Arminianism is inconsistent

[Skala]

Arminianism is inconsistent. It flip-flops it's position on certain things at a moment's notice.

For example, Arminians hate the concept of free grace (monergism/Calvinism). They will debate you for hours on why free grace is wrong, WRONG, WRONG! They hate the concept of monergism and Calvinism and unconditional (ie, free) election. They hate the idea that God would freely choose to save some undeserving sinners with no conditions (ie, he doesn't look into the future to see who has faith and chooses to save those people. instead, He makes the decision without looking into the future).

But on the other hand, most Arminians believe in the age of accountability, the idea that infants/babies who die are saved. They LOVE the concept of free grace for these people.

Arminianism stresses the important of FREE WILL FREE WILL FREE WILL! You must make a CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE in salvation! Yet when it comes to babies/infants who die, who can't possibly make a choice or exert their will, they suddenly change their whole theology and embrace free grace and salvation without choice or human willpower. They LOVE when God is merciful to babies, but they HATE when God is merciful to adults in this way.

One of two things is happening here, when talking about Arminianism and babies. Either they suddenly toss aside all that theology about man's sin nature inherited from Adam, and our inherent guilt, or they admit/affirm that babies are sinful, but God saves them by FREE GRACE.

If the former, (they don't apply the doctrine of SIN to babies),then Arminains are inconsistent in who they apply the fall of Adam to. Suddenly, babies are righteous and get into heaven on their own righteousness, and Jesus is not their savior (they are their own savior, for righteous people don't need the sinless savior to be their representative/substitute).

If the latter (they DO believe babies are sinful and need mercy and God freely chooses to show mercy to them and save them and apply Christ's finished work to them), they are inconsistent in the fact that they hate monergistic salvation for adults, but love it for children.

In both cases, it seems to me that Arminianism is inconsistent.

Calvinism on the other hand has no inconsistency. It says both that babies and adults are 1) sinners and guilty and headed to hell, and 2) God freely saves them, monergistically, unconditionally.

100% consistency in Calvinism here.

In other words, in Calvinism, babies are saved the same way adults are: by the free grace and mercy of God.

In Arminianism, babies and adults are treated in different ways, either by inconsistently applying the guilt and nature of sin to them, or by saying God saves them in different ways, yet loving one way, and hating the other.

 

[royal priest]

Calvinism on the other hand has no inconsistency. It says both that babies and adults are 1) sinners and guilty and headed to hell, and 2) God freely saves them, monergistically, unconditionally.

100% consistency in Calvinism here.

In other words, in Calvinism, babies are saved the same way adults are: by the free grace and mercy of God.

Yes, saved by grace alone, but what about faith alone?

 

[Skala]

Yes, saved by grace alone, but what about faith alone?

In Calvinistic theology, the faith we are saved by is, itself, a gift of grace. This is because Ephesians 2:8-9 and other places say that faith is a gift.

Thus, salvation is not the result of the combination of faith + grace, but rather, faith itself is part of the gracious "salvation package", as it were, that God gives us freely.

 

[twin1954]

In Calvinistic theology, the faith we are saved by is, itself, a gift of grace. This is because Ephesians 2:8-9 and other places say that faith is a gift.

Thus, salvation is not the result of the combination of faith + grace, but rather, faith itself is part of the gracious "salvation package", as it were, that God gives us freely.

I would agree with you that Arminians are inconsistent in their theology. Not on just this point but on many others. Still I have to ask the same question that Royal Priest did; what about faith? Are infants able to believe? It is true that faith is the gift of God but God doesn't believe for us. The Arminian would point out this inconsistency in your thinking as well.

The truth is that we do not know the fate of babies. The Scriptures are unclear on it to be sure. I certainly want to believe that God is merciful to them but we can't be consistent in our theology and automatically believe all babies go to Heaven. We have only one passage of Scripture to lean on where David spoke of being able to go to his dead infant son but we cannot build a doctrine on one unclear passage.

