OCD about Salvation and Biblical Inerrancy

[Butch5]

It seems to me that if you eliminate the tense one is free to interpret the text as the please.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I've never heard of Dr. Campbell.

Is this some subtle way of you trying to discredit him, as if your hearing of someone is the litmus test for their worth as a scholar?

Why then is every English translation I find in the present tense?

Because it is a present tense form verb (you restrictively translated it like a state of being or ongoing present). However, there are multiple ways to understand the aspect of the present tense. That is what I am trying to communicate. In terms of just present tense, it can be iterative, habitual, state of being, gnomic, historic (which refers to past events!), habitual, progressive, tendential, or futuristic (just to name some of the more common possibilities. Your translation of it (i.e., "is believing") is a particular understanding of the present tense which you derived merely from its tense form, which is incorrect. In doing so, you are anachronistically interpreting the present tense according to your own understanding of English tense forms (which is a tense-based language, unlike biblical Greek). My point is that this is not how biblical Greek works. There are numerous possible ways in which to understand the verb you are referencing, but Greek is an aspectual language, not a tense-based language, and it must interpreted as such.

It seems to me that if you eliminate the tense one is free to interpret the text as the please.

That's not true at all. Are we concerned about interpreting the language as the language actually functions, or according to our own preconceived theological understanding of a passage? I would hope it would be the former. Again, just look at a basic narrative in Greek and observe how often the tense forms contradict our own understanding of how tense works in English.

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

How? No one is "deleting" tenses in Greek. Rather, they are trying to understand them correctly, which is what we should be doing, no? Again, you are not reading my comment. Just analyze a basic narrative and see how many times tense form has nothing to do with time.

 

[Butch5]

Is this some subtle way of you trying to discredit him, as if your hearing of someone is the litmus test for their worth as a scholar?

Ummm, no. I didn't say anything about him. However, I am not going to accept someone's word simply because there is a Dr. in front of them. I know that people have motives so I investigate things for myself. All one has to do is look at all of the denominations and one can quickly see that people push their theological view points, whether they are right or wrong.



Because it is a present tense form verb (you restrictively translated it like a state of being or ongoing present). However, there are multiple ways to understand the aspect of the present tense. That is what I am trying to communicate. In terms of just present tense, it can be iterative, habitual, state of being, gnomic, historic (which refers to past events!), habitual, progressive, tendential, or futuristic (just to name some of the more common possibilities. Your translation of it (i.e., "is believing") is a particular understanding of the present tense which you derived merely from its tense form, which is incorrect. In doing so, you are anachronistically interpreting the present tense according to your own understanding of English tense forms (which is a tense-based language, unlike biblical Greek). My point is that this is not how biblical Greek works. There are numerous possible ways in which to understand the verb you are referencing, but Greek is an aspectual language, not a tense-based language, and it must interpreted as such.

So, my understanding is incorrect?

John 6:47 'Verily, verily, I say to you, He who is believing in me, hath life age-during; (Jn. 6:47 YLT)

That's not true at all. Are we concerned about interpreting the language as the language actually functions, or according to our own preconceived theological understanding of a passage? I would hope it would be the former. Again, just look at a basic narrative in Greek and observe how often the tense forms contradict our own understanding of how tense works in English.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not being sarcastic, but, you may hope that it is the former, however, I believe it is the latter. It may not be intentional, but I do believe that people translate based on their theological biases. When you think about it, it's only natural. Whatever one believes the Bible teaches is what one will translate.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I investigate things for myself.

Which is why I referenced the book for you to look for yourself. The book is quite objective, because it is not a theological textbook; it is a book dealing with the mechanics and semantics of a real language. No theological positions are being pushed. There is only the attempt to deal faithfully with the language God saw fit to inscripturate his Word.

All one has to do is look at all of the denominations and one can quickly see that people push their theological view points, whether they are right or wrong.

Sure, just like you and I are both doing. But, like good "people of the book," we are trying to root our understanding in what the language of Scripture says, not what we wish it would say.

So, my understanding is incorrect?

