I Have Been Saved

[Jezz]

Is 2 Tim 1:9 translated incorrectly then?

2 Tim 1:8-9

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, (ESV)

Possibly.

"saved" and "called" are aorist participles. Mounce has this to say about participles (which is also relevant to the discussion on Eph 2:8):

Mounce, 26: Introduction to Participles, p 241

26.8 Aspect. The key to understanding the meaning of participles is to recognize that their significance is primary one of aspect, i.e., type of action. This is the genius, the essence, of participles. They do not necessarily indicate when an action occurs ("time": past, present). Because there are three aspects, there are three participles.

The present participle describes a continuous action and is formed from the present stem of a verb.

The aorist participle describes an action without commenting on the nature of the action (undefined) and is formed from the aorist stem of a verb.

The perfect participle describes a completed action with present effects and is formed from the perfect stem of a verb.

© source where applicable

Likewise, in the section specifically on aorist participles:

Mounce, 28: Aorist (Undefined) Adverbial Participles p258

28.2 Summary. The aorist participle is formed on the aorist stem and indicates an undefined action.

Most grammars use the term "aorist" participle because this participle is built on the aorist tense stem of the verb. This nomenclature is helpful in learning the form of the participle. However, it tends to do a serious disservice because the student may infer that the aorist participle describes an action occuring in the past, which it does not. It describes an undefined action. Because the participle is not in the indicative, there is no time significance to the participle. We suggest adopting the terminology "undefined participle" because it rightly emphasizes the true significance of the participle that is built on the aorist tense stem, its aspect.

© source where applicable

Thus, the aorist participles used here do not necessarily indicate that the event is past - rather, the time that they are referring to is undefined. Hence, it seems to me that they are kinda describing a timeless truth, rather than an event definitely in the past (the perfect participle would have been used for that, if salvation was completed in the past). Thus, the passage might possibly be better translated as: "...but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saves us and calls us to a holy calling..." The simple present in English has a similar role - describing a timeless truth rather than a truth affixed to a particular point in time (whether that be past, present or future). But as Mounce notes, aorist participles are difficult to translate into English.

[Maxentius]

Jezz,

In the firsat place, I would agree much more with George's take on this than yours, as far as I understand what you say. ISTM that you say that we may not speak of salvation as a past event, and you bring forth some arguments based on the Greek. ISTM that argument has some holes in it--chiefly that you seem to imply that "you were saved" means "the process is complete", and I don't think anyone here believes that.

You qualify your point when you state "Thus, the aorist participles used here do not necessarily indicate that the event is past - rather, the time that they are referring to is undefined." (emph. added) So, unless the aorist means you cannot say an event is past, ISTM that this point of yours is not too strong. Also, the idea that "you were saved" means "Your salvation is complete" When you wrote "the perfect participle would have been used for that, if salvation was completed in the past". (emph. added) you mis state what I believe, and also my understanding of what "Evangelicals" believe about our current state. No one I know of thinks he is perfected this side of death.

Today I am saved because I am baptized, my salvation is complete when I either rise from the dead or Christ comes while I am alive. I posess this salvation as a promise from God for the sake of Jesus Christ, which I grasp by faith through the Holy Spirit. Salvation is being born again--and this happened at my Baptism. Hence I can say I was saved at my Baptism, so I am saved now, and I will be saved in the final judgement. That is what St. peter said in 1 Peter 3:21. Now, I can cast this salvation away like Esau cast away his birthright; but I cannot cast aside something I do not posess.

As George said, "To be saved is to be delivered from sin... It means, by its action, to enter into the kingdom of heaven, and this kingdom, upon the earth, is the Ekklessia, the body of Christ Who is its Head... And in this entry, we get a taste, an earnest, of the life of the Age to come..." George's post encapsulates the different senses of salvation, past, present and future

I also have a hard time believing that every single English translation, including one used by the Orthodox Church in the USA (OCA), got this whole thing wrong re: time frames. It is not impossible, but I find the likelihood to be very, very low.

Finally, if the gospel I preach is not really "good news", it probably is not the Gospel. I do not see the good news in "Arise, be baptized for the remission of sins, but not for salvation--that will happen some time in the future!"

