Use of the aorist

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"v.17b speaks of "sharing in His sufferings" while v.12a speaks of "enduring". They are the same thing. Still with me?"

Being related does not establish being equal or being " the same thing"! Yes, suffering needs to be endured, but suffering is not endurance! Yes, endurance is meaningless without something difficult to endure, but endurance is not the suffering that's being endured.

Doug

OK, so you're not able to follow the reality. The 2 verses ARE about the same thing, but you just don't want to admit it, or aren't able to understand that they are.

 

[TibiasDad]

Nothing posted by any of you or any scholar proves anything. The Greek is clear enough.

And on what basis is that true? How do you know "the Greek is clear enough"?

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"When are you going to realize that this isn't the issue? And never was.

The single issue is WHEN one receives the gift of eternal life that Jesus gives.

Do you know when?"

When they die and/or at the final judgement!

Doug

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

Now you need to explain HOW Jesus could say that those who believe "HAVE", meaning possess, eternal life in John 5:24 and 6:47?

And John, who said the same thing in 1 John 5:11, 13.

If the gift is given at death, all these verses would be WRONG. But the "have" is in the present tense.

You need some 'splainin' to do.

 

[TibiasDad]

Jealous?

Thank you for the admission of no proper Greek training...at least your being honest at one point. This is progress!

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"Nothing posted by any of you or any scholar proves anything. The Greek is clear enough."

And on what basis is that true? How do you know "the Greek is clear enough"?

Doug

If it isn't, then prove how unclear it really is.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Thank you for the admission of no proper Greek training...at least your being honest at one point. This is progress!

Doug

Nice ad hominem. I've never ever posted anything dishonest.

 

[TibiasDad]

I said:
"When are you going to realize that this isn't the issue? And never was.

The single issue is WHEN one receives the gift of eternal life that Jesus gives.

Do you know when?"

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

Now you need to explain HOW Jesus could say that those who believe "HAVE", meaning possess, eternal life in John 5:24 and 6:47?

And John, who said the same thing in 1 John 5:11, 13.

If the gift is given at death, all these verses would be WRONG. But the "have" is in the present tense.

You need some 'splainin' to do.

And you have been shown time and again that the biblical writers always refer to eternal life as a "promise". We have his promise of eternal life, not eternal life itself! We live by faith as if we have that which we are promised. We live by the certainty of God's character that one day we will possess experiential life eternal; but that can only be in eternity when " this mortal shall put on immortality " for "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom", but we "will be transformed in the twinkling of an eye...and we will be changed"!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

I said:
"Nothing posted by any of you or any scholar proves anything. The Greek is clear enough."

If it isn't, then prove how unclear it really is.

Again, dodging the question, and shifting the burden. The question is not whether it is clear enough, but on what basis you claim it to be so?

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Nice ad hominem. I've never ever posted anything dishonest.

So you've had proper Greek training? If not, how is it an attack "against the man"?

Doug

 

[bcbsr]

The effects of an action are not assumed any more than the action's continuance or completion. The aorist simply tells us something happened; not how or how long it took or if the action continues or ceases.
Doug

That's what I'm saying. But you seem to be applying it to the wrong verb.

In Acts 16:31, "believing" is in the aorist. "will be saved" is in the future indicative. It's the "will be saved" that you seem to be applying the ingressive aorist claiming that the fact the person is saved only applies for that instance, but whether or not the person's salvation continues is uncertain. That's not what it says. It states "will be saved" not as an ingressive aorist, but as the future indicative, "indicative" meaning that its stating a future event as a fact.

In contrast I applied the ingressive aorist to "believing" which apparently you didn't think to do. As an ingressive aorist it means that the condition to be saved is to start believing, regardless of whether or not that believing continues.

 

[GDL]

Now you're making think your views are delusional. 2 Thess 2:12 specifically says that condemnation is for those who "have not believed", and you STILL HAVEN'T proven that "have not believed" does not mean "have never believed".

Actually, the burden of proof for this "never" concept has been and still is right now (perfect tense) on you since you inserted it into John3:18 in your post #113. I, and I think at least a few of us, are still waiting for you to truly prove your case beyond your typical shifting of responsibility and self-deceived view & strategy that your telling others they haven't proved anything is actual proof & fact.

Do you know or remotely care how non-credible you reveal yourself to be in these discussions?

