Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228622 | ||
Just to add a few thoughts on Romans 7.7-8.2 (the section where Paul speaks in the singular). A perusal of the passage divides it into three parts, that expressed in the past tense (7.7-13), that expressed in the present tense (7.14-25), and a final summary in 8.1-2. It appears to me that unless we ignore what Scripture says in order to support our own positions this makes quite clear that in 7.7-13 Paul is speaking of past experience, and in 7.14-25 he is speaking of present experience. How we then interpret what he says is another question. But we must not avoid what Scripture makes clear. But it is noticeable that he concludes the section by declaring that, in spite of what is carnal within him, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made him free from the law of sin and death. He then goes on to explain why. |
||||||
2 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Morant61 | 228637 | ||
Greetings Biblicalman! Good observations, but just to set the record straight. There is in Greek an historical present, were the present tense can be used to describe past events or actions. No everyone agrees that Romans 7:14-25 is an historical present, but it is possible. Thus, tense alone will not answer this question. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228646 | ||
Hi Tim, YOU SAY : There is in Greek an historical present, were the present tense can be used to describe past events or actions. Not everyone agrees that Romans 7:14-25 is an historical present, but it is possible. Thus, tense alone will not answer this question. :-) MY REPLY IS: It is true that sometimes the present can be viewed historically, but not when it is specifically contrasted with the past in the same context. Then the contrast emphasises the true nature of the present tense. Thus in this passage I consider it incontrovertible that in using the present Paul is speaking of the present. We cannot just switch tenses around at will. We can equally say that the past tense can mean the present. What then is the value of tenses? The answer is that they must be interpreted in context. Paul was writing knowing that his letter would be read out to the Roman churches. He would expect them to be able to follow his meaning as they went along. And when he therefore in the same context switched from the past to the present he would expect them to see it accordingly. The historic present cannot then come into account, unless language is to be meaningless. Why do people not like the present tense here? It is because what Paul says does not fit in with their preconceptions. We would do better to ask, given that he is spsaking of the present, what does he mean? Best wishes |
||||||
4 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228647 | ||
Biblicalman, I would suggest that its not quite as simple as a contrast between past and present tense when we actually analize the passage. You say the shift takes place at vers 13/14. Lets look at it. Rom 7:13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. Paul asks a question of how to rightly interpret the past tense scenerio of sin slaying him through the law. Then following that, he gives the basis for how he understands the past tense event of sin slaying him. And every verse after that is basically a sting of "For" statements. Meaning that all your present tense section is a study of this past tense event of law sin and death that occured. Meaning a strong case can be made for the historical present as this section is all implicitly past tense since it is an explination of a past tense event. Context is king. My opinion of the passage is no the same as either yours or Tim's, but the case is not going to stand or fall on the shift to present tense. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
5 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228649 | ||
Thread, I will just reply to my own post and give how I consider Romans 7. I want to say this issue that we are discussing does not stand or fall with Romans 7, but clearly it is of great interest. The context of this entire section is the question in Rom 6. Rom 6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Paul has just spent a great deal of time in Romans defending that we are freely justified by Faith in Christ apart from any works of the law. Now Paul is dealing with the natural question which follows. If we are teaching that the law and obedience to it has no role in our justification, does that doctrine not turn us to sinful living? The correct preaching of the gospel begs this question. Salvation by grace through faith apart from works is shocking. So then Paul is trying to answer this question. That is his goal in chapters 6-8. Now ultimately his answer through this section summarized is, "No, it does not lead to sinful living because we are under grace. And God's grace has been unleashed upon our lives to effectively turn us to holiness through the working of the Holy Spirit. This Holy Spirit succeeds in a way nothing else could." Now, also in this section Paul is dealing with a notion implicit to his oppositions case. That the law is necessary for us to live right. If the gospel dethrones the law as a taskmaster, didn't we need that to spur us to good works? This Paul addresses in Chapters 7, his goal here is one thing, to show that the Law was NEVER able to lead us to righteous behavior, all it could ever produce was death. So the question here is not is this lost or saved, but the focus is on the inability of the Law to produce holiness in us whether we are lost or saved. Therefore it is the gospel in unleashing the grace of God and the Holy Spirit upon us which causes holy living, not the law. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
6 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | EdB | 228651 | ||
Beja I think you touched on a very important part here when you said,"his goal here is one thing, to show that the Law was NEVER able to lead us to righteous behavior, all it could ever produce was death." It is not to describe a physical or even spiritual change in people, Paul is teaching here what the law did and the fact we are no longer subject to it or the penalty it carried. And this I believe is the problem too many people quote Romans saying we are dead to sin, or dead to the law as if there was physical or spiritual change that took place making human almost immune to sin Thank you!!!!!! |
||||||