Milestone Papers, by Daniel Steele, D.D.
New York: Phillips & Hunt.
1887 300 The following extracts have been sent for a brief examination, which is appended.
P. 56. "The chief peculiarity lies in the Aorist: we have in the English no tense like it. Except in the indicative it is timeless, and in all the moods indicates what Krueger styles 'singleness of act.' As some of our readers may be disposed from dogmatic reason or prejudice to dispute our inferences from this tense, we proceed to fortify ourselves by the following authorities."
P. 57. "Says Buttmann in his recent New Testament Grammar, 'The established distinction between the Aorist as a purely narrative tense, expressing something momentary, and the Imperfect as a descriptive tense, expressing something contemporaneous or continuous, holds in all its force in the New Testament.' Says Winer: — 'Nowhere in the New Testament does the Aorist express what is wont to be: we cite a few specimens.' All exhortations to prayer and to spiritual endeavour in the resistance of temptation are usually expressed in the Present tense, which strongly indicates persistence:
Matt. 7:7. 'Keep asking (present) and it shall be given you, seek (pres.) again and again and ye shall find, knock (persistently) and it shall be opened unto you.'
Mark 11:24. 'All things that ye perseveringly pray (pres.) and ask for (pres.), keep believing that ye received (aor.) and ye shall have them.'
Luke 13:24. 'Persistently agonize to enter in (aor.) once for all at the strait gate.'"
P. 59. "The next fact which impresses us in our investigation is the absence of the Aorist, and the presence of the Present tense, whenever the conditions of final salvation are stated.
Our inference is that the conditions of ultimate salvation are continuous, extending through probation and not completed in any one act. A careful study of the Greek will convince the student that it is a great mistake to teach that a single act of faith furnishes a person with a paid-up non-forfeitable policy, assuring the holder that he will inherit eternal life, or that a single energy of faith secures a through ticket for heaven, as is taught by the Plymouth Brethren, and by some popular lay evangelists. The Greek tenses show that faith is a state, a habit of mind into which the believer enters at justification.
John 1:12. 'As many as received (nor.) him (by a momentary and definite act), to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that are believing (pres.) on his name.'"
P. 61. "John 3:15. 'That whosoever is continuously believing in him, should not perish (aor., once for all), but be having everlasting life.'
Here again the Present and not the Aorist participle of the verb, to believe, is used, as it is again in verses 16 and 36.
John 5:24. 'He that is always having my word and constantly believing on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and is not coming into condemnation, hut has passed over (perfect) from death unto life, and so continues.' Says Alford, 'So, in 1 John 5:12-13, the believing and the having eternal life are commensurate: where the faith is, the possession of eternal life is, and when the one remits, the other is forfeited; but here the faith is set before us as an enduring faith, and its effects described in their completion' (see Eph. 1:19-20). Thus this great English Scholar rescues this great proof-text of the Plymouth Brethren, and the Moody School of Evangelists, from its perverted use to teach an eternal incorporation with Christ by a single act of faith; and he demonstrates the common sense doctrine that the perseverance of the saints is grounded on persistent trust in Jesus Christ. — A wise generalship does not destroy a captured fortress, but garrisons it.
John 6:35. 'He that is perpetually coming to me (pres.) shall not by any means (double negative) once hunger (aor.), and he that is constantly believing in me (emphatic) shall never by any means (double negative) feel one pang of thirst.'"
P. 63. "John 6:54. 'Whoso eats (pres. keeps eating) my flesh, and drinks (keeps drinking) my blood, has eternal life.'" etc., etc., etc.
—
Though from circumstances away from books, one can see at a glance that there is no force in Dr. S.'s reasoning. The general bearing of the Greek tenses, according to the grammarians cited, has often been set forth in these pages. Only there are other principles, which none ought to ignore, unknown, apparently, to the American divine, who writes under the influence of strong prejudice, as little versed in scriptural truth as in the views of those he controverts. Nor was even the late Dean Alford always reliable in doctrine, any more than ripe scholarship.
But to the proof. No one doubts that continuous action, as in exhortations to prayer and habitual moral duty where constancy enters, is expressed by the present tense. The mistake, a very serious one, is overlooking what is called the ethical present, which is of frequent occurrence, especially in the N.T. Time in this case is merged; and here no more glaring error could be than importing into the tense persistence or the like. As an early example take Matt. 2:20: are we to render hoi z. as Dr. S. contends? "They that keep seeking" would wholly mislead. Both A. and R. Vv. give rightly "they that sought." It is really those characterised by the act, "the seekers." This usage applies to a vast multitude of cases, where "perpetually" or "constantly" would falsify the sense. Sec Matt. 5:5-6, where it is evident that in "the mourning," and the hungering and thirsting," there is no more thought of "always," than in "the meek," or "the merciful." In all it is just the class so characterised, like ho speiron, ho therizon, ho akouon, ho pisteuon, ho thelon, ho hagiazon, hoi hagiazomenoi, hoi sozomenoi, hoi apollumenoi, hoi planontes, hoi planomenoi, ho ginoskon, ho agapon. One might quote all through the Greek T. It is the same with the finite verb, if not so frequently as with the participle. Thus in Matt. 5:13-14, the present tense is simply the copula, and even Dr. S. would shrink at once from the rendering, "Ye are always the salt of the earth," or "Ye are constantly the light of the world." Again, see James 1:12, "Blessed the man who endureth temptation." Does this mean that any man, even Job, was continually enduring? So in the next verse, it is clearly "when" or "while" tempted, and in no way means that he is so persistently. Most chapters of the N.T. supply examples.
