Trying to understand Arminianism

good post

and i believe you will not get many arminians to respond to this post of yours.
it is probably very uncomfortable for those who believe it is a human right to decide for heaven or hell based maybe with a little coaxing from God that can be resisted with human will and strength. but i thank God that when we were without strength Christ died for the ungodly.
i fear that arminians may not know this truth

 

The grammar of the verse Eph 2:8 (even in the Greek) makes it difficult to interpret the verse to mean anything else but that faith is the GIFT of God - and you don't even need to add the part about boasting to show that.

Let's look at the verse again (emphasis mine):

You are saved by grace - the unmerited gift of God.

What is the process by which God has saved you? Through faith.

Now here is the big question - when he says "that" is not of yourselves, to what does "that" refer? Grammatically, "that" does not refer back to "saved". It is not grammatically correct to say "It is by grace you have been saved through faith, and that [saved] is not of yourselves."

Paul was a brilliant writer, and any good writer who wanted to communicate the message that it is salvation we receive as a gift would have had to say, "For it is by grace you have received salvation through faith, and that [salvation] is not of yourselves." So while it is remotely possible this is what Paul meant, it is atypical of Paul to have made this grammatic error in order to communicate this point.

That leaves only two things left - grace and faith. Either he means "that [grace] is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" or "that [faith] is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God".

The former is redundant. Grace is, by definition, the unmerited favor or unmerited gift of God. To say that grace is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God is simply to say grace is grace. While such a tautology is true, it's not like Paul to indulge in tautologies.

That leaves only one way to interpret this verse and respect Paul's ability to communicate clearly.

Not only is this the most grammatically acceptable interpretation, it is confirmed by many other verses in the Bible. For one of many examples...

It has been granted to us -- for the benefit of Christ -- to believe on Him. And so on...

 

I could argue the point that faith is of man but I don't believe that, nor do I think true Arminians believe that. Faith is certainly a gift from God that comes through the hearing of the gospel. All good things come from God.

But in this debate we need to ask ourselves what point Paul was striving to make when he stated, "lest any man should boast." Was he trying to debunk the Arminian idea that people are "saving themselves" by having faith in God? Did he see that people were taking glory from God by claiming faith as their work? Well, I think it is best to allow scripture to interpret scripture. Where else does Paul refer to men boasting. How about Romans 3?

Notice that once again Paul refers to boasting. Are the people boasting of their faith? No, quite the contrayary, they are boasting in their works of the law which is held up as the antithesis of faith. So too, in Eph. Paul is telling them that men are saved by faith and that salvation is not of themselves, that is by works of the law, but that salvation is by Grace through faith, the antithesis of works based salvation.

It is clear what Paul's intent is in this passage. He is not fighting against us heritical glory grabbing Arminians as you seem to suppose. He is fighting against those who are seeking righteousness through the law of righteousness instead of the righteousness of faith.

 

Arminians believe that faith in Christ, which comes by the gospel, gives us new birth.

Notice this verse clearly teaches that we are "born again through the word of God." Now, Calvinists would have us believe that "word" was an irresistable calling, but read what the passage goes on to say...

The same word that brings us new birth is the same word that was preached to us.

God gives us new birth through faith and faith comes through the hearing of the word as Romans 10 teaches.

 

I don't many Calvinists who would say that. In fact, I don't know any, but there may be some. The point is that regeneration does not come apart from the word, but rather in conjunction with the word. This verse is talking about the necessity of the preached/communicated word in the regeneration of men.

 

I don't many Calvinists who would say that. In fact, I don't know any, but there may be some. The point is that regeneration does not come apart from the word, but rather in conjunction with the word. This verse is talking about the necessity of the preached/communicated word in the regeneration of men. </font>[/QUOTE]That is what I was refering to...the fact that Calvinists insist that the word being preached is not enough, there must also be the irresistable calling. The problem is that the passage doesn't refer to being reborn through the irresistable calling, it says it comes through the preaching of the word. That is the means God chose, no other means is ever mentioned.

 

The first problem with your question is that it begins with "if". Its not a matter of "if". The scripture clearly states, "faith comes by hearing," in Romans 10:17. The question should be, "Since faith comes by the hearing of the word of God, then why doesn't everyone who hears it believe?"

The answer to that question is that some people are unwilling to believe or accept what they hear. (Matt. 23:37) Some resist the Holy Spirit. (Act 7:51) But the reason is certainly not because God did not give them all that they needed to repent and believe as Calvinism asserts.

And James goes on to say that true faith will work. That is how you know its true faith, by its fruit. You will know them by their fruits. So we are not saved through works but we certainly can be assured of the geniuness of faith by them.

Amen! Preach it!

You are not worthy because of your sin and whatever measure of faith you have came as a direct result of God's work in bringing the Holy Spirit wrought gospel message to this unworthy world. Your faith will falter which is why God gives us an examples of men who struggled with faith such as Thomas and another example of the man who prayed, "Lord help my unbelief."

God can and does through the means he has appointed. What means? The Word.

Actually I think you are quoting from I Corinthians, but that verse is not teaching us that the lost cannot recieve the gospel as you are applying. In fact if you continue on into the next few verses you will see that the Corithian church could recieved the "deep things of God" to which Paul was referring. Its apparent therefore that Paul is not speaking of natural men inability to recieve the gospel message, but instead that it is impossible for them to understand the "deep things of God" which are spiritually decerned, things that even the carnal Christians of Corith had failed to recieve to that point.

So you are saying man is not responsible for his own faith? So he is not responsible for his lack of faith either, right? Why does Christ rebuke men for their unbelief? Shouldn't he rebuke God for not giving them faith? Remember Paul is not addressing Armianism. He is not fighting against men who are boasting in their faith. If he were he certainly wouldn't have said, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," without qualifing that with some explaination. He was fighting against those who believed in salvation through the law and it works. Those are the ones "boasting" and those are the ones Paul is addressing. By appling that to our discussion you are taking Paul's intent aimed toward those who believe in salvation through works and pointing toward those who believe in salvation through faith. That is poor hermenuetics at best and hersy at its worst.

 

Sure there are other means mentioned. Scripture often talks of hte call, illumination, giving, etc. The point is that just becuase a verse does not specifically mention something, that does not mean that thing is excluded. It is a given that something else is necessary. Scripture teaches it elsewhere.

 

I agree. In fact I wish Calvinists would remember that when we discuss Romans 8 where Paul doesn't mention men's response to God's calling as being apart of the process listed there. But in that case I have tons of scripture that speaks of faith being a requirement, what we need from you is some verse that says the irrestiable call is a requirement for new birth to show that the gospel isn't enough. 1 Peter gives us the means for new birth as the word of God. Could you list the verses that give other means required for new birth. Thanks

 

First, where does the scripture say that there is a "gift of celebacy"? I'm just not fimiliar with that and would like to look it over. Thanks.

Second, God does call fornicators to repent. The call itself is implies ability. I don't know any man, with a "gift or celebacy" or not, who could not mess up and commit fornication. It is possible. This is where your comparison falls short because your doctrine says its not possible for certain men who are rebuked for their lack of faith to have faith, but it would be possible for one who had this so called 'gift of celebacy' to commit fornication. The ability for man to respond is what makes him responsible. (response able)

Here are some questions you should ask:

1. Is the blindness from birth or do men become blinded by the world in time?

2. Does this blindness have a cure?

3. Is the Holy Spirit wrought gospel message enough of a cure to heal one blinded by this world?

If that is all that is required to be a Calvinists then count me in.

 

Also grammatically speaking of Eph. 2:8-9, where Paul says "For you are being saved by grace through faith," the word through can only mean "by means of" rather than "because of." That's because there are two meanings of dia and which one is intended is indicated by the gender used, genitive or accusative. Paul used the gender (genitive) that restricts dia exclusively to "by means of." So God uses faith as the means of grace that saves; he does not give saving grace on the basis that one's own faith has "earned" it.

Tauf (Arminian)