I read the article, Biblical Langauges (sic) in Systematic Theology. Decker says in a footnote that the perfect tense of sodzo says nothing about eternal security. And he uses references to Frank Stagg and D. A. Carson to back up that up. I need a little more than that to be convinced. Thanks though.

Hi Andy

Yes, I have often been very very disappointed with Decker. In fact, I am astonished that he was even invited to the recent conference where he presented the paper Duncan cited. I think there is a lot of gutlessness going on in fundamentalist schools.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

http://www.ntresources.com/documents/isa7_14.pdf

http://ntresources.com/blog/?p=983

Page 3, note 16.

You have a whole chapter in your book given over to the perfect tense argument. I guess I thought that meant it was an important point for you case.

BTW, I’m not trying to get away with anything. I just happen to agree with Don and I think Carson would, too. Hence my comment. It’s a comment on a blog posting, not a research paper….

Like I said, we are now into the phase of blog comments where we are just repeating ourselves, so I’ll not bother to answer Kent’s two last posts except for a hopefully brief summary below. I’ll leave it up to readers to decide who is presenting the truth on this point.

The perfect tense communicates a state of being. It doesn’t predict anything about the future. We can assume that a present state will continue into the future by other words in the context or by other passages that inform us about the event. The word of God stands forever, but gegraptai does not communicate this, nor is it intended to do so. If every copy of Scripture were to be somehow wiped off the face of the earth, the Word would still have authority. It would still “stand written”.

Gegraptai also does not communicate anything about past preservation. That was not the intent of the Lord when citing Scripture in the temptation any more than it was the intent of Satan when he used the exact same word in the same incident. This was not a debate about preservation, it was a debate about authority.

Those who are using gegraptai to bolster their argument for perfect preservation in the TR or in the KJV are misusing the Scriptures. I believe it demeans their other arguments, some of which have some value. The whole argument becomes a tenacious clinging at straws because someone somewhere said something that sort of sounded like it supported my preconceived position. The advocates of the TR/KJV positions would do much better to drop this one, in my opinion. If they relied on their better arguments, they would likely have more influence.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don, you broke your own rule about the “quality of the writing or the text.” That is a strawman. We don’t make that argument AT ALL. We are saying that the what was written, the letters and Words, were preserved. Paper wasn’t what was written. And what was written, being preserved, does not preclude scribal error. We aren’t saying any of that and have not said it. If we have, Don, show me.

Don, the perfect tense does not mean “authority” any more than it means “future.” It means action completed, results continue to the present. Scripture written, product of the writing continues to the present. You seem to be making the perfect not mean what the perfect means. Is that the case?

Don,

We differ here on the perfect. You are saying that it makes no point about the preservation of what was written. A ton of people believe that it does. Wallace said that it did. You seem to be digging your heels in here. Just because the perfect doesn’t speak of the future, doesn’t mean that it has NO implications to the future. If it exists after 1500 years, I think it shows preservation. Just like from the viewpoint of the saved person, God is going to keep saving me. If I’m saved up to this present moment, why would I not think that I would continue to be saved.

The idea of “it stands written,” showing permanence, is found in the perfect tense. That has implications for the future. I’m not missing the relations to authority. As much as anyone, I think the preservation of the text relates to authority. It’s a permanent record. It stands though the hills tumble through the raging storms of time. The Bible stands. I’m not denying the relations to authority. Show me where I have done that, Don.

I don’t have any problem quoting Carson. Carson wasn’t quoted. Andy said that this is an exegetical fallacy of the kind that Carson would use as an example in his book, but no example given. I can’t believe that you don’t see the difference in this. This is where we have to discuss things in good faith here. We can’t allow either side to get away with this.

For instance, I made a misspeak about “are forgiven.” It’s just in Luke. The present is used in Matthew. Don is right. I’ve got to admit that, not dig in my heels. Our point is to come to the truth.

Did Dave Sutton say that the perfect tense has results that moved into the future? No, he didn’t. He said that it has implications for the future, and we’ve explained what we mean by that. I believe other men say the same thing as we do. Don, you say that Wuest, overstates. Many, many other men make this same point. I haven’t read anyone who denies this point about gegraptai. Show me someone who does, Don. Could it be that you understate?

Can someone become unborn? Can someone lose his reserved inheritance? Can someone lose his standing in Christ? The perfect is used in all these situations.

You bring up a certain usage of the perfect, in Mt 12:47. I understand that. Someone was someplace for a little amount of time. But when you refer to a verse that is 1500 years old and say that it exists up to the present, that is saying something different, is it or does it not?

Sometime, Don, I’m going to come on here when you expose a text, and say that what you wrote reminds me of Don Carson’s exegetical fallacies. That’s it. Just say that. No example of how. And what you’re saying is that you’ll be fine with that. OK.

Paul,

The perfect tense doesn’t say anything about the quality of copies or preservation. The perfect tense says the original act (writing) has a state in the present time (from the speaker’s perspective).

And I submit that no one who used gegraptai meant to communicate anything about preservation. The term became an idiomatic expression that means ‘the citation is authoritative’.

Last night we were at a performance of our local symphony. The conductor, messing around with the crowd, cited a passage from a Bugs Bunny cartoon. He didn’t say ‘it is written’. That would have been ludicrous.

But if we want to emphasize the authority of a passage we can say, with the Hebrews, ‘it is written’ and quote a Bible passage. The phrase means ‘this is authoritative’, it is the same as saying, ‘thus saith the Lord.’

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3