The Logic of Acts 2:38

Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Sun May 27 18:31:17 EDT 2001


> On Sun, 27 May 2001 12:38:49 -0400 "Harry W. Jones" <hjbluebird at aol.com>
> writes:
> > Dear Paul,
> > 
> > You posted:
> > 
> > > The logic of Acts 2:38 can be expressed simply as:
> > > 
> > > If A and B, then C and D  (if you repent and get baptized, then 
> > > you will have your sins forgiven and you will receive the Holy 
> > > Spirit).
> > > 
> > > This is all it says.  It does not say, nor does it imply the 
> > > following:
> > > 
> > > If not (A and B), then not (C and D). 
> 
> 
> > I found you post very interesting.But I think you have missed the 
> > real question. The real question is, if(A but not B) then not(C or D)?
> > Or maybe stated this way, if(A but not B) then (C but not D)?
> > 
> > You see Paul, these are the real questions we are interested in.
> > Do you think you might be able to help us?
> 
> 
> Harry:
> 
> The statement, if (A and B), then (C and D), is the logical
> representation of Acts 2:38, "if you repent and receive baptism, then
> your sins will be forgiven and you will receive the Holy Spirit.  What so
> many are erroneously inferring from this is the negation, if not (A and
> B), then not (C and D).  The logical error is simply that a conditional
> does not imply its negation.
> 
> Now the statement: if not (A and B), then not (C and D) translates into
> one of several possibilities:
> 1.  If not (A and B), then not (C and D), or
> 2.  If (A but not B), then (C but not D), or
> 3.  If (not A and not B), then (not C and not D), or
> 4.  If (not A but B), then (not C but D).
> 
> Any of these 4 statements translates back into the original, if not(A and
> B), then not (C and D).  Hence, if the original statement cannot be
> inferred from, if A and B, then C and D, then neither can the other four
> be inferred.  The real question you mention above, if (A but not B) then
> not (C or D) is the same as # 2 above.  Hence, this does address the real
> question.
> 
> I know this does not deal directly with Greek syntax, but it does deal
> with an exegetical concern which if properly understood should free some
> from feeling they have to use the Greek  to defend a certain position and
> others from erroneously drawing theological conclusions, as has been
> done.
> 
> Paul Dixon

Paul,

You seem to be saying that logically if(A but not B) then (C but not D).
Is that
correct?

Sincerely,
Harry W. Jones
hjbluebird at aol.com



More information about the B-Greek mailing list