Dr. Dan Wallace on ho pisteuon

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

I have question I just got done reading this excerpt from Dr. Dan Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics and wanted to get a second opinion so to speak on whether his conclusions are spot on.



The aspectual force of the present pisteuon seems to be in contrast with ho pisteusas. The aorist is used only eight times (plus two in the longer ending of Mark). Thus, it seems that since the aorist participle was a live option to describe a “believer?, it is unlikely that when the present was used, it was aspectually flat. The present was the tense of choice most likely because the NT writers by and large saw continual belief as a necessary condition of salvation.

Along these lines, it seems significant that the promise of salvation is almosts always given to ho pisteuon, almost never to ho pisteusas (apart from Mark 16:16, John 7:39 and Heb 4:3 come the closest [present tense of pisteuo never occurs in Hebrews]).

\

The problem I see with this view is how in the world can ho pisteuon denote a present tense verb that is indefinite (continual) when it’s a verbal noun? That means an indefinite action of believing is required to meet the condition for instance in Jn 3:16 - to believe on Him? So then if a indefinite present tense is required in order to meet the condition this means the believing one will never have any time do anything not mention catch their breath but only to believe, believe, believe because they have to do so based on the fact the verb tense is indefinite or continual.

2

Here’s the reference for the excerpt I just posted

\

  1. Daniel B. Wallace. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House and

Galaxie Software, 1999, 2002), p. 621, note 22, emphasis added to all but the word continual.

3

I don’t know if that answers your question, but I don’t see why the use of the present participle is problematic. I mean (and I am far from an expert on theological/religious matters), why would breathing interfere with believing (or vice versa if you wish)?

He/she who believes believes whatever else he/she may do (I think)

4

Are you suggesting that pas ho pisteuon demands one to continue to believe indefinitely in order to receive the results of the condition - not to perish but have everlasting life? That would be absurd - because what would happen to one who for a moment meets the condition and then after a few seconds drops dead? Are they stripped of the results in spite of meeting the conditions because they didn’t continue their belief longer thereafter? That means pas ho pisteuon is demanding a length of time or a lifetime of unhindered belief in order to get the results. The problem is that no time or length is stipulated in the passage so then what happens to the one who stops believing are they too stripped of the results not to mention everlasting results. Everlasting by definition I thought was without end - no end it sight, if it’s not everlasting than the wrong word is being used in 3.16

I hope you can see logic.

5

My bad I meant the stipulated condition and its results in meeting it are in

John 3.16 =

pas ho pisteuon heis autos mE apollumi all echE zOEn aiOnion

6

I’m not the one able to give a second opinion on something Wallace has written. (If you had not given where you got your information, I would have used his book to answer your question. :slight_smile: )
However, I agree with Irene. Breathing does not interfere with believing.
Doing a good job at work or at school does not either. Doing everyday tasks like cutting the lawn or doing the dishes can all be part of living in faith (of believing.)
I think that the difference between the present and aorist participle is that the present participle puts some emphasis on a life lived in faith.

7

breathing was just an example - so please scratch that


I) “WHOEVER BELIEVES” IS A NOMINATIVE PRESENT PARTICIPLE PORTRAYING A SINGLE MOMENT OF BELIEVING AND NOT A CONTINUOUS ONE

A) “PAS HO PISTEUON” = “WHOEVER BELIEVES” IS A NOMINATIVE PRESENT PARTICIPLE = A NOUN WHICH ONLY REQUIRES AN INSTANT OF BELIEVING

The phrase “whoever believes” in Jn 3:16 = “pas ho pisteuon” = relative pronoun “pas” = “everyone who” with a definite article “the” = “ho” + the present participle verb functioning as a noun, lit. “everyone who is the believing one”.

[The Language of the New Testament, Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, Chas. Scribner’s Sons, N.Y., 1965, p. 173]:

"Present participles may be used substantively [as a noun]… In the translation of such constructions into English one must usually resort to paraphrases of the types illustrated…

  1. [Compare Ro 12:7]:

“If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach;”

“o didaskon” = the teaching one, the one teaching, the one who is teaching, the one who teaches.

So “pas ho pisteuon” = “everyone who is the believing one”, i.e, everyone who is the believer at the moment one begins believing.

