Thank you. I was curious how you would answer the question that our Calvinist brother ask about why one person is saved and the other is not under the same preaching? Is the result of salvation because of man or God? It was phrased something like that.
Thanks for your comment. The fault of unbelief is always the man, who has resisted the grace whereby he would have been saved (as John Wesley said). As to why some resist while others yield to the Spirit's drawing, I have suggested a few answers in the last section of my article here (under the heading "Why doesn’t everyone who hears the gospel respond with faith?"): evangelicalarminians.org/prevenient-grace-an-introduction/ And Dr. Abasciano has shared some thoughts here: evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-addressing-the-calvinist-challenge-why-did-you-believe-and-your-neighbor-did-not/ Hope this helps.
I think i have it..... The calvinist god created an entire world of creatures, in his image, who only hate him, he picks a few, against their will, to love him, and finally, to somehow bring him extra glory, he torments the rest for all eternity. ***he also decided to decree this before time, before all things, before any creature made a choice, including adam and satan.
You got it, but sadly your wording and lack of heartfelt believe of the Truth becomes an exact hatefilled quote of Satan😢. May God drop you yo your knees and save your very soul! Praise the Sovereign, Almighty God of the Bible!!
@@davidyingling4873 Glad you verified the calvi-god for me. Hey, atleast your not the self-righteous, condesending, judgmental, 2x4 in the eye, love-less, anti-Jesus type. Luckly the God of the universe loves us despite our many flaws.✌✌
Calvinism is basically a cult for people who believe god is evil but they figure they're on the same team as him so its okay Fortunately God is not like this and even more fortunately a lot of individual Calvinists do not focus on this perverse doctrine 99% of the time and so in practice are fine faithful people and not the nihilistic fatalists their dogma recommends
Arminius himself may have affirmed original sin and salvation by faith, but I have seen a number of modern Arminians - like holiness street preachers (such as Jesse Morrell) and many of the Charismatics - deny original sin, and are quick to deny salvation by faith ALONE, often parroting the Catholic position of faith + works, or faith + obedience. Many of these (such as Dan Corner) will also say that a Christian can fall away not only because of apostasy, but also due to committing certain kinds of sins, or habitual "willful" sins, again parroting the more Catholic view of "mortal" sins, such as murder, adultery, fornication, theft, or drunkenness. They base this understanding on several of the lists of sinners in the epistles who will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Granted, many of these types are not Methodists, but from the Pentecostal, Weslyan Holiness, and Free Will Baptist traditions. Also, many of the Restorationist sects - such as the SDAs and Churches of Christ, self-identify as Arminians, although you may dispute that designation.
It's strange how much protestantism is really just anti-catholicism for superannuated historical reasons. Anyway more people are gradually realizing that they were responding to errors in roman catholicism with corresponding errors in the other direction. The eastern orthodox never fell into these errors and so is pretty much orthogonal on all these questions protestants love to hate catholicism over. The simplest and maybe most important example is just this: why does God need to be "repaid" for any sin? Isnt he (in his SOVEREIGN WILL that calvinists love to talk about) capable of just FORGIVING? I'm a flawed and sinful man and yet I'm capable of forgiving my children whom I love without extracting suffering from them. Why do you think God is less merciful than some jerk on the internet? Why is His SOVEREIGN WILL so constrained that He can't even show the simplest mercy that He expects and in fact demands that we show? Are we to be more loving than God? If you accept the simple idea that God loves us and is overjoyed to forgive all of us who will truly ask to be forgiven... pretty much all these controversies in western christianity evaporate. Suddenly you can understand the clear meaning of the prodigal son. The Father doesnt sieze the loyal son and torture him before He embraces the prodigal. He forgive because His nature is love and mercy and He wishes to love and forgive all who ask. You can return to the older and more lovely eastern idea of salvation, not of God tormenting Himself through the person of His son but Christ trampling down death by His death and regenerating creation itself
How can you resist the Holy Spirit when He comes and lives within you? Also did you believe and repent the very first time you heard the gospel? Some people yes but most people no especially those that grew up in a so called Christian country. Ephesians 2:8-9 puts an end to this theory.
Thanks for your comment, but I’m not sure I follow. “How can you resist the Holy Spirit when He comes and lives within you?” Passages like 1 Thes 5:19 “Do not quench the Spirit”, demonstrate that even Christians can and do resist the Holy Spirit from time to time. I list some of the other passages to consider in a 1 min short here: ruclips.net/user/shortsjnXd5EAMoTY?si=FOhQZZ41RClipgbq “Also did you believe and repent the very first time you heard the gospel?” No, I didn’t. And you’re right, few do. I’d suggest this further demonstrates that grace is *resistible;* even those who ultimately believe *resisted* for a time. If you’re interested, I have a few longer videos on resistible grace; the most recent here: ruclips.net/video/wSdOGYZDPwU/видео.htmlsi=2nYJX79Wpj8zmcx_
I find some of the terminology confusing. For example, I don’t think total depravity is necessarily the same as inability (to respond to the gospel). Calvinists claim it is, but why? And I’m not sure that original sin means exactly the same as total depravity. It’s necessary to understand what the definitions are first, before saying particular groups do or do not adhere to these views. Most Christians accept that the whole of humanity has been tainted by Adam’s sin (universal depravity, original sin), and that the Fall has affected our human nature - body, soul and spirit (I think that’s what the word ‘total’ refers to); but whether fallen humans can respond to the gospel (inability versus ability) and how the Holy Spirit aids us in this seems a complex subject. Adam’s sin rendered us all sinners, but I find it difficult to resolve whether Adam’s guilt was imputed to all. It seems to come down to how a verse in Romans 5 is punctuated, which varies between translations. I.e. will someone who is an unbeliever be eternally punished because of Adam’s sin, or because of their own sin (and failure to respond to the gospel and receive God’s salvation).
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.
The most ancient and original church, the Orthodox church, does not hold that adam's sin was imputed to all. This is a mistake coming from Saint Augustine's unfortunate pagan philosophical background that the western church (especially the roman church and through them in a different way the protestant church) fixed upon and made the centerpiece of doctrine. Id be judged because of my own sins not my ancestors sins and God will forgive me if I repent of ny sins and ask His forgiveness because He loves all his creation and is merciful beyond our understanding. Look into Orthodox theology and you'll begin to wonder why something so obvious was the cause of so many disputes in the west
@Mmhmmyeahok Thanks for that. I’ve been reading recently about Augustine’s ideas and what he was influenced by, which I found surprising (e.g. Manichaeism). This raises another issue involving terminology… what does it mean for Adam’s sin to be imputed? I think there is a big difference between his guilt being imputed and the consequences of his sin being passed on, i.e. sinful human nature, a propensity to sin. If his guilt was imputed, then this seems to contradict a number of scriptures. And also we would (I think) be told to repent of Adam’s sin as well as our own; and what about all his later sins, following the first/original one? Does the Orthodox Church hold to a fallen sinful nature being passed on to all Adam’s descendants (with the exception of Jesus Christ)?
@@Mmhmmyeahok The Orthodox Church does also hold to original sin, just not original guilt. And there are some Arminians who take the same position as the Orthodox. See the chart here: evangelicalarminians.org/six-views-on-original-sin-vs-original-guilt/ But the view did not originate with Augustine. All the way back in 246 Origen wrote in his commentary on Romans: "Even in the law it is commanded that sacrifices be offered for the child who was born: a pair of turtledoves or 2 young doves; one of which was offered for sin ... For which sin is this one dove offered? Was a newly born child able to sin? And yet it has a sin for which sacrifices are commanded to be offered & from which it is denied that anyone is pure, even if his life should be one day long. It has to be believed that concerning this David also said "in sins my mother conceived me.” For according to the historical narrative no sin of his mother is declared. It is on this account as well that the Church has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to little children. For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries where committed were aware that in everyone was sin's innate defilement, which needed to be washed away through water & the Spirit." (Origen (~246), Commentary on Romans, book 5, chp 9) I disagree with Origen’s understanding of the *meaning* of baptism here, but we cannot deny the ancient church held to imputation of Adam’s sin. And then remember, Arminians hold unlimited atonement and universal prevenient grace. Most (maybe all) Arminians who hold there was original guilt also hold that it is already forgiven as an unconditional benefit of the atonement (Rom 5:16 & 18).
