Re: [TruthTalk] Grace and Holiness

[Lance Muir]

As an interloper I'm with John. This is a syntax vs semantics discussion. PS to other readers-Please look these words & use them properly. Whatever you choose to call it, name it, theologize concerning it-I sin, David sins, John sins-daily, hourly, moment(ly). Please correct me if this is not true concerning either of you. You're two smart guys "straining at gnats". Now translation matters (see the pistis christou discussion) but this discussion is truly missing the mark (in this layman's opinion). RSVP Lance ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 02, 2004 15:41 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Grace and Holiness In a message dated 4/2/2004 9:46:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear John, I did not mean to upset you.  Let me restate what I think is important for us to communicate here.  I will consolidate it down into two questions. Ditto 1.  I desire from you an acknowledgment that there is no Greek scholar, not Mounce or anyone else, who has translated 1 John 1:8 and Romans 3:23 as you have.  Can you agree with me on this point? Sure.  While you are at it, take my clothes and shoes as well.  Seriously,  do you mean to exclude the statement of those greek principles that present to us the idea of continual and continuing action in association with present indicative active?  Are you wanting me to concede that?    2.  If there is no Greek scholar who translates the context as you have and provides the translation that you have, do you have any pause whatsoever such that you would consider some arguments from me about why you should relinquish your hold on the idea that in Christ, we continue to be sinners by our very nature, based upon these particular passages? I am having trouble here.  I am not of the belief that scholarship in this case, "translates" context.  They translate words.  Context determines nuance, does it not?  It is nuance that  BillT  committed to in the recent post regarding    the faith(fulness)  of Christ.  Isn't our problem a difference of opinion regarding defined nuance?   John S. wrote: > AND STARING ME IN THE FACE, RIGHT THERE IN > GREEK 101, WAS A VERSE THAT SAID I WAS > HAVING SIN RIGHT THEN. I want to get past this by first dealing with the technical assertions that Greek 101 had somehow provided you with a proof here.  If you are ready to say that this was an opinion you formed at the time that you now recognize might be wrong, then I think we can move forward.  If, on the other hand, you think that Greek 101 proves that you are having sin right now as you believe upon Christ, then I'm not sure that there is anything to discuss until we first get on the same page concerning the Greek.  Let me know what you think.  Thanks.   Not sure i agree with this.   If we agree on the verb tense (and I think we do)  in the two passages in questiion, then there is much to talk about.   Namely, all that information that goes into making a sound exegetical decision.    Here is the point of difference between the two of us as I see it: You believe that the present tense in these passages does not mean that sin is a continuing issue.   I am saying that that is exactly the case.   I do admit that scholarship actually says that present indicative active does not necessarily mean continuous action -- thus the possiblity of an honest debate.   How am I doing?   John