Temporal Salvation?

[FreeGrace2]

GDL: Your "ought" verses are not applicable.

You are in denial.

Your reasoning is a confused mess.

No, you are confused. That makes everything else look confused to you.

Truly, there are some willing to help you. As politely as I can state this, your showing me that the word "ought" is used in some verses other than John10:27, does not mean it can just be imported into John10:27.

Do you even understand what a policy statement is?

Third, please show me where the word, "ought" is in John10:27.

Reasonable and discerning people automatically understand what a policy statement is.

On the inside door of a restroom in a restaurant a sign says "employees wash their hands".

Are you so naive to think that this sign means or proves that every employee actually does wash their hands?

Here's your problem. You STILL haven't proven that salvation can be lost, though you've been trying as hard as you can.

Why aren't there ANY clearly stated verses that plainly tell us that salvation can be lost?

Because that isn't true. And Jesus smashed your opinions in John 10:28.

Why don't you realize that "His sheep" refers to those who are already saved? That's who Jesus gives eternal life. How is one saved? By believing in Him for salvation.

So, "His sheep" are believers. And Jesus gives THEM eternal life. And they (believers) shall never perish.

How about this:

Once a Believer, Never Perish. Or, OBNP

Go ahead and try to prove me wrong.

 

[GDL]

And, it appears that Doug totally missed my point about v.27, that Jesus was stating a policy statement. Maybe Doug doesn't know what those are. Probably.

A policy statement is a statement about HOW those in the organization are supposed to behave, or OUGHT TO behave.

But, go ahead and ignore all the verses that tell believers what they OUGHT TO do.

No one missed your [eisegeted] point. We know it's just garbage and meant by you to mislead from Truth.

My sheep ought to hear my voice and my sheep ought to follow Me. That's My policy of what My sheep ought to do. This is what a present active indicative verb means - it's a policy statement. Typical Arminian doesn't even know these verbs are just policy statements.

"Sesame Street" was another Christian kindness.

 

[GDL]

You are in denial.

Not wasting space here with all your nonsense.

As I said you would do, distract & divert. Never a direct answer to a direct question.

So here we have it: When Jesus said that believers hear His voice, He knows them, and they follow Him, it's just like a policy sign in a restroom saying the policy is you ought to wash your hands after you use the toilet. But we understand if you don't and we'll let you prepare food to serve to our customers anyway because we love you little sheep.

Moral of the story, don't eat at FG2's place.

Truth of John10:27, those who believe Jesus is the Christ hear His voice, He knows them, and they follow Him.

 

[TibiasDad]

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?

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? 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.

Doug is still confused about what a present active verb means.

What am I confused about, FG2? What is incorrect about my statement? Are you implying that the PAI does not mean that a present tense reality is being expressed?

And, it appears that Doug totally missed my point about v.27, that Jesus was stating a policy statement. Maybe Doug doesn't know what those are. Probably.
A policy statement is a statement about HOW those in the organization are supposed to behave, or OUGHT TO behave.

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? 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! 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.)

For some unknown reason, this poster includes what I posted as if he posted it. What follows is what I posted:

I did not realize the duplication of your words. It has been corrected. And as the duplication should have been obvious 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

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"And, it appears that Doug totally missed my point about v.27, that Jesus was stating a policy statement. Maybe Doug doesn't know what those are. Probably.

A policy statement is a statement about HOW those in the organization are supposed to behave, or OUGHT TO behave.

But, go ahead and ignore all the verses that tell believers what they OUGHT TO do."

No one missed your [eisegeted] point.

I know that you are quite aware that you cannot disprove that v.27 is a policy statement.

Do you think that every single believer hears and follows Jesus 100% of the time?

Yes or no? Which is it?

We know it's just garbage and meant by you to mislead from Truth.

Instead, I'm explaining the truth.

My sheep ought to hear my voice and my sheep ought to follow Me. That's My policy of what My sheep ought to do. This is what a present active indicative verb means - it's a policy statement. Typical Arminian doesn't even know these verbs are just policy statements.

I'm not surprised.

Since you believe that salvation can be lost, please choose from your list the SINGLE BEST verse that says in very clear and plain language that salvation can be lost.

Note: I'm not asking for any specific wording, but the best verse that clearly states that salvation can be lost.

If you can't do that, you don't have a point.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Truth of John10:27, those who believe Jesus is the Christ hear His voice, He knows them, and they follow Him.

Does every believer listen and follow Him 100% of the time, or not?

