Calvinism Question

[heymikey80]

I don't have a "version" of Mounce. I quoted him directly.

I quoted him translating the exact verse directly. Your version is not how he applied it.
"believes" is present tense. That is how he translated it.

Btw there are three other examples of him doing so in this book. See if you can find them

Yes, I have. But it takes eyes that see and ears that hear.

But I'll do it again, and ask for a clear explanation of HOW the verses DON'T mean what they say.

Eph 2:5 equates made alive" with "being saved". v.8 says we are saved through faith. So, since faith precedes salvation, faith also precedes being made alive. Quite simple.

Your turn.

Now, when did "through" become "before"? It didn't. Faith is happening alongside saving. The thought that it is before salvation takes a theology to choose the timing and even how faith operates. Neither is in the grammar.

Paul sees the process of salvation, sure. And it has started by God making his people alive. Then it continues by people having faith.

No, not "faith", as in initial faith. But PRESENT faith. Way different.

iow, those presenting believing HAVE BEEN born again. The grammar rules SAY that present participles (believing ones) occurs AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ACTION OF THE MAIN VERB (born again).

John never uses the term or idea that initial faith is different. Others point out the continuation of the same faith we started with.

And John describes the faith, it's the faith in Christ Jesus. That sounds awfully initial.

Your own expert rejects your method of applying his rule. Why not ask him about how perfect tense applies?

 

[heymikey80]

How can one be born again except an incorruptible seed has been planted first in good soil? How can an incorruptible seed (the Living Word) produce anything except it is first believed?

Do you think God requires faith to create the world, to raise the dead, to make things happen?

Where is faith of the darkness in Genesis 1 again?

Surely you aren't saying the Word can have any affect without faith? If that's the case, then anyone who just hears the Word will be born again.

1 Peter 1:23
having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,

Like, John 1:3?

 

[EmSw]

Do you think God requires faith to create the world, to raise the dead, to make things happen?

Where is faith of the darkness in Genesis 1 again?

Like, John 1:3?

Where in the world are you going? We are talking about man having faith in God's word, not God having faith creating, raising, and doing things. Faith of the darkness? Is darkness a living entity that it needs faith to be dark?

I am talking about being born again through the living Word. Please tell me how the living Word is of any use without man's faith.

Did the unbelieving Pharisees benefit from the Word? In Mark 4:40, Jesus told the disciples they had NO faith. Did the Word of Jesus benefit them without faith? They were afraid and let fear rule their hearts.

So please tell me again how a man, and not God, can be born again from the living Word without faith.

 

[heymikey80]

Where in the world are you going? We are talking about man having faith in God's word, not God having faith creating, raising, and doing things. Faith of the darkness? Is darkness a living entity that it needs faith to be dark?

I am talking about being born again through the living Word. Please tell me how the living Word is of any use without man's faith.

Did the unbelieving Pharisees benefit from the Word? In Mark 4:40, Jesus told the disciples they had NO faith. Did the Word of Jesus benefit them without faith? They were afraid and let fear rule their hearts.

So please tell me again how a man, and not God, can be born again from the living Word without faith.

Where am I going? To point out that the Spirit of God is always responsible for initial action, often bringing about things from nothing. So your complaint that faith is needed to make things happen isnt really true for the Spirit. He can give people faith. He can make believers of stones.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I quoted him translating the exact verse directly. Your version is not how he applied it.
"believes" is present tense. That is how he translated it.

Check any lexicon. It'a a present PARTICIPLE. And there are grammar rules on how they act and when they occur.

Now, when did "through" become "before"? It didn't. Faith is happening alongside saving.

Why make up stuff? There isn't anything in Scripture to support this. Further, the word "through" clearly indicates that salvation has to follow faith. The faith has to be there FOR the salvation to "come through". This is really quite basic.

Paul sees the process of salvation, sure. And it has started by God making his people alive. Then it continues by people having faith.

I'm so tired of the RT claim that regeneration precedes faith, when it doesn't and RT cannot provide any verses to support its claim.

Your own expert rejects your method of applying his rule. Why not ask him about how perfect tense applies?

Please provide his phone #.

 

[heymikey80]

Check any lexicon. It'a a present PARTICIPLE. And there are grammar rules on how they act and when they occur.

Translation implies that Mounce knows how they work in two languages. Either his grammar is poor or yours is. I think it is more likely yours is.

Why make up stuff? There isn't anything in Scripture to support this. Further, the word "through" clearly indicates that salvation has to follow faith. The faith has to be there FOR the salvation to "come through". This is really quite basic.

There it is, the idea that salvation is a punctiliar event. Yet here it is the process, the action. "I drove down the road through 5 stoplights" doesnt describe a need for all the stoplights to be on one corner before I hit the road.

I'm so tired of the RT claim that regeneration precedes faith, when it doesn't and RT cannot provide any verses to support its claim.

And I am tired of the claim that perfect tense means nothing in particular. The verse declares that for everyone who believes in Christ, their birth in God was completed.

Please provide his phone #.

I have already provided his website. Enjoy.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Translation implies that Mounce knows how they work in two languages. Either his grammar is poor or yours is. I think it is more likely yours is.

We're done with this argument. I've quoted grammar rules, and you're stuck on some translation. There are many translations using different words. I"m sticking with grammar rules regarding the Greek. I'm not that interested in all the variations of the Enlish. btw, the Greek is different enough from Enlish that some of it is hard to translate. Which is why I'm sticking with the Greek and the grammar rules for Greek. You're free to do whatever.

There it is, the idea that salvation is a punctiliar event. Yet here it is the process, the action. "I drove down the road through 5 stoplights" doesnt describe a need for all the stoplights to be on one corner before I hit the road.

How many stoplights did it take for your salvation process?

And I am tired of the claim that perfect tense means nothing in particular.

Please direct me to the post where I either said or suggested such an idiotic thing. Or, since you won't be able to do that, please apologize for trying to demonize my view with such nonsense. Or apologize for your failure to read my posts accurately.

The verse declares that for everyone who believes in Christ, their birth in God was completed.

It does NOT "declare" that at all. It plainly SAYS: "the currently believing ones have been born again". That's exactly what it SAYS.

Your version is an eigegesis, not exegesis, unlike mine.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I have already provided his website. Enjoy.

I went back 5 pages and couldn't find any reference to his website.

So, when you're ready to provide either his website or phone #, I'll be ready for it.

 

[heymikey80]

I went back 5 pages and couldn't find any reference to his website.

So, when you're ready to provide either his website or phone #, I'll be ready for it.

http://www.teknia.com

 

[FreeGrace2]

http://www.teknia.com

I went there, clicked on every link and couldn't find any phone number.

However, just for fun, I checked out his link on Greek words and found this for the word "tasso" which occurs in Acts 13:48, and usually translated "ordain/appoint": Acts 13:48; to arrange, appoint, place or time

I was impressed that he began with "arrange", which has been my understanding of the word given the context. iow, the Gentiles aranged themselves to hear Paul (v.44).

 

[heymikey80]

We're done with this argument. I've quoted grammar rules, and you're stuck on some translation. There are many translations using different words. I"m sticking with grammar rules regarding the Greek. I'm not that interested in all the variations of the Enlish. btw, the Greek is different enough from Enlish that some of it is hard to translate. Which is why I'm sticking with the Greek and the grammar rules for Greek. You're free to do whatever.

The guy you are quoting for the rule is the guy I am quoting who did the translation of the specifics. You try to apply the rule without recognizing Greek's perfect tense focuses on present state, not the completed action of the past.

How many stoplights did it take for your salvation process?

And now you think grammar only covers salvation, not stoplights. Why am I not surprised.

Please direct me to the post where I either said or suggested such an idiotic thing. Or, since you won't be able to do that, please apologize for trying to demonize my view with such nonsense. Or apologize for your failure to read my posts accurately.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7824208-17/#post65776203

Yknow, nothing in particular about this perfect verb. Just an obsession with the participle, neglecting a present perfect verb that it refers to. And it is not alone. The thread is littered with this obsession, with me reiterating the presence of a present perfect verb in the sentence.

You might think all that neglect means nothing in particular. But that is what I got out of continual neglect of the argument. I am sorry if your obsession with suppressing this argument meant nothing.

It does NOT "declare" that at all. It plainly SAYS: "the currently believing ones have been born again". That's exactly what it SAYS.

You've expressed so many different views, and then denied what you expressed shortly after, that when you do pick a reasonable translation, I have a hard time assuming you are making any credible sounds with your words. Compare with:
"believing still occurred at the same time as when the believer was born again." http://www.christianforums.com/t7824208-11/#post65729159

Oh, and not to burst your bubble too much, but there is a substantial difference between what you translated and 1 Jn 5:1a. You remember that word "all"? Yeah, there it is.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The guy you are quoting for the rule is the guy I am quoting who did the translation of the specifics. You try to apply the rule without recognizing Greek's perfect tense focuses on present state, not the completed action of the past.

Talk about "focus". Please try to focus on what I actually post. I have fully acknowledged the perfect tense of "born again". But you haven't acknowledged that present participles OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ACTION OF THE MAIN VERB, which just happens to be a perfect tense verb.

And now you think grammar only covers salvation, not stoplights. Why am I not surprised.

These bizarre comments have no place in serious discussions. Stoplights aren't the discussion. It is baffling why you apparently think so.

Yknow, nothing in particular about this perfect verb. Just an obsession with the participle, neglecting a present perfect verb that it refers to.

Well, there it is. Finally recognizing at least that the present particple has reference to the perfect verb. But why keep denying that the present participle OCCURS AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ACTION OF THE MAIN VERB?

You might think all that neglect means nothing in particular. But that is what I got out of continual neglect of the argument. I am sorry if your obsession with suppressing this argument meant nothing.

The obsession is all yours, obsessed with a phantom obsession of mine. I have no obsession. I've quoted from an expert regarding present participles, but the FACT of how it works is a little more than inconvenient to your theology. That's why you're so obsessed.

You've expressed so many different views, and then denied what you expressed shortly after

This is a blatant untruth, coming either from ignorance of what I have posted, or deliberately stating what is NOT true.

Unless you back up your false claim (for that is what it is) with post # and quotes from me, all the thread will know that your claims are totally empty and false.

that when you do pick a reasonable translation, I have a hard time assuming you are making any credible sounds with your words. Compare with:
"believing still occurred at the same time as when the believer was born again." http://www.christianforums.com/t7824208-11/#post65729159

What's so difficult. But I'll translate: the person was believing when the person was born again. How's that?

Oh, and not to burst your bubble too much, but there is a substantial difference between what you translated and 1 Jn 5:1a. You remember that word "all"? Yeah, there it is.

One more extreme vague statement. Please elaborate. What is the "substantial difference" and what is that important, if it is. And what does "all" have to do with anything?

Your posts seem to assume that others are reading your mind. Well, no one can. So please do much better when trying to express yourself. It's very difficult to figure out what your points are.

And please back up any charges that are thrown with evidence or support from prior posts. Without evidence there is no reason at all to give them any attention.

Oh, and, btw, when you provide a link to a specific post, please provide at least some explanation as to WHY you've included it. I checked both links provided, for posts #161 and #102. Without some kind of explanation, they are just my posts. What's the point?

When one continues to get questions like "what's the point", it should be a clue to the poster that their point isn't being made, or is totally unclear to others.

 

[heymikey80]

Talk about "focus". Please try to focus on what I actually post. I have fully acknowledged the perfect tense of "born again". But you haven't acknowledged that present participles OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ACTION OF THE MAIN VERB, which just happens to be a perfect tense verb.

The problem of course is that a perfect tense verb in Greek refers to a present state. The action isnt what the verb represents.

