1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What did Jesus mean?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Craigbythesea, Aug 25, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 11 of 11
  1. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    CBTS,

    now, for the rest of the story...

    Matt 27:50 tells us the Jesus cried with a loud voice and “yielded up the ghost”. Three times we read that Jesus “gave up the ghost” (Mark 15:37,39; Luke 23:46) in the sense that “He died”. These words are a translation of the word “ekpnew” - “to breathe out” or in context to breathe his last. The word for “spirit” comes from the Greek “pneuma” which has “pnew” “breath” or “wind” as its cognate. Many times we read in the Bible that someone “gave up the ghost” (Gen 25:8,17; 35:29; et al). Yet Jesus did not simply “breathe out his last”. The primary meaning of “aphia(h)mi” is “to send away”. It was used by a master to his servant when all the tasks had been completed, “I do not need you right now, you are dismissed”. This is the sense in which Jesus “yielded up the ghost”. NO ONE BUT JESUS EVER HAS OR EVER WILL “yield up the ghost” by a voluntary act of the will. Why not? Because as sinners, death has a full claim on our lives.

    Apart from this, all die because all are sinners. That is why babies die, too. They are sinners. So, how then can I maintain that babies go to heaven when they die?

    After his child died, King David said, “ wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2Sam 12:23). David elsewhere clearly expressed his faith that he would in his flesh stand in the presence of his Redeemer. The fact that he finds some comfort in the knowledge that he would “go to him” suggests that David had confidence that the child was secure in the comfort of God’s love. Is there an explicit statement to that effect? No.

    I know that we cannot determine theological truth by what seems right to our sin cursed hearts and minds, but the patriarch asked the pre-incarnate LORD, “Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen 18:25). We may fully rest assured that He will indeed do right.

    The only answer to the fact that they are sinners and may somehow be in heaven with the Lord is that somehow they are covered by His grace on the basis of the blood shed on Calvary. The death of the Savior is fully efficacious to cover all who are the objects of His grace. When the people brought the “infants that He would touch them” Jesus announced, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein”. Again, not an explicit statement, but a very clear indication of God’s heart for the little ones. For me, it is enough, for now.

    So to answer your question. No, babies did not “sin in Adam”. Mentally deficient people did not “sin in Adam”. No one sinned “in Adam”. But, being “in Adam” we all sin. It is the fallen nature and we are all guilty for our own sin. Small children are responsible for their actions. The question is, are they accountable if they are not morally capable of discerning right from wrong? I believe that as long as children do not have any conscience of right and wrong, they are somehow covered by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. One of the key elements in the condemnation of guilty sinners is the fact that they were warned or otherwise should have known better. In Romans 1 the whole world is seen as being made aware of the creator through the glory of creation. It would seem to me that childhood innocence is somehow covered in the grace of God for the reasons I have shared. Again, not any kind of explicit statement, but rather subtle statements and implications from the overall tenor of the Word of God.

    To respond to your post (I wrote from “later...” on while at the hospital, just got home, have another appt in 34 minutes!)... No one else participated in Adam’s sin. The text just will not support that view, especially when comparing with the rest of Scripture. Alternate translations are as follows:

    Rom 5:12

    (ALT) For this reason, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death; and thus death passed through [or, extended] to all people, for that [or, because] all sinned;

    (ASV) Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--

    (BBE) For this reason, as through one man sin came into the world, and death because of sin, and so death came to all men, because all have done evil:

    (CEV) Adam sinned, and that sin brought death into the world. Now everyone has sinned, and so everyone must die.

    (Darby) For this cause , even as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and thus death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    (EMTV) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death passed to all men, because all sinned--

    (ESV) Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--

    (GB) Wherefore, as by one man sinne entred into ye world, and death by sinne, and so death went ouer all men: in who all men haue sinned.

    (GNB) Sin came into the world through one man, and his sin brought death with it. As a result, death has spread to the whole human race because everyone has sinned.