Yes or no?

 

[TibiasDad]

Does every believer listen and follow Him 100% of the time, or not?

Yes or no?

Another false dichotomy! It is not a matter of 100% of the time, but of consistency of life and continuing progress of growth! We are all susceptible to sin, but the more we grow the less likely we are to yield to that susceptibility! One who is not progressing in growth is eventually going to die! I doubt seriously, however, that John or Paul or Peter, by the time of their writing their various letters were very prone to sin at all; certainly not any outward or obvious manifestation. Sinning is always the expedition to the rule! It is never a normal, expected part of the equation! Never!

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"Does every believer listen and follow Him 100% of the time, or not?

Yes or no?"

Another false dichotomy!

Nope. It's quite a legitimate question because of what you said. You view v.27 as a statement of reality, not a policy statement. So prove it.

So, if reality, HOW MUCH is required for your "reality" to be real? You claim v.27 is a statement about reality. So ANSWER the question: HOW MUCH hearing and following fulfills the reality of being a sheep of Jesus?

If it is a statement about reality, there OUGHT TO BE at least another verse that gives us some quantifiable amount of hearing and following.

Kinda like the problem with those who insist that works are required for salvation.

The same question: HOW MUCH works? It's got to be quantifiable in order to be followed.

It is not a matter of 100% of the time, but of consistency of life and continuing progress of growth!

OK, there you go again! HOW MUCH "consistency of life", whatever that may mean to you? Don't you see your problem? You give answers that DEMAND quantifying, and you can't do it. You just default to more word salad that STILL requires quantification,

We are all susceptible to sin, but the more we grow the less likely we are to yield to that susceptibility!

I fully agree. But this statement doesn't help you one bit in your view that v.27 is a statement of reality. You STILL need to quantify an amount of hearing and following.

One who is not progressing in growth is eventually going to die!

2 questions from your vague statement:

1. Define "die" and what it means.
2. What verse supports your definition of "die" in your statement?

I doubt seriously, however, that John or Paul or Peter, by the time of their writing their various letters were very prone to sin at all; certainly not any outward or obvious manifestation. Sinning is always the expedition to the rule! It is never a normal, expected part of the equation! Never!

No argument. And this STILL doesn't answer the quantification problem that your own statement about "reality" creates.

I'm not sure that you yet understand the problems you create by your statements.

One thing should be (ought to be) clear. When the Bible gives statement and commands, they have to be clear before anyone can follow them or obey them.

Without clarification, there will be many misunderstandings about what is being said. Is that how you understand God's Word?

I sure don't. I am convinced that God inspired the writers to be specific enough for everyone to be able to understand, if their eyes and ears are open.

And we know that not everyone's eyes and ears are open, don't we.

You think mine aren't open, and I know yours aren't.

 

[FreeGrace2]

.

 

[TibiasDad]

You think mine aren't open

This is the only correct statement that you've made. I'm not going to waste anymore time or bandwidth by arguing with you.

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"You think mine aren't open"

This is the only correct statement that you've made.

It's only correct in the FACT that it is your opinion.

I'm not going to waste anymore time or bandwidth by arguing with you.
Doug

Of course not. You have no defense for your opinions. If your views were correct, you'd have quoted the verses that say what you believe. But you haven't.

 

[GDL]

Bold underlined highlights in these quotes are mine:

I think we have to go back to Sesame Street and say one of these things is different from the others! What could it be...? Oh, I know what it is, John 10:25-30 doesn't have the word ought in it! I wonder why? Could it be because "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me", is a present active indicative statement of what Jesus's sheep are like not what they should be like! Jesus does not use the word ὀφείλω, nor does he use the word δεῖ, so there is absolutely no exegetical reason to place an ought into the meaning. Jesus did not say my sheep ought to hear my voice and follow me, he said they do hear his voice and follow him, which is the differential between a believer and an unbeliever!

Doug is still confused about what a present active verb means.

What am I confused about, FG2? 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.

ONE of the problems with these discussions, or any I guess, is that anyone can assert something to be true and then claim no one can prove the assertion wrong. The best we can do is provide a response and back it up with what is normally taken by most as an authority on the subject at hand.

Doug & FG2 are debating what they are referring to as “PAI’ – Present Active Indicative verbs – and the verbs under discussion are two in John10:27 – “hear” and “follow” - and mainly "believe" in 10:26 (though stated in the negative there) and elsewhere.

