Perfect Tense for "saved" proves eternal security

[FreeGrace]

How does all this make it so that presently holding fast the word that you had preached to me is not the condition in order for me to be presently saved? That is the question that no one seems able to answer.

"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

It HAS been answered, but the answer just isn't satisfactory, it seems.

When one believes, they POSSESS (hold fast) the word. It's that simple. And, they ARE saved, UNLESS they believed without reason (in vain). Again, very simple.

The whole concept of possessing the Word, and all that goes with it, such as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and sealing with the Holy Spirit, etc, are FROM GOD. Nothing we are involved with. We are NOT holding on to the Holy Spirit, which seems to be your position.

 

[FreeGrace]

We all know this.
Why does this make it so that I don't have to hold fast to the word of the gospel in order to stay saved?
That's the question nobody will answer.

Those who already understand that "hold fast" means to "possess" in the Greek, know that this possession is what God has given us. Nothing that we have to grasp with our hands.

Your position puts the onus on the person to stay saved by their faith. Yet, there are no verses that support that position.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Of course I haven't done that. I've already, in other threads, provided 6 texts that support eternal security.

But even in this instance the context would be hinged more upon the time of writing this letter. (60AD)

Some of those who had believed in Jesus and followed had already died. Many before Jesus even showed up. Then there are the future believers...those who will believe.

John's Gospel has the same thing in 1:12. Even though it is in English as past tense it is the perfect Aortist tense which is the same thing as here.


The point is that being saved in the past in the perfect tense means still being saved now.

So, for those who are anti-OSAS, how come there are no contingencies about "still being saved now"? If, as being claimed, that one ceases to be saved if one ceases to believe, how come this verse leaves out such a warning?

Not everyone who has believed in the past are STILL saved, IF they have ceased to continue to believe, according to the anti-OSAS folk. So how come this verse doesn't include any conditions? It should, if they were correct.

The anti-OSAS folk can't even defend their own claim about ceasing to be saved IF one ceases to believe.

Perfect tense only means the completed action produced results "which are still in effect all the way up to the present"**. But you have redefined the Perfect tense to mean 'results that will go beyond the present and will be in effect forever.

* http://ezraproject.com/id27.html

5. Perfect Tense

The perfect tense in Greek is used to describe a completed action which produced results which are still in effect all the way up to the present. Sample translation: "I have believed."

Notice that the perfect tense carries two ideas: (1) completed action and (2) continuing results. The action was completed at some time in the past, and the results continue up to the present.

Example: We can see the perfect tense in action in 1 John 1:3: "What we have seen and [have] heard we proclaim to you also."

The apostle John is making the point that he was an eyewitness to the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, and that personal experience serves as the basis for the message that he proclaims decades later. You might paraphrase the first verb as "We saw Him, and we can still visualize what we saw." One writer has explained the second verb as "We heard Him, and His words are still ringing in our ears." John saw and heard Jesus many years earlier, and that era of his life has been completed. But the results continue. What he learned so many years ago remains with him now.
​

Note the first example the author uses: "I have believed"
Even you agree that believing can cease, and so the Perfect Tense in this case does not mean, and can not mean, that the believing that is continuing to the present must, by virtue of the Perfect tense, continue forever and will not end.

You can't redefine the Perfect tense to suit your doctrinal preference. It does NOT mean the completed action that produced results that continue up to the present will also continue forever and can never stop. You have added that definition to the Perfect tense.

 

[JLB]

You tell me. What does the conjunction 'also' mean in Paul's sentence in 1 Corinthians 15:1-2?
"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain."

I'm confident that when you get done "you are saved, if you hold fast the word" will 'not really' mean you are saved conditioned upon if you hold fast the word that was preached to you.

Of this I am confident as well, because that alone would undo, the Calvinism he so desperately clings, in favor of the knowledge from God.

His preset, predetermined philosophy is effectively exalting itself against the knowledge of God.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Those who already understand that "hold fast" means to "possess" in the Greek, know that this possession is what God has given us. Nothing that we have to grasp with our hands.

Your position puts the onus on the person to stay saved by their faith. Yet, there are no verses that support that position.

The onus is always on the person to believe, which Jesus says is the work of God.

