Mark

Cheryl

“So the $64,000 dollar question is why did God inspire Ephesians 2:1 in the present tense and not the imperfect tense which would show a past state? If we believe that the Bible is completely inspired including the grammar and the inspired words, this is a valid question.
Of course those who don’t agree with me in the full inspiration of the Scriptures can make the verb to be whatever they want because they don’t agree with me that the grammar is inspired while I am stuck having to deal with the inspired grammar and to make sense of the passage with that exact grammar. For me it is a position of wanting to be completely open to the truth of God’s Word and my sincere desire to know exactly what God meant with every piece of evidence that He gave.”

This is very misleading and wrong. Does the present tense in the greek have to always be a continuous state of being? Yes or No? Of course it does not! So what you have said above, as if you are the only person dealing with the precise grammar is terribly misleading. Let me say it again. A present tense verb can have two functions or meaning- 1) a continual state of being or the process is continuing, 2) the undefined aspect which can either be just the default position OR it can be used to deliberately oppose #1.
As a greek scholar I am surprised at your comments. It could be true that Eph 2 could have been in the imperfect tense, but it is not. But from the context of Eph 2 it is clear that the present particple is not used as a continual state of being, but as an emphatic remark to show us (and you) how merciful God is in Christ, by making us alive, when we were hopelessly dead in sin. So if you were serious about your claims to know the truth of the grammar you would not say the things that you have. You would realise that the present tense verbs can be used and mean different things to your proposal. Please be honest with your readers about that.
You can give your interpretation of a passage and that is fine, but do not mishandle how the greek can actually function in a given context. To do so is not a good thing to do. You ought to be faithful to the grammar and explore ALL the functions of it as determined by the context around it. Such far, you are failing heavily to read the context and have approached both Eph 2:1, and Rom 6:11 with a preconcieved ideas about the grammar.
So no, you have not dismantled or disproven this ‘calvinist proof text’, quite the contrary actually. You have shown your own bias and neglected how the actual grammar can and has functioned in this passage.