Acts 13:48

[IreneY]

OK new idea (trying to defuse a situation I'm partially to blame for). How about it being middle voice? What would be its meaning then at the time? I'm afraid I have no dictionaries of Koine Greek.

[ChristHaunted]

When I solve Calculus problems, language is minimal, whether in my head or externally. I simply work out the problem, it is thinking that is beyond words. I compose music. I've written string quartets, piano pieces, piano/string duets, and I write modern music in various genres. There is a lot of thinking involved in writing a piece of music, whether you believe it or not, and my mind becomes totally quiet as far as language goes. Language uses only one part of the brain. I can actually notice the difference of how my mind works when I'm working out my Calculus homework or composing music. It's not linguistic thinking. You may call doing Calculus and composing music "merely what the higher mammals have", but I disagree with that. And yes, writing music is full of empirical sense data. I listen and respond to different melodies and harmonies and make adjustments as I go along. All of this is done without words. According to you, it's also done without thinking.... it just happens somehow.

Numbers are words signifying quantity. Musical notes are words that signify audio waves at different frequencies. Higher mammals do not think about music or math. They have no words. Even the sounds we record animals using to communicate are instinctual, and do not conform to any known rational linear process. We can record dolphins but we cannot have conversations with dolphins. Even gorillas can only use sign language. Symbols that can correspond to behaviors. Hellen Keller had to have words, spelled out on her palm to correlate objects in the sensory world. She had to learn braille. Words. Before words her mental impressions, were not enough. She lived in turmoil. So if you want to insist that those mental impressions are meanings, then go or it.

If you are correct. Try explaining any of this to me without words.

I feel that we're just going in circles, so I'm going to exit this discussion. I've been hoping that others would chime in and express their views/interpretations, but the back-and-forth between me and you without any progress either way is not healthy.

I mentioned before that this would be a fruitless debate. I am sorry for going down this road. Please forgive me.

I want to clarify my view about God and "logic" very quickly. You may mock me as believing that Christianity is "irrational", but that's not my view. God is not irrational, he is extra-rational... beyond "logic" and "reasoning". I don't know what chapter/verse in the bible says that we must subject God to "logic" because he's so "logical". The bible calls him "wise", and says that he can't lie. "Logic" is a convention of human reasoning, and serves us well, but it's not a silver bullet that subjects all things under it's power, including God.

What theologian throughout Church history shares this view? I have never heard it.

Can something super-rational or extra-rational violate the basic law of non-contradiction?

Also, comparing the Trinity to demon-possession???? I honestly don't know what to say to that. As if the Trinity is a multiple personality disorder??? Again....

It simply illustrates the point that if possession is possible, then more than one being in one person, or more than one person in the same being, are not illogical. Neither is the Trinity.
Nothing is illogical about Christianity.

There are theories in theology that also define person as a "mode of being". Not that I believe them. Just that there are ways of explaining the mysteries of Trinity and the incarnation that do not contradict logic and sound reason.

Dissociative Identity Disorder = more that one personality, and therefore, more than one person, and still one being.

Whoa, dude! Are you saying that a person with this disorder is really many individual people that will stand before God one day? It's really multiple people? So a person with such a disorder could rightly claim 4 or 5 votes in an election? non sequitur. It's one person, struggling with multiple identities. Claiming that it's really multiple people inside the one person is.... well....

Anyway, I'm out. Peace!

I was not speculating on how God helps people with multiple personalities. Just that multiple personalities are a reality. And they do not contradict logic.

One being. Three persons. Water is H2O in its essence. Yet it can be solid, liquid, or vapor. It can be all three at the same time in different measures around the world, and all of them are still H2O.

Grace and Peace

[calvinist]

ChristHaunted, here is an article that I'd like for you to read if you have time: http://www3.dbu.edu/naugle/pdf/FridaySymposiumSp04/beyond_reason_theology.pdf It's about logic and its role in Christianity. Please read it with an open mind and let me know what you think.

