# Difference between classical Arminianism and today's Arminianism ?



## Mayflower (Dec 27, 2004)

Can someone explain me the difference ?


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 27, 2004)

Today's arminianism is basically pelagian.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 27, 2004)

explain pelagian...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 27, 2004)

A review of this thread may be helpful...

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7901


----------



## 4ndr3w (Dec 27, 2004)

I would say that it actually appears to be more semi-Pelagian than Pelagian. Here are some interesting articles comparing the differences:



> [Semi-Pelagianism]
> While not denying the necessity of Grace for salvation, Semi-Pelagianism maintains that the first steps towards the Christian life are ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace supervened only later.



http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/arminianism.html

Classic Arminianism agrees with man's depravity and uses "Prevenient Grace" to place man into a neutral area allowing him to choose. The problem is that this choice then seems to be the luck of the dice so to speak.

[Edited on 27-12-2004 by 4ndr3w]


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 27, 2004)

I think that today's Arminianism is closer to Finneyism, that's why I consider it pelagian.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 27, 2004)

I would agree with Wayne. But I would toss in there a few more things. When you walk into today "Evangellyfish" church, you find remnants of Pelagianism (that the fall did not affect us at all and that people are basically good untilt hey start sinning and get progressively worse), existentialism (that my individual experience is church is what counts - coming into contact with God through worship and the service), liberalism (that the doctriens of the bible do not matter a whole lot so long as you love Jesus and want to live a basically moral life), neo-orthodoxy (that the bible can mean what it means for you and for me something different, but so long as we get along (ecumencialism) that is what counts, and humanism (what counts is me, and everything revolves around how I feel or what I want out of life).

Today's evangelical is a melting pot of bad theology and Enlightenment thinking.


----------



## 4ndr3w (Dec 27, 2004)

I still don't see much rejection of imputation as Finney taught. I do see the lack of man's depravity and inability. That's why I consider it more semi-Pelagian. However,I concede to your point. I recently left such a church. It surprised me to see such diverse doctrines. The church I left had made their statement of faith so general that even a Mormon could make deacon there.

[Edited on 27-12-2004 by 4ndr3w]


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 29, 2004)

Did Wesley or Arminius deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer or the penal substitutionary view of the atonement?

Do most Arminians hold to moral government theology or is it just a minority of them?

[Edited on 29-12-2004 by cih1355]

[Edited on 29-12-2004 by cih1355]


----------



## Ranger (Dec 30, 2004)

Arminius didn't that I'm aware of. I don't know about Wesley.


----------



## 4ndr3w (Dec 30, 2004)

> _Originally posted by cih1355_
> Did Wesley or Arminius deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer or the penal substitutionary view of the atonement?
> 
> Do most Arminians hold to moral government theology or is it just a minority of them?
> ...



Wesley didn't deny imputation that I am aware of. As far as I understand it, if one was to believe in such moral government as did Finney, he would stop being Arminian and take on the Pelagian view.

Phil R. Johnson wrote an article on Charles Finney that includes discussion of his denial of imputation at
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

I couldn't bring myself to read all of Finney's Systematic Theology


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 30, 2004)

Listening to Kim Riddlebarger on the White Horse Inn ("Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude") I thought Wesley did deny Imputation.


----------



## Joseph Ringling (Dec 30, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> I would agree with Wayne. But I would toss in there a few more things. When you walk into today "Evangellyfish" church, you find remnants of Pelagianism (that the fall did not affect us at all and that people are basically good untilt hey start sinning and get progressively worse), existentialism (that my individual experience is church is what counts - coming into contact with God through worship and the service), liberalism (that the doctriens of the bible do not matter a whole lot so long as you love Jesus and want to live a basically moral life), neo-orthodoxy (that the bible can mean what it means for you and for me something different, but so long as we get along (ecumencialism) that is what counts, and humanism (what counts is me, and everything revolves around how I feel or what I want out of life).
> 
> Today's evangelical is a melting pot of bad theology and Enlightenment thinking.




So basically everything that's in The Purpose Driven Life.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 30, 2004)

I talked with an Arminian recently and he said that the reason why he stands faultless with God is because of the salvation provided by Jesus Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the power of the Holy Spirit, and his God-given abilities that come from the grace of God. I pointed out to him that if our works contribute to our justification, then our salvation is partially merited. We would not be ill-deserved. He quickly stated that he believes that salvation is by God's grace alone. I responded that he does not understand God's grace. God's grace is God's favor towards those who are ill-deserved. All we deserve is punishment. Our best efforts are like filthy rags in God's sight. He still thinks salvation is by God's grace alone.

[Edited on 31-12-2004 by cih1355]


----------