FG2 claims I didnt acknowledge the participle. Thats just silly. I depend on the participle being what it is, too. Look at the thread. Quit saying what isnt so. Yknow there is a commandment against that.

But to claim a verb just happens to be perfect tense is downright silly. Perfect verbs are what tense? The action is finished. And what action does the verb have when an action is finished?

Only FG2 thinks present participles point to an action that isnt happening at the time of the verb.

I pointed this out. I cited Machen. Perfect tense is "a pesent state resultant from a past action" (452). It isnt an action verb. It is the time value of the verb, not of the perfect tense's action, that participles orient to. Greek's perfect tense is for a present state.

Syntax of N T Greek, James A. Brooks, Carlton L. Winbery, University Press of America, Lanham, Md., 1988, pp. 104-5: "The perfect tense expresses perfective action. Perfective action involves a present state which has resulted from a past action. The present state is a continuing state; the past action is a completed action."

The Language of the New Testament, Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, Chas. Scribner's Sons, N.Y., 1965, p. 293: "The Greek perfect differs from the Greek aorist in that it emphasizes the continuing result of the action which was completed in past time..."

NT Greek, DF Hudson, 1988, p. 61: "It must always be remembered that the perfect tense is PRIMARILY concerned with PRESENT time" [his emphasis]

I actually cited FG2's shifting back and forth between arguments, and he removes them from his replies and attacks me for his removals. Anyone who is favoring his argument at this point is favoring stubborn ignorance over the known facts.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The problem of course is that a perfect tense verb in Greek refers to a present state. The action isnt what the verb represents.

In fact, "action" is ALL ABOUT what a verb represents. But I know what was meant: the TENSE of the verb. That is ALL ABOUT time reference.

FG2 claims I didnt acknowledge the participle. Thats just silly. I depend on the participle being what it is, too.

If that were true, there would have been acknowledgement that present participles OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ACTION OF THE MAIN VERB. Which has not been the case. Lip service isn't acknowledgement.

But to claim a verb just happens to be perfect tense is downright silly.

That has been your only point. So, ok, it's silly.

Perfect verbs are what tense? The action is finished. And what action does the verb have when an action is finished?

So difficult to determine what your point is. When the action is finished, there is no more action. Pretty elementary.

Only FG2 thinks present participles point to an action that isnt happening at the time of the verb.

It is very clear as to your extreme confusion as to what I think. I've been clear and consistent. Your statement here is just the exact opposite of what I have quoted Mounce on.

I pointed this out. I cited Machen. Perfect tense is "a pesent state resultant from a past action" (452). It isnt an action verb. It is the time value of the verb, not of the perfect tense's action, that participles orient to. Greek's perfect tense is for a present state.

'Scuze me, but ALL verbs are action verbs. So your sentence just beyond the number 452 is bizarre. The "time value" of a verb relates to when it occurred, or will occur. But a verb is ALWAYS an action, for heaven's sake.

Syntax of N T Greek, James A. Brooks, Carlton L. Winbery, University Press of America, Lanham, Md., 1988, pp. 104-5: "The perfect tense expresses perfective action. Perfective action involves a present state which has resulted from a past action. The present state is a continuing state; the past action is a completed action."

Sure. I've agreed to this. Those currently believing (present participle) have been born again.

But there is nothing in the sentence to conclude that being born again causes the present state of believing.

I actually cited FG2's shifting back and forth between arguments, and he removes them from his replies and attacks me for his removals.

You've shown nothing, except maybe citing a post #. How does that show anything? I've NEVER shifted back and forth. Maybe in your confusion and failure to follow the discussion it seems that I have. I have NOT. Saying so only reveals your misunderstanding and confusion.

 

[extraordinary]

Quit saying what isnt so. Yknow there is a commandment against that.

Perhaps the FG2 should be shown AGAIN Scriptures that WARN
... habitual liars will get thrown into the lake of fire!
.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Perhaps the FG2 should be shown AGAIN Scriptures that WARN
... habitual liars will get thrown into the lake of fire!
.

