OCD about Salvation and Biblical Inerrancy

[Rasmus2]

I feel hopeless. I have pure obsessional OCD, which causes me to question everything. Then I do hours and hours of research to prove the thing I'm doubting to myself. Currently I doubt the Bible's inerrancy so I don't know for sure how to be saved or is this salvation eternally secure.
Let's suppose it's inerrant. It tells that we are saved by believing in Jesus (John 3:16, Acts 16:31) and those who believe are new creations and have (present tense) eternal life. But is it only this new creature that has eternal life? Can't you become a natural man again by stopping to believe in Jesus?
I don't want to sit in the front of a computer all the time I'm home only to prove the Bible is inerrant and numerous questions relating to salvation. The wasted hours are not the worst thing about OCD. The worst thing is that proving things actually increases the doubting.
Should I just blindly believe that Jesus died for my sins and in eternal security?

 

[Andrewofthetribe]

What are you trying to prove? If you want to feel like a real human being again then get down upon your throne and sit upon the floor, it is there that Jesus will begin his healing

 

[Rasmus2]

What are you trying to prove? If you want to feel like a real human being again then get down upon your throne and sit upon the floor, it is there that Jesus will begin his healing

It seems that I wasn't clear enough. I try to prove that we get saved by trusting that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead and that once we believe in Him, we can't lose our salvation.

 

[Butch5]

It seems that I wasn't clear enough. I try to prove that we get saved by trusting that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead and that once we believe in Him, we can't lose our salvation.

It is hard but you have to find a way to overcome the impulses. OCD only has power over you because you give it that power. It is hard to deal with the obsessions, but if you try to ignore them they do eventually subside. It takes a long time, but you're brain will eventually learn that the obsessions are an over reaction to a given stimulus.

 

[Rasmus2]

John 6:47 Does this mean that if I believe in Jesus now, I will go to Heaven

 

[timewerx]

I feel hopeless. I have pure obsessional OCD, which causes me to question everything. Then I do hours and hours of research to prove the thing I'm doubting to myself. Currently I doubt the Bible's inerrancy so I don't know for sure how to be saved or is this salvation eternally secure.
Let's suppose it's inerrant. It tells that we are saved by believing in Jesus (John 3:16, Acts 16:31) and those who believe are new creations and have (present tense) eternal life. But is it only this new creature that has eternal life? Can't you become a natural man again by stopping to believe in Jesus?
I don't want to sit in the front of a computer all the time I'm home only to prove the Bible is inerrant and numerous questions relating to salvation. The wasted hours are not the worst thing about OCD. The worst thing is that proving things actually increases the doubting.
Should I just blindly believe that Jesus died for my sins and in eternal security?

Sorry for your condition.

Anyway, believing is not simple:

John 14:12
Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.


As for the Bible's inerrancy, we probably share the same opinion. I don't think I have OCD and I tried my best before to assume the Bible is inerrant. But it didn't work out. There are many things which validly asserts the opposite.

I don't think I can depend on "blind faith" in the face of inconsistent theology that also plagues other religions as well.

The only reason I hang on to Christianity because only the teachings of Christ in the Bible (in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) makes the most sense to me.

All I can say is that you are perfectly sane in your assertion, good job I guess. Questioning everything is good

Proverbs 14:15
The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.
.
.

 

[Butch5]

John 6:47 Does this mean that if I believe in Jesus now, I will go to Heaven

The Bible doesn't teach that people go to Heaven. It teaches that believers will live on the restored earth. However, in John 6:47 the word believeth is in the Greek present tense. It is literally translated "is believing". The person who "is believing" has eternal life. As long as a person believes they have eternal life. If one stops believing, actually trusting, then they no longer have the promise.

 

[Rasmus2]

The Bible doesn't teach that people go to Heaven. It teaches that believers will live on the restored earth. However, in John 6:47 the word believeth is in the Greek present tense. It is literally translated "is believing". The person who "is believing" has eternal life. As long as a person believes they have eternal life. If one stops believing, actually trusting, then they no longer have the promise.

It seems to me that the "have" is in present tense too.

If somebody believes in Jesus (and has everlasting life) but stops believing, that life. wouldn't be everlasting at all!

Btw, does believing mean to think you will go to the new Earth because Jesus died for your sikns?