You're points about musical notes and mathematical symbols being "words" are exactly right. And I commend you for that insight, but you're assuming that when I write music I'm thinking in musical notes. I don't. I visualize the music in my mind, usually as textures and colors. I visualize it in my mind as various relationships and levels of tension. Words or any symbol are really inadequate to describe it. Much of my music is never put into standard notation. I record it myself and usually don't notate it. If I do notate it, it's a secondary task and I actually have to sit down and spend a lot of time figuring out which symbols are required to notate it. My point is that music notation is not music, it's just a convention for expressing music to others and for preserving ideas in a written form. When I look at a sheet of music, I don't know what the music sounds like just by looking at the sheet music. The symbols don't indicate the music to me, they just indicate the particular notes that I need to play. There isn't a direct correlation between music notation and music as there is in spoken language where we hear a word and instantly associate it with the idea. In music it takes years of practice to acquire that skill, which proves that the symbols are entirely secondary, and they are totally unnecessary for writing music. There are many people that write music and can't read music notation and don't even know the names of the notes.

As far as the Trinity is concerned, let me clarify my position. Your analogies are helpful and interesting. My point is that there is nothing in reality like the Trinity. It's not like water. Water can be in three forms, but the Trinity is not one God in three forms/modes, that was declared a heresy by the early church, it was called "Sabellianism." Also, one molecule of water can only be in one form at one time. All of the analogies used to illustrate the Trinity are of one of two kinds: part/whole or aspect/whole. The persons of the Trinity are not parts of a whole God, and they are not modes/aspects/ways of being( (liquid/gas/solid)/perspectives of the one God. The doctrine teaches that Jesus Christ is God, period. Not that he is just a person of God, or that he's a mode of God, but that he is God. Jesus is God, and another one is God, the Holy Spirit, and another one is God, the Father. There are three that are God, and there is one God. Not just three persons that add up to one God, but three that are God, and yet one God. I believe we should just leave it at that and not try to "prove" it by analogies.

I find it hard to believe that you really think that a person with an identity disorder has multiple human souls inside one body. So God creates say 4 or 5 humans souls and binds them into one body? So the person is really not a person, but a people. I'm one person and have many identities. I play different roles depending upon the genre of music I'm working with and even my voice/accent/style/personality changes to fit the music. There's only one soul in this body though. I think some of your views are a little mixed up, but then again, who am I to say?

The LNC is a useful tool, but it can be very deceptive at the same time. "Something cannot be both A and not-A." At one time I thought I could solve all the riddles of reality with this little tool... I've matured. The problem is that reality is hardly ever in such clearly delineated pieces. Things overlap, they intertwine. The world we live in isn't a collection of disparate pieces, rather all things are connected to other things through various relations which can make the LNC not as easy to use as it might seem at first glance. The LNC is useful in something like this: Either Jesus is God or he isn't. It works here because the terms Jesus and God have infinitely narrow definitions here. By Jesus is meant only one man, Jesus of Nazareth, and by God is meant only the God of Christianity, not just any "god". But check this out: A Ford Explorer is either a car or it isn't. In this case we have quite a dilemma. It all depends on how precisely we define the term "car". But relegating the word "car" to some technical description is unnatural. Probably half of native English speakers would gladly call it a "car". Others may say it's a "truck" and not a "car". Others may say it's a "truck", but also a "car", and so forth. Many logical arguments reduce to this type of thing. In the end we don't really learn anything about reality, rather we just learn precisely what the author means by his 'terms'. If we define a car as something different from a truck, and then we define an SUV as a type of truck, and then we define a Ford Explorer as an SUV, well then of course a Ford Explorer can't be a car. But all we did is build our own complex system of definitions that leads to the result. It's a form of circular reasoning. We could just as easily say that a choge is different from a blunkat, and then define a wukabid as a type of blunkat, and then define a Ford Explorer as a wukabid, and of course then a Ford Explorer can't be a choge. It has nothing to do with reality, it's just semantics. That's the problem with the LNC. Furthermore, I don't know why we should use Greek philosophy, or any philosophy for that matter, to inform our interpretation of the bible. (The LNC comes from Aristotle)

Oh, also, Kierkegaard is an example of both a philosopher and theologian who embraced contradiction. His book The Sickness unto Death is an amazingly brilliant examination of the fallen nature of man. It was a life-changing read for me.

