What is an Arminian?

[pawnraider]

What exactly is an Arminian? I recently sent an email to a mission agency asking what their theology was and they replied: "We believe in total depravity, but not total inability (man cannot save himself, but he can respond to the gospel as the Spirit is convincting of sin), we believe in eternal security, we do not hold to limited atonement, etc. There would be a certain range among our teachers as to their view on God's activity in the salvation of sinners, but none of our guys teach regeneration as preceding faith. None or our guys are Arminian. That takes us out of either major camp." So once again, what is an Arminian?

 

[hedrick]

Technically Arminianism should probably be used for something fairly near Arminius' wholel theology. That seems to be the view that your correspondent reflected. Even though their views on the cooperation of grace and will would often be called Arminian, he no doubt sees differences with Arminius in other areas.

But the term Arminianism is commonly used in discussions of soteriology to refer to any of a large number of views saying that we depend upon God's grace, but that whether his grace converts us or not depends upon our response. In the end, the final result depends upon both God and us, with grace and our will interacting in a way that can't easily be defined. In that sense it looks to me like the group you're talking about is Arminian.

The term Augustinian is often used in the same way, to refer to something close to Calvinism in the area of grace. But of course Augustine had a whole complex theology, and people whose views on grace have similarities to Augustine might well differ with him radically on other issues, such as the Church.

 

[JM]

What exactly is an Arminian? I recently sent an email to a mission agency asking what their theology was and they replied: "We believe in total depravity, but not total inability (man cannot save himself, but he can respond to the gospel as the Spirit is convincting of sin), we believe in eternal security, we do not hold to limited atonement, etc. There would be a certain range among our teachers as to their view on God's activity in the salvation of sinners, but none of our guys teach regeneration as preceding faith. None or our guys are Arminian. That takes us out of either major camp." So once again, what is an Arminian?

It seems they misunderstand what Calvinism and Arminianism actually is or they are reluctant to claim their Arminian heritage.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

A Brief Comparative Study of:
Arminianism and Calvinism

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Basically an Arminian is a Non-Lutheran, Non-Reformed, Non-Calvinist Protestant, professor of and believer in Christ who's views of sovereignty, freedom, and grace have more in common with the secret teachings of the shady pesudo-calvinist Jacobus Arminus than the teachings of Saint Augustine and after him, the Scottish Reformer John Knox and the French Reformer John Calvin.

 

[All Souls]

Try A Guest Post: Arminianism Simply Summarized, Explained, Defended by Brian Abasciano (founder of the Society of Evangelical Arminians and evangelical biblical scholar)

 

[GQ Chris]

Basically a person who believes that Sovereignty is dependent on man and not God.

 

[stenerson]

Modern day Arminians are those that believe in a frustrated God. A God that is doing everything within His power, including sending His Son to die in order to save, (or more precisely, potentially save ), every human being that has been born.
As I said before, I was raised in a hyper-Arminian church..I've heard pastors preach "we are sovereigns over our own souls" and that "God never interferes in man's free will or choices."
I also remember a sweet, well-intentioned lady in the church who was frustrated over all the non-believers around her that wouldn't believe. She said "poor God, I feel so sorry for Him, He loves all the world so much and wants them to convert to Him, it must be so difficult for God." Imagine that? She felt sorry for God.

 

[dhh712]

As I said before, I was raised in a hyper-Arminian church..I've heard pastors preach "we are sovereigns over our own souls" and that "God never interferes in man's free will or choices."
I also remember a sweet, well-intentioned lady in the church who was frustrated over all the non-believers around her that wouldn't believe. She said "poor God, I feel so sorry for Him, He loves all the world so much and wants them to convert to Him, it must be so difficult for God." Imagine that? She felt sorry for God.

I don't want to change the direction of this thread (into a complaint about Arminians), but I can't help but thinking how can anyone trust in God when they view Him like that? I just don't understand the mindset of these people.

 

[All Souls]

I just don't understand the mindset of these people.

I think it is helpful to differentiate between (1) Arminianism as a body of doctrine and (2) what some people, who identify as Arminians, believe. A third category is probably (3) what Calvinists say Arminians believe.

Further, it is important that we reflect that hyper-Arminianism exists as does hyper-Calvinism and we need to be clear what we are talking about.

 

[JM]

Hyper Calvinism is really Gnostic, just as Hyper Arminianism is really Pelagianism.

 

[stenerson]

I don't want to change the direction of this thread (into a complaint about Arminians), but I can't help but thinking how can anyone trust in God when they view Him like that? I just don't understand the mindset of these people.

Well in this case it was a woman raised in a certain tradition..She loved Christ, boasted of His love and saving work, was very grateful to God. She was genuinely frustrated that others didn't feel the same way and that so many rejected the good news..

 

[pawnraider]

Apparently, there's more than one definition for "Armenian".

