Re: Calvinism and the Middle Voice
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 6:53 pm
Thank you Dizerner and Homer. Your thoughts on the matter were helpful to me.
Hosted by Steve Gregg
https://theos.org:443/forum/
However, in context and from face values, is that what Paul is saying about God when he says, "he hardens whomever he wills." We are not told, that I can see, in that context what Paul means other than the fact that God is just hardening whomever he wills.“The same sun which melts wax hardens clay. And the same Gospel which melts some persons to repentance hardens others in their sins” – Spurgeon
Yes, I fully agree. I once believed in unconditional security (until I was 25) just the way you described it. (I still believe in "eternal security" (in a different sense. Now I see it as a security that God provides in accordance with our relationship with Him—if we stay on the narrow path.Hi Homer, you wrote:There are some who teach eternal security who do not hold to all five points of Calvinism and believe you remain saved regardless of whether you continue to follow Jesus. Salvation to them is a transaction, not a relationship, and once you "make the deal" you are saved from then on. This is where I see the great danger.
I must admit, I liked the idea, but something kept niggling at me, and so I reviewed the middle voice in Basics of Biblical Greek by William D. Mounce, and I have to be honest; I believe Cottrell was mistaken (though I wish he were right!) It is true that that the middle and passive are SPELLED the same, and that they have quite different meanings.Hi Homer, in the OP, you wrote:I have been studying Romans for some time, particularly Jack Cottrell's excellent two volume commentary. Of considerable interest to me is what Cottrell says about the Greek word katartizo, translated “fitted” or “prepared” for destruction in Romans 9:22. If I am reading the Greek correctly, the form of the word there is actually katartismena which, according to Cottrell, vol. 2, p. 130, can be either middle or passive voice and Cottrell says “we may conclude the vessels prepared themselves for destruction”. I was unfamiliar with the middle voice. Zodhiates does not mention it in his big Word Study New Testament and I became curious how the word could be either passive or middle. So I did some digging and discovered that the Greek word is spelled exactly the same way for the middle voice as it is for the passive (perfect passive participle).
I appreciate this great information, but it does leave me wondering, why is the verb not active in 22? Did I miss the reason for that?Paidion wrote:I read it, Homer. The middle voice can be a rather complex matter. Here's the way I understand it:
First, the middle voice is not reflexive. It would be incorrect to translate it as "having prepared themselves for destruction."
Secondly, the classic use of the middle involved self-interest for the subject. For example, for the Greek verb that means "I ask" in the active, would be something like, "I ask for myself" in the middle.
Thirdly, there is no clear case of the classic middle having been used in the New Testament.
Fourthly, if the verb is accepted as passive in verse 22, then it is parallel to verse 23 where God is clearly the actor. In verse 23, God has prepared the vessels of mercy for glory (εις δοξαν), that is, with glory as the result of God's act of preparing them. Thus in verse 22, the parallel concept would be God's act of preparing the vessels of wrath (εις απολειαν), with destruction as the result of God preparing them.
Even if this were a classic middle, and verse 22 meant, "having prepared for themselves for destruction," it seems to be an awkward phrase and is certainly not parallel to verse 23. However, there is no clear evidence of the classic middle being used at all in the New Testament. That usage appears to have dropped out of Greek by the time Koine Greek came into vogue.
That's a good question, Dizerner. I, for one, certainly did not answer it. Do you suppose Paul, the writer, may have wanted to downplay God's part in it by not directly pointing to Him as the active cause?Dizerner wrote:I appreciate this great information, but it does leave me wondering, why is the verb not active in 22? Did I miss the reason for that?
I really want to think so. It fits at least in my Arminian belief.Paidion wrote:That's a good question, Dizerner. I, for one, certainly did not answer it. Do you suppose Paul, the writer, may have wanted to downplay God's part in it by not directly pointing to Him as the active cause?