Our pastor is preaching through the book of Romans of chapter 1.
I have been studying and reading other matierial as we go through this book.
I happened to read Richard B. Gaffin Jr book Resurrection and Redemption A study in Paul's Soteriology on Romans 1:3,4.
I didn't know and I thought it was interesting that Romans 1:3,4 had in the Reformed traditon a older and newer Reformed interpretations.
The older view is held by Calvin Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield. The Newer interpretation introduced by Vos, Greijdanus, Ridderbos and John Murray.
The Older interpretation demands that Son of God vs 4 refers specifically to Christ's deity. They stress that flesh vs3 must refer to his humanity. These two factors conclude that the contrast is between the two fudamental components in the make-up of Christ's person his divine and human natures.
The Newer interpretation while not denying what was said above maintains that a redemptive -historical outlook is dominant and that the contrast is between two successive stages or modes of existence.
I just thought I share what I came across in my study.
By the way Gaffin defends the interpretation of the newer on Romans 1:3,4
have a great week. :book: :book:
I have been studying and reading other matierial as we go through this book.
I happened to read Richard B. Gaffin Jr book Resurrection and Redemption A study in Paul's Soteriology on Romans 1:3,4.
I didn't know and I thought it was interesting that Romans 1:3,4 had in the Reformed traditon a older and newer Reformed interpretations.
The older view is held by Calvin Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield. The Newer interpretation introduced by Vos, Greijdanus, Ridderbos and John Murray.
The Older interpretation demands that Son of God vs 4 refers specifically to Christ's deity. They stress that flesh vs3 must refer to his humanity. These two factors conclude that the contrast is between the two fudamental components in the make-up of Christ's person his divine and human natures.
The Newer interpretation while not denying what was said above maintains that a redemptive -historical outlook is dominant and that the contrast is between two successive stages or modes of existence.
I just thought I share what I came across in my study.
By the way Gaffin defends the interpretation of the newer on Romans 1:3,4
have a great week. :book: :book:
