First, thanks to rsr for posting a link to the writings of Arminius. I found them most enlightening, because it is much more clear to me now that Arminius was terribly confused in his thinking. Here is an excerpt from those writings, where Arminius explains his understanding of what predestination means: Assuming this has been translated accurately, here's what I find astounding about the language. He says that "he has also decreed to deny [certain people] that grace which is necessary and sufficient for salvation". It seems pretty unfair when you put it that way, doesn't it? The problem lies in two words: "deny" and "grace". The only way one can possibly determine that it is "unfair" to deny some people grace is if one assumes that these people deserve the grace they are being denied. But it is by definition impossible to deserve grace. Grace is unmerited favor. Deserved grace is an oxymoron. Here is another glaring error... This was a jaw-dropper for me. In other places, Arminius seems to affirm faith and grace. Yet here, he says - in shockingly and abundantly clear language - that it is repugnant that God would choose anyone for salvation without having some qualifications of righteousness or obedience. In short, Arminius gives lip service to grace, but neither understands that it is unmerited, nor does he approve of it being unmerited! To him, it would be unjust if one can get saved by any means other than righteousness and obedience! In that case, grace is not grace! Unless it gets a lot better later on, I don't see how anyone actually takes Arminius seriously.