Temporal Salvation?

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"I claim every believer shall never perish."

Who's a believer?

Uh, do you want names? What a strange question. According to the Bible, a "believer" is one who has placed their full trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. And the result is that Jesus gives them eternal life and they shall never perish.

I hope that helps.

Alternatively asked, what is Biblical Belief - is it momentary or ongoing?

It's ongoing, until it might cease. It is obvious to most people that when they believe something, they continue to believe something. Until something causes them to no longer believe. Jesus gave us an example of that.

Depending on what a believer is & what Biblical Belief is, I either agree with you or don't. Surely you can comprehend the matter at hand.

Surely you appear to be rather confused.

Anyone can quote Scripture, even an or the adversary. Interpreting Scripture and using it properly has been the work of people for thousands of years & still is. Surely you realize this, or not.

Surely I do. And surely I do understand that very learned scholars disagree with each other. So what? What Jesus said about those He gives eternal life is clear enough.

Your policy statement nonsense is just you digging your hole deeper.

In your mind only. In fact, unless you can PROVE that there are exceptions to John 10:27 not meaning 100% of the time, you have no point.

If v.27 isn't a policy statement, then it MUST MEAN 100% compliance. That means for ALL believers and ALL the time.

How many believers do you know who are PERFECT? Not even yourself is. So you have a serious problem with your "interpretation" of v.27. If it is a statement about reality, then the compliance MUST BE 100% for ALL believers and for ALL the time.

And the Bible is full of examples that NO believer is 100% compliant EVER.

Therefore, normal people will understand that v.27 does NOT state reality for ALL believers ALL the time, but rather, a policy statement about what believers OUGHT TO DO. I've already proven what believers ought to do with verses.

Here is the FG2 logic: If I have Dan Wallace's text, then I cannot misrepresent anything. Alternatively applied: If I have the Bible, then I cannot misrepresent what it says.

No, the real logic is that IF IF IF I am wrong, someone (not you nor Doug yet) will provide the truth of Scripture that says DIFFERENTLY that I claim from the verses we've been discussing.

Oh, and NO ONE has done that yet.

Your reasoning is very deeply flawed, FG2.

So says you. So what? Where is your proof? All you've shown in your own opinions.

"So what" is that the ongoing state & regularly repeated actions are what's being stated re: Biblical Belief and hearing & following in John10:26-27.

Right. So what? What does that prove? Certainly not what you keep claiming.

What you still haven't proven yet is that v.27 forms a CONDITION for receiving eternal life. You only opine that it does. But, it is a straightforward statement. No conditions being noted. The conditions are found only in your mind.

If you think otherwise, open Wallace and show me how to alternatively classify the present tense verbs in John10:26-27.

Why would I go against what I believe? That would be foolish. I've already noted what the PIA means. I don't need to "alternatively classify" it.

I gave you the TOC to get you started. If you can do so and make me see my error, I'll concede.

No you won't. You are too deeply into your own opinions, or the opinions of others that appeal to you. You can't even recognize a policy statement when it stares you in the face.

Just because you have the book doesn't mean you know how to use it. Just because you have the Book, doesn't mean you know what it means.

It is obvious that you have been trained by other biased and opinionated teachers.

So, how does the FACT that this second soil believed & then ceased to believe (assuming the cessation was permanent) compare with belief being an ongoing state of those who are given eternal life?

That is actually a very good and deep question. Thanks.

It doesn't matter whether the belief cessation was permanent. There are no verses that address the issue of belief for "how long". Or consequences.

Both John 5:24 and 6:47 say that those believing POSSESS eternal life. Now fast forward to 10:28. Those given eternal life shall never perish.

Jesus is the Giver of eternal life. And never perishing is the result of receiving the gift.

And you CANNOT refute this statement. But I invite you to try.

Of course you have to say that the 2nd believed and thus has EL, so the cessation just means discipline & loss of rewards.

Gee. Why would I say that? Only because the Bible says that. But your opinions keep your eyes and ears closed to the truth.

And this is why you fight so hard against the ongoing state of belief being necessary for EL & why others fight just as hard for ongoing belief.

I do fight hard. For the truth. Only that.

Your problem is that it's you who does not actually PROVE your case.

No, that's your problem. I have the truth on my side. What have you proved? Nothing.

All you've got is your opinions. And you can't even recognize a policy statement. And you certainly CAN'T prove that ALL believers hear and follow ALL the time, but that's your forced position by claiming v.27 is a statement of FACT rather than of policy.

Quoting but misinterpreting Scriptures does not PROVE your case.

Right. And I've not done that, unlike yourself.

Take a stand here FG2 and PROVE your case using Wallace or any other grammar text to tell us how you interpret the present tenses in John10:26-27.

I've already told you. And I used Jesus' example who used the PIA of 'believe' for the second soil. Who "believed for a while". Which totally disproves (refutes) your claim that saving faith requires ongoing belief.

The previous verse Jesus said this: "lest they believe (aorist participle active) and be saved". So Jesus clearly noted that believing in a point in time (aorist) results in salvation. Same for Acts 16:31 and Rom 10:9. So you have no point.

There are many other classifications of the Present Tense to chose from. Chose and explain please.

I have already explained the PIA. It means believing RIGHT NOW, or CURRENTLY, or PRESENTLY. And that's all it means.

To opine that the salvation requires a PIA verb to keep going is fallacious. Which Jesus noted by the very use of the PIA and adding "for a while". Not even Jesus believed that "ongoing faith" was required to be saved. Just exegete v.12. He noted that salvation results from a moment in time faith in Him.

Correct re; my claim & easily readable for anyone who takes the time. I'm also available to answer reasonable questions re: my interpretational opinion.

