fell away when temptation came and departed the faith to become "unbelievers". This only supports what is being shared with you.

You are incorrect claiming that they will not come into condemnation, because after temptation came they were no longer believing, but had fallen away into unbelief therefore "unbelievers" and no longer believing in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

If after temptation those who once believed are no longer believers then they are now "unbelievers" therefore the scriptures applied in JOHN 3:18 are applicable also to those who have departed the faith as they are now "unbelievers" not believing (PIA) in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

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

The scriptures say no where here as you claim as long as you "once believe" even if you depart the faith to become an "unbeliever" you can still receive eternal life and there is no condemnation. In fact condemnation for those who were once believers and depart the faith are clearly stated in Hebrews 6:4-8 and Hebrews 10:26-39.

Believing or unbelieving is a state of mind in the present. You can only be one or the other (believer or an unbeliever) at any one time . God's salvation and promises are always in the present tense to believing now.

JESUS says those who hear His voice (the Word) and follow it (believers) shall never perish *John 10:26-27, not those who do not hear and believe and no longer follow will not perish and receive eternal life. These are God's Word not mine and they disagree with you.

Hope this is helpful.

FreeGrace2 · Aug 28, 2020

LoveGodsWord said:
I am not arguing what you are claiming so please do not pretend otherwise. I am arguing that saving faith is always continual and present tense in order to receive eternal life.

OK, we've already been over this. The only question left for you to answer is WHEN a person actually receives the gift of eternal life.

Jesus said in John 10:28 that He gives them eternal life. So, please focus on WHEN He actually gives eternal life to them. That will clear up the whole issue about that verse.

What your proposing is not biblical

No, it is not simpatico with your views. My view IS biblical. I have verses that actually say what I believe. Unlike yourself.

and you have no scripture to prove one can believe yesterday and no longer believe today and receive eternal life.

This only shows that you do not comprehend what Jesus said in John 10:28.

This is in spite of God's Word stating specifically that a believer can depart the faith to become an unbeliever in Hebrews 6:4-8

Not even close. I have to question your reading skills with this comment. That passage says NOTHING about "becoming an unbeliever".

Hebrews 10:26-39 and 2 Thessalonians 2:2-12 and elsewhere

Now you're making think your views are delusional. 2 Thess 2:12 specifically says that condemnation is for those who "have not believed", and you STILL HAVEN'T proven that "have not believed" does not mean "have never believed".

As posted earlier Wallace further elaborates in regards to John 3:15-18 in regards to believe, believes or believing...

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).

Hope this helps.

Knda getting tired having to keep explaining what is SO obvious. Belief of ANY kind is continuous. iow, when a believes something, they continuously believe it.

Unless they are some kind of unstable psycho, who yo-yo's between belief and unbelief about whatever it is that they believe.

Use of the aorist

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads