Perfect Tense for "saved" proves eternal security

[GodsGrace]

Pastor John Piper has a great sermon on the difference between being filled with the Holy Spirit and being clothed with Power.

http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/how-can-we-be-clothed-with-power

http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/tongues-of-fire-and-the-fullness-of-god

Thanks Pegasus.
I will watch it.

 

[Runner]

If interested we can then discuss 'what of those who sin after God's saving Grace and Holy Spirit are poured out and fills them.' I think that is what many here want to discuss but don't.

My time to flounder around on Internet forums is coming to an end. I have been house-sitting a cat with diabetes while my wife spends five weeks sunning herself on the Maui-like beaches of Belarus, but this is coming to an end.

Anyway, this seems like an endless circle. I, at least, am indeed talking about apostasy or a falling away that is pretty much the functional equivalent of apostasy. So perhaps we are in what a friend of mine calls "violent agreement." I am certainly not saying (and I don't think anyone else here is) that after being born again anyone can lose his salvation merely by repeatedly stumbling. I am certainly not saying that at the end of a born again believer's life God evaluates his works and decides whether he's made the grade. That would effectively obviate the Atonement. Just as you say "the rebuttal is always Judas" (it is?), I might say the rebuttal is always "Oh, those who fall away were never really born again in the first place."

Several millennia ago, I used to be a door-to-door proselytizer with Campus Crusade. I have no illusion that everyone who recited the magic prayer was really sincere and was really born again. But some were. Some of them, like me, continued in the faith, albeit with repeated stumbles and occasional lapses that might last for years. Others either overtly rejected the gift they had once received or lived lives that were the functional equivalent of throwing the gift back in God's face. It's the latter group that I'm talking about when I refer to falling away.

At least in Campus Crusade and the Southern Baptist churches I once attended, the understanding was that there was pretty much no such thing as falling away. As the Baptist statement of faith puts it, "All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." Whether one calls this OSAS or the perseverance of the saints seems largely a matter of semantics to me. It is this, the simplistic notion that "true believers" can never fall away and that anyone who does fall away was ipso facto not a "true believer," that I now more or less reject. The NT seems to me to much more clearly (but not absolutely clearly) support the position that one who has sincerely come to Christ and been born again must continue in the faith and that such perseverance is not inevitable, and this also seems to have been the view of most of the earliest Christians.

A discussion could certainly be had as to what constitutes "continuing in the faith." Many people in my experience go from being absolute fiends before they were born again to being only marginally better fiends in the ensuing years. They seem to be sincere Christians, but they are still plagued by their extraordinarily fiend-like human natures. Their "Christian walk," such as it is, isn't pretty. I expect to see them in heaven so long as they sincerely continue to believe in the power of the Cross and sincerely confess and repent each time they fall. However, if they eventually say, "The hell with it, this stuff isn't real and never was, and I'm going to live my life the way that pleases me and me alone" - well, I question whether I will see them in heaven.

Like so many of these discussions, this one seems to me in the vein of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (73, if you must know). If I knew today that OSAS were true or that it were not true, it wouldn't affect in the slightest the way I live my life.

 

[Jim Parker]

I see you're not prepared to discuss the OP, or the Greek perfect tense.

The Koine Greek of the Bible is the language of the market place, or, as my Greek Professor put it, "I seen him when he done it Greek."

To base a doctrine on the tense of a verb by equating the Koine Greek use of tenses to the use of tenses in modern English is a bridge far too far. It is a failure before it begins.

The fact still remains that the whole of scripture does not teach the "eternal security" heresy with you are so devotedly enamoured. Your support for that heresy is based on ignoring scripture which clearly refutes the heresy and creative speculation as to how it "really" means something that it very clearly does not mean.

By the multitude of threads you have started promoting the "eternal security" heresy, you seem to have a great need for agreement.

Is it OK is people don't agree with you?


iakov the fool


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Jim Parker]

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end.

