The Absolutism of Verb Tense

[posthuman]

What if Paul had said; 'I have not fought a good fight, I have not finished the race, and I have not kept the faith'? If you had everlasting life when you first believed, will you still have everlasting life when you fail to believe in the future? The action is ongoing, you must believe in the past, present, and future. For me; "whosoever believeth in him should not perish" was not all inclusive of "whomsoever stops believing". The promise is secure, but contingent on a believer believing until the end.

if you have "everlasting life" that dies, what kind of everlasting is that?

it's false. a forgery. it's not the kind of life that the Lord gives.

the hypothetical "belief" you're talking about isn't belief at all, just intellectual assent, that can be blown away with wind, like chaff.

 

[Splagna]

Only thing is 'hath/has' is in the present tense but so is 'believeth/believes' is also in the present tense, so the argument is..
"It doesn't say whoever 'believed' but 'believes', therefore you must continually believe in order to continually have eternal life"

So sometimes we must go elsewhere in addition to verb tenses or one verse to make our case.

Right on. I took the liberty to slightly modify your comment above to better reflect the Greek grammar. Both believes and has eternal life are in the present tense and reflect a linear/continuous action.

 

[Splagna]

Yes verb tenses and noun usages do have to be taken into account, however with that being said the verb tenses and nouns do not out weigh the total context of the scriptures. Nor does it give us the right to make one scripture stand alone without using the rest of the Word of God to understand the whole meaning in how something is used.

Example would be Matthew 10:22's endure to the end to be saved can not be taken by itself without that of such scriptures as Hebrews 10:36 and 2 Timothy 2:12.

Scripture to interpret scripture !!!

Good point! Greek grammar alone isn’t a tie breaker. Students who are well versed in the Biblical languages still have theological disagreements. Knowing good grammar is a first step in doing theology, but must be followed with other considerations like background, context etc.


One example of a contended Greek passage is Romans 3:22.

In Romans 3:22 we find:
δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή
even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; (NASB)


Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ/Jesus Christ is in the genitive and most scholars view it as an objective genitive and translate like the NASB has above. In other words Jesus Christ is the object of faith.



However, others see the phrase as a subjective genitive and translate it as;
God’s righteousness comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who have faith in him. There’s no distinction. (CEB).


The subjective genitive would see Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ/Jesus Christ as producing the action or in this case “faith”.

As can be seen by this example the Greek grammar isn’t the last word, and a decision must be made through the exegetical process rather than strictly by grammar alone.

Don’t get me wrong—Greek grammar is an important part of the interpretive process, but only a part of the process.