John 3:16

[archierieus]

Looking at the passages Bleitzel quoted, and checking the verbs in Nestle-Aland, I find the following:

1John1:6-7
"6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin."

If we claim, if we walk are subjunctive. 'purifies' is present active indicative. There is no indication grammatically of any inability to walk in the light.

1John1:9
"9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

confess, present active subjunctive. no indication of inability to confess our sins. hina, plus Forgive, purify, are present active indicative.

1John2:3
"3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. "

Subjunctive, if we keep His commands, pres. act. indic. we know. Where is the inability indicated grammatically?


1John2:4-6
"4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love[a] is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. "

v. 5, subjunctive IF anyone obeys, perfect passive indicative, tetelewntai is made complete.
vs. 6, περιεπάτησεν aorist active indicative, walk. No indication of inability here.

Looking at the text as it reads, there does not appear any indication of inability.

 

[archierieus]

But, if you look further into the grammar of the Greek of these passages, you will notice that the part of the sentence with the "if" and the verb of command, it is in the subjunctive mood. The commands are conditional statements and do not imply that unregenerate persons can fulfill them. If this was so, John would have described them carrying out the command and used the indicative mood. The same applies for direct commands in the imperative mood.

Having now looked at N-A, there is no indication grammatically either way, regarding unregenerate persons. It is simply stated, if you do this, then that will happen, or, if A, then you should do B, as is often said, a verb of command. There is no mention of an unregenerate person or of any inability to DO the things mentioned. As they read, the verses could reasonably be understood as describing people who are walking with Jesus, hence, presumably, regenerated. But there is not on its face a reference made to the unregenerate, other than in one passage by contrast.

 

[Tzaousios]

Then you acknowledge that it does not say or refer to 'regenerate' man. The fact is that it does not, so your previous statement that it DOES is incorrect, as the passage reads. In fact, the passage does not state either. Thus the importance of taking a verse exactly as it reads.

Although I know you will disagree with me, you are quite aware that I think passages should be examined in light of other passages. Scripture should interpret Scripture. In conjunction with my argument about the Greek mood, I take Romans 7, for one, as a definitive statement on the natural man's (in)abilities without grace and regeneration. Take it or leave it.

So, if indicative denotes an actual event and subjunctive denotes a probable event, ...then... why do you think John would use the indicative if the unregenerate could partake in the activity? Actually, the mood has no bearing at all. I don't know the greek moods that John used here but if what you say is true and that they are subjunctive then John is saying that the individual does have the ability to do that which he is asserting. How does this help your case?

John uses the subjunctive mood, which does not imply ability. IF he used the indicative, he would be describing them in the act of obeying the command. I think the mood does have bearing; you and archierius obviously do not. So be it.

...we claim, if we walk are subjunctive. 'purifies' is present active indicative. There is no indication grammatically of any inability to walk in the light.

...confess, present active subjunctive. no indication of inability to confess our sins. hina, plus Forgive, purify, are present active indicative.

...Subjunctive, if we keep His commands, pres. act. indic. we know. Where is the inability indicated grammatically?

...v. 5, subjunctive IF anyone obeys, perfect passive indicative, tetelewntai is made complete.
vs. 6, περιεπάτησεν aorist active indicative, walk. No indication of inability here.

Looking at the text as it reads, there does not appear any indication of inability.

I think the text does not imply ability; you believe it does not imply inability. So be it. My main point in this exercise was to point out that the text does not imply ability as the Armininian and those who take a more positive view of natural human nature would want it to be.

 

[archierieus]

Although I know you will disagree with me, you are quite aware that I think passages should be examined in light of other passages.

Step one is understanding how the passage itself reads, the mechanics so to speak. Step two is recognizing the immediate context. Step three is comparing it with other statements, first by the same author, then elsewhere in Scripture.

Scripture should interpret Scripture. In conjunction with my argument about the Greek mood, I take Romans 7, for one, as a definitive statement on the natural man's (in)abilities without grace and regeneration. Take it or leave it.

1 Jn 1,2 passages are describing believers. Jn. 7 passage is describing a non-believer (and one who tries to accomplish the righteousness of the law on his own), notice the grammar in the very last verse. Different application.

John uses the subjunctive mood, which does not imply ability.

Depending on the application. John is speaking to believers in the passages quoted. I assume you are not suggesting that BELIEVERS, who have been born again (Jn. 3) are unable, for example, to confess their sins? (1 Jn. 1:9, uses the subjunctive)

IF he used the indicative, he would be describing them in the act of obeying the command. I think the mood does have bearing; you and archierius obviously do not.

John uses the indicative I believe in 2nd Jn, also written to and about believers. The subjunctive can indicate a sense of, 'this is what we should be doing,' or it can indicate a sense of 'this is what will happen IF we do that,' or it can be used in terms of assurance, i.e., if we confess our sins, He IS faithful and just . . . etc. A blanket statement that the subjunctive indicates inability would not be accurate. Although, if you claim it to be, pls. support the statement.

I think the text does not imply ability; you believe it does not imply inability.

The issue of ability or lack of it is not expressly stated in the passages quoted. One would need to look elsewhere.

So be it. My main point in this exercise was to point out that the text does not imply ability as the Armininian and those who take a more positive view of natural human nature would want it to be.