The essential point is "total depravity." If Arminius or Wesley actually believed the Biblical definition--that mankind is born "dead in his trespasses," then they would have to convert to the doctrines of grace. Arminius apparently understood original sin as that which could be removed in a child's baptism, where Wesley evicerates "total depravity" by asserting a universal semi-born again experience for all mankind in his "prevenient grace" doctrine.
No. We agree with Calvinists on Total Depravity; the difference is in our view of the Prevenient work of the Holy Spirit, but you have not understood Arminius nor Wesley correctly. I recommend checking out my videos on TD: ruclips.net/video/tFt0KoTX_PU/видео.htmlsi=YL0gNqAasImKDHDV & PG: ruclips.net/video/wSdOGYZDPwU/видео.htmlsi=8xx8VqBw7nBoYl_S
Only problem with the "doctrines of grace" is that no one in the historical church Christ founded believes them and no one believed them at all for 1500 years until John Calvin decided Christianity was insufficiently intellectual for a man of his immense genius. The bigger problem is just that the "doctrines of grace" make god a psychopath and the universe a horror movie he scripted just for kicks
Hooray you've declared yourself the least roman catholic! Since the purpose of Christianity is not repentance and righteousness but rather making REALLY sure youre not roman catholic I can only assume you have it all right. That your God is a sadist who glories in tormenting creatures he creates for that purpose is a small matter comparatively
2:20 - I believe that you do not bring clarity to Arminius at this point. Any reader of Arminius soon notices that some of his statements seem contradictory. The same with John Wesley. Wesley's theology evolved, and at times it is hard to know chronologically what he thought. Arminius on the other hand, had to walk on theological eggshells, having to not cross the fine line of Calvin's harsh and hateful Inquisitional persecution. Arminius had to state things in a way that were at times very "soft" to avoid being executed for heresy in Calvin's eyes. The quote you make "is not so widely different" but was wider than it infers. What Arminius does here is to use semantics, i.e., using the same words and terms yet using a different dictionary. Calvin, using the term "impute" to mean "a mystical transfer of character from one person to another" differs from Arminius' impute meaning, "to account." Elsewhere he says, "I have said,... "The righteousness of Christ imputed to us for righteousness:" And why may I not reject a phrase which does not occur in the Scriptures, provided I do not deny any true signification which can be proved from the Scriptures?" Arminius denies transfer of character yet concedes that the "The righteousness of Christ imputed to us for righteousness:" is true. It comes down to what the word "impute" means. Those, following his lead in the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition, all rejects Calvinian "imputation." Here is an article addressing the issue of how Aminians today confound the use of the term "impute." biblical-theology.net/imputation.htm
Really "know a tree by its fruits" should be plenty to dispense with John Calvin as some kind of new apostle and self appointed churcu father. The fact that he originated all new core doctrines after 1500 years and then set about murdering people who didnt agree is really sufficient for assessing the degree to which the spirit guiding him was a holy one
Calvinists are people who believe God is both all powerful and the author of infinite evil... but that's great because anyway he arbitrarily still likes them and wants to do nice things for them personally. To hell with the hindmost (literally). Absolutely devilish idea and whatever their other merits calvinists should repent for slandering the Holy Merciful God so terribly. Luckily theyre also wrong about God being vindictive quick to punish and unable to forgive... so God will forgive them this sin as He mercifully forgives my even worse sins, need only change your mind.
Nice summary. Thumbs up!!!
A person from Arminia.
thank you
Thank you. I was curious how you would answer the question that our Calvinist brother ask about why one person is saved and the other is not under the same preaching? Is the result of salvation because of man or God?
It was phrased something like that.