[“Syntax of New Testament Greek”, Brooks & Winbery, 1979, University Press, Lanham, Md, pp. 144]:

"THE SUBSTANTIVAL PARTICIPLE

The participle, like an adjective, may be used in the place of a noun or other substantive. The participle itself then functions as a noun. Its case, gender, and number are determined by its use in the sentence. It may be used in most of the ways in which a noun is used, e.g. as a subject nominative, as a dative of indirect object, as an accusative of direct object, etc. It may be used with or without an article. It always stands in the attributive position [following the article]."

  1. [Compare Mk 6:14]:

‘’‘King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, "John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.‘’’

“John the Baptist” = “iOannEs ho baptizOn” =

“ho baptizOn” = “the baptizing one” = present, active, participle as a noun = “the Baptist”

[Bob Wilkin states, Grace in Focus periodical, Jan/Feb 2006, Vol 21, Number 1, Grace Evangelical Society, Irving Texas, p. 2]:

“Herod had put John to death after imprisoning him for some time. John had not baptized anyone in a long time, yet Herod still called him “ho baptizOn” We still call him that today, even though he hasn’t baptized anyone for 2000 years! John was only the Baptist when he was in the water baptizing people. Each time he came out of the water after conducting bapisms, he would cease being ho baptizOn. Of course, using that reasoning, since John stoped baptizing forever when he was imprisoned, his baptism was a false or spurious baptism all along!”


[Dr. Robert Wilkin states, The Grace Report, Monthly Report of the Grace Evangelical Society, Irving, Tx. ges@faithalone.org, Mar 1999, Notes and Letters, p. 4]:

‘’'The articular participle (=the article “the” [=‘ho’] plus a participle [ex. pisteuon = believing] functions as a verbal noun. Thus [‘ho pisteuon’ =] ‘the one who believes’ does not mean ‘‘he who keeps on believing and believing and believing’ but means ‘the believer.’ [i.e., one who at some time exercised a single moment of faith alone in Christ alone]. Anyone who comes to faith in Christ is from that moment forward ‘the believer.’ ‘’’

In other words, the nominative present participle has in view one who at some moment in present time exercised a single moment of faith in whatever is specified, in this case, trusting that God gave His one and only Son for one as a believer.

B) “PAS HO PISTEUON” = “WHOEVER BELIEVES” IS NOT A SIMPLE CONTINUOUS PRESENT TENSE & THUS DOES NOT CONVEY CONTINUOUS ACTION

The phrase “whoever believes” in Jn 3:16 is not a simple continuous present tense as some contend in order to demand that one maintain a constant state of believing so that one will continue to possess eternal life otherwise lose it; rather, as previously indicated, it is the relative pronoun “whoever” with the definite article “ho” = “the” and the present, active nominative participle verb “pisteuon” = “pas ho pisteuon”= “everyone who is the believing one” = a noun.

Consider the individuals who are found guilty of various offenses before a magistrate in a court in the times of the ancient Roman Empire - New Testament times. The magistrate declares before the group of guilty people in koine Greek, the language of the New Testament, in a statement that directly parallels the second half of Jn 3:16, ‘Whoever pays his fine shall not perish in jail, but have freedom to go, with his life.’ Does the present tense of ‘Whoever pays’ demand continuous - uninterrupted payment of the fine in order for an individual to “have freedom to go, with his life?” The answer is obvious, the present tense does not always demand continuous uninterrupted action in the present. Just as the payment of the Magistrate’s fine was done once in present time such that it results in freedom - the payment not having to be continuous; so the believing in Christ as Savior, when it begins in present time, immediately results in the aorist tense completed action of never perishing and the present tense reception of eternal life such that the believing need not continue in order to keep the result of never perishing and possession of eternal life continuous because the never perishing is a completed action and the eternal life by its very nature once received is continuously eternal.

If I were to say, “In the morning I get on a bus, pay my fare with a bus pass, and get off where I work;” does the phrase ‘pay my fare’ mean I continually pay the fare until the ride ends, or is it in a moment of present time until the end is achieved, i.e., about 1 second to swipe the pass through the slot on top of the fare box? Same with ‘I get on the bus’ is not continual nor is ‘get off’. Present tense is simply a present moment of action until the context determines when the action ceases. This is true in the koine Greek also.