 

[AMR]

Historical Arminianism did not deny sola gratia, that is a denial of efficacious, salvific grace in favor of "prevenient grace". Hence, Spurgeon's and Whitefield's view that Wesley would be meeting them in heaven. On Wesley, Whitefield observed when asked about Wesley's presence in heaven: "I fear not, he will be so near the throne, and we shall be at such a distance, that we shall hardly get sight of him." As such, I have yet to meet this historic Arminian. If one exists, I would confidently state that such a man is regenerate.

Arminius: (Works, 2:474):

But some persons charge me with this as a crime — that I say the act itself of faith, that is, believing itself, is imputed for righteousness, and that in a proper sense, and not by a metonymy. I acknowledge this charge, as I have the apostle St. Paul, in Romans iv, and in other passages, as my precursor in the use of this phrase. (Src: (Works, 2:474)​

Clearly, Arminius genuinely held that faith is accounted for righteousness. As above, Arminius rejected the view (my view, and the Reformation's view ) that Paul was making use of a figure of speech wherein faith is put in the place of the object of faith. In other words, to Arminius and anyone else with the same view, faith itself is righteousness. Sigh. The followers of Arminius went even further, holding that faith is somehow representative of all the graces of being Christian, so much so that all said graces were considered the righteousness of any who have faith in Jesus Christ.

For today's clinical Arminian, salvation is by the Christ's work alone, by the instrument of faith alone...but....said faith is not in any way the product of God's grace alone. Instead, it is man's work in response to God's work of prevenient grace (the grace that comes before). In broad terms, today's Arminian posits an impotent God of sorts, after all, God has done His part, now man must do his part. This is something of which the Reformers would have no part. Rightly so, too.

Per William Ames, I am of the opinion that all manner of today's Arminianism "is not properly a heresy but a dangerous error."

 

[AMR]

Historical Arminianism did not deny sola gratia, that is a denial of efficacious, salvific grace in favor of "prevenient grace". Hence, Spurgeon's and Whitefield's view that Wesley would be meeting them in heaven. On Wesley, Whitefield observed when asked about Wesley's presence in heaven: "I fear not, he will be so near the throne, and we shall be at such a distance, that we shall hardly get sight of him." As such, I have yet to meet this historic Arminian. If one exists, I would confidently state that such a man is regenerate.

Arminius: (Works, 2:474):

But some persons charge me with this as a crime — that I say the act itself of faith, that is, believing itself, is imputed for righteousness, and that in a proper sense, and not by a metonymy. I acknowledge this charge, as I have the apostle St. Paul, in Romans iv, and in other passages, as my precursor in the use of this phrase. (Src: (Works, 2:474)​

Clearly, Arminius genuinely held that faith is accounted for righteousness. As above, Arminius rejected the view (my view, and the Reformation's view ) that Paul was making use of a figure of speech wherein faith is put in the place of the object of faith. In other words, to Arminius and anyone else with the same view, faith itself is righteousness. Sigh. The followers of Arminius went even further, holding that faith is somehow representative of all the graces of being Christian, so much so that all said graces were considered the righteousness of any who have faith in Jesus Christ.

For today's clinical Arminian, salvation is by the Christ's work alone, by the instrument of faith alone...but....said faith is not in any way the product of God's grace alone. Instead, it is man's work in response to God's work of prevenient grace (the grace that comes before). In broad terms, today's Arminian posits an impotent God of sorts, after all, God has done His part, now man must do his part. This is something of which the Reformers would have no part. Rightly so, too.

Per William Ames, I am of the opinion that all manner of today's Arminianism "is not properly a heresy but a dangerous error."

 

[stenerson]

Arminius: (Works, 2:474):

But some persons charge me with this as a crime — that I say the act itself of faith, that is, believing itself, is imputed for righteousness, and that in a proper sense, and not by a metonymy. I acknowledge this charge, as I have the apostle St. Paul, in Romans iv, and in other passages, as my precursor in the use of this phrase. (Src: (Works, 2:474)​

Clearly, Arminius genuinely held that faith is accounted for righteousness.

Wow! I didn't realize He went that far..He seemed to have faith in faith.
I don't consider that simply error, I think that's heresy and an attack on the heart of the gospel.

 

[dhh712]

Well in this case it was a woman raised in a certain tradition..She loved Christ, boasted of His love and saving work, was very grateful to God.

It is always wonderful to hear of love and gratefulness to God no matter the specific theology. It just baffles me how some can trust in God when to them He seems not to be sovereign. Certainly though, Arminians are just as baffled at some aspects of Calvinism.

 

[Radagast]

I recently sent an email to a mission agency asking what their theology was and they replied: "We believe in total depravity, but not total inability (man cannot save himself, but he can respond to the gospel as the Spirit is convincting of sin), we believe in eternal security, we do not hold to limited atonement, etc.

Sounds like they're "sitting on the fence" a little, which is IMHO not a terribly consistent position. However, based on just those words, they sound more Arminian than anything else.