[calvinist]

OK new idea (trying to defuse a situation I'm partially to blame for). How about it being middle voice? What would be its meaning then at the time? I'm afraid I have no dictionaries of Koine Greek.

The Democrats made you afraid of the "vitriol"? Dude, we're fine, we're just discussing some issues that are important to us. We could act totally mellow and uninterested in everything, but then we wouldn't be alive. I was a Marine for five years, a little heated discussion is not going to hurt anyone.

"If you don't have something worth dying for, you have nothing worth living for." -Brad Stine

But Irene, why don't you get involved in the discussion? I've been hoping for some other input than just us two. What do you think of ChristHaunted's interpretation of the verse? Does it seem to suggest that reading to you? Being that you are an uninterested party your views carry some weight.

[ChristHaunted]

ChristHaunted, here is an article that I'd like for you to read if you have time: http://www3.dbu.edu/naugle/pdf/FridaySymposiumSp04/beyond_reason_theology.pdf It's about logic and its role in Christianity. Please read it with an open mind and let me know what you think.

The author states:

If there is something, however, which can be identified as not being logical yet cannot be
identified as being illogical, then it likely transcends logic.

Throughout the entire article he asserts that the "sublime", or the limit of human reason, somehow transcends logic. yet he never proves this, and still maintains that, it is not in fact, illogical.
Logic is binary. If something cannot be proven to be illogical, then it is logical.

And he rejects Aquinas, which of course he must do in order to make such an absurd claim. Grace does complete nature.

You're points about musical notes and mathematical symbols being "words" are exactly right. And I commend you for that insight, but you're assuming that when I write music I'm thinking in musical notes. I don't. I visualize the music in my mind, usually as textures and colors. I visualize it in my mind as various relationships and levels of tension. Words or any symbol are really inadequate to describe it. Much of my music is never put into standard notation. I record it myself and usually don't notate it. If I do notate it, it's a secondary task and I actually have to sit down and spend a lot of time figuring out which symbols are required to notate it. My point is that music notation is not music, it's just a convention for expressing music to others and for preserving ideas in a written form. When I look at a sheet of music, I don't know what the music sounds like just by looking at the sheet music. The symbols don't indicate the music to me, they just indicate the particular notes that I need to play. There isn't a direct correlation between music notation and music as there is in spoken language where we hear a word and instantly associate it with the idea. In music it takes years of practice to acquire that skill, which proves that the symbols are entirely secondary, and they are totally unnecessary for writing music. There are many people that write music and can't read music notation and don't even know the names of the notes.

First of all, no arrangement of audio frequencies in a particular cadence can convey truth. Mathematical symbols can. 1+1=2 is true. A chord progression such as C#m A B E, reveals nothing about the world or the nature of reality. In this way, Math is more like a language than music. Music might evoke certain emotions, but they are subjective to the listeners senses and memories, and not universal. Not everyone enjoys or appreciates Jazz for instance. Mathematic equations are universal. Musical notes are indeed a convention for replicating musical compositions, but they are linguistic only in an aesthetic sense.