Believe is present tense.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

When one believes, they POSSESS (hold fast) the word. It's that simple. And, they ARE saved, UNLESS they believed without reason (in vain). Again, very simple.

So, if I believed not in vain and I possess the word that was preached to me, but I then cease to possess the word, that makes me unsaved according to Paul's condition for being saved.

He says I am presently saved IF I presently possess securely the word which I heard and by which I was saved. But hyper-grace OSAS says I'm still saved even though I no longer possess the word by which I was saved because of unbelief. You haven't explained hyper-grace's obvious contradiction of the plain words of Paul that the condition for being presently saved is that I presently possess the word that I originally heard and was saved by.

1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

 

[chessman]

How does all this make it so that presently holding fast the word that you had preached to me is not the condition in order for me to be presently saved?

Because Paul doesn't just give a condition for being saved. He lists two conditions for being saved while also standing firm/upright. One condition you post (hold fast), the other you leave out of your question (receive what he preached). Plus he's not just saying you are saved if you meet his two conditions. He's saying you are saved AND/ALSO stand upright/firm.

There are people that are saved but do not stand firm in their salvation. Maybe you know one or two? I do. Some people stand upon the Word to save them. Some are hoping they will be saved.

Also, there are people that think they are saved but aren't really because they believed Jesus was not raised (they believed in vain).

His point is clear, however, when read as a whole. It's when someone cuts parts of his logic out, that his point is misunderstood.

 

[smaller]

Hosea 13:4
Yet I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Presumably that statement of fact would include ourselves as being "no savior."

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Of this I am confident as well, because that alone would undo, the Calvinism he so desperately clings, in favor of the knowledge from God.

His preset, predetermined philosophy is effectively exalting itself against the knowledge of God.


JLB

This, and all the other OSAS threads, has certainly been an interesting and amazing demonstration of the power of indoctrinations. They literally make it so the mind can not see the plain words of scripture. It's a very interesting phenomenon, and one I became alerted to through the teaching of Dr. Jeremiah. He opened my eyes to not let indoctrinations blind me that way.

It's a real problem in the church. It's a scary problem. I can understand how it might shake the faith of some people and harden them all the more in their indoctrination (how could so many in the church be wrong!). But we should remember the church couldn't see Romans 1:17 for centuries until Martin Luther saw it one day with his spiritual eyes and started the Protestant Reformation. So we should not be surprised that so many scholars and leaders and lay people can be so blind to what is so plainly written right under our noses in the New Testament.

 

[Runner]

I have an old '48 Harley basket case that my neighbor Fred, a mechanic, agrees to repair and restore for free because he enjoys tinkering with old bikes. He returns it to me, seemingly good as new, six months later.

I kick start it a week later. It purrs like a kitten. “Well, old Harley,” I jokingly say in flawless ancient Greek, “through the grace of Fred you have been fixed.”

My wife calls from the kitchen window: “Do my ears deceive me, beloved husband, or was that the perfect tense?”

“Indeed it was, most excellent wife,” I respond. “The Harley was broken but has been in a state of seemingly perfect fixedness ever since Fred returned it and remains so at this time.”

My other neighbor, Mr. Grace, who fancies himself a Greek scholar, overhears our conversation and demands to know: “How much do you want for that extraordinary Harley that CAN NEVER BREAK DOWN AGAIN?”

I explain that I certainly hope it never breaks down again but can hardly guarantee it won’t.

Six months later, the Harley once again leaps to life. “Golly, old beast, through the grace of Fred you really have been fixed,” I say in ancient Greek, patting it fondly.

“Stop playing with my mind!” screams Mr. Grace. “How much do you want for this miraculous motorcycle that CAN NEVER BREAK DOWN AGAIN?”

 

[smaller]

This, and all the other OSAS threads, has certainly been an interesting and amazing demonstration of the power of indoctrinations. They literally make it so the mind can not see the plain words of scripture. It's a very interesting phenomenon, and one I became alerted to through the teaching of Dr. Jeremiah. He opened my eyes to not let indoctrinations blind me that way.