I admire you and look forward to reading your posts but I don't think you have completely thought this one through.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I would agree with you that Arminians are inconsistent in their theology. Not on just this point but on many others. Still I have to ask the same question that Royal Priest did; what about faith? Are infants able to believe?

Luke 1:41 The question, as I see it, presumes that faith is a cognitive act dependent on the physical sensory input, followed by perception, understanding and then acceptance. The assumption that holy faith is arrived at in the same manner as any other matter of belief follows an Arminian line of thought. If faith comes from grace alone, then it is imputed wholly through an act of the Holy Spirit and is not merely a rational response to environmental influences. Hence, if the Calvinistic model holds true, then John the Baptist leaped in his mother's womb as a result of the faith that was imparted to him by the Holy Spirit. True faith, then, is a spiritual thing, rather than a state of the physical brain, and faith can exist without understanding.

Otherwise, saying that an infant cannot have faith because an infant cannot understand uses an Arminian reasoning to refute a Calvinistic position, which is not really a valid argument. It's not the Calvinistic reasoning that is contradicting itself.

 

[OzSpen]

Arminianism is inconsistent. It flip-flops it's position on certain things at a moment's notice.

For example, Arminians hate the concept of free grace (monergism/Calvinism). They will debate you for hours on why free grace is wrong, WRONG, WRONG! They hate the concept of monergism and Calvinism and unconditional (ie, free) election. They hate the idea that God would freely choose to save some undeserving sinners with no conditions (ie, he doesn't look into the future to see who has faith and chooses to save those people. instead, He makes the decision without looking into the future).

But on the other hand, most Arminians believe in the age of accountability, the idea that infants/babies who die are saved. They LOVE the concept of free grace for these people.

Arminianism stresses the important of FREE WILL FREE WILL FREE WILL! You must make a CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE in salvation! Yet when it comes to babies/infants who die, who can't possibly make a choice or exert their will, they suddenly change their whole theology and embrace free grace and salvation without choice or human willpower. They LOVE when God is merciful to babies, but they HATE when God is merciful to adults in this way.

One of two things is happening here, when talking about Arminianism and babies. Either they suddenly toss aside all that theology about man's sin nature inherited from Adam, and our inherent guilt, or they admit/affirm that babies are sinful, but God saves them by FREE GRACE.

If the former, (they don't apply the doctrine of SIN to babies),then Arminains are inconsistent in who they apply the fall of Adam to. Suddenly, babies are righteous and get into heaven on their own righteousness, and Jesus is not their savior (they are their own savior, for righteous people don't need the sinless savior to be their representative/substitute).

If the latter (they DO believe babies are sinful and need mercy and God freely chooses to show mercy to them and save them and apply Christ's finished work to them), they are inconsistent in the fact that they hate monergistic salvation for adults, but love it for children.

In both cases, it seems to me that Arminianism is inconsistent.

Calvinism on the other hand has no inconsistency. It says both that babies and adults are 1) sinners and guilty and headed to hell, and 2) God freely saves them, monergistically, unconditionally.

100% consistency in Calvinism here.

In other words, in Calvinism, babies are saved the same way adults are: by the free grace and mercy of God.

In Arminianism, babies and adults are treated in different ways, either by inconsistently applying the guilt and nature of sin to them, or by saying God saves them in different ways, yet loving one way, and hating the other.

Skala,

Here you go again with your generalisations for both Arminians and Calvinists. It proves nothing when you make these kinds of statements:

1. 'Arminianism is inconsistent. It flip-flops it's position on certain things at a moment's notice'. You gave not one example. Zero! We have no specifics to discuss.

2. 'Calvinism on the other hand has no inconsistency'. Again, you provide no specific Calvinist's theology that we can debate.

Your generalisations are coming out of your pro-Calvinist and anti-Arminian mind. It is impossible to discuss these two theological positions with you when you create these kinds of straw men. They may or may not be correct.

