Loss of salvation???
- Thread starter gratefuloneson
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Not genuine born again Christians and moral self-reformation is not a substitute for regeneration. (1 Peter 1:23)
Where did you learn this? Can you link me to what you learned from?
What makes you think it's not correct?
Definition from Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace:
Perfect Tense
The force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker). Or, as Zerwick puts it, the perfect tense is used for “indicating not the past action as such but the present ‘state of affairs’ resulting from the past action.”
BDF suggest that the perfect tense “combines in itself, so to speak, the present and the aorist in that it denotes the continuance of completed action. . . .”
Chamberlain goes too far when he suggests that the perfect sometimes is used to “describe an act that has abiding results.” The implication that “the perfect tells you that the event occurred and still has significant results” goes beyond grammar and is therefore misleading. Even more misleading is the notion, frequently found in commentaries, that the perfect tense denotes permanent or eternal results. Such a statement is akin to saying the aorist tense means “once-for-all.” Implications of this sort are to be drawn from considerations that are other than grammatical in nature. One must be careful not to read his or her theology into the syntax whenever it is convenient.
The exact reason I said. You've replaced the verb itself with it's result. The tense shows the verb itself, defining the type of action, which leads to it's result, but is not it's result itself.
Perfect tense verb is a paticular form of an action word, not the effect of that action. It tells you the effect of the action endures, but the action is not the endurance of the action.
Your quotes reflect this also, describing the action, not the current state resulting from that action. Perfect tense verb is not a current state, it's an action that produces a current state.
Much love!
So "genuine born again Christians" cannot have a change of heart but plain jane Christians can?
"Moral self-reformation" ? No one is making such a claim, try again.
I guess I'd have to ask you to go back and reread what I posted and explain why you're so focused on the past action when a point of the perfect tense is a resulting current state, which differentiates it from other verb forms.
The point of the perfect tense is to combine the type of the action - completed in the past - with the resulting state at the time the author uses it. Apart from the resulting state we have an aorist tense. Apart from the past action we have a present tense.
Wallace: Perfect Tense. The chart shows that the perfect may be viewed as combining the aspects of both the aorist and present tense. It speaks of completed action (aorist) with existing results (present). The basic question to be asked is which of these aspects is emphasized in a given context.
Perfect Tense:
A. Intensive Perfect (a.k.a. Resultative Perfect)
1. Definition
The perfect may be used to emphasize the results or present state produced by a past action. The English present often is the best translation for such a perfect. This is a common use of the perfect tense.
Do you know what a stative verb is?
NKJ 1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus...
NET 1 Corinthians 1:2 to the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus...
ESV 1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus...
- Perfect passive participle: Did the translators focus on the past action or the present state?
- Perfect passive participle: Did the translators focus on the past action or the present state?
I never said anything about plain Jane Christians. Yet there are genuine Christians and there are "nominal" or pseudo Christians. There are genuine believers and there are make believers.
You were describing the perfect tense of a verb in ways that did not seem correct to me, so I gave my understanding. The point of the perfect tense is to tell you about the verb, as it is with any verb tense.
It seems to me that you are shifting attention from the syntax to the resultant interpretation, and that you prefer your interpretation, though it is at odds with the tense itself.
You are also now shifting attention to me personally, how I'm "so focused on the past action", as if there is something wrong with that. The past action is what defines the current state. Shifting focus to me personally can only be an attempt to undermine my assertions without having to actually refute them.
I'm not even talking about particular doctrines, only that I don't see your handling of the grammar and it's implications to be correct, and have replied with what I've seen.
No sense in talking about syntax in ways that turn it upside down. The tense of a verb modifies the verb, plain and simple. In many instances this wouldn't even matter that much, as the context nails it down for us. But when we are relying on patterns of word usage in our interpretations, this becomes very important.
There is the possibility of defining an outcome, and then describing the verb to fit that outcome, which is what I think you are doing. By reinforcing the fact that the tense is all about the verb, and that the outcome is consequent of that verb, and not definitive of that verb, I'm closing that door.
Much love!
It is you bringing up the distinction. You are either a Christian or you are not.
There are not "genuine born again Christians" and "nominal Christians".
If a person can have a change of heart and follow Christ then they can also do the reverse.
The door is not barred shut once the Christian enters.
This should be obvious.
Did you personally not have a change of heart or were you born with a heart that could only go in one direction?
Simply stated, no, this is false, and misleading. The point of the perfect tense verb is to show an action with enduring result.
Paul asked rhetorically, Have I not seen the risen Christ? using perfect tense, seen. He is a man who has seen the risen Christ, and nevermore will be a man who has not seen the risen Christ.
The fact that "today" this is true of him is coincident to this being today. It is true today, but was also true yesterday, and will remain true tomorrow. Paul will never again be a man who had not seen the risen Christ.
Combining, as you say, the perfect tense to the present state is to allow for the future state to change, which is what I see you attempting to allow. That's the point, isn't it?
