Saved by Grace Through Faith, Not by Works

[FreeGrace]

How are plain passages I quote my imagination, but your inturpretation of something truth?

The plain passages are just that. It's your view of them that is in your own imagination.

Did Paul say they were guilty or not of the body and blood of Christ?

He did, and I explained why your view of this is not true.

A believer in Christ is not guilty of His body and blood.

They are when they abuse the Lord's Table. For heaven's sake, just read the context to see WHY Paul wrote what he did.

Do you believe there is another sacrifice for being found guilty of the body and blood of Christ?

Huh? Christ died for the sins of humanity once and for all. That means every sin of every person, one time.

The writer of Hebrews says its this way in ch 10:
17 Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.”
18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

Note that between ch 9-10, the writer says "once for all" 7 times. For a reason.

 

[FreeGrace]

Well, what happened was my post did not turn out correct because of an extra quote box. I fixed it, so you can go back and review it.

No, thank you.

What's interesting is one of the above quotes you just said is backwards is your own quote from a previous post. You just said that what you said earlier was backwards.

Apparently because of your own screwed up posting.

I really think that if you slowed down on the posts you might catch what is being said.

I might catch what is being said when the poster doesn't screw up his own posts.

If you would, could you show me where all those not found in Christ have never believed?

Why isn't that just plain obvious? The real issue of debate is the claim that one who has been marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit can ever be undone. Where is THAT found in Scripture? No one has yet provided any evidence for that.

So it remains just an opinion, an imagination, or fake news.

I find that there will/are some who have believed - who then turn from Christ.

This isn't the debate at all, at least not for me. I have ALWAYS noted that there are believers who do turn away from Christ.

So the question is; how does this result in the undoing of what Eph 1:13,14 GUARANTEES?

You you know what Eph 1:13,14 guarantees? It seems not.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"The point of John 5:24 is about those who now (present tense) believe will not be judged, or condemned, but have passed from death to life."

That's what I've been saying!

Not really. You've twisted the present tense to mean "presently" in an on-going matter for an extended time (to the end of one's life) for never perishing. You've taken a tense that means "right now" and corrupted it to mean continuous action out into the future.

It means no such thing. Please stop abusing the Greek present tense.

Jesus said the person who is presently believing has in that very moment of believing eternal life.

Jesus goes much further than that. In Jn 10:28 He promises that those He gives eternal life will never perish. There is NO THOUGHT of anything between initial receiving of eternal life and physical death that might change or nullify the promise of never perishing.

But you have been dogmatically asserting, in complete contradiction to John 5:24 NASB, that present believing is NOT required to presently have eternal life

This is so blatantly untrue, I'm just amazed at your false charge. And you just agreed at the beginning of your post with my statement about Jn 5;24. So you're just flip-flopping.

and that the former believer who does not presently believe has eternal life--in complete contradiction to Jesus' own words.

There is no contradiction. The FACT is, those He GIVES eternal life WILL NEVER PERISH. Please let that sink in. Jesus gave no conditions for never perishing. Just receiving the gift is what results in never perishing.

Just because a person presently believes and, therefore, presently has eternal life doesn't mean that person will believe in the future (that is the Calvinist argument, and I'm certainly no Calvinist.)

I reject the Calvinist argument as strongly as I reject the Arminian argument about loss of salvation.

If the one who presently believes does believe in the future he will have eternal life in that moment of believing, too.

There are NO verses that teach this. This is an Arminian construct only.

If he doesn't believe in the future he will cease to fulfill Jesus' words in John 5:24 NASB and will not have eternal life at that future time of not believing.

Very faulty conclusion. Not true. See John 10:28 for the truth about how one will never perish.

That argument is exactly consistent with the present tense 'believing' that Jesus says you must presently have to presently have eternal life.

Why does this abuse of the Greek present tense continue. There is no excuse for it.

But you keep changing what he said to 'you have eternal life if you believed somewhere in the past but do not presently believe'. That's NOT what Jesus said.

I refer you to John 10:28 where Jesus promised that those He gives eternal life will never perish.

Now, address the argument. Free grace doctrine can not ignore Jesus' own words and say that the person who stopped believing has, in this present moment, eternal life because Jesus said it is the believing person (present tense) that has eternal life (John 5:24 NASB).

The argument is patently false, bogus. Jesus promised that from His own action of giving eternal life, the recipient WILL NEVER PERISH in Jn 10:28. But your views are in complete disagreement with Jesus' clear promise.

Instead of explaining why Free grace doctrine can contradict Jesus' words you make up an argument about the present tense that I'm not even arguing.

Your whole argument is based on opinion, without any evidence. You've had to pervert the Greek present tense to come to your conclusion, which is not supported by either Greek grammar or the Bible.

 

[FreeGrace]

...and having eternal life is the result of present believing (John 5:24 NASB).

It seems you're stuck on this verse, but please study Jn 10:28 where Jesus made very clear how one will never perish. By being a recipient of the gift of eternal life.
I'm sure every Arminian will readily agree that they believe every word of Jesus. So please believe Jesus' promise of HOW to never perish. The way is to be a recipient of eternal life.

That makes never perishing contingent on present believing,

Until one comes to an understanding of Jesus' promise in Jn 10:28, they will continue to fail to understand HOW one will never perish. And you're still perverting the Greek present tense. It does not mean what you claim.

not a believing done in the past but which has now ceased at the present time.

Please cease this abuse of the present tense.

You keep ignoring Jesus' own words that it is the presently believing person that has eternal life:

Please study John 10:28 and Jesus' promise of HOW one will never perish. It's about being a recipient of eternal life.

Now address the argument. 'Believes' is in the present tense. He who presently believes Him who sent Jesus has eternal life, not the person who doesn't presently believe. Read it. There is no eternal life (never perishing) apart from present believing.

Untrue claim. Jesus' promise in John 10:28 is about receiving eternal life. Not the requirement of on-going belief, as is being erroneously claimed.

 

[Nathan]

The definition of faith is complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Faith in God is
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

I don't know what you mean by, "Faith is the essence of receiving and producing truth in us. God designed it this way so that we constantly walk by His truth and not our own."

God gave us a measure of faith when he made us. Romans 12:3 Faith is a commodity more precious than gold and silver. 1 Pet. 1:7

You would not say draw truth from the well of faith. You might say draw faith from the well of faith. Or truth from the well of truth. But the Bible uses the word, 'fountain' as in Pr. 13:14, 14:27 16:22, 18:4 Anyway, faith isn't a well.

Jesus said they would hear but they would not understand. Mt. 13:13-19 So it is by understanding that we receive the words of God. Those who believe Jesus believe Jesus is the truth.
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

We know his word is true.
John 16:13
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

John 17:8
for I have given them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me.

I'm just saying the living water is the word of God.

Psalm 119:130
The unfolding of thy words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.

Excellent. These are the kinds of discussions I really like.

There are two 'types' of faith. Man's faith - God's faith. Faith is simply believing and doing what you understand to be true. When you believe and do things based on Man's faith - you sin. When you believe and do things based on God's faith - you are righteous. The difference between the two is absolute truth. Man's faith is not based on pure truth. God's faith is based on pure truth.

Jhn 4:10
Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.”

God's faith can only be given to us. We cannot take it, or make it up ourselves. It is a gift from God. God's faith is given to us in order to understand the truth. Truth is only understood through faith.

Jhn 14:15-17
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

The Spirit is given to us in order to distinguish what is truth - and what is not. That is why those who are void of the Spirit cannot understand the truth - neither can they contain it or use it. When the Spirit comes into the believer, then that person now has the ability to know truth and do truth - this is called true faith.

This is why it is impossible to have truly believe in Christ without the 'gift' of God - which is the faith of God - given to us by the Spirit of God.

The Spirit of truth dwells in us by that faith.

Gal 3:2-3
Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

So, the Spirit of truth is Who comes and dwells in us containing the truth of God. In that we live and walk by faith. Its true faith because it comes from understanding the truth of God, which is only because of the Spirit of God.

Jesus was telling the woman at the well that the "gift" of God, which is given by the Spirit of God, would be the living water. Faith is that gift, and we know that the faith we have is true when we see the life it gives in us and from us.

To bring this back home, you are correct - truth is what the 'well'(structure) is because it is the Spirit of truth. Truth is the qualification of the faith of God. If a persons faith is not 100% true - then it is not God's faith. From the 'well'(structure) of truth, we have the 'welling'(flow) of faith that is in the person and flows from the person.

Faith is the manifestation of what is inside a person. False faith is not life giving. True faith is life giving. It is by true faith that we live.

Rom 1:17
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.

Gal 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Heb 10:38
but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him.”

 

[GodsGrace]

Excellent. These are the kinds of discussions I really like.

There are two 'types' of faith. Man's faith - God's faith. Faith is simply believing and doing what you understand to be true. When you believe and do things based on Man's faith - you sin. When you believe and do things based on God's faith - you are righteous. The difference between the two is absolute truth. Man's faith is not based on pure truth. God's faith is based on pure truth.

Jhn 4:10
Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.”

God's faith can only be given to us. We cannot take it, or make it up ourselves. It is a gift from God. God's faith is given to us in order to understand the truth. Truth is only understood through faith.

Jhn 14:15-17
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

The Spirit is given to us in order to distinguish what is truth - and what is not. That is why those who are void of the Spirit cannot understand the truth - neither can they contain it or use it. When the Spirit comes into the believer, then that person now has the ability to know truth and do truth - this is called true faith.

This is why it is impossible to have truly believe in Christ without the 'gift' of God - which is the faith of God - given to us by the Spirit of God.

The Spirit of truth dwells in us by that faith.

Gal 3:2-3
Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

So, the Spirit of truth is Who comes and dwells in us containing the truth of God. In that we live and walk by faith. Its true faith because it comes from understanding the truth of God, which is only because of the Spirit of God.

Jesus was telling the woman at the well that the "gift" of God, which is given by the Spirit of God, would be the living water. Faith is that gift, and we know that the faith we have is true when we see the life it gives in us and from us.

