Were there a fair number of representation of Remonstrants (Reformed Arminians) as there were of Contra-Remonstrants (Reformed Calvinists) or was the representation uneven and unfair against the Remonstrants? Thanks!

I've been studying the topic of Open Theism in comparison to other perspectives on God's sovereignty, omniscience, and man's free will. As I understand it, on a scale spanning from full on deterministic fatalism to fully libertarian freedom, Hyper-Calvinism is on one extreme end and Pelagianism is on the other extreme. Since Calvinism allows for a form of free will, it is obviously not deterministic fatalism, but it's obviously close by. Also, as I understand it, Augustinianism is very similar to Calvinism (or, rather, vice versa since the former came first chronologically), and Semi-Pelagianism is approximately halfway between Augustinianism and Pelagianism. My question, therefore, is two-fold: 1. Does the above scale provide an accurate structure from which to understand the perspectives listed above? 2. Where does Arminianism, Molinism, and Open Theism fall in comparison to the things listed above? In particular I've heard people effectively say that Arminianism is halfway between Calvinism and Semi-Pelagianism. Is that true, or is it closer to one than the other? I've also heard people describe Molinism as a variant of Arminianism. If true does it shift it towards Calvinism or away from it? Finally, it seems like Open Theism and Pelagianism are similar in that they exclusively focus in on either the nature of God or nature of man in ways fundamentally contrary to Scripture, and make vague statements on the nature of man or God. Ultimately, I'm trying to get a big-picture overview of all these things and how they relate to one another, so if part of all of my understanding above is way off base, I'd appreciate an explanation of where I went off the rails, and how you would explain the relationship between all these things.

Was Jacob Arminius a cessationist and credobaptist? An article I am reading claims that he did not believe in infant baptism or in spiritual gifts today.

I've been looking at [penal substitutionary atonement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution) and am finding that although Calvinists and Arminians seem to affirm it, it appears to be Calvinists who affirm it most strongly. Is this accurate?

During the fifth century, John Cassian claimed that the initial steps to salvation were in the power of each individual, unaided by grace. He reacted against Augustine’s view of the irresistible power of grace and predestination. Circa 414 Augustine of Hippo strongly affirmed the existence of original sin, the impossibility of a sinless life without Christ, and the necessity of Christ's grace. 1 Pelagius, a Romano-British theologian, was known for his emphasis on human choice in salvation and his denial of original sin. He believed in mankind’s good nature and individual responsibility for choosing asceticism, stressing the freedom of human will. 2 Pelagianism was a school of thought that taught that the human will was capable of spiritual good without the aid of God’s grace, and that sinless perfection was possible in this life. This was supported by Nestorius. Augustine and Jerome were chief critics of Pelagianism, and it was condemned by church councils in A.D. 418 and 431 (Council of Carthage). From Pilgrim Theology, pp.468 & 470, Michael Horton, Zondervan, 2011 Fast forward to 1610 when five articles of faith based on the teachings of Jacobus Arminius were published in protest against Calvin's doctrines relating to divine sovereignty, human inability, unconditional election (or predestination), particular redemption, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. The Synod of Dort was convened to examine the views of Arminius, and in 1620 a response was published, rejecting the Arminian position and presenting the Calvinistic position. Although the church was quick to denounce the ideas of Cassian and Pelagius (excommunicating the latter), have some of their ideas on free will and man's ability to accept the salvation offered by God, filtered down through the centuries to influence resistance to the Reformed view of the depraved nature of humanity and God's sovereign power in the matter of election and predestination unto salvation? Is there a theological link between the views of Cassian and Pelagius and Arminianism? Sources: 1 [New Advent: John Cassian](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03404a.htm) 2[Wikipedia: Pelagius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius)

**Q: Do Arminian Protestants agree with Chapter 3 Article 1 of the [Westminster Confession of Faith](http://files1.wts.edu/uploads/pdf/about/WCF_30.pdf)?** We read: > CHAPTER 3 - Of God’s Eternal Decree > > 1. **God**, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: ***yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin***, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. **The scriptures they use are:** > **[****65****]** (Ephesians 1:11, Romans 11:33, Hebrews 6:17, Romans 9:15, 18) > > ****: (James 1:13, 17, 1 John 1:5) > > ****: (Acts 2:23, Matthew 17:12, Acts 4:27-28, John 19:11, Proverbs 16:33) Do Arminian Protestants find the exegesis of this confession accurate? Why or why not?

From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_election) : > In Christian theology, **conditional election is the belief that God chooses for eternal salvation those whom he foresees will have faith in Christ. This belief emphasizes the importance of a person's free will**. The counter-view is known as unconditional election, and is the belief that God chooses whomever he will, based solely on his purposes and apart from an individual's free will. It has long been an issue in Calvinist–Arminian debate. What is the Biblical basis for Conditional Election? ___ Counterpart question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/66/50422

> "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."
(John 20:23) The [Power of the Keys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_Keys) is a Catholic (and, IIUC, Lutheran) doctrine that only certain individuals — particularly and approximately, those serving as "Priests" (i.e. pastors in Protestant terminology) — have certain abilities. In John 20:23, Jesus makes it plain that *someone* has the ability to forgive and to withhold forgiveness. Some interpret this (along with other scripture, e.g. Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18 and 1 Corinthians 5:1-5) to mean that this ability is "special" somehow to priests/pastors. It is from this same doctrine (IIUC) that we get the idea of excommunication, which is similarly granted to specific "offices" within the Church. Protestants, of course, reject many Catholic teachings. What I would like to know is, **who, according to Arminian Protestants, has the power specified in John 20:23**? Who (if anyone; see also [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30258)) can forgive sins or withhold forgiveness? Is it *any* Christian, or only pastors? Or some other distinction? (For bonus points, is excommunication a thing?) I am asking about *Arminian* (or at least, non-Anglican, non-Lutheran, and non-Calvinist) Protestants specifically, as the answer is obviously different for the excluded groups. (Well, maybe not for Calvinists, but their ideas on predestination muddy things IMHO.) ---- While the (first) linked question is related, it doesn't have much in the way of answers, and, more importantly, doesn't appear answer the more specific "*who* has 'the Keys'" question that I am asking. There are some [other](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89608) [questions](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83406) which also appear similar, but aren't clear what group they apply to, aside from [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/89675/53502) which is specifically Lutheran.

> Proverbs 16:4 > > The Lord has made everything for [c]its own purpose, > Even the wicked for the day of evil. > > 16:4 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex כֹּ֤ל פָּעַ֣ל יְ֭הוָה > לַֽמַּעֲנֵ֑הוּ וְגַם־רָ֝שָׁ֗ע לְיֹ֣ום רָעָֽה׃ > Proverbs 16:33 > >The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision > is from the Lord. > > 16:33 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex בַּ֭חֵיק יוּטַ֣ל > אֶת־הַגֹּורָ֑ל וּ֝מֵיְהוָ֗ה כָּל־מִשְׁפָּטֹֽו׃ How would Arminianism supporters explain Proverbs 16:4 & Proverbs 16:33 (since said verses strongly suggest support for Calvinism's predestination)? (Side Question: @ray-butterworth Thanks for your posting. For Proverbs 16:4, would the following be a reasonable analogy? - -A person named John Doe is walking all alone in the forest with a bleeding physical wound -He sees a really dirty rag near a tree -He decides to take the dirty rag, and wrap it around his wound to slow down the bleeding -Now, he knows the dirty rag can cause physical infections, but for the time being, the dirty rag will slow the bleeding -Therefore, he decides that if he does get any infections from the dirty rag then he will deal with it later because the immediate concern is to Reduce the bleeding. To conclude, the dirty rag represents Proverbs 16:4's wicked. It's sort of like selecting the lesser to 2 evils in order to put an end to the greater of the 2 evils by reducing the physical wound's bleeding which is an immediate concern at that time. If any physical infections show up which is a consequence of using the dirty rag then it can be addressed at a later point in time. )

**Libertarian free will** is the position that a person’s choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. Libertarians generally argue that we cannot be held responsible for our own choices unless we were entirely able to have made a contrary choice instead.1 I’ve included both Arminians and open theists in the question because my understanding is they would generally agree on their views and would both self-identify as holding the libertarian free will position.2 Please no philosophical or logical arguments or opinions. The question here is what case can be made for this view from the Bible. Answers are welcome from determinists and compatibilists as long as you think you can faithfully represent the libertarian position (always cite your sources if applicable!). ---- 1 This is not to be confused with the political view known as libertarianism. Political libertarianism and libertarian free will, sometimes called metaphysical libertarianism, are completely unrelated. For a fuller definition see *[Theopedia › Libertarian free will](http://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will)* .
2 For an Arminian defending libertarian free well and self-identifying as libertarian, see *[Society of Evangelical Arminians › Libertarian free will](http://evangelicalarminians.org/libertarian-free-will/)* . For an open theist, see *[ReKnew.org › Is Free Will compatible with Predestination?](http://reknew.org/2007/12/is-free-will-compatible-with-predestination/)* .

