Skip to content

Acts 2:38

Stephen Carlson wrote: As a matter of logic, "If you do X and Y, you will get Z" means that X and Y are sufficient for Z, not that they are necessary for Z. Occasionally, people imply "only if" with their conditionals (which makes it necessary rather than sufficient), but that is a matter of context and, I'm afraid in this case, theology. As a matter of language, it is not precise enough to settle without looking beyond the construction.
Imperative -> if -> only if, that is a lot of scafolding already. Can anyone recall an example of this in Greek, which is very clearly not requiring both things (only if). Perhaps something like, "Smoke 5 packs of cigarettes per day, eat as much saturated fat as you can, never do exercise, and you will die before you're 60". Or an example that does seem to require them like, "Put the key in the lock, and turn the key, and the door will open". Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 31st, 2014, 2:54 am
As a matter of logic, "If you do X and Y, you will get Z" means that X and Y are sufficient for Z, not that they are necessary for Z. Occasionally, people imply "only if" with their conditionals (which makes it necessary rather than sufficient), but that is a matter of context and, I'm afraid in this case, theology. As a matter of language, it is not precise enough to settle without looking beyond the construction. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 30th, 2014, 10:41 am
 
cwconrad wrote: Isn't "Do X and Y and then you will get Z" equivalent to "If you do X and Y, you will get Z"? I think that the reference point for the two imperatives and the future indicative is the same time as the speaker's utterance. Is there more to it than that?
Are both X and Y necessary for Z? Just to explain, many conservative evangelicals would (as I understand it) say that the gift of the Holy Spirit is granted upon repentance and faith and has nothing to do with baptism, and indeed is granted before baptism. So they read 'Repent and be baptised, and,[ because you have repented (and believed),] you will receive..'. X is a necessary and sufficient condition for Z. Y is irrelevant. Therefore, if you do X and Y, you will get Z, which is true. But can it mean this? Andrew Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — January 30th, 2014, 10:19 am
 
Andrew Chapman wrote: Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς· Μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος· How should we understand the future λήμψεσθε, combined with the aorist imperatives? I had read this as: repent and be baptised, and [after that, future to those events] you will receive.. I realise that others read this as: repent and be baptised, and [in the course of so doing] you will receive.. This is future at the time of Peter speaking, but not future to the commanded actions. Is there anything to choose between these two readings, from a grammatical/language point of view?
Isn't "Do X and Y and then you will get Z" equivalent to "If you do X and Y, you will get Z"? I think that the reference point for the two imperatives and the future indicative is the same time as the speaker's utterance. Is there more to it than that? Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — January 30th, 2014, 9:26 am
Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς· Μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος· How should we understand the future λήμψεσθε, combined with the aorist imperatives? I had read this as: repent and be baptised, and [after that, future to those events] you will receive.. I realise that others read this as: repent and be baptised, and [in the course of so doing] you will receive.. This is future at the time of Peter speaking, but not future to the commanded actions. Is there anything to choose between these two readings, from a grammatical/language point of view? Andrew Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — January 30th, 2014, 8:54 am

6 Comments