Wesleyan-Arminian Basics.

Aussie52 · Apr 30, 2026

What are the basics in Wesleyan-Arminian theology? A helpful way to remember is the word, " FACTS".

F. Freed will. The Bible's picture of the unregenerate person is very bleak. He/she has no desire in themselves to seek after God. Their whole being, especially the will, is turned away from God. Without God's intervention, there is no hope of salvation. But in this situation God comes to every individual in grace and seeks them out. This is called. Prevenient Grace, grace that precedes. Through prevenient grace, God opens the heart and mind and frees the will, which was bound in sin, to be able to freely accept or reject the offer of salvation.

A. Atonement for ALL. The Bible teaches us in many places the Jesus died for all the world and tasted death for every man. Jesus, through His death on the Cross has made provision for the forgiveness and salvation of every person. Thus, all potentially may be saved if they but put their trust in Him.

C. Conditional election. God has elected or chosen that those who respond to the Gospel call, in true faith and continue thus, will eventually be conformed into the image of Christ. Our destiny is to be like the Lord Jesus.

T. Total Depravity. This means that mankind, outside of a relationship with Christ, is captive to sin. Sin permeates every aspect of one's life. We are lost, completely without God and spiritually dead (separated from God). The idea of total depravity must not be divorced from the truth of God's prevenient grace.

S. Security in Christ. The Bible teaches that the Christian's salvation is secure as they remain IN Christ. Salvation is conditional. It is entered and maintained by our faith in God. It is possible to forfeit our salvation through failing to trust God, persistent rebellion against Him and abandoning one's relationship with Christ.
Despite this possibility, the grace of God is there to keep us from falling. We are kept by the power of God through faith.

rockytopva · May 3, 2026

My GC Rankin thread takes one back to the old Wesleyan revival. Would we ever be able to recreate such events?

The Life of George Clark Rankin

I am currently reading "The Life of George Clark Rankin" located at George Clark Rankin. The Story of My Life Or More Than a Half Century As I Have Lived It and Seen It Lived Written by Myself at My Own Suggestion and That of Many Others Who Have Known and Loved Me If you have an Ipad you can...

www.christianforums.com

Aussie52 · May 3, 2026

rockytopva said:
My GC Rankin thread takes one back to the old Wesleyan revival. Would we ever be able to recreate such events?

The Life of George Clark Rankin

I am currently reading "The Life of George Clark Rankin" located at George Clark Rankin. The Story of My Life Or More Than a Half Century As I Have Lived It and Seen It Lived Written by Myself at My Own Suggestion and That of Many Others Who Have Known and Loved Me If you have an Ipad you can...

www.christianforums.com

I believe there are those who are hoping and praying for a revival of,' scriptural holiness', spread throughout the land.
Speaking of 'the old Wesleyan revival', I have recently ordered from Amazon, the biographies of Peter Cartwright and Francis Asbury. They were circuit preachers and so much a part of that revival.
God bless.

John Bauer · May 27, 2026

Thank you for laying this out. I have a question about the second point (“Atonement for all”), especially the statement that “Jesus, through his death on the cross, has made provision for the forgiveness and salvation of every person.”

From a Wesleyan-Arminian standpoint: What exactly did Christ accomplish on the cross?

I understand the general claim that Christ died for all and thereby made all people genuinely savable, and that salvation is received through faith. I am trying to understand the atonement itself more precisely. In Wesleyan-Arminian theology, when we say Christ made provision for the forgiveness and salvation of every person, what does “provision” include?

For example, does Wesleyan-Arminian theology understand Christ’s death in terms of penal substitutionary atonement? How would you describe the objective accomplishment of the cross before its benefits are personally received by faith?

This is not intended as a debate or a challenge to Wesleyan-Arminian teaching. I am asking so I can understand the doctrine on its own terms.

Aussie52 · May 27, 2026

John Bauer said:
Thank you for laying this out. I have a question about the second point (“Atonement for all”), especially the statement that “Jesus, through his death on the cross, has made provision for the forgiveness and salvation of every person.”

From a Wesleyan-Arminian standpoint: What exactly did Christ accomplish on the cross?

I understand the general claim that Christ died for all and thereby made all people genuinely savable, and that salvation is received through faith. I am trying to understand the atonement itself more precisely. In Wesleyan-Arminian theology, when we say Christ made provision for the forgiveness and salvation of every person, what does “provision” include?

For example, does Wesleyan-Arminian theology understand Christ’s death in terms of penal substitutionary atonement? How would you describe the objective accomplishment of the cross before its benefits are personally received by faith?

This is not intended as a debate or a challenge to Wesleyan-Arminian teaching. I am asking so I can understand the doctrine on its own terms.

Thanks for your post
Jesus, by dying on the Cross, took upon Himself the punishment that we should have paid for. Through His death He satisfied the justice and holiness of God enabling the Father to be able to pardon our sins. In other words, Christ dealt with the sin problem by His death.
Christ's death was provisional; through his death he opened the way for the forgiveness of the sins of all humanity. That forgiveness becomes actual in our lives when we repent of our sins and put out faith in Jesus Christ.
Most Wesleyans follow the penal substitutionary atonement theory (PSA) with some modifications. The Calvinist view of the PSA is that the atonement obtains actual forgiveness of sins before there is any response by the individual sinner.
The Wesleyan view as I stated above, is provisional in nature actualized upon conversion.

I hope this helps. Feel free to ask anything Wesleyan.

John Bauer · Friday at 7:20 AM

Aussie52 said:
Thanks for your post
Jesus, by dying on the Cross, took upon Himself the punishment that we should have paid for. Through His death He satisfied the justice and holiness of God enabling the Father to be able to pardon our sins. In other words, Christ dealt with the sin problem by His death.
Christ's death was provisional; through his death he opened the way for the forgiveness of the sins of all humanity. That forgiveness becomes actual in our lives when we repent of our sins and put out faith in Jesus Christ.
Most Wesleyans follow the penal substitutionary atonement theory (PSA) with some modifications. The Calvinist view of the PSA is that the atonement obtains actual forgiveness of sins before there is any response by the individual sinner.
The Wesleyan view as I stated above, is provisional in nature actualized upon conversion.

I hope this helps. Feel free to ask anything Wesleyan.

That does help, thank you.

You said, “The Calvinist view of the PSA is that the atonement obtains actual forgiveness of sins before there is any response by the individual sinner.” I understand Calvinist soteriology. I am seeking to understand Wesleyan-Arminian soteriology, and your statement here raised a question for me: Is that not also true of Wesleyan-Arminian soteriology, that “the atonement obtains actual forgiveness of sins before there is any response by the individual sinner”? Or are you indicating a real distinction between the two views of PSA?

In order to make sure that I am understanding the word “provisional” correctly (because you said that “Christ’s death was provisional”), it may help to have a clearer picture of the cross. When Wesleyan-Arminian theology says that Christ took upon himself the penalty due for our sins and satisfied God’s justice, how should that be understood in relation to those who do not repent and believe?

More specifically, does Wesleyan-Arminian theology understand Christ as having actually borne the specific penal liability of each person’s sins, including those who finally reject forgiveness? If not, what does it mean to say that Christ’s death “satisfied” the justice of God with respect to those sins?

I understand that forgiveness is personally received through repentance and faith. I am trying to understand the antecedent question of what Christ objectively accomplished by his death. This is separate from the personal application of its benefits, which is downstream from the question I am asking.

Disclaimer: I am not here to debate the point. These questions are seeking to understand the Wesleyan-Arminian view on its own terms (rather than how an outsider would describe it). If any part of my wording sounds argumentative, that is not my intent; I am trying to ask the question as clearly and respectfully as I can.

Aussie52 · Friday at 5:57 PM

John Bauer said:
That does help, thank you.

You said, “The Calvinist view of the PSA is that the atonement obtains actual forgiveness of sins before there is any response by the individual sinner.” I understand Calvinist soteriology. I am seeking to understand Wesleyan-Arminian soteriology, and your statement here raised a question for me: Is that not also true of Wesleyan-Arminian soteriology, that “the atonement obtains actual forgiveness of sins before there is any response by the individual sinner”? Or are you indicating a real distinction between the two views of PSA?

In order to make sure that I am understanding the word “provisional” correctly (because you said that “Christ’s death was provisional”), it may help to have a clearer picture of the cross. When Wesleyan-Arminian theology says that Christ took upon himself the penalty due for our sins and satisfied God’s justice, how should that be understood in relation to those who do not repent and believe?

More specifically, does Wesleyan-Arminian theology understand Christ as having actually borne the specific penal liability of each person’s sins, including those who finally reject forgiveness? If not, what does it mean to say that Christ’s death “satisfied” the justice of God with respect to those sins?

I understand that forgiveness is personally received through repentance and faith. I am trying to understand the antecedent question of what Christ objectively accomplished by his death. This is separate from the personal application of its benefits, which is downstream from the question I am asking.

Disclaimer: I am not here to debate the point. These questions are seeking to understand the Wesleyan-Arminian view on its own terms (rather than how an outsider would describe it). If any part of my wording sounds argumentative, that is not my intent; I am trying to ask the question as clearly and respectfully as I can.

Hi John,
You sure are asking deep questions of the like that I might not be able to answer. Let me try!
I believe there is a difference in the understanding of PSA between Calvinist and Arminian. The first sees the Atonement procuring forgiveness of sins prior to any response in the sinner. The second, sees the Atonement doing all that is necessary from God's side to make possible, the forgiveness of sins. Actual forgiveness happens when the sinner responds to saving grace in repentance and faith.

I think that when contemplating Christ's atonement, we need to steer clear of seeing it in a commercial sense. That is, one amount of suffering by Christ for one amount of sinning by the sinner. There is a sense of 'mystery' surrounding the finer details of Christ's sufferings on the Cross for mankind. We see it more in the realm of faith and worship, rather than in reason.
I am sorry I can't be more specific in answering all your questions, but they are deep and a bit beyond my present understanding.

I remembered the chorus of a hymn we used to sing,

I need no other argument,
I need no other plea.
It is enough, that Jesus died.
And that He died for me.

Blessings.

Studyman · 2026-06-06T08:46:15-0500

John Bauer said:
That does help, thank you.

You said, “The Calvinist view of the PSA is that the atonement obtains actual forgiveness of sins before there is any response by the individual sinner.” I understand Calvinist soteriology. I am seeking to understand Wesleyan-Arminian soteriology, and your statement here raised a question for me: Is that not also true of Wesleyan-Arminian soteriology, that “the atonement obtains actual forgiveness of sins before there is any response by the individual sinner”? Or are you indicating a real distinction between the two views of PSA?

In order to make sure that I am understanding the word “provisional” correctly (because you said that “Christ’s death was provisional”), it may help to have a clearer picture of the cross. When Wesleyan-Arminian theology says that Christ took upon himself the penalty due for our sins and satisfied God’s justice, how should that be understood in relation to those who do not repent and believe?

I have not adopted the Calvinist/Wesleyan-Armenian, or any other popular religious sect that existed in the world God placed me in, but I think your questions are great, and would like to share my understanding. I hope you don't mind.

What a great question. And how important is it to consider Every Word Jesus spoke in determining or discerning between His actual Gospel, and the traditions, philosophies and doctrines of the many differing religions of this world that God placed us in.

Luke 13: 3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

It is good to ask questions about different religions that exist in the world God placed us in. Consider how much Jesus spoke about the traditions, commandments of men and doctrines promoted by the mainstream religions of His Time.

John Bauer said:
More specifically, does Wesleyan-Arminian theology understand Christ as having actually borne the specific penal liability of each person’s sins, including those who finally reject forgiveness? If not, what does it mean to say that Christ’s death “satisfied” the justice of God with respect to those sins?

And it is written that in the end, men will be judged by their own choices, works and deeds. Even Christ Himself, in the last part of the Bible, reminds men that we "reap what we sow". Rev. 22: 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

John Bauer said:
I understand that forgiveness is personally received through repentance and faith. I am trying to understand the antecedent question of what Christ objectively accomplished by his death.

In my understanding, Christ offered HIS Life to God, to give me another chance to humble myself in honor, respect and obedience to God. I mean, the reason why I'm in trouble is because I rejected God's Judgments, Statutes and Commandments, in favor of my lusts, desires and wants, Yes? And this because I didn't really believe God knows what is best for me. In other words, "Because that, when I knew God, I glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in my imaginations, and my foolish heart was darkened. Professing myself to be wise, I became a fool.

But God be thanked, that I was a servant of sin, but have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered me. Being then made free from sin, I became the servant of (God's) righteousness.

None of this would matter if not for the Christ advocating between me and His Father. Offering Himself to God to give me another chance at voluntary humility.

At least, this is what I believe Christ objectively accomplished by His Death.

I know you didn't ask me. I hope you don't mind me butting in.

John Bauer · 2026-06-07T07:47:34-0500

Aussie52 said:
You sure are asking deep questions of the like that I might not be able to answer. Let me try!

That is okay. The questions will always be there for anyone to answer, should someone happen along who believes they can.

Aussie52 said:
I believe there is a difference in the understanding of [penal substitutionary atonement] between Calvinists and Arminians. [Reformed Calvinism] sees the atonement procuring forgiveness of sins prior to any response in the sinner. [Wesleyan Arminianism] sees the atonement doing all that is necessary from God's side to make possible the forgiveness of sins. Actual forgiveness happens when the sinner responds to saving grace in repentance and faith.

Okay, so under Wesleyan-Arminian theology, Christ upon the cross did not procure forgiveness of sins? Is that the difference? That would make things suddenly interesting: If actual forgiveness happens when the sinner responds with repentance and faith, then who procured that forgiveness, if not Christ? The sinner?

Aussie52 said:
I think that when contemplating Christ's atonement, we need to steer clear of seeing it in a commercial sense. That is, one amount of suffering by Christ for one amount of sinning by the sinner.

For whatever it’s worth, I don’t hear it that way. What you are describing sounds forensic to me, not commercial: the guilt of sin incurs a penalty, which Christ bears on behalf of those for whom he died, right? And this is how Christ satisfied the justice of God for those specific sins?

The question for me, then, is why bearing the penalty and satisfying God’s justice did not procure forgiveness of sins.

But maybe that is a question for someone else who affirms a Wesleyan-Arminian theology to answer.

Aussie52 said:
There is a sense of 'mystery' surrounding the finer details of Christ's sufferings on the cross for mankind. We see it more in the realm of faith and worship, rather than in reason.

I agree. I don’t remember who said it—was it Paul Washer?—but someone once said that when we get to heaven we will finally have all our questions answered. What did the garden of Eden look like? Is there life on other planets? Why did I have to go through this or that experience? But, he went on to say, not even eternity itself will be long enough to exhaust the depths of the gospel, so great is its mystery.

But while it is beyond reason, it is not contrary to reason. The finer details of the atonement will make sense, for God is true, wise, and rational. So if it doesn’t make sense or contradicts Scripture in some way, then we have misunderstood something.

Aussie52 said:
I am sorry I can't be more specific in answering all your questions, but they are deep and a bit beyond my present understanding.

I remembered the chorus of a hymn we used to sing,

I need no other argument,
I need no other plea.
It is enough, that Jesus died.
And that He died for me.

Blessings.

That is totally okay. I can recognize when I’ve exceeded my limits, too. That’s a good thing and understandable.

John Bauer · 2026-06-07T07:48:13-0500

Studyman said:
I have not adopted the Calvinist/Wesleyan-Armenian, or any other popular religious sect that existed in the world God placed me in, but I think your questions are great, and would like to share my understanding. I hope you don't mind.

I appreciate your willingness to engage my questions, but I am seeking to understand Wesleyan-Arminian theology, which your understanding will not reflect.

However, my DMs are open to anyone, if you would like to explore this elsewhere.

Search

Search

Wesleyan-Arminian Basics.

Aussie52

Well-Known Member

More options

rockytopva

Love to pray! :)

The Life of George Clark Rankin

More options

Aussie52

Well-Known Member

The Life of George Clark Rankin

More options

John Bauer

Reformed

More options

Aussie52

Well-Known Member

More options

John Bauer

Reformed

More options

Aussie52

Well-Known Member

More options

Studyman

Well-Known Member

More options

John Bauer

Reformed

More options

John Bauer

Reformed

More options

Similar threads