Arminianism is not Semi-Pelagian

[BobRyan]

saved or unsaved, but if they come into Christ they get to walk in
that call.

lol....not in the bible...not even close, no one seeks God, no not one.

you are conflating two different things.

Romans 3 deals with the sinful nature that all have.

But "we beg YOU on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5 is an appeal TO that lost person with that same sinful nature.

What is more "I will draw ALL MANKIND " John 12:32 is the very supernatural drawing of ALL that Calvinism most loves to deny. Because in Calvinism all would be saved if all were drawn since some forms of Calvinism project an almost robot like condition for mankind with 'switch on' or 'switch off' and no free will enabled by God -- only the "discovery" that "switch is on" or "switch is still off" -- no matter what God says to the contrary.

When Jesus died on the cross, many , multitudes of people had already died. How were they drawn to Christ according to your theory Bob.....you are saying it is all men ever born.

1. The Calvinists do not claim that all mankind is supernaturally drawn to Christ after the cross.

2. The drawing of the lost - someone depraved with a sinful nature - is a key element in the Gospel. Can't be saved without it - according to Arminians.

Gal 1:6-9 there is only ONE Gospel
Gal 3:8 that Gospel was preached to Abraham
Matthew 17 - Moses and Elijah with Christ in glorified form - before the cross.
Hebrews 11 -- all the giants of faith - are before the cross.
John 3:16 "God so Loved the WORLD" before "He gave" -- before the cross.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

you are conflating two different things.

Romans 3 deals with the sinful nature that all have.

But "we beg YOU on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5 is an appeal TO that lost person with that same sinful nature.

What is more "I will draw ALL MANKIND " John 12:32 is the very supernatural drawing of ALL that Calvinism most loves to deny. Because in Calvinism all would be saved if all were drawn since some forms of Calvinism project an almost robot like condition for mankind with 'switch on' or 'switch off' and no free will enabled by God -- only the "discovery" that "switch is on" or "switch is still off" -- no matter what God says to the contrary.



1. The Calvinists do not claim that all mankind is supernaturally drawn to Christ after the cross.

2. The drawing of the lost - someone depraved with a sinful nature - is a key element in the Gospel. Can't be saved without it - according to Arminians.

Gal 1:6-9 there is only ONE Gospel
Gal 3:8 that Gospel was preached to Abraham
Matthew 17 - Moses and Elijah with Christ in glorified form - before the cross.
Hebrews 11 -- all the giants of faith - are before the cross.
John 3:16 "God so Loved the WORLD" before "He gave" -- before the cross.

you are avoiding the question Bob...you used your favorite verse jn 12:32
Now explain what you think it means...who are the all men??? answer this Bob...how does it apply from gen. to rev.

 

[redleghunter]

I think it's a good thing to discuss theological views without putting words in the mouth of others with different views or making assumptions.

One of those assumptions Calvinists, especially, make is that they assume Arminianism is semi-pelagian.

I get why they do this. I thought this was true for many years, and so (somewhat grudgingly) was a Calvinist because I thought there really wasn't any other option besides Calvinist or Semi-Pelagian.

But, as time went by, I gradually began to shed each letter from TULIP (it started with Limited Atonement) and by the time I got to something like a 2-point Calvinist, I realised that I could never call myself a Calvinist if I only accepted like 2 points of its 5 point doctrine.

When I actually studied Arminian thought, I was surprised.

So without further ado, let me lay my case down as briefly as possible and let the fiery discussion begin! (I'm sorry I cannot explain some of these terms in detail - for those who don't know what some of these terms mean, just ask!).

A. There are four options when it comes to your soteriology:

1. Augustinian (Calvinist)
2. Semi-Augustinian (Arminian)
3. Semi-Pelagian
4. Pelagian

I won't venture to guess who sits at (3) and (4) at this point, perhaps that'll come up under the discussion.

Calvinists, especially, tend to never consider (2) above. They think it consists of Augustinian and then Semi-Pelagian, and then full-blown Pelagianism. But there is another option.

B. Arminianism is semi-Augustinian because it does not claim a person has the ability to put their faith in Christ.

Classical Arminianism (I'm talking Arminius himself and Wesley here) teaches that a person is totally depraved and incapable of having faith in Christ by themselves. What is required is the Holy Spirit to convict and give someone faith. However, the difference between a Calvinist here and an Arminian is that an Arminian believes that the grace given by God to a person (it is in this grace that faith is given) can be rejected, whereas a Calvinist believes it can't.

The point to note is that both the Calvinist and the Arminian believe that a person does not have anything in them to have faith in Christ. Both believe in Total Depravity. Faith must be given by the Holy Spirit. So there is a point of similarity / unity here.

The difference also, of course, revolves around the 'who' is given grace. The Calvinist bases the grace ultimately on the hidden will of God (predestination). God chooses before time who he will elect and who he passes over. This is 'unconditional election'. The Arminian believes that everyone is given grace at some point in their lives. God's revelation of Himself is given to all at some stage by the Holy Spirit. Everyone has the ability at some stage to accept or reject Christ. This is not a once-off moment but it may be gradually over their lives.

One can think of this as a 'grace' that 'comes before' salvation. It's a grace where God is drawing a person in, wooing them. This is called 'prevenient (comes before) grace'. If a person responds to this grace they are eventually given faith (most especially through the preaching of the Word - Romans 10:17). This grace can be resisted, however.

The important thing to note in this, however, is that God is the initiatior. God is in charge of when revelation comes, how it comes, at what rate it comes, and so on. God prepares the heart for faith and subsequent salvation. This is a work of God and not of man.

Modern day stories abound of Muslims given dreams etc. of Christ. I myself have met one. But scriptural support comes in many forms. I'll simply paste one here and refer to another:

Acts 17:
26 From one man he made every nation of the human race to inhabit the entire earth, determining their set times and the fixed limits of the places where they would live, 27 so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

Romans 1, 2 and 3 is also a very interesting read - note how even though the Gentiles do not have the Law, they still have an understanding of their obligations to God.

Okay, I'm trying to be brief.

This is why an Arminian (in the pure, classical sense) is not Semi-Pelagian, because an Arminian does not believe that mankind still possesses something to come to God or to find God - some sort of inherent goodness that leads a person to salvation based on their own nature.

Therefore, Arminianism is semi-Augustinian.

C. Arminianism does believe in predestination - but it's also different

Lastly, let's talk predestination.

Two schools of thought essentially are at work here with Arminians, and sometimes they work together.

The first thing to note is that predestination in Ephesians 1 is 'in Christ'. This is an important point. For the Calvinist, predestination is found in God's hidden will - we can't really know who he elects and who he doesn't, and we can't even know if we're elected until we get to the end. This point is difficult for me when it comes to assurance because I find it hard to place my assurance on something that I cannot know.

To put it simply, the Calvinist then bases salvation on God's hidden will.

For the Arminian, salvation is conditioned on faith, not predestination. I realise a Calvinist does not say salvation isn't dependent on faith, but I think that ultimately the Calvinist conditions salvation on predestination.

Faith is not a work. That's why the Arminian can claim that salvation is not by work. Faith is given by God and to not resist this gift is not a work. Faith is always faith.

Okay, so the point is to note that Arminians see predestination as:
1. God predestines those he saw, ahead of time, would put their faith in Christ.
2. God predestines an elect 'group' (the church) and anyone who puts their faith in Christ is put in this group.

Briefly, predestination is primarily of God's anointed one (Christ). God predestined Christ. And he predestined a Church - a people to be found "in Christ". Anyone found 'in Christ' is therefore predestined. This pretty much sums up my view right now. It is true that God has predestined a call for every single person in this world, saved or unsaved, but if they come into Christ they get to walk in that call.

As a final point, one might note that the Arminian's position is an effort to make salvation more relational (it's more influence and response) and less mechanical (cause and effect).

If I've been a bit biased in this, please forgive me. But I do want to simply discuss why Arminianism is not semi-pelagian. Even some well known Calvinists seem to insist it is, which is disappointing, because it is intellectually dishonest to claim so.

Oh, one more point. I'm aware that some Arminians are actually semi-pelagian but they still call themselves "Arminians". Obviously this sort of discrepancy can be found in just about every form of belief, so I would consider that point irrelevant in this discussion - although worth noting.

Hat Guy thank you for a clear and well presented OP.

I guess if I had to put a stake in the ground it is the previent Grace you mention. I will post below a summary of definitions @mark kennedy mentioned in his post. If you agree the definitions are valid or need more elaboration please let me know and I think we can proceed with the discussion. From Theopedia:

Prevenient grace refers to the grace of God in a person's life that precedes conversion (or salvation). The word "prevenient," considered an archaic term today, was common in the King James english and simply means to "go before" or "precede." Likewise, it is sometimes called "preventing" grace (from prevenient) with the same meaning.

• In Reformed Theology, it is the particular grace which precedes human decision -- a salvific grace prior to, and without reference to, anything we have done. See Irresistible grace, sometimes called efficacious grace or the effectual call.
• In Arminianism and Wesleyanism, it is a grace that offsets the noetic effects of the Fall, restores man's free will, and thus enables every person to choose to come to Christ or not. There are two forms of this view:
  
  • Universal prevenient grace — This grace is extended to every person.
  • Individualistic prevenient grace — This grace is only extended to those who come under the intelligent hearing of the gospel, and not to every person.
• In Romanism (i.e., Roman Catholic), it is an assisting grace which aids people who choose to co-operate in justifying themselves. See Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. v).

 

[SaintCody777]

I think it's a good thing to discuss theological views without putting words in the mouth of others with different views or making assumptions.

One of those assumptions Calvinists, especially, make is that they assume Arminianism is semi-pelagian.....

.....Oh, one more point. I'm aware that some Arminians are actually semi-pelagian but they still call themselves "Arminians". Obviously this sort of discrepancy can be found in just about every form of belief, so I would consider that point irrelevant in this discussion - although worth noting.

I have just adhere to classical Arminianism. The straw man that Calvinists make out of Arminianism is the semi-palegianism that Charles Finney had influenced into the Holiness Movement. Charles Finney rejected original sin. As a result, the Holiness Movement began teaching things like sinless perfectionism and they claim that original sin is used an excuse to stay in sin.

Charles Finney not only had an influence on the Holiness Movement but he actually transformed Evangelical Christianity in America, as a whole. And that's how modern Evangelicalism in America came up with this thing of altar calls and how preachers like Billy Graham, DL Moody, Jerry Falwell, and Billy Sunday became very popular. Preachers like these teach that man has a free will, apart from God's grace, to make a decision for Christ. In other words, man's free will was not affected by the fall and his diminished depravity rather than total depravity. Billy Graham even taught that unbelievers, like Bhuddists and Shintos, can "accept Christ without even knowing it" because people seek to do what is true and just. The Bible says quite the contrary in reality.

 

[redleghunter]

I have just adhere to classical Arminianism. The straw man that Calvinists make out of Arminianism is the semi-palegianism that Charles Finney had influenced into the Holiness Movement. Charles Finney rejected original sin. As a result, the Holiness Movement began teaching things like sinless perfectionism and they claim that original sin is used an excuse to stay in sin.

Charles Finney not only had an influence on the Holiness Movement but he actually transformed Evangelical Christianity in America, as a whole. And that's how modern Evangelicalism in America came up with this thing of altar calls and how preachers like Billy Graham, DL Moody, Jerry Falwell, and Billy Sunday became very popular. Preachers like these teach that man has a free will, apart from God's grace, to make a decision for Christ. In other words, man's free will was not affected by the fall and his diminished depravity rather than total depravity. Billy Graham even taught that unbelievers, like Bhuddists and Shintos, can "accept Christ without even knowing it" because people seek to do what is true and just. The Bible says quite the contrary in reality.

I do concur there are Finney driven people who post here who claim Wesley. I’m glad you and the OP are clarifying this.

 

[HatGuy]

A nice opening discussion then you come up with this, of course Calvinists realize grace through faith can be rejected, they just insist it won't be.

Sorry - it may have been poorly worded.

Calvinists love Augustine because he taught that original sin, it doesn't start the first time you commit an offense, it happened before you were born.

Yeah, Arminians (Classical ones, at least) agree to that.

Not so fast, no self respecting Calvinist would deny justification by grace through faith. You have really strayed from the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination and you might want to consider what Paul had to say about it. Paul tells us that God predestined him to be an apostle before the foundation of the world, or do I misunderstand his discussion in the first chapter of Ephesians?

Flip, I would never charge a Calvinist for not believing justification by grace through faith. Again, it may have been poorly worded. I do think, though, that the Calvinist ultimately places salvation on predestination - God's hidden, sovereign will.

The bit about Paul being chosen to be an apostle is one of the reasons why I think predestination also has a lot to do with call - God has predestined a call for us to walk in.

How about this since we are just tossing out ideas, the new nature is based on the communicable attributes of God so there was never any doubt how those who would be saved, would be saved.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. Care to elaborate?

What I look for and what I so seldom hear is the gospel

Yes!

You seem to realize we are not that far apart, because truth be known Christians never are. We can wrangle over the semantics and should, if we want to work in doctrine but the bottom line is, if we can take God at his Word, it's enough. He does ask one thing and it's a commandment, we are to love one another. If we are going to sort through the strangled mess that is semantics, we do well to remember that.

Thanks. This is the sort of robust conversation I personally appreciate.

 

[HatGuy]

The point he was making was that Arminianism is not semi-pelagianism, which is what the title of the thread is talking about.

Fair enough. Thanks

 

[HatGuy]

If Arminianism does not ascribe all of salvation to God alone, then how is that in any way stemming from Augustinianism?

Arminianism does ascribe all of salvation to God alone.

That's the thing.

The difference is Arminians believe that grace can be rejected.

If you say that the grace can be rejected, it does not mean that man gets any glory for a salvation when the grace is not rejected.

Hence my little discussion on faith not being a work. The faith to believe is given by God, but a person can choose to rebel against what God is doing - against God's revealing of himself.

That's why Arminianism is 'semi-' Augustinian. It affirms that all of salvation is God's work, but does not affirm that the grace is irresistible.

Whether it believes salvation starts with man or not, the decisive factor and bases for salvation in Arminianism rest in man, does it not? Therefore nullifying grace altogether.

No it doesn't. It relies on faith.

The religion of fallen man is pelagianism. And any synergistic system of soteriology at that.

Agree about pelagianism.

Calvinism is not fully monergistic either. Consider how you need to be proven as elect on the bases of the quality of your fruit. In other words, Calvinism relies heavily on the outcome of your sanctification in the end. (This is another reason why I rejected it, by the way. It gave me no assurance that I was saved.)

Arminianism denies that salvation is based on the eternal decrees of God. Arminianism denies unconditional elective grace in salvation.

Careful with this. To what degree are you willing to take God's eternal decrees with regards to predestination? Will you say that God decreed when you would sin? That he actually predestined the sins in your life?

This is one of the problems with placing an emphasis on an eternal decree that is hidden in God's will (predestination). Not all Calvinists place so much emphasis on this, to their credit, because it nullifies faith for the sake of logical consistency. The reason why Classical Arminians don't agree with unconditional elective grace is because it has a tendency to downplay the role of faith and up-play the role of God's hidden, sovereign will, which is unknown to anyone. If my salvation is ultimately dependent on God's eternal decrees, I have no way of knowing whether I'm truly saved, and that doesn't work for blessed assurance.

Alas, I digress. I don't want to disparage Calvinism. The point of the post is to show the similarities and build on those. I want to show that there are a great number of similarities.

Here, the similarity is that both modes of thought agree on salvation by faith. All I say to the Calvinist is to try and make sure that they keep basing it on faith (Calvinism proper) and do not get sidetracked by predestination so much that they base salvation not on faith but in God's hidden will / decree. Faith is what brings assurance, an emphasis on predestination actually does not.

Arminianism itself stems from pelagianism regardless of how much it acknowledges Gods grace in salvation.

No it doesn't, refer back to the OP and engage with it.

If God's grace is acknowledged then it is acknowledged. This is the equivalent of accusing an apple of having orange juice inside because you don't like apples.

Because ultimately, the decisive grounds for salvation in Arminianism rest in man and not in God alone. There is no truer statement than what Martin Luther said, “ If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright”.

Luther's quote is spot on.

You seem to have missed some of the points in the OP. But I'll rephrase some of it to show the point more clearly.

Arminianism affirms that mankind does not possess free will in the things that are 'above' (just like Luther and the Reformers did) - in other words, mankind has free will in other respects, but is a slave and in bondage to sin, so there is no free will when it comes to faith and justification etc. No person comes to Christ in their own 'free will'.

So far, we are in complete agreement.

Let me quote the Augsburg Confession as Melancthon puts it so characteristically well:

"Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2,14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word."

Or here's another one from the Augsburg Confession:
"It is also taught among us that man possesses some measure of free will which enables him to live an outwardly honourable life and to make choices among the things that reason comprehends. But without the grace, help and activity of the Holy Spirit man is not capable of making himself acceptable to God.”

Arminians agree with this. We would contend that the Holy Spirit does the work to free a person to make a choice. It is the Holy Spirit's work, not man's free will or some inherent goodness in man.

Arminianism knows nothing of Gods grace and has not learnt Christ aright. Augustus Toplady said it right, Arminianism is the road to Rome

This is just rhetoric.

The synod of Dort condemned Arminianism for what it was. The leaven of pelagianism

It would be awry to not acknowledge the fierce role that politics did play in the synod of Dort.

 

[HatGuy]

so that was the Arminian "win".

But where many Arminians "give away the farm" - is in not accepting God's full Lev 16 teaching on Atonement. When Arminians accept the Calvinist definition of Atonement -- the Calvinists then argue that Arminians have no basis at all to reject limited atonement.

Once atonement is complete for one individual - they are fully atoned for and nothing remains to be done. If all aspects of Atonement were full and completed 2000 years ago - then limited atonement is irrefutable given the Matt 7 statement that not all are saved.

But in the bullet-proof form of the Arminian model
1. The Atoning Sacrifice was full and complete on the cross - for all mankind.
2. But Christ's role as High Priest in heaven is just as necessary as the cross - just as Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" says it is. Thus to avail of the completed sacrifice we need our High Priest and an appeal to God for a clean conscience - a relationship to and with Christ.

And without that - there is no full and complete "nothing left to do" form of Atonement for a lost person. Instead there is the "we BEG you on behalf of Christ - be reconciled to God" condition.

Would you mind expanding on this? I don't quite get it.

Thanks for your other post and list of scriptures - very helpful

 

[HatGuy]

you said;
Briefly, predestination is primarily of God's anointed one (Christ). God predestined Christ.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Elect Servant of the Lord

Yes. Predestined from the beginning to be the saviour.

And he predestined a Church - a people to be found "in Christ".
A church is an assembly of people. Individual persons are elected to be In Christ before the world was. Jesus dies for them.

Yes and no. I don't see any Biblical reason to believe that each individual in the church is elected before the world was made. I do see, however, clear Biblical reason to believe that the church was predestined (God predestined a people) and anyone who is part of the people is therefore part of God's predestined people.

[Anyone found 'in Christ' is therefore predestined. ]
No...those elected are drawn out of the Kingdom of Darkness, into the Kingdom of the Son....each of these foreknown persons once saved is predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son

Sure, they're predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son. No problem with that.

It is true that God has predestined a call for every single person in this world,
This is a complete falsehood

saved or unsaved, but if they come into Christ they get to walk in
that call.

lol....not in the bible...not even close, no one seeks God, no not one.

I agree that no one seeks God without God revealing himself - that was precisely my point.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sorry - it may have been poorly worded.


Yeah, Arminians (Classical ones, at least) agree to that.


Flip, I would never charge a Calvinist for not believing justification by grace through faith. Again, it may have been poorly worded. I do think, though, that the Calvinist ultimately places salvation on predestination - God's hidden, sovereign will.

The bit about Paul being chosen to be an apostle is one of the reasons why I think predestination also has a lot to do with call - God has predestined a call for us to walk in.


I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. Care to elaborate?

