Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228708 | ||
The posters' words Allow me to response to the two Scriptures you cite: 1) Gal. 5:16-17: Are these verses really describing a conflict? My reply. YES There is a tug of war going on. The poster's words: Verse 16 makes a very clear statement of fact. If you live by the Spirit, you WILL NOT gratify the desires of the sinful nature. My reply. Notice the IF The poster's words: Now, how does v. 17 fit into the picture? Are we to understand that the flesh sometimes wins out over the Spirit of God? Or, is the verse saying that the Spirit wins out over the flesh? My reply: Sadly the flesh often wins out over the Spirit, not because the Spirit fails but because we are not being led by the Spirit. The poster's words. I believe the latter. God is sovereign and all-powerful. I can't believe for a minute that my sinful nature could win out in a conflict against the third Person of the Godhead. My reply: That is not the point at issue. Certainly if the person was wholly yielded to the Spirit the Spirit would win every time. But Paul's very fear is that Christians are not always yielded to the Spirit aand being led by the Spirit. The poster's words: 2) Eph. 4:20-24: This is an excellent passage, but neither does this passage indicate a struggle. The verbs 'put off' and 'put on' are Aorist infinitives, which indicate a one time action, not an ongoing one. My reply: Come on, Tim. What about your rules of grammar which you can bring in at wiil? Suppose this is a second aorist which can be used like a present or future continual tense? You can't play fast and loose with tenses in one Scripture and then cite them rigidly in another. That is exegetical cheating. Besides in verse 22 the putting off is in the past, but in verse 25 the present and future is in mind. Or are you going to make it an historic present? |
||||||
2 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Morant61 | 228712 | ||
Greetings Biblicalman! You said: "You can't play fast and loose with tenses in one Scripture and then cite them rigidly in another. That is exegetical cheating." I have been very polite in my discussions with you, so I don't understand why you are making two false assertions about me. I did not play fast or loose with the rules of grammar concerning the possibility of an historical present in Rom. 7:14-24. If you don't accept that interpretation, fine! But, don't pretend that I have violated some rule of grammar if I hold to that position. Secondly, you keep stressing the meaning of tenses. If you have been through Greek training, then you certainly understand the the major force of the tenses in Greek is the kind of action involved, not the time of the action. The aorist involves point of time action. You will not find any Greek scholar who would argue that Eph. 4:22 or Eph. 4:25 indicates an ongoing action. If you don't agree with my points, fine! But, please do not falsely accuse me of exegetical cheating. It has been my experience that when one is unable to deal with the facts, then the discussion turns personal. Let's keep it our discussion on the facts my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228716 | ||
You say: I did not play fast or loose with the rules of grammar concerning the possibility of an historical present in Rom. 7:14-24. If you don't accept that interpretation, fine! But, don't pretend that I have violated some rule of grammar if I hold to that position. My reply: You have used your limited knowledge of Greek to give a false impression. I could exonerate you first time, but not with continuing that position once it has been pointed out to you. It simply is not true that your so-called rule justifies saying, whenever a present tense is used I can say 'this is an historic present' even when it is contrasted with a past tense. It is only true in limited contexts. And Romans 7 is not one of them. So yes I do think you are playing fast and loose with Greek tenses. This is a fact. It has to be said. I realise that you do it out of 'ignorance'. But I suggest that until you are far more knowledgeable about Greek you stop citing the meaning of tenses to support your case. You are simply not sufficiently knowledgeable (as at one stage you admitted yourself). It has nothing to do with whether I agree with your points. It is that i see your knowledge of Greek as sadly lacking and therefore misused in your arguments. No language is more misused by commentators, who are trying to support a viewpoint, than Greek. With regard to Ephesians 4.25 ff which is a mixture of aorists and pesents nothing can be more clear than that it describes a continuing situation. And using your methods why should we not see the present tenses as historic presents and the aorists as second aorists? By the time we have finished Greek tenses tell us nothing at all Yes, that is what I am doing, asking that you stick to the facts you are capable of making a judgment on. Aorist does not always indicate point of time action. That is a concept which has long since been disproved. I'm sorry but these things have to be said. Stick to using English in your arguments. Then I will respect you. |
||||||
4 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Morant61 | 228720 | ||
Wow! Considering you know nothing about my training or experience, these are pretty broad statements. Well, I will not respond in kind, but I will not be told that I can't use my Greek knowledge either! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||