I'm going to chase this from the two mentioned verbs in 10:27, which correlate to the verb "believe" in 10:26. So, the PAI parsing of these two verbs in John10:27 (also applicable to "believe" in the 10:26 context):

I’ll be using Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace (“Wallace”) as my reference material. I’ll use a blue color for what I copy from Wallace & the bold underlining is mine.

P.448: The indicative mood is, in general, the mood of assertion, or presentation of certainty. It is not correct to say that it is the mood of certainty or reality. This belongs to the presentation (i.e., the indicative may present something as being certain or real, though the speaker might not believe it). To call the indicative mood the mood of certainty or fact would imply (1) that one cannot lie in the indicative (but cf. Acts 6:13), and (2) that one cannot be mistaken in the indicative (but cf. Luke 7:39). Thus it is more accurate to state that the indicative mood is the mood of assertion, or presentation of certainty.

According to the Indicative Mood the verbs under discussion are a presentation of certainty being stated by the speaker. Since the speaker according to Christ’s Apostle John is Jesus Christ, and since Jesus Christ does not lie, and since Jesus Christ cannot be mistaken, my conclusion is that the PAI verbs “hear” and “follow” in John10:27 must be taken as assertions of certainty, or facts.

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.

Doug seems to know what the Indicative Mood represents. FG2 somehow inserts the word or concept of “ought” into John10:27 and comes up with the concept of a policy statement from these verbs. FG2 is clearly making things up (once again). It’s been my observation that FG2 routinely makes things up and inserts them into the Word of God. At best this is eisegetical error.

The instruction in Wallace on the Present Tense is too lengthy to post, so I’ll post some of it:

P.513

The Present Tense

Overview of Uses

I. Narrow-Band Presents 516

► A. Instantaneous Present (a.k.a. Aoristic or Punctiliar Present) 517

► B. Progressive Present (a.k.a. Descriptive Present) 518

II. Broad-Band Presents 519

A. Extending-From-Past Present 519

► B. Iterative Present 520

► C. Customary (Habitual or General) Present 521

► D. Gnomic Present 523

III. Special Uses of the Present 526

► A. Historical Present (Dramatic Present) 526

B. Perfective Present 532

C. Conative (Tendential, Voluntative) Present 534

1. In Progress, but not Complete (True Conative) 534

2. Not Begun, but About/Desired to be Attempted (Voluntative/Tendential) 535

► D. Futuristic Present 535

1. Completely Futuristic 536

2. Mostly Futuristic (Ingressive-Futuristic?) 537

► E. Present Retained in Indirect Discourse 537

Select Bibliography

BDF, 167-69, 172, 174 (§319-24, 335-36, 338-39); Burton, Moods and Tenses, 7-11, 46, 54-55 (§8-20, 96-97, 119-131); Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 198-240, 325-413; K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach (New York: Peter Lang, 1994) 39-42; idem, “Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek,” NovT 34 (1992) 209-28; Moule, Idiom Book, 7-8; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 163-244, 321-401; idem, Idioms, 28-33; Robertson, Grammar, 879-92; Turner, Syntax, 60-64, 74-81; Young, Intermediate Greek, 107-13.

So, from this TOC in Wallace, we can see that there is a choice to be made from several options in interpreting Present Tense verbs.

I see these two verbs under discussion as being in the “Broad-Band Presents” category. I’m going to copy what Wallace says about two of these classifications, which I see as best fitting them:

P.521-522

C. Customary (Habitual or General) Present

1. Definition

The customary present is used to signal either an action that regularly occurs or an ongoing state.20 The action is usually iterative, or repeated, but not without interruption. This usage is quite common.

The difference between the customary (proper) and the iterative present is mild. Generally, however, it can be said that the customary present is broader in its idea of the “present” time and describes an event that occurs regularly. The customary present is an iterative present with the temporal ends “kicked out.”

There are two types of customary present, repeated action and ongoing state. The stative present is more pronounced in its temporal restrictions than the customary present or the gnomic present.


D. Gnomic Present

1. Definition

The present tense may be used to make a statement of a general, timeless fact. “It does not say that something is happening, but that something does happen.”22 The action or state continues without time limits. The verb is used “in proverbial statements or general maxims about what occurs at all times.”23 This usage is common.

2. Semantics and Semantic Situations

The gnomic present is distinct from the customary present in that the customary present refers to a regularly recurring action while the gnomic present refers to a general, timeless fact. It is distinct from the stative present (a subcategory of the customary) in that the stative present involves a temporal restriction while the gnomic present is generally atemporal.