 

[Winken]

I feel hopeless. I have pure obsessional OCD, which causes me to question everything. Then I do hours and hours of research to prove the thing I'm doubting to myself. Currently I doubt the Bible's inerrancy so I don't know for sure how to be saved or is this salvation eternally secure.
Let's suppose it's inerrant. It tells that we are saved by believing in Jesus (John 3:16, Acts 16:31) and those who believe are new creations and have (present tense) eternal life. But is it only this new creature that has eternal life? Can't you become a natural man again by stopping to believe in Jesus?
I don't want to sit in the front of a computer all the time I'm home only to prove the Bible is inerrant and numerous questions relating to salvation. The wasted hours are not the worst thing about OCD. The worst thing is that proving things actually increases the doubting.
Should I just blindly believe that Jesus died for my sins and in eternal security?

Just "blindly" believing is akin to trusting yourself. Check these out.

John 14:6, John 3:16-17, John 5:24, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 8:1, Romans 10:8-13.

Believe it, receive it, walk in it.

He will never leave you or forsake you.

 

[Butch5]

It seems to me that the "have" is in present tense too.

If somebody believes in Jesus (and has everlasting life) but stops believing, that life. wouldn't be everlasting at all!

Btw, does believing mean to think you will go to the new Earth because Jesus died for your sikns?

There isn't a thing that is called eternal life. Eternal life is God continually giving life to a person. the reason John said onr has eternal life is because they have the the Holy Breath. it is through the Breath that God will raise the dead. since one has the Holy Breath in them they have the life in them.

 

[fhansen]

I feel hopeless. I have pure obsessional OCD, which causes me to question everything. Then I do hours and hours of research to prove the thing I'm doubting to myself. Currently I doubt the Bible's inerrancy so I don't know for sure how to be saved or is this salvation eternally secure.
Let's suppose it's inerrant. It tells that we are saved by believing in Jesus (John 3:16, Acts 16:31) and those who believe are new creations and have (present tense) eternal life. But is it only this new creature that has eternal life? Can't you become a natural man again by stopping to believe in Jesus?
I don't want to sit in the front of a computer all the time I'm home only to prove the Bible is inerrant and numerous questions relating to salvation. The wasted hours are not the worst thing about OCD. The worst thing is that proving things actually increases the doubting.
Should I just blindly believe that Jesus died for my sins and in eternal security?

If you've spent much time in the bible then you know that it's not always clear about all things, sometimes appears to be contradictory, etc, in all honesty. The purpose of our faith, however, is simply to bring us into communion with God, 'apart from Whom we can do nothing' (John 15:5), and this begins with faith, as a response to grace, to God first calling us.

Our job, throughout our lives, is simply to choose God, to choose life over death, good over evil. As we do that we continue to grow in the ''knowledge of God", and therefore our trust and love grows as well. We know we can rest in Him, knowing that He is infinitely honest and good, that He has all people's best interest at heart, that He will usher all into His kingdom who trust in and follow Him, walking in His ways.

 

[TaylorSexton]

However, in John 6:47 the word believeth is in the Greek present tense. It is literally translated "is believing". The person who "is believing" has eternal life. As long as a person believes they have eternal life. If one stops believing, actually trusting, then they no longer have the promise.

That's not a correct way of understanding Koiné Greek tense forms. Koiné Greek is primarily an aspectual language, not a tense language. Verbs primarily communicate aspect and Akrionsart, not time. If Koiné Greek wishes to communicate time, it has and uses deictic markers.

 

[Butch5]

That's not a correct way of understanding Koiné Greek tense forms. Koiné Greek is primarily an aspectual language, not a tense language. Verbs primarily communicate aspect and Akrionsart, not time. If Koiné Greek wishes to communicate time, it has and uses deictic markers.

Do you have anything to show this?

 

[TaylorSexton]

Do you have anything to show this?

Yes, most major reputable modern Greek grammars. But, as a specific resource, check out Constantine Campbell's Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Dr. Campbell (who is also one of my professors here at TEDS) is one of the foremost biblical Greek scholars in the world today, and is at the forefront of studies in Greek verbal aspect.

In short, languages have pragmatic and semantic characteristics. "Pragmatics refers to the expression of semantic values in context and in combination with other factors. In other words, pragmatics refers to how it all ends up—the way the language is used in context" (Campbell, 23; emphasis added). "Semantics refers to values that are encoded in the verbal form. These values are unchanging and are always there when the particular verbal forms occurs (Campbell, 22; emphasis added). "[Tense] is not regarded as a semantic value of verbs in the indicative mood" (Campbell, 32). It is an increasingly common understanding of biblical Greek that, semantically, verbal tense forms in the language do not communicate time but aspect. In fact, there are many Greek grammarians that are arguing that the labels that we give biblical Greek tense forms (present, perfect, imperfect) should be altogether abandoned since they imply that biblical Greek tense forms communicates tense semantically, which it does not. The only tense form that seems to have tense as a semantic value (i.e., it communicates tense and cannot be cancelled out) is the future tense, which under almost every circumstance seems to communicate the actual future tense.

