6 comments

1. In Allen’s next paragraph (pp. 185-186), he has a hard time with Paul’s “μὴ γένοιτο” in Romans 6:2. He thinks that Paul is telling the Romans that they should ask themselves a statistical prediction question in Romans 6:1, whether they will “continue in their sins [sic] as before (p. 186),” as if Paul asked a question in the indicative mood …, will such and such be true in the future, that we are doing relatively better about “sins as before (p. 186)”? Paul is not asking that, but what are we to do deliberatively, about “sin,” singular.

   The verb of Romans 6:1, ἐπιμένωμεν is not in the indicative, which would be the mood used for prediction of future, but the subjunctive, the mood used for deliberation. So Romans 6:1, in the ESV “are we to continue in sin” is not an indicative question: it is not a predictive statistical quantity question, certainly not about “sins”, but a question about “sin,” addressed to the will, in the subjunctive mood, “are we to continue in sin?” Paul’s denial is not Allen’s denial, the denial of “sins as before, (p. 186)” but the utter abhorrence answer of μὴ γένοιτο: May it never be; it is out of the question; God forbid; by no means are we to choose continue in sin, that grace may abound: not at all! Paul’s answer is different than Allen’s: Paul’s answer is to have a “no” to any deliberation to sin, but Allen, by his “as before,” Allen wants us to substitute a prediction, a ‘well, it’s not like it was.’ However much it is not like it was, Paul is not asking them to predict themselves, but to deliberate. The will is addressed here in Romans 6:1, not as an observer to predict quantity of future sin. May the quantity of sins be fewer indeed, but Paul is teaching our wills the utter revulsion is to sin as such, to any deliberation of it.

   This is an important oversight in many sanctification thoughts, which want a relative answer! For example, where Jesus actually tells the forgiven sinner regarding the future, what the standard is: “do not sin anymore (Jn 5:14)” are we really wanting the Lord, or Paul to have said some kind of standard ‘go, and do better and better?’ Can you imagine the Lord giving His standard for us as a watered-down goal? On the contrary, there is an urgency against sin, both in Paul, and in the Lord’s teaching to the disciples. Neither Jesus nor Paul address the will concerning sin in a relativistically compliant way. Are we continue in sin, that grace may increase? μὴ γένοιτο.

   Contrary to Allen p. 185, μὴ γένοιτο is not a wish, nor an aspiration, but an expression of utter revulsion and the putting the very possibility of such a deliberation out of the question. Putting out, of what? The consideration “sin, that grace may abound,” the putting out of consideration of such a thing, at all. We are not to only sometimes reject “sin, that grace may abound,” but always reject it. The will is being addressed, not the calculator.

   • Hello Larry,

     Here is Michael Allen in the following paragraph under discussion, he writes,

     Second, we must note that Paul does not leave the question unanswered. He responds, ‘By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?’ (Romans 6:2). With his response here (μὴ γένοιτο) he does not state a wish or aspiration but a logical impossibility, It may never play out that way as suggested by the question in 6:1, for no one may be justified freely in Christ only to continue in their sins as before. Paul offers a lengthy description in 6:1-10 of the definitive action taken in Jesus: his death was the believer’s death, and his resurrection was the believer’s resurrection. (185-86)

     You have stated that for Allen μὴ γένοιτο is “a wish, an aspiration” yet Allen did not say this as seen in the above paragraph.

     Allen, then, writes of relational priority and the ground of sanctification:

     Paul presses further still in arguing for the way in which justification actually grounds sanctification in verses 6–7. He concludes verse 6 by starting that ‘we would no longer be slaves to sin.’ This phrase refers to present activity, noting that we will conduct ourselves in a manner befitting sons of the King rather than slaves of the usurper. Verse 7 offers a reason for this transformed behavior (the conjunction gar signals that the next clause provides a reason or basis for what has been just stated): ‘For one who has died has been justified from sin.’ (186)

2. Boom!

3. Did you not notice Dr Lee that you chopped my sentence off in order to make it sound like I misunderstood him?

   Contrary to what he said (that “me genoito” is not a wish or an aspiration but a logical impossibility) what my sentence(s) brought up is up that the phrase is not a wish or aspiration but an expression of utter abhorence by Paul to the proposition “sin, that grace may abound.”

   The I think the author has substituted this idea — logical impossibility — onto “me genoito.” He wamts Paul to be saying “it will never be” instead of the “may it never be.”

   Here again are his exact words, and my exact words: “With his response here (μὴ γένοιτο) he does not state a wish or aspiration but a logical impossibility”

   “Contrary to Allen p. 185, μὴ γένοιτο is not a wish, nor an aspiration, but an expression of utter revulsion and the putting the very possibility of such a deliberation out of the question.”

   The main thing is to “get” Paul here. Is Paul trying to show our future, or remove an excuse?

   • Larry,

     You need to account for the rest of what Allen said.

4. OK. (I think you mean the rest of what Pastor Lee quoted.)

   (Nothing against the book author, who has many interesting thoughts gone through in the book. Here, it’s best to look at certain points, not try to make points about entire books in a small space like these comments.)

   Let’s go on to the very next sentence in the book after the place I’ve commented on, after the attempt to say μὴ γένοιτο means logical impossibility. How is this used? We’ll see, in this comment. Here is the next sentence….

   (Book:) “It may never play out that way as suggested by the question in 6:1, for no one may be justified freely in Christ only to continue in their sins as before.”

   What is the “it,” the author is refering to there, that “may never play out”? The obvious reference is “to continue in their sins as before.” The author thinks this idea is “suggested by the question” of Romans 6:1.

   Supposedly Paul is asking a question about whether something will “play out,” that “may never play out.” What?

   1. The first error is the change by the book to a third person “they”: Paul asks “are we to continue,” not some “they.” We have a switch to a third person, an ad hoc “they.”

   2. As I pointed out before, Paul is not asking an indicative future question, what will be the case or not, but he uses the subjunctive, not the indicative. By using the subjunctive, Paul is not asking what the book’s author is asking, but they author wants us to understand 6:1 as talking about whether or not something will “play out.”

   What plays out, must be a succession of things over time. So, the author is looking at Romans 6:1 (ESV: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?”) as a question about the future, will we be, or won’t we be. Versus the deliberative. Are WE to continue in sin, that grace may abound?

   Does PAUL show what he is asking in 6:1, in 6:2? Paul’s “how shall we, who died to sin, live any longer in it” shows that he is asking us a question about us, not discussing logical impossibilities for a third group.

   Hope this helps in continuation of discussing the book’s assertions. But the main thing is Paul’s meaning.

Comments are closed.