Yep. That's all you have: your "interpretational opinion", which is contrary to the very plain and straightforward words.

I clearly did use Wallace to show how I came to the conclusion that Biblical Belief per John10:26-28 is an ongoing state.

While it is, there is NO guarantee that it will continue to go on. In fact, Luke 8:12 proves your opinion wrong about the NEED for ongoing faith to be saved.

And your customary tactic is to misstate what Wallace clearly stated about the Customary & Gnomic Presents and thereby discredit him as a scholarly reference.

Is he perfect in ALL he writes and thinks? He has an opinion, just like you. It's Jesus who refutes him and YOU. Not me.

In addition, you use your other customary tactic and say that something cannot be proven. You're a very broken record FG2.

I've repeatedly invited you to prove me wrong. And you haven't. Maybe in your dreams and opinions, but you haven't yet.

And I HAVE refuted your claims by Luke 8:12, but you are so self unaware that you don't even realize it.

Do or should do FG2?

Again, my question: if v.27 is a statement of fact, then you are required to prove that ALL believers hear and follow ALL the time. That's 100%, if you haven't done the math.

Can you do that?

Policy or statement of fact? See any difference?

You'd better believe there is a difference. And I gave a number of verses that tell believers what they OUGHT TO DO. So the principle is clearly stated in Scripture.

See any "should" in the indicative mood there spoken by the Creator of the Universe, FG2?

Don't need to. otoh, what you NEED to do is prove that ALL believers hear and follow ALL the time. Maybe you believe in sinless perfection. Just read 1 John 1 to see that error.

My answer: they are His sheep and they hear & follow Him.

Llet's make this personal. Do YOU hear and follow Jesus ALL the time? That would be sinless perfection? What's your answer?

We can't separate belief in Him from hearing & following Him

I don't need or agree with your opinions. I do NEED to know what Scripture says.

and these 3 things are ongoing.

How silly. Everything is ongoing until it stops. Jesus noted that in Luke 8:13.

Looked ahead & looks like we'll get to the definition of "should" a bit later since it looks like you now say, "ought" means "should."

Well, if you disagree, prove my error.

Heads up, FG2, when I get there I'm going to ask you more specific questions for you to avoid.

I'll be the judge of what questions to ask you. And I've asked you a number in this post.

Are you up to addressing and answering any of them?

In fact, let's take it up right here & let all else sit for now:
Here GDL quotes me:
"GDL must be kidding here. Who doesn't understand what "ought" means? If he doesn't and needs a definition, he is probably beyond helping.

I gave a list of verses where "ought" occurs regarding what Christians SHOULD BE doing. There. I just did it again. I DEFINED "ought to" with the words "should do"."

A simple question for you. You could well have already answered it, but I don't want to misunderstand or misquote you here.

Does ought & should (since you've "DEFINED" ought as should) contain the concept of contingency? IOW you've used "ought/should" in relation to policy. So, the policy should be adhered to, but it may be unlikely or it may be likely that it will be? "Should" thus meaning possibility but not necessity and not actuality?

This paragraph is not very clear. But I'll try my best to figure out what you really want to know.

Every command from the Bible should be obey. Is it wrong to say "ought to be obeyed" or not? And how is either response materially different? Can you explain that?

Come on now, you have 2 assigned tasks: (1) use Wallace or any other Greek grammar to classify the present tense verbs in John10:26-27 (believe, hear & follow will suffice); (2) clarify the meaning of ought/should as succinctly as you can - contingency or no?

From the internet on the definition of 'contingency':

• n.
  An event that may occur but that is not likely or intended; a possibility.
• n.
  A possibility that must be prepared for; a future emergency.

So, NO, a command is NOT a contingency. A command is an order. Or didn't you know that? And orders from God are to be obeyed.

Now, here is the tricky part: are God's commands ALWAYS obeyed? Now, think before you type an answer.

Is hearing & following something His sheep DO, or should/ought to do?

It is cerrainly NOT a 100% compliant activity for ANY believer. I reject sinless perfection, so I KNOW that believers are NOT always obedient or compliant.

There is a difference. (In actuality this is just a side-trip because ought/should is not in the language of John10:27 anymore than it's in the language of believing in 10:26.

It doesn't require your ridiculous standards to be there. Normal people understand what a policy statement is.

Or, are you so naive as to believe that when you see a policy statement on the inside of a restroom door in a restaurant that you really believe that ALL employees wash their hands before exiting???

But clarify this ought/should matter anyway, if you would please, since you're the English & Greek reference).

I've done it a number of times, but it seems it's been going over your head.

I'm prepared to accept your diversion or ignoring as par for the course. Actually I expect it.

Good example of a false claim and more ad hominem. I answer your questions, unlike yourself. But I don't care what you "expect".

 

[GDL]

It's ongoing, until it might cease. It is obvious to most people that when they believe something, they continue to believe something. Until something causes them to no longer believe. Jesus gave us an example of that.

And there's the the point. Belief can cease as I agree Luke8 tells us and as others have agreed. And for you that temporary faith was enough for the person to have received the things of John10:28. For others that temporary belief was not enough.

I and others use references to explain why we think such temporary belief is not enough. We also answer your challenges re: other verses like Acts16:31. I've done so in similar detail to what I've done in regards to this debate re: John10:26-27. All you've done is say we're wrong and ignore our challenges to have you provide referenced detail as to why. Frankly, I've experienced all classmates in Greek 101 do leagues better than you do to reason their analysis & interpretations of the Greek grammar. You're a farce, FG2.

