NT Greek and Responsible Grace Theology

[frumanchu]

Proponents of so-called "Responsible Grace" theology frequently take to citing the original Greek of the New Testament as definitive support for their position. The purpose of this post is to demonstrate that proponents of said theology demonstrate a marked and definitive lack of knowledge of the Greek language. I will use two recent (though historically often repeated) examples of this.

Romans 9:22

And the tense of "prepared", is third-person

This is clearly false. There is no "third-person" tense in the Greek language (or any other language for that matter). The Greek verb translated "prepared" (katartizo) is in fact in the perfect tense, meaning it was completed in the past. Furthermore, it is in the passive voice, meaning the subject was the recipient of the action.

This is clearly an erroneous claim on the part of the Responsible Grace advocate, demonstrating a lack of knowledge of verb tense.

2 Peter 3:9

God does NOT decree (boulemai) anyone to perish, but makes-room (choreo) for ALL to repent.

This is even more clearly false. The argument here is that God makes room for all to repent, meaning "God" is the subject of the verb "make room." This is clearly false as the subject of the verb is "all" (Greek pas), which is why every translation renders it "but that all should come to repentance."

This is clearly an erroneous claim on the part of the Responsible Grace advocate, demonstrating a lack of knowledge concerning subject-verb relationship in grammatical structure.


There are many more examples where Responsible Grace advocates will include a reference to the original Greek language in an attempt to bolster the weight of their argument. However, as is made clear by the above, this is the result not of any understanding at all of the Greek language but rather as an attempt to lend weight to arguments as though they were derived from the particulars and nuances of New Testament Greek.

I also present this as a challenge to Responsible Grace proponents to either

a) provide a clear rebuttal showing the existence of the "third-person" tense in the Greek language (in particular as applied to katartizo in Romans 9:22) and demonstrating "the Lord" (kurios) as being the subject of the verb choreo in 2 Peter 3:9

or

b) admit the clear error and cease and desist from making appeals to the Greek language until such time as basic knowledge of and proficiency in the Greek language be demonstrated.

I make this request in the interest of honesty and of productive debate as repetition of these glaring errors only serves to distract from making valid arguments.

 

[heymikey80]

If it were ever reformed with a direct reading of John and 1 John on this ... it'd probably revise to a point in the pale of Reformed theology.

Faith is distinct from works. Faith is accompanied by works. Salvation is not of works. New Birth is for sight, entry, faith and works. Election is not of human will or works.

I think we've cited the verses a number of times.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Romans 9:22

This is clearly false. There is no "third-person" tense in the Greek language (or any other language for that matter). The Greek verb translated "prepared" (katartizo) is in fact in the perfect tense, meaning it was completed in the past. Furthermore, it is in the passive voice, meaning the subject was the recipient of the action.

This is clearly an erroneous claim on the part of the Responsible Grace advocate, demonstrating a lack of knowledge of verb tense.

I believe the argument that is trying to be made here is that the Greek perfect middle and passive have identical forms, so "be prepared" and "prepare themselves" can be written with the same word. It's still not a great argument, since the middle was almost exclusivly used for deponents by Koine times, so it appears to be an appeal to outdated grammar for the sake of getting the desired meaning.. Moreover, that interpretation totally ignores the point of the potter/clay image. But such an argument would at least be within the bounds (albeit on the fringes) of grammatical possibility.

 

[frumanchu]

Epi, the problem is that they is trying to make such an argument as though they actually understand those forms when they clearly don't.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Certainly. I'm just saying such an argument appears to be a error in the transmission of another man's argument due to limited understanding of Greek, opposed to something they're just coming up with themselves.

 

[frumanchu]

I'd be more willing to grant such if they weren't so consistent in their misapplication. The 2 Peter 3:9 issue makes it pretty clear they are manufacturing arguments to fit a preconceived notion, and while even astute Greek scholars are not above stretching the Greek to escape an undesirable rendering they at least put forth something that ostensibly has credibility to it. I certainly don't claim to be a Greek scholar by any means, but I understand enough of the basics of linguistics to recognize phony pseudo-scholarship when I see it, as I'm sure you do too

 

[Epiphoskei]

It's certainly a manufactured argument. To appeal to a reflexive middle in Koine Greek for no other reason than expediency isn't true scholarship. All I'm trying to say is that the particular argument you ran across, an appeal to a third person tense, appears to be more a mistake in transmission. Not that what was being transmitted is much better, but the two errors have to be treated seperatly.

