Comments on: Romans 6 vs. Romans 7 Part II – Original Sin and Concupiscence http://pauliscatholic.com/2009/06/romans-6-vs-romans-7-part-ii-original-sin-and-concupiscence-in-catholicism/ Taylor's Marshall's Next Book & Podcast Tue, 08 May 2012 05:27:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Tony DiMaria http://pauliscatholic.com/2009/06/romans-6-vs-romans-7-part-ii-original-sin-and-concupiscence-in-catholicism/comment-page-1/#comment-3352 Tony DiMaria Thu, 10 Nov 2011 03:55:52 +0000 http://pauliscatholic.com/?p=32#comment-3352 Tony, Looks like Good stuff. I'm a catholic revert studying at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit and sharpening my knowledge at a local protestant bible study (focusing on Romans right now). Thanks for the this web help, I'll be back Tony DiMaria Tony,

Looks like Good stuff. I’m a catholic revert studying at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit and sharpening my knowledge at a local protestant bible study (focusing on Romans right now).

Thanks for the this web help, I’ll be back
Tony DiMaria

]]> By: Real Estate Agents Richmond http://pauliscatholic.com/2009/06/romans-6-vs-romans-7-part-ii-original-sin-and-concupiscence-in-catholicism/comment-page-1/#comment-1738 Real Estate Agents Richmond Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:17:19 +0000 http://pauliscatholic.com/?p=32#comment-1738 I was just searching for this info for a while. After 6 hours of continuous Googleing, finally I got it in your site. I wonder what's the lack of Google strategy that don't rank this type of informative sites in top of the list. Usually the top web sites are full of garbage. I was just searching for this info for a while. After 6 hours of continuous Googleing, finally I got it in your site. I wonder what’s the lack of Google strategy that don’t rank this type of informative sites in top of the list. Usually the top web sites are full of garbage.

]]> By: Emil http://pauliscatholic.com/2009/06/romans-6-vs-romans-7-part-ii-original-sin-and-concupiscence-in-catholicism/comment-page-1/#comment-1704 Emil Wed, 08 Jun 2011 01:13:33 +0000 http://pauliscatholic.com/?p=32#comment-1704 I found your web on Bing and read a few of your blog posts. I just added you to my my favorites! I found your web on Bing and read a few of your blog posts. I just added you to my my favorites!

]]> By: Darcey Nila http://pauliscatholic.com/2009/06/romans-6-vs-romans-7-part-ii-original-sin-and-concupiscence-in-catholicism/comment-page-1/#comment-1661 Darcey Nila Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:16:06 +0000 http://pauliscatholic.com/?p=32#comment-1661 Great website. A lot of useful information here. I am sending it to several friends ans also sharing in delicious. And obviously, thanks for your effort! Great website. A lot of useful information here. I am sending it to several friends ans also sharing in delicious. And obviously, thanks for your effort!

]]> By: michael http://pauliscatholic.com/2009/06/romans-6-vs-romans-7-part-ii-original-sin-and-concupiscence-in-catholicism/comment-page-1/#comment-1639 michael Tue, 07 Jun 2011 01:42:37 +0000 http://pauliscatholic.com/?p=32#comment-1639 very nice publish, i certainly love this web site, carry on it very nice publish, i certainly love this web site, carry on it

]]> By: Emil Anton http://pauliscatholic.com/2009/06/romans-6-vs-romans-7-part-ii-original-sin-and-concupiscence-in-catholicism/comment-page-1/#comment-217 Emil Anton Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:11:33 +0000 http://pauliscatholic.com/?p=32#comment-217 First, I doubt there is any such thing as "the Catholic position" on Romans 6 and 7. Fr. Fernand Prat SJ in his classic "The Theology of St. Paul" vol 1 points out that the majority opinion of both the fathers of the Church AND modern exegetes is that Paul in Romans 7 is speaking about the man under the Law, i.e. the non-regenerate. This was Augustine's earlier view too. Second, Hahn's explanation sounds great (as always!:), but the question is: does it do justice to the text, is it good exegesis? My problems are the following: A) Romans 6 is not an answer to a problem given in Romans 5. Romans 5 itself gives the answer to Romans 5 - it is grace (5:12-21), as communicated by faith, as explained before (5:1 and all of 4). Romans 6 then is the answer to the objection that Paul's teaching leads to licentiousness. Baptism is mentioned because it provides the basis for a new Christian morality, not because it is the answer to original sin. B) Romans 7 speaks about HE HAMARTIA in the Greek, THE SIN in English. It seems to refer back to the HE HAMARTIA introduced in 5:12, Adam's sin. So the text seems to support the Protestant view rather than the Catholic. I am open to discussing Trent's explanation on this. It states that Paul calls concupiscence "sin" here not because it is properly sin but because it comes from sin and leads to sin. I'm not sure if this is too convincing. Why would I call something X that actually is not X but comes from X and drives toward X? I mean I'm not going to call a door a room because it leads a man from a room to a room (and it's probably produced in a big room somewhere as well:). Third, it is not right that the New Perspective is interpreting Romans 7 as the "Pre-Christian Paul". It's just the opposite! The New Perspective and modern Pauline scholars in general have been insisting against the Old Perspective not to read Rm 7 autobiographically. Think about Stendahl for example and his argument based on Phil 3. Räisänen in Paul and the Law says it can now be taken as granted that Rm 7 is about the non-Christian in general (referencing to Kümmel's work). So it's not all that simple... All of this is said only so that we would find the best and most solid arguments and not misrepresent anything in Pauline scholarship, or worse, in Paul himself. First, I doubt there is any such thing as “the Catholic position” on Romans 6 and 7. Fr. Fernand Prat SJ in his classic “The Theology of St. Paul” vol 1 points out that the majority opinion of both the fathers of the Church AND modern exegetes is that Paul in Romans 7 is speaking about the man under the Law, i.e. the non-regenerate. This was Augustine’s earlier view too.

Second, Hahn’s explanation sounds great (as always!:), but the question is: does it do justice to the text, is it good exegesis? My problems are the following: A) Romans 6 is not an answer to a problem given in Romans 5. Romans 5 itself gives the answer to Romans 5 – it is grace (5:12-21), as communicated by faith, as explained before (5:1 and all of 4). Romans 6 then is the answer to the objection that Paul’s teaching leads to licentiousness. Baptism is mentioned because it provides the basis for a new Christian morality, not because it is the answer to original sin. B) Romans 7 speaks about HE HAMARTIA in the Greek, THE SIN in English. It seems to refer back to the HE HAMARTIA introduced in 5:12, Adam’s sin. So the text seems to support the Protestant view rather than the Catholic. I am open to discussing Trent’s explanation on this. It states that Paul calls concupiscence “sin” here not because it is properly sin but because it comes from sin and leads to sin. I’m not sure if this is too convincing. Why would I call something X that actually is not X but comes from X and drives toward X? I mean I’m not going to call a door a room because it leads a man from a room to a room (and it’s probably produced in a big room somewhere as well:).

Third, it is not right that the New Perspective is interpreting Romans 7 as the “Pre-Christian Paul”. It’s just the opposite! The New Perspective and modern Pauline scholars in general have been insisting against the Old Perspective not to read Rm 7 autobiographically. Think about Stendahl for example and his argument based on Phil 3. Räisänen in Paul and the Law says it can now be taken as granted that Rm 7 is about the non-Christian in general (referencing to Kümmel’s work).

So it’s not all that simple… All of this is said only so that we would find the best and most solid arguments and not misrepresent anything in Pauline scholarship, or worse, in Paul himself.

]]>