It is allowed then that the Lord intended His own to be ever dependent in prayer. But the answer to the curious question, Are those to be saved few? is strangely represented by this unintelligently narrow use of the present. Our Lord does insist on striving earnestly; but that this implies a long space, because it is the present, is ignorance of its ethical value and force in the face of the record which proves throughout the Acts of the Apostles how soon those in earnest were brought into conscious peace and blessing. Those who seek to enter save through the narrow door (of repentance) will not be able.
Then comes the astounding words, "The absence of the Aorist, and the presence of the Present, whenever the conditions of final salvation are stated."
Acts 2 ought surely to be a test, the great day of Pentecost. Now in answer to the cry of those pricked in heart Peter says, "Repent" (aor.), and, in his solemn charge, adds "Be saved (or, save yourselves. aor.) from this perverse generation." Here we have the most direct contradiction of Dr. S., the aorist there, and not the present tense, as he would have, in stating the conditions of final salvation. No doubt we have tous soz. in ver. 47; and it is notorious that some, who have not adequately weighed the case, contend like him, that this phrase means those in process of salvation. That it need not is certain from the ethical force of the present: "the saved," or "those to be saved," are a class so characterised without question of time. That it cannot mean an actual process going on follows from the sothete of ver. 40. And this ought to be plain to all who compare Eph. 2:5, 8, where it is said of the believers, ch. este sesosmenoi (the perfect, i.e., the abiding continuance of a past act); also Titus 3:5, esosen hemas where the singleness of the act of saving us is stated. Could this be if Dr. S.'s theory were true? Scripture, on the contrary, by using the aor. and perf. as well as the present of the same case, demolishes his notion. None can deny that final salvation is before us Eph. 2, and in Titus 3. That is, scripture beyond controversy applies both perf. and aor. to the final salvation of believers; so that the present tense. which also occurs in this connection, cannot in God's word contradict either the single act, or its continued result, but ethically characterises. Dr. S.'s rash handling of the matter necessarily sets the occurrences of the present against the perf. and the aor. Had he known grammar and scripture better, he would have avoided the error. The comparison of Heb. 10:10 with 14 may help him, though Dean A., if my memory serves, erred in this very case. For here we have the same persons said to be hegiasmenoi and hagiazomeoi. Now incontestably they could not be already sanctified, and this as an abiding result, if the present tense only means a process incomplete because going on, as the error shuts us up to. The ethical sense of a class so characterised, without question of time, conciliates perfectly the two expressions which Dr. S.'s imperfect and erroneous view would dislocate. Both verses speak of believers as they are now, ver. 10 being no more future than 14.
On the other hand, no right-minded christian would weaken the truth that faith and life go on in constant exercise while we are here below; so that Dr. S. is quite uninformed as to those whom he classes with Mr. Moody and his friends, of whom one cannot speak. But he himself enfeebles, if he does not deny, salvation as a state entered by faith. He can see for himself Acts 16:30-31, where, in answer to the jailor's urgent enquiry how to be saved (aor.), he was told to believe (aor.). Here again final salvation is in question, and a single act of faith secures it according to Paul and Silas. According to Dr. S.'s theory it ought to have been the present in both: his doctrine and his grammar fail alike.
In John 1:12; 3:15; 5:24, as in 1 John 5:13, it is the present participle as in many texts elsewhere, such as Eph. 1:19; and this is exact, when a characteristic class is meant. If it were a question of fact, the aorist would have displaced the present, as in Acts 11:17; 13:48; or if the permanent result of a past act was intended, the perfect as in Acts 15:5, 16:3-4. But the usage of these last is not consistent with the exclusive notion of the actual present, which is therefore demonstrated to be incorrect here. The ethical present alone agrees where an aorist or perfect can also be employed, though the faith is an enduring thing beyond doubt.
That Dr. S. has misused John 6:35, 54, is apparent from ver. 44, 50, 51, 53, where the aorist is used of coming, eating and drinking. This could not be unless the present were used ethically. The reasoning therefore is a mere fallacy. Dr. S.'s school, by his own account, should consist of souls always learning and never able to come to full knowledge of truth.