I have no bias here. But what is basis for insisting lambonontes is an active participle? I thought, as Davo implies, the same spelling is used in both active and passive senses. Does it come down to comparing examples of both types, and then arguing which is closest to the text at hand?
Only dealing with the texts John raised earlier…
Rom 1:5; Rom 5:11 ἐλάβομεν (elabomen) = 1st per, Tense – aorist, Voice – active; Mood – indicative; Number – plural
Rom 8:15 ἐλάβετε x2 (elabete) = 2nd per; Tense – aorist; Voice – active; Mood – indicative; Number – plural
Rom 5:17 λαμβάνοντες (lambanontes) = Tense – present; Voice – active; Mood – participle; Case – nominative; Number – plural; Gender – male
Out of the 4 texts in view only Rom 5:17’s lambanō is “participle”.
The root word is λαμβάνω (lambanō), broadly meaning…
1) to take 1a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it 1a1) to take up a thing to be carried 1a2) to take upon one’s self 1b) to take in order to carry away 1b1) without the notion of violence, i.e., to remove, take away 1c) to take what is one’s own, to take to one’s self, to make one’s own 1c1) to claim, procure, for one’s self 1c1a) to associate with one’s self as companion, attendant 1c2) of that which when taken is not let go, to seize, to lay hold of, apprehend 1c3) to take by craft (our catch, used of hunters, fisherman, etc.), to circumvent one by fraud 1c4) to take to one’s self, lay hold upon, take possession of, i.e., to appropriate to one’s self 1c5) catch at, reach after, strive to obtain 1c6) to take a thing due, to collect, gather (tribute) 1d) to take 1d1) to admit, receive 1d2) to receive what is offered 1d3) not to refuse or reject 1d4) to receive a person, give him access to one’s self, 1d41) to regard any one’s power, rank, external circumstances, and on that account to do some injustice or neglect something 1e) to take, to choose, select 1f) to take beginning, to prove anything, to make a trial of, to experience 2) to receive (what is given), to gain, get, obtain, to get back.
I’m NOT making a case for any “passive” reading etc, although in certain texts it would most obviously be the case, but as far as Rom 5:17 goes I think the “active” tense, according to the parsing (and not any bias of mine) is a no-brainer.
Davo, When you state that the “parsing” in Romans 5:17 is no-brainer “active,” are you saying that this spelling cannot be a passive participle?
I’ll tell you about how the study went later (I need bed now) but it is to be continued in a fortnight.
I have just looked at this from Meyer’s NT Commentary ( I believe Meyer was not a universalist):
-this suggests Meyer is a proponent of a passive state doesn’t it?
Bengel’s Gnomen says:
I am beginning to think there is no definitive answer.
The quotes (and more) can be found here:
No… I’m merely point to the fact that every Gk lexicon “I’ve” consulted renders λαμβάνοντες (lambanontes) as per Rom 5:17 as being in the ACTIVE VOICE meaning, the subject produces the action – in this case, to take or grasp etc. However, I’m no Greek scholar so you can take what I’m saying with a pinch of salt… but either way, it IS in the “active voice” (as far as I’ve seen) and I didn’t make up the rules of Gk grammar etc. 
So Bob… how then are you reading this text in question?
The Bible study went quite well from my perspective, so thanks to all. The leader (pastor) seemed to want to concentrate his study of Chapter 5 on the first few verses which was safe territory, but out of the blue, a young lady made comment that she could never be happy in heaven knowing that her grandparents were in hell. The leader’s response was bleak and so the young searcher was left dejected. At this point I made reference to Ch4v25 and 5v1 (as it had already been mentioned by the leader), but I linked it to Ch5 v 18 and encouraged the young lady. The leaders tactic was to quickly change the subject rather than engage with the text. However, despite a lengthy tangential from him, when he had finished, several members of the group got back on to the ‘hot potato’. It was great to hear two very elderly Pentecostals actually very sympathetic to the idea of God’s grace being much more expansive than is traditionally taught. One person even dared to suggest that perhaps death was not so final a deadline as we might think. I quoted the text in Philippians 2 (every knee shall bow) and it was decided to return to the same chapter in a fortnight. The humour was good throughout.
John,
I’m so glad and grateful you were able to encourage that young woman. How sad to leave a meeting where the good news is preached and one must leave with horrible news instead, and the encouragement to accept the bad news as “good.”
Thanks for doing that. 
Such Good News!
Davo,
As I’d mentioned, I’m afraid I have no “reading” on the mood of receive in 5:17 (and don’t think it matters for U.R.) I’m hearing you to say the authorities you consult is what makes it a no-brainer that it’s active (though right above, Bengel is cited as conceding the passive is the better sense of the verb). I may have less confidence in lexicons and experts (e.g. at Fuller all the authorities we saw were ECT and enless for aionios) and would rather weigh the basis they offer for their conclusion myself. If everyone agrees that it has the active sense of “take” or grasp, it seems to me more translation committees would have removed the ambiguity and chosen “take” rather than use “receive.” I’ve heard Talbott has offered a length case for passive, but it’s not at hand. Has anyone critiqued his case?
Fair enough Bob… however, IF you had such a “reading”, would you be inclined to give it any air? As for… “and don’t think it matters for U.R.” Yep not an issue.
My “no-brainer” was just my expression for “it seems obvious” BASED ON all the available evidence, to me.