John 6:47 'Verily, verily, I say to you, He who is believing in me, hath life age-during; (Jn. 6:47 YLT)

That is one way of understanding it, although Young's Literal Translation is an atrocious translation. It shows such an unbelievable ignorance in translation theory that I do not recommend it at all for serious study. Anyone who is familiar with the biblical languages can see immediately and easily how deficient (and flat out wrong in places) it is. Just look at the Ten Commandments—what an awful, horribly wrong translation. I wonder if the man knew Hebrew at all after reading his rendering of the Decalogue.

But, here is the thing, even if you understand the present tense form you reference to be ongoing action, that doesn't imply, then, that the ongoing action can cease. That is where theology comes in. Of course ongoing belief is required for salvation. But, referencing a possible ongoing present doesn't necessitate the ability for one to cease that present. Sure, theoretically if faith ceases, then salvation ceases. That can be argued from John 6:47. However, the possibility of the loss of faith cannot be argued from it. That has to be done from elsewhere.

 

[Butch5]

Which is why I referenced the book for you to look for yourself. The book is quite objective, because it is not a theological textbook; it is a book dealing with the mechanics and semantics of a real language. No theological positions are being pushed. There is only the attempt to deal faithfully with the language God saw fit to inscripturate his Word.

I skimmed briefly through Wallace's, Beyond the Basics. I'll have to look at what Campbell has to say. I've just learned that so much of what is taught today as Christianity is simply not. Because of that I have grown cautious of "scholars" and "commentators". There are scholars who are theologically wrong in their doctrine. One would have to seriously wonder how a scholar could be wrong in his doctrine if being scholarly meant one was correct. don't put any credence in letters before or after one's name. I've seen too many of them espouse wrong doctrine. Your signature says that you're studying for a Master of Divinity degree. It also says that you're a Calvinist. I think Calvinism completely misses the boat when it comes to theology. So, even though you would have a masters degree it wouldn't carry any weight with me. That's not a knock against you. My point is that one is educated in a theological system. Whether or not that system is Biblically correct or accurate is another story.

Sure, just like you and I are both doing. But, like good "people of the book," we are trying to root our understanding in what the language of Scripture says, not what we wish it would say.

The problem is that we bring presuppositions to the text and those presuppositions determine how we view the evidence of the text. For instance, on another board I'm in discussion of the Trinity. People are arguing for a doctrine that is a logical contradiction. When I point that out they post Scriptures that they believe prove their point. I then try to point out to them that they see those passages as evidence because of the presuppositions that they bring to the text. It's actually the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. It's why a creation scientist and a secular scientist can both look at the same evidence and come away with two completely different conclusions. It's not the evidence, it's the presuppositions they're bringing to the evidence. That's why I only form doctrine based on what is stated plainly and not what is inferred from the Scriptures.

That is one way of understanding it, although Young's Literal Translation is an atrocious translation. It shows such an unbelievable ignorance in translation theory that I do not recommend it at all for serious study. Anyone who is familiar with the biblical languages can see immediately and easily how deficient (and flat out wrong in places) it is. Just look at the Ten Commandments—what an awful, horribly wrong translation. I wonder if the man knew Hebrew at all after reading his rendering of the Decalogue.

I've heard that about several translations. Maybe it's just that things have changed since he did his translation. I think theological bias is also a problem here. Look at the newer translations that translate monogenes as unique one or one and only. In older translations it was translated only begotten. However, begotten doesn't fit with the idea of a God who consists of three co-equal co-eternal persons.

But, here is the thing, even if you understand the present tense form you reference to be ongoing action, that doesn't imply, then, that the ongoing action can cease. That is where theology comes in. Of course ongoing belief is required for salvation. But, referencing a possible ongoing present doesn't necessitate the ability for one to cease that present. Sure, theoretically if faith ceases, then salvation ceases. That can be argued from John 6:47. However, the possibility of the loss of faith cannot be argued from it. That has to be done from elsewhere.

My point was that the promise was to the one believing. There's no promise to the one who used to believe.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Because of that I have grown cautious of "scholars" and "commentators".