To bring this back home, you are correct - truth is what the 'well'(structure) is because it is the Spirit of truth. Truth is the qualification of the faith of God. If a persons faith is not 100% true - then it is not God's faith. From the 'well'(structure) of truth, we have the 'welling'(flow) of faith that is in the person and flows from the person.

Faith is the manifestation of what is inside a person. False faith is not life giving. True faith is life giving. It is by true faith that we live.

Rom 1:17
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.

Gal 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Heb 10:38
but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him.”

You like this Nathan?

Good.

There's a lot of misunderstanding with:
2 Timothy 2:12-13

verse 12 says that if we deny God HE WILL DENY US.
verse 13 says that if we are not faithful to Him, He is still faithful to us.

Those that believe that salvation is secure till death no matter what will always point to verse 13.

But if they are right, then the bible is contradicting itself!
So,. verse 13 must mean something other than what they say, which is that God will be faithful to save us
NO MATTER what we do or believe (after initial salvation).

Of course what it means is that God is faithful to Himself and to HIS plan of salvation which was before the foundation of the world.
Genesis 3:15 and NOT that He is faithful to save an individual who has abandoned his faith and belief in God and Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

It is NOT correct to use 2 Timothy 2:12-13 in support of OSAS.

If you, or anyone, would care to expound on this, it would be nice.

 

[MarkT]

I wasn't discussion physical food. Of course no one survives from one meal. But your application to the spiritual realm is refuted by the very words of Jesus, when evangelizing the woman at the well in John 4:
14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

The tense for "drinks the water I give" is aorist. That means a simple occurrence, or a point in time action. Not continuing or on-going action.

What about they will become a spring of water. that's a continuing action.


In fact, only 1 soil didn't produce a plant (#1). All the rest did produce plants from the seeds that fell. But only 1 soil produced fruit.


The on-going assumption is that one who has been "marked IN HIM with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit GUARANTEEING our inheritance for the day of redemption" (Eph 1:1314) can somehow (undescribed anywhere in Scripture) can be removed from being IN HIM.

So, where is the clear evidence of this supposed removal? If being removed from being IN HIM were possible, then v.13,14 are basically meaningless. There is no GUARANTEE of our inheritance, and the "day of redemption" means nothing.

A promise is a promise. God cannot lie, per Heb 6:18.


All who have believed have the Son and eternal life. All who have never believed do not have either the Son, nor eternal life.

And...the present tense says NOTHING ABOUT THE FUTURE. So your point is moot.


No, I've sided with the WHOLE COUNSEL OF SCRIPTURE. And the aorist tense is used for believing and being marked with a seal.

Please stop abusing the present tense and trying to force it so say what it DOES NOT SAY.


That's NOT what it either says or means. This is just a continued abuse of the present tense.

I'm being charged with "changing" verses, yet here is an OBVIOUS example of doing it yourself!! Just note the inserted "only" word in your statement. Where do we EVER find the use of that word in Scripture? Your bias against the aorist tense is shown clearly.

Where is your explanation for the aorist tense in Luke 8:12, Acts 16:31, Rom 10:9 for 'believing' and Eph 1:13 for being marked in Him with a seal?


I've pointed out correctly the meaning of the future for one who is presently believing. They have eternal life, they will NOT be judged, and they have passed from spiritual death to eternal life.

The present tense NEVER suggests on-going action into the future, which is what you're trying to force it to do.


Please cease abusing the present tense and start acknowledging the aorist tense, which ignores duration of time.

And...the present tense says NOTHING ABOUT THE FUTURE. So your point is moot.


No, I've sided with the WHOLE COUNSEL OF SCRIPTURE. And the aorist tense is used for believing and being marked with a seal.

Please stop abusing the present tense and trying to force it so say what it DOES NOT SAY.


That's NOT what it either says or means. This is just a continued abuse of the present tense.

I'm being charged with "changing" verses, yet here is an OBVIOUS example of doing it yourself!! Just note the inserted "only" word in your statement. Where do we EVER find the use of that word in Scripture? Your bias against the aorist tense is shown clearly.

Where is your explanation for the aorist tense in Luke 8:12, Acts 16:31, Rom 10:9 for 'believing' and Eph 1:13 for being marked in Him with a seal?


I've pointed out correctly the meaning of the future for one who is presently believing. They have eternal life, they will NOT be judged, and they have passed from spiritual death to eternal life.

The present tense NEVER suggests on-going action into the future, which is what you're trying to force it to do.


Please cease abusing the present tense and start acknowledging the aorist tense, which ignores duration of time.

You're saying they believed once and they were sealed forever. That's not ignoring duration. That's implying duration.

The aorist tense reports the bare fact it happened. They heard the word. They believed. They were sealed. Nothing more than the bare fact it happened.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You've twisted the present tense to mean "presently" in an on-going matter for an extended time (to the end of one's life) for never perishing. You've taken a tense that means "right now" and corrupted it to mean continuous action out into the future.

No.
Right now.
What is it about 'right now' that you do not understand?