The interesting thing among Christians is that we all should be helping one another to grow in Truth. IMV Doug has proven himself to be extremely patient with you. LGW has proven to be willing to provide whatever lengthy detail is necessary to get to the Truth. I know I can assist you with exegesis & I know my mind is open to see something I have not seen before & turn at a moment in the direction of Truth, which is to know Christ better.

I also know you do not currently have the ability to take up my challenge to prove your "never" insertion (whether right or wrong) into John3:18. I also know that between Doug, LGW, me, and [possibly???] you, we could likely delve into all the options available to us in order to find the Truth. FYI, I haven't done this work yet to the degree I would want to, and I have no intention to do it to prove something to you, so you can simply add me to the Mounce & Wallace list of whom you simply & arrogantly discredit with a few keystrokes (actually, to be added to such a list would be a high point for me as one who is very thankful for the work they've done for us).

I said above, "all the options," because there are multiple classifications & interpretational options within each verb tense + the interwoven interactions between words. Do you realize that one of the reasons exegesis is so tough is that we're dealing with an interwoven complexity of 300,000+ words in the NT with all of these multiple interpretational options? And, we're dealing with an Omniscient mind that for want of a better illustration has over 7 billion (?) people/pieces on a chessboard and knows precisely how to move each & every one of them around for whatever perfect, interwoven interactions He desires to make for whatever are His manifold purposes?

Frankly your coming across like you've got it all figured out and no one can otherwise prove anything to you speaks leagues against you.

With that said, I went back & looked at a chapter in John this morning that I saw many years ago as providing information from Jesus Himself that I had never heard, or certainly was never impressed deeply upon me in thousands of intense hours of FG instruction. At this moment (still pondering) I think Jesus actually destroys your concept of a one-time belief for eternal life and makes the case for only continuing belief for eternal life.

To leave this on a positive note: Thanks in a sense for your aggressive tactics and dogged eisegesis. It makes me go back and look at things again (which I do anyway, but maybe not with the same intensity at times).

 

[FreeGrace2]

And you have been shown time and again that the biblical writers always refer to eternal life as a "promise".

I'm NOT giving you a pass here.

Jesus and John stated the possession of eternal life in the PRESENT TENSE.

John 5:24 - “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes (present participle) him who sent me HAS (PIA) eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

John 6:47 - Very truly I tell you, the one who believes (present participle) HAS (PIA) eternal life.

1 John 5:11 - And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life (aorist indicative), and this life is in his Son.

1 John 5:13 - I write these things to you who believe (present participle) in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you HAVE (PIA) eternal life.

We have his promise of eternal life, not eternal life itself!

The ONLY remaining issue between us is your explanation of WHY Jesus and John used the PIA for possession of eternal life.

None of the verses speaks of a future promise, as you are insinuating. In fact, both Jesus and John say PLAINLY that eternal life is a PRESENT POSSESSION for believers.

Oh, and none of you guys have provided any verses that say PLAINLY that eternal life can be revoked, removed, cancelled, lost, forfeited, misplaced, or any other description of no longer having possession of it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Again, dodging the question, and shifting the burden. The question is not whether it is clear enough, but on what basis you claim it to be so?

Doug

On the basis of the FACT that I fully understand the Engish language. And that IS CLEAR ENOUGH.

Now, if you want to argue about clarity, the BURDEN is on you to prove that the English isn't correct and the Greek says something else.

Which you know isn't the case.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So you've had proper Greek training? If not, how is it an attack "against the man"?

Doug

Let''s examine exactly what your ad hominem was, in post #186.

"Thank you for the admission of no proper Greek training...at least your being honest at one point. This is progress!"

You have insinuated that I'm NOT honest on EVERY OTHER POINT.

Again, nice ad hominem.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That's what I'm saying. But you seem to be applying it to the wrong verb.

In Acts 16:31, "believing" is in the aorist. "will be saved" is in the future indicative. It's the "will be saved" that you seem to be applying the ingressive aorist claiming that the fact the person is saved only applies for that instance, but whether or not the person's salvation continues is uncertain. That's not what it says. It states "will be saved" not as an ingressive aorist, but as the future indicative, "indicative" meaning that its stating a future event as a fact.

In contrast I applied the ingressive aorist to "believing" which apparently you didn't think to do. As an ingressive aorist it means that the condition to be saved is to start believing, regardless of whether or not that believing continues.

