chessman
Member
First, I should prolly take a moment and point out how all this back/forth between you and me on 1 John 2:14,17 and Perfect Tense IS within the topic of this Thread. It might not be as obvious, but it is on topic. The topic of 1 John Chapter 2 is “Keeping the New Commandment” and truth. And who better to explain it to us than a Jew, turned Christ disciple, turned New Commandment believer.
Notice how John says the new commandment was written to you AND IS TRUE in Him and in you. [emphasis mine because that's what I'm asking you to address. How can what John said be true, given your hypothesis that someone can stop having saving faith.]
In general WRT 1 John 2:14, 17, I’m simply asking you to reconcile how what John actually wrote can be true given your hypothesis, your doctrine) given the circumstance that a member of his intended audience hypothetically 'stops having saving faith' (your hypothesis). (Edit: A&T Guidelines state in part: "You may ask a member questions as to what they believe on certain topics relative to the subject of the thread, but please keep in mind the member is under no obligation to answer." Obadiah) we’ve made some progress in your last post. You say:
Your summary above is/was my point specifically concerning John choosing to use the Perfect Tense for what he communicated in his letter (you have conquered the evil one). Except of course John wasn't talking about lighting a candle but rather conquering evil.
Though I will point out again that John did discuss their future in verse 17 (remains forever). But just for simplification sake, please just address and reconcile your doctrinal view with what John says in verse 14. That is, with what we both agree to with WRT the Perfect Tense implication for the action/verb you have conquered the evil one (not the lighting of a candle).
My point/question (Edit: A&T Guidelines state in part: "You may ask a member questions as to what they believe on certain topics relative to the subject of the thread, but please keep in mind the member is under no obligation to answer." This obviously includes attempts to shame a person into answering. Obadiah) is simple:
(Edit: A&T Guidelines state in part: "You may ask a member questions as to what they believe on certain topics relative to the subject of the thread, but please keep in mind the member is under no obligation to answer." This obviously includes attempts to shame a person into answering. Obadiah) But here’s my point:
In order for what John did say to his readers (led by God to say it) to be Truth and without error in the present time (you have conquered the evil one) it has to be true in the present moment for the people he wrote his letter to (his audience, so-to-speak, see v7). (Edit: A&T Guidelines state in part: "You may ask a member questions as to what they believe on certain topics relative to the subject of the thread, but please keep in mind the member is under no obligation to answer." Obadiah)
Remember, what just agreed with was/is my original point about the Present Tense. Then just simply test your hypothesis, your doctrine, as follows: What if in-between the time John wrote his letter to his intended audience (young, saved men/friends) and the time his intended audience reads it, one or more of these men have 'stopped having saving faith' as you hypothesize can happen???
Has this person truthfully conquered the evil one (or is it the other way around in that the evil one has conquered them)? Get it? I see a problem with your doctrine here. How can someone conquer the evil one in the past, then still have completed that action in the present time (if they've stopped having saving faith). Your doctrine makes no sense to me, for that reason.
Given this situation, on your view/doctrine but not on mine, John and the Holy Spirit just wrote error. That is, if the friend and young man under the New Commandment 'stops having saving faith' and is thus conquered by the evil one (even though John just told him it’s the other way around for him). That is John says he completed the action of conquering the evil one and does so right up till the present time (via the Perfect Tense of the verb).
I have just simply replaced the candle with the evil one and lighting with conquering in your reply (since John isn’t talking about the action/verb of lighting a candle in his text): Oh, and I replaced "someone" with the Holy Spirit:
Given the above stipulation (with which we both agree), how can what John wrote be true (inerrant) of a young man that had conquered the evil one when John wrote his letter then hypothetically ‘stops having saving faith’ within your doctrine. Then along comes John’s letter and this young man (previously saved) reads it? John just told this young man he’d conquered the evil one (completed that action) in the past and has still completed that action right up to this moment in time. This makes no sense given your doctrine, unless you allow for error(s) in the Text. That’s my point.
1 John 2:8 (LEB) Again, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in him and in you,…
Notice how John says the new commandment was written to you AND IS TRUE in Him and in you. [emphasis mine because that's what I'm asking you to address. How can what John said be true, given your hypothesis that someone can stop having saving faith.]
