Poll on salvation. Eternal security (osas) vs. works and grace are both required.

[TibiasDad]

You are free to take anything you want to be anything you want.


I asked if you know what one is, and so you try to change the subject and suggest that I don't know. Slick. Why should I correct you? I just want to know what you think a participle is. But you won't answer me, that suggests that you don't know.


No, you're not going to change the subject or flip the question. Again, if you did know what a participle was, you'd just tell me. But you can't, obviously.

I can but I won't, because this is just a rabbit hole diversion. It being a participle has nothing to do with the question at hand. It it did you would have explained why the participle necessitates my position to be wrong. I know what one is and you know what one is, the question is why that makes any difference in the argument. Only you can answer that question!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

I said:
"You should reject the very incorrect understanding of what you thought I "was saying"."

Well, this might be fun.


Since you obviously disagree with this, puts grave doubt on your understanding of what a present tense even is.


And you can't show or prove this to be incorrect biblically. All yu can do is disagree and opine differently.


While your #1 and 2 were correct, your "conclusion" is far from correct.

Again, Paul was showing that believers struggle with their sinful natures. They may, at times, be slaves to sin, and at other times, be slaves of righteousness. But it seems you are not able to comprehend the dynamics of the believer's life.

While you may assume gutter drunk or orgy participant when you see the word "sin", that's certainly not what Paul's personal experience was. His father was a Pharisee and he was one as well. They were the epitome of self righteousness. Maybe you are not aware, but self righteousness is far worse than immorality. The gutter drunk has no illusions about their own failures and sin. It's the self righteous who think they are better than others who are far worse off.

So when Paul admitted to Timothy in the present tense that he was the worst of sinners, no doubt he really struggled with his own self righteous tendencies.

And by his own words, God sent him a "messenger of Satan" to pummel him to keep him from being arrogant.

2 Cor 7:12 - And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.

Yes, I know the context was his trip to heaven. But the verse shows his tendency for self inflation and exaltation.

All this blather and you didn't even answer the question: Did points 1 & 2 express what you have contended? Is this what you believe?

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

I can but I won't

Yeah, sure. You have just tacitly admitted that you don't know.

because this is just a rabbit hole diversion.

Yeah, sure. Quite a weak "excuse".

It being a participle has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Uh, the discussion is about present tense VERBS. And you are right. But you are the one who brought up present tense participles. Why?

It it did you would have explained why the participle necessitates my position to be wrong.

I was questioning your mentioning participles in the first place. But it is clear to me that you are so confused you can't answer my questions.

I know what one is and you know what one is, the question is why that makes any difference in the argument. Only you can answer that question!
Doug

It doesn't to me. You brought up the participle, which is irrelevant to the discussion about verbs.

 

[FreeGrace2]

All this blather and you didn't even answer the question: Did points 1 & 2 express what you have contended?

Doug

I answered clearly. Don't you read what I post?

"While your #1 and 2 were correct, your "conclusion" is far from correct."

How isn't this clear?

 

[TibiasDad]

No you didn't. I only saw English letters and words.



Young's Literal Translation
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

From-
Genesis 2:17—“You Shall Surely Die”

The phrase “you shall surely die” can be literally translated from the Hebrew biblical text as “dying you shall die.” In the Hebrew phrase we find the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) with the infinitive absolute form of the same verb (dying). This presence of the infinitive absolute intensifies the meaning of the imperfect verb (hence the usual translation of “you shall surely die”). This grammatical construction is quite common in the Old Testament, not just with this verb but others also, and does indicate (or intensify) the certainty of the action. The scholarly reference work by Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), gives many Biblical examples of this,1 and they say that “the precise nuance of intensification [of the verbal meaning] must be discovered from the broader context.”

You're welcome.

This is helpful, and shows the "dying you die", but it also explains why it is not ever translated by scholars as such outside of academia literal translations, because it is a Hebraic construction of emphasis or, as stated in your source material, it is an intensifier, much I would suppose, like the Greek prefix huper added to a verb stem. It does not show two types of death, physical and spiritual, but has more intensity perhaps more along the lines of absolute, or ultimate death, the strongest type of death. That's why all English-language Bibles translate the death as "certainly" or "surely" .

This said, I thank you; I learned something new, and it didn't affect my viewpoint in the least.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Yeah, sure. You have just tacitly admitted that you don't know.


Yeah, sure. Quite a weak "excuse".


Uh, the discussion is about present tense VERBS. And you are right. But you are the one who brought up present tense participles. Why?


I was questioning your mentioning participles in the first place. But it is clear to me that you are so confused you can't answer my questions.


It doesn't to me. You brought up the participle, which is irrelevant to the discussion about verbs.

It is a verbal noun, which means it has both verbal parsing and substantive declination. So it has both tense, voice, mood, gender, number, and case, which I believe I referenced at least a couple of times. It is a verb being used like a noun in relation to a substantive (in this case, "anyone"), "anyone who is presently believing. "

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

I answered clearly. Don't you read what I post?

"While your #1 and 2 were correct, your "conclusion" is far from correct."

How isn't this clear?

If 1 and 2 are correct, then a) I did and do understand exactly what you have been saying, and b) if I am correct, then Paul is "present tense" both a slave to sin and free from sin's captivity at the same time. You cannot be both absolutely black and white in the same frame of reference.

Doug

 

[JLB777]

I guess you're not interested in the truth.

Here’s the undeniable, irrefutable truth.


Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15




JLB

 

[FreeGrace2]

This is helpful, and shows the "dying you die",

Actually proves MY point.

but it also explains why it is not ever translated by scholars as such outside of academia literal translations, because it is a Hebraic construction of emphasis or, as stated in your source material, it is an intensifier, much I would suppose, like the Greek prefix huper added to a verb stem.

And that "intensifier" brings focus on the fact that Adam's disobedience was a "double thumper".

It does not show two types of death, physical and spiritual, but has more intensity perhaps more along the lines of absolute, or ultimate death, the strongest type of death.

This is more of your own biased opinion. Are you really going to argue that there weren't 2 different kinds of death when Adam bit into that fruit???

Do you not understand what "dying" refers to? The process of physical death, that occurs over time. We all know very well that Adam lived 930 years AFTER he disobeyed "on THAT day". So just what kind of "death" did Adam experience "on THAT day"?

The Bible is clear; Adam died "on THAT day". So, what death was that, if not spiritual?

That's why all English-language Bibles translate the death as "certainly" or "surely" .

And they are correct. He most assuredly did die "on THAT day". But he also lived 930 years AFTER "that day".

This said, I thank you; I learned something new, and it didn't affect my viewpoint in the least.
Doug

As I said, you are welcome. But when facts don't "affect" your viewpoint "in the least", that demonstrates just how biased you are.

You're the kind of person who would say "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."

 

[FreeGrace2]

It is a verbal noun, which means it has both verbal parsing and substantive declination. So it has both tense, voice, mood, gender, number, and case, which I believe I referenced at least a couple of times. It is a verb being used like a noun in relation to a substantive (in this case, "anyone"), "anyone who is presently believing. "

Doug

The only thing you need to admit is that nouns don't have action. Nouns are things, not actions.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If 1 and 2 are correct, then a) I did and do understand exactly what you have been saying, and b) if I am correct, then Paul is "present tense" both a slave to sin and free from sin's captivity at the same time.

No, your "conclusions" remain faulty. Paul never said both conditions occur at the same time. Why you think so is baffling.

You cannot be both absolutely black and white in the same frame of reference.
Doug

No one, other than you, think so.

Here's an explanation that hopefully will help you resolve your confusion.

In the present time frame, I can be either happy or sad. It's a choice to make presently.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Here’s the undeniable, irrefutable truth.

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15JLB

Why can't you even try to explain WHY John included the word "abiding" when he didn't need the word IF murder results in loss of eternal life, or shows that the person never had it?

Instead of dealing with my explanation, trying to show any errors, all you did was default to your record player response.

Simply repeating yourself in no way helps your argument. It only shows that you don't even have one. You do have an opinion, but repeating it over and over shows the complete lack of evidence to support it.

The statement "no murderer has eternal life in him" is quite clear and straightforward.

The statement "no murderer has eternal life ABIDING in him" is quite different. But you aren't interested in WHY John included that word.

You read the verse as if the "abiding" isn't even there. And you can't explain WHY it is there.

Stop repeating yourself and figure out WHY John included the word. It's instructive.