Thanks for your comment. The fault of unbelief is always the man, who has resisted the grace whereby he would have been saved (as John Wesley said). As to why some resist while others yield to the Spirit's drawing, I have suggested a few answers in the last section of my article here (under the heading "Why doesn’t everyone who hears the gospel respond with faith?"): evangelicalarminians.org/prevenient-grace-an-introduction/
And Dr. Abasciano has shared some thoughts here: evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-addressing-the-calvinist-challenge-why-did-you-believe-and-your-neighbor-did-not/
Hope this helps.
I think i have it..... The calvinist god created an entire world of creatures, in his image, who only hate him, he picks a few, against their will, to love him, and finally, to somehow bring him extra glory, he torments the rest for all eternity.
***he also decided to decree this before time, before all things, before any creature made a choice, including adam and satan.
You got it, but sadly your wording and lack of heartfelt believe of the Truth becomes an exact hatefilled quote of Satan😢. May God drop you yo your knees and save your very soul! Praise the Sovereign, Almighty God of the Bible!!
@@davidyingling4873 Glad you verified the calvi-god for me. Hey, atleast your not the self-righteous, condesending, judgmental, 2x4 in the eye, love-less, anti-Jesus type.
Luckly the God of the universe loves us despite our many flaws.✌✌
Calvinism is basically a cult for people who believe god is evil but they figure they're on the same team as him so its okay
Fortunately God is not like this and even more fortunately a lot of individual Calvinists do not focus on this perverse doctrine 99% of the time and so in practice are fine faithful people and not the nihilistic fatalists their dogma recommends
Arminius himself may have affirmed original sin and salvation by faith, but I have seen a number of modern Arminians - like holiness street preachers (such as Jesse Morrell) and many of the Charismatics - deny original sin, and are quick to deny salvation by faith ALONE, often parroting the Catholic position of faith + works, or faith + obedience. Many of these (such as Dan Corner) will also say that a Christian can fall away not only because of apostasy, but also due to committing certain kinds of sins, or habitual "willful" sins, again parroting the more Catholic view of "mortal" sins, such as murder, adultery, fornication, theft, or drunkenness. They base this understanding on several of the lists of sinners in the epistles who will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Granted, many of these types are not Methodists, but from the Pentecostal, Weslyan Holiness, and Free Will Baptist traditions. Also, many of the Restorationist sects - such as the SDAs and Churches of Christ, self-identify as Arminians, although you may dispute that designation.
It's strange how much protestantism is really just anti-catholicism for superannuated historical reasons.
Anyway more people are gradually realizing that they were responding to errors in roman catholicism with corresponding errors in the other direction. The eastern orthodox never fell into these errors and so is pretty much orthogonal on all these questions protestants love to hate catholicism over.
The simplest and maybe most important example is just this: why does God need to be "repaid" for any sin? Isnt he (in his SOVEREIGN WILL that calvinists love to talk about) capable of just FORGIVING? I'm a flawed and sinful man and yet I'm capable of forgiving my children whom I love without extracting suffering from them. Why do you think God is less merciful than some jerk on the internet? Why is His SOVEREIGN WILL so constrained that He can't even show the simplest mercy that He expects and in fact demands that we show? Are we to be more loving than God?
If you accept the simple idea that God loves us and is overjoyed to forgive all of us who will truly ask to be forgiven... pretty much all these controversies in western christianity evaporate. Suddenly you can understand the clear meaning of the prodigal son. The Father doesnt sieze the loyal son and torture him before He embraces the prodigal. He forgive because His nature is love and mercy and He wishes to love and forgive all who ask.
You can return to the older and more lovely eastern idea of salvation, not of God tormenting Himself through the person of His son but Christ trampling down death by His death and regenerating creation itself
How can you resist the Holy Spirit when He comes and lives within you?
Also did you believe and repent the very first time you heard the gospel? Some people yes but most people no especially those that grew up in a so called Christian country. Ephesians 2:8-9 puts an end to this theory.
Thanks for your comment, but I’m not sure I follow.