Bingo!! Great post!

 

[FreeGrace2]

Actually, the burden of proof for this "never" concept has been and still is right now (perfect tense) on you since you inserted it into John3:18 in your post #113.

Don't you actually read my posts??

I never "inserted" anything. I merely pointed out that "has not believed" means "have NEVER believed". So, if you disagree, YOU need to prove me wrong.

I made the claim. If I'm wrong, it should be EASY to disprove it. Can you?

After all these back and forth posts, you STILL have't even tried to do that.

I'm guessing you can't. Because what I said is so obviously true.

When a person DOES believe, it CANNOT be said of them that they "have not believed", because they DID believe. How isn't that obvious?

If a person NEVER believed, then it CAN be said of them that they "have not believed", because they NEVER believed.

So, your challenge is to address these obvious facts and disprove them.

Hint: truth can never be disproved. So, if you have the truth, it should be easy. But, otoh, if you don't have the truth, you can't refute anything.

I, and I think at least a few of us, are still waiting for you to truly prove your case beyond your typical shifting of responsibility and self-deceived view & strategy that your telling others they haven't proved anything is actual proof & fact.

Ha. I'm not "shifting responsibility" at all. I'm challenging your views by my claim. So, prove me wrong, if you can.

Do you know or remotely care how non-credible you reveal yourself to be in these discussions?

Actually, I KNOW how non-credible you guys are by your refusal to address my claim at all, and resort to dodgeball by claiming that I am shifting responsibility.

The interesting thing among Christians is that we all should be helping one another to grow in Truth.[/QUTOE]
And I've shared much truth with all of you.

IMV Doug has proven himself to be extremely patient with you. LGW has proven to be willing to provide whatever lengthy detail is necessary to get to the Truth. I know I can assist you with exegesis & I know my mind is open to see something I have not seen before & turn at a moment in the direction of Truth, which is to know Christ better.

None of you have gotten to "the truth". In fact, you keep rejecting it.

I also know you do not currently have the ability to take up my challenge to prove your "never" insertion (whether right or wrong) into John3:18.

This is a real laugh riot! I have made a claim, and you cannot disprove it. It's so obvious to anyone who doesn't have an agenda to defend.

Bottom line: you CANNOT disprove my claim.

Frankly your coming across like you've got it all figured out and no one can otherwise prove anything to you speaks leagues against you.

All I'm asking is for you who claim to have "the truth" to disprove my "untruth" if you can. But I see that none of you guys can.

With that said, I went back & looked at a chapter in John this morning that I saw many years ago as providing information from Jesus Himself that I had never heard, or certainly was never impressed deeply upon me in thousands of intense hours of FG instruction. At this moment (still pondering) I think Jesus actually destroys your concept of a one-time belief for eternal life and makes the case for only continuing belief for eternal life.

you're free to think anything you want. So what? What Jesus said was crystal clear to anyone with open ears and eyes.

He said recipients of eternal life shall never perish. When are you going to tell me when you think the recipients actually RECEIVE the gift of eternal life?

At least Doug addressed the question and gave me an answer, for which I soundly refuted. Do you have an answer?

To leave this on a positive note: Thanks in a sense for your aggressive tactics and dogged eisegesis.

Nice try, but I've given no eisegesis. That's just a dodge when the cards are stacked against you. Or in this case, the verses.

It makes me go back and look at things again (which I do anyway, but maybe not with the same intensity at times).

Good idea! Go back and review until the truth sinks in.

 

[GDL]

I never "inserted" anything. I merely pointed out that "has not believed" means "have NEVER believed".

Has not believed means has not believed until you prove your theory of meaning.
Self-delusion & dishonesty runs deep.
You're out of bait.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Has not believed means has not believed until you prove your theory of meaning.

What do I have to prove? All English translations have "has not believed". So, can you prove that the phrase CANNOT mean "has NEVER believed"?

That's YOUR challenge. If you decide to take it up.

Self-delusion & dishonesty runs deep.

Nice ad hominem. One of your other buddies likes to do that as well.

You're out of bait.

That's just hilarious. Here's the truth. You're out of truth.

If you can't prove that "has NOT believed" does NOT mean "has NEVER believed", then why wouldn't it mean that?

If you had the truth, you'd be able to disprove my claim, if it weren't the truth.