There are two predominant semantic situations in which the gnomic present occurs.24 The first includes instances that depict deity or nature as the subject of the action. Statements such as “the wind blows” or “God loves” fit this category. Such gnomic presents are true all the time. There is a second kind of gnomic, slightly different in definition: the use of the present in generic statements to describe something that is true any time (rather than a universal statement that is true all the time).25 This kind of gnomic present is more common. Thus, pragmatically, it is helpful to note a particular grammatical intrusion: A gnomic verb typically takes a generic subject or object. Most generics will be subjects (but note the first example below). Further, the present participle, especially in such formulaic expression as πᾶς ὁ + present participle and the like, routinely belong here.26

A few observations:

1. It’s obvious to see that a Present Tense verb can be stating “continuous action” and even a “timeless fact.”

2. It’s obvious to see that FG2 is misrepresenting what the Present Tense can mean. It can most certainly mean a regularly repeated action, and an ongoing state. It can even mean something that occurs any time, or a general timeless fact. Contrary to FG2's error, "continuous" can be a proper classification of meaning of a Present Tense verb.

I’ll leave out the instruction on the Active Voice. It’s basically telling us that the subject of the verb does the action.

My interpretation:

NKJ John 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

Since this is the Creator & Lord speaking about what His sheep do, and since He designed & created sheep, we could say these Present Tense verbs are gnomic and Jesus is telling us that it is a general timeless fact that His sheep hear His voice & follow Him. Or, we could say that any time Jesus speaks, His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.

We could also say that whenever Jesus speaks, His sheep repeatedly or continuously hear His voice and follow Him. Or hearing Jesus voice and following Jesus is an ongoing state for His sheep.

These can likely be narrowed down to make the best interpretational choice. But the point is, it is correct to say that there can be continuous, or continually repeated action here.

Whatever choice we make between Customary or Gnomic, the Indicative Mood being used by the Lord & Creator here, tells us that He is asserting certainty, even fact. To insert that this is just policy is really too absurd to remotely be taken seriously.

As if the absurdity is not already clearly evident, another odd thing is that FG2 has previously said that hearing & following is just what Jesus sheep DO. Now FG2 says it’s what Jesus sheep ought to do and hearing & following is just policy. So, is hearing & following in this context fact or policy of what ought to be done? And then we don’t know what the word “ought” means to FG2, because FG2 refuses to tell us.

Since the context of John 10:27 is belief that Jesus is the Christ, all this pertains to whether or not someone needs to continually believe He is the Christ in order for what Jesus says in verse 28 to apply to them, or whether one can believe and then fall away, no longer believe, and still have verse 28 apply to them.

 

[GDL]

Part 2:

What this section of John 10 tells us in my interpretational opinion is:

1. Those who believe Jesus is the Christ repeatedly hear His voice whenever He speaks and follow Him whenever & wherever He leads. This is an ongoing state. It can even be stating a timeless fact.

2. To such people Jesus gives eternal life, Jesus says they will never perish & no one will take them from Him. I see this as clearly referring to no third party taking them from Him and think it to be another absurdity that this speaks of seizing oneself from Him. I also see this as eternal security for such people who are in this ongoing state.

3. These verses tell us what believers – those who repeatedly or continually hear Jesus’ voice & follow Him – do, and what they are given by Jesus Christ

4. This ongoing state leaves room for temporarily ceasing to hear & follow & believe, but then later repenting and hearing & following & believing again.

5. As an ongoing state, or timeless fact, this leaves no room for someone to quit (for good) hearing & following and still be believing.

6. From the chiasm in 10:27 and just from the logic of the language itself, the central point in 10:27 is that Jesus knows those who are His. This carries forward into 10:28 where Jesus is the one who gives eternal life, the assurance of never perishing and being protected from being taken from Him. For me this is the heart of the matter. Jesus is the one who determines who and when to give these things to. And from John 6 our Father is involved in the process granting people to Jesus.

7. We’re only told in this area of John10 what the repeated, ongoing, or timeless fact is about those who Jesus gives eternal life to. He knows who will believe as a repeated and ongoing state. He knows who will believe for awhile and then fall away and thus not be in an ongoing state of belief. And He knows those who say and even think they believe and don’t.

8. These PAI verbs tell us it’s a certainty that belief correlated to hearing Jesus and following Jesus and being known by Jesus as His, is an ongoing state.

9. Sheep were designed by God to inherently do things. As far as I know, they don’t hear & follow once & then stop. They inherently, repeatedly, continually hear & follow. It’s their ongoing state. So much so that it might be described as a timeless fact about sheep. This is one of the reasons Jesus would use them as an illustration of a believer.

That’s my take. If you have a different one, please explain it and please use a resource to back yourself up.


FG2’s policy statement concept, and fact vs. policy contradiction, and insertions of “ought” concepts into John10:27, and assertions that there is nothing in Greek grammar that provides for a continual present, combined with other tactics used by FG2 such as distraction, diversion, evading specific questions, using strawman arguments, blatantly eisegeting Scripture, discrediting & disregarding scholarly references, repeatedly claiming no proof has been given (as if anything can be proven to such a person), etc., makes one wonder why anyone would remotely take FG2 seriously. I for one do not, and my work here is intended mainly to keep Scripture straight to answer the folly of a fool (Prov26).

FWIW, I’m still open to considering views on eternal security as long as it’s presented in solid exegesis of any verse(s). FG2 is simply not a credible proponent of it. Eternal security obviously exists. It’s just a matter of what belief means & includes, and who Jesus & our Father determine to be believers secured by them.

 

[GDL]

BTW, to clear up more FG2 error, or dishonesty, here's how this talk about conditional language in John10:27-28 began. FG2's harping on this is just another FG2 diversion. FG2 repeatedly & continually diverts (PAI verb - Customary Present Tense meant by the author).

To say something can be stated, does not say it is stated.

FG2 continually charges (PAI - Customary Present Tense) that others do not know the English or Greek language. This is called "projection" (in verbal form, pertaining to FG2 projecting, also PAI - Customary Present Tense).

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

What is not correct re: J10:27, is that the word or concept of "ought" and "policy" apply.

 

[FreeGrace2]

ONE of the problems with these discussions, or any I guess, is that anyone can assert something to be true and then claim no one can prove the assertion wrong.

Not really a problem, as long as one side has the truth.

Those with the truth can PROVE that truth from Scripture. Which is what I do.

I claim every believer shall never perish.

Jesus said His sheep shall never perish. John 10:28

I'm saying what Jesus said. In different words. But the SAME MEANING.

The best we can do is provide a response and back it up with what is normally taken by most as an authority on the subject at hand.

No, the BEST we can do is quote Scripture that SAYS what we claim and believe.

Doug & FG2 are debating what they are referring to as “PAI’ – Present Active Indicative verbs – and the verbs under discussion are two in John10:27 – “hear” and “follow” - and mainly "believe" in 10:26 (though stated in the negative there) and elsewhere.

I'm going to chase this from the two mentioned verbs in 10:27, which correlate to the verb "believe" in 10:26. So, the PAI parsing of these two verbs in John10:27 (also applicable to "believe" in the 10:26 context):

Doug seems to know what the Indicative Mood represents. FG2 somehow inserts the word or concept of “ought” into John10:27 and comes up with the concept of a policy statement from these verbs.

OK, here is where GDL goes off the rails. Both he and Doug take issue with my statement that v.27 is a policy statement, meaning that Jesus was listing what His sheep should be or ought to be doing. This isn't rocket science. It's basic common sense.

We see policy statements all the time. On the inside of restroom doors in restaurants, for example. "Employees wash their hands".

Only an idiot would read that statement and conclude that EVERY SINGLE employee ALWAYS washes their hands before coming out of the restroom. Normal people read that statement as the policy of the establishment. Nothing more.

And policy statements aren't "guided" by grammar rules, as if there's some magical wording that announces a statement as a policy statement.

It seems GDL and Doug would actually expect Jesus to announce his statement as "this is a policy statement, guys" before He stated that His sheep hear and follow Him.

FG2 is clearly making things up (once again).

What GDL cannot do is find ANYTHING that I've made up. So all the "make up" is on his face, so to speak. Policy statements are a real thing. Every organization has them. They are guidelines. All normal people understand this.

[QUOTEE] It’s been my observation that FG2 routinely makes things up and inserts them into the Word of God. At best this is eisegetical error.[/QUOTE]
I challenge GDL to prove his empty claim. What have I made up?

In fact, let's review what GDL and Doug have made up. They claim that the PIA as related to 'believe' in the Bible means that one MUST CONTINUALLY believe in order to be saved. Yet, they can't even prove their claim from Dan Wallace. The PIA means the verb occurs in the present, or RIGHT NOW, or CURRENTLY.