R.C. Sproul, a Reformed thinker said in his book “Chosen by God” that: “Jimmy Swaggart has made it clear that he considers the Reformed view a demonic heresy.” (Page 7) Obviously, disagreements can exist in a ***healthy manner*** with respect to Soteriological beliefs… **Q: Why do some **arminians** think that the reformed view is as distasteful to be called demonic or heresy?**

Gen. 3:1-7 shows that sin was a choice. How does the freedom of choice intersect with saving faith and the work of the Holy Spirit to convict us of sin? This question is for all who believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God.

Rom 9:23 "What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the vessels of His mercy, whom He prepared beforehand for glory" I'm trying to better understand various interpretations of this verse. Those adhering to Reformed theology will likely say "God prepared some people ahead of time for salvation, and for glory (or for displaying His glory)." But how would *non-Reformed* theologians interpret this? I've seen a couple of ideas: 1. God is preparing Christians ahead of time for their entrance into heaven (God is preparing *us* for a place) 3. This is speaking about Christians who have already died, saying God prepared *them* (vessels of mercy) ahead of time for heaven/glory, and He is preparing even us also ahead of time for heaven/glory (verse 24: "even us, whom He also called, not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles?") 2. God, when creating people, prepared fragility in us beforehand, so that His glory would shine in those that freely choose to accept Christ (2 Cor 4:7 We now have this light shining in our hearts, but we ourselves are like fragile clay jars containing this great treasure. This makes it clear that our great power is from God, not from ourselves (NLT).)

While searching on the Web about the Synod of Dort, I have found this post on Heidelblog. It takes a long time preparing the ground to defend that the Arminianism is mere repackaged Pelagianism: > Did Synod condemn the Remonstrants as heretics? If we consider the various points at which Synod flatly characterized the errors of the Remonstrants as heresy, the ways in which Synod repeatedly associated the Remonstrants themselves with the Pelagians, and characterized their errors as Pelagian it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that, for the Synod of Dort, the revisions proposed by the Remonstrants were errors of such a magnitude that they not mere errors and not merely heresy in the broad sense, but heresy in the narrow, technical sense described in the first part of this essay: an error transgressing the ecumenical teaching of the church as agreed at Ephesus in 431, in the condemnation of Coelestius (and through him, Pelagius). The article concludes with an emphatic: > ... Synod did not invoke the category of heresy lightly or unintelligently. They knew what they were doing and they used that language advisedly. It was meant to be bracing to the churches and to her ministers and so it should once again have that same affect in us. It is a bit strange to me hearing this, because many modern confessional Calvinists regularly recognize that the teachings of Arminius and Wesley about the condition of fallen human race (a.k.a. Total Depravity in the TULIP lingo) were orthodox. From memory I remember Sproul finds no fault on Arminius about this specific subject, saying that his descriptions are as strong as any Reformed preacher like Calvin or Luther himself. Charles Spurgeon aggrees with and praises John Wesley on his book *The Two Wesleys*, and he also quotes Arminius "verbatim-translated" : > With the exception of ancient Pelagians and their modern off-spring, I do not know that the Church has afforded any instance of any professors who have doubted the inability of man apart from God the Holy Spirit. Our confessions of faith are nearly unanimous upon this point. But I hear someone say—"Do not the Arminians believe that there is natural strength in man by which he can do something?" No, my Brothers and Sisters, the true Arminian can believe no such thing! Arminius speaks right well upon this point. I quote his words, as I have them in a translation > > It is impossible for free will, without Grace, to begin or perfect any true or spiritual good. I say, the Grace of Christ, which pertains to regeneration is simply and absolutely necessary for the illumination of the mind, the ordering of the affections, and the inclination of the will to that which is good. It is that which operates on the mind, the affections, and the will, which infuses good thoughts into the mind, inspires good desires into the affections, and leads the will to execute good thoughts and good desires. It goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, works in us to will, and works with us that we may not will in vain. It averts temptations, stands by and aids us in temptations, supports us against the flesh, the world, and Satan; and in the conflict, it grants us to enjoy the victory. It raises up again those who are conquered and fallen; it establishes them and endues them with new strength, and renders them more cautious. It begins, promotes, perfects and consummates salvation. I confess that the mind of the natural and carnal man is darkened, his affections are depraved, his will is refractory, and that the man is dead in sin. That being said, is it true to say that every Calvinistic confession that adheres to Dort automatically/logically implies Arminianism is a repackaging of heretic Pelagianism?

