Calvin & Arminius were both wrong

[Jerome]

Ridicule was rife over at the D.O.G. House, remember that fiasco?



Spurgeon, in his Autobiography:

"I have a dog, that has a rug in which he sleeps; and when I go home to-night, he will bring it out, and shake it before me,—not that he particularly cares for his rug, but because he knows that I shall say, 'I'll have it,' and then he will bark at me, and in his language say, 'No, you won't.' There are some people who fetch out the doctrines of grace just in that way. I can see them trotting along with the doctrine of election just in order that some Arminian brother may dispute with them about it, and that then they may bark at him. Do not act so, beloved."

I believe there's even a name for this now - the Cage Stage.
But as we see it's not a stage but seemingly permanent for some. Thread after thread year after year pushing Calvinism. Occasionally we get a break from it.

 

[Gup20]

You are not thinking. Let me say it this way and see if you understand. Let's say I said, "For by wrath You killed a man by using a gun". We have an independent clause "For by anger you killed a man" and then a prepositional phrase that modifies that clause. Now, put on your thinking hat. Could you have killed that man without that gun at the same moment in time the action of killing took place?? No! They are inseparable actions.

The independent clause in your example is "you killed a man" and both "by anger" and "with a gun" are dependent clauses. Furthermore, your example is incomplete. You should have said "In anger, you killed a man using a gun; that is illegal and it is punishable by death."

Now, "For by grace are ye saved" is a periphrastic construct in the Greek, meaning Paul uses a perfect tense verb with a present tense state of being verb.

By no means am I an expert in Greek, so I looked up "pariphrastic contructions". Essentially it is a circumlocution, or a round-about way of saying the same thing. For example, if instead of saying "I looked" you said "i had a look see" you would be using a pariphrastic construction.

So is "through faith" a round about way of saying "you have been saved" (or vice versa)? No. Therefore, "it is the gift of God" doesn't describe the dependent clause "through faith", but rather the independent clause "you have been saved".

In the verse it says "For by grace you have been saved through faith. and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God". The words "that" and "it" refer to the independent phrase "you have been saved."

Both "by grace" and "through faith" are prepositional phrases. If you recall grade-school grammar, you would remember that a prepositional phrase will never contain the subject of a sentence. Therefore, "faith" is not the subject of the sentence. Therefore, since faith is not the subject of the sentence, we can be assured that the pronouns "that" and "it" do not refer to faith but to "you" and being saved - the independent idea from the previous sentence.

What does that mean? It means that this action of being saved is an action completed at some point in the past and continues to the present time of speaking as a completed action. Joined with the present tense state of being verb it re-inforces its continuance from the point of speaking. Got it? Now, the prepositional phrase that follows modifies that completed action. What does that mean? It means that completed action at some time in the past is inseparable from "faith" as that action was completed "through" faith. So they are inseparable actions. Just like "by a gun" is inseparable from the action of the verb "killed" as killing could not have occurred without that gun. Got it? So, what does that mean? It means the clause "it is a gift of God not of yourselves" refers to the completed acting of being saved through faith.

In both cases of the scripture in question and your example, you can remove the prepositional phrases from the first sentence and the meaning will not be lost... just some of the verbose detail.

In your example, for instance, I could say "you killed a man with a gun" or I could simply say "you killed a man" and convey the same idea just with less detail. But if we use the corrected example of "In anger, you killed a man using a gun; that is illegal and is punishable by death" we could remove the prepositions and it would still convey the same idea:

"You killed a man. That is illegal and it is punishable by death."

The pronouns "that" and "it" do not refer to the gun or the anger... it refers to subject and it's verb - "you killed a man".

Your claim on Eph 2:8 is the same as saying that "being angry is illegal and is punishable by death" or "using a gun is illegal and is punishable by death" are the intended meanings of the sentence. By making the preposition the subject, you violate grammar and change the meaning of the verse entirely.

But, lets go further. Do you believe you can be saved without faith being inseparably connected with the action of being saved? Do you?

I dare any Greek Grammarian on this forum to overthrow this.

No. I do not believe you can be saved without faith. But I do believe that faith doesn't qualify a person for righteousness... faith directly qualifies a person as a descendant of Abraham, and descendants of Abraham are directly qualified to inherit righteousness... but faith does not directly qualify a person for righteousness. So faith INDIRECTLY qualifies a person for salvation. The reason the distinction is important is because you "might" need regeneration to qualify directly for righteousness (for example, in Abraham's case the Law hadn't been given, so he wasn't in violation of The Law) when he believed and then God made him righteous. But you definitely don't need to be regenerated to qualify for human adoption. Humans can adopt one another without any righteousness whatsoever.

 

[The Biblicist]

The independent clause in your example is "you killed a man" and both "by anger" and "with a gun" are dependent clauses. Furthermore, your example is incomplete. You should have said "In anger, you killed a man using a gun; that is illegal and it is punishable by death."


By no means am I an expert in Greek, so I looked up "pariphrastic contructions". Essentially it is a circumlocution, or a round-about way of saying the same thing. For example, if instead of saying "I looked" you said "i had a look see" you would be using a pariphrastic construction.

So is "through faith" a round about way of saying "you have been saved" (or vice versa)? No. Therefore, "it is the gift of God" doesn't describe the dependent clause "through faith", but rather the independent clause "you have been saved".

In the verse it says "For by grace you have been saved through faith. and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God". The words "that" and "it" refer to the independent phrase "you have been saved."

Both "by grace" and "through faith" are prepositional phrases. If you recall grade-school grammar, you would remember that a prepositional phrase will never contain the subject of a sentence. Therefore, "faith" is not the subject of the sentence. Therefore, since faith is not the subject of the sentence, we can be assured that the pronouns "that" and "it" do not refer to faith but to "you" and being saved - the independent idea from the previous sentence.



In both cases of the scripture in question and your example, you can remove the prepositional phrases from the first sentence and the meaning will not be lost... just some of the verbose detail.

In your example, for instance, I could say "you killed a man with a gun" or I could simply say "you killed a man" and convey the same idea just with less detail. But if we use the corrected example of "In anger, you killed a man using a gun; that is illegal and is punishable by death" we could remove the prepositions and it would still convey the same idea:

"You killed a man. That is illegal and it is punishable by death."

The pronouns "that" and "it" do not refer to the gun or the anger... it refers to subject and it's verb - "you killed a man".

Your claim on Eph 2:8 is the same as saying that "being angry is illegal and is punishable by death" or "using a gun is illegal and is punishable by death" are the intended meanings of the sentence. By making the preposition the subject, you violate grammar and change the meaning of the verse entirely.



No. I do not believe you can be saved without faith. But I do believe that faith doesn't qualify a person for righteousness... faith directly qualifies a person as a descendant of Abraham, and descendants of Abraham are directly qualified to inherit righteousness... but faith does not directly qualify a person for righteousness. So faith INDIRECTLY qualifies a person for salvation. The reason the distinction is important is because you "might" need regeneration to qualify directly for righteousness (for example, in Abraham's case the Law hadn't been given, so he wasn't in violation of The Law) when he believed and then God made him righteous. But you definitely don't need to be regenerated to qualify for human adoption. Humans can adopt one another without any righteousness whatsoever.

So, are you arguing "saved" stands alone and "it" modifies that singular word? "It" is neuter and "saved" is masculine in the Greek text. If not, then "by grace" and "by wrath" are equivilents, just a "through faith" and "by a gun" are equivilents. You have to add to my sentence to defend your theory.

All your verbage above adds up to pure nonsense when dealing with the langauge and the argument you presented and my response. You can't deal with my response without changing my words, adding to what I said and then finally admitting where there is no "faith" there is no "saved" which is the exact point of the Greek grammar.