The instruction in Wallace on the Present Tense is too lengthy to post, so I’ll post some of it:

P.513 ---------

So, from this TOC in Wallace, we can see that there is a choice to be made from several options in interpreting Present Tense verbs.

And NONE of this proves what GDL and Doug keep "claiming" (made up) about the PIA.

I see these two verbs under discussion as being in the “Broad-Band Presents” category. I’m going to copy what Wallace says about two of these classifications, which I see as best fitting them:

We don't need to bother, because Doug here has ADMITTED his bias and opinion with the words "I see..." which he says twice.

Others who are actual scholars, not just Greek students will NOT "see" what Doug sees.

P.521-522

A few observations:

1. It’s obvious to see that a Present Tense verb can be stating “continuous action” and even a “timeless fact.”[/QUOTE]
And this doesn't prove a thing. It simply describes an action that isn't momentary or has a definite ending.

2. It’s obvious to see that FG2 is misrepresenting what the Present Tense can mean. It can most certainly mean a regularly repeated action, and an ongoing state.

Since I also have Dan Wallace's text, how am I "misrepresenting" anything. In fact, I AGREE with all this. Of course there are actions that are "regularly repeated actions". So what?

It can even mean something that occurs any time, or a general timeless fact. Contrary to FG2's error, "continuous" can be a proper classification of meaning of a Present Tense verb.

Of course it can. And I ACKNOWLEDGED that FACT in Luke 8:13 where Jesus described the second soil as those "who believe (PIA) for a while and in time of testing, and fall away". The second soil continuously believed until they ceased to believe.

So you see, GDL keep making things up about what I have said.

My interpretation:
NKJ John 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

Since this is the Creator & Lord speaking about what His sheep do, and since He designed & created sheep, we could say these Present Tense verbs are gnomic and Jesus is telling us that it is a general timeless fact that His sheep hear His voice & follow Him. Or, we could say that any time Jesus speaks, His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.

Or we could just understand that Jesus was describing in general terms what His sheep DO, because they ARE His sheep.

One thing is clear to normal people. There is NO conditional clause in v.27. None at all. Yet both Doug and GDL have made up the claim that it COULD be read that way.

We could also say that whenever Jesus speaks, His sheep repeatedly or continuously hear His voice and follow Him. Or hearing Jesus voice and following Jesus is an ongoing state for His sheep.

Do you see what GDL is doiing? "we COULD also say...". Just more opinion. No FACTS.

How about this: "we could also NOT say...". Why wouldn't that be allowed?

These can likely be narrowed down to make the best interpretational choice. But the point is, it is correct to say that there can be continuous, or continually repeated action here.

Sure. Just as Jesus noted in Luke 8:13 and the second soil who "believed (PIA) for a while". Until they ceased to believe.

As if the absurdity is not already clearly evident, another odd thing is that FG2 has previously said that hearing & following is just what Jesus sheep DO.

Isn't it interesting that GDL considers it an ODD THING that I have acknowledged what Jesus said. Very interesting indeed.

Now FG2 says it’s what Jesus sheep ought to do and hearing & following is just policy. So, is hearing & following in this context fact or policy of what ought to be done? And then we don’t know what the word “ought” means to FG2, because FG2 refuses to tell us.

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".

Since the context of John 10:27 is belief that Jesus is the Christ, all this pertains to whether or not someone needs to continually believe He is the Christ in order for what Jesus says in verse 28 to apply to them

This is just more twisting of Scripture into something it DOESN'T SAY.

Jesus made the point back in John 5;24 and 6:47 that those believing HAVE (as in possess) eternal life. John re-iterated that FACT in 1 John 5:11 and 13.

So when Jesus said in John 10:28 that "I give them eternal life", it SHOULD BE or OUGHT TO BE clear that He was referring to those believing, from Jn 5:24 and 6:47.

Then Jesus follows up His statement about giving EL to believers with "and they shall never perish." Straightforward statement about eternal security.

Yet, both GDL and Doug reject the doctrine of eternal security. They believe that saved people can end up in hell for eternity.

In direct contradiction to what Jesus said.

or whether one can believe and then fall away, no longer believe, and still have verse 28 apply to them.

If Doug and GDL think it is possible for a recipient of eternal life to perish, the OBVIOUS question is why didn't Jesus insert any such conditions in v.28?

It would be most reckless to make the statement He did and leave out ANY condition that would jeopardize a recipient of eternal life.

And they don't even understand this.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Part 2:
What this section of John 10 tells us in my interpretational opinion is:

Wow. GDL admits his view is his opinion.