Thus the introduction of the circular logic that those who truly believe will never fall away and if a believer falls away then it is because he didn't truly believe because all true believers will never fall away.

sigh


iakov the fool


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[FreeGrace]

It seems to me that in most of these threads you "assume that which is to be proved" as the saying goes.

That's how debates work. One side makes a claim with evidence and others are free to show that the evidence doesn't support the claim.

OK, we will agree that Ephesians 2:8 means "we have been saved by faith (past action) with on-going results, meaning we stay saved."

Correction. The "past action" is "have been saved", which is the subject of the OP. Not faith.

However, you are mentally adding to the verse, "meaning we stayed saved forever, with no possibility of falling away."

I provided web links that explained what the perfect tense is and what it means. If the links are wrong, then find other scholarly links that refute the links I provided.

You are assuming that which is to be proved because it is the way you want things to be, which is what those who assume that which is to be proved always do.

I refer you to my explanation of what debates are and how they work. If I'm wrong, then find evidence to that fact.

What you are doing is classic proof-texting, focusing on verses in isolation, out of the context in which they appear and out of the context of the New Testament as a whole.

Nope. Please deal with the verse in the OP and the perfect tense of "have been saved" and what that means.

The occasional "tree" may support OSAS, but the NT "forest" as whole does not.

Now we're wading in the weeds again. Please forus on the specifics of the OP and what the perfect tense means for "have been saved". That would mean find evidence to the contrary.

Indeed, even your statement "meaning we stay saved" fudges things a bit in order to support the OSAS position.

Please explain how I've "fudged" anything. Just making claims isn't how these forums run.

The verse really doesn't say we "stay" saved but more like "we now remain saved."

And what source an be provided that agrees with your statement?

It's an ambiguous verse that is just as consistent with OS-Not-AS.

That's your opinion. There is NOTHING ambiguous about the perfect tense. Please address THAT tense.

It occurred to me that there is sort of a continuum:

• Universalism (everyone is ultimately saved): The way most of us would like things to be - but, alas, one can believe this only if one engages in proof-texting to an absolutely absurd degree and ignores virtually everything Jesus said.
• OSAS: OK, not too bad. Salvation is pretty cheap and easy. And it merely requires a moderate level of proof-texting and Jesus-ignoring.
• OS-Not-AS: Ouch, that's no fun. It is, however, by far the most consistent with the NT forest as a whole and the early Christians' understanding.

This thread isn't about some "continuum", but, specifically, about the perfect tense of "have been saved". What does on-going results mean?

 

[FreeGrace]

I do think it is relevant to the perfect tense. You are either a born again Spirit filled believer, sealed forever.

To be correct, it's "a born again Spirit indwelt believer". A believer can be filled or not. When the believer is not filled with the Spirit, they are grieving (Eph 5:18) or quenching (1 Thess 5:19) the Holy Spirit.

John 14:16-17 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of Truth

John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Or, you are a teetering on the path of true belief and have not been given the Holy Spirit yet. As I posted in my previous above comment, Jesus knows the inner most thoughts and hearts of people. Not us.

I still don't see how this relates to the OP, which is about the perfect tense of "having been saved" and what that means.

The links I provided say the perfect tense means a past action with on-going results. And not by any other condition such as the "lose your salvation" group keeps claiming.

 

[FreeGrace]

Tense in Greek is not as important as mood...and in some cases completely not relevant to the sentence.

That sounds like an opinion. I've given links that explain the perfect tense for "having been saved". And what it means.

From Dan Wallace's "Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics", on p.573, he says this:
"As Moulton points out, the perfect tense is 'the most important, exegetically, of all the Greek Tenses.' The perfect is used less frequently that the present, aorist, future, or impoerfect; when it is used, there is usually a deliberate hoice on the part of the writer."

Gender/sex is also more important than tense. It's only English language that makes tense a major instead of a minor. Different language, different culture, different customs, and different focus.

None of these things affect the perfect tense meaning. Let's address that, please.