I showed you from Wallace 2 classifications of the present tense that say the present tense can represent an ongoing state (Customary) and even a timeless fact (Gnomic). Therefore your assertion that the present tense can just say, and all it says is "RIGHT NOW" or "CURRENTLY" or "PRESENTLY" is wrong and the only proof you have for your wrong assertion is yourself, which is not actual proof (not that I think I can pop your self-deceived bubble).

I also provided within the Customary Present information, the fact that it provides for the "iterative, or repeated, but not without interruption" (quoting Wallace) condition, so no sinless perfection is being stated, except by you in your erroneous & misleading assertions and allegations once again. This sinless-perfection is a typical fallback accusation from those losing a debate. It's like the catch all claim of racism today.

Biblical Belief is an ongoing state at the end of the analysis. Even when we commit sins, we have have provision to acknowledge them and be forgiven and be cleansed. Sinless perfection is not required for Biblical Faith to be ongoing. In fact, to realize we sin, and to acknowledge our sins and have them dealt with is a part of ongoing Biblical Faith - we function as we are commanded to function even when we err. What is not a part of ongoing Biblical Faith is your concept of a faith that is temporary and fallen away from for good / without repentance and return to The Faith.

As is usual you do not deal with what you know you cannot deal with. Instead, you just divert and bring in more things you don't understand in order to avoid the real work to actually PROVE your case.

Again there is no policy statement, ought/should, nonsense in John10:27. It's not contained in the Indicative Mood that shows Jesus asserting facts. It's not in the Customary Present Tense indicating the ongoing state or repeated action (as Wallace instructs, the difference between the 2 is mild) both of which cover past > present > future and are not just speaking of something "RIGHT NOW" as you erroneously assert repeatedly. Your 100% nonsense is just another red- herring associated with your sinless perfection misdirection.

I get how you think your ought/should assertion could make some sense in explaining an iterative concept of belief - not that it belongs in these verses (Jesus could easily have used such a word here if that's what He meant, but He didn't) - but you are eisegeting/inserting ought/should/policy to provide for temporary belief that may cease for good, so you can say that a second soil temporary believer (who falls away & doesn't repent & return) has EL anyway. With a Customary Present Tense in the Indicative Mood there's just no ought/should here. It's just a fact that Biblical Belief is ongoing and even if it's iterative, the iterative continues into the future. This is how the Customary Present is explained and represented graphically. Open your Wallace grammar and see this (P.522 for your convenience).

The problem for your view is that the Customary Present tenses for believe & hear & follow in John10:26-27 don't provide for that temporary belief/fall away/never return scenario, because such would not be the habitual iterative action and/or ongoing state of the Customary Present.

So, I've asked you to make your case and tell me what other classification of the Present Tense could Jesus be speaking in John10:27-28. And your response is to divert and discredit as usual.

By all I see from you, you are just too unlearned to know that you might have some options here. I don't really think you do, but, as I said, make your case using Wallace or any other legitimate grammar resource and let's see. Actually prove me wrong, which you have not done to date.

Until you do, you're just being foolish with all your allegations and avoidance techniques. Again, use the provided Wallace TOC and book you say you have and do some real work. Or use another grammar. Your choice.

If Jesus is not speaking in the Customary Present Tense (I think it's a better choice than Gnomic Present but would be open to discussing it), then what classification of the Present Tense do you think represents what Jesus meant when He said what's quoted in John10:26-27?

You can pigeonhole the Greek Present Tense into your imagined "RIGHT NOW" or "CURRENTLY" or "PRESENTLY" idea as much as you want. It just PROVES once again how you assert your opinion to be more legitimate than the real work done by people much more learned and trustworthy than you with the Greek language - people like Wallace.

 

[GDL]

How silly. Everything is ongoing until it stops. Jesus noted that in Luke 8:13.

Here's your "silly" error BTW. The Customary Present Tense doesn't speak of a stop. It signifies an ongoing state. And the Gnomic is timeless.

Time for you to actually go to Greek 101, so you can hopefully hang in and get to advanced Greek grammar and learn to analyze verbs. If you just read what's been presented to you & try to understand it, or even ask real questions about the Greek here, then you might not have to go to school for now.

As I've said, explain and reference for me why the Customary Present was not used by Jesus in John10:27 and provide your alternative interpretation of the Greek Present tense you think is used.

 

[GDL]

And there's the the point. Belief can cease as I agree Luke8 tells us and as others have agreed. And for you that temporary faith was enough for the person to have received the things of John10:28. For others that temporary belief was not enough.

To further clarify, from what I see in the Greek I don't think such temporary belief actually qualifies as being what I'm calling Biblical Belief, because I don't see Biblical Belief as being temporary.

I think I saw you once again refer us to belief in the aorist tense. We've explained to you and I've provided reference from Wallace that the Greek aorist is actually timeless and can be iterative (repeated), durative (continual), and momentary. I've also explained why momentary is not a legitimate choice when it comes to Biblical Belief. John10:26-27 would be one of my proof-texts.

Fun how we each think these 2 sections of Scripture back up one another. I've provided referenced detail for my view. As I recall, Doug has done the same to whatever degree. You've provided nothing in-depth thus nothing meaningful for your opposing view (unless you truly think reading policy statements in commercial restrooms is meaningful).

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"It's ongoing, until it might cease. It is obvious to most people that when they believe something, they continue to believe something. Until something causes them to no longer believe. Jesus gave us an example of that."

And there's the the point. Belief can cease as I agree Luke8 tells us and as others have agreed.

No, this is the point: you CANNOT find any verses that teach that IF IF IF faith fails, salvation is lost.

And for you that temporary faith was enough for the person to have received the things of John10:28.

There is nothing about "believing" in John 10:28, so you are again missing the point.

It is John 5:24 and 6:47 that teach that the "believing ones" possess eternal life (and in the PRESENT TENSE no less).