Tomorrow if you do not believe you will no longer have eternal life because Jesus said it is the one who believes (present tense) that has eternal life:

"he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24 NASB bold mine)

But Freegrace doctrine wants us to ignore Jesus' words and believe what it says, that the person who stops believing has eternal life.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm sure every Arminian will readily agree that they believe every word of Jesus. So please believe Jesus' promise of HOW to never perish. The way is to be a recipient of eternal life.

And present believing is how you have eternal life.
You keep ignoring John 5:24 NASB.
That's not right to do.
Shame on Freegrace doctrine for requiring us to take John 10:28 out of the context of all that Jesus said about never perishing. Shame, shame.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi FreeGrace
You know how I've been telling you how complicated the aorist tense is...
You never really answered me as to your qualifications to even speak about it.

The next time you bring up the tense, could you please tell us WHICH ONE?
Thanks.

P.S. There's plenty more besides Wikipedia...

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Aorist (Ancient Greek)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Aorist.
In the grammar of Ancient Greek, including Koine, the aorist (pronounced /ˈeɪ.ərᵻst/ or /ˈɛərᵻst/) is a class of verb forms that generally portray a situation as simple or undefined, that is, as having perfective aspect. In the grammatical terminology of classical Greek, it is a tense, one of the seven divisions of the conjugation of a verb, found in all moods and voices.



Contents
[1 Terminology

• 2 Morphology
  • 2.1 First
    • 2.1.1 Compensatory lengthening
    • 2.1.2 First aorist endings
  • 2.2 Second
    • 2.2.1 Zero-grade
    • 2.2.2 Reduplication
    • 2.2.3 Second aorist endings
    • 2.2.4 Second aorist passive
  • 2.3 Root

• 3 Syntax
  • 3.1 Indicative mood
    • 3.1.1 Narrative
    • 3.1.2 Complexive
    • 3.1.3 Past-in-the-past
    • 3.1.4 Ingressive
    • 3.1.5 Resultative
    • 3.1.6 Gnomic
    • 3.1.7 Dramatic
  • 3.2 Indicative mood with particle
    • 3.2.1 Unattainable wish
    • 3.2.2 Past potential
    • 3.2.3 Iterative
    • 3.2.4 Unreal
  • 3.3 Participles
  • 3.4 Non-indicative moods
  • 3.5 Optative mood
    • 3.5.1 Potential

• 4 See also

• 5 Notes

• 6 References

Terminology[edit]
In traditional grammatical terminology, the aorist is a "tense", a section of the verb paradigm formed with the same stem across all moods. By contrast, in theoretical linguistics, tense refers to a form that specifies a point in time (past, present, or future), so the aorist is a tense-aspect combination.

The literary Greek of Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries BC, Attic Greek, was the standard school-room form of Greek for centuries. This article therefore chiefly describes the Attic aorist, describing the variants at other times and in other dialects as needed. The poems of Homer were studied in Athens, and may have been compiled there; they are in Epic or Homeric Greek, an artificial blend of several dialects, not including Attic. The Homeric aorist differs in morphology from Attic, but the educated Athenians imitated Homeric syntax.

Conversely, Hellenistic or Koine Greek was a blend of several dialects after the conquests of Alexander; most of the written texts that survive in Koine imitate the Attic taught in schools to a greater or lesser extent, but the spoken language of the writers appears to have simplified and regularized the formation of the aorist, and some of the features of Attic syntax are much less frequently attested.

Morphology[edit]
A verb may have either a first aorist or a second aorist: the distinction is like that between weak (try, tried) and strong verbs (write, wrote) in English. A very few verbs have both types of aorist, sometimes with a distinction of meaning: for example ἵστημι (to set up or cause to stand) has both ἕστησα and ἕστην as aorists, but the first has a transitive meaning ("I set up") and the second an intransitive meaning ("I stood").

• 1 of 3

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Hi FreeGrace
You know how I've been telling you how complicated the aorist tense is...
You never really answered me as to your qualifications to even speak about it.

The next time you bring up the tense, could you please tell us WHICH ONE?
Thanks.

P.S. There's plenty more besides Wikipedia...

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Aorist (Ancient Greek)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Aorist.
In the grammar of Ancient Greek, including Koine, the aorist (pronounced /ˈeɪ.ərᵻst/ or /ˈɛərᵻst/) is a class of verb forms that generally portray a situation as simple or undefined, that is, as having perfective aspect. In the grammatical terminology of classical Greek, it is a tense, one of the seven divisions of the conjugation of a verb, found in all moods and voices.