Furthermore, even if the simple present tense were the verb in the original Greek text - and it is not - a special context and/or additional words such as “diapantos” = continually, must be inserted into the text in order to convey the idea of continuous believing. The Greek present tense by itself does not convey such an idea - nor does its counterpart in English. Simple present tense action in the absence of qualifiers demands a singular action in the present moment without requiring that it continue into later moments in any language. No first century Greek reader or hearer was likely to get a meaning such as ‘continue to believe’ without the necessary additional qualifiers to the simple present tense.

8

Hi, and welcome to Textkit.

The imperfective aspect of the present tense also denotes habitual or customary action.

Aspect discloses, from the speaker’s perspective, the internal temporal structure of the verb’s action. Generally, imperfective aspect discloses that action as ongoing (or habitual). I think it is certain that, under this aspect, a Greek present tense form can indeed mean “continue to X”.

Cordially,

Paul

9

Far from me to claim understanding the English language perfectly but I think that, in English too, the present tense can denote sth of an indefinite (continuous) nature.

If I say that the Moon revolves around the Earth (which I am pretty sure is a correct sentence from all aspects), I mean for a number of years far exceeding the life span of normal people.

On another note, I think that the “if one drops dead” is not a good example; since the time-span of indefinite is in fact indefinite, it is not a matter of time measurement but of continuity of belief.

10

Both of you have appeared to have ignored the following comments:

Furthermore, even if the simple present tense were the verb in the original Greek text - and it is not - a special context and/or additional words such as “diapantos” = continually, must be inserted into the text in order to convey the idea of continuous believing. The Greek present tense by itself does not convey such an idea - nor does its counterpart in English. Simple present tense action in the absence of qualifiers demands a singular action in the present moment without requiring that it continue into later moments in any language. No first century Greek reader or hearer was likely to get a meaning such as ‘continue to believe’ without the necessary additional qualifiers to the simple present tense

11

On the contrary, in English an unmodified present tense is precisely the verb form you use to represent a continuous, general statement: I walk to work; dogs bark; my former boss is a drooling lackwit.

Further, Greek also used unmodified present tense verbs to represent continuous, habitual action. See Smyth 1877-1876

12

I walk to work; dogs bark; my former boss is a drooling lackwit.


Agreed but are you continually performing the action as we speak, ‘I walk to work’? That’s the issue here? Ho pisteuon because of the article ‘the’ in front of the verb denotes a noun (a verbal noun). Is describing an individual who at one time did not believe but then at some point in time performed the action, believe, therefore becoming the believing one.

See the above example of the bus drive to get to work. Notice the actions were performed once to achieve the destination, to get to work. The individual will probably or probably not repeat this action again. He may have purchased a car, so no need to perform those particular actions again to use a bus to get to work.

These are examples of present perfect aspects as opposed to present imperfect aspects. Imperfect as noted correctly are habitual but to what end is the issue. As we saw the action of walking to work can end, does that mean the ability to walk or getting to one’s particular destination ceases to exist to use the bus drive analogy?

But were dealing with the eternal state which results in any one who meets the condition in Jn 3.16. Notice the results when one meets the condition in Jn 3:16.

[condition] but whosoever believes on Him = hina pas ho pisteuO heis autos

One believed on Him (the Son) which in practice takes a moment to do just like getting on a bus for the first and last time took one only once to do but never again because they now drive a car.

So the result of having believed on Him 5 4 3 2 1 =

[the results] should not perish but have eternal life = mE apollumi all echE zOEn aiOnion


Notice the first and second results are intrinsic values affecting the one who believed on the Son =

\

  • never perish -

(inconclusive of what is - so look further in the verse or context for meaning)


\

  • but have life eternal

(is conclusive of what is - for eternal modifies the believing one’s life. The non-temporal one, spiritual one - see previous contexts vv. 3-13 for meaning)


Recall eternal means existing for an infinite, i.e., limitless, amount of time

Therefore if the condition was met once - when one became the believing one for the first time resulting in them a state of never perishing but posessing eternal life. Then the life of one is eternal (recall defined as - no end in sight conceptually).