This means it is possessed the MOMENT one believes for salvation. How can anyone NOT understand this fact from Jn 5:24 and 6:47?

For others that temporary belief was not enough.

Just tell me what the Bible plainly and clearly says about "temporary faith". I know what you claim, and I haven't ever seen any verse that supports your claims.

I and others use references to explain why we think such temporary belief is not enough.

Ha! And that is another point. This isn't about what "references" say. It's about what the Bible says. But to you, it seems that isn't enough. You've got to wade through the mud and weeds to try to find support for your claims that cannot be found in Scripture.

We also answer your challenges re: other verses like Acts16:31.

No you didn't. You might think you did. Paul told the jailer that the MOMENT (in time) when he puts his full trust (believe) in Christ, he will be saved.

I've done so in similar detail to what I've done in regards to this debate re: John10:26-27.

In fact, you don't know what you are "so confidently" talking about.

1 Tim 1:7 - They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

This verse speaks to YOU.

All you've done is say we're wrong and ignore our challenges to have you provide referenced detail as to why.

Well, to any objective person who has been following this thread, they see your claim as totally empty. I've addressed each and every "point" you think you have. Why do you feel it necessary to post false things?

Frankly, I've experienced all classmates in Greek 101 do leagues better than you do to reason their analysis & interpretations of the Greek grammar. You're a farce, FG2.

Oh, some more ad hominem. And you're just full of them, huh.

Does it make you feel superior or better to those you throw ad hominems?

I showed you from Wallace 2 classifications of the present tense that say the present tense can represent an ongoing state (Customary) and even a timeless fact (Gnomic).

When are you going to open your eyes and SEE that I already know all this, and agree?

Therefore your assertion that the present tense can just say, and all it says is "RIGHT NOW" or "CURRENTLY" or "PRESENTLY" is wrong and the only proof you have for your wrong assertion is yourself, which is not actual proof (not that I think I can pop your self-deceived bubble).

Listen up. An "ongoing state" doesn't mean indefinitely. It only means as long as it is ongoing.

What you STILL can't do is quote ANY verse that teaches that loss of faith results in loss of salvation.

And I HAVE quoted the verse that teaches that reception of eternal life results in never perishing.

I also provided within the Customary Present information, the fact that it provides for the "iterative, or repeated, but not without interruption" (quoting Wallace) condition, so no sinless perfection is being stated, except by you in your erroneous & misleading assertions and allegations once again.

None of this proves anything you post about Scripture as being true.

This sinless-perfection is a typical fallback accusation from those losing a debate. It's like the catch all claim of racism today.

Nonsense.

What you can't prove from Scripture is that ALL believers hear and follow Jesus ALL the time.

If ceasing to believe permanently does result in loss of salvation, why are there NO verses that say so? All we have is your own opinions, claims, assertions, and presumptions about it?

Biblical Belief is an ongoing state at the end of the analysis.

Yes, it is. But, like the second soil, biblical faith CAN end, just like the evangelist Chuck Templeton's did. And the second soil's. So what's your point?

Even when we commit sins, we have have provision to acknowledge them and be forgiven and be cleansed. Sinless perfection is not required for Biblical Faith to be ongoing.

I never said it did. You're the one making all the false claims about it.

BTW, how often do you "rebound"?

In fact, to realize we sin, and to acknowledge our sins and have them dealt with is a part of ongoing Biblical Faith - we function as we are commanded to function even when we err. What is not a part of ongoing Biblical Faith is your concept of a faith that is temporary and fallen away from for good / without repentance and return to The Faith.

Your last sentence in this paragraph makes no sense. Please reformat for clarity.

As is usual you do not deal with what you know you cannot deal with.

Well, I've been dealing with YOUR false claims for quite a while now. So, what are you trying to say here?

Instead, you just divert and bring in more things you don't understand in order to avoid the real work to actually PROVE your case.

Said the confused one. lol

Again there is no policy statement, ought/should, nonsense in John10:27.

The actual nonsense is to deny the reality of policy statements.

It's not contained in the Indicative Mood that shows Jesus asserting facts.

Are you actually suggesting that policy statements are just suggetions?

It's not in the Customary Present Tense indicating the ongoing state or repeated action (as Wallace instructs, the difference between the 2 is mild) both of which cover past > present > future and are not just speaking of something "RIGHT NOW" as you erroneously assert repeatedly. Your 100% nonsense is just another red- herring associated with your sinless perfection misdirection.

No, my 100% assertion follows directly from taking v.27 as a statement of fact.

However, since you NOW admit that NO believer can hear and follow 100% of time, we're back on the same page on that issue.

So, again, v.27 is just a description of what Jesus' sheep do, let's say, some or most of the time.

STILL NO statement about hearing and following being CONDITIONS for never perishing, as you continue to claim.

I get how you think your ought/should assertion could make some sense in explaining an iterative concept of belief - not that it belongs in these verses (Jesus could easily have used such a word here if that's what He meant, but He didn't) - but you are eisegeting/inserting ought/should/policy to provide for temporary belief that may cease for good

I know that "temporary belief" is the bugaboo for Arminians. They just can't stand the fact that a believer who is overcome by life (Luke 8:13) and loses faith will STILL get into heaven. "To hell with them" is your battle cry.

Except Jesus won't let your notions get in the way. He said He gives believers eternal life and they shall never perish. It cannot be stated any more clear than this.

so you can say that a second soil temporary believer (who falls away & doesn't repent & return) has EL anyway.

I know, a real bugaboo for you, huh. But you just don't grasp grace. God's grace for those He has sealed for the day of redemption.

With a Customary Present Tense in the Indicative Mood there's just no ought/should here. It's just a fact that Biblical Belief is ongoing and even if it's iterative, the iterative continues into the future.