 

[jmacvols]

http://preceptaustin.org/romans_922-24.htm

Prepared (2675) ( katartizo from katá = intensifies meaning + artízo = fit, finish) means to make someone completely adequate or sufficient for something, causing them to be fully qualified, in this case for God's just wrath. The perfect tense emphasizes the state or condition that was the result of their rejection of God's internal and external revelation of His nature. They rejected God at some point in time and they were still in that state. They were ripe (fitted) for destruction because of their own actions of rejecting the truth.
God did not create men for destruction but men because of their sinned fitted themselves for destruction. Cp God not creating hell for man but for the devil & his angels (Mt25:41).

Warren Wiersbe notes that...
The word “fitted” in Romans 9:22 does not suggest that God made Pharaoh a “vessel of wrath.” The verb is in what the Greek grammarians call the middle voice, making it a reflexive action verb. So, it should read: “fitted himself for destruction.” God prepares men for glory (Romans 9:23), but sinners prepare themselves for judgment. In Moses and Israel God revealed the riches of His mercy; in Pharaoh and Egypt He revealed His power and wrath. Since neither deserved any mercy, God cannot be charged with injustice.

MacArthur:
The Greek verb rendered prepared is passive. God is not the subject doing the preparing. There is the very clear sense in this use of the passive voice to relieve God of the responsibility and to put it fully on the shoulders of those who refuse to heed His Word and believe in His Son. They are prepared by their own rejection for a place (hell) prepared by God, not originally for them but “for the devil and his angels” (Mt 25:41).

Bible Knowledge Commentary:
The perfectparticiple “prepared” describes past action with a continuing result or state. “Prepared” may be reflexive (“prepared themselves&#8221, but it seems preferable to take it as passive (“were prepared&#8221. The thought is that they have been and are in a state of readiness or ripeness to receive God’s wrath. The objects of God’s wrath are the unsaved (Ro 1:18), who will suffer eternal judgment (Jn 3:36). God has patiently endured their antagonism to Him (cf. Acts 14:16 Ro 3:25), but their judgment is coming. Those who oppose Him and refuse to turn to Him (Mt 23:37) are then “prepared” by Him for condemnation. They are “storing up [God’s] wrath” against themselves (Ro 2:5). In hell they will experience His wrath, and His power will be made known (cf. Ro 9:17). God does not delight in wrath, and He did not choose some people to go to hell. Some are prepared by God for eternal judgment not because He delights to do so, but because of their sin. In view of their sin, which makes them “ripe” for destruction, God is willing to exhibit His wrath, and He will do so at the proper time.

Charles Hodge entitles his comment "Prepared for destruction" and writes that...
This phrase has two possible interpretations. The passive participle prepared (kjv, “fitted&#8221 may be taken as a verbal adjective: “fit for destruction.” This leaves the agency by which this fitness was effected unspecified. (Cp 2Co10:10 1Pe1:8) In favor of this view is the change of expression adopted in v23. Of the objects of his wrath it is simply said that they are fit for destruction, but of the objects of … mercy, that God prepares them for glory. Why this change if the apostle did not intend to suggest that the agency of God is very different in the one case from what it is in the other? Besides, as it is the writer’s purpose to vindicate the justice of God in these dispensations, it is especially pertinent to represent the objects of wrath as fit for destruction in the sense of deserving it. The other interpretation assumes that the reference is to God and that prepared has its full meaning as a participle: “prepared by God for destruction.” This is adopted not only by the majority of Augustinians, but also by many Lutherans and Neologists. This sense, they say, is demanded by the context. God is compared to a potter who prepares one vessel for honor and another for dishonor. So God prepares some for wrath and some for mercy. This, however, is not to be understood as meaning that God creates men in order to destroy them. The preparation meant is illustrated in the case of Pharaoh. God did not make Pharaoh wicked and obdurate, but in punishment for his sin God so dealt with him that the evil of his nature revealed itself in a form and under circumstances which made him a fit object of the punitive justice of God.

The idea one prepares or makes himself ripe for destruction by his own choice is supported by the bible; Rom 2:4-5; 1 Thess 2:15-16; 2 Tim 2:19-22. Pharaoh, thru hardening his own heart, made himself ripe for destruction.
Here in Romans, we see God was longsuffering towards Israel from the time they were led thru the wilderness till Christ came to earth. Israel time and time again rejected God, but God endured impenitent Israel until their rejection of Christ, then God finally rejected them and Paul tells us God was just in doing so. For Peter tells us, 2 Pet 3:9, the purpose of God's longsuffering is to bring about repentance and when that repentance does not follow, God is just in His punishment.
A Calvinist might say isn't God wonderful for enduring those He predestined to an eternal hell. Preposterous tho't indeed. Why would God endure with longsuffering those vessels damned to hell who have no hope or chance of salvation? God's longsuffering was to lead to repentance. The same people Paul is talking to in Roms 9 are the same people he talks to in Rom 2:4--the purpose of longsuffering is to lead to repentance.