So can the definition of eternal be reversed once its essence has begun in one who later failed to believe? if that’s the case then the authors usage of the word eternal = aiOnion was a wrong word to use. He should have used another word to denote temporal or potential life.

This would also demonstrate the author implies pulling a bait and switch from not perishing to perishing of anyone, who in spite of meeting the condition at one time fails to continue meeting the condition even for a few moments thereafter.

Notice none of this is even hinted at in the entire context in John 3 - no length of time to believe - even no mention of a threshold that one can get by in not meeting the condition, if it were continual which it is not.

If there exists the potential the definition of eternal can be reversed. Than conceptually God who is also eternal would also be subject to such modification.

This would have serious ramifications possibly rendering the Word of God to no use… Are you ready to go there?

13

a) what about the Moon :slight_smile:

b) I just opened my Bible and found the piece you are talking about.
Question: What tense should he have used if he wanted to give the meaning you deny to the present? I can argue with the same kind of logic you use that, by using a past tense he condemns all who are not yet born (since a past tense shows something already finished). By using a future tense he leaves those ‘unfortunate’ enough to have already believed in an undecided fate.
I can also argue that by ho pisteuon he actually means that those who believe at the moment he talks are the only ones to be saved so future generations are doomed anyway.

c) Why is it so difficult to accept that the present tense can convey the meaning of continuity? It’s not as if it is one man’s opinion!

d) Luke 12:30. It says (still no accents etc ) that the Father knows that you need those. (ο Πατή? εξε??ει ότι έχετε χ?είαν τουτων.) You can’t mean to tell me that God knows now but he won’t know in the future

14

a) what about the Moon

What about the Moon? Who is arguing that the Moon does not revolve around the Earth. What of the Sun, and the remain planets and their revolutions. Irrelevant than



b) I just opened my Bible and found the piece you are talking about.
Question: What tense should he have used if he wanted to give the meaning you deny to the present?


A temporal one instead of everlasting - are you ready to redefine eternal life.


[Notice the completed action of the Father giving His one and only Son once following with a condition to believe on His son results also in a completed action of possessing eternal life.]



I can argue with the same kind of logic you use that, by using a past tense he condemns all who are not yet born (since a past tense shows something already finished). By using a future tense he leaves those ‘unfortunate’ enough to have already believed in an undecided fate.


[You’re adding to the context of the verse which isn’t even stipulated in the verse - if it is then I am all ears. Besides keep reading v 17,

For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.


Notice the enite world is in view, who as a result of the Father’s sending the Son have the potential of being saved through the Son. Oddly no mention of a portion or certains ones who have the potential. Potential that is if one were to satisfy the same condition were discussing in v 16]



I can also argue that by ho pisteuon he actually means that those who believe at the moment he talks are the only ones to be saved so future generations are doomed anyway.

No you can’t because it’s already an open and closed case settled by the fact the Son was sent by the Father not to condemn the [whole world] but through the Son the [world] should be saved.

Notice also in v 18 what it is that judges one.

One is judged already - (going to perish v 16 condemned already v 17)The one never believed - this is any one who has not ever once believed on the name of the only begotten Son.


Context, context, context determines meaning]




c) Why is it so difficult to accept that the present tense can convey the meaning of continuity? It’s not as if it is one man’s opinion!


[I never said the present tense in concept cannot denote continuity but rather to what end. Again revert to the fact of the one who walks to work or uses a bus to get to work. If either of these individuals were to buy a car has their ability to walk and get on a bus cease to exist because they stopped performing those relevant actions. Notice they still can get in a car and travel to work in but when they’ve reached their destination, are they still performing the action of getting in the car and driving?]


d) Luke 12:30. It says (still no accents etc ) that the Father knows that you need those. (ο Πατή? εξε??ει ότι έχετε χ?είαν τουτων.) You can’t mean to tell me that God knows now but he won’t know in the future

[Who’s questioning God’s knowledge? Ironically all of you have been questioning His ability (It’s His Word) to perform what He has promised in this case Jn 3.16 to give to the one who in a moments time meets His condition for eternal life.]

