# Does Historical Arminianism accept the Doctrine of Total Depravity?



## CalvinisticCumberland (Mar 8, 2008)

I have been surfing the net for resources on this, as that wonderful, "infallible" resource called WikiPedia says that Arminianism is one of the schools of Protestant thought that accepts total depravity. This peaked my curiosity. 

Coming from a "synergistic" denomination, I grew up believing in prevenient grace that wooed all and apart from this grace, well, we were totally inable to come to Christ. 

So, I guess the question is, if we ignore the means of Grace as stated by each camp, can we truly say that historical Arminianism, as opposed to Semi-Pelagianism, believes in total depravity?


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 8, 2008)

Well, their third point, in their 5 point remonstrance, was sort of worded like they did. For that reason the third and fourth head of doctrine were combined in the response by the Synod of Dordt.

Will see if I can find a copy of their 5 point remontrance in english...


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 8, 2008)

Here you go, courtesy of Wikipedia:



> The Five Articles
> The Five Articles of Remonstrance contrast with the Five Points of Calvinism on four points and agree on one point (namely, total depravity). Article I disagrees that our election into Christ is unconditional. Rather, in this article the Remonstrants assert that election is conditional upon our faith in Christ, and that God elects to salvation those He knows beforehand will have faith in Him. Article II espouses unlimited atonement, the concept that Christ died for all. This stands in contrast to the limited atonement of Calvinism, which asserts that Christ only died for those God chooses to be saved. Article III affirms the total depravity of man, that man cannot save himself. Article IV repudiates the Calvinistic concept of irresistible grace, contending that mankind has the free will to resist God's grace. Article V casts doubt on the traditional understanding of the perseverance of the saints, leaning toward the opinion that preservation of the saints is conditional upon the believer remaining in Christ. The text of the articles is given below.
> 
> Article I - That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.
> ...


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 8, 2008)

Although there may be subtle distinctions in classic Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism, they both claim to hold to the doctrine of Total Depravity and attribute salvation to be _by grace _at all points -- hence they deny the charge of semi-pelagian. However, their doctrine of _universal_ prevenient grace essentially offsets the noetic effects of the Fall such that _all_ are now _enabled_ to cooperate with God's grace.


----------



## cih1355 (Mar 8, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> Although there may be subtle distinctions in classic Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism, they both claim to hold to the doctrine of Total Depravity and attribute salvation to be _by grace _at all points -- hence they deny the charge of semi-pelagian. However, their doctrine of _universal_ prevenient grace essentially offsets the noetic effects of the Fall such that _all_ are now _enabled_ to cooperate with God's grace.



When do people get this supposed prevenient grace bestowed upon them?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 8, 2008)

The third point of the Remonstrance admitted total depravity. The fourth point claimed all to be of grace, but denied irresistible or efficacious grace. Putting these two points together gives an _enabling_ and _assisting_ grace which is general and ineffectual (in itself) except the cooperation of man be added to it. Hence Dort answered III & IV in one combined argument.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 8, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> The third point of the Remonstrance admitted total depravity. The fourth point claimed all to be of grace, but denied irresistible or efficacious grace. Putting these two points together gives an _enabling_ and _assisting_ grace which is general and ineffectual (in itself) except the cooperation of man be added to it. Hence Dort answered III & IV in one combined argument.



For this reason I deny that the Remonstrance was truly reflective of the biblical doctrine of TOTAL depravity. By asserting man's ability to cooperate, they redefined dedepravity.

By denying irresistible grace and asserting man's cooperation they really presented a "relative depravity."


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 8, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> When do people get this supposed prevenient grace bestowed upon them?



I believe you will find some implying that this grace comes with birth. Some link it to John 1:9: That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 

E.g. Wesley said, "I only assert, that there is a measure of free-will supernaturally restored to every man, together with that supernatural light which "enlightens every man that cometh into the world." Wesley's Works, 8:52 .

Others may contend it comes with the preaching of the gospel. In the latter case, I suppose those who have yet to hear are still totally depraved. Upon hearing, however, sufficient grace is given.