Contents
[1 Terminology

• 2 Morphology
  • 2.1 First
    • 2.1.1 Compensatory lengthening
    • 2.1.2 First aorist endings
  • 2.2 Second
    • 2.2.1 Zero-grade
    • 2.2.2 Reduplication
    • 2.2.3 Second aorist endings
    • 2.2.4 Second aorist passive
  • 2.3 Root

• 3 Syntax
  • 3.1 Indicative mood
    • 3.1.1 Narrative
    • 3.1.2 Complexive
    • 3.1.3 Past-in-the-past
    • 3.1.4 Ingressive
    • 3.1.5 Resultative
    • 3.1.6 Gnomic
    • 3.1.7 Dramatic
  • 3.2 Indicative mood with particle
    • 3.2.1 Unattainable wish
    • 3.2.2 Past potential
    • 3.2.3 Iterative
    • 3.2.4 Unreal
  • 3.3 Participles
  • 3.4 Non-indicative moods
  • 3.5 Optative mood
    • 3.5.1 Potential

• 4 See also

• 5 Notes

• 6 References

Terminology[edit]
In traditional grammatical terminology, the aorist is a "tense", a section of the verb paradigm formed with the same stem across all moods. By contrast, in theoretical linguistics, tense refers to a form that specifies a point in time (past, present, or future), so the aorist is a tense-aspect combination.

The literary Greek of Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries BC, Attic Greek, was the standard school-room form of Greek for centuries. This article therefore chiefly describes the Attic aorist, describing the variants at other times and in other dialects as needed. The poems of Homer were studied in Athens, and may have been compiled there; they are in Epic or Homeric Greek, an artificial blend of several dialects, not including Attic. The Homeric aorist differs in morphology from Attic, but the educated Athenians imitated Homeric syntax.

Conversely, Hellenistic or Koine Greek was a blend of several dialects after the conquests of Alexander; most of the written texts that survive in Koine imitate the Attic taught in schools to a greater or lesser extent, but the spoken language of the writers appears to have simplified and regularized the formation of the aorist, and some of the features of Attic syntax are much less frequently attested.

Morphology[edit]
A verb may have either a first aorist or a second aorist: the distinction is like that between weak (try, tried) and strong verbs (write, wrote) in English. A very few verbs have both types of aorist, sometimes with a distinction of meaning: for example ἵστημι (to set up or cause to stand) has both ἕστησα and ἕστην as aorists, but the first has a transitive meaning ("I set up") and the second an intransitive meaning ("I stood").

• 1 of 3

RED FLAG just came up.

 

[GodsGrace]

2 of 3

• First[edit]
  The stem of the first aorist is marked by -σα- in the active and middle voice,[1] and -θη- in the passive voice.[2] Because of the σ (sigma), it is also called sigmatic aorist.
  
  Compensatory lengthening[edit]
  Compensatory lengthening affects first aorist forms whose verbal root ends in a sonorant (nasal or liquid: ν, μ, ρ, λ).[1]
  
  In Attic and Ionic Greek (also in Doric, with some differences), the σ in the first aorist suffix causes compensatory lengthening of the vowel before the sonorant, producing a long vowel (α → η or ᾱ, ε → ει, ι → ῑ, ο → ου, υ → ῡ).
  
  In Aeolic Greek (which contributes some forms to Homeric), the σ causes compensatory lengthening of the sonorant instead of the vowel, producing a double consonant (ν → νν, λ → λλ).
  
  The present stem sometimes undergoes sound changes caused by a suffix — for instance, -ι̯- (IPA: /j/, English consonantal y). In this case, the aorist is formed from the verbal root without the present-stem sound changes.
  
  present aorist meaning
  original form Attic original form Attic Aeolic
  μέν-ω[3] *μεν-σα ἔ-μεινα *ἔ-μεννα stay, wait for
  *στέλ-ι̯ω στέλλω[4] *στελ-σα ἔ-στειλα ἔ-στελλα prepare, send
  *φάν-ι̯ω φαίνω[5] *φαν-σα ἔ-φηνα *ἔ-φαννα show
  Kiparsky analyzes the process as debuccalization of s (σ) to h in Proto-Greek, metathesis of h and the sonorant so that h comes before the sonorant, and assimilation of h to the vowel (Attic-Ionic-Doric) or to the consonant (Aeolic).[6]
  
  • men-sa → men-ha (debuccalization) → mehna (metathesis) → mēna or menna (compensatory lengthening)
  First aorist endings[edit]
  Most of the active and middle forms of the first aorist are similar to the forms of the present and imperfect, except with an α in the endings instead of an ο or ε. The first person singular indicative active, second person singular imperfect middle, the second person singular imperatives, active infinitive, and masculine nominative singular of the participle (bolded), however, differ, and the subjunctive active and middle of the first aorist have endings identical to the present ones.
  
  Most of the passive forms of the first aorist have endings similar to those of the root aorist.
  
  λύω "release",
  aor. λυσ(α)- indicative subjunctive optative imperative infinitive participle
  active ἔλυσα
  ἔλυσας
  ἔλυσε
  ἐλύσαμεν
  ἐλύσατε
  ἔλυσαν λύσω
  λύσῃς
  λύσῃ
  λύσωμεν
  λύσητε
  λύσωσι λύσαιμι
  λύσαις
  λύσαι
  λύσαιμεν
  λύσαιτε
  λύσαιεν —
  λῦσον
  λυσάτω
  —
  λύσατε
  λυσάντων/λυσάτωσαν λῦσαι λύσας
  λύσασα
  λῦσαν
  middle ἐλυσάμην
  ἐλύσω
  ἐλύσατο
  ἐλυσάμεθα
  ἐλύσασθε
  ἐλύσαντο λύσωμαι
  λύσῃ
  λύσηται
  λυσώμεθα
  λύσησθε
  λύσωνται λυσαίμην
  λύσαιο
  λύσαιτο
  λυσαίμεθα
  λύσαισθε
  λύσαιντο —
  λῦσαι
  λυσάσθω
  —
  λύσασθε
  λυσάσθων/λυσάσθωσαν λύσασθαι λυσάμενος
  λυσαμένη
  λυσάμενον
  passive ἐλύθην
  ἐλύθης
  ἐλύθη
  ἐλύθημεν
  ἐλύθητε
  ἐλύθησαν λυθῶ
  λυθῇς
  λυθῇ
  λυθῶμεν
  λυθῆτε
  λυθῶσι λυθείην
  λυθείης
  λυθείη
  λυθείημεν/λυθεῖμεν
  λυθείητε/λυθεῖτε
  λυθείησαν/λυθεῖεν —
  λύθητι
  λυθήτω
  —
  λύθητε
  λυθέντων/λυθήτωσαν λυθῆναι λυθείς
  λυθεῖσα
  λυθέν
  

 

[GodsGrace]

3 of 3

Second[edit]
The stem of the second aorist is the bare root of the verb,[7] or a reduplicated version of the root.[8] In these verbs, the present stem often has e-grade of ablaut and adds a nasal infix or suffix to the basic verb root, but the aorist has zero-grade (no e) and no infix or suffix.

Zero-grade[edit]
When the present has a diphthong (e.g., ει), the second aorist has the offglide of the diphthong (ι).

• present λείπω "leave", aorist λιπ( ο⁄ε)- (e-grade in present, zero-grade in aorist)

When there is no vowel in the present stem besides the e of ablaut, the aorist has no vowel, or has an α from a vocalic ρ or λ.

• present πέτομαι "fly", aorist πτ( ο⁄ε)- (e-grade in present, zero-grade in aorist)
• present τρέπω, aorist τραπ( ο⁄ε)- (e-grade ρε in present, zero-grade ρ → ρα in aorist)

Reduplication[edit]
Present stems of verbs with a reduplicated aorist often do not have e-grade or an infix or suffix.

• present ἄγω "lead", aorist ἄγαγ( ο⁄ε)- (bare stem in present, reduplicated stem in aorist)

Second aorist endings[edit]
The endings include an ο or ε (thematic vowel). In the indicative, endings are identical to those of the imperfect; in non-indicative moods, they are identical to those of the present.

λείπω "leave",
aor. λιπ( ο⁄ε)- indicative subjunctive optative imperative infinitive participle
active ἔλιπον
ἔλιπες
ἔλιπεν
ἐλίπομεν
ἐλίπετε
ἔλιπον λίπω
λίπῃς
λίπῃ
λίπωμεν
λίπητε
λίπωσιν λίποιμι
λίποις
λίποι
λίποιμεν
λίποιτε
λίποιεν —
λίπε
λιπέτω
—
λίπετε
λιπόντων λιπεῖν λιπών
λιποῦσα
λιπόν
middle ἐλιπόμην
ἐλίπου
ἐλίπετο
ἐλιπόμεθα
ἐλίπεσθε
ἐλίποντο λίπωμαι
λίπῃ/ει
λίπηται
λιπώμεθα
λίπησθε
λίπωνται λιποίμην
λίποιο
λίποιτο
λιποίμεθα
λιποίεσθε
λίποιντο —
λιποῦ
λιπέσθω
—
λίπεσθε
λιπέσθων λιπέσθαι λιπόμενος
λιπομένη
λιπόμενον
passive ἐβλάβην
ἐβλάβης
ἐβλάβη
ἐβλάβημεν
ἐβλάβητε
ἐβλάβησαν βλαβῶ
βλαβῇς
βλαβῇ
βλαβῶμεν
βλαβῆτε
βλαβῶσι βλαβείην
βλαβείης
βλαβείη
βλαβείημεν/βλαβεῖμεν
βλαβείητε/βλαβεῖτε
βλαβείησαν/βλαβεῖεν —
βλάβητι
βλαβήτω
—
βλάβητε
βλαβέντων/βλαβήτωσαν βλαβῆναι βλαβείς
βλαβεῖσα
βλαβέν
Second aorist passive[edit]
A second aorist passive is distinguished from a first aorist passive only by the absence of θ. A few verbs have passive aorists in both forms, usually with no distinction in meaning;[9] but ἐφάνην "I appeared" is distinguished from ἐφάνθην "I was shown".

There is no correlation between the first/second aorist distinction in the active and the passive: a verb with an active second aorist may have a passive first aorist or vice versa.

Root[edit]
The root aorist is characteristic of athematic verbs (those with a present active in -μι). Like the second aorist, the stem is the bare root, and endings are similar to the imperfect in the indicative, and identical to the present in non-indicative moods. It is sometimes included as a subcategory of the second aorist[10] because of these similarities, but unlike the second aorist of thematic verbs, it has no thematic  ο⁄ε.