15
<?xml version="1.0"?>
16

Quote:
A temporal one instead of everlasting - are you ready to redefine eternal life.

who said that the present tense shows everalasting continuity? It can but it doesn’t have to


[Dr. Wallace did - when he made the claim the condition for salvation is present continual action of pisteuon - with no room for mistake - so in a sense you cannot fail to believe is what he thinks Jn 3.16 teaches. But that is absurd - what of the thief on the cross - who had no pardon to live long enough to endure in faith to prove he believed on the Lord in his dying moments.

What about those very earlier believers if any had past away before letters like James 2 were in circulation so they can confirm they have really believed on Christ?

Perseverence of one’s faith for eternal life is not a condition in Jn 3.16. Unless the Lord was implying the idea why was it kept silent in Jn 3.16?
But forcing ones suppositions on a word, redefining words and sort forth is not an honest exegesis.]



Quote:
You’re adding to the context of the verse which isn’t even stipulated in the verse - if it is then I am all ears. Besides keep reading v 17,

I am? It says that he gave the world His only Son so that pas ho pisteuon will not perish
What if he used any other of the existing tenses of ancient Greek? That’s what I am asking.


[My point made, he didn’t use the other options because it’s evident from the context. Context determines meaning, I thought you would understand that. How then are you able to ascertain the context of our correspondence, if context cannot be relied on to determine meaning from John 3.16?]



Quote:

Notice the enite world is in view, who as a result of the Father’s sending the Son have the potential of being saved through the Son. Oddly no mention of a portion or certains ones who have the potential. Potential that is if one were to satisfy the same condition were discussing in v 16

what if I interpreted the world word as not meaning all humans for ever and ever? What I am getting at is that you can interpret things the way you want.


[Again you would have to read the entire context, particularly v.31 to see all humanity is in view in the chapter. If you would like here is my thorough study of John Chapter 3 to get a better idea of where I am coming from. No need to brow beat each other]



Quote:

No you can’t because it’s already an open and closed case settled by the fact the Son was sent by the Father not to condemn the [whole world] but through the Son the [world] should be saved.

yes I can because he uses the form He who didn’t believe and as we all know he who didn’t believe is of definitely of the past so a part of the world IS doomed correct?


[Of course you can, but are you being honest with the text?


Notice in v 18, the “Whoever” continues to have in view everyone in the world that God sent His Son into (v. 17); not just a chosen few. Condemnation is indicated as opposite to being saved unto eternal life through faith in the Son of God, (vv. 16-17). Hence not being condemned in v. 18 has in view being saved unto eternal life in this passage. “Whoever believes” is literally ‘whoever is the one who believes’ which does not mean '‘he who keeps on believing and believing and believing’ but means ‘the believer.’, i.e., one who at some time exercised a single moment of faith alone in Christ alone which results in no condemnation, i.e., being saved unto eternal life forever.

The opposite is also true: whoever has not yet believed stands condemned already because he has not become the believer. All it takes is a moment of faith alone in God’s one and only Son alone + nothing else stipulated and you will never be condemned, i.e., you will have eternal life forever.

Note that ‘believes in Him’ is equated with ‘believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.’ There is no distinction made here, both result in a moment of time in never any condemnation.

Notice also that all mankind is in a state of condemnation until each one believes - saving one at a time.

Verse 18 makes it evident that eternal life is made available to all mankind. It continues the context established in verses 14-17. If theword “whoever” was limited to a chosen few, the verse would sound redundant and contradictory:

'Whoever [of a chosen few] believes in Him is not condemned…

It is contradictory to imply that some of the chosen will not believe since none of the chosen will fail to believe.]




Quote:

One is judged already - (going to perish v 16 condemned already v 17)The one never believed - this is any one who has not ever once believed on the name of the only begotten Son.

Context, context, context determines meaning]


So you mean that one that goes into the light can then retreat into the darkness certain that he’ll go to Heaven?


[Absolutely, we all do this when we sin, do we not? But notice verse 19
declares that ‘Light has come into the world,’ and that this light is rejected by people who loved darkness. Here the word ‘world’ clearly refers to the entire creation. Thus the word “world” in John chapter 3 is further supported as universal.