----------



## moral necessity (Mar 8, 2008)

Arminius believed in total depravity. Grace restored the will of all people to some sort of functional degree. They can now choose to cooperate with further grace.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 8, 2008)

“Christ is everything in Christianity; whosoever abandons that fountain which is ever ready to impart life, and turns to muddy and stagnant waters, is a madman. Conversion proceeds from the grace of God alone, and the system which ascribes it partly to man and partly to God is worse than Pelagianism. Faith is a gift of God, it puts aside all merit, and should banish all fear from the mind.” John Wycliffe


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 8, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> “Christ is everything in Christianity; whosoever abandons that fountain which is ever ready to impart life, and turns to muddy and stagnant waters, is a madman. Conversion proceeds from the grace of God alone, and the system which ascribes it partly to man and partly to God is worse than Pelagianism. Faith is a gift of God, it puts aside all merit, and should banish all fear from the mind.” John Wycliffe



 

Warfield said it this way:


> It is very plain that he who modifies the teachings of the Word of God in the smallest particular at the dictation of any man-made opinion has already deserted the Christian ground, and is already in principle a heretic.


----------



## CalvinisticCumberland (Mar 8, 2008)

What then, are the subtle distinctions in Weslyanism and Arminianism?








Gomarus said:


> Although there may be subtle distinctions in classic Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism, they both claim to hold to the doctrine of Total Depravity and attribute salvation to be _by grace _at all points -- hence they deny the charge of semi-pelagian. However, their doctrine of _universal_ prevenient grace essentially offsets the noetic effects of the Fall such that _all_ are now _enabled_ to cooperate with God's grace.


----------



## CalvinisticCumberland (Mar 8, 2008)

That brings up an interesting question. What would be the defining difference between "prevenient" grace, which "saves" all man-kind from total depravity, and "saving" grace, which still is apparently issued to every man who hears the word. Where is the line between the two? And what about the heathen who have never heard the word? And if one can presumably resist "saving" grace, then why wouldn't one be able to reject this "prevenient" grace as well, and by "free-choice" return to a state of total depravity?

It seems to me that any thinking Arminian would really have to grapple with these inconsistencies. 





moral necessity said:


> Arminius believed in total depravity. Grace restored the will of all people to some sort of functional degree. They can now choose to cooperate with further grace.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 8, 2008)

To the question: What then, are the subtle distinctions in Weslyanism and Arminianism?

The most recent treatment may be found in _Arminian Theology: Myths And Realities_ by Roger Olsen (IVP, 2006).  at Amazon.com


He contends that poor old James Arminius has been misunderstood and libeled by Calvinist theologians past and present. He maintains that the teachings of Arminius, while suggesting a departure from the Belgic Confession, were completely evangelical and rooted in the principles of the Reformation. In doing so, he attempts to distinguish between Arminianism-of-the-heart and Arminianism-of-the-head. I.e. Classic Arminianism and today's theologically sloppy Arminianism. 

Olson can’t deny his theology is _synergistic_ — a fundamental aspect of Semi-pelagianism — so he now attempts to define an evangelical synergism that is biblical. You’ll have to read it yourself to see if he succeeds or is just playing another shell game.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 8, 2008)

CalvinisticCumberland said:


> What then, are the subtle distinctions in Weslyanism and Arminianism?




I'm no expert on what subtle distinctions there may be between them on prevenient grace, etc. But of course with Wesleyanism you have the teaching of entire sanctification, 2nd work of grace, etc. I was a member of a Wesleyan church for about two years, but the pastor did not emphasize Wesleyan distinctives and pointedly would say that he didn't believe the doctrine of entire sanctification, although typically he wouldn't get into any of that from the pulpit. He was expository and there were a few times he would note "that verse seems to be teaching predestination" and then just move on.


----------



## CalvinisticCumberland (Mar 8, 2008)

Being a musician, I have worked in several Methodist congregations as either a choir leader or accompanist, and it was not uncommon to hear the doctrine of perfection, or perfect love, preached from the pulpit. Of course, this is a whole different can of worms...








Pilgrim said:


> CalvinisticCumberland said:
> 
> 
> > What then, are the subtle distinctions in Weslyanism and Arminianism?
> ...