    (GW) Sin came into the world through one person, and death came through sin. So death spread to everyone, because everyone sinned.

    (ISV) Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to everyone, because all have sinned.

    (KJV) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    (LITV) Because of this, even as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned.

    (MKJV) Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned:

    (MSG) You know the story of how Adam landed us in the dilemma we're in--first sin, then death, and no one exempt from either sin or death.

    (NASB) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

    (YLT) because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;

    None of these translations say that “all sinned in Adam”, they all say that all have sinned. This is another way of restating 3:10 and 3:23, there is nothing in the text to say that all of us are RESPONSIBLE for Adam’s sin. We all suffer consequences of Adam’s sin but we are responsible for our own sin. We sin because of the sin nature we inherit from Adam. Therefore “in Adam we are all sinners” and therefore we all die.

    Gen 2:16 and 17 states ADAM'S responsibility for his sin. Later God will explain a little about how wide-ranging the consequences will be, but God never holds us accountable for Adam's sin.

    Consequences of sin pass on to the third and forth generation (Exod 20:5; 34:7; Num 14:18; Deut 5:9) , and sometimes much longer as in Adam's case.

    BUT, GOD DOES NOT HOLD FUTURE GENERATIONS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE SINS OF PREVIOUS GENERATIONS (Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:20)

    Will I be dogmatic on the infant salvation issue? Not me. Am I none-the-less settled in my position and convinced that it is right? Absolutely. Col 3:15 - “...Let the peace of God rule in your hearts...”
     
    #201 rjprince, Sep 6, 2005
  2. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    2 Sam. 12:23. "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

    When David wrote here that he will go to his son, he was not referring to the Baptist view of heaven—he was referring to the Jewish concept of the grave. And there is no suggestion that David found any comfort of any kind in any of this. He had sinned very grievously against both man and God, and he paid a most grievous price for his sin. And like it or not, his son had sinned in Adam (if he had not, he would not have died for he, himself, had not sinned on his own. He paid the price for his sin in Adam, and that price was death).

    As for your alternate translations of Rom. 5:12, no matter which translation you accept, Paul goes on to prove that we all sinned in Adam, the proof being that we all die, including those who lived before the Law was given, and sin is not imputed when there is no law. Therefore, the ONLY sin for which those who sinned before the Law was given would have paid the penalty of death is the sin that they committed in Adam. Although the Law had not yet been given when Adam sinned, he was specifically told by God,

    Gen. 2:16. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
    17. but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

    Paul himself wrote in Romans 5 that between Adams’s sin and the giving of the Law that people died and that they did NOT die because of their sin nature or their own personal sins because without the Law those sins COULD NOT be imputed to them. The only sin for which they could have died was Adams’s sin because he committed the very sin that God explicitly told him NOT to commit. And just as we all sinned in Adam, we are all made righteous through Christ. We did not physically sin when Adam sinned and we did not physically die to sin on the cross; nonetheless we sinned in Adam and died to sin on the cross (that is, assuming that we have, indeed, by faith, died to sin on the cross).

    Rom. 6:1. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
    2. May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
    3. Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
    4. Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
    5. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
    6. knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
    7. for he who has died is freed from sin.
    8. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
    9. knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.
    10. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
    11. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

    Romans 5 is not a eulogistic passage, or some other genre of literature for which we can find an excuse to not take it literally for just what it says.

    [​IMG]
     
    #202 Craigbythesea, Sep 7, 2005
  3. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    I am not a dispensationalist and I believe that systematic theologies are little more than an attempt by foolish men to put God into a matchbox, but, lest anyone think that my view of original sin is some off-the-wall nonsense dreamed up by some kind of a fruitcake, I shall quote Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Systematic Theology:

    “A person dies physically not because Adam alone sinned, not because of personal sins, and not because of the sin nature; he dies because of his owe share—in the seminal sense—in the original sin which drew out the judgment of death.”

    Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. Volume 7, pp. 7-8.

    [​IMG]
     
    #203 Craigbythesea, Sep 7, 2005
  4. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    CBTS,

    Agreed. The OT concept of the eternal state was not what it is after the further revelation of the NT (Matt to Rev, not Jer 31:31). The concept of going immediately into God’s presence was not a possibility until after the substitutionary atonement of the Lord Jesus.

    I STRONGLY DISAGREE THAT THE OT CONCEPT INVOLVED ONLY THE SORROW OF THE BODY LAYING HOPELESSLY IN THE GRAVE!!!

    As early as Job, we read, “For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.” (Job 19:25-27) Sure sounds pretty hopeful to me!

    As for David, he wrote “Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” (Psa 16:9-10). It is true that this is applied to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, but by interpretation, the passage speaks of David’s hope in the resurrection to life. Surely, this is not the “Baptist view” of heaven, whatever that may mean, but it is clearly a hopeful anticipation of a future resurrection and dare we imply “reunion”?


    WOW! Had no idea that LS Chafer held to the "seminal participation" view. Did do a phrase search through my theological journal library (electronic edition) and could not find the phrase “seminal participation” in BibSac, WTJ, JETS, or any of the other theo journals. Was surprised. Typically, many of the Dallas guys would print in BibSac before revising and publishing in book form. Personally, I hold to the "federal headship" view regarding Adam's sin. We did not sin in Adam, but in Adam we all became sinners. His sin passed on us all. Death passed onto us all, because we all sin, not because Adam sinned. NONE OF THE VERSES IN ROMANS 5 Say that WE SINNED IN ADAM. Rather they say that "in Adam all have sinned". Being in Adam, all have sinned. Not, when Adam sinned, we all sinned with him. Do not have time to do the Greek tenses right now on this, but pretty sure that the tenses do not leave room for your interpretation. Will look more at it later...

    Also, people most certainly did sin prior to the Mosaic law. God’s moral law is for all ages and for all peoples. The Mosaic Law, starting with the ten, was never given to Gentiles! It was given to the people that HE brought “out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exod 20:2). Specifically, the Sabbath was never for anyone by the Jew! (Exod 31:12-18). Whatever “sin was not imputed” means, it DOES not mean that no one sinned, or that no one was held accountable for that sin prior to Mt. Sinai! Any BIBLICAL interpretation or theological position must be reconcilable with all of Scripture. This is the standard to which I continually hold myself, and others. This standard is also the reason why my theology is under constant personal scrutiny and continual refinement. Not until I am in HIS presence and know as I am known will it be finalized!

    Gonna be a pretty full weekend. Hope to get back with you sometime early next week.

    Ray
     
    #204 rjprince, Sep 8, 2005
  5. SBGrace

    SBGrace New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    The water is the word......
     
    #205 SBGrace, Sep 9, 2005
  6. RightFromWrong

    RightFromWrong Guest

    The WATER is the FLESH !
     
    #206 RightFromWrong, Sep 9, 2005
  7. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    rjprince wrote,

    My view, which has very much support from theologians and commentators throughout the history of the church and is today the most widely held view, is no way at variance with the tenses used, nor is it at variance with any other grammatical considerations. C. E. B. Cranfield, in his two volume commentary on Romans in the ICC series, lists the six interpretations of the last phrase of Rom. 5:12 that have the support of some scholars, and he then discusses the six interpretations one at a time, often quoting the scholars who advocate each of the views, quoting them in their original Greek, Latin, German, and English writings, and, for some of the interpretations, showing their variance with the Greek grammar used in the passage before us.