 

[Gup20]

So, are you arguing "saved" stands alone and "it" modifies that singular word? "It" is neuter and "saved" is masculine in the Greek text. If not, then "by grace" and "by wrath" are equivilents, just a "through faith" and "by a gun" are equivilents. You have to add to my sentence to defend your theory.

All your verbage above adds up to pure nonsense when dealing with the langauge and the argument you presented and my response. You can't deal with my response without changing my words, adding to what I said and then finally admitting where there is no "faith" there is no "saved" which is the exact point of the Greek grammar.

No, I'm saying "you" is the subject and "have been saved" is the predicate. I'm saying "by grace" and "through faith" are prepositional phrases that refer to the subject, but are not themselves the subject. So then, when the 2nd sentence uses the pronouns "that" and "it" those pronouns refer to the subject and it's predicate rather than to the prepositional phrases. "you have been saved" is an independent clause which can stand on it's own. However, "by grace" and "through faith" are dependent clauses which cannot stand on their own. Therefore to make "faith" the subject would change the meaning of the verse by making the prepositional phrase "by faith" the subject the pronouns "that" and "it" refer to.

What you believe the sentence to say is "Faith is not of yourself, it is the gift of God." You have made "faith" the subject of the first sentence. But what it actually says is "you are saved, not of yourself, it is the gift of God." The "by grace" and "through faith" are prepositional phrases that add detail to the independent clause... they are not themselves independent clauses. You have transformed the dependent clause "by faith" into an independent clause and made it the subject of the first sentence. That's unwarranted.

By grace and through faith are details about the saving... but they are not the subject of the first sentence... they are prepositional.

In the example of the gun it would be akin to taking this phrase:

In anger, you killed a man with a gun. That is illegal and it is punishable by death.

and transforming it into:

A gun is illegal and it is punishable by death.

But really, it can't be transformed in that way without changing the meaning because you changed the subject from "you" to the "gun." Similarly, you can't change Eph 2:8 by transforming the subject from "you" to "faith."

You have been saved. That is not of yourself, it is the gift of God.

Remove the prepositional phrases "by grace" and "through faith" but keep "you" as the subject and you won't change the meaning of the verse.... you just have less details.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, I'm saying "you" is the subject and "have been saved" is the predicate. I'm saying "by grace" and "through faith" are prepositional phrases that refer to the subject, but are not themselves the subject. So then, when the 2nd sentence uses the pronouns "that" and "it" those pronouns refer to the subject and it's predicate rather than to the prepositional phrases. "you have been saved" is an independent clause which can stand on it's own. However, "by grace" and "through faith" are dependent clauses which cannot stand on their own. Therefore to make "faith" the subject would change the meaning of the verse by making the prepositional phrase "by faith" the subject the pronouns "that" and "it" refer to.

I never made "faith" the subject nor did I make "by faith" the subject. I argued that "it" and "that" refer to the subject with its predicate and modifiers and I did so, not on the basis of the English translation, but on the Greek text. I never argued from the English text. The subject gender is not neuter but masculine in the Greek text whereas "it" and "that" are neuter.

What you believe the sentence to say is "Faith is not of yourself, it is the gift of God."

That is not what I believe nor is that what I said. I believe "by grace are ye saved through faith" as a whole is what "it" and "that" refers to and I base that on the Greek grammar.

You have made "faith" the subject of the first sentence. But what it actually says is "you are saved, not of yourself, it is the gift of God." The "by grace" and "through faith" are prepositional phrases that add detail to the independent clause... they are not themselves independent clauses.

I did no such thing. I never made "faith" the subject of the sentence. Nowhere did I say such a thing. I said the whole subject/predicate/modifers is what "it" refers to as they are grammatically and logically inseparable WITH REGARD TO THE DEFINED ACTION in Greek grammar.