The beginning of [Article 17 (XVII) of the *Articles of Religion*](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Common_Prayer_(ECUSA)/Historical_Documents_of_the_Church/Articles_of_Religion) seems to me to clearly teach Calvinistic predestination: > Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. So I found it rather interesting that William Beveridge mentions that some Arminians have interpreted this article differently: > One Article (the 17th Article) has sometimes been wrested into an Arminian interpretation, but the attempt cannot be looked upon as other than a failure. ([*Short History*, 106](https://books.google.com/books?id=PdYyAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA106)) My reading inclines me to agree with Beveridge's analysis, but before passing too firm a judgment, I'd like to understand how Arminians interpret this article to favor their viewpoint. *I'm not interested in the approach of those who simply reject the article or significant portions of it.* ### Among those Arminians who hold to the Articles, how do they defend Article 17?

I just finished reading Mere Christianity and was blown away by some of the statements Lewis makes. He mentions "even [God] cannot produce [a changed heart] by a mere act of power …. It is something they can freely give Him or freely refuse Him ." (Mere Christianity Book 3 chapter 10) This brought up an interesting point in my mind: if you believe in the idea of Free Will with regards to Salvation or a changed heart, you indirectly believe that there is something God cannot do. This directly contradicts the scriptures including Matthew 19:26 and Luke 1:37 (as well as many others, see [OpenBible's *What Does the Bible Say About Omnipotence?*](https://www.openbible.info/topics/omnipotence)) that talk about Gods omnipotence. I grew up in a Calvary Chapel church where Free will was pushed ad nauseam and I was wondering how these Christians as well as other Arminians reconcile free will with something God cannot do.

The doctrine of unlimited atonement teaches that Christ died for all mankind, but only paid for the sins of those who believe in Him. If this is the case then either Jesus already knew who would believe and paid only for their sins (which sounds like limited atonement), or he paid for everyone's sins, but those people who do not believe are still viewed as guilty before God and are still punished. Hence, their sin receives a double payment. This though would seem to make God unjust (which I know He's not.) Let me give an example why I say this. Let's say there was a man who got a speeding ticket and stood before the judge. The judge tells the man that the fine is $200.00 or one week in jail. The man says he doesn't have the money, but before the man is escorted to his cell, another man comes forward and pays the $200 instead. The fine is paid. Now what if the judge, having accepted the $200, still sent the man to jail. Wouldn't that make the judge unjust and wouldn't it make the person who paid the $200 feel used? In short it would mean the judge was demanding double payment for the penalty. Because unlimited atonement is an Arminian teaching, I would like answers from Arminians.

> We believe in the Holy Trinity consisting of God the Father, Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. We believe this triune God to be perfect in every way and worthy of our complete devotion and worship. We believe that all mankind is born into sin, separated from God and destined to an eternal destiny apart from God. We believe that God, in his infinite love, has provided a way for us to attain relationship with Him, by sending His son to be born as a man, to suffer, and to die in our place. We believe that on the third day after His death, Jesus Christ was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God, interceding for us. We believe that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and that faith will be manifested thru obedience to Christ. We believe the bible to be the infallible Word of God and the final authority on all matters. We believe that God has called us to live holy lives, as He did, and desires us to honor Him by caring for the poor and needy and by setting free those who are held captive by the devil. We believe that when life on earth is over, those who have repented of their sins, accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, and have strived to walk as He did, will be united with Him forever in heaven.

Looking on this site in many answers involving the problem of evil I see affirmations of belief in free-will. According to Calvinist Mark Hausam, who presented a paper at a conference on Mormonism, the assertion that God gave us free-will and that God created everything ex-nihilo, beliefs that he asserts are held by many evangelicals, are incompatible. He argues: > Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian thought. In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism. Hausam continues to argue that Arminian thought is not all that dissimilar from Mormonism. Mormonism explicitly rejects the notion of creation ex-nihilo and as such resolves the problem of evil as well as the paradox: If God created everything, how is our will independent of him? He argues that Arminians, in order to believe in our having free-will, must reject the concept of ex-nihilo creation as well. My question is directed to those who hold both these views. I am not entirely convinced that these views are irreconcilable as argued, but I cannot produce a good counter-argument. How do you resolve the paradox presented here by Hausam? *Note: I recognize one way to argue this is that God, being all-powerful, created our free wills out of nothing, but this is still the same paradox. How can God determine (create) something that is undetermined? (free-will). If you could present a logical argument for this view, I would gladly hear it.*

I know the basic difference between Arminianism and Calvinism in the soteriology subject, but when Molinism comes I can't grasp the core doctrines that it teaches. I'm not asking for which is better, just a concise, easy, and helpful definition of each one without too much philosophical blather.