In general WRT 1 John 2:14, 17, I’m simply asking you to reconcile how what John actually wrote can be true given your hypothesis, your doctrine) given the circumstance that a member of his intended audience hypothetically 'stops having saving faith' (your hypothesis). (Edit: A&T Guidelines state in part: "You may ask a member questions as to what they believe on certain topics relative to the subject of the thread, but please keep in mind the member is under no obligation to answer." Obadiah) we’ve made some progress in your last post. You say:
I agree with your summary of the implication of Perfect Tense applied to a verb/action above. Except of course your using the lighting of a candle as the verb/action is not in the text nor really instructive in any way. In fact, I never disagreed with this definition of what Perfect Tense indicates in the first place (it was a strawman when you first brought it up and still is). In fact the link I originally provided to what Perfect Tense means/implies defines it the same way as your (Edit, ToS 2.4, belittling comment. Obadiah) study site does too. And I never used verse 14 to say anything (one way or the other) about the future. I used verse 17 for that.Now what has to be true in order for someone in the Greek language to use the Perfect Tense to describe the lighting of the candle is that the candle is still lit up to this moment in time.
Your reply above is not an answer, much less accurate. I never said the Perfect Tense used for you have conquered the evil one means forever in the future. But I do say it means from the time John wrote the verse right up to the point in the present when his reader reads it. Don’t you agree?Your doctrine automatically thinks 'conquering the evil one' means forever, therefore, conquering the evil one proves OSAS.
Your summary above is/was my point specifically concerning John choosing to use the Perfect Tense for what he communicated in his letter (you have conquered the evil one). Except of course John wasn't talking about lighting a candle but rather conquering evil.
Though I will point out again that John did discuss their future in verse 17 (remains forever). But just for simplification sake, please just address and reconcile your doctrinal view with what John says in verse 14. That is, with what we both agree to with WRT the Perfect Tense implication for the action/verb you have conquered the evil one (not the lighting of a candle).
My point/question (Edit: A&T Guidelines state in part: "You may ask a member questions as to what they believe on certain topics relative to the subject of the thread, but please keep in mind the member is under no obligation to answer." This obviously includes attempts to shame a person into answering. Obadiah) is simple:
I'm asking you how John can be telling these young, living, saved men that they have conquered the evil one and remain forever, given your anti-OSAS idea. What if they do as you suggest "stops having faith". Wouldn't that mean John was wrong and they hadn't really conquered the evil one?
(Edit: A&T Guidelines state in part: "You may ask a member questions as to what they believe on certain topics relative to the subject of the thread, but please keep in mind the member is under no obligation to answer." This obviously includes attempts to shame a person into answering. Obadiah) But here’s my point:
In order for what John did say to his readers (led by God to say it) to be Truth and without error in the present time (you have conquered the evil one) it has to be true in the present moment for the people he wrote his letter to (his audience, so-to-speak, see v7). (Edit: A&T Guidelines state in part: "You may ask a member questions as to what they believe on certain topics relative to the subject of the thread, but please keep in mind the member is under no obligation to answer." Obadiah)
Remember, what just agreed with was/is my original point about the Present Tense. Then just simply test your hypothesis, your doctrine, as follows: What if in-between the time John wrote his letter to his intended audience (young, saved men/friends) and the time his intended audience reads it, one or more of these men have 'stopped having saving faith' as you hypothesize can happen???
Has this person truthfully conquered the evil one (or is it the other way around in that the evil one has conquered them)? Get it? I see a problem with your doctrine here. How can someone conquer the evil one in the past, then still have completed that action in the present time (if they've stopped having saving faith). Your doctrine makes no sense to me, for that reason.
Given this situation, on your view/doctrine but not on mine, John and the Holy Spirit just wrote error. That is, if the friend and young man under the New Commandment 'stops having saving faith' and is thus conquered by the evil one (even though John just told him it’s the other way around for him). That is John says he completed the action of conquering the evil one and does so right up till the present time (via the Perfect Tense of the verb).
I have just simply replaced the candle with the evil one and lighting with conquering in your reply (since John isn’t talking about the action/verb of lighting a candle in his text): Oh, and I replaced "someone" with the Holy Spirit:
Now what has to be true in order for The Holy Spirit in the Greek language to use the Perfect Tense to describe the conquering of the evil one is that the evil one is still conquered to this moment in time.
Given the above stipulation (with which we both agree), how can what John wrote be true (inerrant) of a young man that had conquered the evil one when John wrote his letter then hypothetically ‘stops having saving faith’ within your doctrine. Then along comes John’s letter and this young man (previously saved) reads it? John just told this young man he’d conquered the evil one (completed that action) in the past and has still completed that action right up to this moment in time. This makes no sense given your doctrine, unless you allow for error(s) in the Text. That’s my point.
Last edited by a moderator: