From: CWestf5155@aol.com
Date: Sat Jan 13 2001 - 19:32:47 EST
Steve,
This was meant to be just a brief reply and I won't deal with every point. I
include a copy of your post below.
I think that you (understandably) have taken the term "traditional" to refer
to theology or both theology and grammar. I was only referring to the
traditional grammar versus the current challenges and discussion. I didn't
mean the "Calvinist view" when saying the word "traditional". I would not
assume that all Calvinist/Reformed theologians were traditional grammarians,
or that they all would handle Jn. 5:24 in the same way.
The reason that I put "permanent" in brackets was to signify that is not in
all traditional views--I guess that was a miscue. So I agree and already
understood that all traditional grammarians don't hold that view--but it is a
common fallacy to avoid.
The reason that the "state of death" is not viewed as equal in focus to "the
state of life" is because of the force of the perfect--it involves a
state/condition that comes about as a result of the action. The result would
be the state of life. The state of death would not be a result. If this were
an aorist, I'd see the same parallel states that you see--in at least one
instance of the aorist of METABAINW, the focus is on the place departed from
(Mt. 8:24).
About the "futuristic presents", etc--I have no big problem with what you
said. If you find a "futuristic present" plausible for ERCOMAI, that's OK
with me--you have good company. However, because of Jn. 3:18 in the preceding
context, where it says the one who does not believe is already judged NUN
(hey--perfect tense there too), I kind of hedge on buying a compeletly
futuristic sense. These verses seem to be closely related.
But by labelling the present tense as "process"--that is just another
application of aspect--open-ended action. I don't want to open another
discussion on that, but just so you know this was based on the application of
aspect to form. And this is not what I want to focus on, except for the
element of verbal opposition.
To say the actual time element of the perfect of passing from death to life
may be "omnitemporal" (or gnomic) as opposed to futuristic is not a big deal
in my mind. What I am saying, is that Jesus was not talking about a certain
historic guy who passed (in the past before Jesus' speech) from death into
life where he was residing at the time that Jesus was speaking (though there
may have been one). Most think that this was meant to apply primarily to what
would happen many times to respective individuals--to all who believe in the
present and future (and maybe the past too)--and that is why this verse has
posed problems for the traditional view of the perfect and why it has been a
focus of discussion.
I don't think that this passage causes any problems for Calvinists or
Reformed theologians. This passage doesn't contradict the theology in any way
that I can see. That wasn't the point at all, but I do understand why you
think it was and why you had this response.
I did say, however, that it is not justified to use the perfect tense in Jn.
5:24 as evidence of either permanency of salvation or the order of salvation.
That would have to be proven elsewhere.
Remember, this discussion is about what you could say about what the perfect
in Jn. 5:24 "means" and what it doesn't mean.
I apologize for equating 'perseverance of the saints' with 'permanency of
salvation' if it offends you--I link them in my mind, but understand that
there is a distinction.
Cindy Westfall
PhD Student, University of Surrey at Roehampton
In a message dated 01/13/2001 3:34:08 PM Mountain Standard Time,
doulos@chorus.net writes:
> I hadn't planned to get involved in this thread (although I have been
> tempted). This is because I do have a theological "bent" that I would like
> to think comes from the text rather than being one read into the text. But
I
> felt I must comment on some of the statements below (at the risk of
> embarrassing myself. But I guess that would be nothing new!)
>
> > As Alex noted, these issues have been discussed for a long time. And it
> is
> > interesting to note that in the history of the discussion of the
perfect,
> Jn.
> > 5:24 has been one of the 'problem' verses that some believe conflict
with
> the
> > traditional view (that it means the past event and the present
[permanent]
> > consequences).
>
> I think adding "permanent" in brackets above may confuse and prejudice the
> mind of one inquiring into this matter. While SOME may have made the
mistake
> of inferring permanency from the use of the perfect, this is by no means
the
> crux of, or even the claim of, most of those I know who hold the
> "traditional view" (by which terminology you seem to be referring to the
> "Calvinistic" or "Reformed" view). Most of the people I know who hold to
the
> "traditional view" do not read permanency into the perfect tense. Rather,
> they have concluded from it the idea that those who believe have eternal
> life PRESENTLY. This is not in contrast to those who do not hold to
> "perseverance of the saints," but rather in contrast to views that propose
> one cannot be in a "saved" state presently. The idea of permanency (in this
> view) is rather based on KAI EIS KRISIN OUK ERCETAI (on which I will
comment
> below), in which ERCETAI is held to be a futuristic present (which it often
> is), and which, along with ECEI ZWHN AIWNION sets up the contrast (ALLA)
> with the clause in which the perfect in question is found. (I perceive a
> chiasm here.) I do not mention this in order to stir up a theological
> controversy or to argue one view of salvation over against another, but to
> simply be fair and to ensure that we do not set up straw men in this
> discussion.
>
> I wanted also to add something with respect to your quote of Rienecker. I
am
> assuming you are using an old edition, since the revised edition by Rogers
&
> Rogers is very different. For one thing, Schnackenburg is not quoted in
> support of "once saved, always saved" (which you go on to confuse with
> "perseverance of the saints"). Rather, his name is in parentheses after the
> comment "to go or pass from one place to another, to transform, to move
> one's living quarters." And the words "The perfect tense indicates the
> permanency of the step of salvation" are not found. What is found is the
> following statement: "Perf. indicates the completed state; the believer has
> passed into eternal life which begins here (Bernard)." So it seems that the
> deficiency to which you refer has been (rightly) corrected.
