A lesson in grammar for the Arminian

[Colossians]

The Arminian likes to use the phrase "once saved always saved" to describe what he feels is the Calvinist position.

Calvinists don't believe "once saved always saved", because Calvinists (at least those who are competent linguists) realise that the phrase "once saved" is a contradiction of semantics - an oxymoron.

The oxymoron lies in the fact that the adverb "once" necessarily implies an instance, but the past participle "saved" (and any other past participle) implies an irreversible historical event, with irreversible ramifications.
This is why there is no similar statement in English with other past participles: no-one says "do you believe that once a bottle is broken, it is always broken?", or "do you believe that once a man is healed from typhoid, he is always healed from typhoid?", or "do you believe that once a man has cried, he has always cried?"

The Arminian thinks he counters this by saying things like: "Ah! But a man can become sick of typhoid again!", but this is simply an argument based upon his faulty semantics: he feels he can append an occurence of a particular event, with a re-occurence, and consider the twain to be one event only.

When one says things like, "I am healed", or "it is broken", the past participle concerns only the particular healing, or the particular breaking. That is, there might be other healings of a man from other illnesses or even from the same illness in the future, but this does not mean that those other healings fall within the scope of the "healing" first mentioned. Put more simply, if I have two blue pegs in my hand, identical in every respect, each is still not the other.

The use of the past participle "saved" in Christianity, is parallel to the "healed" above when the "healed" refers to a particular healing, and not parallel to a self-incrementing notion such as we find in computer programs (eg: healed1 := healed1 + healed2).
A past participle is exhaustive of the singular event it describes. Because any event is by definition unique, the past participle which describes it cannot be made to equal the event it describes, plus another clone of that event. It may only refer to its particular event.

Accordingly, when one says he is "saved", this "saved' is exhausted by (or exhausts) the notion to which it is attached. And that the past participle is used, necessarily means that the event is relegated to history, where it cannot be accessed anymore: it is complete.

The Arminian should use a phrase like "do you believe that once a man has made a commitment to Christ, he will remain committed?", which deals solely with the pragmatic aspect he is trying to single out.
As it is, however, his confusing of pragmatic and statal aspects renders him to be on unstable ground from the start. His mis-matching of the adverb "once" with the past participle "saved" presents for him a 'summary' of a position which he intends to discredit, with the 'fuel' for the discrediting contained within the summary itself. Redundancy.

 

[nobdysfool]

The Arminian likes to use the phrase "once saved always saved" to describe what he feels is the Calvinist position.

Calvinists don't believe "once saved always saved", because Calvinists (at least those who are competent linguists) realise that the phrase "once saved" is a contradiction of semantics - an oxymoron.

The oxymoron lies in the fact that the adverb "once" necessarily implies an instance, but the past participle "saved" (and any other past participle) implies an irreversible historical event, with irreversible ramifications.
This is why there is no similar statement in English with other past participles: no-one says "do you believe that once a bottle is broken, it is always broken?", or "do you believe that once a man is healed from typhoid, he is always healed from typhoid?", or "do you believe that once a man has cried, he has always cried?"

The Arminian thinks he counters this by saying things like: "Ah! But a man can become sick of typhoid again!", but this is simply an argument based upon his faulty semantics: he feels he can append an occurence of a particular event, with a re-occurence, and consider the twain to be one event only.

When one says things like, "I am healed", or "it is broken", the past participle concerns only the particular healing, or the particular breaking. That is, there might be other healings of a man from other illnesses or even from the same illness in the future, but this does not mean that those other healings fall within the scope of the "healing" first mentioned. Put more simply, if I have two blue pegs in my hand, identical in every respect, each is still not the other.

The use of the past participle "saved" in Christianity, is parallel to the "healed" above when the "healed" refers to a particular healing, and not parallel to a self-incrementing notion such as we find in computer programs (eg: healed1 := healed1 + healed2).
A past participle is exhaustive of the singular event it describes. Because any event is by definition unique, the past participle which describes it cannot be made to equal the event it describes, plus another clone of that event. It may only refer to its particular event.