As far as the Trinity is concerned, let me clarify my position. Your analogies are helpful and interesting. My point is that there is nothing in reality like the Trinity. It's not like water. Water can be in three forms, but the Trinity is not one God in three forms/modes, that was declared a heresy by the early church, it was called "Sabellianism." Also, one molecule of water can only be in one form at one time. All of the analogies used to illustrate the Trinity are of one of two kinds: part/whole or aspect/whole. The persons of the Trinity are not parts of a whole God, and they are not modes/aspects/ways of being( (liquid/gas/solid)/perspectives of the one God. The doctrine teaches that Jesus Christ is God, period. Not that he is just a person of God, or that he's a mode of God, but that he is God. Jesus is God, and another one is God, the Holy Spirit, and another one is God, the Father. There are three that are God, and there is one God. Not just three persons that add up to one God, but three that are God, and yet one God. I believe we should just leave it at that and not try to "prove" it by analogies.

Analogies do not "prove", they point. I am simply, again stating that there is nothing illogical about the doctrine of the Trinity. Also, one molecule of H2O is, I suppose, always a solid. Yet, we could also say that a glacier is solid, and ocean water is solid that flows through our hand, and fog is solid because under a microscope it is in fact a dispersion of very tiny solid water droplets.

The Trinity does not state God is one being, and three beings. . .that is illogical. It states that God is one being, shared by three persons. 3 in 1, not that 3 & 1 are the same number. Distinct but not separate. There are many things in the physical world that correspond to that by way of analogy.

I find it hard to believe that you really think that a person with an identity disorder has multiple human souls inside one body. So God creates say 4 or 5 humans souls and binds them into one body? So the person is really not a person, but a people. I'm one person and have many identities. I play different roles depending upon the genre of music I'm working with and even my voice/accent/style/personality changes to fit the music. There's only one soul in this body though. I think some of your views are a little mixed up, but then again, who am I to say?

I don't. You are equating the soul with the personality, and I do not. One soul can have more than one persona. The soul is the breath of God, the essence of life within a human being.

The LNC is a useful tool, but it can be very deceptive at the same time. "Something cannot be both A and not-A." At one time I thought I could solve all the riddles of reality with this little tool... I've matured. The problem is that reality is hardly ever in such clearly delineated pieces. Things overlap, they intertwine. The world we live in isn't a collection of disparate pieces, rather all things are connected to other things through various relations which can make the LNC not as easy to use as it might seem at first glance. The LNC is useful in something like this: Either Jesus is God or he isn't. It works here because the terms Jesus and God have infinitely narrow definitions here. By Jesus is meant only one man, Jesus of Nazareth, and by God is meant only the God of Christianity, not just any "god". But check this out: A Ford Explorer is either a car or it isn't. In this case we have quite a dilemma. It all depends on how precisely we define the term "car". But relegating the word "car" to some technical description is unnatural. Probably half of native English speakers would gladly call it a "car". Others may say it's a "truck" and not a "car". Others may say it's a "truck", but also a "car", and so forth. Many logical arguments reduce to this type of thing. In the end we don't really learn anything about reality, rather we just learn precisely what the author means by his 'terms'. If we define a car as something different from a truck, and then we define an SUV as a type of truck, and then we define a Ford Explorer as an SUV, well then of course a Ford Explorer can't be a car. But all we did is build our own complex system of definitions that leads to the result. It's a form of circular reasoning. We could just as easily say that a choge is different from a blunkat, and then define a wukabid as a type of blunkat, and then define a Ford Explorer as a wukabid, and of course then a Ford Explorer can't be a choge. It has nothing to do with reality, it's just semantics. That's the problem with the LNC. Furthermore, I don't know why we should use Greek philosophy, or any philosophy for that matter, to inform our interpretation of the bible. (The LNC comes from Aristotle)

Oh, also, Kierkegaard is an example of both a philosopher and theologian who embraced contradiction. His book The Sickness unto Death is an amazingly brilliant examination of the fallen nature of man. It was a life-changing read for me.

All trucks, cars, bicycles, skateboards, etc. . . are modes of transportation. Just because language is fuzzy does not mean we cannot speak truth. If we carefully define our words, logic works every time. Lets go back to the water example. I will throw out three words: rain, fog, mist. When I typed those you thought of what they mean and have a mental image of the difference. Scientifically, the difference is irrelevant. Because in fact they are only describing different sizes of water droplets. There is just no poetry in looking out the window and saying, "Wow, the dispersion of water droplets in the air today is very expansive and thin." Logically, we could say rain is not mist. We can also say, rain and mist are the same in essence but different in form. This is what the Father, Son, and Spirit are, the same in substance, but different in subsistence.