Bob… you “may have less confidence in lexicons and experts” in seemingly disputing what I’ve produced above from others re “active” – and yet you then make a passive appeal to the likes of “Bengal” as though that somehow, does what? If anything, just demonstrates a massive incongruity on your part. 
Ok, so I’m scratching my head… the word actually is “receive” not “grasp” BUT, the parsing seems to indicative that the one receiving is fully involved in the action, hence the intent… at least according the grammar (voice = active). Again I’m not a Greek scholar, and certainly you don’t trust them, so we may just have to settle for “the ambiguity” you speak of. 
Davo,
You had said that “receive” in the active mood means “take or grasp.” If that’s the consensus, I’m not following why you scratch your head about my suggestion that translators could have used “take.” Shouldn’t they reflect what they believe receive in the active mood accurately means.
You say citing Bengel’s word on the passive “if anything, just demonstrates a massive Incongruity on your part” (with my skepticism that ‘authorities’ settle this question). But it was a parentheses in a sentence simply challenging your assertion that all authorities agreed with the active meaning. I have no more confidence in Bengel than others, including Talbott here (you realize Bengel goes on to argue for the active mood in 5:17, though his reasons were unclear to me). My only point was that there appears to be more diversity here than you suggested among those conversant with the Greek, and that encourages my interest in asking the basis for each interpretation before considering it a closed question.
I agree Bob, it seems far from a closed question. I have been unable to find Talbott’s reference to it.
I still wonder if [tag]JasonPratt[/tag] could shed any more light on it.
P.S. Thanks for your encouragement Cindy and Eaglesway.
Hi Bob,
I think the word “take” has a more forceful connotation than the word “recieve” and “take” does not imply something having been given. And concerning “recieve” being in the “Active” voice, not the “passive” voice; Greek is a much more technical language than English. The voice is spelled out in the way the word is spelled, the ending added to it; it is not left up to the context or the interpretation of the person reading it. In Rom. 5:17 the word lambano is λαμβάνοντες the ending οντες signifies that the word is meant to be understood in the Active voice. The active voice represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, “The boy hit the ball,” the boy performs the action. In 5:17 the person is active, not passive, in recieving what is given.
Jesus has made us all righteous by his death and ressurection. But only those who now actively recieve this gift shall “reign in life”. Those who have not or do not receive do not reign in life. It’s not talking about going to heaven someday, but about participating in the authority of the kingdom of life today! We who have recieved the gift of life, those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness, presently reign in life; otherwise death reigns. This passage calls to mind what Jesus said that even the gates of death (Hades) shall not prevail against the church!
We are very active in recieving and living in the abundant grace and gift of righteousness of God. This passage in no way affirms that anyone shall ever forever resist the grace of God, but focuses on our respons-ability to live in the grace of God today!
Hi Bob (Sherman) Thanks for your contribution. Have you any thoughts on why any renowned scholars (quoted above) say that the word λαμβάνοντες as it is in Rom 5v17 is passive? :
If the ending οντες signifies active, do you know the ending which signifies passive?
It might be worth noting that λαμβάνοντες is used in John 5:44
I’m not sure how the recipient can be active in receiving the praise.
Sherman,
Thanks, I ‘take’ your point that “taking” Jesus as our Savior may be a problematic way to put it, though most everything important I grasp or take seems given 
(I don’t even care for our colloquialism, “accepting” Jesus, thinking the focus should be on walking in the way where *we * are acceptable. But more central, I’d asked if anyone claimed 5:17’s participle required an active mood, and appreciate you sharing this was indeed the basis for you. I began studying Greek at UCLA in 1963, and thought I’d read articles arguing that lambanontes can have either active or passive meanings (as Bengel above assumes). If you’re correct that there are no cases of a passive meaning, that would be awfully conclusive.
But I assume, since Talbott studied at Fuller as I did, he was also immersed in N.T. Greek. He, like Bengel, argues that this spelling is commonly associated with a passive meaning. Indeed, that in Paul’s contexts of God’s grace, judgment or gifts, it always has the passive sense. Thus, that Paul “five times received forty lashes,” is similar to a boxer ‘receiving’ blows, and should be understood as simply being the recipient of another’s action, whether one actively embraced it or not. He even thinks that the active ending wherein Paul “received grace and apostleship to bring obedience and faith” is asserting nothing about Paul’s proper action, but is actually simply acknowledging that God placed such grace and apostleship on him. He develops this on page 58 of his book. Do you find his arguments implausible?
Grace be with you,
Bob
Thanks Sherman… nice, simple and succinct; my bad for assuming such an understanding was a given.
Thanks for reminding me of that Davo, my memory isn’t what it used to be, and your interpretation may well be correct.
And here I was thinking it was just me… you are not alone. 
I think there is some confusion here.
λαμβανω (lambanō) means “I take” or “I acquire” where I must do something to actively get whatever it is.
δεχομαι (dechomai) means “I receive”. I take whatever it is because it has been offered to me, not because I have actively pursued it.
Whether the voice is active of passive doesn’t apply to the concepts above.
The active of λαμβανω means that someone or something performs an action in order to acquire something.
The passive of λαμβανω means that someone or something is taken or acquired through some action that was taken.
The active of δεχομαι means that someone or something receives what is offered him or it.
The passive of δεχομαι means that someone or something is received when offered.
Consider Matt 7:8. Why do you suppose λαμβανω is used here?
For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
Is it not because there is action taken in order to receive? Everyone who ASKS receives.
You see it all the time—people performing in music or singing, dressing snazzily, giving impressive speeches, etc. in order to receive praise from people.