Re: Romans 3:19-20

Date: Fri Oct 06 1995 - 10:26:45 EDT

In a message dated 95-10-06 03:38:21 EDT, Paul Dixon writes:

>If you are saying the theos in Jn 1:1c is referring to the same person
>identified as the theon is 1:1b, then this is Sabellianism, that is, that
>the Logos is God the Father.

>It seems you are considering only two possibilities - either definiteness
>or indefiniteness. Have you considered that theos in 1:1c may be

     The issue I discussed was not definiteness or indefiniteness. Rather, I
discussed the identification of what THEOS refers to. The anarthrous noun
retains its qualitative force and yet points back to the previous THEOS for
its substance and identification.
     I did not say that John 1:1c was saying the Person's where the same. I
was showing that the essense was the same. See my point concerning the
impossiblibity of having articles on both sides of this copulative clause.
 In it I stated that you cannot have an article on both sides of John 1:1c.
 This is because it would cause the totality of the personage of God to be
the Son, and we know that God's essense includes the Holy Spirit and the
Father also. God is not limited to the the Son alone.

I hope that clears up my position.

Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:29 EDT