Use of the aorist

[TibiasDad]

Acts 16:31They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

This passage from Acts 16, is one scriptural example of those who assert that belief alone, without necessity of continued belief and obedience after the fact. The primary reason for this is the use of the aorist for the word believe. The parsing of the verb is aorist, imperative, active, 2nd per, singular.

My interpretation of the Free Grace perspective, or at least of those with whom I have interacted, that they are using the aorist to say that the work of salvation is completely finished, that it is a cumulative use of the aorist and nothing else is needed and thus nothing subsequent to that punctiliar event.

I would suggest, however, that this is an example of an ingressive use of the aorist. The ingressive uses the punctiliar nature of the aorist to express the beginning of something, the initial point of beginning to do the action of the verb, in this case, believing.

I parsed the verb earlier, and now comes the point of how it matters. The verb is in the imperative mood, which generally is the command mood, or the mood of urgency or necessity. The Philippian jailer had just asked "What must I necessarily do to be saved! (Literal translation) Paul and Silas answered, " Believed in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." The concept of starting something, assumes that you have not been doing that something before the command to do so. This plays perfectly into the hand of the ingressive use of the aorist. So the meaning of the use of the aorist Πίστευσον, is intended to say "Start (punctiliar) believing (in the natural/infinitive sense of the verb) in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."

The meaning of the cumulative use of the aorist is not as natural, because we are going from a state of no believing to a point where believing actually begins to be done, and also because there are a plethora of scriptural mandates to maintain and continue on in active faith, the premier example in my mind being Heb 3:14.

Well this is my thinking, any others care to chime in? Ingress or Cumulative? (Another possible question is is pistueo a telic or atelic verb, but I didn't really get into that aspect, but it may be a valid aspect to consider.)


Doug

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Acts 16:31They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

This passage from Acts 16, is one scriptural example of those who assert that belief alone, without necessity of continued belief and obedience after the fact. The primary reason for this is the use of the aorist for the word believe. The parsing of the verb is aorist, imperative, active, 2nd per, singular.

My interpretation of the Free Grace perspective, or at least of those with whom I have interacted, that they are using the aorist to say that the work of salvation is completely finished, that it is a cumulative use of the aorist and nothing else is needed and thus nothing subsequent to that punctiliar event.

I would suggest, however, that this is an example of an ingressive use of the aorist. The ingressive uses the punctiliar nature of the aorist to express the beginning of something, the initial point of beginning to do the action of the verb, in this case, believing.

I parsed the verb earlier, and now comes the point of how it matters. The verb is in the imperative mood, which generally is the command mood, or the mood of urgency or necessity. The Philippian jailer had just asked "What must I necessarily do to be saved! (Literal translation) Paul and Silas answered, " Believed in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." The concept of starting something, assumes that you have not been doing that something before the command to do so. This plays perfectly into the hand of the ingressive use of the aorist. So the meaning of the use of the aorist Πίστευσον, is intended to say "Start (punctiliar) believing (in the natural/infinitive sense of the verb) in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."

The meaning of the cumulative use of the aorist is not as natural, because we are going from a state of no believing to a point where believing actually begins to be done, and also because there are a plethora of scriptural mandates to maintain and continue on in active faith, the premier example in my mind being Heb 3:14.

Well this is my thinking, any others care to chime in? Ingress or Cumulative? (Another possible question is is pistueo a telic or atelic verb, but I didn't really get into that aspect, but it may be a valid aspect to consider.)


Doug

Not much more to add in there TD as you have covered this quite well, except to add most all the scriptures in this subject matter to believe are in the present tense to believe which could possibly be better translated to "believing" or continuing to believe. These scripture promises to where believe are applied are active in the present tense to believing, meaning that our salvation always has ongoing application to believing God's Word.

 

[TibiasDad]

Not much more to add in there TD as you have covered this quite well, except to add most all the scriptures in this subject matter to believe are in the present tense aorist to believe which could possibly be better translated to "believing" or continuing to believe. These scripture promises to where believe are applied are active in the present tense to believing, meaning that our salvation always has ongoing application to believing God's Word.

I agree with you, but I deliberately didn't put the present tense aspect in because I wanted the argument to stand on it's own merits. The entire weight of the Free Grace argument, as presented by those with whom I have interacted, is on the aorist meaning that belief is not necessarily a ongoing action, nor does the lack of continuing belief alter the effects of the original state of active belief at its starting point.

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

Acts 16:31They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

This passage from Acts 16, is one scriptural example of those who assert that belief alone, without necessity of continued belief and obedience after the fact. The primary reason for this is the use of the aorist for the word believe. The parsing of the verb is aorist, imperative, active, 2nd per, singular.