In sum, a semantic value is something that is always communicated without exception with a particular verbal form, and it cannot be cancelled out; pragmatic values, however, are things that can be cancelled out (such as tense form). Aorists are not always (maybe not even mostly) past tense. Present tense is not always present tense (we have things like present perfects in Biblical Greek). This is easily seen when one analyzes narrative in biblical Greek.

I would suggest checking into the book by Dr. Campbell that I mentioned. It is cheap and short, but will offer a great introduction into Greek verbal aspect.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

That rather leaves out the the once-accepted code of interpretation that compares prophesy against prophesy. For instance in Daniel 7 the days and weeks etc do not line up with future prophesy so by going with the above definition we should all become LDS

ETA actually it's trying to cancel out the now-accepted code of interpretation

 

[TaylorSexton]

That rather leaves out the the once-accepted code of interpretation that compares prophesy against prophesy. For instance in Daniel 7 the days and weeks etc do not line up with future prophesy so by going with the above definition we should all become LDS

What? Is this in reference to what I said above? If so, my comment has nothing to do with prophecy in particular, or the Hebrew language in general. So, I have no idea how this comment is relevant at all.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

What? Is this in reference to what I said above? If so, my comment has nothing to do with prophecy in particular, or the Hebrew language in general. So, I have no idea how this comment is relevant at all.

Yes it was referring to your post. Just my take on it.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Yes it was referring to your post. Just my take on it.

Okay. I do not think you read my comment—at least not very carefully. My comment had absolutely nothing to do with Old Testament prophecy or the Hebrew language. My comment was exclusively about the semantic functions of the biblical Greek language. Besides, I said explicitly that the only biblical Greek tense form that appears to have time as a semantic value is the future tense. After all this is noted, it is difficult to find a single word of your original reply that is not altogether irrelevant.

 

[Butch5]

Yes, most major reputable modern Greek grammars. But, as a specific resource, check out Constantine Campbell's Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Dr. Campbell (who is also one of my professors here at TEDS) is one of the foremost biblical Greek scholars in the world today, and is at the forefront of studies in Greek verbal aspect.

In short, languages have pragmatic and semantic characteristics. "Pragmatics refers to the expression of semantic values in context and in combination with other factors. In other words, pragmatics refers to how it all ends up—the way the language is used in context" (Campbell, 23; emphasis added). "Semantics refers to values that are encoded in the verbal form. These values are unchanging and are always there when the particular verbal forms occurs (Campbell, 22; emphasis added). "[Tense] is not regarded as a semantic value of verbs in the indicative mood" (Campbell, 32). It is an increasingly common understanding of biblical Greek that, semantically, verbal tense forms in the language do not communicate time but aspect. In fact, there are many Greek grammarians that are arguing that the labels that we give biblical Greek tense forms (present, perfect, imperfect) should be altogether abandoned since they imply that biblical Greek tense forms communicates tense semantically, which it does not. The only tense form that seems to have tense as a semantic value (i.e., it communicates tense and cannot be cancelled out) is the future tense, which under almost every circumstance seems to communicate the actual future tense.

In sum, a semantic value is something that is always communicated without exception with a particular verbal form, and it cannot be cancelled out; pragmatic values, however, are things that can be cancelled out (such as tense form). Aorists are not always (maybe not even mostly) past tense. Present tense is not always present tense (we have things like present perfects in Biblical Greek). This is easily seen when one analyzes narrative in biblical Greek.

I would suggest checking into the book by Dr. Campbell that I mentioned. It is cheap and short, but will offer a great introduction into Greek verbal aspect.

I've never heard of Dr. Campbell. Why then is every English translation I find in the present tense?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Okay. I do not think you read my comment—at least not very carefully. My comment had absolutely nothing to do with Old Testament prophecy or the Hebrew language. My comment was exclusively about the semantic functions of the biblical Greek language. Besides, I said explicitly that the only biblical Greek tense form that appears to have time as a semantic value is the future tense. After all this is noted, it is difficult to find a single word of your original reply that is not altogether irrelevant.

I was referring to the deletion of tenses in the Greek and how that would effect interpretation in comparing old and new testaments