    In Cranfield’s list, my view is number iv; your view is number vi, and he finds no grammatical reasons favoring either view. He does favor view vi, but exclusively upon theological grounds. He briefly states the case for view iv, and then attempts to explain it away, not having a good understanding of either Paul or his theology (he attributes his own, personal theology to Paul), and denying the significance of some of Paul’s parallelisms in Romans 5. Most strikingly, perhaps, he does not like the implications for infants if view iv is accepted as Paul’s view, and he very carelessly and unjustifiably writes off the implication by saying, “But those who die in infancy are a special and exceptional case, and Paul must surely be assumed to be thinking in terms of adults.” And Cranfield offers no defense of any kind for this statement which he knows very well is radically at variance with the views of almost all of the early scholars of the New Testament, and the large majority of them today. And, of course, it is the significance to infants of this passage in Romans 5, and the relevance of the sin and death of infants to the theology of water baptism that occasioned my introducing this passage into this thread. In other words, what is the spiritual state of infants, and what provision did Christ make for their spiritual state if water baptism of infants is not effectual in remedying their spiritual state?

    Some years ago, I had a lengthy, theological conversation with the rector of a large Catholic cathedral, and I asked him point blank, “What do you personally believe regarding the baptism of infants?” His response was, “I believe that the Catholic Church has a theological problem with that.” Personally, I agree with him, but the Roman Catholic Church is by no means the only denomination to teach that there is a relationship between infant baptism and the bestowing by God of His grace upon infants who are culpable of Adam’s sin. And when Jesus said to Nicodemus,

    John 3:3. Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
    4. Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"
    5. Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (NASB, 1995)

    was he speaking only about what Nicodemus must personally experience, or was he speaking of what all of fallen mankind, including infants, must experience in order to enter the kingdom of God? And if infants are included here, how are they to experience being born of water and the Spirit?

    In closing, I might add that I have in my home library more than 230 commentaries on Romans, and hundreds more volumes on Paul, his theology, and his other writings, and more such volumes where I work. We can take a look at any of these works that may be of interest to you, either grammatically or theologically.

    [​IMG]
     
    #207 Craigbythesea, Sep 9, 2005
  8. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    The "Greek tenses" here have nothing to do with favoring either argument.
     
    #208 Charles Meadows, Sep 9, 2005
  9. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    rjprince wrote,

    Yes, people did personally sin prior to the Mosaic Law. Nonetheless, Paul says in Rom. 5:13 that their personal sins were NOT imputed to them. However, the sin of Adam was imputed to them just as the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.

    Rom. 5:13. for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    Yes, and Paul’s statement in Rom. 5:13 can appear to some to contradict Old Testament history and Rom. 1:32 and 2:12a, but we have in Rom. 5:13 a very clear and explicit statement, “sin is not imputed when there is no law,” and less explicit passages need to be interpreted in the light of the very explicit passages. And when this basic principle of hermeneutics is applied to Old Testament history, we gain additional insights into that history. And when this basic principle of hermeneutics is applied to Rom. 1:32 and 2:12a, we gain further insight regarding Paul’s teaching there. The parallel that Paul is making in Rom. 5 is unmistakable—the sin of Adam was imputed to all just as the righteousness of Christ is imputed to all who believe. How can anyone deny the imputation of sin and yet believe in the imputation of righteousness? How can one argue that imputation is one thing when it refers to sin, and something very different when it refers to the righteousness of Christ? Imputation is imputation!

    I hold myself to the same standard, but there is an additional standard to which I hold myself—Old Testament history is NOT our source of New Testament doctrine, and Old Testament history must be interpreted in the light of New Testament doctrine. And in Romans 5 we are dealing with a passage of Scripture that is expressly theological—it is not merely a brief recapping of history or a eulogy praising the blessedness of God, it is a passage that was penned for the express purpose of teaching New Testament doctrine. We have all sinned in Adam, and the proof of that teaching is that many died without having the Law even though sin is not imputed when there is no law. Newborn infants have not yet had the opportunity to commit personal sins, and yet many of them die. This would be impossible were it not for the fact that they sinned in Adam, and the wages of sin is death. The primary error of Pelagius was that he denied that we sinned in Adam. He further, of course, denied that Adam’s sin was directly related to the subsequent sins of men. The Bible teaches that we have all sinned in Adam and that we are all made righteous in Christ through our personal faith in Him.