My interpretation of the Free Grace perspective, or at least of those with whom I have interacted, that they are using the aorist to say that the work of salvation is completely finished, that it is a cumulative use of the aorist and nothing else is needed and thus nothing subsequent to that punctiliar event.

Bingo! Because that is exactly what the Bible SAYS. And what the aorist tense means.

However, it saddens me because now I know for certain that you DO fully understand the issue, and yet, continue to reject the truth.

I would suggest, however, that this is an example of an ingressive use of the aorist. The ingressive uses the punctiliar nature of the aorist to express the beginning of something, the initial point of beginning to do the action of the verb, in this case, believing.

Prove your claim about the "ingressive". Show how you know it is an ingressive.

However, even if it is, so what? Expressing "the beginning of something (action) in NO WAY even suggests that the action must continue in order for the results of that action to continue. And that is exactly what you are pushing.

I parsed the verb earlier, and now comes the point of how it matters. The verb is in the imperative mood, which generally is the command mood, or the mood of urgency or necessity. The Philippian jailer had just asked "What must I necessarily do to be saved! (Literal translation) Paul and Silas answered, " Believed in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." The concept of starting something, assumes that you have not been doing that something before the command to do so. This plays perfectly into the hand of the ingressive use of the aorist. So the meaning of the use of the aorist Πίστευσον, is intended to say "Start (punctiliar) believing (in the natural/infinitive sense of the verb) in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."

This is just opinion and fantasy. The command is to do something that you haven't been doing, which is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. It does NOT mean to "start believing", as if it MUST continue to be saved.

Well this is my thinking, any others care to chime in? Ingress or Cumulative? (Another possible question is is pistueo a telic or atelic verb, but I didn't really get into that aspect, but it may be a valid aspect to consider.)

Doug

How does someone determine whether ingressive or cumulative?

What about Rom 10:9 and the aorist there?

Or Jesus' conversation with a woman at a well in John 4 where He used the metaphor of drinking in the aorist for having eternal life?

Your theory doesn't explain or support what John wrote in 1 John 5:11 - And this is the testimony: God has given (AORIST) us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

This verse plainly says that God HAS GIVEN eternal life to believers. That's a done deal.

There's NO OTHER WAY to explain it. It cannot mean that God "starting giving" eternal life to believers. That would be an absurd translation.

At the MOMENT (punctiliar) of saving faith, the believer:

1. is saved
2. is justified
3. is a child of God
4. is a new creation
5. is sealed with the Holy Spirit, who is a deposit that GUARANTEES the believer's inheritance

In order to defend your position, you must quote verses that show that every one of these things (all 5) can be cancelled, lost, forfeited, removed, revoked, taken away. Or any other wording that shows that the believer no longer has any of these 5 things.

And, you can't do that. Which you know.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Not much more to add in there TD as you have covered this quite well, except to add most all the scriptures in this subject matter to believe are in the present tense aorist to believe which could possibly be better translated to "believing" or continuing to believe.

Just one little tiny problem. There is no such thing as "the present tense aorist". That is completely in error.

And the word "believing" is a participle, not even a verb, but an adjective, which describes a person's actions.

See post #4 that refutes Doug's OP.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I agree with you, but I deliberately didn't put the present tense aspect in because I wanted the argument to stand on it's own merits. The entire weight of the Free Grace argument, as presented by those with whom I have interacted, is on the aorist meaning that belief is not necessarily a ongoing action, nor does the lack of continuing belief alter the effects of the original state of active belief at its starting point.
Doug

My post #4 refutes your OP.

And Jesus refutes your notions about the present indicative active use of 'believe'.

English Standard Version Luke 8:13
And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe (present indicative active) for a while, and in time of testing fall away.

However, immediately AFTER saying 'believe' in the PIA, Jesus adds, "for a while", which obviously shows such belief didnt continue.

What say you?

 

[TibiasDad]

believe (present indicative active) for a while,

FG2,

We have been through this before, and there is no value to be gained by rehashing it again. You know what I believe about this, but for the sake of those that have not been privy to our previous conversations on this verse and parable, I will simply reference the last words of the verse: "and in time of testing fall away." The "fall away" in Jesus's explanation of the parable relates to the "withering" because of lack of moisture/water. They are no longer alive and thus capable to produce fruit. As with the branch in the vine that is incapable of producing fruit and is cut off and thrown into the fire, the plant is dead and worthless and left behind by the farmer!

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"believe (present indicative active) for a while,"

FG2,

We have been through this before, and there is no value to be gained by rehashing it again.

What you mean is that you cannot defend your erroneous idea about the present tense indicative active. And Luke 8:13 refutes your claims about it.

