How should we arc what John Piper calls 'evidence'?

---

At the 40:40 mark in this 2014 conference message on Romans 8 (https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/free-from-judgment-fighting-sin-full-assurance), Piper discusses the meaning of the word ‘for’ that connects Romans 8 verses 1 and 2. As background, he explains that in both English and Greek we use the word ‘for’ for two types of grounds: (1) a ground that is a ‘cause’ (e.g. “I’m hungry for (because) I skipped breakfast”), and (2) a ground that is an ‘outcome/evidence’ (e.g. “I’m hungry for (the evidence is) my stomach is growling”. The first of these is a cause, the second is an outcome or evidence.

He argues that the ‘for’ that connects Romans 8 verses 1 and 2 is the second type, and paraphrases as follows: “For the evidence is plain (!), the spirit has been poured out into your life and you are being changed and defeating the law of sin as an outcome of having been justified, in response to which God poured the Holy Spirit into your life and begin to change you.”

My question is: Should we use the Ground connector to show this second type (outcome/evidence) of Ground relationship, or is there a better way to show this type of relationship?

I usually use the words “that is” to show that it is more of an explanation of the evidence of and not the cause of the main clause.

An Action/Result relationship could bring out the meaning of an outcome.

My inclination would be to use Action-Result for the first type, that is, a cause-effect. Ground fits here as well if the emphasis is on the logical basis of an outcome as opposed to an event based outcome.

For the second type (evidence of a reality), Ground is appropriate. As in courtroom law, evidence presented forms the basis (or ground) for the conclusions drawn.

I would lean toward the action result for this question.

Great question, thank you for helping me think about this.

Thank you for all the feedback!