What is Arminianism? Really?

I would say Arminianism is essentially ' soft Calvinism ' . Its wrong for all the same reasons Calvinism is wrong . I reject molonism also . All these systems start with a philosophy about the nature of free will instead of scripture .

 

Calvinists think Armianism is the opposite of Calvinsm when its really stemming from the same faulty ' Agustine ' pot .

 

When your entire theological paradigm is wrapped up in Calvinist vs. Arminian then your view is warped and excessively narrow. But Im sure it makes you comfortable.

 

I would also say that in order for any Christian to grow, they need to learn to a certain degree theses system s as it will arm them with a knowledge on how to discern and avoid them . Until a believer learns the issues with Calvinism and Armianism to one degree or another will fall prey to them at some point as they both have permeated into most traditions and denominations . Until they have let go of either system they will not grow in understanding the scriptures. I contend that if you hold to one or the other system you do not know your bible as you ought . The solution is to drop them completely and read the bible without them .

 

Ummm....no ones growth is dependent on knowing either system. Both are mans attempt to describe their understanding of scripture but neither of them are God breathed.

 

Your theology is not very robust. An Arminian is an Arminian, not simply a non-Calvinist. You generalize too far. True Arminianism is in perfect agreement with the absolute sovereignty of God.

 

Technically?
I see actual "Arminianism" as being what some here on the BB have identified it as...

What was strictly contained in the Five Articles of the Remonstrants in 1610, which was a reply to the Belgic Confession of 1561.
It was a "systematized" summary of how Jakob Hermanzoon's ( Jacob Arminius' ) followers saw salvation being accomplished, from the Scriptures.

I'm not sure that many who consider themselves "non-Calvinists" even give the doctrines of Scripture much thought past what they have been taught in the churches...
I know that until I was about 37, neither did I.

I simply took what was taught from the pulpit as having authority,
and didn't really question much of it until later on when I started actually studying my Bible for myself.

To me, most professing Christians would rather leave it to the "theologians" to wrestle with.
But for those that do dig into the differences, I see them defining some things much the same as so-called "Calvinists" in some areas...
And other things radically different.

For an example of what is defined differently, some would bring up what Scriptural "foreknowledge" means to them versus what it means to the "Calvinist"...
To one it is merely informational, and to the other it's an intimate knowing expressed in passages like Jeremiah 1:5, Psalms 139 and Ephesians 2:1-10.

 

I agree.
It is what I was taught as a child and into my 20's and 30's...

Basically put, the idea was that God's sovereignty never steps on or violates man's free will.

I'm not sure who Joseph Dongell is, but I do know that Jerry Walls is a "Wesleyan" who believes and teaches loss of salvation.
I've seen some of his videos on YouTube.

I also have a good idea why he is not a "Calvinist"...
Because when he reads the Scriptures for himself, that's what he sees;
Basically what John Wesley taught.

As for "logic", I'm very reluctant to deal in terms like that.
I see the Lord actively determining many things, and I see Him passively-but-with-full-knowledge-and-control-of allowing many things.

To me, it all falls very neatly into His plans to work all things after the counsel of His own will.

I've seen that among many professing Christians over the years, including myself.

In fact, I was a member of two churches and attended a Christian school that all led me to believe that one is an "Arminian" if one held to loss of salvation.
The other 4 "points" of what some call "modern Arminianism" were never brought up and I never asked...
As I felt ( and was never discouraged from feeling this way ) that one should not question the church's teachings if one is a "layperson".

As an example of the above, I once asked a former pastor of mine about loss of salvation...
He replied, "that's Arminianism";

Later on I found that there were 4 more doctrinally summarized points that self-professed "Arminians" hold to, that he basically agreed with.
They are listed here:

An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism

 

Perhaps...
But speaking for myself, I've never looked too far into Roman Catholic "Molinism" except in a few instances.
Once I saw it's uncanny similarities to "Wesleyanism", I basically knew what I was looking at without really needing to look any farther.

However, having done a bit of digging into it, I do know that it is a system of doctrine developed by Louis de Molina...
A Spanish Jesuit priest who was, apparently, very adamant about man's will being free to choose God.

 

I did not say warped.

 

No. I mean exactly what I said.

 

God not required to directly cause and determine all that happens in order to still be sovereign!

 

To me it hinges on how one is elected, does God directly determining that, or by Him using His foreknowledge and us making the "right choice"?

 

Yes, that is a deciding factor, does the Lord grant to His own saving faith, or does he make us one of His own when we exercise our own faith?