But John is talking to believers ABOUT believers, hence the 'natural human nature' issue would not appear to be on point. Where do any of the passages quoted speak of natural human nature or any equivalent words or concepts?

 

[Tzaousios]

Depending on the application. John is speaking to believers in the passages quoted. I assume you are not suggesting that BELIEVERS, who have been born again (Jn. 3) are unable, for example, to confess their sins? (1 Jn. 1:9, uses the subjunctive)

Yes, even believers have difficulty confessing sins without God's aid. They are not able, in every case, to do so. Even when Christ himself walked the Earth in the flesh, believers had difficulty having faith in the miracles he performed.

Mark 9:24

24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”

 

[archierieus]

Yes, even believers have difficulty confessing sins without God's aid. They are not able, in every case, to do so. Even when Christ himself walked the Earth in the flesh, believers had difficulty having faith in the miracles he performed.

Of course, and from what I understand, everything in a spiritual direction is done with the help of God. For that matter, even those who are not believers often see and acknowledge that they have done wrong, but are unwilling to turn to God. But John is speaking of believers in these passages, not of unbelievers. Whatever the apostle is calling upon believers to do, would be accomplished through the power of God.

 

[bleitzel]

I think the text does not imply ability; you believe it does not imply inability. So be it. My main point in this exercise was to point out that the text does not imply ability as the Armininian and those who take a more positive view of natural human nature would want it to be.

Ah, so this all boils down to the Calvinist opinion that an if-then statement does not imply that the if can actually be done. That is a tough stance to defend. But at least we have gotten off this side track that you raised when you said that the mood implied inability!

 

[archierieus]

Ah, so this all boils down to the Calvinist opinion that an if-then statement does not imply that the if can actually be done. That is a tough stance to defend. But at least we have gotten off this side track that you raised when you said that the mood implied inability!

As a matter of fact, there are many, many examples where the subjunctive does not indicate inability. I mentioned a few in an earlier post. From a technical standpoint, I would be extremely interested in any textual evidence in support of the notion that the use of the subjunctive indicates inability. Please, anyone, if you have such evidence, do share it. Otherwise, and until such is placed on the table, the statement is only an unsupported personal opinion. And if a doctrinal understanding is merely based on personal opinions, it certainly is not the Rock of God's holy Word! Human reasoning and philosophy. Instead of that, the Bible, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

 

[Tzaousios]

Ah, so this all boils down to the Calvinist opinion that an if-then statement does not imply that the if can actually be done. That is a tough stance to defend. But at least we have gotten off this side track that you raised when you said that the mood implied inability!

Well, I don't know about the "opinion" being the exclusive province of Calvinists, since I am not one. However, perhaps I did not make myself clear the first few times. I said the subjunctive mood does not always imply Ability in the context of divine commands. They do not assume that the person(s) to whom the command is issued have an inate ability to obey.

Please, anyone, if you have such evidence, do share it. Otherwise, and until such is placed on the table, the statement is only an unsupported personal opinion. And if a doctrinal understanding is merely based on personal opinions, it certainly is not the Rock of God's holy Word! Human reasoning and philosophy. Instead of that, the Bible, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

I thought we had moved away from the broken-record statements? You had stopped doing it for a few posts and now it is leaking back in.

 

[archierieus]

I said the subjunctive mood does not always imply Ability in the context of divine commands. They do not assume that the person(s) to whom the command is issued have an inate ability to obey.

Okay, that seems different than what you originally said, but whatever, I don't see a problem with that, although several of the references you mentioned do not include divine commands, but do feature the subjunctive.

I thought we had moved away from the broken-record statements? You had stopped doing it for a few posts and now it is leaking back in.

Then present credible evidence. As often as unsupported opinions are given, you can expect requests for evidence.

 

[bleitzel]

...the subjunctive mood does not always imply Ability in the context of divine commands. They do not assume that the person(s) to whom the command is issued have an inate ability to obey.

I know that unlike Calvinists (of which you are not one) when I see if-then statements in scripture I tend to look at them as implying ability. I wonder if there are any places in scripture where an if-then statement is clearly shown to preclude ability?

 

[Benefactor]

I know that unlike Calvinists (of which you are not one) when I see if-then statements in scripture I tend to look at them as implying ability. I wonder if there are any places in scripture where an if-then statement is clearly shown to preclude ability?

Now that is something you can hang your hat on.

 

[heymikey80]

I know that unlike Calvinists (of which you are not one) when I see if-then statements in scripture I tend to look at them as implying ability. I wonder if there are any places in scripture where an if-then statement is clearly shown to preclude ability?

The most obvious one I can think of -- a special case, admittedly:

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Mt 5:20
​

 

[bleitzel]

The most obvious one I can think of -- a special case, admittedly:

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Mt 5:20
​

Fair enough! This statement, though, is referring to the attempt to earn salvation through legalism which can never be done. I guess what I should have asked is, is there ever a positive if - then statement regarding salvation that precludes ability? Does that make sense?

 

[heymikey80]

Fair enough! This statement, though, is referring to the attempt to earn salvation through legalism which can never be done. I guess what I should have asked is, is there ever a positive if - then statement regarding salvation that precludes ability? Does that make sense?

None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Cor 2:8
​

The Calvinistic concept is one of inability of the will. That is, an inherent unwillingness, not some physical incapacity.