You need to read the middle of page 522. What you will read is Wallace's OPINION, which you have latched on to. Nice try, though.

I'll even help you out here. He says, "This could also be taken as...". That's opinion. Then he says, "there seems to be...". Again, another opinion.

Where are the FACTS that you think are there?

This is how the Customary Present is explained and represented graphically. Open your Wallace grammar and see this (P.522 for your convenience).

Right. It "could be taken as..." or "there seems to be...". Sure.

The problem for your view is that the Customary Present tenses for believe & hear & follow in John10:26-27 don't provide for that temporary belief/fall away/never return scenario, because such would not be the habitual iterative action and/or ongoing state of the Customary Present.

The word 'believe' in v.26 is a PIA and in the negative; meaning they aren't presently believing.

Everything you've said about the "iterative" and other kinds of present tense haven't been proven to be the case in v.26. It's a PIA. That means those He addressed were NOT believing.

So, I've asked you to make your case and tell me what other classification of the Present Tense could Jesus be speaking in John10:27-28. And your response is to divert and discredit as usual.

While Jesus is omniscient, He didn't speak as some kind of linguistic super scholar. He spoke just like all the rest of the common people (Koine) of His day. He was a clear communicator.

Unless you can prove some particular type of PIA, you have no point.

By all I see from you, you are just too unlearned to know that you might have some options here.

Wow. If I was keeping score on your many ad hominems, the score just went up again.

I don't really think you do, but, as I said, make your case using Wallace or any other legitimate grammar resource and let's see. Actually prove me wrong, which you have not done to date.

In your dreams. Where have you proven that loss of belief results in loss of salvation?

Until you do, you're just being foolish with all your allegations and avoidance techniques.

More foolish claims. But who's keeping score?

Again, use the provided Wallace TOC and book you say you have and do some real work. Or use another grammar. Your choice.

I've already refuted your opinions.

If Jesus is not speaking in the Customary Present Tense (I think it's a better choice than Gnomic Present but would be open to discussing it)

Don't you see? You are just guessing what kind of present you are dealing with. Apparently like the scholars.

BTW, if neither the "customary" or "gnomic", then what kind of "present" do you opine Jesus was meaning in John 10:26?

Can you explain HOW one differentiates between a customary from a gnomic? Is it founded on FACT or opinion?

then what classification of the Present Tense do you think represents what Jesus meant when He said what's quoted in John10:26-27?

I don't need to guess, like you seem to need to do.

You can pigeonhole the Greek Present Tense into your imagined "RIGHT NOW" or "CURRENTLY" or "PRESENTLY" idea as much as you want. It just PROVES once again how you assert your opinion to be more legitimate than the real work done by people much more learned and trustworthy than you with the Greek language - people like Wallace.

Well, UNTIL you can prove how to factually determine which kind of "present" tense is in any verse, you have no point.

Just guesses, and more guesses.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"How silly. Everything is ongoing until it stops. Jesus noted that in Luke 8:13."

Here's your "silly" error BTW. The Customary Present Tense doesn't speak of a stop. It signifies an ongoing state. And the Gnomic is timeless.

And even you can't determine whether it is customary or gnomic.

However, Jesus used the PIA in Luke 8:13 and yet it didn't continue on and on.

As I've said, explain and reference for me why the Customary Present was not used by Jesus in John10:27 and provide your alternative interpretation of the Greek Present tense you think is used.

No, YOU tell me how to determine between customary and gnomic. What FACTS lead anyone knowledgeable in Greek to know?

 

[FreeGrace2]

To further clarify, from what I see in the Greek I don't think such temporary belief actually qualifies as being what I'm calling Biblical Belief, because I don't see Biblical Belief as being temporary.

Well, once again we see your OPINION about what you "think" qualifies as being biblical faith. And, again, I'm not interested in your opinions, but just what the Bible says.

And you've not shown any FACTS that prove your opinions.

I think I saw you once again refer us to belief in the aorist tense. We've explained to you and I've provided reference from Wallace that the Greek aorist is actually timeless and can be iterative (repeated), durative (continual), and momentary.

So, it's "can be", huh? More opinion. How do you determine from FACTS which kind it is? Seems to me it's all just opinion.

I've also explained why momentary is not a legitimate choice when it comes to Biblical Belief. John10:26-27 would be one of my proof-texts.

Yeah, your opinion-driven explanations. Right. As to not being a "legitimate choice" is just your opinion.

Fun how we each think these 2 sections of Scripture back up one another. I've provided referenced detail for my view.

Without FACTUAL points to nail down what kind of present or aorist tense, you have only your feel-good opinions about which it "seems to be".

As I recall, Doug has done the same to whatever degree.

Oh, no. To the SAME DEGREE. He's just guessing, like you are.

You've provided nothing in-depth thus nothing meaningful for your opposing view (unless you truly think reading policy statements in commercial restrooms is meaningful).

Said the opinion-driven guesser!!

 

[TibiasDad]

I claim every believer shall never perish.

No, you claim that anyone who has ever believed (regardless of whether he continues to believe) shall never perish. I, JLB, and GDL assert that every believer, that meaning every one that has active, present tense belief, shall never perish!

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"I claim every believer shall never perish."

No, you claim that anyone who has ever believed (regardless of whether he continues to believe) shall never perish.

I always appreciate the opportunity to clarify my beliefs, so that there will be no confusion as to what I believe. So, thanks.

The Bible NEVER teaches anywhere that a believer can return to the same status as an unbeliever. If I am wrong, I invite you to prove me wrong by quoting any verse/passage that in plain language makes clear that a believer who ceases to believe will lose their salvation.