>
> > First of all, both Mark and Alex have discussed the significance of the
> use
> > of the prepositions EK and EIS with METABAINW, and I'm not sure that one
> > should place too much significance on this collocation, since it is used
> > elsewhere to denote changing residence (Lk. 10:7, and others such as
> > Josephus), which is parallel to the change of domains in view here, as
> > opposed to the travel verses that METABAINW normally occurs with in the
NT
> > (and usually in the aorist).
> >
> > As far as the idea of 'movement' being included in the
lexis--definitely,
> but
> > the state rather than the movement is the focus in the force of the
> perfect
> > tense.
> >
> > Also, the focus is not on the preceding state/condition of death in the
> past,
> > but the results of the action (so the place of departure doesn't get
equal
> > focus to the destination).
>
> If one views "death" (TOU QANATOU) as parallel (though not synonymous) to
> "judgement" (KRISIN, in the sense of "condemnation") in the structure of
the
> sentence, then I do not see why the "place of departure" does not get equal
> focus to the "destination," especially since grammatically both EK TOU
> QANATOU and EIS THN ZWHN modify METABEBHKEN. One has no significance
without
> the other, and they occur in the writings of one for whom antitheses
> constitutes a prominent theme. Indeed, entering into judgement (EIS KRISIN)
> and into life (EIS THN ZWHN) are both prominent themes throughout this
> section.
>
> > In Jn. 5:24:
> >
> > The one (who hears Jesus' word and believes on the one who sent him)
> > has eternal life (present/process)
>
> The present tense here seems rather to signify a state rather than a
> process, particularly considering the lexical meaning of EXW. This would be
> in better keeping with METABEBHKEN ... EIS THN ZWHN as well.
>
> > and does not come into judgment (present/process)
>
> This would seem rather to be a futuristic present (rather than a
"process"),
> again considering its lexical meaning. Note the comments by Brooks and
> Winbery:
>
> "The present tense is sometimes used for confident assertions about what is
> going to take place in the future. The event, although it has not yet
> occurred, is looked upon as so certain that it is thought of as already
> occurring. The futuristic present is often used in prophecies. A test for
> this use is the ability to translate the Greek present with an English
> future, though the future will not always be used in the translation."
>
> Wallace's definition includes some comments on the lexical meaning of verbs
> used this way:
>
> "The present tense may be used to describe a future event, though (unlike
> the conative present) it typically adds the connotations of immediacy and
> certainty. Most instances involve verbs whose lexical meaning involves
> anticipation (such as ERCOMAI, -BAINW, POREUOMAI, etc.). This usage is
> relatively common."
>
> This is in keeping with Johannine usage of ERCOMAI in the futuristic sense
> described above (cf. vv. 25, 28; Jn 4.25; 14.3, 28; see also Jn 16.17
> [QEWREITE]). It is also more in keeping with the context (cf. vv. 25,
28f.).
>
> > The reason that Jn. 5:24 caused such problems for the traditional view,
is
> > that it is difficult to see this content as past action with present
> > consequences.
>
> As I stated above, it doesn't cause "such problems" for the traditional
> view, rightly understood. And I fail to see how, if the verb describes
> "present consequences," there is no past action resulting in the present
> consequences, particularly since we are talking about movement from one
> domain to another. How does one get from one domain to the other and find
> oneself involved in these "present consequences" without a past action
> having occurred? You seem to be suggesting above that there was no past
> movement resulting in the present state of having moved! While I understand
> that oftentimes the idea of "past action" is far from in view (particularly
> with perfect participles used adjectivally), I don't see how it can be
> eliminated in this case, especially taking other elements (grammatical and
> contextual) into consideration. I think in particular you are muting the
> significance of the prepositional phrases. You seem to be saying that there
> has been movement from one domain to another without anyone having moved or
> "crossed over" at any specific point! I realize that the movement is
> metaphorical, but it is movement nevertheless.
>
> > Many have seen the reference to to coming into judgment and the
> > move from death to life as being future. I tend to think it is all
> > omnitemporal, which, as Fanning says, 'could be applied on numerous
> > occasions'.
>
> This is highly unlikely. I don't think the the ideas of "coming into
> judgment (condemnation)" and "the move from death into life" should be
> viewed as contrastive parallels in John 5, with complete temporal
> identification. While one may move from death to life in the present age,
> there is no similar movement from life to death (or condemnation) described
> in John. What I am saying is that, while eternal life may be enjoyed even
> now (before the resurrection, which will bring the fulness of that life),
> there is not the corresponding idea of passing from life into death, with
> that death coming to its fulness in the future. Instead, one who believes
> may now cross over from death into life with the prospect of fulness of
that
> life in the future, while one who disbelieves is already judged
(condemned),
> and that judgment (condemnation) will be confirmed in the future (vv. 25,
> 28). While it's true that "the hour is coming and now is" (both must be
> given equal consideration), there is no "coming into judgement" in the
> present, since this is a state assumed by John to already be the case (cf.
> Jn 3.36). And as I pointed out earlier, ERCOMAI most likely is a futuristic
> present, which would be in keeping with the statements by Jesus in vv. 28,
> 29. Note that in v. 29 the future TENSE of EKPOREUOMAI is used, confirming
> the future SENSE of ERCETAI in v. 28. And anyway, it doesn't seem to make
> good sense to say that someone is in the present process of not coming into
> the present process of being condemned.
>
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:47 EDT