 

[frumanchu]

The idea one prepares or makes himself ripe for destruction by his own choice is supported by the bible; Rom 2:4-5; 1 Thess 2:15-16; 2 Tim 2:19-22. Pharaoh, thru hardening his own heart, made himself ripe for destruction.
Here in Romans, we see God was longsuffering towards Israel from the time they were led thru the wilderness till Christ came to earth. Israel time and time again rejected God, but God endured impenitent Israel until their rejection of Christ, then God finally rejected them and Paul tells us God was just in doing so. For Peter tells us, 2 Pet 3:9, the purpose of God's longsuffering is to bring about repentance and when that repentance does not follow, God is just in His punishment.

God would be just in His punishment regardless of whether or not He patiently offered the opportunity for repentance. Do you forget the SIN that provokes and earns God's wrath in the first place (and without which there would be no need for repentance in the first place)??

A Calvinist might say isn't God wonderful for enduring those He predestined to an eternal hell. Preposterous tho't indeed. Why would God endure with longsuffering those vessels damned to hell who have no hope or chance of salvation?

Paul answers that question in the very next verse! He would endure with longsuffereing those vessels "in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy."

God's longsuffering was to lead to repentance. The same people Paul is talking to in Roms 9 are the same people he talks to in Rom 2:4--the purpose of longsuffering is to lead to repentance.

I'm afraid you can't simply jump to other places in Scripture to grasp at an answer when the answer given in the immediate context disagrees.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I'm afraid those authors are making a few basic mistakes or being misread. Wiersbe and the commentary are bringing up the possibility of a reflexive middle. Those are too uncommon in Koine greek to simply be assumed. As for Hodge and MacArthur, while they are correctly noting the lack of an agent in the formal grammatical sense of the term, context demands God as the agent. Hodge adresses this, but interprets how Pharaoh was hardened in a manner quite differently from how Romans 9 deals with Pharaoh in 16-18.

 

[oworm]

mis post

 

[jmacvols]

God would be just in His punishment regardless of whether or not He patiently offered the opportunity for repentance. Do you forget the SIN that provokes and earns God's wrath in the first place (and without which there would be no need for repentance in the first place)??

If God predestined an individual to hell with that individual never having any hope or chance of salvation, then we are no longer dealing with a just, loving or merciful God.
The theory of original sin is a man made concept. Even if it were true, it still makes God culpable. If man were born with this sin, he had this sin for God gave it to him, and this is something out of man's control and God would not punish for something beyond what man can or cannot do.

Paul answers that question in the very next verse! He would endure with longsuffereing those vessels "in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy."



I'm afraid you can't simply jump to other places in Scripture to grasp at an answer when the answer given in the immediate context disagrees.

Paul does not contradict himself as scripture does not contradict itself. Paul would not say God's long-suffering is to bring about repentance then say the opposite. Jumping to 2 Pet 3:9 Peter also concurs with Paul that God's long-suffering is to bring about repentance. Peter continues this tho't down in verse 15 where he says God's long-suffering is for the purpose of salvation, then Peter says this in v15: "even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you." Here Peter is essentially saying this; what I am telling you about God's long-suffering is the same thing Paul said to you about God's long-suffering in his writings. So what Peter and Paul have said about God's long-suffering in Rom 2:4, Rom 9:22 and 2 Pet 3:9,15 is all the same thing, that being the purpose of God's long-suffering is to bring about repentance/salvation. Sure God could use His longsuffering to show His power, but in this case it was to bring about repentance. Again, Paul did not change his mind or contradict himself from Rom 2:4 to Rom 9:22.

2Ti 2:20-But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
2Ti 2:21- If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, [and] prepared unto every good work.

Paul plainly shows here that a vessel of dishonor can purge himself (repent) and become a vessel of honor. So those vessels in Rom 9:22 can repent while God is longsuffering. This same idea is found in Jer 18 about the potter and clay:

Jer 18:8-If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

If these vessels of destruction turn (repent) from their evil way.

There is no Calvistic idea of predestination to be found in Rom 9:23.
"Prepared unto glory" from Rom 8:17, 2Tim 2:12,13 obtaining glory requires enduring (suffering)..."if we endure(suffer), the word 'if' making it conditional.

 

[nobdysfool]

Well, there you have it. jmacvols denies that man is born a sinner, and denies the orthodox understanding of Original Sin. That puts him on very shaky ground. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes when I stand before Christ.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Ummm Sorry Fru. Actually tense and person in Greek are not related. Tense deals with Aspect and time and is the form of a Verb.