What's this about "the FG2"? Pretty snarky.

The Bible is very clear who gets thrown into the lake of fire:

Revelation 20:15
And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

How does one obtain eternal life?
Jn 3:15, 16, 36, 5:24, 6:40, 47, 11:25-27, 20:31.

If words mean anything, eternal actually does mean eternal. So God's free gift of eternal life (Rom 6:23) does not end; it's eternal.

Your view of salvation aligns with the Pharisees; works.

All sin was paid for by Christ. So no one can be thrown into the lake of fire for sin which has been covered.

The issue is having eternal life. Or not.

 

[heymikey80]

In fact, "action" is ALL ABOUT what a verb represents. But I know what was meant: the TENSE of the verb. That is ALL ABOUT time reference.

And strictly speaking, what time does a Greek perfect verb represent?

If that were true, there would have been acknowledgement that present participles OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ACTION OF THE MAIN VERB. Which has not been the case. Lip service isn't acknowledgement.

The statement's lack of precision for a perfect verb is the problem. If he had just said the time of the verb like he did at 27.16 of "Basics of Biblical Greek", no argument.

The tense of a perfect verb in Greek is not the time of its action.

That has been your only point. So, ok, it's silly.

Refutations are often deprecated by those opposed to them.

So difficult to determine what your point is. When the action is finished, there is no more action. Pretty elementary.

And the perfect verb refers to finished action. So no action is explicitly stated at the time of the Greek verb. There is only the state it has produced.

It is very clear as to your extreme confusion as to what I think. I've been clear and consistent. Your statement here is just the exact opposite of what I have quoted Mounce on.

My statement? You now have four writers of Greek grammar objecting.

'Scuze me, but ALL verbs are action verbs. So your sentence just beyond the number 452 is bizarre. The "time value" of a verb relates to when it occurred, or will occur. But a verb is ALWAYS an action, for heaven's sake.

Describe the action in "eimi". Describe the action in "es".

Sure. I've agreed to this. Those currently believing (present participle) have been born again.

And in succeeding statements denying what it says. "Have been" shows the birth has passed. The verb is beyond that action. And in fact, if you'd read Mounce, yo'ud notice any concentration on the time of that action is actually a mistranslation. According to Mounce. Isn't it preceding this section on participles?

But there is nothing in the sentence to conclude that being born again causes the present state of believing.

Move some more goalposts. The holes are still there. Claiming one answer doesnt answer another question. I didnt say it did. But it does require that the reverse is false. Belief doesnt cause new birth. New birth is not after faith. According to John, it never is.

You started by denying what precedes what. Now you're vaulting to what causes what. Remember God working in the heart? Righteousness by the Spirit of God? God giving hearts? Is giving new hearts, agents of cutting people to the heart, working in the heart, is any of that causal? None? You know the verses. God causes things

You've shown nothing, except maybe citing a post #. How does that show anything? I've NEVER shifted back and forth. Maybe in your confusion and failure to follow the discussion it seems that I have. I have NOT. Saying so only reveals your misunderstanding and confusion.

Well, above there are moving goalposts.

And your denial that believing follows new birth after "accepting", "those currently believing have been born again" goes against every grammar written.

As does the denial of state verbs.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And strictly speaking, what time does a Greek perfect verb represent?

kind of action: Completed, with Results

Time element in indicative mood: past, with present results
Greek Verb Tenses (Intermediate Discussion)

The statement's lack of precision for a perfect verb is the problem. If he had just said the time of the verb like he did at 27.16 of "Basics of Biblical Greek", no argument.

My point isn't the perfect verb, as you keep claiming. It's about WHEN the present participle occurs in relation to the main verb.

The tense of a perfect verb in Greek is not the time of its action.

In English, we have PAST tense, PRESENT tense, and FUTURE tense. Are those not time relations? See above for my answer to your question "what TIME does a Greek perfert verb represent?" First, you've acknowledged the TIME element of a perfect verb, and now you are denying that the tense is the time of its action. Your confusion is serious.