My belief is that the truth always trumps untruth. Maybe you don't believe that. But I do.

So, prove me wrong, if you can.

Ball's in your court. Swing or miss.

I predict miss.

 

[TibiasDad]

That's what I'm saying. But you seem to be applying it to the wrong verb.

In Acts 16:31, "believing" is in the aorist. "will be saved" is in the future indicative. It's the "will be saved" that you seem to be applying the ingressive aorist claiming that the fact the person is saved only applies for that instance, but whether or not the person's salvation continues is uncertain. That's not what it says. It states "will be saved" not as an ingressive aorist, but as the future indicative, "indicative" meaning that its stating a future event as a fact.

In contrast I applied the ingressive aorist to "believing" which apparently you didn't think to do. As an ingressive aorist it means that the condition to be saved is to start believing, regardless of whether or not that believing continues.

I am doing nothing of the sort! I have done exactly as you have done in your last paragraph. However, that believing must be started to be saved in the the future is not to say that only starting to believe is the condition for salvation. Believing is the condition, not the starting itself. But to be believing one must start believing! That is the emphasis of using the ingressive aorist. It would be the same if I were to say the one who finishes the race will win the prize, so run the race to win, then starting the race is necessary, but starting does not win the race, finishing the race does!


Doug

 

[GDL]

Acts16:31 again (the merry-go-round discussion lands on Acts16:31 again):

NKJ Acts 16:31 So they said, "Believe (Aorist Active Imperative) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved (Future Passive Indicative), you and your household."

Believe in the Aorist Active Imperative: (quotes are from Wallace GGBtheB)

1. The grammatical structure of Acts16:31: "Imperative + and + Future Indicative" fits the Conditional Imperative category of Imperatives. Thus, this can simply be saying, If you believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ, then you will be saved.

A. From there we could look at the Aorist tense parsing of the Imperative verb for more information.

B. If we take the Aorist as a Constative Aorist – “by far the most common of use of the Aorist,” then it’s describing belief only “in summary fashion, without focusing on the beginning or end of the action specifically.” The action can be iterative, durative, or momentary, but the aorist says none of this. “It places the stress on the fact of the occurrence, not its nature.’ SO, if we take the Aorist tense as Constative, we’re being told nothing about the action of the Aorist Belief, other than it is being commanded here. SO, we would need to know about Biblical Belief from other instruction.

C. If we take the Aorist as Ingressive – which “is quite common” – then it can be telling us of the “beginning of an action or the entrance into a state.” I see mainly from English grammar resources that “believe” is a stative verb, so the Ingressive would be speaking of entrance into the state of Biblical Belief, whatever this is. SO, once again, we would need to know more about Biblical Belief from other instruction.

D. Conclusion: The Conditional Imperative would just be telling us, If you believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ, then you will be saved. If the Aorist is interpreted as Constative, then Belief could be something repeated, lasting, or momentary, but we cannot derive this in this verse. If the Aorist is interpreted as Ingressive, then the focus of the command is to enter into the state of [Biblical] Belief upon the Lord Jesus Christ, whatever Biblical Belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is. Whatever Biblical Belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is, it eventuates in a future of being saved (again, whatever saved means).

2. If we interpret the Aorist Active Imperative as simply being a Volitional Clause, within the Acts16:31 close context of the specific and obvious urgency of the matter, then the Imperative is telling us of this specific & urgent matter and the entrance into Biblical Belief, whatever this is, and the future (whenever this is) of being saved (whatever saved means) as its solution.

3. SO, if Volitional or Conditional, or both overlapping, what is the state of [Biblical] Belief in the Lord Jesus Christ? Is it something repeated, continuous, or momentary? Acts16:31 doesn’t say. But it certainly implies that the state of Belief is something within which being saved in the future takes place. SO, our choices are: (1) enter into the state & remain there and you will be saved (durative) or (2) enter into the state and leave and reenter and leave and reenter and… the state and you will be saved (iterative) or (3) enter into the state and leave and do not reenter and you will be saved (momentary however long the moment is?) or (4) enter into the state for a moment and who cares after that and you will be saved (typical very brief moment). Again, Acts16:31 doesn’t specifically say which one is the best interpretation, but only 1 sounds logical to me, especially since the Lord Jesus Christ is the current and eternal King of Kings & Lord of Lords with all authority in Heaven and upon earth forever. Really, what’s the debate here?