Accordingly, when one says he is "saved", this "saved' is exhausted by (or exhausts) the notion to which it is attached. And that the past participle is used, necessarily means that the event is relegated to history, where it cannot be accessed anymore: it is complete.

The Arminian should use a phrase like "do you believe that once a man has made a commitment to Christ, he will remain committed?", which deals solely with the pragmatic aspect he is trying to single out.
As it is, however, his confusing of pragmatic and statal aspects renders him to be on unstable ground from the start. His mis-matching of the adverb "once" with the past participle "saved" presents for him a 'summary' of a position which he intends to discredit, with the 'fuel' for the discrediting contained within the summary itself. Redundancy.

I got it...and I agree completely. Do you think anyone else will get it? Or will the "spin" start?

 

[billwald]

This Calvinist accepts the the truth that once saved, always saved because "saved" is determined by God, not by the individual "inviting Jesus" or any other method. The Primary error of Calvinists and every other kind of Christian is that there is no temporal test for salvation.

The only check list for "saved" is 1 John. Anyone who conforms 100% to 1 John can kniow that he is saved. I have yet to meet that person.

Every time I hear "we" or "us" in a prayer or sermon, I say to myself, "Who is "we," Kemosabe?

 

[christian-only]

The Arminian likes to use the phrase "once saved always saved" to describe what he feels is the Calvinist position.

Calvinists don't believe "once saved always saved", because Calvinists (at least those who are competent linguists) realise that the phrase "once saved" is a contradiction of semantics - an oxymoron.

Way to attack the intelligence of your fellow Calvinists! Great job!

The oxymoron lies in the fact that the adverb "once" necessarily implies an instance, but the past participle "saved" (and any other past participle) implies an irreversible historical event, with irreversible ramifications.

That's somewhat misleading. The word "once" may imply an instance, but past participles do not imply irreversible ramifications, not in the way you would have us believe they do. "Come see my newly mowed grass." Ok, there is an irreverible ramification that my grass will always from now on be affected by what I did in some way, but it will not remain mowed. If someone is saved, that will affect them from now on, but that doesn't mean they will always remain safe. The effect that lingers on in my grass may merely be that it grows shorter, but it will still grow. The effect on one who is saved, then falls away, is that their conscience will always bother them, not that they will always be safe. (Will the grass stay mowed? I wish!)

This is why there is no similar statement in English with other past participles: no-one says "do you believe that once a bottle is broken, it is always broken?", or "do you believe that once a man is healed from typhoid, he is always healed from typhoid?", or "do you believe that once a man has cried, he has always cried?"

Actually, I've heard people say stuff like that.

The Arminian thinks he counters this by saying things like: "Ah! But a man can become sick of typhoid again!", but this is simply an argument based upon his faulty semantics: he feels he can append an occurence of a particular event, with a re-occurence, and consider the twain to be one event only.

Why would he append two separate occurrences to make them one? It isn't necessary to his position. Unfortunately, however, it is necessary to the Calvinist's position. When a Christian falls away, the Calvinist must take this falling away and merge it with this man's initial lostness and say that the two are one, or in otherwords "he never really was saved." It is, then the Calvinist who merges divergent events together as one.

When one says things like, "I am healed", or "it is broken", the past participle concerns only the particular healing, or the particular breaking.

You're giving the Arminians a lesson in grammar and you can't even construct a full sentence here? Can't you see this is a fragment? Where did the point go? When...something happens - what happens? Apparently you don't know, or you just can't express yourself in language because you aren't a "competent linguist" (your words).

That is, there might be other healings of a man from other illnesses or even from the same illness in the future, but this does not mean that those other healings fall within the scope of the "healing" first mentioned. Put more simply, if I have two blue pegs in my hand, identical in every respect, each is still not the other.

So, in the case of the Christian who falls away, his original lostness and his current lostness are not identical, no matter how hard Calvinists try to make them so.

The use of the past participle "saved" in Christianity, is parallel to the "healed" above when the "healed" refers to a particular healing, and not parallel to a self-incrementing notion such as we find in computer programs (eg: healed1 := healed1 + healed2).
A past participle is exhaustive of the singular event it describes.

That being the case, it means that it doesn't have to last forever. If you are healed of cancer for now that doesn't guarantee you will not get it again, etc. so you are defeating your entire point.

Because any event is by definition unique, the past participle which describes it cannot be made to equal the event it describes, plus another clone of that event. It may only refer to its particular event.

Accordingly, when one says he is "saved", this "saved' is exhausted by (or exhausts) the notion to which it is attached. And that the past participle is used, necessarily means that the event is relegated to history, where it cannot be accessed anymore: it is complete.

Which is why it is interesting that I hear many more Calvinists (or see them rather) saying that salvation can be incomplete. They claim that somehow regeneration cannot be understood as equivalent to the whole of salvation, but as you say, there can be no incomplete salvation, so what are they talking about? They must just not be "competent linguists" as you put it.

The Arminian should use a phrase like "do you believe that once a man has made a commitment to Christ, he will remain committed?", which deals solely with the pragmatic aspect he is trying to single out.
As it is, however, his confusing of pragmatic and statal aspects renders him to be on unstable ground from the start. His mis-matching of the adverb "once" with the past participle "saved" presents for him a 'summary' of a position which he intends to discredit, with the 'fuel' for the discrediting contained within the summary itself. Redundancy.

The simple fact is this: the Bible speaks of Christians falling away, and in fact, Peter speaks of those who "escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," but who subsequently became entangled therein again and were overcome, who turned as a dog back to its vomit and as a sow back to wallowing in the mire, whose latter end is worse with them than the beginning. How can this be if "once saved always saved" or whatever you think it should be called is true? I can't. Therefore, Calvinism is wrong because it negates Peter's plain teaching on the subject. There is no need to go any further than that. There is not need philosophize and argue about "pragmatic" and "statal" and "fuel" and "summary" and all this other nonsense. Peter says some Christians who had escaped the pollutions of the world through Jesus Christ went back to sin, were overcome, and are now lost. Peter is right - you aren't - PERIOD. (2 Pet 2:20-22)

 

[Colossians]

Christian-only,

Your post simply speaks past the point.
Stating that one might be saved, and then re-saved, does nothing to counter what is presented: any past participle exhausts the notion to which it is attached.

You have not understood that a past participle only deals with the necessarily singular notion to which it is attached, and does so exhaustively (it assumes no repeat of the notion). You have not dealt with the internal fabric of the past participle, but merely looked at it externally.

Your example of the lawn being cut and then recut, almost gave me a heart attack when I read it. I had posited the equivalent counter-argument in the example of one's being healed from typhiod, and then having to be healed of it again down the track. Changing the specifics of the example does not present untravalled ground.

You have simply not understood that the word "saved" exhausts the notion to which it is attached, in the same way that the "lawn is cut" does not take cognisance of any future need to cut it. (If you had used the example of a rope cut, this would have led you less astray: it would have provided no opportunity for you to fuse the property of what is being cut, with the semantic of "cut" itself, thus confusing the issue).
Similarly a bottle "broken" provides no room within its scope for any further breakings - (the future of remaining broken is taken for granted in the scope of "broken" by virtue of the fact that "broken" is past tense, and cannot be retrieved).
And so too the word "saved", being also past tense, and dealing with security, imputes to the entire future, the notion to which it is attached: its property will abide forever by default. Within the fabric of its semantic, there is no self-expiry date, any more than the semantic of a bottle "broken" allows for future unbrokenness.

You will have to do better than call my bluff on linguistics: you will have to understand the substance of the argument.
As I stated, if you wish to call Calvinists into question at all, you would do well to use something like "once one commits to Christ, will he remain committed to Christ?", for the committing is in the active voice (the committed man has committed himself), thus providing for possible non-commitment in the future, and not the passive voice in which "saved" is declared, where the doer of the verb is someone other than he who is saved.
But as it is, "once saved" is as invalid as "once finished".

 

[frumanchu]

This Calvinist accepts the the truth that once saved, always saved because "saved" is determined by God, not by the individual "inviting Jesus" or any other method. The Primary error of Calvinists and every other kind of Christian is that there is no temporal test for salvation.

The only check list for "saved" is 1 John. Anyone who conforms 100% to 1 John can kniow that he is saved. I have yet to meet that person.

Every time I hear "we" or "us" in a prayer or sermon, I say to myself, "Who is "we," Kemosabe?

What about the Spirit bearing witness together with our spirit that we are children of God?

Actually, there is much assurance one can have of their own salvation (not philosophically per se, but theologically). Having assurance of someone else's salvation is another matter, but we can often make educated guesses.

 

[christian-only]

You have not understood that a past participle only deals with the necessarily singular notion to which it is attached, and does so exhaustively (it assumes no repeat of the notion). You have not dealt with the internal fabric of the past participle, but merely looked at it externally.

No, the problem is that you don't understand, or are willingly are ignoring, that whether the past participle "assumes a repeat of the notion" or not, one can take place. Hence, although "my lawn is mowed" does not assume it will be mowed again in the future, I can assure you that it probably will be. It is certainly possible that it will be, although you are trying to say it isn't.

 

[Colossians]

Christian-only,


the problem is that you don't understand, or are willingly are ignoring, that whether the past participle "assumes a repeat of the notion" or not, one can take place. Hence, although "my lawn is mowed" does not assume it will be mowed again in the future, I can assure you that it probably will be.
This is now the second time you have simply repeated arguments that I have before-hand already posited and dismissed. Here is the particular instance of such from my previous post, and relating to your statement above.
.. the word "saved" exhausts the notion to which it is attached, in the same way that the "lawn is cut" does not take cognisance of any future need to cut it. (If you had used the example of a rope cut, this would have led you less astray: it would have provided no opportunity for you to fuse the property of what is being cut, with the semantic of "cut" itself, thus confusing the issue).
Similarly a bottle "broken" provides no room within its scope for any further breakings - (the future of remaining broken is taken for granted in the scope of "broken" by virtue of the fact that "broken" is past tense, and cannot be retrieved).
And so too the word "saved", being also past tense, and dealing with security, imputes to the entire future, the notion to which it is attached: its property will abide forever by default. Within the fabric of its semantic, there is no self-expiry date, any more than the semantic of a bottle "broken" allows for future unbrokenness.

I say again that you are simply arguing past the point - that the past participle exhausts the notion to which it is attached.
Given that salvation by definition encompasses the full life of a man, his full being, in saying that that salvation is now locked in to the past so that it might fully describe the object (man) it qualifies, we necessarily preclude any contingency with regard to eternal security: the semantic of the past participle simply prohibits such.


In "the lawn is mowed", what is understood is that all the requirements to exhaust the notion of a lawn mowed, are fulfilled. That grass grows again is irrelevant, and simply an indication of the insufficiency of this particular analogy. (Other (new) atoms of grass are not the specific atoms which were cut off.)

In "the bottle is broken", what is understood is that all the requirements to exhaust the notion of a bottle broken, are fulfilled. Other bottles are irrelevant. The 'universe' (scope) of "broken" is concerned with one bottle only. As far as it is 'concerned', no other bottles exist.

In "the race is finished", what is understood is that all the requirements to exhaust the notion of a race finished, are fulfilled. Other races are irrelevant, and it is understood that the race finished will not be re-run.

In "the man is saved", what is understood is that all the requirements to exhaust the notion of a man saved, are fulfilled.
The man's whole life is encapsulated by the participle "saved", for "saved" only has meaning when applied to one's life as one indivisible unit.
This whole life is equivalent to the particular atoms of lawn actually mowed in your lawn analogy, and not also to the new atoms of grass that grow up afterward in their stead.
For the man is indivisible, and irreplaceable: he alone exhausts his place in history, and cannot be appended to by stuff similiar to himself: he is already present in his entirety: no part of him can be repeated, copied, or cloned. This is why your lawn analogy simpy won't do, and why a rope cut is better suited to describe the situation.

But the argument can be put much simpler: "Saved" means what it says.

 

[Mimi]

oh....wow....

Nah, Thanks for this grammar lesson. I can sure need it

 

[nobdysfool]

No, the problem is that you don't understand, or are willingly are ignoring, that whether the past participle "assumes a repeat of the notion" or not, one can take place. Hence, although "my lawn is mowed" does not assume it will be mowed again in the future, I can assure you that it probably will be. It is certainly possible that it will be, although you are trying to say it isn't.

The point is, having cut the grass, you cannot go back and do that exact same action over again. Once it is done, it is beyond your ability to affect that which has been done. You may perform a similar action in the future, but it is not the same action as the one you performed in the past. It is another of the same type, but not the exact same one.

It is the same principle as the Law of Physics which states that two identical objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. You cannot do the same exact action more than once.

Cutting the grass is a poor analogy. Cutting a rope, or breaking a bottle are better ones, because of the finality of them.

Salvation has finality to it, by definition.

 

[Colossians]

NBF,

The point is, having cut the grass, you cannot go back and do that exact same action over again. Once it is done, it is beyond your ability to affect that which has been done. You may perform a similar action in the future, but it is not the same action as the one you performed in the past. It is another of the same type, but not the exact same one.

It is the same principle as the Law of Physics which states that two identical objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. You cannot do the same exact action more than once.
Cutting the grass is a poor analogy. Cutting a rope, or breaking a bottle are better ones, because of the finality of them.

Salvation has finality to it, by definition.


I wish I'd said it as succinctly and concisely as this!

 

[christian-only]

Someone is drowning in a pool. You save them. They are saved. They get back in the pool. They are drowning. You save them again. They get back in the pool. They are drowning. You save them yet again. Where is the finality? It doesn't exist so long as they are near or in the pool. Salvation has no finality until death, where we finally leave the pool for good.

 

[Colossians]

Christian-only,

Unfortunately you are locked into your mindset, which precludes any serious attempt at comprehending the notion of the thread.

The art of debate does not involve mere assertion of your own idea, but the proper comprehension of the opposition, and then the negation thereof - if there indeed can be a negation.

You have simply not comprehended what has been laid down. Do you really think your argument has not been considered before the thread was constructed?
Do you really think that myself and NBF have just overlooked the obvious?
No, you need to look good and hard at the concept laid down, and understand as you do that it must obviously preclude your predictable response.

 

[christian-only]

Christian-only,

Unfortunately you are locked into your mindset, which precludes any serious attempt at comprehending the notion of the thread.

The art of debate does not involve mere assertion of your own idea, but the proper comprehension of the opposition, and then the negation thereof - if there indeed can be a negation.

You have simply not comprehended what has been laid down. Do you really think your argument has not been considered before the thread was constructed?
Do you really think that myself and NBF have just overlooked the obvious?
No, you need to look good and hard at the concept laid down, and understand as you do that it must obviously preclude your predictable response.

In my experience, people who say this sort of stuff are transfering their characteristics onto others. I hope you grow out of it.

 

[Colossians]

Christian only,

It is not of great concern to me that you have not understood the notion in the thread: such can be overcome. What is of concern, is that you are not interested in understanding it, and as such, are simply cluttering up the thread with void responses such as your previous.

 

[frumanchu]

Someone is drowning in a pool. You save them. They are saved. They get back in the pool. They are drowning. You save them again. They get back in the pool. They are drowning. You save them yet again. Where is the finality? It doesn't exist so long as they are near or in the pool. Salvation has no finality until death, where we finally leave the pool for good.

Yes...God so loved the world that He stood by while men repeatedly drowned themselves and only offered a life preserver when they got enough air to ask for it...

 

[AndOne]

Good Point Fru -

Doesn't sound much like salvation to me at all - sounds like "cat and mouse" - of which I personally want no part of....

 

[Critical_Enquirer]

The Arminian likes to use the phrase "once saved always saved" to describe what he feels is the Calvinist position.

Calvinists don't believe "once saved always saved", because Calvinists (at least those who are competent linguists) realise that the phrase "once saved" is a contradiction of semantics - an oxymoron.

The oxymoron lies in the fact that the adverb "once" necessarily implies an instance, but the past participle "saved" (and any other past participle) implies an irreversible historical event, with irreversible ramifications.
This is why there is no similar statement in English with other past participles: no-one says "do you believe that once a bottle is broken, it is always broken?", or "do you believe that once a man is healed from typhoid, he is always healed from typhoid?", or "do you believe that once a man has cried, he has always cried?"

The Arminian thinks he counters this by saying things like: "Ah! But a man can become sick of typhoid again!", but this is simply an argument based upon his faulty semantics: he feels he can append an occurence of a particular event, with a re-occurence, and consider the twain to be one event only.

When one says things like, "I am healed", or "it is broken", the past participle concerns only the particular healing, or the particular breaking. That is, there might be other healings of a man from other illnesses or even from the same illness in the future, but this does not mean that those other healings fall within the scope of the "healing" first mentioned. Put more simply, if I have two blue pegs in my hand, identical in every respect, each is still not the other.

The use of the past participle "saved" in Christianity, is parallel to the "healed" above when the "healed" refers to a particular healing, and not parallel to a self-incrementing notion such as we find in computer programs (eg: healed1 := healed1 + healed2).
A past participle is exhaustive of the singular event it describes. Because any event is by definition unique, the past participle which describes it cannot be made to equal the event it describes, plus another clone of that event. It may only refer to its particular event.

Accordingly, when one says he is "saved", this "saved' is exhausted by (or exhausts) the notion to which it is attached. And that the past participle is used, necessarily means that the event is relegated to history, where it cannot be accessed anymore: it is complete.

The Arminian should use a phrase like "do you believe that once a man has made a commitment to Christ, he will remain committed?", which deals solely with the pragmatic aspect he is trying to single out.
As it is, however, his confusing of pragmatic and statal aspects renders him to be on unstable ground from the start. His mis-matching of the adverb "once" with the past participle "saved" presents for him a 'summary' of a position which he intends to discredit, with the 'fuel' for the discrediting contained within the summary itself. Redundancy.

The question is not whether one was saved (Eph 2:8 new birth event) but whether or not the Christian WILL BE saved when Jesus comes again and whether he can fall short of that salvation event. THAT is the question.
The Bible clearly answers that the "once saved" Christian can fall short of being saved on that day.

 

[AndOne]

The Bible clearly answers that the "once saved" Christian can fall short of being saved on that day.

Does it? Please point out book, chapter, and verse please - and keep in mind it must CLEARLY point out out the ONCE SAVED CHRISTIAN CAN FALL SHORT OF BEING SAVED ON THE DAY...

Thanks.

 

[Commoner]

Does it? Please point out book, chapter, and verse please - and keep in mind it must CLEARLY point out out the ONCE SAVED CHRISTIAN CAN FALL SHORT OF BEING SAVED ON THE DAY...

Thanks.

So you need it word for word as you yourself demand it to be or you have a license to believe what you like? Zat how it works?

The entire book of Hebrews was written to Christians as a warning not to fall short of salvation when Jesus comes. You may want to most specifically read chapters 2 through 4 to begin.

Perhaps you would like to explain why the author would write such a letter.

Commoner