Видео

@@daletrade5178 yes, you can check out the longer video here: ruclips.net/video/Ey0b8X3C1b8/видео.html Or Crossley’s tract *How to become a child of God* (1891) is online here: babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=aeu.ark:/13960/t3rv12k1c&seq=6 Or his book *Practical talks on important themes* (1895): babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=aeu.ark:/13960/t2r50kf0r&seq=19

@@thearminians thanks , yes i have his book, ive also seen your 12mins vid. we need to dig lil deeper. i wonder if their message was same as wesley

@@daletrade5178 There is a difference, yes. Apostasy is a wilful rejection of Christ. But someone who is living in unrepentant sin is living in active resistance to the Holy Spirit who is convicting them of that sin. So it is likely there will come a point where their resistance will be their final say, and there is a wilful rejection of their faith.

@@thearminians yes thats the reformed arminian view. The holiness arminians preached heb.12:14 "holiness or hell". ie. your unrepentant sins/unholy lifestyle will send you to hell, even if you have faith in JC

Thanks for your comment. I list some of the present-day Arminian denominations in Part 1 of the series, and I will be covering them a bit more in Part 5, but it won't be in-depth. Dr. Roger Olson has a good list of Arminian Denominations in his article here: evangelicalarminians.org/arminian-denominations/ Your best course might be to find one you're interested in, and then check the @ReadyToHarvest channel for an in-depth video on them. If you aren't a fan of infant baptism or the doctrine of perfection, you'll likely be closer to the Free Will Baptist side (most Wesleyan churches affirm some version of entire sanctification). Ready to Harvest has a video on the FWBs here: ruclips.net/video/EpukxuVV2TI/видео.htmlsi=voluboEsaZ_qEMSK On Open Theism, it is quite mixed, with some more open to it than others. It's probably best to ask the local church you are interested in what their position might be.

@@thearminians Thanks for you reply !

No. Arminians affirm total inability apart from grace. I recommend you check out my series, here: ruclips.net/p/PLYFt7yxv9TBVuJNPBC3gDJK4yxUi_Fug4&si=VR5TJAJ2E9T_h4I7

Thanks for your comment. I’m using the 5-Articles of Remonstrance for my definitions, so depravity includes inability apart from grace: - “man … in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is)” (Article III); -“all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ.” (Article IV) I agree original sin isn’t the same, but it is closely related. As Watson says in the quote shown at 1:42, depravity is “in consequence of the sin of our first parents”. If you haven’t watched it already, I have a video covering Total Depravity that might help: ruclips.net/video/tFt0KoTX_PU/видео.htmlsi=iJrOhKAiyyus6uU- Regarding original guilt, Arminians (and Calvinists) have held a number of different perspectives (Tom McCall has a book called, *Against God & Nature: The Doctrine of Original Sin* where he lists 6 different views on guilt vs original sin, with Arminians across 3 different camps & Calvinists spanning all 6, from inherited corruption-only, all the way up to realism, and everything in between), but all of these hold to total depravity/inability & original sin. But to your question “will someone who is an unbeliever be eternally punished because of Adam’s sin?”, the Arminian answer is “No”, but not because the person is innocent. Rather it is because we believe the atonement is unlimited & so is God's grace. So, for example, Arminians hold infants dying in infancy are saved, but they are saved because atonement has been made for them.

@ Many thanks for your very helpful comments and book recommendation. I will also watch more of your videos, including the one on total depravity.

Thanks for your comment. Arminians hold we are enabled to respond by the prevenient work of the Holy Spirit. Ie: just like men dead in sin can respond to the Spirit’s common grace. You might be interested in my past series, particularly part 3 on prevenient grace, here: ruclips.net/video/wSdOGYZDPwU/видео.htmlsi=eg5XKJ2IUEQYhupr

By believing the word of truth, as in Ephesians 1:13. Because the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes… as Paul tells us in Romans.

Because man was made in Gods image ie having thought, conscience and free will.

I was an atheist, converted to Christian during my 20’s influenced by Arminian theology, turned more Calvinism in my 40’s. I see this Arminianism-Calvinism controversy should remain benign theological debate but unfortunately turned into a bitter infighting which is totally unnecessary and counterproductive. I think Arminianism is more accessible to seekers and is beneficial to evangelism. At the same time, John 8:32 tells us that we are not free, we do not have freedom to choose until the Truth set us free. We were not just spiritual asleep, we were actually spiritual dead (Ephesians 2:1)

Catholic here: This is TRUE.