I'm just sticking with what Jesus said. It's clear enough. He gives the gift of eternal life to His sheep, which are believers and they shall never perish.

Very straightforward and clear and simple.

1. Those who believe Jesus is the Christ repeatedly hear His voice whenever He speaks and follow Him whenever & wherever He leads. This is an ongoing state. It can even be stating a timeless fact.

This opinion is easily defeated. He is basically saying that if there is ANY wavering from this ongoing action (that means 100% of the time) the person isn't saved. Think about that. The Bible is full of encouragement and admonition for believers to "not sin". So, these guys have to believe that any sin causes one to lose salvation and perish.

2. To such people Jesus gives eternal life, Jesus says they will never perish & no one will take them from Him. I see this as clearly referring to no third party taking them from Him and think it to be another absurdity that this speaks of seizing oneself from Him. I also see this as eternal security for such people who are in this ongoing state.

The error here is in the first statement. Jesus was clear in John 5:24 and 6:47 about who receive eternal life; those who believe (PIA). This means they receive the gift WHEN they believe (PIA). Not after some unspecfified time lapse.

3. These verses tell us what believers – those who repeatedly or continually hear Jesus’ voice & follow Him – do, and what they are given by Jesus Christ

Here, GDL conflates what believers DO with what they are given.

Yet, reception of eternal life is NOT on the basis of what believers do. The FACT that His sheep ARE believers, they are given eternal life. They beieved and received eternal life.

1 Tim 1:16 - But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.

4. This ongoing state leaves room for temporarily ceasing to hear & follow & believe, but then later repenting and hearing & following & believing again.

Yet, Jesus apparently forgot to include all this in His clear statement in v.28.

5. As an ongoing state, or timeless fact, this leaves no room for someone to quit (for good) hearing & following and still be believing.

Opinion, and no facts.

6. From the chiasm in 10:27 and just from the logic of the language itself, the central point in 10:27 is that Jesus knows those who are His. This carries forward into 10:28 where Jesus is the one who gives eternal life, the assurance of never perishing and being protected from being taken from Him. For me this is the heart of the matter. Jesus is the one who determines who and when to give these things to. And from John 6 our Father is involved in the process granting people to Jesus.

The bottom line is that Jesus gives the gift of eternal life to those who believe WHEN they believe, and the result of possessing eternal life is that they shall never perish.

But he doesn't want to admit this.

7. We’re only told in this area of John10 what the repeated, ongoing, or timeless fact is about those who Jesus gives eternal life to. He knows who will believe as a repeated and ongoing state. He knows who will believe for awhile and then fall away and thus not be in an ongoing state of belief. And He knows those who say and even think they believe and don’t.

8. These PAI verbs tell us it’s a certainty that belief correlated to hearing Jesus and following Jesus and being known by Jesus as His, is an ongoing state.

The PIA says nothing of the sort. This is another opinion.

9. Sheep were designed by God to inherently do things. As far as I know, they don’t hear & follow once & then stop. They inherently, repeatedly, continually hear & follow. It’s their ongoing state. So much so that it might be described as a timeless fact about sheep. This is one of the reasons Jesus would use them as an illustration of a believer.

We know believers are designed by God to do things. Eph 2:10 says so. So this point also doesn't support GDL's claims.

That’s my take.

Yep. Opinions.

FG2’s policy statement concept, and fact vs. policy contradiction, and insertions of “ought” concepts into John10:27, and assertions that there is nothing in Greek grammar that provides for a continual present

GDL cannot prove that v.27 isn't a policy statement. He just doesn't like the idea of it.

And policy statements ARE "ought to" statements. I gave many examples of verses that tell believers what they OUGHT TO DO.

I've NEVER EVER said "there is nothing in Greek grammar that provides for a continual present". So that comes either from gross ignorance of what I've posted, or is just another LIE.

combined with other tactics used by FG2 such as distraction, diversion, evading specific questions, using strawman arguments, blatantly eisegeting Scripture, discrediting & disregarding scholarly references, repeatedly claiming no proof has been given (as if anything can be proven to such a person), etc., makes one wonder why anyone would remotely take FG2 seriously.

This is a rather GOOD example of ad hominem. Yet, GDL cannot prove ANY of his wild claims. He just doesn't agree or like what I believe that Jesus said. But He can't prove any of his claims, either about what Jesus meant or what I have said.

