Ask those who dissent. I think you will find two explanation exist: 1) a lack of knowledge of church doctrinal history, 2) a lack of thoroughness in understand the main soteriological perspectives including their own, and 3) Pelagiansm.
A reading of Arminius' "Disputation 11 On the Free Will of Man..." will provide irrefutable proof, - prrof, not just mere evidence - of Arminius' embrace of total depravity. But you point that out to some synergists who think themselves Arminian and the ad hominems, red herrings, and shifting onuses get unpacked. Many of the 500+ posts in this op prove that fact.
Ask the op.
The stated purpose of the op is to "get the definitions on the table" but as I have shown in my many replies to this op none of the "definitions" are correct. Not even from the opening claim about Arminianism being a volitionally open system.
The soteriological theologians and major formal doctrinal statement agree: man is utterly depraved and incapable of acting salvifically good apart from Christ. The adherents to those respective soteriologists often do not understand that agreement on that condition exists uniformly (aside from the Pelagian). This is easily verified with a small investment in researching the matter.
Upvote
0
