a comparison

Donna - I don't think that Arminians believe that there is "enough good left in man" to enable him to accept Jesus Christ. Arminius believed in total depravity, formulated about the exact same as Calvin. This is the one point on which both agreed.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

Basically I think we bandy about these terms as a sort of soteriological shorthand without really knowing what their original proponents taught. Most so-called 'Arminians' today are in reality Pelagians, and certainly are if they believe that there was enough good in man to enable him to accept Christ of his own free will then they are Pelagians.

Pelagianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

 

Calvin, at least at some point in his life (and I am not sure when), believed in universal atonement, it seems. I am on an Amyraldian listserver that has posted quotes aplenty on this.

 

Those folks only THOUGHT that they were Arminians, Donna! They were truly Pelagians. Arminius did not believe that way.

I am MUCH more certain of this than I am of assertion #2!

What makes it possible for depraved man to be saved in Arminius' view is some grace extended by God to all. I think it was Wesley who finally coined the term "prevenient grace."

Part of the moral of this story, I think, is that we do not get very much exposure to systematic theology these days. Preaching on Sunday morning contents itself with the Reader's Digest abridged version. Probably most preachers themselves are a little fuzzy. And don't get the idea that I know better, either! I have just been asking myself the exact same question you are asking here for long enough I decided to go to the sources for a few answers.

Those are the theological "Big 3" today:
Pelagianism
Arminianism
Calvinism.

There are many other ways of looking at soteriology too of course, though.

 

Yes, that second quote sounds more like it. The first is what I am saying is not quite right. Another major point of divergence between Arminians and Pelagians is salvation by faith versus works. Arminians of course believe in salvation by faith.

In short, Pelagians do not believe in original sin, Arminians do.

 

Yes. Well in that case I would say the summation of Arminian soteriology you initially quoted is not correct. It is in fact Pelagianism that is being described in your first posts. But let's just see what others have to say. I hope some will read the articles on Arminiansim and Pelagianism. Even though it is Wikipedia, they are good articles, concise and accurate.

Few of us are actually consistent enough in our views to really match one or another of these guys, though. Despite whatever label we choose to hang on our beliefs, we tend to jump back and forth. I am not a true Calvinist in many respects, either. I do not believe in gospel regeneration for one thing.

If you really just want to limit this discussion to Arminianism and Calvinism, then i would say #1 I know of comparatively few Arminians, and #2 those who do endorse Arminius' views would agree totally with Calvin on point #1, total depravity. Arminius was really a sub-type of Calvinist in his general perspective, only disagreeing on some of the particulars. Pelagianism is something quite different. Arminianism and Calvinism are more similar.

PLUS, we have to admit belief in General Atonement into the Calvinist camp, since Calvin also admitted it. General
atonement is not a move in the direction of Arminianism, it came from Calvin himself.

P.S. Apparently a lot of what we think of today as the 'classic Calvinist' formulation in fact came not from Calvin himself, but from John Owen, a Puritan theologian of the mid-1600s. It is only one strain of Calvinism.

 

Oh, yeah, it's prevalent, allright. It just is not Arminianism. Like I said, most people who characterize themselves as 'Arminians' have no idea what Arminianism really is! And as a result, Calvinists don't either.

I hear this sort of stuff denounced from the pulpit nearly every month as 'Arminianism,' and it is nonetheless NOT Arminianism. That is just a misconception. We need to do a better job with our terminology, coz old Arminius is spinning in his grave. The way it is commonly expressed (by us OR its adherents) is just a mishmash of mutually exclusive ideas derived from 20th century economic/psychological/social theory, and not a coherent theology at all. There, I have said it. That is not Arminianism, it is just nonsense.

 

What you list is the strawman argument for arminianism calvinists use. I do not know of any non cal here, or anywhere that feels man has a "spark of good left".

I also do not understand why choosing good over evil requires this so called "spark" either. Since Adam and Eve were created "good" according to the Bible, did they require a "spark" of evil to choose sin?

 

If "elected unto eternal life" you mean salvation, Ephesians 2:8-9 is pretty clear that salvation is conditional.

 

Calvinists have the act of atonement (legal payment) confused with forgiveness.