    [​IMG]
     
    #209 Craigbythesea, Sep 9, 2005
  10. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    CBTS,

    Have an all night youth activity that I am getting ready for, so not much time. Will respond more later, for now, just this...

    For now, I concede the Greek Tense issue, will still check it out...

    To read the NT back over the OT is a bad practice. THE NT EXPLAINS AND INTERPRETS THE OT, IT DOES NOT REWRITE IT!!!.

    This is the fundamental error of covenant theology -- it changes the clear statements of the OT to reconcile them with their interpretations of the NT. The OT is the foundation of the NT. You cannot move the building off the foundation without impacting the security of the building.

    BTW, I am certainly opposed to infant baptism...

    From WIKIPEDIA - Pelagianism is a belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of us (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism).

    Pelagianism denies that all men are fundamentally sinners. My position does not do this. It fully acknowledges that all are born in sin. I acknowledge that in Adam we all have sinned, I deny that we all sinned when Adam sinned. More later....
     
    #210 rjprince, Sep 9, 2005
  11. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    rjprince wrote,

    Who is saying anything different? Certainly not I.

    You are posting here against an imaginary straw man. The large majority of dispensationalists agree with the interpretation held by Chafer and myself, and Chafer is a dispensationalist, and I do not adhere to covenant theology.

    I am not a structural engineer, but I know enough about the subject to agree with your statement here. But what does your statement have to do with interpreting Old Testament history in the light of New Testament theology?

    This is nothing but an elaboration upon what I already posted about Pelagius, and I freely acknowledge that your view does not go so far as Pelagius did in denying the universal aspect of Adams sin. You do, however, come dangerously, and possibly fatally, closes to it. But the issue here is not Pelagius and his teachings, nor is it covenant versus dispensational theology, the issue here is the fact that we have all sinned in Adam, and the proof of that teaching is that many died without having the Law even though sin is not imputed when there is no law. Newborn infants have not yet had the opportunity to commit personal sins, and yet many of them die. This would be impossible were it not for the fact that they sinned in Adam, and that the wages of sin is death. Please stop going “all around the Mulberry Bush” and deal with the issue before us. The parallel that Paul is making in Rom. 5 is unmistakable—the sin of Adam was imputed to all just as the righteousness of Christ is imputed to all who believe. How can anyone deny the imputation of sin and yet believe in the imputation of righteousness? How can one argue that imputation is one thing when it refers to sin, and something very different when it refers to the righteousness of Christ? Imputation is imputation!

    No, Pelagianism does NOT deny that all men are fundamentally sinners—Pelagianism merely denies that Adam was the cause of our being sinners.

    Agreed.

    No, it does not. It only acknowledges that all are born with a sin nature.

    No, you do not acknowledge that in Adam we all sinned. Your position is that we merely inherited a sin nature as a consequence of Adam’s original sin.

    Ray, please read our text in the Greek New Testament. If you will simply do that, you will see at once that the Greek tense is NOT an issue here and has no bearing on your interpretation, my interpretation, any of the other four interpretations that have been put forth by scholars.

    [​IMG]
     
    #211 Craigbythesea, Sep 10, 2005
  12. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    CBTS,

    And OR, Have worked through v. 12 in the Greek. Yes, I agree that aorist tense for "sinned" gives no support to either view. Still thinking about the significance of “eph hw”. A.T. Robertson has a few comments on that. Have also found some other stuff in my electronic Theo Journal Library.

    Been about 25 years since I worked on this issue. Surprised that I even remembered the term "seminal participation". Am working on it again. Fully considering your position, but not leaning that way yet. Did find some comments by Chafer in BibSac’s 1935 printing of some of his preliminary Systematic Theo articles. Noted that Miles Stanford seems to hold the same position. Most of my commentaries are boxed awaiting completion of my new office area, think I can put my hands on one or two, though.