It's a real problem in the church. It's a scary problem. I can understand how it might shake the faith of some people and harden them all the more in their indoctrination (how could so many in the church be wrong!). But we should remember the church couldn't see Romans 1:17 for centuries until Martin Luther saw it one day with his spiritual eyes and started the Protestant Reformation. So we should not be surprised that so many scholars and leaders and lay people can be so blind to what is so plainly written right under our noses in the New Testament.

I wouldn't term being convinced that our Savior might not save as being necessarily solid christian teaching myself.

Peter advises us to make our calling and election sure. And that if we do, we will NEVER FALL. Logically/reasonably speaking we might understand that the surety of salvation is based upon His Abilities to save, and not ourselves, our own abilities. That seems rather backwards.

I'm not convinced of anyone else's abilities to save themselves whatsoever, in the least.

2 Peter 1:
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Because Paul doesn't just give a condition for being saved. He lists two conditions for being saved while also standing firm/upright. One condition you post (hold fast), the other you leave out of your question (receive what he preached). Plus he's not just saying you are saved if you meet his two conditions. He's saying you are saved AND/ALSO stand upright/firm.

There are people that are saved but do not stand firm in their salvation. Maybe you know one or two? I do. Some people stand upon the Word to save them. Some are hoping they will be saved.

Also, there are people that think they are saved but aren't really because they believed Jesus was not raised (they believed in vain).

His point is clear, however, when read as a whole. It's when someone cuts parts of his logic out, that his point is misunderstood.

This is nonsense.
You're evading the condition for presently being saved.

"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received (factual, in the past), in which also you stand (up to the present), 2by which also you are (presently in real time) saved, if you (presently in real time) hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB verb tenses in parenthesis mine)

You haven't explained what the 'if' means in the sentence. It's a condition. But I knew you'd make it so that even if you don't satisfy the 'if' you'd still be saved.

 

[chessman]

He says I am presently saved IF I presently possess securely the word which I heard and by which I was saved.

And there you go again. No, that's not what he says. That's your logic, not his.

He says you are saved and/also stand if you received and hold fast what he preached.

If you are not holding fast what he preached, you are not standing in what Paul actually delievered.

Which was a risen savior that you receive in the here/now. (You are saved!)

Maybe you believe you must save yourself later on in life. You're not standing, you are sitting around in your 'quasi salvation' hoping you'll be saved later on if you are good enough. Versus standing assured of your salvation here/now.

Or you believe that Christ gave you a winning lottery ticket worth only the paper it is written on until you redeem it at the end of your life (assuming you don't misplace it or have it stolen). And then it's only worth something if your life (versus His life/death/resurrection) measures up 'good enough' not to be called a liar.

Plus, if you did not receive what he preached but rather believed in a non-risen Jesus, then you are not saved.

 

[chessman]

This is nonsense.
You're evading the condition for presently being saved.

Evading the condition huh?

He lists two conditions for being saved while also standing firm/upright. One condition you post (hold fast), the other you leave out of your question (receive what he preached).

Plus, if I called your interpretation "nonesense", my post would bleed red.

 

[Pegasus]

We all know this.
Why does this make it so that I don't have to hold fast to the word of the gospel in order to stay saved?
That's the question nobody will answer.

We are in violent agreement we MUST hold fast to the word of the gospel. If one does not, I believe they may be falling in the apostasy 'category' of 1 John 2 and Hebrews 6.

As I stated in another post, to deny the Gospel is to deny the Son and the Father. John calls that the way of antichrist. Perhaps today we call that anti-theism, atheism or agnostic. I see such people professing they were Christians 'once' and proclaim they are now atheist, anti-theist (know God exists but hate Him), and agnostic. I think Paul, John and the author of Hebrews are addressing those who know the way to salvation, tried it on for a time, but wanted to walk their own way. But add to this that they just don't want to walk away to think about it, they walk away full-time deniers and haters of the Gospel. That I believe is the apostasy discussed by the Apostles.

 

[FreeGrace]

Perfect tense only means the completed action produced results "which are still in effect all the way up to the present"**. But you have redefined the Perfect tense to mean 'results that will go beyond the present and will be in effect forever.

An opinion that comes from not actually reading what I have posted. The point is that Paul did NOT include any conditions or contingencies when he used the perfect tense. If the anti-OSAS position was correct, he couldn't have said that. He would have added some condition or contingency, such as "as long as one continues to believe", or something like that.