You should know that I hold Aristotle to be the greatest philosopher, and Aquinas to be the greatest theologian.

This is why the rabbit hole will never end between you and I brother. I fundamentally reject the thinking of the Enlightenment and everything after.

I just do not think it is fair for anyone reading this thread to think that Christianity is an irrational faith.
If the Bible is true, God communicated that truth it in a way creatures can understand, and therefore be able to receive eternal life. In fact, He became incarnate in order to explain it better than He did through inspired prophets in the past. And He died to show us how to live.

Grace and Peace.

[ChristHaunted]

OK new idea (trying to defuse a situation I'm partially to blame for). How about it being middle voice? What would be its meaning then at the time? I'm afraid I have no dictionaries of Koine Greek.

I am new to Koine.

I am not sure why the middle voice is used here actually.

My understanding is:

Active - I appoint you.
Passive - I am appointed.
Middle - I appoint myself.

In this verse, I am not sure where the origin of "appointing" is coming from.

[calvinist]

Jesus believed that Solomon was the greatest philosopher until himself. The scripture states that no man ever had as much wisdom, although Christ obviously would have trumped that. Aristotle was brilliant, Ive read many of his works, but I dont revere him at the level you do, he was a fallen man, and an unbeliever that knew not of the grace of God, Im very cautious about what I can learn from such men.

Irene is asking if we should consider it as middle voice. The passive and middle are indistinguishable in the perfect tense; they have the same form. The middle voice can carry the reflexive idea (I do to myself), but in the NT most of the occurences of the middle voice are either deponent verbs or the meaning is essentially active to the English mind. See Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek for a short discussion, I forget which chapter, it's been 5 or 6 years since I first learned Greek with his text. The reflexive idea is very rare in the NT, classical Greek is different in this respect.

I think your view of reality is overly mechanical. You would reduce concepts like beauty to mathematics because it's so nice and rigorous? Music can convey beauty directly, math cannot, and pure math is much different from applying math to reality. In reality, definite quantities cannot be found, things are blurry, although we can approximate things 'close enough' for our purposes. I know you, I was you at one time. I thought everything could be packed into nice packages and the whole world could be seen as binary. Ive humbled myself since then, and Ive bowed my mind before the incomprehensible things... God, beauty, music, joy, glory, peace, hope, love. They do not accept quantitative examination, they are qualities. You may believd that your mind can reach to the heights and comprehend God, understanding all things with your mind, but I think the temptation to believe that goes back to the Garden of Eden, we all want to believe that our mind has godlike powers, we inherited that view.

[ChristHaunted]

I have been away from the computer for a few days.

Jesus believed that Solomon was the greatest philosopher until himself. The scripture states that no man ever had as much wisdom, although Christ obviously would have trumped that. Aristotle was brilliant, Ive read many of his works, but I dont revere him at the level you do, he was a fallen man, and an unbeliever that knew not of the grace of God, Im very cautious about what I can learn from such men.

Do you mean this verse?

Mat 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

That does not say he was the wisest of all, just that he was wise. if I have the wrong verse let me know.
Also I did not say Aristotle was wiser than Solomon. Just that he is my favorite philosopher.

I think your view of reality is overly mechanical. You would reduce concepts like beauty to mathematics because it's so nice and rigorous? Music can convey beauty directly, math cannot, and pure math is much different from applying math to reality.

There is an aesthetic to the geometry of flowers. And computers can mathematically compose beautiful music. Isaac Newton would disagree with you regarding math and beauty.

In reality, definite quantities cannot be found, things are blurry, although we can approximate things 'close enough' for our purposes.