The biblical term for a former believer is an apostate. So, please find any verse that says that an apostate will go to hell.

Or that a saved person can perish.

I, JLB, and GDL assert that every believer, that meaning every one that has active, present tense belief, shall never perish!
Doug

You 3 are just kidding yourselves. Jesus never said that. Your ideas are foolish.

He said "His sheep". That means all who have believed.

Both John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:12 say that condemnation is for those who "have not believed".

Once a person believes, they have passed over that threshold of "having not believed".

Once a person believes, they won't be condemned.

But the resistance to truth continues.

 

[TibiasDad]

Doug referred to these verbs as expressing “present tense reality.” “Reality” seems to be the word Doug used to express the “certainty” or fact Jesus is speaking about. If Doug would like to correct me, he may do so.

I am not asserting an absolute reality, but merely that the PAI is asserting the action as true from the speaker’s perspective. But as you have pointed out, Jesus is definitely stating an absolute reality of his sheep!

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

I am not asserting an absolute reality, but merely that the PAI is asserting the action as true from the speaker’s perspective. But as you have pointed out, Jesus is definitely stating an absolute reality of his sheep!

Doug

And, again, none of this proves your unbiblical premise that one must continue to believe in order to be saved. If that were true, Jesus would have made that point in Luke 8:13. But He didn't.

 

[GDL]

Through all of that the only thing meaningful is re: Customary or Gnomic.

Firstly, rather than leave you to assert something that can be taken wrongly, Wallace on P.522 only says "could" in one situation, and this is not pertaining to his descriptions and definitions of the various categories of the present tense, but only about choosing a classification in one example. He also brings us a debatable example, not that he hasn't classified the present tense, but he honestly and fairly brings up the debate (again, the underlines are mine):

John 3:16

πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται

everyone who [continually] believes in him should not perish

This could also be taken as a gnomic present, but if so it is not a proverbial statement, nor is it simply a general maxim. In this Gospel, there seems to be a qualitative distinction between the ongoing act of believing and the simple fact of believing.

Wallace also says this:

b. Debatable Examples

Cf. 1 John 3:6, 9 for a theologically debatable example (which we are taking as gnomic, but which older commentators considered to be customary). See discussion below under “Gnomic Present.”

The issue for those who truly (unlike your pretense) work at these levels in the Text, is that Gnomic and Customary Presents can at times be a bit difficult to chose between, as Wallace honestly informs us. Wallace also is honest enough to note how there "seems" to be a distinction re: faith in GJohn. I agree, but I'm past the "seems" point. I see John as providing more and more detail re: Biblical Faith as he proceeds in his writings. And I see other writers of Scripture provide more detail.

The issue for you and for us in dealing with you is that you are dishonest, evidence a complete lack of humility, and clearly purport to have Scripture completely figured out. That in itself completely discredits you, and worse.

I've heard the same authoritative teaching you have, and in the end a percentage of it is just opinionated error. I've also heard a somber admission that told me that the authoritative presentation was a choice made for a purpose, while at the same time there was an underlying humility that recognized that we cannot know the Word in entirety in a lifetime of even the most intense efforts.

As for Gnomic vs. Customary either is ongoing, so either one defeats your no-matter-if-it's-temporary view and both invalidate your view that the present only deals with something "RIGHT NOW."

Also, you are still wrong about ongoing having an end. That's the point - ongoing doesn't end like your unbiblical version of Biblical Faith. If I trend to Gnomic, then it's worse for you because we're dealing with a general timeless fact, which could be the case because we're dealing with a generic subject (the class/group of His sheep).

I think you've brought up 10:26 and the PAI verb "not believe" there. Since they have not yet believed, I would consider alternatives to Customary & Gnomic. However, with that said, once someone believes, they enter into the Customary or Gnomic sense of belief that correlates to the same sense of the hear & follow verbs. If we turn their negative belief into the positive Biblical Belief of Jesus' sheep, then I apply the same Customary or Gnomic sense to Biblical Belief. It makes no sense to see them differently. There's no reason we cannot look at belief in a positive sense, because belief that Jesus is the Christ is the issue at hand and He is contrasting what Biblical Belief looks like vs. doesn't look like:

That's why I said before that we could derive a list from these verses:

Jesus sheep - the sheep who believe Jesus is the Christ:
1) Hear Jesus' voice
2) Are known by Jesus
3) Follow Jesus
4) Are given eternal life by Jesus
5) Shall never perish
6) Cannot be snatched out of Jesus' hand

Once positive belief, hearing & following are all pertaining to Jesus' sheep, I see the verbs all being consistent statements of fact that Biblical Belief, hearing Jesus voice, and following Jesus are all the same Customary or Gnomic sense of the Present Tense. Either way, Customary or Gnomic, you lose. Especially when you can supply no alternative referenced analysis to the present tenses used here in an y of these verbs.

Acts16:31 has been answered both technically and with reasoning. Both are necessary in interpretation. John10:26-28 has been answered. I've said before that John5:24 is an interesting one. Whatever you bring up can be worked on both technically and with reasoning. But the work won't be for your benefit, to which I'm certain you and I and likely some others will all agree on.

BTW, what Biblical Faith really is, is only pointless to those who lock into the overly simplified and undefined version of faith you see. Once one starts learning more about what Biblical Faith really is, your soteriology begins falling apart. It's not that the verses change, obviously, it's simply that the true complexity of what Belief is changes the depth and scope of what these verses are really saying and who it is that is truly Believing, Biblically. The analysis of tenses is just part of the matter, although an important part.

The rally cry is it's Faith Alone in Christ Alone! The response is, yes, but Faith is never alone. The debate has raged for a long time and it's a legitimate one whether you believe it is nor not.

