Who Would be Seen As the Arminian Theologian To Calvin?

Sure, I meant to do that when I quoted it. HERE IT IS>

 

And you would lose.

I don't mean to speak for Allan, but I don't think he was attempting to say that no Calvinists throughout history have ever attempted to make that link. Instead, I heard him saying that such efforts to equate the two were misrepresentative or reflective of ones own misunderstandings regarding the historical and theological differences. These quotes, from scholars on the subject, prove my point well:

"Classical Arminianism, which sees Arminius as its figurehead, and Wesleyan Arminianism, which sees John Wesley as its figurehead. Wesleyan Arminianism is sometimes synonymous with Methodism. In addition, Arminianism is often misrepresented by some of its critics to include Semipelagianism or even Pelagianism, though proponents of both primary perspectives vehemently deny these claims." -Olson, Roger E. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2006) 17–18

"Within the broad scope of the history of Christian theology, Arminianism is closely related to Calvinism (or Reformed theology), and the two systems share both history and many doctrines. Nonetheless, they are often viewed as rivals within evangelicalism because of their disagreement over details of the doctrines of divine predestination and salvation." -Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity, Vol. Two: The Reformation to the Present Day (New York: Harpercollins Publishers, 1985; reprint – Peabody: Prince Press, 2008) 180

Those two quotes sound a lot like what Allan actually said in his reply to you on that subject:

Maybe he is a bit more scholarly than you give him credit for... :smilewinkgrin:

 

Thank you.

I'm not sure what to do with Hendryx. I don't know I'd agree with his assessment on everything. But he's thorough, that's for sure :type:

 

Based on past interaction with Dr. Bob I believe my assumption to be correct.

At any rate I would be interested in your take (and not the Reds...my Indians have lost 3 in a row and I'm not up for talking baseball today

 

Bump..waiting for Tom's response.

 

Ahh....sorry.

Too busy watching the Reds....well, be the Reds :BangHead:

I believe some Arminians may unwittingly adopt some Pelagian thoughts. However, others may tend to lean more on planks rightly called Semi-Pelagian (a modern term, that may just as well be called Semi-Augustinianism). We have to clarify our terms here, and that may be hard to do. Just which Arminian are we talking about?

I would reject (as did the church historically) that man's will is not harmed by the fall. I would suspect most would also join me in this. Therefore, we would believe that a divine work of grace that is interior and intentional must occur. The extent to which we believe that work of grace is necessary decides a lot. One step away from the error of Pelagius is almost two or three towards a more Augustinian understanding. However, some will move away from Augustine's views, and every step away you get from him is one more back on the scale. Most Arminians I know tend to settle near the Semi-Pel spot on the gameboard, but some speak like they want to head to Pelagian land. When pressed they quickly and rightly retreat, just like some Calvinists may sound hyper but quickly will distance themselves from it and rightly so. Prima facie, I'd say that Arminianism has more in common with Semi-Pel, but some Arminians (those who are most non-Cal) would sound like Pelagians. Finney probably did more here to make that a case as Arminian scholars will attest. We also must admit that this is a fluid thing we're talking about to some degree.

Long answer to a short question. I hear I'm good at that

Now, back to the important stuff: your Indians still bested my Reds 3 straight. That's a beat-down no matter how you look at it. So every knee must bow, of those wearing Red hats with white wishbone C's :smilewinkgrin:

 

Thanks for the clarification. I still disagree that the majority of arminians are even semi-pel's. Semi-pelagianism teaches (like pelagianism) man can still come to God on his own apart from His working which deny's God giving man creation, His law written on their hearts, the desire to live eternally and having been placed in the perfect location and time in history to seek Him.

 

If I go to work, get a paycheck, buy you a gift and you accept it...how can you claim you are "in the ultimate sense" the one who rightly receives credit for the gift? That kind of logic is mind baffling.

If you are required to use something, are given this gift to use, and then use it...how are you NOT "cooperating" with the one who gave it to you?

 

Would you believe Arminians are more Pelagian than Semi?

I am not familiar with Semi-Pel writings that would say that man can come to God without the interior intentional working, but there may be someone out there I haven't read or have forgotten.

We've been through this one a lot. I don't know that this is a good argument. One, why are you giving the gift? Two, if you were given a job, can you even take credit for giving the gift since the money you earned was given ultimately because of a worthiness deemed and given, not earned by you. Third, the cooperation strikes at the heart of the matter: monergism vs. synergism. Fourth, analogies are just that. Fifth, my Reds continue their semi-free fall, so I may just need to shut up. :laugh:
Sixth, points one through four have been discussed ad naseum and I think we're off topic. Seventh, It's my fault we're off topic one more post since I responded.

I'll stop at seven. It's a perfect number, right? :smilewinkgrin:

 

Based on these definitions I have met hundreds of Semi-Pelagians in my life. Most were descendents of Wesleyanism of some stripe or from Restoration movement (CofC).