I think that's kind of what he said. "There is no 'third person' tense."

Incidentally, there's serious doubt in the most current scholars' works that Greek tenses deal with time at all. Pure aspect has been suggested.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

If God predestined an individual to hell with that individual never having any hope or chance of salvation, then we are no longer dealing with a just, loving or merciful God.
Human spirits are eternal, which means they all forever exist in the "I AM", outside of time. This is regardless of whether a believer or a non-believer.

Therefore if they end up going to hell, it's because they were already there.

And they were already there, because although they along with believers live and move and have their being in God, they are in the 'part' of God that is delineated by the knowledge of good and evil, and not by love. Thus God told Adam not to go there.

The 'part' of God that is delineated by the knowledge of good and evil, is just as eternal as the 'part' of God that is love. But just as the flesh of a Christian is in opposition to his spirit, so too the part of God that is the knowledge of good and evil, is eternally in opposition to the part of Him that is love.

There is therefore eternal tension between the two, with love perpetually the winner, and the knowledge of good and evil perpetually the loser, and therefore perpetually in hell, for hell is being confronted with a God who is love when one is not love, but morality.

When we say someone is predestined to hell, we therefore are simply describing, using time-based concepts, the outworking of the eternal state of those whose being exists not within the part of God which is love, but in the part of God which is the knowledge of good and evil.


That is, just as a human has a spirit and flesh, God in a sense has the same, for the human is made in God's image.

Just as the believer is taught to deny the lusts of his flesh (which are invoked by the law, for "the motions of sin are by the law"), so too God perpetually denies that which is part of His being, but not of Him (not in accord with love).

That part, consists of the eternal spirit of all non-believers who will never accept Christ. So predestination is simply the outworking and manifestation of what is eternally outside of time, and not the making of it.

 

[oworm]

I think that's kind of what he said. "There is no 'third person' tense."

Incidentally, there's serious doubt in the most current scholars' works that Greek tenses deal with time at all. Pure aspect has been suggested.

my bad

 

[jmacvols]

Well, there you have it. jmacvols denies that man is born a sinner,

this is false man-made idea, so why shouldn't I deny it?

and denies the orthodox understanding of Original Sin. That puts him on very shaky ground. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes when I stand before Christ.

"Orthodox understanding" is not the standard by which one will be judged by.

 

[jmacvols]

If God predestined an individual to hell with that individual never having any hope or chance of salvation, then we are no longer dealing with a just, loving or merciful God.
Human spirits are eternal, which means they all forever exist in the "I AM", outside of time. This is regardless of whether a believer or a non-believer.

Therefore if they end up going to hell, it's because they were already there.

And they were already there, because although they along with believers live and move and have their being in God, they are in the 'part' of God that is delineated by the knowledge of good and evil, and not by love. Thus God told Adam not to go there.

The 'part' of God that is delineated by the knowledge of good and evil, is just as eternal as the 'part' of God that is love. But just as the flesh of a Christian is in opposition to his spirit, so too the part of God that is the knowledge of good and evil, is eternally in opposition to the part of Him that is love.

There is therefore eternal tension between the two, with love perpetually the winner, and the knowledge of good and evil perpetually the loser, and therefore perpetually in hell, for hell is being confronted with a God who is love when one is not love, but morality.

When we say someone is predestined to hell, we therefore are simply describing, using time-based concepts, the outworking of the eternal state of those whose being exists not within the part of God which is love, but in the part of God which is the knowledge of good and evil.


That is, just as a human has a spirit and flesh, God in a sense has the same, for the human is made in God's image.

Just as the believer is taught to deny the lusts of his flesh (which are invoked by the law, for "the motions of sin are by the law"), so too God perpetually denies that which is part of His being, but not of Him (not in accord with love).

That part, consists of the eternal spirit of all non-believers who will never accept Christ. So predestination is simply the outworking and manifestation of what is eternally outside of time, and not the making of it.

Is this what the HS had miraculously told you apart from scripture?
Can you prove any of this to be true, more so, can you even prove that the HS even "revealed" this to you? Just saying it is so does not make it so.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

jmacvols,


What I have written is at the deepest level of theology. It might be termed "Statal Calvinism".

To prove to you it is true, is not possible without a treatise. It involves an understanding of a multiplicity of things (time/timelessness, relativity, predestination, the law vs grace, the final non-physical state...etc), and one such as you who is even struggling to know that the Holy Spirit is required to illumine all scripture, is certainly one who is not ready to understand what I have written.

Suffice to say, you should do your own study on the statements I have made, and as you do, ask yourself whether each statement denigrates God or not. If not, then it will be hard to fault what I have said.

I will be happy to answer specific questions which are highly contained.