You know what I believe about this

Better, YOU know what the Bible says about it. And you don't agree with the Bible.

but for the sake of those that have not been privy to our previous conversations on this verse and parable, I will simply reference the last words of the verse: "and in time of testing fall away." The "fall away" in Jesus's explanation of the parable relates to the "withering" because of lack of moisture/water.

No, the parable explains what Jesus said to the disciples. Some believe for a while. That means they cease to believe after a "while". And the "fall away" refers to back to the believing. They fall away from what they believed. That's what "believing for a while" refers to. They believed, and then they fell away from what they believed.

But, you need to address your claims about the PIA and the FACT that Jesus used it and then said "for a while", which PROVES that present indicative active believing doesn't necessarily lasts.

They are no longer alive and thus capable to produce fruit.

Go talk to any horticulturist about that. I've seen my lawn very brown due to lack of water, yet come back deep green after watering. Same with plants.

Jesus refutes your claims about the present indicative active of 'believe'. It does NOT mean that the action will continue, or even must continue for results to continue.

 

[TibiasDad]

Bingo! Because that is exactly what the Bible SAYS. And what the aorist tense means.

However, it saddens me because now I know for certain that you DO fully understand the issue, and yet, continue to reject the truth.


Prove your claim about the "ingressive". Show how you know it is an ingressive.

However, even if it is, so what? Expressing "the beginning of something (action) in NO WAY even suggests that the action must continue in order for the results of that action to continue. And that is exactly what you are pushing.


This is just opinion and fantasy. The command is to do something that you haven't been doing, which is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. It does NOT mean to "start believing", as if it MUST continue to be saved.


How does someone determine whether ingressive or cumulative?

What about Rom 10:9 and the aorist there?

Or Jesus' conversation with a woman at a well in John 4 where He used the metaphor of drinking in the aorist for having eternal life?

Your theory doesn't explain or support what John wrote in 1 John 5:11 - And this is the testimony: God has given (AORIST) us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

This verse plainly says that God HAS GIVEN eternal life to believers. That's a done deal.

There's NO OTHER WAY to explain it. It cannot mean that God "starting giving" eternal life to believers. That would be an absurd translation.

At the MOMENT (punctiliar) of saving faith, the believer:

1. is saved
2. is justified
3. is a child of God
4. is a new creation
5. is sealed with the Holy Spirit, who is a deposit that GUARANTEES the believer's inheritance

In order to defend your position, you must quote verses that show that every one of these things (all 5) can be cancelled, lost, forfeited, removed, revoked, taken away. Or any other wording that shows that the believer no longer has any of these 5 things.

And, you can't do that. Which you know.

So I take by this, that you have no way to choose between ingressive and cumulative and deal with the argument itself without shifting the focus from the very verse you proffered as a seemingly lock down proof of your position. I am dealing with the verse you think denies my argument, and yet cannot stay within the verse itself, within the grammar and syntax of the verse to sustain your assertions about the way to interpret the meaning of the verse.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

No, the parable explains what Jesus said to the disciples. Some believe for a while. That means they cease to believe after a "while". And the "fall away" refers to back to the believing. They fall away from what they believed. That's what "believing for a while" refers to. They believed, and then they fell away from what they believed.

But, you need to address your claims about the PIA and the FACT that Jesus used it and then said "for a while", which PROVES that present indicative active believing doesn't necessarily lasts.

I have never denied it, active believing, didn't last; that, again, is not the point! The only thing that matters is what happens to those who ceased believing, those who were incapable of producing fruit!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Or Jesus' conversation with a woman at a well in John 4 where He used the metaphor of drinking in the aorist for having eternal life?

When you deal with Acts 16:31, I will deal with John 4:14!

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

So I take by this, that you have no way to choose between ingressive and cumulative and deal with the argument itself without shifting the focus from the very verse you proffered as a seemingly lock down proof of your position. I am dealing with the verse you think denies my argument, and yet cannot stay within the verse itself, within the grammar and syntax of the verse to sustain your assertions about the way to interpret the meaning of the verse.

Doug

So, basically, once again, you dodge my question. So you just change the subject. Which was what the present indicative active verb 'believe' means.

I have shown a verse from Jesus' own mouth that refutes your ideas about the PIA of believe. And you dodge, rather than deal with your refutation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I have never denied it, active believing, didn't last; that, again, is not the point!

Well, it isn't the point SINCE you are moving the goal posts.

The only thing that matters is what happens to those who ceased believing, those who were incapable of producing fruit!
Doug

Give me ANY verse that very clearly and plainly (no metaphors, no parables, just straightforward language) says that those who cease to believe will perish.

If you can find any such verse, then explain how that verse doesn't contradict what Jesus said about recipients of eternal life. You know, that they shall never perish.

Those who believe possess eternal life (right now!- present tense). You think those who cease to believe will perish.

Jesus said they SHALL NEVER PERISH.