I agree and said this above regarding raindrops. All words can approach meaning enough to convey certain truth, but not absolute certainty. Only God can know any one fact or proposition with absolute certainty, because to know one thing with absolute certainty, requires that one knows all things with absolute certainty. Hence omniscience.

I know you, I was you at one time. I thought everything could be packed into nice packages and the whole world could be seen as binary. Ive humbled myself since then, and Ive bowed my mind before the incomprehensible things... God, beauty, music, joy, glory, peace, hope, love. They do not accept quantitative examination, they are qualities. You may believd that your mind can reach to the heights and comprehend God, understanding all things with your mind, but I think the temptation to believe that goes back to the Garden of Eden, we all want to believe that our mind has godlike powers, we inherited that view.

I believe that light is incomprehensible my friend. i do not understand it, and neither do the greatest scientific minds living today. Is is a particle, a wave, and what is the nature of electromagnetic energy???
But the one thing it is definitely not, is illogical. Illogical contradictions cannot exist in nature. The virgin birth is not even illogical. It is miracle. Today a virgin, could in fact conceive if a sperm cell were planted in her womb apart from intercourse. She would still be a virgin. It is possible for God to create life inside of Mary. Which is what must have happened since women do not have "seed".

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Grace & Peace

[calvinist]

1 Kings 4:30 "Solomon's wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the sons of the east and all the wisdom of Egypt." If we assume that Christ is the source of all scripture (being himself the eternal word), then we can assume that he holds all views that the scripture expresses. That's logic. The verse here is saying more than it appears on the surface. We must understand that in that time the greatest philosophers were in the east and Egypt. This verse is really saying that Solomon was wiser than anyone. It's akin to saying, "You're an Einstein", which is understood to mean the supreme height of intellectual knowledge. The true meaning of a saying like this might be missed by people thousands of years from now in a different culture who wouldn't understand the significance of Einstein to our culture, likewise with this verse. It's not simply stating that he was wiser than some particular men in a certain geographical location; it's using what was a well-understood phrase at that time to declare that he was supreme in wisdom. To make fine distinctions between Greek 'philosophers' and the 'wise men' of the near east is artificial. It's like knights and samurais, they are parallels of each other within their specific cultures. In fact, the ancient Greek 'philosophers' were much closer in form and function to the 'wise men' of the near east than they are to our modern definition of a 'philosopher' in the modern era. So, assuming all these previous points, I would say that the scripture teaches that Solomon was the greatest [philosopher/wise man/pick-a-word]. This is the same as saying that Christ believes it, since he is the source of scripture. Christ alludes to this in the verse you mention.

I think we agree much more than we realize, I think some of our disagreement is purely 'semantics'. I agree with you that we should not describe Christianity or God as irrational or illogical; I might have been careless with my words before if I said something to that effect. The point that I wanted to make, and I think you'd agree with, is that there are things that lie beyond what the human mind can fully grasp. I'm not saying that we can't understand these things, or that they are illogical, but that we cannot fully analyze them into small pieces that we can totally grasp. I think that there are things that may appear to be contradictions from our vantage point but truly aren't. I would place the Trinity in this category, as well as the relationship between God's sovereign plan and our free-will. Basically, there is a limit to the human mind. We can all understand music, this is true, but exactly the power it has to evoke emotions and the how and why of all of this is something that we will never be able to place into a nice little box and say, "There it is!". Music is partially 'subjective', but there are many universals amongst the music of all cultures throughout time, similar to language (keep in mind that language also can be considered entirely subjective and based on conventions, although it is still capable of communicating truths).