BTW, J5:24 says technically & literally that it's not the popular "Faith in Christ Alone" - not according to Christ anyway. You can read this in the English and then tell us that Christ doesn't mean what He says - it's just a policy statement... What a mess.

 

[GDL]

Should be clear, but my post #512 is to FreeGrace2 in response to his or her most recent posts to me.

 

[GDL]

I am not asserting an absolute reality, but merely that the PAI is asserting the action as true from the speaker’s perspective. But as you have pointed out, Jesus is definitely stating an absolute reality of his sheep!

Doug

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Through all of that the only thing meaningful is re: Customary or Gnomic.

What would be meaningful is HOW one factually determines which is being meant.

And, so far, no one has proven which one is. Just a lot of "it seems that..." or "it appears to be...", or some other kind of guessing.

Firstly, rather than leave you to assert something that can be taken wrongly, Wallace on P.522 only says "could" in one situation, and this is not pertaining to his descriptions and definitions of the various categories of the present tense, but only about choosing a classification in one example.

He only needs 1 example to show off his guessing.

He also brings us a debatable example, not that he hasn't classified the present tense, but he honestly and fairly brings up the debate (again, the underlines are mine):

John 3:16

πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται

everyone who [continually] believes in him should not perish

This could also be taken as a gnomic present, but if so it is not a proverbial statement, nor is it simply a general maxim. In this Gospel, there seems to be a qualitative distinction between the ongoing act of believing and the simple fact of believing.

How do you NOT understand that anything "debatable" means there is NO FIRM FACT to determine which way to go?

And, from above, you underlined "could" and "seems to be", and you should have (ought to have) underlined "but IF so..." as well. All just show the guessing game.

iow, even Wallace doesn't know for sure. Or he would have made that clear.

Wallace also says this:

b. Debatable Examples

Cf. 1 John 3:6, 9 for a theologically debatable example (which we are taking as gnomic, but which older commentators considered to be customary). See discussion below under “Gnomic Present.”

The issue for those who truly (unlike your pretense) work at these levels in the Text, is that Gnomic and Customary Presents can at times be a bit difficult to chose between

Looks more like "most of the time" rather than "at times". But again, I'm dealing with your own opinion.

as Wallace honestly informs us.

Yes, he is honest with his guessing, and even telling us that previous commentators took Jn 3:16 as customary. However, we're not discussing that verse, but other verses. So what he says here isn't relevant to the verses in discussion.

Wallace also is honest enough to note how there "seems" to be a distinction re: faith in GJohn. I agree, but I'm past the "seems" point.

Oh, I see. Now you think you're a bit smarter than Wallace?? So, what convinces you besides your bias?

I see John as providing more and more detail re: Biblical Faith as he proceeds in his writings. And I see other writers of Scripture provide more detail.

And not a one of them EVER wrote anything close to what you claim.

The issue for you and for us in dealing with you is that you are dishonest, evidence a complete lack of humility, and clearly purport to have Scripture completely figured out.

OK, 2 more of your frequent ad hominems, and a total fabrication of what I believe. In fact, you'd have to be omniscient in order to have the authority to make your outlandish claim aobut what I have "purported to do". What arrogance.

That in itself completely discredits you, and worse.

Rather, your totally false claims does that to yourself.

I've heard the same authoritative teaching you have, and in the end a percentage of it is just opinionated error.

Sure. Teachers are human, just like you. So what? And how do you know what I retained and what I jettisoned along the way?

As for Gnomic vs. Customary either is ongoing, so either one defeats your no-matter-if-it's-temporary view and both invalidate your view that the present only deals with something "RIGHT NOW."

When in the world are you going to actually OPEN your eyes and read what I post? Now, this is a prime example of total dishonesty. I never said "only". So quit your lying.

And I challenge you to prove you can figure out FACTUALLY how to discern between customary and gnomic. You haven't so far. And Wallace makes clear there is NO AGREEMENT between scholars. So who are you to tell me anything about it?

Also, you are still wrong about ongoing having an end.

What are you talking about? Where did I say that? What I did say is an action is ongoing as long as it is going on. But NOT all actions that are "ongoing" keep on going.

Or was that a bit too difficult to discern?

That's the point - ongoing doesn't end like your unbiblical version of Biblical Faith.

OK, scholar. Tell me what kind of PIA did Jesus use in Luke 8:13?

[QUOT3E] If I trend to Gnomic, then it's worse for you because we're dealing with a general timeless fact, which could be the case because we're dealing with a generic subject (the class/group of His sheep).[/QUOTE]
Ah, once again, the guessing game. "IF IF IF I trend..." is very subjective. And then there's your "which could be...", which is just another stab at guessing.

I think you've brought up 10:26 and the PAI verb "not believe" there. Since they have not yet believed, I would consider alternatives to Customary & Gnomic.

Do you have any FACTUAL information that would lead you to such a guess?

That's why I said before that we could derive a list from these verses:

Jesus sheep - the sheep who believe Jesus is the Christ:
1) Hear Jesus' voice
2) Are known by Jesus
3) Follow Jesus
4) Are given eternal life by Jesus
5) Shall never perish
6) Cannot be snatched out of Jesus' hand

FACT: #4,5 and 6 are directly linked in v.28. From #4, the result of that point is #5 and 6.

Once positive belief, hearing & following are all pertaining to Jesus' sheep, I see the verbs all being consistent statements of fact that Biblical Belief, hearing Jesus voice, and following Jesus are all the same Customary or Gnomic sense of the Present Tense. Either way, Customary or Gnomic, you lose.

You like to keep saying this, but so what? You STILL haven't proven ANYTHING.

The point is that even PIA belief can and does END. Jesus made that point, so get over yourself and accept it.