The singular aorist indicative active of some athematic verbs (τίθημι, ἔθηκα; δίδωμι, ἔδωκα) uses a stem formed by the suffix -κα and takes first aorist rather than root aorist endings.[11]

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jesus goes much further than that. In Jn 10:28 He promises that those He gives eternal life will never perish. There is NO THOUGHT of anything between initial receiving of eternal life and physical death that might change or nullify the promise of never perishing.


This is so blatantly untrue, I'm just amazed at your false charge. And you just agreed at the beginning of your post with my statement about Jn 5;24. So you're just flip-flopping.


There is no contradiction. The FACT is, those He GIVES eternal life WILL NEVER PERISH. Please let that sink in. Jesus gave no conditions for never perishing. Just receiving the gift is what results in never perishing.


I reject the Calvinist argument as strongly as I reject the Arminian argument about loss of salvation.


There are NO verses that teach this. This is an Arminian construct only.


Very faulty conclusion. Not true. See John 10:28 for the truth about how one will never perish.


Why does this abuse of the Greek present tense continue. There is no excuse for it.


I refer you to John 10:28 where Jesus promised that those He gives eternal life will never perish.


The argument is patently false, bogus. Jesus promised that from His own action of giving eternal life, the recipient WILL NEVER PERISH in Jn 10:28. But your views are in complete disagreement with Jesus' clear promise.


Your whole argument is based on opinion, without any evidence. You've had to pervert the Greek present tense to come to your conclusion, which is not supported by either Greek grammar or the Bible.

See folks? Freegrace doctrine has no explanation for Jesus' own words in John 5:24 NASB that say the one who presently believes has eternal life (Freegrace doctrine says you do NOT have to be presently believing to have eternal life). So it has to invent an argument for an abuse of the present tense verb to get out of the jam it's in, which makes it a Calvinist OSAS passage, which we know I'm not making because I reject any form of OSAS and would hardly adopt such an argument, lol. But I do give credit for Freegrace doctrine not making Jesus' words in John 5:24 NASB 'not really' mean what they say. But I have the feeling that is coming.

 

[GodsGrace]

OOOPS!

There's just too much.

Please go here....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aorist_(Ancient_Greek)

 

[Nathan]

You like this Nathan?

Good.

There's a lot of misunderstanding with:
2 Timothy 2:12-13

verse 12 says that if we deny God HE WILL DENY US.
verse 13 says that if we are not faithful to Him, He is still faithful to us.

Those that believe that salvation is secure till death no matter what will always point to verse 13.

But if they are right, then the bible is contradicting itself!
So,. verse 13 must mean something other than what they say, which is that God will be faithful to save us
NO MATTER what we do or believe (after initial salvation).

Of course what it means is that God is faithful to Himself and to HIS plan of salvation which was before the foundation of the world.
Genesis 3:15 and NOT that He is faithful to save an individual who has abandoned his faith and belief in God and Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

It is NOT correct to use 2 Timothy 2:12-13 in support of OSAS.

If you, or anyone, would care to expound on this, it would be nice.

I like in-depth discussions. The discussion that Jesus had with the woman at the well was 'deep'. lol

That passage in 2 Timothy has to be taken in the full context. Usually, when considering context, we look at the preceding statements for what the person was saying, and the the statements after for explanation of the statement in question.

Preceding those statements, Paul is speaking about those who stay faithful to what they are called to do. Then, he gives the two statements of commendation for staying faithful, and two statements of condemnation for being unfaithful - but ending with the fact that it is not God who is unfaithful.

After that, we see Paul giving examples/reasons to stay faithful. Being unfaithful, straying from the call, leads to bad things.

What we fail to do sometimes is take the entire letter written by someone into play. We cannot just stop at chapter 2 of second Timothy, we must go on to chapter 3. Paul is being very explicit in doing his best to point Timothy to stay in the faith - and it seems amazing to me that so many now days want to point people to trust in something they once did instead of staying in the faith!

Paul ends his letter to Timothy, wrapping it all up with this -

2Ti 4:6-8
For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.

What do you notice about those three statements?

2Ti 2:3-7
Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him. An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops. Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Until one comes to an understanding of Jesus' promise in Jn 10:28, they will continue to fail to understand HOW one will never perish.

Until one comes to the understanding of Jesus' promise in John 5:24 NASB they will continue to fail to understand that it is the presently believing person who will never perish.

And you're still perverting the Greek present tense. It does not mean what you claim.

Please cease this abuse of the present tense.

Trust me. I'm not Calvinist OSAS, lol!
I in no way shape or form believe the present tense in John 5:24 NASB means the believer will never stop believing.
I take it for exactly what it means: The person who believes right now has eternal life right now. Which Freegrace doctrine contradicts completely by saying the person who doesn't believe right now, but used to, has eternal life right now.

Please study John 10:28 and Jesus' promise of HOW one will never perish. It's about being a recipient of eternal life.