[Rdr. Arsenios]

It would be silly to think that the meaning of this periphrastic construction as being identical to a straight perfect passive (ie, "you have been saved").If he had intended a straight perfect passive ("you have been saved"), he most likely would have written a straight perfect passive (ie, [greek]seswsesqe[/greek]). The fact that he chose not to use a straight perfect passive, indicates that his intended meaning is probably different from a straight perfect passive. And the only alternative explanation is that he was trying to express the ongoing, continuous nature of the salvation - that it's completion is ongoing, rather than accomplished a fixed point in the past.

I sure want to think this is true... Such that the force of the Greek is such as to say: "You are existing, having been saved..." And not: "You have been saved..." In English, one might say: "You are in existence saved!" The perfect participle just seems to beg to be taken as a state of being, following as it does the "to-be" present tense verb...

But on this one I would have to defer to Peter Papootsis, who knows more than I ever will about Greek... I know that Greeks tend to be loose in translation, and not to draw such fine lines as we who are emergent from the sola-scriptura tradition of the Reformation like to do - And for us, we tend to see the text and the exegesis of the grammar of the Greek, as in large part determinative of theological truth... So we tend to fight it tooth and nail, for that is the tradition of the Reformation.

Arsenios

[Maxentius]

Helloo George,

But on this one I would have to defer to Peter Papootsis, who knows more than I ever will about Greek... I know that Greeks tend to be loose in translation, and not to draw such fine lines as we who are emergent from the sola-scriptura tradition of the Reformation like to do - And for us, we tend to see the text and the exegesis of the grammar of the Greek, as in large part determinative of theological truth... So we tend to fight it tooth and nail, for that is the tradition of the Reformation.

Arsenios

I think I have to agree here that we must not simply look at the grammar of the Scriptures and then begin to extrapolate doctrines. The Scriptures testify about a Person, not so many abstractions. And as I have said elsewhwre, we Lutherans trust the Scriptures because we trust Jesus Christ. In fact, if someone does not believe in Jesus Christ, I really don't care what he has to say about the Scriptures' testimony about Jesus Christ.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Hello George,

Hey, Max...

I think I have to agree here that we must not simply look at the grammar of the Scriptures and then begin to extrapolate doctrines.

Well, we do have to start with the Greek text, and on the basis of that we can then derive possible understandings, and discuss them - Yet I have to tell you, I take a very skansish look at those who study the Greek text of the Bible outside the teaching of the Greek Bible by the Greeks... If someone is serious about believing in the Bible, and yet they do not go to Thessaloniki and study in in Greek using Greek as their means of study, then they are but speculating, as I have been doing here. Peter Papootsis can read this text in Greek - And if you were Greek, you could read it to him aloud at a normal pace and he would understand it...

I used to think that the aorist was the timeless tense, because it was the verb without an horizon... a-horizo = horizon deprived. hOR is the ancient Egyptian word for hawk or eagle, and connects to the god Horus, the all-seeing... And so I thought that an aorist verb was timeless, because it had no temporal boundaries...

But the fact is that it does, for it is the simple statement of the action that has no aspectual boundaries, for it includes them all, as well as temporal, and can refer to any... Hence the terms that modify the aorist - Ingressive, historical, etc... But in normal usage, with no boundaries to the verb, the entire action is included normally in the usage of the aorist, and this includes the completion of the action, and therein lies the fly in the ointment, because if the stoppage of the action is included, then the action is over, and you have a past tense, and the stoppage is never ruled out... So by this little greasey fly, the aorist is normally a past tense in the indicative...

Dr. Carl Conrad worked with me patiently for a long time on that matter...

The Scriptures testify about a Person, not so many abstractions. And as I have said elsewhere, we Lutherans trust the Scriptures because we trust Jesus Christ.

They are the written testimony of Christ Who is the Revelation of God in human flesh... But to say that you believe the Scriptures because you believe Jesus Christ would seem to mean that you somehow know Jewsus Christ apart from Scripture, and that then based on that knowing of Him, you are thereby trusting Scripture... And that would seem to be very UN-Lutheran, for Lutherans believe, do they not, that Scripture is the revelation of Christ and the basis on which we know Him...

The Orthodox, of course, are not in this camp...

In fact, if someone does not believe in Jesus Christ, I really don't care what he has to say about the Scriptures' testimony about Jesus Christ.

I have gotten to the point that any more I do not normally care much what non-Orthodox Christians have to say about what Scripture says about Christ... I only feed on the Body of Christ, the Church...

Arsenios

[Maxentius]

Hello george,

Well, we do have to start with the Greek text, and on the basis of that we can then derive possible understandings, and discuss them - Yet I have to tell you, I take a very skansish look at those who study the Greek text of the Bible outside the teaching of the Greek Bible by the Greeks... If someone is serious about believing in the Bible, and yet they do not go to Thessaloniki and study in in Greek using Greek as their means of study, then they are but speculating, as I have been doing here. Peter Papootsis can read this text in Greek - And if you were Greek, you could read it to him aloud at a normal pace and he would understand it...

Fair enough, but since no one I know of uses Koine Greek as his first language, we are sort of stuck with those who use it as a second language, aren't we. If I want to study Old English, or even Middle English, a native English speaker may not necessarily be the best choice.

Also, did you know that the Russian Orthodox Church sent seminarians to our St. Louis seminary to study Greek?

They are the written testimony of Christ Who is the Revelation of God in human flesh... But to say that you believe the Scriptures because you believe Jesus Christ would seem to mean that you somehow know Jewsus Christ apart from Scripture, and that then based on that knowing of Him, you are thereby trusting Scripture... And that would seem to be very UN-Lutheran, for Lutherans believe, do they not, that Scripture is the revelation of Christ and the basis on which we know Him...

I knew Jesus Christ at my Baptism. We believe infants can have faith after all; and it is not necessary to quote the Bible to preach the Gospel, though that is a good way to procede in many cases--who would refrain from using our Lord's very words? What we believe is that the Scriptures are the writings of the Prophets and Apostles and so we should not establish dogma based soley on "oral" tradition.

It may help to remember that Lutherans are Sacramentally oriented regarding faith. There are some Christian groups which do, to my mind, make faith explicitly intellect based--and these are the ones who usually start by "proving" the Scriptures are reliable and only later talking about Christ, and who say that infants cannot have faith.

I have gotten to the point that any more I do not normally care much what non-Orthodox Christians have to say about what Scripture says about Christ... I only feed on the Body of Christ, the Church...

I understand the sentiment, and depending on the group the interpreter belongs to, I feel the same way.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Hello george,

Fair enough, but since no one I know of uses Koine Greek as his first language, we are sort of stuck with those who use it as a second language, aren't we. If I want to study Old English, or even Middle English, a native English speaker may not necessarily be the best choice.

Also, did you know that the Russian Orthodox Church sent seminarians to our St. Louis seminary to study Greek?

Not surprising... But they have a Seminary in upstate NY http://www.jordanville.org/framework/frameset.html - Perhaps they sent you some of the non-seminarians... Hard to find Russians speaking much Greek...

We really are NOT stuck with second-handers in this language that is the Bible. Have you followed Pete's bio? His dad made him study ALL the Greek dialects [kathervouska being the hardest] - He is a reader in the Greek Church, and he understands the OT in Greek, LXX Greek, better than he does in English - And this from a Chicago boy born and bred... I mean, if the sola Scriptura folks were serious, they would go to Thessaloniki and study the Greek Bible in the Greek language... It is still spoken there, as it is in the Churches of Greece... If you want to know what a service sounded like 1500 years ago, just attend a Greek service in Greece... The whole service is in Koine Greek, just as in the US, you can find convert Churches that sing the entire service in KJV English... The two are about that far apart...

Arsenios

[Maxentius]

Hello George,

We may be getting sidetracked, but I have some time and another long-winded post.

We really are NOT stuck with second-handers in this language that is the Bible. Have you followed Pete's bio?

I have no doubts about his credentials. They sound impressive to me, and I have no Greek at all. Certainly anyone should take his exegesis very, very seriously.

FWIW, I can understand the grammatical points made by each "side" of any discussion, but I cannot create my own, so to speak. ISTM that many gramatical arguments, taken alone, can easily lead to misinterpretation. That is why grammer is necessary, but it is not sufficient. We must read the Scriptures Christologically--and in their historical, literary and formal contexts too. As with Koine Greek, I do not think this makes the Bible obscure, just that simply drawing a sentence diagram is not enough. For instance, in the passage discussed above, Eph. 3:8, it seems odd to me, contextually, that St. Paul was not addressing salvation currently posessed by the Ephesians accomplished on the cross. So anything which says "grammar may mean this, or may mean that, doesn't have to mean this, doesn't have to mean that" apart from the whole testimony about the Gospel and Jesus Christ is a rather weak way to exegete the Scriptures. This would be true even for a "native" speaker.

His dad made him study ALL the Greek dialects [kathervouska being the hardest] - He is a reader in the Greek Church, and he understands the OT in Greek, LXX Greek, better than he does in English - And this from a Chicago boy born and bred...

As I said, very impressive! He sounds like he really immersed himself in the language. I often wish I could study Greek, Latin (I did for a year); even Old English (I love Beowulf!). Do you have a link to his bio?

I mean, if the sola Scriptura folks were serious, they would go to Thessaloniki and study the Greek Bible in the Greek language... It is still spoken there, as it is in the Churches of Greece... If you want to know what a service sounded like 1500 years ago, just attend a Greek service in Greece... The whole service is in Koine Greek, just as in the US, you can find convert Churches that sing the entire service in KJV English... The two are about that far apart...

Arsenios

OK, but a service in Koine Greek does not make Koine Greek widely understood. For instance, the RCC used Latin for centuries, but I would not assume that a parishoner in a RC church was fluent in Latin. This does not mean that knowing modern Greek is without its benefits, only that appeals to modern Greek speakers as having more authority than someone who spends his life studying Koine Greek is not really right. Koine Greek, the language of the Bible, is not an every day language. People do not negotiate the sale of DVD players in Koine Greek; nor do they read road signs, explain the world to their children, speak loving words to their wives, order pizza etc. in Koine Greek--unless they are very, very eccentric. It is spoken in church services (like Old Church Slavonic is spoken in the Russian Orthodox Church, or Latin was in the RCC), it is spoken by scholars, it is spoken by people who have an interest in it for theological/historical reasons--with all the benefits and problems that implies. But it is not a living language people grow up speaking, learning at their mother's breast, playing sports etc.

I do not mean to say that Koine Greek is opaque, I just want to point out that just because Greek is spoken today, we must not assume that we need to go to Greece to study Koine Greek.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I have no doubts about his credentials. They sound impressive to me, and I have no Greek at all. Certainly anyone should take his exegesis very, very seriously.

Well, I'm not so sure about his exegesis - Everyone has their opinion - But on issues of translation, he is very solid... He can think in OT LXX Greek, you see...

Now if you approach a Greek professor of the Bible at the University of Thessalonika, for instance, with the idea that because the text says that Joseph did not know Mary [eg did not have marital relations with her], UNTIL the birth of Christ, that this sentence therefore proves that he did AFTER that birth, you will fail the class, because that is not what the Greek means at all... You can avoid really silly errors like that by studying under those who have grown up in the Church Services and the educational regimen of Greek speaking traditional Orthodox Christians... It is, after all, the Greek Church that wrote in Greek, and understands in Greek, the Greek original Bible... And that is why I am surprised at the failure of western Protestant confessions to go to Greece to learn the Bible and master the Greek in the language in which it was written and is still worshipped and understood...

FWIW, ... We must read the Scriptures Christologically--and in their historical, literary and formal contexts too.

The question is, how did the early Christians who wrote and passed down the Bible to us approach scripture? And when you go back and look at how the Gospel was actually transmitted, you will find that the great Books were not in general circulation at all, but were in the Churches, and were read in the Churches, and were understood in the Churches, and there in the services of the Churches, where they were explicated by the priest or bishop according to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit... They were not subjected to scholarly analysis of their historical, social, political, Christological, and exegetical or grammatical content... That whole process is the western scholastic process, and is not the practice of the early Church... When St. John Chrysostom wrote his commentaries on the Bible, he did so in his cell. There were some who wrote series of homilies on particular themes that were given to a particular parish that were then later published [eg copied] and retained. The ascetical homilies of St. Isaac the Syrian come to mind... But even these were not in any sense scholia types of works, but practical and edifying...

As with Koine Greek, I do not think this makes the Bible obscure, just that simply drawing a sentence diagram is not enough. For instance, in the passage discussed above, Eph. 3:8, it seems odd to me, contextually, that St. Paul was not addressing salvation currently posessed by the Ephesians accomplished on the cross. So anything which says "grammar may mean this, or may mean that, doesn't have to mean this, doesn't have to mean that" apart from the whole testimony about the Gospel and Jesus Christ is a rather weak way to exegete the Scriptures. This would be true even for a "native" speaker.

All you need do, Max, is look at the Bible, and see who it is who is explicating scripture... And you will find that it is the Apostles and the Bishops... With the priest serving under and according to and in obedience to these... You have living men teaching the Gospel, and showing from the Old Testament how it is that Christ is the fulfillment of the Law prophesied so long before... You do not have them doing all that much of exegetical scholarly work, but instead explaining according to what they perceived as need. Romans, for instance, needed the emancipation of the Gentiles from the Jews in Christ, and it is focused on the need for faith, as opposed to the works of the Law, which the Christian Jews were eager to retain... And willing to impose... Upon the Gentile converts. This was one of the very first big divisive issues that challenged the early Church, and embroiled the Apostles themselves, and they reconciled. The icon of Peter and Paul embracing is the testimony in image of the Church to that reconciliation... eg that you CAN be a practitioner of the Law AND be a Christian, but you do not HAVE to be in order to have the Faith of Christ...

What you do not find in all of this, however, is a long scholastic debate on the exegetical significance of scriptural passages that prove and disprove various points of view, so as to have a balanced overall approach. Instead, you have men who are mature in the faith giving what they are being revealed to give to the flock, that the Church stand firm in the faith...

As I said, very impressive! He sounds like he really immersed himself in the language. I often wish I could study Greek, Latin (I did for a year); even Old English (I love Beowulf!). Do you have a link to his bio?

Starting in his very early teens he became a Reader in the Orthodox Faith, and has been hearing and reading the Bible in its original form since childhood, just like every other Orthodox Greek boy in Greek Churches around the world...

OK, but a service in Koine Greek does not make Koine Greek widely understood.

The faithful take their children to Church every day, morning and night, plus home services and private prayers upon arising and going to bed. When these are all in Koine Greek, how is it exactly that they are NOT going to understand? Don't you remember learning the Lord's Prayer at your parent's sides in church as a little boy?

[quote]Koine Greek, the language of the Bible, is not an every day language. [quote]
It is for the Greeek faithful... A twice a day and more language...

People do not negotiate the sale of DVD players in Koine Greek; nor do they read road signs, explain the world to their children, speak loving words to their wives, order pizza etc. in Koine Greek--unless they are very, very eccentric.

Do you really think that these worldly and mundane and even romantic usages of language give you their ecclesiastical meanings???

It is spoken in church services

Exactly, and THAT is where the meaning flows forth...

it is spoken by scholars,

It is understood by Greek scholars because they grew up in it in Church. Ecclesiastical Greek, from the era of the dominance of Constantinople, is seldom spoken, but is widely understood, and thought in the minds of the faithful whose daily worship life entails its usage...

it is spoken by people who have an interest in it for theological/historical reasons--with all the benefits and problems that implies.

It is??? Do you know someone who actually speaks it? Peter reads it aloud in services, and understands it voth as written and as spoken when read, but I do not think he speaks it outside of the readings...

ut it is not a living language people grow up speaking, learning at their mother's breast, playing sports etc.

It IS learned at their mother's breast - In Church services... But it is NOT learned in sports and commerce - for sure...

I do not mean to say that Koine Greek is opaque, I just want to point out that just because Greek is spoken today, we must not assume that we need to go to Greece to study Koine Greek.

Demotic [street modern] Greek is no qualification for ecclesiastical koine Greek... Participation in services in which it is the language of the services, which still is an ongoing thing in Greece, most certainly IS authoritative in terms of a language that lives in souls and is understood in terms of the faithful praxis of their Christian Faith...

Arsenios

[Maxentius]

Hello George,

The question is, how did the early Christians who wrote and passed down the Bible to us approach scripture? And when you go back and look at how the Gospel was actually transmitted, you will find that the great Books were not in general circulation at all, but were in the Churches, and were read in the Churches, and were understood in the Churches, and there in the services of the Churches, where they were explicated by the priest or bishop according to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit... They were not subjected to scholarly analysis of their historical, social, political, Christological, and exegetical or grammatical content...