I think that the search for absolute certainty in any field is an unrealistic goal. "To understand any one piece completely, you must understand all pieces." How can we describe "man" without an understanding of his environment? Not only does man need an environment within which to exist, but our understanding of what he is flows from his interactions with both that environment and with others from the category "man". Indeed, man's whole purpose is relational (Mt 22:36-40). We are not islands of pure reality, we are centers of consciousness divinely created to explore and interact with this beautifully constructed playground, with our bodies designed perfectly for this purpose. To see, hear, taste, smell, and feel the hints of God's infinite beauty, glory, and power that lie all around us. So, since everything in reality is related to the things around it and partially defined by those inter-relations (or entirely, according to some philosophers), there will always be an uncharted expanse of knowledge to explore.

Only God can stand entirely alone and be complete within himself, not requiring anything from outside himself in order to exist or to relate to. But God himself is a relation of three persons! And there it is... we have approached something so fundamental, so enormous. Ah! We have discovered the kernel, that contains all the answers to beauty, love, peace... to reality as a whole and even God himself. Mathematics is a study of relations. Chemistry is a study of relations. Sociology is a study of relations. Language is based upon relations/interactions of words/meanings. A melody finds it specific character by the relationships between the notes (both pitch and rhythmically). Harmony is based upon musical relationships. But wait. Surely a single note played by itself without any notes preceding it or following it is not in any relationship. It stands alone. Or does it? It requires a medium (air) to pass through. Furthermore, even a single note is itself a relationship. It will be perceived as "high" or "low" (relational terms) based upon its frequency, which is the relationship of waves-to-time.

Anyway, I encourage you in your study of Greek. There's nothing quite like reading the scripture the way it was originally written.

[ChristHaunted]

I think we agree much more than we realize, I think some of our disagreement is purely 'semantics'. I agree with you that we should not describe Christianity or God as irrational or illogical; I might have been careless with my words before if I said something to that effect. The point that I wanted to make, and I think you'd agree with, is that there are things that lie beyond what the human mind can fully grasp. I'm not saying that we can't understand these things, or that they are illogical, but that we cannot fully analyze them into small pieces that we can totally grasp. I think that there are things that may appear to be contradictions from our vantage point but truly aren't. I would place the Trinity in this category, as well as the relationship between God's sovereign plan and our free-will. Basically, there is a limit to the human mind.

I agree. Perhaps I should not have raised my hackles. I should have proposed a word with a broader definition like "paradox", in place of "illogical".

I am bringing my theological bias to the word "appoint" in this verse. As a Roman Catholic, I do know quite a few Calvinists that want to read election or reprobation into every verse of the Bible. I am not saying you have done that here. I just do not think we can assume that IF God did ordain all those who heard the good news, at that particular time, to eternal life, that He therefore damned the rest for all eternity. He may have (from a Calvinist perspective) ordained them to receive it later. I do believe however that it is God's desire that all people repent and come to faith. Jesus expressed desiring things that He would not coerce people to embrace. Mt. 23:37

As I work through Mounce, I look forward to learning from you here comrade.

Grace & Peace

[Ridderbos]

Well, grammatically τὰ ἔθνη is the subject of ἔχαιρον and ἐδόξαζον, while the subject of ἐπίστευσαν is the relative clause ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον....I don't think, though, that the relative clause and τὰ ἔθνη refer to the exact same group of people (I mean that the former is a subset of the latter

Hi, modus! I enjoyed your posts. Just a few questions.

Why do you make the clause ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον the subject of ἐπίστευσαν? Wouldn't "they", as in "they believed," be the subject, taking us back to the Gentiles of Acts 13:48a? Is perhaps the clause in question more adjectival than anything- "they believed, those (as many as) had been appointed to eternal life"? Isn't ὅσοι a relative adjective? As such, does it qualify the implied subject, namely, "they"?

Also, why do you consider τὰ ἔθνη a sub-group of the Gentiles? Hosoi is often the equivalent of "all" in Acts and Luke (Acts 4:6, 34; 5:36, 37; 10:45; Luke 4:40; see Luke 9:5; Acts 3:24). Acts 13:48a does not imply that only a part of the "Gentiles" rejoiced, etc.; I think we're told that the genus "Gentile" rejoiced, etc..

Looking forward to your response.