 

[FreeGrace]

Of course people who believe are saved and continue to be saved. That salvation is completed and ongoing until something happens to end it.

Then please provide any verse that specifically addresses loss of salvation by any means. That has never been shown. All the verses so far require a huge amount of assumption to come to that conclusion.

 

[FreeGrace]

The Koine Greek of the Bible is the language of the market place, or, as my Greek Professor put it, "I seen him when he done it Greek."

To base a doctrine on the tense of a verb by equating the Koine Greek use of tenses to the use of tenses in modern English is a bridge far too far. It is a failure before it begins.

I haven't tried to base a doctrine on th tense of a verb. I've shown a verse about "having been saved" which is in the perfect tense. So, please explain what that means.

The fact still remains that the whole of scripture does not teach the "eternal security" heresy with you are so devotedly enamoured.

Thank you for your opinion.

Your support for that heresy is based on ignoring scripture which clearly refutes the heresy and creative speculation as to how it "really" means something that it very clearly does not mean.

Thank you again for your opinion.

By the multitude of threads you have started promoting the "eternal security" heresy, you seem to have a great need for agreement.

I've presented a whole host of evidence from Scripture that supports eternal security. How others take them is their own issue.

Is it OK is people don't agree with you?

Of course. It's not my problem what others believe But I've shown the Scripture that teaches eternal security.

 

[Pegasus]

My time to flounder around on Internet forums is coming to an end. I have been house-sitting a cat with diabetes while my wife spends five weeks sunning herself on the Maui-like beaches of Belarus, but this is coming to an end.

Anyway, this seems like an endless circle. I, at least, am indeed talking about apostasy or a falling away that is pretty much the functional equivalent of apostasy. So perhaps we are in what a friend of mine calls "violent agreement." I am certainly not saying (and I don't think anyone else here is) that after being born again anyone can lose his salvation merely by repeatedly stumbling. I am certainly not saying that at the end of a born again believer's life God evaluates his works and decides whether he's made the grade. That would effectively obviate the Atonement. Just as you say "the rebuttal is always Judas" (it is?), I might say the rebuttal is always "Oh, those who fall away were never really born again in the first place."

Several millennia ago, I used to be a door-to-door proselytizer with Campus Crusade. I have no illusion that everyone who recited the magic prayer was really sincere and was really born again. But some were. Some of them, like me, continued in the faith, albeit with repeated stumbles and occasional lapses that might last for years. Others either overtly rejected the gift they had once received or lived lives that were the functional equivalent of throwing the gift back in God's face. It's the latter group that I'm talking about when I refer to falling away.

At least in Campus Crusade and the Southern Baptist churches I once attended, the understanding was that there was pretty much no such thing as falling away. As the Baptist statement of faith puts it, "All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." Whether one calls this OSAS or the perseverance of the saints seems largely a matter of semantics to me. It is this, the simplistic notion that "true believers" can never fall away and that anyone who does fall away was ipso facto not a "true believer," that I now more or less reject. The NT seems to me to much more clearly (but not absolutely clearly) support the position that one who has sincerely come to Christ and been born again must continue in the faith and that such perseverance is not inevitable, and this also seems to have been the view of most of the earliest Christians.

A discussion could certainly be had as to what constitutes "continuing in the faith." Many people in my experience go from being absolute fiends before they were born again to being only marginally better fiends in the ensuing years. They seem to be sincere Christians, but they are still plagued by their extraordinarily fiend-like human natures. Their "Christian walk," such as it is, isn't pretty. I expect to see them in heaven so long as they sincerely continue to believe in the power of the Cross and sincerely confess and repent each time they fall. However, if they eventually say, "The hell with it, this stuff isn't real and never was, and I'm going to live my life the way that pleases me and me alone" - well, I question whether I will see them in heaven.

Like so many of these discussions, this one seems to me in the vein of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (73, if you must know). If I knew today that OSAS were true or that it were not true, it wouldn't affect in the slightest the way I live my life.