At least have the temerity to give an example of a theologian who teaches such so that we have some specifics to debate.

You use a question begging fallacy. When you start with Arminianism is wrong and Calvinism is correct, it's only natural you'll conclude that Arminianism is wrong and Calvinism is right. But it's a logical fallacy you use.

Until you come forth with some specifics to discuss, you are wasting your time denigrating Arminians and elevating Calvinists.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

In Calvinistic theology, the faith we are saved by is, itself, a gift of grace. This is because Ephesians 2:8-9 and other places say that faith is a gift.

Thus, salvation is not the result of the combination of faith + grace, but rather, faith itself is part of the gracious "salvation package", as it were, that God gives us freely.

That is not my understanding of the Greek grammar of Eph 2:8-9 (ESV).

Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV) states, ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast’.

These two verses have been subjected to some questionable interpretations. R C Sproul, a Calvinist, is but one example. He stated,

This passage should seal the matter forever. The faith by which we are saved is a gift of God. When the apostle says it is not of ourselves, he does not mean that it is not our faith. Again, God does not do the believing for us. It is our own faith but it does not originate with us. It is given to us. The gift is not earned or deserved it is a gift of sheer grace (Sproul 1986:119).

So do these two verses really teach that faith is a gift of God? The Greek language clarifies Eph. 2:8-9 (ESV) for us. In the phrase, ‘this is not of your own doing’, to what does ‘this’, refer? ‘It is a neuter Greek demonstrative pronoun, touto, and cannot refer to its antecedents of ‘grace’ (charis) or ‘faith’ (pistis), which are both feminine nouns. The Greek grammar rule is that demonstrative pronouns agree with their antecedents in gender, number and case. So ‘grace’ or ‘faith’ cannot be identified as 'this ... the gift of God'. So what is the antecedent? It is salvation by grace through faith (v. 9).

He was considered one of the greatest Greek grammarian of the 20th century, Southern Baptist Dr A. T. Robertson. He explained the grammar of Eph 2:8-9 this way,

“Grace” is God’s part, “faith” is ours. And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine taute, and so refers not to pistis (feminine) or to charis (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part (Robertson 1931:525).

While this Greek explanation is rather technical, the simple understanding is that the Greek grammar will not allow ‘this’ to refer to either grace or faith as a gift of God. 'This' refers to the act of salvation - being saved by grace conditioned on faith.

Oz

Works consulted
Robertson, A T 1931. Word pictures in the New Testament: The epistles of Paul, vol 4. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press. Available online.

Sproul, R C 1986. Chosen by God. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers.

 

[OzSpen]

In Calvinistic theology, the faith we are saved by is, itself, a gift of grace. This is because Ephesians 2:8-9 and other places say that faith is a gift.

Thus, salvation is not the result of the combination of faith + grace, but rather, faith itself is part of the gracious "salvation package", as it were, that God gives us freely.

That's not my understanding of the Greek exegesis of Eph 2:8-9 (ESV).

Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV) states, ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast’.

These two verses have been subjected to some questionable interpretations. R C Sproul, a Calvinist, is but one example when he stated,

This passage should seal the matter forever. The faith by which we are saved is a gift of God. When the apostle says it is not of ourselves, he does not mean that it is not our faith. Again, God does not do the believing for us. It is our own faith but it does not originate with us. It is given to us. The gift is not earned or deserved it is a gift of sheer grace (Sproul 1986:119).

So do these two verses really teach that faith is a gift of God? The Greek language clarifies Eph. 2:8-9 (ESV) for us. In the phrase, ‘this is not of your own doing’, to what does ‘this’, refer? ‘It is a neuter Greek demonstrative pronoun, touto, and cannot refer to its antecedents of ‘grace’ (charis) or ‘faith’ (pistis), which are both feminine nouns. The Greek grammar rule is that demonstrative pronouns agree with their antecedents in gender, number and case. So ‘grace’ or ‘faith’ cannot be identified as ‘the gift of God. So what is the antecedent? It is salvation by grace through faith (v. 9).

