Comments on: Problems with Arminian Universal Redemption http://gospelcenteredmusings.com/2009/10/27/problems-with-arminian-universal-redemption/ A collection of absorbed thoughts and writings that have been turned in the mind, meditatively and inconclusively for the sake of the Gospel. Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:26:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Steve http://gospelcenteredmusings.com/2009/10/27/problems-with-arminian-universal-redemption/#comment-1796 Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:45:36 +0000 http://gospelcenteredmusings.com/?p=3504#comment-1796 Three years ago I stopped attending a “Reformed 5-point Calvinist” that I had been attending for almost 30 years. I had, of course, been aware over the years of the Calvinists vs Arminian debate. My understanding of the particular points always came from books that were critical of what was portrayed as the classical Arminian theology, i.e. universal redemption and free will. I am now ashamed that I never took the time to go to the actual primary sources for Arminian theology, somehting taht any good Berean should be willing to do. Instead, I only listened to those voices that ofered secondary opinions. It turns out that after starting to explore and study primary sources for Arminian theology, I discovered that with a few exceptions, neither James Arminius or many leading Arminian theologiians (especially those informed by the Wesleyan Holiness tradition which I am now apart of by way of the Church of the Nazarene) teach either free will defined as mankinds ability to choose God without grace or universal redemption. I understand that there are groups and denominations that place themselves in the Arminian stream that do ideed hold to these two specific theological positions but they are no more mainstream Arminian than a Calvinist that holds to the view that the elect will be elect (and the unelect, unelected) based on the non-biblical concept of irristable grace and that there is no need to waste our time evangelising the lost–they will be saved or unsaved regardless of waht we do. This position has been called Hyper-Calvinism and it is no longer a tenable theology as it was in the 18 and 19th centuary.

In my opinion it is out of ignorance at best and disingenious at worst (meaning intellectually dishonest) for a Calvinist to teach that Arminan theology teaches either free will or universal salvation. As an Arminian I hold to the view that man is depraved and cannot without grace through faith be saved (that is a part of the Articles of Faith for the Church of the Nazarene and if anybody cares to look at that as a source of what a denomination in the Arminian tradtion believes and teaches don’t take my word for it, look at it yourself. And I know of no serious Arminian theologian at least in the Wesleyan Holiness tradition who teaches anything else and certainly does not teach that everyone is saved (universalism). What Arminains believe is that Christ died for ALL sinners but salvation is only effectual for those, who by grace through faith (given by God as a free gift) who accept, confess and believe. However, lest this be construed as Calvinistic election, salvation is available for all mankind by God’s free grace and mercy. Nor do Arminians generally deny predestination or election–after all these are biblical terms and have significant meaning in Pauiline theology. We do propose that these two concepts (note they they are not developed as concepts much beyond their mention in Paul’s writing) have different meanings and in some cases will we refrain from speculative theology as to their full meaning and application. But they are clearly there and meaning and theology can be extrapolated from the whole counsel of scripture.

]]>