Maybe all the other Greek scholars have it right and we
have it wrong.
Speaking of broad brushes -- there it is.
Weslian theology is most certainly a minority opinion. Does that make a difference. Of course not. If you don't think I have scholarship behind me, so be it. Mounce said exactly what I was saying or was trying to say and that is in black and white.
DAvid says:
you communicate that present tense always conveys
continuous action, whereas Mounce declares that it can be either
continuous or undefined.
Actually, I did not say that. It is frustrating me that this observation is a repeat on your part. Here once again is what I actually said:
I wrote:
> "Present indicative active gives us activity WITH
> NO END IN VIEW. That does not mean the action is
> on going but it can mean that -- and very often
> does.
Enough said on that.
You repeat:
Mounce acknowledges this, but you do not.
Read my post.
David says:
Mounce's opinion is the more popular? No. Mounce is popular as an educator
My response:
I ask about Mounce's interpretative opinion and you discuss Mounce's popularity as an educator.
David says:
With this statement, I'm not sure you understand what is meant by
"context" in translation. Context gives meaning to words.
My response:
Come on David and give me a break, here. I certainly understand "context." And I know that establishing context can be a very opinionated endeavor. Your assertion that Romans 7:25 is not talking about present time circumstances in spite of the fact that it is written as if it were and is the basis for the continuing thought in Romans 8 ("there is THEREFORE .....") demonstrates this point. I believe that what you are calling "context" is actually assumed theology on your part. It certainly is on my part. When we understand "context" in the brighter light of "theology" we can see that, often, contextual argument solves nothing if the goal is agreement.
And then David says this:
You have
reversed this process, by first assuming that if the Greek is in the
present tense, then continuous action is implied, and then you attempt
to force that upon the context of the verse and change its meaning in
such a way as to make the work of Christ in the life of the believer of
no effect in regard to our sinful condition.
My response:
This is how I study. I actually read the text, then I make myself aware of the common English application of greek syntax, then I make myself aware of variant applications, then I establish context -- historical background, authorship, date, immediate circumstances for the writing, the theology of the author, the larger theology of the church and those who have gone on before. In there, somewhere, is my assumption or bias. I have them and you do too. And where does all this take me? It gives me an opportunity to form an INTERPRETATIVE opinion. The result is my INTERPRETATION. It is not inspired nor necessarily right. With my interpretation in hand, I am always mindful of Paul's caution: knowledge puffs up.
Contrary to popular belief on your part, I never knowingly defeat the purposes of God with my interpretation.
That last sentence is simply not a responsible comment and I will not respond to it.
John
