The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum "Is Calvinism the Gospel?"

I will do my best to be as brief as possible, at the risk of being misunderstood, because of the length of your response.

My statement was in reference to semi-Pelagianism, not classic Arminianism. The Remonstrant's statement on the state of fallen man, "Article III" as written is most agreeable to Calvinism; Total Depravity. This is why they held to the necessity of Prevenient Grace. The caveat is that this prevenient "grace" doesn't save but only provides for the possibility of salvation if a sinner cooperates with it and exercises one's inherent free-will.

The Arminian position is, once again:

That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, has determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; (Article I)

Here we need to understand the Arminian concept and definition of "foreknowledge". It is antithetical to the Calvinist doctrine. In the Arminian schema, God's "foreknowledge" determines His decree, determinate council, predestination, etc. Therefore, when the article speaks of God's "eternal, unchangeable purpose... before the foundation of the world", it is referring to God as being "outside of time", yet His foreknowledge is bare prescience and not determinative in and of itself. Since the Arminians rejected the doctrines as formulated in the "Belgic Confessions" which was the impetus for their Remonstrance, they posited that God "knows" who would believe because He "foresaw" those who would cooperate with the aforementioned prevenient grace.

Thus, my describing of the Arminians and semi-Pelagians position as being "POST-destination" aptly and accurately describes the fact that they hold that God predestinates and elects certain sinners on the basis of their exercising faith; the necessary condition before regeneration and the indwelling of the Spirit is given. Put another way, the Arminians hold that God predestinates certain individuals who show evidence of having faith, but Calvinists hold that God predestinates certain individuals to have faith. In the "Rejection of Errors" this is clearly spelled out in detail as to what the Arminians believed and how the Synod responded to it.

Sorry, I'm a little confused about what you are trying to point out.

Sorry for the confusion on this one too. I did not mean to imply that Arminians themselves view their concept of "grace" as non-existent. It is my conclusion and critique of the Arminian concept of "grace" as being no grace at all. For, the Arminian and semi-Pelagian concept of grace accomplishes NOTHING in and of itself, i.e., "grace" in those systems does not save, but rather it simply provides a means, a way in which a willing sinner can be saved. (see below) The same is likewise true of the Arminian and semi-Pelagian doctrine on the atonement.

God, in the Arminian system speaks in language which could be misconstrued as consistent with the biblical doctrines of God's Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence. But digging below the surface one comes to realize that they in fact deny all three of these doctrines due to their insistence that God cannot and will not violate man's free-will. Ironically, a true Calvinist would agree that God never does anything that would violate man's will... He recreates the will, e.g., in regeneration, thus effectively making him willing. I could expand and expound on this but methinks that a separate thread would be more appropriate to do so.

The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism here is that Calvinism holds that there are degrees of "reward" for faithfulness in sanctification and that only, which as you rightly wrote, are non-meritorious. Arminians/semi-Pelagians, however, hold that salvation (justification) is dependent upon the sinner's cooperation with grace. Again, my article which I gave a link to will open this up in detail.

You may be correct in your assessment. But as I tried to point out at the beginning of my first reply to you, it may be the case that the author is using the term "Arminian(ism)" not in reference to classic Arminianism; the teachings based upon the writings of Jacob Harmsen [Latinized it was Jacobus Arminius], but rather in reference to the teachings popularly held in most Evangelical (non-Reformed) and in some alleged Reformed churches today, aka: semi-Pelagianism. What also may be true is that most who read that article won't know what classic Arminianism is.