Calvinism and the Middle Voice

[Paidion]

Thank you Dizerner and Homer. Your thoughts on the matter were helpful to me.

[remade]

Just a leaning-Classical Arminian throwing out a verse... note at before the text firstly talked about in

Romans 9: 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

So do we believe that? And if we believe that God hardens whomever He wills, what does that have to do with Calvinism, anything?

I've heard this explanation, God's hardening of heart is the picture played out in

Proverbs 25:21-22

21 If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat,
    and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink,
22 for you will heap burning coals on his head,
    and the Lord will reward you.

In other words; God's hardening is a hardening brought on by His being gracious and loving, and men, by their own sin and folly responding to His grace. In other words, as the Calvinistic puritans would phrase:

“The same sun which melts wax hardens clay. And the same Gospel which melts some persons to repentance hardens others in their sins” – Spurgeon

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.

I don't say all this to come across as a convicted Calvinist, but I am truly interested in the best defense from a non-Calvinist view.

Much love
Glad to be iron sharpening iron.

[Paidion]

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.

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.

At a teachers college I used to meet and pray with a group of Mennonites. Of course, I spouted my unconditional security beliefs, believing it to be my ministry to do so. One fellow in the group asked me, "Don, where do you find that in the Bible?" I responded with, "Why, you find it on every page!" One of the plugs I used in my arguments in those days was, "If you become born again, you cannot become unborn!"

I argued unconditional security with the other fellows during the single year I attended the former "Winnipeg Bible Institute." One of those fellows was Erwin Lutzer, the present pastor of Moody Church in Chicago. One day after He had attended Moody College for awhile, I saw him at a reunion of the former pupils of the Winnipeg Bible Institute. He met me on the front steps of the building, shook my hand and, addressing me by my last name, he said, "-----, you were right!" I was thunder struck and couldn't utter a word. He had reversed his position, and I had reversed mine (as a result of reading early Christian literature). Later at another reunion, I told Lutzer, "On that occasion on the front steps of the school, I was too shocked to speak. I should have said, 'No, YOU were right!' "

[Homer]

Paidion,

Very interesting story!

[Paidion]

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 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.

First let me say something about deponent verbs. These are Greek verbs that are middle or passive in FORM but are ALWAYS active in meaning. An example is "erchomai" which means "I come." This verb is NEVER passive in meaning. Clearly "kartartizo" is not a deponent verb. For it is active in form, and therefore the middle/passive form is probably an actual passive.

Another class of verbs that are middle or passive in form, have different meanings when they are in the active form. One such verb is archō. The active form "archō" means "I rule," but the middle/passive form "archomai" means "I begin." The active form "aptō" means I light (a fire), but the middle/passive form "aptomai" means "I touch." So ""kartartizo" doesn't belong to this class of verbs either, since it doesn't have one meaning in the active voice and a different meaning in the middle/passive voice.

Cottrell seems to have thought of the middle voice according to the classical meaning—that the middle voice in some way affects the subject. However, Mounce affirms that this is never the reflexive idea. (Basics of Biblical Greek page 224). He wrote, "If the subject of a verb performs an action to itself, this requires the reflexive pronoun. Rather in the middle, the subject does the action of the verb to the direct object, and yet the action of the verb in some way affects the subject." Thus Mounce's word about the middle voice contradicts the idea that the subjects in Romans 9:22 "prepared themselves for destruction" as Cottrell affirms.

Others, too, have made the error that the middle voice implies the reflexive idea. To the best of my knowledge no translation renders the verse as "prepared themselves for destruction." In Alford's Greek Testament, Alford affirms that "the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" in verse 22, and the "vessels of mercy which He has prepared beforehand for glory" in verse 23, are parallel clauses. Thus it is God who is doing the preparing in both cases.

21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—
24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

Have you seen this?

http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q ... -preparing

Let me know what you think of it; I will have more to say when I have looked into this more.

[Paidion]

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.

[dizerner]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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?

I really want to think so. It fits at least in my Arminian belief.