Your understanding of periphrastic construct with regard to Greek grammar is wrong. In Greek grammar it refers to the coupling of a tense verb with a state of being verb.

YOu don't know Greek or Greek grammar so obviously you can't deny or affirm. That is why I challenged anyone on this forum who does know Greek to overthrow my conclusion that faith is inseparable from the completed action of the verb and why the whole construct must be what "it" includes or at least is included in the completed action of "are ye saved" .

 

[Gup20]

I did no such thing. I never made "faith" the subject of the sentence. Nowhere did I say such a thing. I said the whole subject/predicate/modifers is what "it" refers to as they are grammatically and logically inseparable WITH REGARD TO THE DEFINED ACTION in Greek grammar.

Your understanding of periphrastic construct with regard to Greek grammar is wrong. In Greek grammar it refers to the coupling of a tense verb with a state of being verb.

YOu don't know Greek or Greek grammar so obviously you can't deny or affirm. That is why I challenged anyone on this forum who does know Greek to overthrow my conclusion that faith is inseparable from the completed action of the verb and why the whole construct must be what "it" includes or at least is included in the completed action of "are ye saved" .

So you are not arguing that verse indicates that faith is the gift? Because that is exactly what you are arguing. If faith is the gift, then faith is the subject of the first sentence rather than "you." But since "you" are the subject, than "you have been saved" is the gift, not faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

So you are not arguing that verse indicates that faith is the gift? Because that is exactly what you are arguing. If faith is the gift, then faith is the subject of the first sentence rather than "you." But since "you" are the subject, than "you have been saved" is the gift, not faith.

I am arguing that the WHOLE of salvation as described in the whole phrase is a gift inclusive of quickening and faith.

 

[rockytopva]

I believe the church congregations were seven....

1. Ephesus - Messianic - Beginning with Peter
2. Smyrna - Early Gentile - Beginning with Paul - Foxes Book of Martyrs has the persecutions as ten
3. Pergamos - Orthodox - A pyrgos is a fortified structure, Needed for the dark ages.
4. Thyatira - Catholic - The Spirit of Jezebel is to persecute, control, and to dominate.
5. Sardis - Protestant - A sardius is a gem, elegant yet hard and rigid.
6. Philadelphia - Methodist-To obtain sanctification was to do so with love.
7. Laodicea -Charismatic - Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?

And the Lord has got input on the Calvin and Arminius arguments!

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. - Revelation 3:5

And God the Father has input on the Calvin and Arminius arguments!

31 And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
33 And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. - Exodus 32

This is a race to be run and not some kind of destination to arrive at here on Earth!

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. - Matthew 10:22

 

[Gup20]

I am arguing that the WHOLE of salvation as described in the whole phrase is a gift inclusive of quickening and faith.

And I'm arguing that it can't mean that without replacing "you" in as the subject with "faith" as the subject. The subject must be independent and able to stand on it's own without the prepositions to further describe it. Therefore, the pronouns in the following sentence refer to the independent subject of the preceding sentence, and applying a description of the subject to another description of a subject isn't correct.

For example if I said "The streamlined boat is very fast; that and very blue." Streamlined and fast are both descriptors of the subject (the boat), as is blue. What I can't logically do is ascribe "blue" as a description to streamlining or speed.... that doesn't follow. It describes the subject, not the other descriptions of the subject. All the descriptions are attached, yes, but relate back to the subject, not necessarily each other.

It's not nearly enough for the Calvinist to hang his hat on and say "faith is a gift." It's only true if you assume it a priori (such as the link between 'streamlined' and 'fast'). Streamlining may make the boat fast, but it would be an unwarranted leap to to say that streamlining is the cause it being blue or fast... perhaps the boat has the largest engine in it's class, for example.

Similarly, while faith and salvation are related in that they describe the same subject (you), you can't say that faith is a gift that causes it as the Calvinist assumes. You can't use an assumed truth as proof of that which you assumed.

