Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

Please don’t slay me for my spelling mistakes ‘tote’ and ‘present indicate’. They are just spelling mistakes, there is not need to go overboard.

I think that we can have a lot more lenience with you, if you just admit that you are not a Greek scholar as you claimed – that you overstated your case. It doesn’t hurt to ‘fess up and go on. In fact admitting your sins, mistakes, or whatever is the best thing to keep things above board. After all look at what has happened to Ergun Caner and his embellishments to his testimony and his credentials. He should have admitted that he lied and asked for forgiveness but instead he did a cover up job and now he is really on the hot seat including the university where he is the president http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/mayweb-only/28-11.0.html

I will comment more soon, but let just say one thing. I realise that the present indicative is not in Eph 2. The reason i brought up that point was becasue you had failed to communicate the broad range of meanings for the present indicative. And since you whole basis is “how does calvinism reconcile the present verb in Eph 2” it was neccessary to show the wider range of meanings. You had constantly challenged how the two can be reconciled, without admitting that the context decides the ‘time’ aspect of the verb.

It isn’t the context that decides the ‘time’ aspect but the kind of literature. A historical present is perfectly okay in parables because they are just stories there is no “past tense” to a made up story. And it is also okay in the telling of a story because the narrator can take the present tense in the narrative and we all understand that it is a literary device in relating a narrative story. But the historical present does not work in doctrinal literature where the difference between a continuing state of being and a past concluded action can make all the difference in the world. In this case the truth of the tense is important and God doesn’t noodle around with truth.

The fact is that Ephesians 2:1 does not fit the criteria for reinterpreting of the tense. After all God could have made it very clear that He was talking about the past as there is perfectly good grammar that would fit the bill. Therefore I asked about what Calvinists make of the tense because I believe that grammar is important and should not be ignored. I also believe that important doctrinal teaching has a second or third witness. In this case that witness would have to show that an unregenerate man is “spiritually dead” in such a way that he cannot hear or respond to God without a resurrection. I do not believe that there is any kind of a second witness to this and it is also for that reason that I reject the teaching that a man must be “born again” before he can believe in God.