The rally cry is it's Faith Alone in Christ Alone! The response is, yes, but Faith is never alone.

Well, Mr Calvinist, that is a contradictory statement. Even dialectical. Maybe diabolical.

 

[TibiasDad]

What would be meaningful is HOW one factually determines which is being meant.

And, so far, no one has proven which one is. Just a lot of "it seems that..." or

And so when I ask for HOW you factually know, what hermeneutical principle is used to determine, that it is a "policy statement" and not a run of the mill PAI, it's okay to sluff it off, but now it is a necessary distinction for GDL.

Doug

 

[GDL]

I have already explained the PIA. It means believing RIGHT NOW, or CURRENTLY, or PRESENTLY. And that's all it means

As for Gnomic vs. Customary either is ongoing, so either one defeats your no-matter-if-it's-temporary view and both invalidate your view that the present only deals with something "RIGHT NOW."

When in the world are you going to actually OPEN your eyes and read what I post? Now, this is a prime example of total dishonesty. I never said "only". So quit your lying.

"ALL it means" - "only deals" (means). Semantics. Hardly a lie on my part. Typical irrelevant attack on your part, though.

Again, too much unimportant nonsense to respond to. I was ignoring you completely after a process that took me from reading your posts to just glancing through them to see what verses you were butchering.

I'm back to just glancing through your posts to see where you are and maybe pick up some of your extensive dishonesty here & there, or a point of avoidance, of which there are many. Soon back to ignoring you and just looking at Scriptures discussed. You're just too messed-up to pay any close attention to. The only real exercise here is looking at & reasonably discussing Scripture. Until Heaven and earth pass away, we can be sure you'll be ignoring all exegesis and repeating your errors as if nothing was ever said in response.

To repeat re Biblical Belief: "As for Gnomic vs. Customary in John10:27, either is ongoing, so either one defeats your no-matter-if-it's-temporary view" (= it's still saving faith even if temporary faith).

To be clear Luke8:13 is not Biblical Belief, because, from the information we're given, it is not ongoing. That's the point of that parable: only the 4th soil was productive and such productivity to varying degrees was all that was indicative of ongoing belief, which I'm calling Biblical Belief - the only saving Belief - to differentiate it from your simplistic, undefined Biblically, straight out of the Greek language pisteuo.

So again:

- Acts16:31 responded to in-depth and no meaningful referenced response from FG2.
- John10:26-28 responded to in-depth and no meaningful referenced response from FG2.

Save me some glancing - what verse do you want to distort next? Your eisegesis & ridicule of all exegesis is expected. It's nevertheless interesting to see what others who disagree with you will say re: the Word and interpretation(s) thereof.

Rebounding from what Id like to say to you...............OK, all done, forgiven, cleansed, all as part of my ongoing Belief - the only Biblical Belief - that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, to whom all knees shall bow, and my correlated Biblical Belief in my Father who sent Him (per Jesus in J5:24) - Biblical Faith in Jesus Christ and our Father who sent Him, no matter what "alone" language FG, or Calvinists, or Arminians, or any other ers, ists, or ians might say.

 

[GDL]

And so when I ask for HOW you factually know, what hermeneutical principle is used to determine, that it is a "policy statement" and not a run of the mill PAI, it's okay to sluff it off, but now it is a necessary distinction for GDL.

Doug

Blatant & obvious, huh, Doug?

Throw a bunch at him or her and more hypocrisy and nonsense is revealed. I especially like the "lying" response. Second one as I recall. Exercise completed. Back to Scripture analysis. Anything Scripture you disagree with or question from me, please feel free to respond.

No need for you to respond to me here. I know you'll maintain your decorum.

 

[JLB777]

Pretty clear. Thanks JLB777.

This can be stated in a conditional form:

IF sheep hear Jesus' voice and follow Jesus and are known by Jesus as His sheep, THEN the sheep belong to Jesus, and Jesus gives to His sheep eternal life, and His sheep shall never perish, and no one shall snatch His sheep out of His hand.

This can be listed:

Jesus sheep:
1) Hear Jesus' voice
2) Are known by Jesus
3) Follow Jesus
4) Are given eternal life by Jesus
5) Shall never perish
6) Cannot be snatched out of Jesus' hand

There are two eternal life’s mentioned in this passage.


The eternal life by faith, we have in this life, which is being one spirit with Christ; being in Christ.

This is called “knowing Him”.

Even though we can still die, we have eternal life, because we are joined to the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.


My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. John 10:27-28


We are able to “follow Him”, His teachings, His commandments because He dwells in us, and leads us and guides us into all truth.
His Spirit empowers us to walk with Him in the light.


Then we have the promise of eternal life, which is a reference to the age to come in which we will receive everlasting life at the resurrection, whereby we will receive bodies that will not die anymore and are like His body.


Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Luke 20:34-36


This is called the “hope” of eternal life; which refers to “inheriting” eternal life.



But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:4-7


again



And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. Matthew 19:29





JLB

 

[JLB777]

Great verses that teach eternal security.

Once Given Eternal Life, Shall Never Perish. OGELSNP


Everyone who has a firm grasp on language KNOWS the verses do NOT say that.

v.27 describes what Jesus' sheep DO. v.28 describes what Jesus DOES for His sheep. And the result of what Jesus DID is that THEY SHALL NEVER PERISH.


If by "lost" you mean "lost their salvation", then why in heaven's name haven't you EVER provided ANY verse that says so in plain language?

Eternal life is based on what Jesus does for His sheep, believers. He gives them eternal life, and the result is that they shall never perish.

You'll NEVER refute this very clear principle. You have already rejected what Jesus taught.

He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 2:4


JLB