Classical Arminianism?

I am not talking about Billy's blog, but the name itself. Lately people are using the term Classical Arminianism, Reformed Arminianism, Arminianism of the heart...  Do these terms do Arminians a disservice?

I think the point of these terms is to get back in touch with our roots and point out that Arminius himself was completely orthodox. But what are we distinguishing areselves from? Is there a type of Arminianism other than Classical Arminianism? Are these other Arminians open theists, anti-trinitarians, liberals and Pelagians?  Have the Calvinists been right all along about Arminianism and Classical Arminians only represent a small subset of Arminianism?

I think not. Arminianism is Classical Arminianism.

Comments

Charlie Cameron said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
September 14, 2010 at 1:56 PM
The Seeking Disciple said…
I borrow Reformed Arminianism from Robert Picirilli's book. He says that reformation Arminianism is classical Arminianism but uses it to show that Arminianism has its roots within the reformation movement. Calvinists often portray their theology as directly from the reformation but Arminianism as a move away from the reformation.
September 14, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Charlie Cameron said…
Here's a link to some posts which may be of interest to you - Arminius.
September 14, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks Roy. Yes, Reformation Arminianism does trace us back to the reformation. But I guess my I fear that such terms set us up for a "good Arminianism", "bad Arminianism" view. All Arminians are Reformation Arminians.

God be with you,
Dan
September 14, 2010 at 4:18 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks for the link standrews! Nice blog.

God be with you,
Dan
September 14, 2010 at 4:18 PM
Anonymous said…
Man! Now I've gotta change my blog title?

I was thinking about this issue last month, when a Calvinist noticed that I distinguished "true" Arminianism as Classical Arminianism. I thought to myself, if we're to recover the term "Arminianism" from popular, even semi-Pelagian theology, then perhaps these adjectives are not helpful.

If I decide to switch from blogspot to wordpress or get a dot com (etc.), I'll probably drop the "Classical". I think it's been somewhat helpful, however. I've certainly had plenty of people (mostly Calvinists) ask me what "Classical" Arminianism is. It was my pleasure to introduce them to Arminius : )
September 14, 2010 at 7:33 PM
A.M. Mallett said…
Dan,
As with Roy, I often use Reformed or Reformation Arminian taking the cue from Picirilli although I will use Classical as well. Lately, as I noted in my previous post in the earlier thread, I am looking for a safer ground than the big tent philosophy I am encountering under the "general" Arminian umbrella. I am leaning toward taking back the "conservative" label as I consider myself to be a theologically conservative evangelical Arminian (there is a mouthful). I cannot bring myself to stating open theism, social liberalism, emergent and a host of other outside the main "isms" fit well in my understanding of orthodox Arminianism. Perhaps it is "Conservative or Orthodox Arminianism" I am looking for.
September 15, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hey Billy,

Sorry about taking your blog name in vain. I am not suggesting you change it. I do think the name does connect us to our heritage.

God be with you,
Dan
September 16, 2010 at 5:44 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks Trav, I consider myself conservative too and feel the same about the "ism's".

God be with you,
Dan
September 16, 2010 at 5:45 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more