* http://ezraproject.com/id27.html

5. Perfect Tense

The perfect tense in Greek is used to describe a completed action which produced results which are still in effect all the way up to the present. Sample translation: "I have believed."

Notice that the perfect tense carries two ideas: (1) completed action and (2) continuing results. The action was completed at some time in the past, and the results continue up to the present.​

OK, let's consider this. Completed action is the action of being saved by God. And that being saved by God has CONTINUING RESULTS. And please note that there were no conditions or contingencies added to the statement.

iow, once saved, one continues to be saved. That is the meaning of the perfect tense. No conditions, no contingencies.

Example: We can see the perfect tense in action in 1 John 1:3: "What we have seen and [have] heard we proclaim to you also."

The apostle John is making the point that he was an eyewitness to the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, and that personal experience serves as the basis for the message that he proclaims decades later. You might paraphrase the first verb as "We saw Him, and we can still visualize what we saw." One writer has explained the second verb as "We heard Him, and His words are still ringing in our ears." John saw and heard Jesus many years earlier, and that era of his life has been completed. But the results continue. What he learned so many years ago remains with him now.

Note the first example the author uses: "I have believed"
Even you agree that believing can cease, and so the Perfect Tense in this case does not mean, and can not mean, that the believing that is continuing to the present must, by virtue of the Perfect tense, continue forever and will not end.

This misses the point. When one believes, they are saved. The continuing results of believing as a completed action is that one continues to be saved. Not that they continue to believe. You've missed the point of "continuing results". Not continuing the completed ACTION.

You can't redefine the Perfect tense to suit your doctrinal preference.

It seems you've tried to change the meaning from "continuing RESULTS" to "continuing ACTION". I suggest you reconsider.

It does NOT mean the completed action that produced results that continue up to the present will also continue forever and can never stop. You have added that definition to the Perfect tense.

False. The issue is "continuing results".

So, what is the result of the completed action of believing? To be saved. And that continues, and WITHOUT any conditions or contingencies attached to it.

 

[FreeGrace]

Of this I am confident as well, because that alone would undo, the Calvinism he so desperately clings, in favor of the knowledge from God.

Ha. I have as many disagreements with Calvinism as I do with Arminianism. Just different ones.

 

[FreeGrace]

The onus is always on the person to believe, which Jesus says is the work of God.

Believe is present tense.
JLB

So what? Jesus Himself used the present tense in Luke 8:13 then added "for a while", thus proving that the present tense doesn't mean continuously until the end of one's life. Obviously.

The issue of this thread is the perfect tense of "having been SAVED". Not "having believed". The RESULT of believing is being SAVED. That's what is continuing.

 

[FreeGrace]

So, if I believed not in vain and I possess the word that was preached to me, but I then cease to possess the word, that makes me unsaved according to Paul's condition for being saved.

No, your example doesn't parallel 1 Cor 15:1-2. Once one believes, they ARE SAVED, and they POSSESS ETERNAL LIFE.

I already highlighted words to show what "unless you believed without reason". It's the beginning of the verse, "you are saved".

Your preference for "in vain" seems to be an attempt to shift the argument. To "believe without reason" is to believe anything other than the gospel, which is not saving faith.

He says I am presently saved IF I presently possess securely the word which I heard and by which I was saved.

No, he said you are presently saved unless you believed without reason (not saving faith).

1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

v.2 begins with "by which also YOU ARE SAVED", and ends with "unless you believed in vain, or without reason".

If you believed without reason, you are not saved.

The phrase "you are saved" is directly related to "if you hold fast the word".

iow, to "hold fast (possess) the word" means that you are saved. And vice versa. To be saved means to possess the word.

Ceasing to believe later does not equal loss of possession of the word. You've not shown that. It is therefore just an opinion.

 

[FreeGrace]

This, and all the other OSAS threads, has certainly been an interesting and amazing demonstration of the power of indoctrinations. They literally make it so the mind can not see the plain words of scripture. It's a very interesting phenomenon, and one I became alerted to through the teaching of Dr. Jeremiah. He opened my eyes to not let indoctrinations blind me that way.

If this is a reference to Dr David Jeremiah, I have no doubt that he believes in eternal security.