    Still leaning toward Federal Headship view and away from Seminal Participation. Several problems with SP that I will delineate after more work.

    Did find this in Schaff concerning the position of Pelagius on original sin. “The “all” in Rom 5:12 is to be taken relatively for the majority. Even before Christ there were men who lived free from sin, such as righteous Abel, Abraham, Isaac, the Virgin Mary, and many others. From the silence of the Scriptures respecting the sins of many righteous men, he inferred that such men were without sin. In reference to Mary, Pelagius is nearer the present Roman Catholic view than Augustine, who exempts her only from actual sin, not from original. Jerome, with all his reverence for the blessed Virgin, does not even make this exception but says, without qualification, that every creature is under the power of sin and in need of the mercy of God.”

    Anyhow, wanted you to know I am working on it.

    Probably grouped you a little bit with Covenant Theologians in my “Old Testament is the foundation of the New” comments. Sorry.

    Again, I am always willing to reevaluate a position. To think that I have not missed arguments for or against would be somewhat arrogant on my part. I work hard on issues and reach fairly firm conclusions, but they are not set in stone, unless they are found clearly stated and I can give chapter and verse. I have some positions that I am confident will never change. This is not one of those.
     
    #212 rjprince, Sep 12, 2005
  13. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    C.E.B. Cranfield holds to your view, and explains why, but I find his comments on Rom. 5:12 to be helpful because he sets out very clearly the four basic grammatical interpretations that are possible for “eph hw” along with the history of these four interpretations. Sanday and Headlam set this out also, with some additional historical details, but they are, in my opinion, less easy to follow. Cranfield, although I disagree with him theologically, is an excellent writer and he very clearly expresses himself.

    Moses Stuart, in his commentary on Romans (1832), also set out the four basic grammatical interpretations that are possible for “eph hw” along with the history of these four interpretations. James Dunn, in his commentary on Romans (1988), does not set out these grammatical interpretations that are possible for “eph hw” but simply writes, “The classic debate on the meaning of [eph hw] has more or less been settled in favor of the meaning ‘for this reason that, because’ . . . .” That Dunn is correct in this statement is very clearly born out by our very numerous translations of the Greek text into English that so render these words.

    Leon Morris, however, in a footnote in his commentary on Romans (1988) writes, “There is a problem with the meaning of [eph hw].” He follows this comment by very briefly setting out the four grammatical interpretations.

    [​IMG]
     
    #213 Craigbythesea, Sep 13, 2005
  14. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks. I have Morris... in a box somewhere...

    I know it is wrong to envy, so I do not want your library, but would sure love to have access to as many works as you have collected.

    A.T. Robertson says this:

    In the old Greek "eph hw" usually meant "on condition that," but "because" in N.T. (Robertson, Grammar, p. 963, Cited in Robertson, Word Pictures).

    Doesn't really get us any closer to final resolution of the question at hand, but significant nonetheless.
     
    #214 rjprince, Sep 13, 2005
  15. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    rjprince wrote,

    To be more precise, Robertson wrote in his Word Pictures in the New Testament,

    “In the old Greek eph’ hōi usually meant ‘on condtion that,’ but ‘because’ in N.T. (Robertson, Grammar, p. 963).”

    That is, he gave a reference to what he wrote in his grammar on P. 963,

    “So also [eph' hōi] is causal in Ro. 5:12; 2 Cor. 5:4; Ph. 4:10.”

    (Ray, I received your e-mail message. Thank you so very much! I hold you in the highest regard as both a Christian brother and a pastor!)

    [​IMG]
     
    #215 Craigbythesea, Sep 13, 2005
  16. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    CBTS,

    Thank you brother, I am available.

    Ray
     
    #216 rjprince, Sep 13, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 11 of 11
Loading...