Well, to say we must read the Scriptures Chrostologically is to say that the Scriptures testify about Christ, which he himself said. So while I would agree with the rest of your list, I must reserve "christological" as the way we must read thew Scriptures. Neither does this exclude reading them in the Church, as I said, if someone does not believe in Jesus Christ, i.e. he is not in the Church, I don't really care what he says about the Scriptures.

That whole process is the western scholastic process, and is not the practice of the early Church...

Reading the Scriptures christologically is not scholasticism, it is being faithful to their message. Christ is the One to whom the Scriptures point--the Law, the Prophets, the New Testament. How else should we read the Scriptures?

You do not have them doing all that much of exegetical scholarly work, but instead explaining according to what they perceived as need.

George, you seem to be arguing against a way to use the Scriptures the Lutherans I am in communion with do not tend to use. That much NT literature is pastoral in nature does not mean too much. Much Lutheran exegesis is pastoral in nature too--what do the scriptures say abou this problem a parishoner has? Exegesis is nothing more than discovering what the Scriptures say. It is not intrinsically wrong or "scholastic". We all do exegesis on anything we read or hear. We use our language skills, context etc. to understand what is written or said. And didn't St. John say "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." Clearly, the "you" is not only bishops and priests, but everyone. Hence the message in the Gospel of St. John was not obscure, but understandable.

[QUOTE]The faithful take their children to Church every day, morning and night, plus home services and private prayers upon arising and going to bed. When these are all in Koine Greek, how is it exactly that they are NOT going to understand? Don't you remember learning the Lord's Prayer at your parent's sides in church as a little boy?[/"QUOTE]

For the reasons I gave, it is not an every day language. The vocabulary used in the Liturgy is much smaller than the vocabulary used when Koine Greek was a language used in every day events. Hence it is not a first language like Russian or Mandarin Chinese, but a specialty language--more like Latin.

Do you really think that these worldly and mundane and even romantic usages of language give you their ecclesiastical meanings???

The fact that Koine Greek is not used except in an ecclesiastical setting proves my point that it is not a language used for every day things--hence no one is a native speaker of Koine Greek.

Now, Koing Greek has a lot of "worldly", "mundane", "romantic" words in it--because it was a language used in every day events. And yes, how these "worldly, "mundane", "romantic" words are used in Scripture compared to how they are used in the language of the day allows us to better grasp the message of the Scriptures--so the fact that a word is "worldly" etc. does not really matter at all, because God can use the "worldly", "mundane", or "romantic" for his purposes.

It is??? Do you know someone who actually speaks it? Peter reads it aloud in services, and understands it voth as written and as spoken when read, but I do not think he speaks it outside of the readings...

Yes, a couple of students I know converse in it to practice, even correcting grammar. Now, I take their word for it because I do not understand Koine Greek.

[Jezz]

I sure want to think this is true... Such that the force of the Greek is such as to say: "You are existing, having been saved..." And not: "You have been saved..." In English, one might say: "You are in existence saved!" The perfect participle just seems to beg to be taken as a state of being, following as it does the "to-be" present tense verb...

But on this one I would have to defer to Peter Papootsis, who knows more than I ever will about Greek... I know that Greeks tend to be loose in translation, and not to draw such fine lines as we who are emergent from the sola-scriptura tradition of the Reformation like to do - And for us, we tend to see the text and the exegesis of the grammar of the Greek, as in large part determinative of theological truth... So we tend to fight it tooth and nail, for that is the tradition of the Reformation.

I'm quite happy to share that position. I bought up the argument as a counter to those who cite this verse as proof that salvation was referred to as a past event. If I have not proved that this verse definitely indicates an ongoing event, at the very least I have demonstrated that it is not a 100% conclusive proof text for salvation as a past event.

[Jezz]

Jezz,

In the firsat place, I would agree much more with George's take on this than yours, as far as I understand what you say. ISTM that you say that we may not speak of salvation as a past event, and you bring forth some arguments based on the Greek. ISTM that argument has some holes in it--chiefly that you seem to imply that "you were saved" means "the process is complete", and I don't think anyone here believes that.

