# Romans 8:14



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 23, 2011)

*Romans 8:14*
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

I was reading G.I. Williamson's commentary on The Westminster Confession of Faith, XVI. Of Good Works, and here is something he said regarding the working of God's Spirit in us:

"...the believer learns in Scripture that the Spirit does not work in spurts. (Rom. 8:14, 'For as many as are _ever-being-led _by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God,' is the sense of the original.)..."

And no further proof for this interpretation is given, which makes me doubt his faithfulness to the Word of God, at least in this particular text.

Although it is clearly evidenced elsewhere in Scripture that the Spirit of God continually works in us, that we are His temple, I would like to know on what basis he makes such add to God's Word. Any ideas?


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 23, 2011)

The verb for led is a present passive indicative. The NAS gives a good translation of this word here:

NAS Romans 8:14 For all who *are being led* by the Spirit of God, these are (b)sons of God.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 23, 2011)

rbcbob said:


> The verb for led is a present passive indicative. The NAS gives a good translation of this word here:
> 
> NAS Romans 8:14 For all who *are being led* by the Spirit of God, these are (b)sons of God.


 
I still wonder where the word "ever" came from.


----------



## chbrooking (Jan 25, 2011)

If you look at this as a translation question, you may have a point. But if you look at this as an expository question, I don't see your problem. "Ever" simply means "continually". I think it is consistent with sound theology that we do not go back and forth between adopted sons and orphans, between believers and nonbelievers, between those enslaved to the flesh and those enslaved to Christ. I think it is consistent with Paul's meaning in this passage, too, that a once-for-all, definitive change has occurred in you, if you have been reborn. That's sort of the point of the entire section. 

So ... drawing out, expositionally, the import of the present tense is not inappropriate. Of course, I try not to hang too much on the aspect of the present or aorist tenses -- they can be so flexible. But in light of the context, I don't think his take on this is unsound at all. For what it's worth


----------