Please study John 5:24 NASB.
Being a recipient of eternal life and, therefore, never perishing, is about present, right now believing. Not about one time believing in the past that can end and you still have eternal life as Freegrace doctrine insists.

Untrue claim. Jesus' promise in John 10:28 is about receiving eternal life. Not the requirement of on-going belief, as is being erroneously claimed.

It's hilarious that you think I'm making a Calvinist OSAS argument out of the present tense in John 5:24 NASB.

 

[dirtfarmer]

Excellent. These are the kinds of discussions I really like.

There are two 'types' of faith. Man's faith - God's faith. Faith is simply believing and doing what you understand to be true. When you believe and do things based on Man's faith - you sin. When you believe and do things based on God's faith - you are righteous. The difference between the two is absolute truth. Man's faith is not based on pure truth. God's faith is based on pure truth.

Jhn 4:10
Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.”

God's faith can only be given to us. We cannot take it, or make it up ourselves. It is a gift from God. God's faith is given to us in order to understand the truth. Truth is only understood through faith.

Jhn 14:15-17
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

The Spirit is given to us in order to distinguish what is truth - and what is not. That is why those who are void of the Spirit cannot understand the truth - neither can they contain it or use it. When the Spirit comes into the believer, then that person now has the ability to know truth and do truth - this is called true faith.

This is why it is impossible to have truly believe in Christ without the 'gift' of God - which is the faith of God - given to us by the Spirit of God.

The Spirit of truth dwells in us by that faith.

Gal 3:2-3
Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

So, the Spirit of truth is Who comes and dwells in us containing the truth of God. In that we live and walk by faith. Its true faith because it comes from understanding the truth of God, which is only because of the Spirit of God.

Jesus was telling the woman at the well that the "gift" of God, which is given by the Spirit of God, would be the living water. Faith is that gift, and we know that the faith we have is true when we see the life it gives in us and from us.

To bring this back home, you are correct - truth is what the 'well'(structure) is because it is the Spirit of truth. Truth is the qualification of the faith of God. If a persons faith is not 100% true - then it is not God's faith. From the 'well'(structure) of truth, we have the 'welling'(flow) of faith that is in the person and flows from the person.

Faith is the manifestation of what is inside a person. False faith is not life giving. True faith is life giving. It is by true faith that we live.

Rom 1:17
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.

Gal 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Heb 10:38
but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him.”

hello Nathan, dirtfarmer here

Hebrews 11:1, " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. You made the statement that there are 2 kinds of faith: man's faith and God's faith. Ephesians states there is "one faith", would you mind explaining "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" that is God's faith? If as we believe that God is all knowing, what is it that "He hopes for" and what evidence has he not seen? Scripture tells us that He, God, knows the end from the beginning: Isaiah 46:10.

 

[dirtfarmer]

Until one comes to the understanding of Jesus' promise in John 5:24 NASB they will continue to fail to understand that it is the presently believing person who will never perish.


Trust me. I'm not Calvinist OSAS, lol!
I in no way shape or form believe the present tense in John 5:24 NASB means the believer will never stop believing.
I take it for exactly what it means: The person who believes right now has eternal life right now. Which Freegrace doctrine contradicts completely by saying the person who doesn't believe right now, but used to, has eternal life right now.


Please study John 5:24 NASB.
Being a recipient of eternal life and, therefore, never perishing, is about present, right now believing. Not about one time believing in the past that can end and you still have eternal life as Freegrace doctrine insists.


It's hilarious that you think I'm making a Calvinist OSAS argument out of the present tense in John 5:24 NASB.

hello Jethro Bodine, dirtfarmer here

What is that a "person present, right now believing", is never perishing from, but if they quite believing, they are perishing from? are they suffering from eternal damnation now?

 

[GodsGrace]

hello Nathan, dirtfarmer here

Hebrews 11:1, " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. You made the statement that there are 2 kinds of faith: man's faith and God's faith. Ephesians states there is "one faith", would you mind explaining "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" that is God's faith? If as we believe that God is all knowing, what is it that "He hopes for" and what evidence has he not seen? Scripture tells us that He, God, knows the end from the beginning: Isaiah 46:10.

Hi Dirtfarmer,

God does not need faith.
BUT, God is FAITHFUL to Himself.
God IS trustworthy and faithful to His word, and just, and love, and every other quality that is positive.
He does not possess those qualities, He IS those qualities. He cannot be separated from them, because He cannot separate Himself from who He is.

He is faithful to Himself in the sense that He keeps His word, He cannot lie.

Persons that believe in eternal security always refer to 2 Timothy 2:11-13 to support their position.
They believe that verse 13 refers to THEM. That even if WE are faithless, He remains faithful for he cannot deny Himself.

Actually, this verse works against them because it is establishing that WE can be faithless,
BUT GOD WILL ALWAYS BE FAITHFUL (to Himself) because HE CANNOT DENY HIMSELF.

And what is God faithful to?
His word. See Genesis 3:15
He is faithful in supplying salvation for us if we accept it.
He made a way for us to be saved after Adam sinned and we became slaves to satan.

Maybe Nathan will have a different way of explaining it.