----------



## dwayne (Mar 8, 2008)

CalvinisticCumberland said:


> That brings up an interesting question. What would be the defining difference between "prevenient" grace, which "saves" all man-kind from total depravity, and "saving" grace, which still is apparently issued to every man who hears the word. Where is the line between the two? And what about the heathen who have never heard the word? And if one can presumably resist "saving" grace, then why wouldn't one be able to reject this "prevenient" grace as well, and by "free-choice" return to a state of total depravity?
> 
> It seems to me that any thinking Arminian would really have to grapple with these inconsistencies.
> 
> ...



Most Arminian's are hung up on their choice that that they are blind to avery thing else


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 8, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> Gomarus said:
> 
> 
> > Although there may be subtle distinctions in classic Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism, they both claim to hold to the doctrine of Total Depravity and attribute salvation to be _by grace _at all points -- hence they deny the charge of semi-pelagian. However, their doctrine of _universal_ prevenient grace essentially offsets the noetic effects of the Fall such that _all_ are now _enabled_ to cooperate with God's grace.
> ...



There is a reformed/biblical thought to preveniant grace. Id rather call it preparatory grace which only goes to the elect. 

"I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me; I was ready to be found by those who did not seek me, I said, 'Here am I, here am I, to a nation that did not call on my name. I spread out my hands all the day to a rebellious people, who walk in a way that is not good, following their own devices.'" (Isaiah 65:1-2)


The Holy SPirit ALWAYS preceedes man as an instrument of conversion by the Gospel to quicken their hearts and minds and prepare the soil


----------



## moral necessity (Mar 9, 2008)

CalvinisticCumberland said:


> That brings up an interesting question. What would be the defining difference between "prevenient" grace, which "saves" all man-kind from total depravity, and "saving" grace, which still is apparently issued to every man who hears the word. Where is the line between the two? And what about the heathen who have never heard the word? And if one can presumably resist "saving" grace, then why wouldn't one be able to reject this "prevenient" grace as well, and by "free-choice" return to a state of total depravity?
> 
> It seems to me that any thinking Arminian would really have to grapple with these inconsistencies.
> 
> ...



Arminius saw that prevenient grace would be irresistible, and would be limited to restoring the faculty of the will to an operable state, in some degree, to now be able to choose God. Once the will is brought into a state of being able to cooperate, grace can, from that moment on, be resisted. Saving grace can be offered, but must be cooperated with in order to save. Hardening of oneself towards God can develop by continual resisting, but a state of total depravity can no longer be attained, as the will always remains somewhat operable towards God. Everyone's will is restored to some functional degree by the work of Christ. Arminius saw that his theology fit scripture better than Calvin, as Arminius held to the principle that we are only commanded according to our ability. He saw it as unjust for God to command of us what we were incapable of doing. And so, commands reflected ability. Calvin saw otherwise, and saw that commands reflected our ability before the fall, via the influence and assistance of God's Spirit, and that they reflect our ability now in Christ, via the Spirit's influence, yet to a limited degree due to our fallen natures.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 9, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Arminius saw that his theology fit scripture better than Calvin, as Arminius held to the principle that we are only commanded according to our ability. He saw it as unjust for God to command of us what we were incapable of doing. And so, commands reflected ability. Calvin saw otherwise, and saw that commands reflected our ability before the fall, via the influence and assistance of God's Spirit, and that they reflect our ability now in Christ, via the Spirit's influence, yet to a limited degree due to our fallen natures.





Isnt it ironic that those who deny duty faith/duty repentance say the same thing and are called extra hypers?  I do nto know about this ability before the fall, but responsibility does not have to equal ability. Paul answers this in Romans 9 very well.


----------



## moral necessity (Mar 9, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > Arminius saw that his theology fit scripture better than Calvin, as Arminius held to the principle that we are only commanded according to our ability. He saw it as unjust for God to command of us what we were incapable of doing. And so, commands reflected ability. Calvin saw otherwise, and saw that commands reflected our ability before the fall, via the influence and assistance of God's Spirit, and that they reflect our ability now in Christ, via the Spirit's influence, yet to a limited degree due to our fallen natures.
> ...



Yeah, I know! I somewhat sympathize with Arminius' thougths on being responsible for only what we have ability to perform. For, if God demanded of me that I fly like a bird, it would seem like an unjust command, for he never gave me the ability to do such, and so how could he properly judge me against such a standard. But, if I once had the ability to fly, and fell from that ability, now a command to fly does not violate justice. For, I was made with such an ability originally. 

Blessings!


----------