He was considered one of the greatest Greek grammarian of the 20th century, Southern Baptist Dr A. T. Robertson. He explained the grammar of Eph 2:8-9 this way,

“Grace” is God’s part, “faith” is ours. And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine taute, and so refers not to pistis (feminine) or to charis (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part (Robertson 1931:525).

While this Greek explanation is rather technical, the simple understanding is that the Greek grammar will not allow ‘this’ to refer to either grace or faith as a gift of God. 'This' refers to the act of salvation - being saved by grace conditioned on faith.

Oz

Works consulted
Robertson, A T 1931. Word pictures in the New Testament: The epistles of Paul, vol 4. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press. Available online.

Sproul, R C 1986. Chosen by God. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers.

 

[98cwitr]

We don't need to split hairs on this one verse to try to prove one way or another. We know that God measures out faith (Eph 4:13), that God gives a new heart to follow His Decrees (Ezekiel 36), and that that decree is to believe in the One He sent (John 6:29).

These verses only support that faith is from God and not ourselves, and disprove that faith is self-manifested.

Good day all.

 

[twin1954]

That's not my understanding of the Greek exegesis of Eph 2:8-9 (ESV).

Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV) states, ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast’.

These two verses have been subjected to some questionable interpretations. R C Sproul, a Calvinist, is but one example when he stated,



So do these two verses really teach that faith is a gift of God? The Greek language clarifies Eph. 2:8-9 (ESV) for us. In the phrase, ‘this is not of your own doing’, to what does ‘this’, refer? ‘It is a neuter Greek demonstrative pronoun, touto, and cannot refer to its antecedents of ‘grace’ (charis) or ‘faith’ (pistis), which are both feminine nouns. The Greek grammar rule is that demonstrative pronouns agree with their antecedents in gender, number and case. So ‘grace’ or ‘faith’ cannot be identified as ‘the gift of God. So what is the antecedent? It is salvation by grace through faith (v. 9).

He was considered one of the greatest Greek grammarian of the 20th century, Southern Baptist Dr A. T. Robertson. He explained the grammar of Eph 2:8-9 this way,



While this Greek explanation is rather technical, the simple understanding is that the Greek grammar will not allow ‘this’ to refer to either grace or faith as a gift of God. 'This' refers to the act of salvation - being saved by grace conditioned on faith.

Oz

Works consulted
Robertson, A T 1931. Word pictures in the New Testament: The epistles of Paul, vol 4. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press. Available online.

Sproul, R C 1986. Chosen by God. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers.

Actually the Greek has the word touto neuter because it refers to all three, salvation, grace and faith as the gift of God.

Robertson is reading his theology into his Greek interpretation. He tends to do that. The Greek is as much a matter of interpretation as the English as I am sure you know. It actually solves no difficulties between the theologies of Calvinism and Arminianism.

 

[twin1954]

Luke 1:41 The question, as I see it, presumes that faith is a cognitive act dependent on the physical sensory input, followed by perception, understanding and then acceptance. The assumption that holy faith is arrived at in the same manner as any other matter of belief follows an Arminian line of thought. If faith comes from grace alone, then it is imputed wholly through an act of the Holy Spirit and is not merely a rational response to environmental influences. Hence, if the Calvinistic model holds true, then John the Baptist leaped in his mother's womb as a result of the faith that was imparted to him by the Holy Spirit. True faith, then, is a spiritual thing, rather than a state of the physical brain, and faith can exist without understanding.

Otherwise, saying that an infant cannot have faith because an infant cannot understand uses an Arminian reasoning to refute a Calvinistic position, which is not really a valid argument. It's not the Calvinistic reasoning that is contradicting itself.

I disagree. It isn't an Arminian argument concerning faith but a Scriptural one that faith is the conduit of grace and salvation. The Scriptures are pretty clear that there is no salvation apart from faith. Faith being the gift of God is absolutely true but to think that infants can have faith and believe apart from knowledge of Christ is Hyper-Calvinism. It is no different than saying God's elect are saved by their election with or without faith.

The example of John the Baptist moving in his mother's womb is not a valid example of faith apart from knowledge but one of the Spirit moving in a special way. John the Baptist was ordained to be the forerunner of Christ and it was shown to be so by the Spirit moving in Luke 1:41.

The fact is that the secret things belong unto God, Duet. 29:29, and the things revealed belong unto us. The destiny of babies is secret as far as the Scriptures are concerned. Therefore we ought not speculate or try to make the Scriptures say what they do not say. I am content to be assured that whatever the Lord does is right and good.

 

[twin1954]

Skala,

Here you go again with your generalisations for both Arminians and Calvinists. It proves nothing when you make these kinds of statements:

1. 'Arminianism is inconsistent. It flip-flops it's position on certain things at a moment's notice'. You gave not one example. Zero! We have no specifics to discuss.

2. 'Calvinism on the other hand has no inconsistency'. Again, you provide no specific Calvinist's theology that we can debate.

Your generalisations are coming out of your pro-Calvinist and anti-Arminian mind. It is impossible to discuss these two theological positions with you when you create these kinds of straw men. They may or may not be correct.

At least have the temerity to give an example of a theologian who teaches such so that we have some specifics to debate.

You use a question begging fallacy. When you start with Arminianism is wrong and Calvinism is correct, it's only natural you'll conclude that Arminianism is wrong and Calvinism is right. But it's a logical fallacy you use.

Until you come forth with some specifics to discuss, you are wasting your time denigrating Arminians and elevating Calvinists.

Oz

Actually his whole post was a valid argument with specific premises to support his conclusion. Your accusation of it being a generalization is false. He didn't need to point to a specific Calvinist theologian to make his argument valid. His view stands or falls on the merit of his argument not on who he can quote in support. Appeal to authority is your hangup but it isn't a required prerequisite to valid argumentation.

 

[OzSpen]

Actually the Greek has the word touto neuter because it refers to all three, salvation, grace and faith as the gift of God.

Robertson is reading his theology into his Greek interpretation. He tends to do that. The Greek is as much a matter of interpretation as the English as I am sure you know. It actually solves no difficulties between the theologies of Calvinism and Arminianism.

That's not according to Greek grammar. The demonstrative pronoun touto (neuter, 'this') cannot refer to antecedents that are feminine, i.e. charis (grace) and pistis (faith), both of which are feminine.

A T Robertson was an outstanding Greek grammarian who wrote a Greek grammar that is the most comprehensive ever written, 1454 pp in my hard copy.

Robertson is a better grammarian than for you to give the throw-away line that he reads his theology into his Greek interpretation. You give not one example. Zero!

Since I read and teach NT Greek, I also know the grammar. Knowing the grammar of of Eph. 2:8-9 (ESV) does help me reach an understanding of its meaning.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

We don't need to split hairs on this one verse to try to prove one way or another. We know that God measures out faith (Eph 4:13), that God gives a new heart to follow His Decrees (Ezekiel 36), and that that decree is to believe in the One He sent (John 6:29).

These verses only support that faith is from God and not ourselves, and disprove that faith is self-manifested.

Good day all.

It's not splitting hairs, brother. It is determining what the verses mean.

I agree that faith is not self-manifested.

However, what did Paul and Silas tell the Philippian jailer according to Acts 16:30-31 (ESV)?

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “[You] Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

This is a command: You believe. There is no salvation without the co-operation of the person believing. They must believe, i.e. have faith. That does not mean faith is self created.

Rom 10:17 (HCSB): 'So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Actually his whole post was a valid argument with specific premises to support his conclusion. Your accusation of it being a generalization is false. He didn't need to point to a specific Calvinist theologian to make his argument valid. His view stands or falls on the merit of his argument not on who he can quote in support. Appeal to authority is your hangup but it isn't a required prerequisite to valid argumentation.

To accuse Arminians or Calvinists of certain beliefs without providing examples is entering into a generalisation that could be reaching some faulty conclusions because of a hasty generalization fallacy.

 

[Skala]

That's not according to Greek grammar. The demonstrative pronoun touto (neuter, 'this') cannot refer to antecedents that are feminine, i.e. charis (grace) and pistis (faith), both of which are feminine.

A T Robertson was an outstanding Greek grammarian who wrote a Greek grammar that is the most comprehensive ever written, 1454 pp in my hard copy.

Robertson is a better grammarian than for you to give the throw-away line that he reads his theology into his Greek interpretation. You give not one example. Zero!

Since I read and teach NT Greek, I also know the grammar. Knowing the grammar of of Eph. 2:8-9 (ESV) does help me reach an understanding of its meaning.

Oz

If you read and taught NT Greek, you'd know that the pronoun "this" (in the phrase "and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God...") is neuter and, as you correctly stated, cannot refer to any gendered antecedent. In this case, the antecedents are grace, salvation, and faith:

"By grace are you saved through faith...and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God..."

Since the pronoun "this" cannot refer to any of those antecedents individually, the only thing we can conclude is that it is pointing to the entire collective phrase: "by grace are you saved through faith"

In other words, being saved by grace through faith, the whole package, is what the pronoun "this" is pointing to.

The entire salvation process is God's gift to us. Does that process include our coming to faith? Yes.

Conclusion: saving faith is the gift of God, not self-wrought as Arminianism would have it.

 

[Skala]

It actually solves no difficulties between the theologies of Calvinism and Arminianism.

I disagree. I think it clearly implies that faith is part of the "salvation package" that God gifts to us.

This instantly and immediately destroys and refutes Arminianism or any form of synergism.

 

[twin1954]

I disagree. I think it clearly implies that faith is part of the "salvation package" that God gifts to us.

This instantly and immediately destroys and refutes Arminianism or any form of synergism.

I am not disagreeing with you on the interpretation of the Greek in Eph. 2:8-9. I actually agree. The neuter demonstrative pronoun "this" refers to what is before. That is its primary function. That is why it must reference all three: the past participle saved and the nouns that come before: grace, being saved and faith. It is not only grammatically correct but syntactically correct as well.

 

[OzSpen]

If you read and taught NT Greek, you'd know that the pronoun "this" (in the phrase "and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God...") is neuter and, as you correctly stated, cannot refer to any gendered antecedent. In this case, the antecedents are grace, salvation, and faith:

"By grace are you saved through faith...and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God..."

Since the pronoun "this" cannot refer to any of those antecedents individually, the only thing we can conclude is that it is pointing to the entire collective phrase: "by grace are you saved through faith"

In other words, being saved by grace through faith, the whole package, is what the pronoun "this" is pointing to.

The entire salvation process is God's gift to us. Does that process include our coming to faith? Yes.

Conclusion: saving faith is the gift of God, not self-wrought as Arminianism would have it.

Now provide me with evidence from Arminians that faith is 'self-wrought'. You have been claiming this for years. I await your evidence. What did Arminius teach about faith?

Oz

 

[98cwitr]

It's not splitting hairs, brother. It is determining what the verses mean.

I agree that faith is not self-manifested.

However, what did Paul and Silas tell the Philippian jailer according to Acts 16:30-31 (ESV)?


This is a command: You believe. There is no salvation without the co-operation of the person believing. They must believe, i.e. have faith. That does not mean faith is self created.

Rom 10:17 (HCSB): 'So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ'.

Oz

I agree, but you must ask yourself: What makes a person willing to receive the gospel and others that hear and do not believe it? Their heart, right?