“Light has come into the world” parallels “the Son of Man Who came down from heaven” [into the world], (v. 13); and the Son of God, Who was sent by God “into the world”, (v. 17). In the light of the absence of any restriction, none of these parallels can be limited to a chosen population in the world. They are all speaking of Jesus Christ Who has made provision for the sins of everyone in the whole world who will ever live and the light of His message of the gospel which has been proclaimed throughout the ages to all mankind.

A) MEN LOVE DARKNESS BECAUSE IT HIDES THEIR EVIL

[The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament Edition, Walvoord & Zuck Eds, Victor Books, USA, 1988, p. 282]:

"3:19. Men love darkness not for its own sake but because of what it hides. They want to continue undisturbed in their evil (ponera, wicked; cf v. 20 which has a different word for evil) deeds. A believer is also a sinner (though a redeemed one)…

In the ultimate sense, man’s love of darkness rather than God the Light (John 1:5, 10-11; 1 John 1:5) is his love for idols. He worships and serves ‘created things rather than the Creator’ (Rom 1:25)

XIX) [Jn 3:20]:]]



Quote:
[I never said the present tense in concept cannot denote continuity but rather to what end. Again revert to the fact of the one who walks to work or uses a bus to get to work. If either of these individuals were to buy a car has their ability to walk and get on a bus cease to exist because they stopped performing those relevant actions. Notice they still can get in a car and travel to work in but when they’ve reached their destination, are they still performing the action of getting in the car and driving?]


No they don’t; because simply (and perhaps I should only have writen this one thing) driving a car and so on and sso forth are not a way of life. Believing is


[Of course driving a car and so on are apart of life - it describes actions that men do but not all men]


d) Luke 12:30. It says (still no accents etc ) that the Father knows that you need those. (ο Πατή? εξε??ει ότι έχετε χ?είαν τουτων.) You can’t mean to tell me that God knows now but he won’t know in the future

[Who’s questioning God’s knowledge? Ironically all of you have been questioning His ability (It’s His Word) to perform what He has promised in this case Jn 3.16 to give to the one who in a moments time meets His condition for eternal life.][/quote]

I quote a previous post of yours
Quote:
Simple present tense action in the absence of qualifiers demands a singular action in the present moment without requiring that it continue into later moments in any language. No first century Greek reader or hearer was likely to get a meaning such as ‘continue to believe’ without the necessary additional qualifiers to the simple present tense.



I know my English is far for perfect but aren’t you denying present tense’s function as a continuous tense with this?[/i]



[Never said that the concept of continuous tense does not exist - again you are ignoring the context. Recall context determines meaning like what we’ve been discoursing so far]

\

ΟΥΤΟΙΣΥ?ΕΧΘΕΙ?ΑΛΛΑΣΥΜΦΙΛΕΙ?ΕΦΥ?

I was not born to share hatred, but love.

Sophocles, Antigone

17

Forgive me. Now that I’ve looked at it, I will ignore it. It’s laughably false.

In the same text from which you inundate us with quotations, I found this:

"In the final analysis “whoever believes” = “pas ho pisteuon” in the Greek, the form of the verb to believe in Jn 3:16, is not a simple present tense form at all; but it is actually a nominative, singular, masculine, present active participle, i.e., a participle acting as a noun indicating “one who believes” [in Christ as Savior], i.e., a believer. The participle acting as a noun does not require a perfection of continuous action such as continuous believing in order for an individual to be qualified as a believer.

C) A CONTINUOUS STATE OF BELIEVING IN CHRIST IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH MAN

According to Scripture, a continuous and perfect state of believing in Christ is not possible with man which would necessitate sinless perfection. For any sin a believer commits reflects a degree of unbelief and no one can claim to be without sin, nor maintain a perfect state of continuous faith…"

You take exception to Wallace’s claim that “The present was the tense of choice most likely because the NT writers by and large saw continual belief as a necessary condition of salvation.” Perhaps you are construing too literally what Wallace means by “continual”.

Under “imperfective aspect” we also include action disclosed as progressive and discrete. Please consider:

a. reading a book
b. singing a song

We happily think of such processes as “progressive” or “continual”. Yet they are discrete, gappy: while reading, my mind sometimes wanders; there are moments of singing when one is not singing.

Next consider flying in an airplane. This too is “progressive” or “continual”. Yet at no time during the process am I NOT flying. It is truly a continual (non-discrete) process. Capisce?