Paul will never again be one who hasn't seen the risen Christ.
Much love!
Of course there are! People who call themself Christian, who have not been regenerated. I'm actually astounded that anyone on this forum would make such a statement.
You are saying then that anyone who says they are Christian are in fact baptized into Christ, a new creation?
Much love!
There certainly are "nominal" (in name only) Christians. Especially those who are mixed up in various false religions and cults that claim to be Christian. Do you actually believe that EVERYONE who claims to be a Christian is a genuine, born again Christian? If you can believe that then you can believe anything.
Those who are born of God have been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever (1 Peter 1:23) and are new creations in Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:17) We have been changed. Praise God! Doing the reverse would be unfathomable for me with a new heart.
You didn't answer my question about your knowledge of stative verbs?
You're arguing that the 'Result' is separate from the 'Verb,' but in the Perfect Tense, the Result IS the Verb's focus. This is why grammarians call it Stative.
Maybe this will help: A stative verb describes a state of being or a condition rather than a progressive action. In the Greek perfect, the focus can shift entirely to this resulting state, which is why scholars call it a "stative" tense. While the past act initiates the condition, the verb itself simply identifies the current standing of the subject - a standing that lasts only as long as the relationship remains intact.
Have you done much with Greek since your Koine class 25 years ago? How long was your Koine class?
Which is what I said earlier about a bunch of us remaining in the faith trying to discuss Scripture about not remaining.
Look . . . I'm not answering every sentence you write, I'm answering what I understand to be the arguments involved.
At the end of the day, I see that you endeavor to place the cart before the horse because you want a different cart.
But the horse leads the cart not the other way around. Of course the perfect tense describes a condition or state, that's the point. It's a state that endures. That's the point of the perfect tense verb.
The bell was rung for the first time, in the perfect tense, speaks towards the fact that the bell will never again be an unrung bell. Yes, an unchanging state, rather than a progressive action.
You focus on the current standing and then posit that this standing may change, using a back door to redefine the verb's use.
I've said this all a number of ways now, no need to continue.
Much love!
loss of Salvation?
No, not According To God's Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided *, Because Of:
1) God's Own All-Sufficient BLOOD Shed FOR mankind ( Yes, even nominal christians )!
2) God's Revelation Of The Mystery, To/For Gentiles, Today, In His Dispensation Of
3) No Unsound doctrine of Christ Has Never Known them "whom He Has Always KNOWN"!!!!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Matthew 7:21-23 AV) . . . . . . . . . (2 Timothy 2:19; Ephesians 1:4-6 AV)
Eh?
-------- *
And, precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified
In The Lord Jesus Christ and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided:
The Bible: The BIG Picture
Amen.
No, not According To God's Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided *, Because Of:
1) God's Own All-Sufficient BLOOD Shed FOR mankind ( Yes, even nominal christians )!
2) God's Revelation Of The Mystery, To/For Gentiles, Today, In His Dispensation Of
The Grace Of God, Biblically Confirming His Eternal Salvation By Justification!:
c) God's Eternal Life Insurance!!!
3) No Unsound doctrine of Christ Has Never Known them "whom He Has Always KNOWN"!!!!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Matthew 7:21-23 AV) . . . . . . . . . (2 Timothy 2:19; Ephesians 1:4-6 AV)
Eh?
-------- *
And, precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified
In The Lord Jesus Christ and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided:
The Bible: The BIG Picture
Amen.
Well, at least you're now saying it's a state, so it looks like we've accomplished something.
But the state only exists up until the point of writing unless context or additional information tells us more. And then we can look at the language and possible connections there and likely argue again.
I've supplied you with a few rounds of grammatical scholarship that states this current state limitation clearly.
You've provided nothing but your opinion while inserting your theological bias into the grammar and projecting that error onto me.
The next thing you should look at is the concept of a historical fact vs. an existing state or current standing.
You are still trying a work around to arrive at your view. A verb is a verb, it denotes the action. You have to start there. A perfect tense verb is an action - not the result, the action itself - and then we understand from the syntax - it's tense - that the effect of the action endures.
Hebrews has a great example of this, "we have become (perfect tense) partakers of Christ if we hold our confidence to the end". The conditional part, If we hold our confidence to the end, is what shows whether or not we have now actually become partakers of Christ. The perfect tense shows it endures, and if it doesn't (then), this means we had not become (perfect tense) partakers of Christ (now).
Here again the tense shows the endurance of the result of the action, with the contition showing whether or not that action had actually occured.
Much love!
Sin onto death is punishment.
Punishment is for those whom chastening was rejected....
Parents chasten their children.
Parents will punish children who refuse to heed chastening.
If the sin onto were for being an unbeliever?
All unbelievers would be miserable, and die before their time.
Here speaks of the sin unto death.
For the one who eats and drinks, if he does not recognize the body, eats and drinks judgment against himself. Because of this, many are weak and sick among you, and quite a few have died."
1 Corinthians 11:29-30
.....