Thank you for a most honest and heartfelt response. I mean that.

I do believe we are in 'violent' agreement. My subjective experiences and observations come very close to what you posted above.

I will say a prayer for your ailing feline friend. It was great dialoguing with you in the short time you have been on line to do so.

May the Lord Jesus Christ richly bless your pilgrimage here on earth.

God Bless.

 

[Runner]

That's how debates work. One side makes a claim with evidence and others are free to show that the evidence doesn't support the claim.

It appears to me that nothing resembling actual "discussion" takes place in a "dialogue" with you, so I at least am not going to continue. Discussion with you reminds me of the old joke about the guy who sat around beating his head with a hammer. When asked why, he responded: "Because it feels so good when I stop."

"Assuming that which is to be proved," also known as "begging the question," is not how debates work. I have made my living debating in appellate courts for decades. Begging the question is one of the most common fallacious approaches to argument. I couldn't tell you how many times I have pointed out to the court that an opponent was simply begging the question.

You are committing this fallacy by assuming that the perfect tense of "have been saved" necessarily means "have been saved forever, with no possibility of ever falling away." If you would care to explore commentaries on the Greek other than those to which you are now referring, you will see that any number of them explain that the present tense means "you are presently saved" or "you now continue in your salvation." I am not saying that the additional language you are mentally adding is impossible; I am saying it does not flow inevitably from the use of the present tense, as you assume it does. This is why you are guilty of assuming that which is to be proved. I could just as easily mentally add "have been saved and will continue to be so long as you remain in the faith." This would be equally valid, meaning that the verse is simply not the proof text you want to make it.

 

[chessman]

"The essence of the Perfect is the idea of completion. This is an aspect –it conveys the nature of the action. If the Perfect is used, it conveys not a process, nor is it undefined, but rather that the action is now completed. Time is less important in the Perfect –the fact that the action is completed says something about the past (it was done in the past) but also something about the present (it is completed). ‘Past event with present effect’ is a useful slogan for the Perfect."

― from "The Elements of New Testament Greek"

'Saved past, saved present'

 

[reba]

My time to flounder around on Internet forums is coming to an end. I have been house-sitting a cat with diabetes while my wife spends five weeks sunning herself on the Maui-like beaches of Belarus, but this is coming to an end.

Anyway, this seems like an endless circle. I, at least, am indeed talking about apostasy or a falling away that is pretty much the functional equivalent of apostasy. So perhaps we are in what a friend of mine calls "violent agreement." I am certainly not saying (and I don't think anyone else here is) that after being born again anyone can lose his salvation merely by repeatedly stumbling. I am certainly not saying that at the end of a born again believer's life God evaluates his works and decides whether he's made the grade. That would effectively obviate the Atonement. Just as you say "the rebuttal is always Judas" (it is?), I might say the rebuttal is always "Oh, those who fall away were never really born again in the first place."

Several millennia ago, I used to be a door-to-door proselytizer with Campus Crusade. I have no illusion that everyone who recited the magic prayer was really sincere and was really born again. But some were. Some of them, like me, continued in the faith, albeit with repeated stumbles and occasional lapses that might last for years. Others either overtly rejected the gift they had once received or lived lives that were the functional equivalent of throwing the gift back in God's face. It's the latter group that I'm talking about when I refer to falling away.

At least in Campus Crusade and the Southern Baptist churches I once attended, the understanding was that there was pretty much no such thing as falling away. As the Baptist statement of faith puts it, "All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." Whether one calls this OSAS or the perseverance of the saints seems largely a matter of semantics to me. It is this, the simplistic notion that "true believers" can never fall away and that anyone who does fall away was ipso facto not a "true believer," that I now more or less reject. The NT seems to me to much more clearly (but not absolutely clearly) support the position that one who has sincerely come to Christ and been born again must continue in the faith and that such perseverance is not inevitable, and this also seems to have been the view of most of the earliest Christians.

