Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

[Moon] 

> The point is that we cannot infer
> something that is contradiction to
> what he actually said. He said:
> “You are not under the Law but under
> grace. Hence Sin will not be the
> master of you.”

> From here, we cannot infer:
> "if you are under the Law, sin will
> be the master of you".

I think we can -- or, at least, we can in Rom. 6:14,
until Paul elaborates on his position in 7:7-25.

> My point is that if we interpret what
> Paul said in such a way
> that something logically inconsistent
> with what Paul said is derived,
> something is wrong. 

Fair enough. Something may be wrong (but it may not
be).

> You wondered if, if my understanding is
> right, Paul would have not said:
> “You are under grace as well as not under
> the Law. So, Sin will not be the master
> of you.”

No, no, that’s not what I said. Remove the “not”
before “under the law”. I was saying in yesterday’s
post that if your understanding is correct, nothing
would have been easier for Paul to say than “Sin will
have no dominion over you if you are under grace as
well as under the law.” Here’s part of that thread:


[Moon]

> What we have is:

> If you are not under the Law but
> under grace, sin will not be
> the master of you.

> My contention is that here “under the
> law and “under grace” may not be
> exclusive of each other.


[Loren]

> But then wouldn’t Paul have said, 
> “If you are under grace as well as
> under the law, sin will not be the
> master of you”?


Your contention is that “under the law” and “under
grace” are not exclusive of each other. So my question
still stands. If, in the context of Rom. 6, “being
under grace” and “being under the law” go
significantly hand-in-hand, why did Paul state the
matter in a way that makes “grace” and “law” sound
like opposites (regardless of nuances in logic)?
  
> My attempt is being made under
> the assumption that 
> "under the Law" here should not
> be construed as "under the tyranny
> of or under the condemnation of
> the Law". It should mean here
> "under the government of the Law"
> (which is positive, at least neutral)
> in the same way this phrase is
> used in other places.

I understand what you’re aiming at here. But, at the
risk of arguing in a circle, I must repeat that with
contexts such as 5:12-21 and 7:7-13 framing the
argument of Rom. 5-8 as a whole, we’re dealing with
the over-arching epoch of Adam rather than the more
specific one of Abraham/Moses. “The government of the
law” seems too restrictive to apply in such a context.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/