My background is Calvinist, obviously, but I've been influenced by Wesleyan traditions. Think about not who, but what we are predestined for, that has to be the nature of God, the essential meaning of being born again. Of course, we can't be omnipotent, that attribute would be 'incommunicable'. However God's nature being righteous he would demand nothing less from us, the thing is it has to come from him, thus 'communicable'. Here's a pretty typical description of sanctification, I like this one because Paul shows his elegance and at one time I had the entire chapter committed to memory:

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. (Col. 3:12-14)
​

Notice he says that love binds all these virtues in perfect unity. That's what I mean by 'communicable' attributes, Paul's description of the fruit of the Holy Spirit in Galatians is very similar. Just between you and me I don't think the differences in Christian theology are all that huge, some pretty important distinctive but essentially Christians have tended to believe most of the same things. Who among us will argue that repenting of 'sexual immorality, impurity, lust evil desire and greed', is not optional, God's wrath is coming on the world for these things, you think we won't face consequences?

Yes!

Thanks. This is the sort of robust conversation I personally appreciate.

Well perhaps we could explore a little about what Pelagianism actually is, some believed you were not born with original sin but only when you actually sin are you a sinner. Of course Augustin famously opposed such thinking emphatically. The real issue between Calvinists and our Arminian brethren is can you lose you salvation because you never really repent or fall into some kind of carnal behavior. At this point Calvinists become indignant, no they will argue, you can no more be cast out of Christ then Christ can be cast out of the Trinity. The Arminian says now hang on, there is mention made in Scripture of people 'falling away' from the faith and what about someone who never really repented, just went to an altar call or something.

These are serious issues, if you work in doctrine they become unavoidable. There is no reason we can't discuss these issues in great detail without red stamping 'anathama' on anything we fell is a little off center. I have always believed the things that unite us is so much stronger then the things that divide us if we can just agree to one simple premise, the gospel. We all want the same things, like sheep that all are trying to see how close they can get to the Shepherd we are all jealous for his favor and attention.

If we can agree on those basic things then it's a start. I've only recently took an interest in systematic theology, my thing has always been Bible study. I want to know more about what other Christians have experienced in their lives with God and how the Holy Spirit is dealing with them. Who knows, we may all be getting this wrong, and at some level we almost always do. But if we are to take up such an important theological distinction, we do well to remember, God is watching and will deal severely with us if we mistreat one another in the process.

You may have noticed I tend to ramble a bit, don't judge me too harshly, I just find the subject matter interesting.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[HatGuy]

Hat Guy thank you for a clear and well presented OP.

I guess if I had to put a stake in the ground it is the previent Grace you mention. I will post below a summary of definitions @mark kennedy mentioned in his post. If you agree the definitions are valid or need more elaboration please let me know and I think we can proceed with the discussion. From Theopedia:

Prevenient grace refers to the grace of God in a person's life that precedes conversion (or salvation). The word "prevenient," considered an archaic term today, was common in the King James english and simply means to "go before" or "precede." Likewise, it is sometimes called "preventing" grace (from prevenient) with the same meaning.

• In Reformed Theology, it is the particular grace which precedes human decision -- a salvific grace prior to, and without reference to, anything we have done. See Irresistible grace, sometimes called efficacious grace or the effectual call.
• In Arminianism and Wesleyanism, it is a grace that offsets the noetic effects of the Fall, restores man's free will, and thus enables every person to choose to come to Christ or not. There are two forms of this view:
  • Universal prevenient grace — This grace is extended to every person.
  • Individualistic prevenient grace — This grace is only extended to those who come under the intelligent hearing of the gospel, and not to every person.
• In Romanism (i.e., Roman Catholic), it is an assisting grace which aids people who choose to co-operate in justifying themselves. See Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. v).

Really helpful - great definitions.

I think I struggle with the term 'free will' being used so liberally as it's such a loaded term. But it is what it is

 

[HatGuy]

I have just adhere to classical Arminianism. The straw man that Calvinists make out of Arminianism is the semi-palegianism that Charles Finney had influenced into the Holiness Movement. Charles Finney rejected original sin. As a result, the Holiness Movement began teaching things like sinless perfectionism and they claim that original sin is used an excuse to stay in sin.

Charles Finney not only had an influence on the Holiness Movement but he actually transformed Evangelical Christianity in America, as a whole. And that's how modern Evangelicalism in America came up with this thing of altar calls and how preachers like Billy Graham, DL Moody, Jerry Falwell, and Billy Sunday became very popular. Preachers like these teach that man has a free will, apart from God's grace, to make a decision for Christ. In other words, man's free will was not affected by the fall and his diminished depravity rather than total depravity. Billy Graham even taught that unbelievers, like Bhuddists and Shintos, can "accept Christ without even knowing it" because people seek to do what is true and just. The Bible says quite the contrary in reality.

I do concur there are Finney driven people who post here who claim Wesley. I’m glad you and the OP are clarifying this.

'

Thanks - very helpful!

 

[LightLoveHope]

The difference is Arminians believe that grace can be rejected.

There is also groups who are mixtures of the two.
Hyper-grace, where faith or belief in Jesus, forgives sins past, present and future removing sin from judgement and the only spiritual issue the world faces is accepting Jesus or rejecting Him.

It appears on some christian forums 50% of the believers hold this view.

They believe in essence you get a magic ticket that enters you into heaven no matter where you faith goes, or how you live, once you gain the ticket, though exactly at what point is unclear.
Some claim the instant faith exists in the heart, you are saved eternally, irrevocably.

My view is different. We are saved, born again, brought into life by revelation and repentance. The fruit of this is a life long walk with Jesus. Because this is an open choice, it can be lost, rebelled against, overthrown, given up. They key issue is love and an open heart. If we are cleansed in our hearts and our emotional lives, we are brought into the Kingdom. It is this reality of becoming a new creation, born again, like a child learning from scratch how to love through obedience and faith, indwelt by the Holy Spirit that everything else springs from.

Original sin is the inheritence from Adam of our separation from God, which is rebellion itself and which leads to hiding love in our hearts and defending and justifying sin against others.
With a cleansed open heart walking in love given by communion with Jesus we are free and fulfilling the law and walking in the Spirit.

I have changed over the years, to resolve the dilemma of transformation of where we are to the image of Jesus at the resurrection. My conclusion is simple. We must have an open loving heart. Whatever is falling short, can be resolved and sorted out without harm.

If we have a closed heart and allowed sin and hurt to grow within, any correction will destroy us and we will be no more. In this view, hell is not a place so much of punishment as destruction of that which is broken, empty and devoid of life. Jesus is the only source of true reality and consistency that is eternal and that works. The closer we walk with Him the more this reality becomes true in our own lives. Praise the Lord. Amen.

 

[Dave L]

The stunning reality is, if Jesus died for all and all are not saved, his death merely provided a way for the self-righteous to save themselves. This IS the bottom line.

 

[bcbsr]

The stunning reality is, if Jesus died for all and all are not saved, his death merely provided a way for the self-righteous to save themselves. This IS the bottom line.

That is if justification were by works, which it isn't. Justification being by faith God justifies the wicked by faith apart from works.

"to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." Rom 4:4

In contrast the self-righteous try to attain righteousness based on their performance. Such as the unbelieving Jews:

Rom 10
3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
5 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."

In fact there are many Christians (even on these forums) who believe that salvation is contingent upon their ongoing performance, which is righteousness by the law, and as such disqualify themselves from the grace inherent the gospel as they attempt to work for their salvation rather than trust in Jesus.

 

[Shawn Stuart]

Personally I lean Calvinistic in my understanding of scripture. The Tulip seems right to me.

 

[aiki]

1. Augustinian (Calvinist)
2. Semi-Augustinian (Arminian)
3. Semi-Pelagian
4. Pelagian

There are more options than you've stated here. Molinism and Traditionalism, for instance, are not Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Arminian nor Calvinist.

Molinism: www.reasonablefaith.org
Traditionalism: www.soteriology101.com

 

[MDC]

The stunning reality is, if Jesus died for all and all are not saved, his death merely provided a way for the self-righteous to save themselves. This IS the bottom line.

I agree

 

[BobRyan]

When Jesus died on the cross, many , multitudes of people had already died.

True and before that - in Matthew 17 - Moses and Elijah stand "with Christ" in glory on the mount of transfiguration. So also are all the giants of faith in Hebrews 11 - saints that lived before the cross.

Because Christ is "the lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world"

So then no doubt God says "I will draw ALL mankind to Me" John 12:32 -- all are drawn not an arbitrarily select "few".

How were they drawn to Christ according to your theory Bob

Christ informs Nicodemus in John 3 that it was happening before the cross via the Holy Spirit.