Claiming that Protestantism, which holds the Gospel and all essential truths of the early church, is the same as Islam is slanderous and rejects even the Roman Catholic Church’s statements on the matter in the Second Vatican Council.

@@SacramentalBaptist Completely different. Catholic councils gave you the Trinity and the Bible. Personal revelation and interpretation produced Islam and Protestantism. 67% or Protestants today believe in the foundational tenets of the prosperity gospel.

@@Knight-of-the-ImmaculataThat is unbelievably false. First, councils never “gave” us the Trinity or the Bible, but simply acknowledged the truth that existed prior to the council. In the case of the canon, there wasn’t even a council that gave a list of the canon of Trent in the 1500s. Even then, Protestants have historically accepted the early church councils on the Trinity and the nature of Christ. Secondly, it is highly destructive to act as though the scripture isn’t clear on the core doctrines. “Without the councils, no one would arrive at the Trinity” undercuts the clear teaching of the scripture and ignores what the Patristic church fathers teach, which is that scripture IS clear on this and a variety of other doctrines. Finally, Islam is another religion entirely which rejects Christ and the gospel. Even your own council (The Second Vatican) recognizes Protestants as true Christians.

@@SacramentalBaptist The Catholic Church canonised all 73 books at the Council of Rome (AD 382), reaffirmed at the Synod of Hippo (AD 393), two of the Councils of Carthage (AD 397 and 419), the Council of Florence (AD 1431-1449) and finally, as an article of faith, by the Council of Trent (AD 1545-1563).

@@SacramentalBaptist The 7 Deuterocanonical books weren’t actually removed from the Bible until 1825 by the lay Foreign and British Bible Society in part to save on printing costs.

Actually, wrong, Wesley had the correct interpretation and revelation of scripture. Calvinism is anti Christian.

Jesus said “ wherever your treasure is there your heart will be also”. Jesus also said no one can come to Me, except the Father draw him.” Both of these statements are true! Charlie Westley’s song “And can it be” perfectly describes the work of salvation in my opinion. “ Thine Eye diffused a quickening ray. I awoke the dungeon flamed with light” We must pick our own “Treasure” and our heart will follow that which we pick, this is an act of the human will. It doesn’t make a person acceptable in God’s Sight, only regeneration can do that. While it is certainly true that we were dead in our sins prior to regeneration it doesn’t mean that we can’t pick a treasure. If we desire God and seek Him, then, like a school master teaching us, we will see our need for redemption. From that point we will see our need for cleansing in His Blood. Come Lord Jesus!

Both George Whitfield and the Wesleys were mightily used by God. The three of them all received revelation and power from God and were able to be used by God to preach truth and the Gospel. Millions were saved through their ministries. And even though they disagree on issues they eventually agree to respect what others have received from God. So it’s not one or the other but both of them were right in what they see in the Scripture. God’s sovereignty and men’s free will work together.

No, that's my voice. I'm Canadian, so probably a Canadian accent you're catching.

It’s not a common word nowadays, so it can end up being a distraction or confusing to people who aren’t used to older writings (especially when the author has a name like “Pope”). In this case, I don’t think it changes the meaning of the sentence, so the risk is greater than the reward.

@thearminians I appreciate the thought process. Thank you.

@@rontrellbell9624 Thanks for your comment. If you haven’t already watched it, I recommend checking out part 3. I think it will help make sense of our situation: ruclips.net/video/wSdOGYZDPwU/видео.htmlsi=wYAJ0QRwItPRfaXO When we look at depravity, we are considering the problem without the solution, but that is not really the reality today. We are in a world where the Holy Spirit is already at work. You asked “Why would Jesus tell parables?” Because with the Holy Spirit’s help, we *are able* to respond and to stop resisting; I’ve even referred to some of the parables in my article introducing prevenient grace: evangelicalarminians.org/prevenient-grace-an-introduction/

​@@thearminians Thank you. I did look at the video before commenting. I like it and I look forward to seeing more content.

I grew up in reformed circles and was a 5-point Calvinist before I became an Arminian. I've never been part of Islam, JW or Mormonism, so I don't think I'd be in the best position to take those views on. And in any event, the Calvinism - Arminian debate is in-house between brothers. Those groups you mention need the gospel; I do have a few shorts for that.