I gave you a very reasonable explanation that aligns with the context.

All you've got is a repeating opinion.

 

[TibiasDad]

And that "intensifier" brings focus on the fact that Adam's disobedience was a "double thumper".

I do not know Hebrew, but I suspect, as I said before, that it is like in Greek with the prefix epi (I mistakenly said huper before) as in epignósis, in verses like Colossians 1:9-10 For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives, so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God.

These examples are not two different types of knowledge, but an intensity of experience of knowledge.

Unless I can see multiple verifiable sources that specify that two separate deaths were the intended meaning, I have no reason to alter my viewpoint.

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

Unless I can see multiple verifiable sources that specify that two separate deaths were the intended meaning, I have no reason to alter my viewpoint.
Doug

So then, you can't really explain when the physical death process (dying) begins or when spiritual death occurred.

btw, I did show you 2 sources, both of which are verifiable.

Young's Literal Translation, and the quote from Answers In Genesis. Why aren't they good enough? They clearly proved my point.

 

[TibiasDad]

The only thing you need to admit is that nouns don't have action. Nouns are things, not actions.

It is not a noun it is a participle which is a verb that is being used as a noun, or more properly an adjective that describes the object it modifies. It is the action, not doing the action. The "whoever" is doing the action of πιστεύων, believing!

Now I've taught you something that you didn't know! You are most welcome.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

No, your "conclusions" remain faulty. Paul never said both conditions occur at the same time. Why you think so is baffling.


No one, other than you, think so.

Here's an explanation that hopefully will help you resolve your confusion.

In the present time frame, I can be either happy or sad. It's a choice to make presently.

You do not choose to be what you are, you are what you are. You can choose to be something different, but to say "I am happy" is an indicative expression of a particular point of reference . It is not a choice, it is a description.

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

It is not a noun it is a participle which is a verb that is being used as a noun

"used as a noun". Thanks.

or more properly an adjective that describes the object it modifies.

Still not an action (verb). Objects are nouns. Adding a description of that object doesn't make it an action.

It is the action, not doing the action.

You are confused. Action is doing. I kid you not.

The "whoever" is doing the action of πιστεύων, believing!

The "whoever" is an object, a person. A noun.

Now I've taught you something that you didn't know! You are most welcome.
Doug

lol. I helped you out of your confusion.

You're welcome!

 

[FreeGrace2]

You do not choose to be what you are, you are what you are.

That is a ridiculous comment. Everyone chooses. You are what you think. So, since you disagree, who is doing your thinking for you?

You can choose to be something different, but to say "I am happy" is an indicative expression of a particular point of reference . It is not a choice, it is a description.

Oh, you are sooooo wrong.

You need to study the apostle Paul closely. He chose to be happy in the most unhappy circumstances.

Phil 4:12 - I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.

If you can't choose to be happy (content) in bad circumstances, then you are just a victim of your bad circumstances.

Paul would have none of that.

And neither should any believer. There is no excuse for being a victim of circumstances.

God is in charge. Whatever comes your way is in God's plan. So stop being miserable when your circumstances are miserable.

 

[TibiasDad]

No, your "conclusions" remain faulty. Paul never said both conditions occur at the same time. Why you think so is baffling.

Now your backtracking, if we, as believers, (including Paul) are free from sin's control as a present tense reality in chapter 6, then he cannot be sin's captive in a present tense reality --which is what you are saying he is, I think it was by using the term "struggling with the sinful nature". But being captive is not mere struggling, and it is definitely is not being free from the control of sin.
So you say it is a present tense reality Paul was writing about in Rom 7, and that it is a present tense reality in Rom 6 which means that you have Paul necessarily both free and captive at the same point of reference, namely, being a Christian. If they are the same present tense state of reality, being a Christian, then you have the antithetical descriptions being a reality at the same time;both captive by and free from sin!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

"used as a noun". Thanks.


Still not an action (verb). Objects are nouns. Adding a description of that object doesn't make it an action.


You are confused. Action is doing. I kid you not.


The "whoever" is an object, a person. A noun.


lol. I helped you out of your confusion.

You're welcome!

You are a noun, and person, (of person, place, or thing) and you are writing to me, which is an action. I just described a noun doing and action! 3rd grade English!

Doug