John S. wrote:
> Let's start over.
Ok.
John S. wrote:
> Since I was explaining my understanding on the
> grammatical application of the present tense,
> I did not and do not see it necessary to finding
> a translation that actually says "If we say we
> are having no sin ..." I made no claim regarding
> translations.
You described coming to your understanding of man always being a sinner,
even in Christ, when you were sitting in a first year Greek class and
realized that the Greek conveyed continuous action in two passages.
Since a knowledge of Greek was responsible for your new understanding, I
think it is appropriate to consider whether this new Greek knowledge you
perceived and now share with us is accurate. Maybe you had a Greek
instructor who wasn't really all that good in Greek, or maybe you
misunderstood him. One way we can check ourselves when we translate a
text ourselves is to compare how other Greek scholars, men much more
knowledgeable than us in Greek (especially if we are simply sitting in a
first year Greek class), would translate the passage. If our
translation, based upon our first year knowledge of Greek differs from
every other Greek scholar in the universe and we cannot find one who
would translate it the way that we do, then I think we should have pause
and reconsider that maybe we are overlooking something in our
translation. Maybe all the other Greek scholars have it right and we
have it wrong.
John S. wrote:
> Your quote of Mounce (immediately below) makes
> my point, does it not?
No, it does not.
David Miller wrote:
>> Because you quoted Mounce, let me quote him concerning
>> the presentactive indicative verb. "The present active
>> indicative verb in Greek is basically the same as in English.
>> It describes an action that usually occurs in the present.
>> It can be either a continuous ("I am studying")or undefined
>> ("I study") action. We recommend using a continuous
>> translation by default, and if it does not fit the context
>> switch to the undefined."
In your writings, you communicate that present tense always conveys
continuous action, whereas Mounce declares that it can be either
continuous or undefined. What determines whether it is continuous or
not? Not the verb ending, but the context in which it is used. He
gives a shortcut for helping students pick which it might be, and that
is to use the continuous, and if it does not seem to fit the context,
switch to undefined. Why does he make this suggestion? I think it is
because we find the "ing" endings which communicate continuous action
awkward in many contexts, and so this awkwardness would help us
eliminate the continuous action connotation when we translate it.
John S. wrote:
> It seems that you use Zodhiates to counter Mounce:
> "Zodhiates says that the present tense indicative
> mood refers to contemporaneous action, and in moods
> OTHER THAN THE INDICATIVE, it refers to continuous
> or repeated action."
No, John, this does not counter Mounce, but helps explain that the
indicative mood does not by necessity have the connotation of continuous
action that you want to force upon it. Mounce acknowledges this, but
you do not.
John S. wrote:
> Would you agree that Mounce's opinion is the more popular?
No. Mounce is popular as an educator, for helping students learn Greek
by combining two general methods of instruction into one. He also gives
certain imprecise shortcuts that help students move forward without
getting bogged down in academic details.
John S. wrote:
> I have included some of my words and they seem
> to be in agreement with Mounce, since he is a
> primary source of my opinion. 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. With that admission, I guess I am allowing
> a works theologian to go his own way. Do you
> have reference material that condemns "my"
> application of the greek tense? "
> Now, that is what was said. I am speaking of
> "context" when I allowed for a difference of
> opinion in my statement.
With this statement, I'm not sure you understand what is meant by
"context" in translation. Context gives meaning to words. For example,
consider the word "rules" in the following two sentences: "he rules"
and "he follows rules." The word "rules" cannot be understood alone.
We require a context to define it. The context gives two completely
different meanings to the same word. In the same way, when we have a
verb in the indicative mood, we can say nothing about continuous action
except by examining the context of its use. We read the context and
determine what we think is being conveyed by that context. 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 regards to our sinful condition.
John S. wrote:
> I would not have quoted Kittle without reference in mind.
> Vol I, page 307
> "The diabolical character of sin is herein expressed
> (i Jo 1:8,10 ..) The situation has not come to an end
> but still continues."
> ... p307 "The new situation becomes effective in love,
> which is the total opposite of [amartia] " Law is not
> the contrast but love.
>
> And this is most interesting. Kittle reminds us that
> John is speaking of the sins of the community !!!
> Perhaps he refers to the fact that the verbs in 1:8
> are Ist person plural.
Are you quoting "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament"? I'm
somewhat wondering because you spell his name as "Kittle" instead of
"Kittel." Can you give me a more complete reference?
Also, the quote you offer seems more theological in nature than one
based upon language. I think the context of 1 John, as I explained
before, shows Kittel to be very wrong in his idea that sin continues. I
preach on college campuses and this objection of 1 John 1:8 is very
frequently raised, always yanking it out of context, and so my job is to
expound upon the context and help students understand the passage within
its context. It appears to me that Kittel here makes the same mistakes
as these students who seek to justify their continued sinning before a
holy God.
If this is Gerhard Kittel that you quote, are you aware that he was one
of the Christians who not only supported Adolf Hitler, but was in fact
working for Hitler at the time he started writing this dictionary? Are
you aware of his Anti-Semitic beliefs and of his conviction and prison
time served for helping Hitler exterminate Jews? Do you think we should
be concerned about how his mindset and sinful activities while
professing to be a believer in Christ might influence his perception of
Scriptures and his expressed theology? Jesus does say to judge them by
their fruit.
John S. wrote:
> One additional point. I would venture to guess that
> no one in this list has a theology that is so simple
> as to be destroyed with the confusion of a single point.
> You surmised that I might change my position if I failed
> to answer your challenge.
No, John, I did not expect you to change your position if you failed to
answer my challenge. I was hoping that you would "reconsider." I was
hoping that you would recognize that your knowledge of Greek upon which
you based your "revelation" of continuing sin in the life of the
believer was not as strong as you had at first surmised. Once you have
some pause about this cornerstone of your belief system, then I could
share some Bible with you to help you consider another viewpoint.
However, if you cannot come to this discussion with the honesty to
examine this "Greek" foundation for your belief, I'm not sure how well
further conversation would help.
John S. wrote:
> There are many reasons for my belief in salvation
> by faith and sanctification by consideration.
> I am sure that is true for you as well -- you
> have a well developed system of theology. Our
> Mormon friends, likewise. But, of course, sometimes
> there is that single hot button that brings the house
> down.
You suggested we start over, so let's look at what you wrote originally
that prompted my response.
John S. wrote:
> Central to the biblical doctrine of grace is the very
> obvious reality that man is a sinner. Tons of bible
> on this.
I agree with this.
John S. wrote:
> I Jo 1:8 makes a statement in greek, a present tense
> statement: "if we say that we are having no sin,
> the truth is not within us." When I sat in first
> year greek and read that, understanding the impact
> of continuous linear action ("are having no") I
> was stunned. My mind did not race to figure out
> how to escape the implications of this verse.
> Implications? I mean I as sitting in greek class,
> for crying out loud studying "the Word of God.'
> Not smoking. Not drinking. Not lusting. No t ...
> well you get it. AND STARING ME IN THE FACE, RIGHT
> THERE IN GREEK 101, WAS A VERSE THAT SAID I WAS
> HAVING SIN RIGHT THEN. Bummer.
Now this is where I start to have problems. I assume that you are a
believer in Christ at this point in time. It seems to me that Greek
class 101 caused you to view yourself as a sinner, even though you could
not identify any particular sin in your life. This is a common theme
taught in Christianity that I think is very evil. When we receive a
doctrine that makes us consider ourselves to be sinners, even with the
work of Christ in our lives, and that we will continue to be sinning no
matter what, that is a HUGE problem for me. My Bible teaches me that
Jesus was manifested to take away our sins. My Bible teaches me that
Jesus makes us perfect in regards to the conscience, so that like Paul,
we can say we have wronged no man, even if we were in our past murderers
and adulterers.
John S. wrote:
> Grace people recognize the fact that sin is ever upon
> us, inescapable, often intentional, always disastrous
> and deserving of death.
This sectarian comment bothers me because it surmises that there are
different types of Christians. There are "Grace people" and what...
those Christians who do not believe in grace? People like me? We
should all consider ourselves brothers and sisters in Christ, who must
all believe in grace in order to be saved. Let's not divide ourselves
into the grace people and the non-grace people.
John S. wrote:
> Works are commanded, they are necessary, but they are
> never accomplished by those who are righteous on their
> merits -- never.
I agree. All of our own works are as filthy rags. We must repent of
our dead works, and when we do, Christ begins to work in us. The works
that he does through us are not our own, but his. The righteousness
that manifests itself through us in good works come from Christ. They
are not our merits.
John S. wrote:
> So God substitutes our faith for our supposed
> righteousness and refuses to consider our sins.
This substitutionary concept really bothers me. God refuses to consider
our sins, and faith somehow substitutes for our right standing before
God, even though we continue to sin? Sorry, but I'm not buying this at
all. I would prescribe for you a heavy dose of the book of James. :-)
>From my perspective, true faith miraculously changes us. Just as the
woman with the issue of blood was healed when she believed and touched
the hem of Christ's garment, so we experience a virtue coming into us
when we believe upon Christ. Our faith produces righteousness within
us, a heart of love where before there was hatred and selfishness. If
anyone says he has faith and does not have this change within and the
accompanying good works that flow from this change, then I would say
that such a man is deceived and his faith is vain.
Peace be with you.
David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