Ridderbos

[Ridderbos]

I know this has been inactive for some time but I wanted to chime in, so here's my two cents worth which is just my opinion.

The 'και's need to be looked at, as was mentioned earlier. 'Και' connects two units at the same level: words, phrases, or clauses. I understand it as two clauses. The 'και' before 'επιστευσαν' connects two separate clauses while the first 'και' connects the two verb phrases "εχαιρον" and "εδοξαζον".

As far as causality is concerned in the second clause, that cannot be determined by an analysis of syntax/grammar. I believe there is over-analysis here, as far as explicit/implicit etc. is concerned. What is clear from the text is this: Those that were (already) ordained to eternal life believed. Whether or not the 'ordaining' to eternal life was the cause of their believing is not said.

However, anyone who read that passage would have assumed that they believed because they were ordained to eternal life. That's just a natural interpretation of the wording, especially since 'οσοι' means "as many as". Basically, exactly as many as were ordained to eternal life believed, no more and no less. It suggests that none believed that hadn't already been ordained to eternal life, and likewise every single person that had been ordained to eternal life did believe. It doesn't say it's the cause of their belief, but then we can ask how we ever establish causality. If event B always occurs when event A does, and never occurs if event A hasn't, and we establish that event A happens prior in time to event B, then we would say event A is the cause of event B. I may be wrong, but I believe this is the way causes are always determined, even in science.

I realize that this verse has huge theological implications, and my username may hint at my theological leanings but I honestly can't see how this verse can be interpreted in any other way unless there is a desire to maintain a position that seems to go contrary to the verse.

Thoroughly enjoyed all your posts on this text. I think you're spot, especially with distinguishing between the syntactical "meaning" and the semantic. One has to ask oneself why Luke correlated the thought that the many had been ordained with the view that they had also believed, subsequently, of course. Also, the periphrastic pluperfect is a tall mountain for non-Calvinist readings to climb.

Ridderbos

[7Diane]

Hi,

Here is what I’m seeing in these verses up to now:

And as-many-as they-were, after-having-been-arranged into eternal life [evidenced by the fact that hearing, they rejoiced and glorified the reasoning of-the Lord], faithed.

or, if translating the perfect participle as a middle:

And as-many-as they-were, after-having-arranged for themselves into eternal life [after having arranged their thinking into the life in God which is eternal], faithed.

They heard, and their listening implanted the yet mustard-sized seed of faith causing them to be arranged into/or arrange in their interests into eternal life. As many as these were, who had listened, rejoiced, and glorified the reasoning/word of the Lord faithed into Him.

or,

And they-faithed; as many as they-were, after-having-been-arranged/appointed into eternal life.

[Markos]

Acts 13:48b: καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

I think that we all agree that Luke’s Greek here is not as explicit as theologians would want him to be.

Calvin, who argued that being ordained by God for salvation produces faith, would have wanted Luke to have written something like this:

καὶ ἐπίστευσαν. ἦσαν γὰρ τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
ἐπίστευσαν διότι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
ἦσαν τεταγμένοι ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ὅπως πιστεύσειαν.
τάξαντος τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ἐπίστευσαν.
ὁ Θεὸς τέταχα αὐτοὺς εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. πιστεύουσιν οὖν.


Arminius, who argued that faith causes one to be ordained by God for salvation, would have wanted Luke to have written something like this:

καὶ ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ὅσοι ἐπίστευσαν.
καὶ ἐπίστευσαν. ἦσαν οὖν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
καὶ ἐπίστευσαν. διὰ τοῦτο, ἔταξαν ἑαυτοὺς εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
πιστεύσαντες, ἐτάξαντο εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὥστε τετάχθαι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.


But, what Luke has written, he has written.

[Markos]

ηχωγραφην εποιησα θεολογικην.

http://archive.org/details/ACalvinistic ... cientGreek

{I made an audio paraphrasing the verse in Ancient Greek.}