@thearminians I try my best to focus on Islam. It's not a might, for me, it's a will, And I will be bringing the gospel to at least Muslims, maybe Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses. Btw Islam is very Calvinistic in terms of predestined salvation. I'm Calvinistic leaning myself but I tend to go to moderate degrees. Not crazy extremes that Islam does

@@thearminians ruclips.net/video/Q_xH-cT6ueE/видео.htmlsi=fWtLVqcHTrlw5XSO

@@thearminians "Allah is the author of adultery and sin" by testify

@@thearminians I've considered becoming Arminian actually. On fence but I see it's fair.

I appreciate your comments. Re: the commission, Bangs says the request was made in 1599, but the Synod accepted the suggestion in June 5-9, 1600 (page 167), so I went with the later date. Re: Lutheran influences. It's not just that he had Lutheran works in his library, but rather, scholars have concluded on prevenient grace and predestination (ie: the points at issue in defining Arminianism), it was the Lutherans who had the *most* influence on his view, and it is Hemmingsen that he actually quotes. Re: potential Catholic influences, I think it is unlikely they were significant for him, and I disagree with those scholars who think he followed Molina. And in any event, I was trying to focus on the influences that tie-in to the Q "Who are the Arminians?" today, and why it makes sense that Lutherans and Anabaptists have Arminians in their ranks.

@@thearminians I can get behind 1600 :) . I agree Hemmingsen is definitely a figure to look at more by scholars. The only thing I was sincerely pushing back against was a Lutheran Influence gained during his time at Marburg in 1575. Nothing more. I only mentioned Basel to emphasize other universities that definitively impacted his life, rather than speculatively impacted his life. I understand that your video was more about emphasizing those Arminius quoted, so I'm sorry if it sounded like I was making mountains out of molehills here. As for Catholics, let's not forget Augustine or the patristics :P . Even Stanglin and McCall notes Augustine held to Previenent Grace, even if its mode/application was different. But in all seriousness, Arminius was a Reformed Scholastic. You don't get Arminius's doctrine of God, or his ordo salutis (logical moments in the life of God), or his view of theology, and more without touching base with Aquinas, Scotus, and others. The more I read about Scholastic theology/ philosophy, the more I am convinced of this. I am curious though why you disagree about Molina? ----sidenote: it's so refreshing to talk with someone who knows the finer details of Arminius's life. I'm no expert (far from it), but I try. Keep up the good work!!!

@@AisforArminianism I agree about the patristics and Augustine. I even had an early draft where I was going to discuss this, but it just didn't help answer the Q the series is after. I also considered commenting on Molina, but again, there's no Molinist denomination today, and it doesn't really address the Q of who we are so much as what some believe. And I thought it'd risk offending Molinists, so could become divisive instead of educational. My own take: when I read Arminius, I just don't see any reliance on Molina. I can read Melancthon and see where Arminius got it, but when I read modern Molinists, I don't see Arminius reflected; he has a different framework. I think Pinson, Olson, et al are right in saying Muller, et al are reading too much Molina into Arminius. Even MacGregor has pointed out that Arminius only mentions middle knowledge twice and never uses the term to mean what Molina did. And then McCall has commented that even he thinks while Arminius held to middle knowledge, Arminius wasn't committed to Molina's formulations and deployments. We also have Arminius' own testimony that he didn't recommend students read Jesuits. And his obvious anti-Roman bias (from his name, to his comments about the Pope) suggests to me he was no fan of those still in Rome.

@thearminians we could definitely go back and forth all day about Molina. 😀 that's what makes Arminius fun. I think once you use middle knowledge, albeit in a different way, the label of molinism should apply. Especially, when I do think Arminius was trying to use it to solve some issues in his own theology, both in regards to God's Providence and God's Knowledge. Man... if only he wrote his systematic... *sigh* ... I guess the disputations will do.

@@AisforArminianism I see very sharp distinctions between simple foreknowledge and Molinism. I do not believe there is a "mere Molinism" as one certain zealous adherent wants to proclaim. :)

A branch of *Protestantism* is more accurate, since Lutherans and Anabaptists also agreed. Did someone say Arminianism is the opposite of Calvinism?