The past participle "saved" grammatically indicates a completed event. If you want to refer to an ongoing event, you must use the past continuous tense "you were being saved".

You qualify your point when you state "Thus, the aorist participles used here do not necessarily indicate that the event is past - rather, the time that they are referring to is undefined." (emph. added) So, unless the aorist means you cannot say an event is past, ISTM that this point of yours is not too strong.

It was tizzidale cited the verse in question in support for the "salvation as a past event" position. I wasn't trying to use the verse as a proof text for my position - I was demonstrating that it is not a proof text for the "salvation as a past event" position. For such a purpose, my point is plenty strong enough.

Also, the idea that "you were saved" means "Your salvation is complete" When you wrote "the perfect participle would have been used for that, if salvation was completed in the past". (emph. added) you mis state what I believe, and also my understanding of what "Evangelicals" believe about our current state. No one I know of thinks he is perfected this side of death.

I realise that Evangelicals don't believe that we are perfected this side of death. However, Evangelicals (Luther included) don't equate salvation with perfection - they equate salvation with justification. And they do see justification as completed event in the past, no?

Today I am saved because I am baptized, my salvation is complete when I either rise from the dead or Christ comes while I am alive. I posess this salvation as a promise from God for the sake of Jesus Christ, which I grasp by faith through the Holy Spirit. Salvation is being born again--and this happened at my Baptism. Hence I can say I was saved at my Baptism, so I am saved now, and I will be saved in the final judgement. That is what St. peter said in 1 Peter 3:21. Now, I can cast this salvation away like Esau cast away his birthright; but I cannot cast aside something I do not posess.

Well, I would put it as "today you are being saved on account of your baptism", for the reasons I have already stated. "I am saved" implies completion, and if (as you claim) you do not wish to imply that your salvation is complete, then you must say "I am being saved" instead.

As George said, "To be saved is to be delivered from sin... It means, by its action, to enter into the kingdom of heaven, and this kingdom, upon the earth, is the Ekklessia, the body of Christ Who is its Head... And in this entry, we get a taste, an earnest, of the life of the Age to come..." George's post encapsulates the different senses of salvation, past, present and future

Well, I disagree with George slightly on the point that you have cited. So maybe I am wrong.

Certainly, part of the process of salvation is to enter into the kingdom of heaven. But to be saved means not just to enter the kingdom of heaven, but to remain there until judgement day.

I also have a hard time believing that every single English translation, including one used by the Orthodox Church in the USA (OCA), got this whole thing wrong re: time frames. It is not impossible, but I find the likelihood to be very, very low.

Given that they were nearly all done by Protestants (and, most importantly, the earliest ones were done by Protestants - the earliest ones affect the rest), why would this be so unlikely? The reason the OCA uses one is because they have to use something, and there isn't an official Orthodox English translation yet.

Finally, if the gospel I preach is not really "good news", it probably is not the Gospel. I do not see the good news in "Arise, be baptized for the remission of sins, but not for salvation--that will happen some time in the future!"

Suppose you are drowning and someone throws you a life preserver. Will the life preserver save you? Yes (if you hold on to it). Are you saved yet? No, your salvation will happen some time in the future. By your argument, being given a life preserver is not really good news. I find this reasoning a little bizarre. Although my salvation is still some time in the future, I would certainly find the life preserver to be good news. So it is with baptism. Baptism doesn't mean that we are saved - it means that the process of our salvation has taken a turn for the better (like our salvation from drowning takes a turn for the better when we first get the life preserver).

[jonfan]

Well, in reading scripture, you'll find salvation referred to as a past event (Eph 2:8), a present event (work out your salvation with fear and trembling), and a future event (Col 1:21-23).

So, they're obviously referring to the first.

Michael

It really is a heretical teaching that one can just have "magic Jesus button" and presto everything is fixed! No other refelction or work required. Jesus gave us the oppurtunity now it is up to us what we do with it.
God bless,
Jon

[Joe Gofish]

It really is a heretical teaching that one can just have "magic Jesus button" and presto everything is fixed! No other refelction or work required. Jesus gave us the oppurtunity now it is up to us what we do with it.
God bless,
Jon

You got that right,Jude is still trying to teach the false teaching of OSAS.
JUDE, Is a lunatic and needs our prayers.