This is a distressing trend in Christianity: scholarship = unspiritual. I will have you know that Dr. Campbell, whom I know very personally, is a godly man who trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ with all of his heart and seeks only to instill that into his students' lives. To imply that because one is a scholar that one is suspect is foolish. You and I are Protestants because of scholars. You and I read Scripture in our own language because of scholars. We understand Scripture more fully because of scholars. It is offensive to me that you hold scholars in contempt simply because they seek to understand Scripture more fully.

There are scholars who are theologically wrong in their doctrine.

Just as there are just as many if not more non-scholars who are wrong in their doctrine.

One would have to seriously wonder how a scholar could be wrong in his doctrine if being scholarly meant one was correct.

Who ever said being a scholar meant one is correct? I sure didn't. However, what being a scholar does mean is that one has spent a lot of time studying a certain area of knowledge and has developed a particular informed opinion about it. Does that mean they are right? Of course not. However, it does mean that we have to take what they say seriously, whether we end up rejecting it or not. But, whether or not we reject or accept it, it has to be on informed grounds. To simply say, "I don't trust 'scholars,'" is no defense at all; it is poking your head in the sand and not dealing with facts.

[D]on't put any credence in letters before or after one's name.

I never said you should. However, as I said above, those letters represent years of deep study that should be taken seriously.

I've seen too many of them espouse wrong doctrine.

Just as I've seen non-scholars espouse wrong doctrine. Just take a five-minute perusal through this board if you want proof of that. There is more false doctrine on this board than all the commentaries I've ever read in my life.

Your signature says that you're studying for a Master of Divinity degree. It also says that you're a Calvinist. I think Calvinism completely misses the boat when it comes to theology. So, even though you would have a masters degree it wouldn't carry any weight with me. That's not a knock against you. My point is that one is educated in a theological system. Whether or not that system is Biblically correct or accurate is another story.

Perhaps you can open up a thread on the "Debate a Calvinist" subforum on this board. This is not the place to debate this, and I refuse to be dragged into it.

That's why I only form doctrine based on what is stated plainly and not what is inferred from the Scriptures.

Where have I inferred? This isn't about hermeneutics, but about the mechanics of the biblical Greek language. Tell me, where have I inferred anything? Also, show the verse where the doctrine of the Trinity is "stated plainly." In that case, I hope you are not Trinitarian!

I've heard that about several translations. Maybe it's just that things have changed since he did his translation.

No, YLT is simply a terrible translation. Every translation before and after his "translation" was far superior. He contributed quite literally nothing to anyone's understanding of the languages.

I think theological bias is also a problem here. Look at the newer translations that translate monogenes as unique one or one and only.

That's not a theological bias but, again, an issue of language.

My point was that the promise was to the one believing. There's no promise to the one who used to believe.

That's only assuming one has a theological category for "one who used to believe." The Reformed don't have such a category. But, this is a place for the "Debate a Calvinist" subforum, if you would like to open up a thread.

 

[Rasmus2]

As long as a person believes they have eternal life. If one stops believing, actually trusting, then they no longer have the promise.

Butch5, is it even possible to stop believing?

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. (1 John 2:19 KJV)
A true believer will continue in the faith. According to Paul, someone who "loses their salvation" only demonstrates that they were not really saved.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23 KJV)
In this verse Jesus did not say to the people that He once knew them but they lost their salvation, but that He never knew them.

 

[corinth77777]

Butch5, is it even possible to stop believing?

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. (1 John 2:19 KJV)
A true believer will continue in the faith. According to Paul, someone who "loses their salvation" only demonstrates that they were not really saved.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23 KJV)
In this verse Jesus did not say to the people that He once knew them but they lost their salvation, but that He never knew them.

You can know of someone without knowing them intimately...by the same token....to know someone intimately.....is what it means to have eternal life.
But..the flip side could be...stop having an intimate relationship and you stop having eternal life...which would be the reason we are to remain in his love...
Sounds like a love story.......
But look at this pic....a woman and man know each other intimately and have a child.
But if they stop having sex does that child go away?