GG,
In my view, that's exactly where we are in the church and especially with preachers - 2 Tim 4:3.
This may be too technical for many in explaining the Greek tenses. Please feed back what you don't understand. This is from my article,
Consequences of screwing up meanings of New Testament Greek tenses.
Before I begin with the details, I need to mention the grammar known as the 'indicative mood'.
In Greek (except for the future tense), the tenses refer primarily to the
kind of action (continuous, completed with continuing results, and simple occurrence) rather than the
time of action (as with English). Therefore, the present tense in Greek is not equivalent to the present tense in English. The Greek present tense refers to continual or continuous action. The time factor is of minor importance.
NT Greek grammarians, Dana & Mantey, stated this important difference when compared with English tenses:
What is the meaning of the present tense in Greek? The aorist tense may be represented by a dot (•). It happened. The present tense by a line (_______________), and the perfect tense by a combination of the two (•_______________) [Dana & Mantey 1955:179].
You stated:
The problem is with the aorist tense and using it to prove eternal security.
IOW, they believed once in the past and it carries through into the future because the aorist tense was used.
The aorist tense has the meaning of point action (generally); something happened. How do these people get on with verses like John 5:24 and the present tense of continuous action. This also is the case with John 3:16,
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (ESV).
What's the Greek tense of 'believes' and 'have'? Are they both aorist mean, 'whoever believes
once ... should not perish but have eternal life'?
Oz
Works consulted
Dana, H E & Mantey, J R 1927/1955,
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Toronto, Canada: The Macmillan Company.