And the perfect verb refers to finished action. So no action is explicitly stated at the time of the Greek verb. There is only the state it has produced.

Actually, it relates to time past. Already occurred.

Describe the action in "eimi". Describe the action in "es".

Please tell me what these words are first.

And in succeeding statements denying what it says. "Have been" shows the birth has passed. The verb is beyond that action.

This isn't making any sense. The ACTION is the birth. The verb cannot be "beyone that action". That is absurd. The term "have been" indicates that the birth occurred. One's birth doesn't "pass", whatever that may mean to you.

And in fact, if you'd read Mounce, yo'ud notice any concentration on the time of that action is actually a mistranslation. According to Mounce. Isn't it preceding this section on participles?

What's this about "if"? Of course I read Mounce. I actually quoted him directly. If there is a specific part of his book that you'd like me to read, just give me the page numbers and section. I have no idea what your point is here.

Move some more goalposts. The holes are still there.

It would be nice to see any evidence of goalpost moving, or holes. So far, none has been provided.

Claiming one answer doesnt answer another question. I didnt say it did.

What is meant by "claiming one answer"? I have no idea what your point is.

But it does require that the reverse is false. Belief doesnt cause new birth.

Correct. God is the cause of the new birth.

New birth is not after faith.

According to Paul in Eph 2:5 and 8, it is.

According to John, it never is.

According to John, they occur at the same time. And he never addressed cause of either.

You started by denying what precedes what.

I started by denying your claim that the new birth causes faith. Because the Bible does not teach that.

Now you're vaulting to what causes what.

I'll be clear, as always. Faith comes from the heart (Rom 10:10). God causes regeneration.

Remember God working in the heart? Righteousness by the Spirit of God? God giving hearts? Is giving new hearts, agents of cutting people to the heart, working in the heart, is any of that causal? None? You know the verses. God causes things

Sure, God does cause a lot of things. But nowhere in Scripture will anyone find any evidence for God causing anyone to believe. ZERO.

And your denial that believing follows new birth after "accepting", "those currently believing have been born again" goes against every grammar written.

My statement about denying that faith follows new birth is based not on 1 Jn 5:1, but on Eph 2:5 and 8, where Paul equated being "made alive" with being saved, and in v.8 clearly stating that salvation is through faith. The faith must be in existence for salvation to go "through".

As does the denial of state verbs.

How can I deny a "state verb" when I don't even know what that is? Maybe a definition would help. Then I'd know whether to deny it or not.

 

[heymikey80]

kind of action: Completed, with Results

Time element in indicative mood: past, with present results
Greek Verb Tenses (Intermediate Discussion)

"Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action."

The time value indicated by a perfect verb is the continuing time to present AFTER the completed action.

Less frequent is the emphasis on completion of the action. Clear emphasis on the past is reserved for pluperfect.

The passage uses a perfect verb. So the present participle's asoect is the same time as the perfect verb. That is focused on a time at or after the completion of the action, not during the action. So belief cannot even coincide with birth. Birth precedes belief.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The passage uses a perfect verb. So the present participle's asoect is the same time as the perfect verb. That is focused on a time at or after the completion of the action, not during the action. So belief cannot even coincide with birth. Birth precedes belief.

Nothing said before this paragraph either proves or supports this.

In fact, it's contradictory on its face. ie: "present participle's aspect is the SAME TIME as the perfect verb". OK. That's what I've been trying to get across. Yet, all the way, you've resisted everything I've said. Now you agree with me.

Then your comment: "so belief cannot even coincide with birth", without so much as any evidence or support for that statement.

There is nothing in the Greek language that prevents them from occurring at the same time. Nothing at all. It's just all in one's head to think so. Esp when one comes to Scripture with the pre-conceived idea (BIAS) that regeneration causes or leads to faith.

I'll put it this way: why would God be UNABLE to regenerate someone at the very moment they believe? Why put such a limit on God? What prevents Him from doing exactly that?