FWIW, I’m still open to considering views on eternal security as long as it’s presented in solid exegesis of any verse(s).

This isn't true since John 01:28 is clear enough for anyone to understand. Once given eternal life, the recipient shall never perish. And GDL doesn't believe that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

BTW, to clear up more FG2 error, or dishonesty, here's how this talk about conditional language in John10:27-28 began. FG2's harping on this is just another FG2 diversion. FG2 repeatedly & continually diverts (PAI verb - Customary Present Tense meant by the author).

Yet, GDL cannot prove any of his claims or charges.

FG2 continually charges (PAI - Customary Present Tense) that others do not know the English or Greek language.

This is based on the claims made by both Doug and GDL about the PIA that aren't true.

What is not correct re: J10:27, is that the word or concept of "ought" and "policy" apply.

Right. Neither Arminian will admit that v.27 is a policy statement about what Jesus expects of His sheep.

Here's the kicker. If v.27 isn't a policy statement, then being a sheep means to hear and follow 100% of the time. NO EXCEPTIONS. Yet, GDL inserted some exceptions into his last post. Even though there is NO support from Scripture for that.

If GDL or Doug don't ALWAYS (100% of the time) hear and follow Jesus, then they AREN'T His sheep.

And they WILL perish. According to them.

 

[GDL]

I claim every believer shall never perish.

Who's a believer? Alternatively asked, what is Biblical Belief - is it momentary or ongoing? 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.

No, the BEST we can do is quote Scripture that SAYS what we claim and believe.

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.

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

Since I also have Dan Wallace's text, how am I "misrepresenting" anything.

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.

Your reasoning is very deeply flawed, FG2.

In fact, I AGREE with all this. Of course there are actions that are "regularly repeated actions". So what?

"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. If you think otherwise, open Wallace and show me how to alternatively classify the present tense verbs in John10:26-27. I gave you the TOC to get you started. If you can do so and make me see my error, I'll concede. 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.

Of course it can. And I ACKNOWLEDGED that FACT in Luke 8:13 where Jesus described the second soil as those "who believe (PIA) for a while and in time of testing, and fall away". The second soil continuously believed until they ceased to believe.

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? Of course you have to say that the 2nd believed and thus has EL, so the cessation just means discipline & loss of rewards. 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. Your problem is that it's you who does not actually PROVE your case. Quoting but misinterpreting Scriptures does not PROVE your case. 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. There are many other classifications of the Present Tense to chose from. Chose and explain please.

In fact, let's review what GDL and Doug have made up. They claim that the PIA as related to 'believe' in the Bible means that one MUST CONTINUALLY believe in order to be saved. Yet, they can't even prove their claim from Dan Wallace. The PIA means the verb occurs in the present, or RIGHT NOW, or CURRENTLY.

Correct re; my claim & easily readable for anyone who takes the time. I'm also available to answer reasonable questions re: my interpretational opinion. I clearly did use Wallace to show how I came to the conclusion that Biblical Belief per John10:26-28 is an ongoing state. And your customary tactic is to misstate what Wallace clearly stated about the Customary & Gnomic Presents and thereby discredit him as a scholarly reference. In addition, you use your other customary tactic and say that something cannot be proven. You're a very broken record FG2.

Do you see what GDL is doiing? "we COULD also say...". Just more opinion. No FACTS.

How about this: "we could also NOT say...". Why wouldn't that be allowed?

As I said, I'm open to others views if they can back them up using a legitimate reference(s). I do respect the views of others who do legitimate work in the Text. I may agree or disagree in the end, but I'll know why because I've been presented with legitimate referenced work. You're not a legitimate reference, FG2. Nor at this point do I think you know how to use a legitimate reference.

Or we could just understand that Jesus was describing in general terms what His sheep DO, because they ARE His sheep.

Do or should do FG2? Policy or statement of fact? See any difference? See any "should" in the indicative mood there spoken by the Creator of the Universe, FG2? My answer: they are His sheep and they hear & follow Him. We can't separate belief in Him from hearing & following Him and these 3 things are ongoing. 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." Heads up, FG2, when I get there I'm going to ask you more specific questions for you to avoid.

In fact, let's take it up right here & let all else sit for now:

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?

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? Is hearing & following something His sheep DO, or should/ought to do? 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. But clarify this ought/should matter anyway, if you would please, since you're the English & Greek reference).

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

Good enough for now. Out for awhile, so please take your time.

 

[GDL]

BTW, I do have a preference between the Gnomic & Customary Presents and a reason why.