I managed to read 250 pages of Arminius' works volume 1. He is actually closer to the Scripture than Calvin and lived a more holy life and was more tolerant to those who disagreed with him than Calvin. So Arminianism has its good points, but so does Calvinism. It is just the extremes either way that lead to error.
Pelagius went wrong in saying that man is totally free to make his own choices about justification and sanctification. He taught that the Holy Spirit was dependent on man in these areas. He denied the sovereignty of God. Arminius disagreed. He accepted the sovereignty of God and the involvement of the Holy Spirit in Justification and sanctification, and says that the issue of predestination is a mystery but does not accept that God deliberately creates souls for an eternity in Hell.
But if we get back the Scripture we see that Paul's view of the Christian walk involved running the race, fighting the good fight of faith, keeping the body under subjection. These require active effort, not sitting on the couch passively and saying it is all of Christ. That notion came up as a very serious heresy in the 17th Century and was simply antinomianism.
Please quote Pelagius saying those things. He did nott each the things you say.
When one is in the sanctified state, therer is no sitting back - it is a battle to stay there as it is by faith.
Upvote
0