I quite agree with you that for most of us mortals a continuous (non-discrete) state of belief is simply impossible. But I really don’t think that’s what Wallace meant to say.

Cordially,

Paul

18

mreeds, I can’t seem to understand what you are trying to say but it sure can’t be that -As long as you have believed once, you are saved-. Or to say it in Irene’s pointed words, one that goes into the light can then retreat into the darkness certain that he’ll go to Heaven .
I want to remind you of something you wrote (something that I did understand):

Context, context, context determines meaning

You should take into account the broader context because the rest of the Bible definitely does not take the view that believe now -but not tomorrow- and you will be saved.

mreeds wrote:
The Greek present tense by itself does not convey such an idea - nor does its counterpart in English. Simple present tense action in the absence of qualifiers demands a singular action in the present moment without requiring that it continue into later moments in any language.
(William replied)
On the contrary, in English an unmodified present tense is precisely the verb form you use to represent a continuous, general statement: I walk to work; dogs bark; my former boss is a drooling lackwit…

William, aren’t you giving examples of ‘Habitual present’? You can use a helping verb if you wanted to emphasize the imperfective aspect.
I am walking to work; dogs are barking; my former boss is being a drooling lackwit. (BTW it is very smart you wrote FORMER boss. You never know; your present boss may read this.)

19

You should take into account the broader context because the rest of the Bible definitely does not take the view that believe now -but not tomorrow- and you will be saved.



[Broader context - what happens then to the thief on the cross and any others who had simply believed on Jesus Christ before any inspired letters could reach them. In order to persevere in faith to prove to God they have in fact believed. This would be absurd reasoning.

If one has to master the entire Bible to be qualified to meet the condition set forth in John 3:16 then no one could be saved. Since all believers would had to have waited for the entire Canon to compiled and then they can proceed to met the condition in John 3:16]

[Besides Scripture in no wise can vary from one passage to another. Hence what is said in John 3:16 cannot be modified into something else by looking at some other passage and determining if something more is needed to be saved than what is stipulated without question in John 3:16: a moment of faith alone in the Son of God alone being given for one. Otherwise John 3:16 is wrong and our Lord did not speak the truth! There is no stipulation in John 3:16 of any guarantee or command to produce fruit, hence it is not required and cannot be imposed upon by some other passage. Walking in the light or darkness is completely absent from John 3:16 which tells one how to have eternal life. To impose that onto John 3:16 is to manufacture a verse outside of God’s Word.

Furthermore not all passages apply to what it takes to have eternal life. Many passages apply to what a believer should do to become a faithful believer, not to have eternal life. And many other passages apply to the consequences of an unfaithful believer when he is not faithful, which is evidently a possibility. But here were reviewing John 3:16 and those passages must wait.]

[This presents a problem when seriously considered: If one verse cannot be interpreted unless it is done so within the framework of the entirety of Scripture, then no verse can be properly interpreted because no one truly can or has mastered the entirety of Scripture in order to be confident that ones interpretation of a verse is in full compliance with the rest of Scripture. Hence only an elite few individuals who have ever lived, maybe no one, can truly understand the gospel and be saved. The rest of humanity is thusly doomed.

Said another way:

There is no need to master the entire book to figure out what one sentence says. If that were the case it would be impossible to read anything because no sentence can be understood until all the sentences were understood _ an impossible morass of circular reasoning.

Or perhaps the gospel is available to such as children who may take one verse at a time, understand what it is saying within the context of where it appears and that alone and believe and be saved.

Furthermore, this concept of entirety violates the integrity of the Greek and English rules of grammar which demand that each sentence, (verse), has its own thought/message within its own peculiar context and it cannot be imposed upon by another verse. Scripture cannot be used to change other scripture. One verse properly interpreted can corroborate but cannot be used collaborate with another to end up with a little from here mixed with a little from there message. That is not how language rules work.

Finally, there is no difference between the gospel and the fullness of the gospel. The latter phrase, “fullness of the gospel? never appears in Scripture. The gospel is simply the good news of what an individual must do to be saved: a moment of faith alone in Christ alone + nothing else as stipulated in over 150 passages.]

20
<?xml version="1.0"?>