 

[The Biblicist]

And I'm arguing that it can't mean that without replacing "you" in as the subject with "faith" as the subject. The subject must be independent and able to stand on it's own without the prepositions to further describe it. Therefore, the pronouns in the following sentence refer to the independent subject of the preceding sentence, and applying a description of the subject to another description of a subject isn't correct.

For example if I said "The streamlined boat is very fast; that and very blue." Streamlined and fast are both descriptors of the subject (the boat), as is blue. What I can't logically do is ascribe "blue" as a description to streamlining or speed.... that doesn't follow. It describes the subject, not the other descriptions of the subject. All the descriptions are attached, yes, but relate back to the subject, not necessarily each other.

It's not nearly enough for the Calvinist to hang his hat on and say "faith is a gift." It's only true if you assume it a priori (such as the link between 'streamlined' and 'fast'). Streamlining may make the boat fast, but it would be an unwarranted leap to to say that streamlining is the cause it being blue or fast... perhaps the boat has the largest engine in it's class, for example.

Similarly, while faith and salvation are related in that they describe the same subject (you), you can't say that faith is a gift that causes it as the Calvinist assumes. You can't use an assumed truth as proof of that which you assumed.

You can argue to you are blue in the face but it will not change the Greek construction and implication of the tenses being used. The English text does not convey the Greek grammar and so any attempt to use the English to contradict the Greek grammar goes nowhere.

Even common sense shows you that if something is acheived "through" something else, that this something else must be inclusive in the acheived action. Just that simple. You can argue English grammar till your blue in the face but it does not change the actual and practical demands of the text.

 

[Gup20]

Even common sense shows you that if something is acheived "through" something else, that this something else must be inclusive in the acheived action. Just that simple. You can argue English grammar till your blue in the face but it does not change the actual and practical demands of the text.

The question isn’t whether faith is related to salvation, but whether righteousness comes before or after faith.

If salvation comes through faith, one must have faith before they become saved. That is common sense. Otherwise, it would say we are faithful through salvation. Yet Calvinists require righteousness (life/salvation) to come before faith (you have to be righteous to believe). For Calvinists to be right the verse would say “For by grace you have faith through salvation; and that not of yourself, it is the gift of God.” In this case faith would be the subject and come after regeneration.

 

[MB]

The point in Calvinism from which all other points flow is "total depravity"... the notion that man is too sinful and disconnected from God to choose "good" or to choose "life" and that a sinful man cannot motivate God's grace. Arminius' position is the opposite and says man can choose God and his will can motivate God. However, I believe that both positions make the same, fattally flawed assumption; both assume that faith leads directly to salvation. In reality, salvation is INDIRECT. Faith qualifies one as a descendant of Abraham and then, in a separate step, the descendants of Abraham are chosen to inherit Christ's righteousness. This is why the debate never ends... both are very wrong about the nature of salvation, having both make the same incorrect assumption.

 

[37818]

The point in Calvinism from which all other points flow is "total depravity"... the notion that man is too sinful and disconnected from God to choose "good" or to choose "life" and that a sinful man cannot motivate God's grace. Arminius' position is the opposite and says man can choose God and his will can motivate God. However, I believe that both positions make the same, fattally flawed assumption; both assume that faith leads directly to salvation. In reality, salvation is INDIRECT. Faith qualifies one as a descendant of Abraham and then, in a separate step, the descendants of Abraham are chosen to inherit Christ's righteousness. This is why the debate never ends... both are very wrong about the nature of salvation, having both make the same incorrect assumption.

Romans 3:10-11, speaks for an absolute need for God's intervention, ". . . There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. . . ."

 

[Gup20]

Romans 3:10-11, speaks for an absolute need for God's intervention, ". . . There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. . . ."

That’s why God preached the gospel to Abraham. Without that intervention we’d all still be lost.

Romans 10:13-17 (NASB) 13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!" 16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.