You just keep on having conflicts with Scripture.

 

[FreeGrace2]

When you deal with Acts 16:31, I will deal with John 4:14!

Doug

I have dealt with it. You can't even decide whether the verb is an ingressive or a cumulative. The point is that it is an aorist tense. Neither choice changes the fact that the verb has nothing to do with time frame. It is about a point in time.

And Jesus' use of the aorist in John 4 regarding drinking parallels faith in Christ. One drink (aorist) results in NEVER THIRSTING. Once faith in Christ results in NEVER PERISHING.

And you cannot show otherwise. All you can do is show your opinions.

 

[TibiasDad]

Your theory doesn't explain or support what John wrote in 1 John 5:11 - And this is the testimony: God has given (AORIST) us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

My "theory" is directed solely at Acts 16:31, and has nothing to do with 1Jn 5 (which by the way, is disastrous for your position). So when you deal with Acts 16:31 itself, I will be more than happy to discuss 1Jn 5.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

I have dealt with it. You can't even decide whether the verb is an ingressive or a cumulative. The point is that it is an aorist tense. Neither choice changes the fact that the verb has nothing to do with time frame. It is about a point in time.

I quite clearly decided, and merely opened it up for anyone else to share their thoughts. I explained why I concluded as I have, and invited others to explain what and why they may think, whether with or against my conclusions, about the interpretation of the aorist in this particular verse. You have not expressed any reasoning about it.

Yes, it is a point in time! It can be nothing other than a point of particular reference. The question is to what is the point of reference referring? The ingressive points to the initiation point of believing. The cumulative points to the whole process and its end results.

And Jesus' use of the aorist in John 4 regarding drinking parallels faith in Christ. One drink (aorist) results in NEVER THIRSTING. Once faith in Christ results in NEVER PERISHING.

And you cannot show otherwise. All you can do is show your opinions.

When you answer my question above, I can easily deal with your objections in citing John 4. (And I'm assuming your specifically mean In 4:14!)

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

So, basically, once again, you dodge my question. So you just change the subject. Which was what the present indicative active verb 'believe' means.

I have shown a verse from Jesus' own mouth that refutes your ideas about the PIA of believe. And you dodge, rather than deal with your refutation.

This thread, my thread, is about Acts 16:31. If you care to discuss the specifics of Acts 16:31, I will gladly do so! This alone is the "goalpost"! This is where I stand, where the question stands, where the discussion will stand in as far as my participation goes.


Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

My "theory" is directed solely at Acts 16:31

And you can't decide whether the verb is an ingressive or cumulative. You've proven nothing so far.

and has nothing to do with 1Jn 5 (which by the way, is disastrous for your position). So when you deal with Acts 16:31 itself, I will be more than happy to discuss 1Jn 5.

Empty claims are free. Anyone can make them. I've already dealt with Acts 16:31.
Now it's your turn to show how I am wrong.

All your dodging isn't helpful for your position.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I quite clearly decided, and merely opened it up for anyone else to share their thoughts. I explained why I concluded as I have, and invited others to explain what and why they may think, whether with or against my conclusions, about the interpretation of the aorist in this particular verse. You have not expressed any reasoning about it.

This is what you posted:
"I would suggest, however, that this is an example of an ingressive use of the aorist. The ingressive uses the punctiliar nature of the aorist to express the beginning of something, the initial point of beginning to do the action of the verb, in this case, believing."

All you've got is a "suggestion". If there were actual evidence or proof, it wouldn't be a mere suggestion. And what you posted doesn't prove anything.

Yes, it is a point in time! It can be nothing other than a point of particular reference.

And that's MY point. Once there is belief, whether looking at it from the aorist or present tense, it always saves, seals, justifies.

The question is to what is the point of reference referring? The ingressive points to the initiation point of believing. The cumulative points to the whole process and its end results.

And this doesn't change anything regarding saving faith, now does it.

When you answer my question above, I can easily deal with your objections in citing John 4. (And I'm assuming your specifically mean In 4:14!)
Doug

There is no question in your post.

 

[FreeGrace2]

This thread, my thread, is about Acts 16:31. If you care to discuss the specifics of Acts 16:31, I will gladly do so! This alone is the "goalpost"! This is where I stand, where the question stands, where the discussion will stand in as far as my participation goes.
Doug

What is there left to discuss? Paul told the jailer that from the MOMENT he puts his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, he will be saved.

You posted this:
"Yes, it is a point in time! It can be nothing other than a point of particular reference. The question is to what is the point of reference referring? The ingressive points to the initiation point of believing. The cumulative points to the whole process and its end results."

You have NOT shown how either choice changes the fact that the jailer will be saved from the MOMENT he believes in Christ.

So, what's left to discuss?