“How can you resist the Holy Spirit when He comes and lives within you?” Passages like 1 Thes 5:19 “Do not quench the Spirit”, demonstrate that even Christians can and do resist the Holy Spirit from time to time. I list some of the other passages to consider in a 1 min short here:
ruclips.net/user/shortsjnXd5EAMoTY?si=FOhQZZ41RClipgbq
“Also did you believe and repent the very first time you heard the gospel?” No, I didn’t. And you’re right, few do. I’d suggest this further demonstrates that grace is *resistible;* even those who ultimately believe *resisted* for a time.
If you’re interested, I have a few longer videos on resistible grace; the most recent here:
ruclips.net/video/wSdOGYZDPwU/видео.htmlsi=2nYJX79Wpj8zmcx_
I find some of the terminology confusing. For example, I don’t think total depravity is necessarily the same as inability (to respond to the gospel). Calvinists claim it is, but why? And I’m not sure that original sin means exactly the same as total depravity. It’s necessary to understand what the definitions are first, before saying particular groups do or do not adhere to these views. Most Christians accept that the whole of humanity has been tainted by Adam’s sin (universal depravity, original sin), and that the Fall has affected our human nature - body, soul and spirit (I think that’s what the word ‘total’ refers to); but whether fallen humans can respond to the gospel (inability versus ability) and how the Holy Spirit aids us in this seems a complex subject. Adam’s sin rendered us all sinners, but I find it difficult to resolve whether Adam’s guilt was imputed to all. It seems to come down to how a verse in Romans 5 is punctuated, which varies between translations. I.e. will someone who is an unbeliever be eternally punished because of Adam’s sin, or because of their own sin (and failure to respond to the gospel and receive God’s salvation).
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.
The most ancient and original church, the Orthodox church, does not hold that adam's sin was imputed to all. This is a mistake coming from Saint Augustine's unfortunate pagan philosophical background that the western church (especially the roman church and through them in a different way the protestant church) fixed upon and made the centerpiece of doctrine.
Id be judged because of my own sins not my ancestors sins and God will forgive me if I repent of ny sins and ask His forgiveness because He loves all his creation and is merciful beyond our understanding.
Look into Orthodox theology and you'll begin to wonder why something so obvious was the cause of so many disputes in the west
@Mmhmmyeahok Thanks for that. I’ve been reading recently about Augustine’s ideas and what he was influenced by, which I found surprising (e.g. Manichaeism). This raises another issue involving terminology… what does it mean for Adam’s sin to be imputed? I think there is a big difference between his guilt being imputed and the consequences of his sin being passed on, i.e. sinful human nature, a propensity to sin. If his guilt was imputed, then this seems to contradict a number of scriptures. And also we would (I think) be told to repent of Adam’s sin as well as our own; and what about all his later sins, following the first/original one? Does the Orthodox Church hold to a fallen sinful nature being passed on to all Adam’s descendants (with the exception of Jesus Christ)?
@@Mmhmmyeahok The Orthodox Church does also hold to original sin, just not original guilt. And there are some Arminians who take the same position as the Orthodox. See the chart here:
evangelicalarminians.org/six-views-on-original-sin-vs-original-guilt/
But the view did not originate with Augustine. All the way back in 246 Origen wrote in his commentary on Romans:
"Even in the law it is commanded that sacrifices be offered for the child who was born: a pair of turtledoves or 2 young doves; one of which was offered for sin ... For which sin is this one dove offered? Was a newly born child able to sin?
And yet it has a sin for which sacrifices are commanded to be offered & from which it is denied that anyone is pure, even if his life should be one day long.
It has to be believed that concerning this David also said "in sins my mother conceived me.”
For according to the historical narrative no sin of his mother is declared.
It is on this account as well that the Church has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to little children.
For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries where committed were aware that in everyone was sin's innate defilement, which needed to be washed away through water & the Spirit."
(Origen (~246), Commentary on Romans, book 5, chp 9)
I disagree with Origen’s understanding of the *meaning* of baptism here, but we cannot deny the ancient church held to imputation of Adam’s sin.
