Depravity
Here's the third article of the Remonstrants:
ART. III. That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. b: "Without me ye can do nothing."
This of course is teaching man in a fallen state is lost and sinfully and can do nothing to bring bring about his salvation. This agrees with the Calvinistic point on total depravity.
On this point Arminians agree. Arminians are not Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians. (ie the view point that man can save himself or that man initiates salvation and God completes it.) No. For the Arminian, man needs grace in order to be saved.
There are however, differing views in the Arminian camp on how regeneration works. This article states regeneration comes before faith. That's my viewpoint and what I understand Arminius' viewpoint to be as well. To this, Calvinists agree. But what Calvinists and Arminians mean by regeneration is different. Calvinists see regeneration as a one time event. Arminians look at regeneration as a process with various stages. Here's an article that talks about this a bit more:
http://www.geocities.com/freewilltheology/arminiusonregeneration.html
Some Arminians, most notably Wesley disagree. They say God draws man through prevenient grace, man believes and then they are regenerated. This difference tends to be semantic and not real, because what they describe as prevenient grace corresponds to what I would term as the early stages of regeneration.
But the main point here is that Arminiams and Calvinists agree that fallen man can do nothing in and of himself to be saved.
ART. III. That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. b: "Without me ye can do nothing."
This of course is teaching man in a fallen state is lost and sinfully and can do nothing to bring bring about his salvation. This agrees with the Calvinistic point on total depravity.
On this point Arminians agree. Arminians are not Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians. (ie the view point that man can save himself or that man initiates salvation and God completes it.) No. For the Arminian, man needs grace in order to be saved.
There are however, differing views in the Arminian camp on how regeneration works. This article states regeneration comes before faith. That's my viewpoint and what I understand Arminius' viewpoint to be as well. To this, Calvinists agree. But what Calvinists and Arminians mean by regeneration is different. Calvinists see regeneration as a one time event. Arminians look at regeneration as a process with various stages. Here's an article that talks about this a bit more:
http://www.geocities.com/freewilltheology/arminiusonregeneration.html
Some Arminians, most notably Wesley disagree. They say God draws man through prevenient grace, man believes and then they are regenerated. This difference tends to be semantic and not real, because what they describe as prevenient grace corresponds to what I would term as the early stages of regeneration.
But the main point here is that Arminiams and Calvinists agree that fallen man can do nothing in and of himself to be saved.
Comments
Thanks for stopping by. It's always nice to meet another Arminian-Molinist. If you have any comments after reading the article that you would like to discuss, feel free to do so here.
Thanks again for the welcome.
BTW, was that your comment on Triablogue that Arminianism doesn't require libertarian free will? I would like to understand more on that point.
God bless,
Dan
I’m very encouraged to find in recent times the appearance of several informative Arminian blogs on the web which of course – including yours.
It was my comments on Triablogue. My thought is more or less in line or derived from these two articles.
http://www.theopedia.com/Compatibilist_middle_knowledge
Ned Markosian’s “A Compatibilist Version of the Theory of Agent Causation” at myweb.facstaff.wwu.edu/nmarkos/Papers/Comtac.pdf
I would very much like any input from you on whether this view contradicts any tenets of orthodox Arminianism. Thanks.
Peace,
Wes
I responded in a new post and plan to provide another post on this topic as well.
Take care,
Dan