I said:
"Regardless of whether v.27 is a policy statement or just a description of what His sheep DO, what is STILL IS NOT is a conditional clause that you have just made up."
I said nothing about a conditional clause, however, if I recall correctly, GDL said something to the effect that 'it could be stated as a conditional clause' not that is was specifically stated as a conditional clause. So whose making stuff up now?
OK, so GDL said it. Do you agree with him or disagree with his claim about v.27 being a conditional clause?
I said:
"And the above is what I posted. I guess Doug hasn't figured out how to properly format his posts."
So we're speaking in the third person now?[/QUOTE]
So you're now seeing what isn't there again? Where is this supposed "third person" that you refer to? When referring to someone else, who is male, the use of "his" is totally proper. Why do you have a problem with that?
And, by the way, have you or are you going to figure out how to properly format your posts?
I deliberately cut and pasted your scripture quotations instead of quoting them so that they would show up if and when you or someone else replied.
Uh, they already showed up in my original post. But your poorly executed "cut and paste" technique makes it look as if YOU were making the comments you cut and pasted? I think you need to figure out how to post and show proper ownership of the quotes of others.
It really isn't that difficult to do.
What am I confused about, FG2?
Pretty much everthing theological.
What is incorrect about my statement? Are you implying that the PAI does not mean that a present tense reality is being expressed?
No, of course I wasn't implying that. I was not implying anything. I was DIRECTLY STATING the fact that you STILL do not understand the present tense.
You have repeatedly said that JUST BECAUSE the PIA for 'believe' is used in a number of verses, that one MUST CONTINUALLY BELIEVE in order for the results to continue.
There's NOTHING in the Greek grammar that says this about the PIA.
The PIA is simply what is occurring RIGHT NOW in the perspective of the writer/speaker. Or CURRENTLY. Nothing else. And you've not proven anything else.
The PIA is simply what is occurring RIGHT NOW in the perspective of the writer/speaker. Or CURRENTLY. Nothing else. And you've not proven anything else.
Maybe you aren't aware that saving faith occurs in a moment of time. Kinda like when a lightbulb turns on. When a lightbulb is ON, it isn't "continually turning on", but it's just on, right now, or currently. Faith is the same. There is a point in time WHEN a person understands the gospel and believes it. At that point, the person IS believing RIGHT NOW, or CURRENTLY. Just like a lightbulb; it's ON.
However, there is a time when that lightbulb is turned OFF. In a point in time. And as long as it is OFF, it stays off. But it can be turned ON again.
With faith, there MAY be a point in time when the believer is so challenged by testing or temptation, or some other distraction, that they cease to believe. This is the example that Jesus gave in
Luke 8:13. There was the time (point in time) WHEN soil #2 believed the gospel. At that point in time, the person is believing RIGHT NOW, or CURRENTLY. Got it?
And they are saved RIGHT NOW. But you CANNOT SAY they are saved "currently" as if they may not be saved in the future. So that's the problem that Arminians have. They can't discern the difference. Once faith, Always sealed, Always saved, Always a new creature, Always a child of God.
To disagree and prove me wrong, you must quote verses that specifically state that IF faith ceases, the seal is broken, the salvation is lost, the new creature mysteriously disappears, and the child of God becomes UN-born.
So, what verses do you know that undoes all that happens at the moment of faith in Christ?
Would you care to cite the Greek grammar or hermeneutic text that expresses how one discerns an alleged "policy statement" from a simple statement of reality?
Better yet, either prove that v.27 cannot be a "policy statement" or quote any other verse that says clearly that every believe always hears and follows.
I know that you cannot do this. Because there are no such verses.
btw, if v.27 is a statement about reality, then what is the percent that every believer MUST hear and follow Jesus: 100%, 90%, 80%, 50%, or some other percentage?
And back up your percentage answer with Scripture that clearly supports your answer.
Remember: your use of "reality" means to me 100%. So if there is some less percentage, then tell me what it is and where Scripture says so.
The truth is that the Bible is FULL of examples of believers who didn't ALWAYS hear and follow the Lord. And there are no statements of such believers losing salvation over it.
King David committed rape and murder, not as a young kid but as a mature adult and was a mature believer. But he had gotten out of fellowship with the Lord, as evidenced by 2 Sam 11:1-2. He should have been out waging war along with the other kings. He wasn't where he should have been. And he got into trouble when he saw Bathsheba.
Even the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5 wasn't described as having lost salvation.
Or is this just an expression of common sense from your perspective. (i.e., an eisegetic interpretation) While I know what a "policy statement" is in modern terms, I am not recalling any such formality in hermeneutical terms!
Why do you think one needs "such formality in hermeneutical terms" before pronouncing a statement as policy rather than reality??
And using common sense isn't eisegesis at all. That's just your straining to dodge the reality of my common sense.
So, your challenge now is to prove that v.27 CANNOT be a policy statement, AND what percentage MUST a believer hear and follow Jesus in order to be His sheep.
Would you care to elaborate as to the specific rules for establishing such a "policy statement"? (Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath in anticipation.)
Your silly condescension is quite noticeable.
However, it doesn't take "rules" to create a policy statement. Just a bit of sense.
I gave an example of policy statements that can be found on the inside of restrooms of restaurants. Maybe you should visit such an establishment and see for yourself.
After reading the sign, do you still need some "rules" for being able to figure out if the statement is one of reality or policy?
Those who are actually that slow have problems that won't be solved here.
I did not realize the duplication of your words. It has been corrected.
Good. Thanks. It always makes response to your posts difficult to figure out where my words end and your words begin.
And as the duplication should have been obvious to you
Of course it was obvious to me. I pointed your error out to YOU.
I would hope that, in the future, some Christian decorum would be expressed in assuming it an unintended mistake, which happens to all of us from time to time.
Doug
In reality, not policy, there are many posters on this forum (not necessarily this thread) that have no clue how to format a reply.
And I, unlike you and GDL, don't assume what others may know or understand.
So when I see an error, I call it out.
Frankly, your formatting error is hardly an "unintended mistake". One has to manipulate the post in order to do what you did.