And then remember, Arminians hold unlimited atonement and universal prevenient grace. Most (maybe all) Arminians who hold there was original guilt also hold that it is already forgiven as an unconditional benefit of the atonement (Rom 5:16 & 18).
The essential point is "total depravity." If Arminius or Wesley actually believed the Biblical definition--that mankind is born "dead in his trespasses," then they would have to convert to the doctrines of grace. Arminius apparently understood original sin as that which could be removed in a child's baptism, where Wesley evicerates "total depravity" by asserting a universal semi-born again experience for all mankind in his "prevenient grace" doctrine.
No. We agree with Calvinists on Total Depravity; the difference is in our view of the Prevenient work of the Holy Spirit, but you have not understood Arminius nor Wesley correctly.
I recommend checking out my videos on TD: ruclips.net/video/tFt0KoTX_PU/видео.htmlsi=YL0gNqAasImKDHDV
& PG: ruclips.net/video/wSdOGYZDPwU/видео.htmlsi=8xx8VqBw7nBoYl_S
Only problem with the "doctrines of grace" is that no one in the historical church Christ founded believes them and no one believed them at all for 1500 years until John Calvin decided Christianity was insufficiently intellectual for a man of his immense genius.
The bigger problem is just that the "doctrines of grace" make god a psychopath and the universe a horror movie he scripted just for kicks
Arminians AFFIRM justification by faith!
The Reformed AFFIRM justification by faith ALONE!
There is a vast difference between the two.
Hooray you've declared yourself the least roman catholic! Since the purpose of Christianity is not repentance and righteousness but rather making REALLY sure youre not roman catholic I can only assume you have it all right. That your God is a sadist who glories in tormenting creatures he creates for that purpose is a small matter comparatively
2:20 - I believe that you do not bring clarity to Arminius at this point. Any reader of Arminius soon notices that some of his statements seem contradictory. The same with John Wesley. Wesley's theology evolved, and at times it is hard to know chronologically what he thought. Arminius on the other hand, had to walk on theological eggshells, having to not cross the fine line of Calvin's harsh and hateful Inquisitional persecution. Arminius had to state things in a way that were at times very "soft" to avoid being executed for heresy in Calvin's eyes.
The quote you make "is not so widely different" but was wider than it infers. What Arminius does here is to use semantics, i.e., using the same words and terms yet using a different dictionary.
Calvin, using the term "impute" to mean "a mystical transfer of character from one person to another" differs from Arminius' impute meaning, "to account."
Elsewhere he says, "I have said,... "The righteousness of Christ imputed to us for righteousness:" And why may I not reject a phrase which does not occur in the Scriptures, provided I do not deny any true signification which can be proved from the Scriptures?" Arminius denies transfer of character yet concedes that the "The righteousness of Christ imputed to us for righteousness:" is true. It comes down to what the word "impute" means.
Those, following his lead in the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition, all rejects Calvinian "imputation."
Here is an article addressing the issue of how Aminians today confound the use of the term "impute."
biblical-theology.net/imputation.htm
Really "know a tree by its fruits" should be plenty to dispense with John Calvin as some kind of new apostle and self appointed churcu father.
The fact that he originated all new core doctrines after 1500 years and then set about murdering people who didnt agree is really sufficient for assessing the degree to which the spirit guiding him was a holy one
an arminian is someone who believes in his perspective and his emotion and fits scripture around that
Calvinists are people who believe God is both all powerful and the author of infinite evil... but that's great because anyway he arbitrarily still likes them and wants to do nice things for them personally. To hell with the hindmost (literally).
Absolutely devilish idea and whatever their other merits calvinists should repent for slandering the Holy Merciful God so terribly. Luckily theyre also wrong about God being vindictive quick to punish and unable to forgive... so God will forgive them this sin as He mercifully forgives my even worse sins, need only change your mind.
OUUUUUGHHHH
The sterile claustrophobic compulsions of Protestantism.
'Promo SM' 👇
Calvinism is as unbiblical as Catholicism, Arminianism is unbiblical as well.