A discussion could certainly be had as to what constitutes "continuing in the faith." Many people in my experience go from being absolute fiends before they were born again to being only marginally better fiends in the ensuing years. They seem to be sincere Christians, but they are still plagued by their extraordinarily fiend-like human natures. Their "Christian walk," such as it is, isn't pretty. I expect to see them in heaven so long as they sincerely continue to believe in the power of the Cross and sincerely confess and repent each time they fall. However, if they eventually say, "The hell with it, this stuff isn't real and never was, and I'm going to live my life the way that pleases me and me alone" - well, I question whether I will see them in heaven.

Like so many of these discussions, this one seems to me in the vein of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (73, if you must know). If I knew today that OSAS were true or that it were not true, it wouldn't affect in the slightest the way I live my life.

 

[jasonc]

View attachment 10479

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I wonder if you are misunderstanding the point. The way I read it, he's saying that her ability to speak in tongues indicates the Holy Spirit within her. He is not saying that one who is indwelled with the Holy Spirit must speak in tongues but if one can speak in tongues, the Holy Spirit must be involved.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Her ability to speak in tongues indicated the Holy Spirit within her.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I just wonder why he thinks it's so important; it shouldn't be.

It was important to Peter:

"15“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16“And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’17“Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”" (Acts 11:15-17 NASB)

The gentiles speaking in tongues confirmed to him that God's grace had been extended to the gentiles.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The context of 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 of course being, believing in the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. As the following verses throughout the chapter confirm. If someone denies the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, then they believe in vain is what Paul is saying. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the core of Christianity.

Let's pretend that's what "unless you believed in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:2 NASB) means.
How does that change the fact that Paul is saying that if you didn't believe in vain that "you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you" (1 Corinthians 15:2 NASB)? You strike me as one who can comprehend the question and, thus, answer it. But, please, don't be afraid to ask me to rephrase the question if you don't understand it. I really want an answer for it from the OSAS crowd.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It appears to me that nothing resembling actual "discussion" takes place in a "dialogue" with you, so I at least am not going to continue. Discussion with you reminds me of the old joke about the guy who sat around beating his head with a hammer. When asked why, he responded: "Because it feels so good when I stop."

"Assuming that which is to be proved," also known as "begging the question," is not how debates work. I have made my living debating in appellate courts for decades. Begging the question is one of the most common fallacious approaches to argument. I couldn't tell you how many times I have pointed out to the court that an opponent was simply begging the question.

You are committing this fallacy by assuming that the perfect tense of "have been saved" necessarily means "have been saved forever, with no possibility of ever falling away." If you would care to explore commentaries on the Greek other than those to which you are now referring, you will see that any number of them explain that the present tense means "you are presently saved" or "you now continue in your salvation." I am not saying that the additional language you are mentally adding is impossible; I am saying it does not flow inevitably from the use of the present tense, as you assume it does. This is why you are guilty of assuming that which is to be proved. I could just as easily mentally add "have been saved and will continue to be so long as you remain in the faith." This would be equally valid, meaning that the verse is simply not the proof text you want to make it.

 

[Pegasus]

Let's pretend that's what "unless you believed in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:2 NASB) means.
How does that change the fact that Paul is saying that if you didn't believe in vain that "you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you" (1 Corinthians 15:2 NASB)? You strike me as one who can comprehend the question and, thus, answer it. But, please, don't be afraid to ask me to rephrase the question if you don't understand it. I really want an answer for it from the OSAS crowd.

No need to rephrase as I answered the question.

Here's more:

1 Corinthians 15:

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

 

[Jim Parker]

I haven't tried to base a doctrine on th tense of a verb. I've shown a verse about "having been saved" which is in the perfect tense.

Please.
The name of your thread is "Perfect Tense for "saved" proves eternal security"
And you said that you didn't base a doctrine on the tense of a verb but have shown that the tense proves the doctrine.
So you just contradicted yourself displayi9ng the abysmal confusion of your "proof."