From: Rod Decker (rdecker@accunet.com)
Date: Thu Aug 17 1995 - 18:55:23 EDT
>David Willis here responding to Rod Decker who wrote,
>
>>>
>2. The shift in form from aor. to present is prob. significant. Note that
>the first group is linked by a 'kai...te...te' sequence. The ptcp. 'fall
>away' is most directly affected by this link as it would argue that it is
>parallel with the earlier ptcps. and is not conditional (as some Eng.
>versions transl.). I think that the pres. ptcps. ff. can only make good
>sense as causal and not temporal. (There would have to be some
>other indication in the context to make them temporal, not just the pres.
>tense,
...
>I think you have that "other indication" in the use of the adverb "once" in
>6:4.
I'm not sure how you think that "once" (= hapax) in v. 4 affects the
temporal nature of the ptcp. in v.6. Could you be more explicit? In v. 4,
'hapax phwtisthentas' is an alternative way of saying 'regenerated'
('phwtizw' is almost a tech. term for regeneration in the NT). I.e., once a
person has been regenerated, if he then 'falls away' v. 6 (which I
explained in my orig. post), it is impossible, etc. BECAUSE this is the
significance of what they have done: 'anastaurountas, etc.' To make it
temporal would be like saying that you can't stop pouring water while
you're pouring water. I.e., 'you can't stop falling away while you're
falling away.' A temporal explanation sounds good at first glance, but it
is tautological. If I'm missing something as to how 'once' in v. 4 changes
this, please clue me in.
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT