Episode 35: The Reluctant Arminian and the 5 Articles Against Calvinism

Pastor Michael discusses the 5 Articles of Arminianism in an attempt to persuade evangelical non-Calvinists to step into history and embrace the term "Arminian" as a valid self-description of their soteriology. So often, non-Calvinistic Baptists and Calvary-chapelites refuse the moniker of "Arminian" even though they are traditionally in lock step with the point of the Remonstrance. This leads not only to confusion over their belief system, but also muddies the waters of intelligent dialogue and stands in the way of truly meaningful discussions. Once both sides of the soteriology debate step into history with an understanding of what has come before, it provides a solid foundation for a provocative exchange of ideas, as both parties have a reasonable sense of what the other is saying and why they are saying it.

Blog Article: The Reluctant Arminian (Scroll to the last of 3 articles)

[VictorFelipe]

Great input, Pastor Michael. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. I agree with you on the fact that if someone doesn't see themselves as a Calvinist, chances are they lean more towards Arminianism, and they should feel okay being regarded as an Arminian. However, that is not the case for everybody. I, for instance, reject Calvinism altogether, but that doesn't automatically make me an Arminian, and I do take issue when someone calls me an Arminian because, although there are some points in Arminianism that I agree with, I don't agree with their understanding of the following: Total Depravity (natural humanity vs. actual humanity), Prevenience Grace, Divine Simple Foreknowledge, all of which are key to Arminian theology. So I reject Calvinism, but I can't accept Arminianism as the label for my soteriology. God bless, Pastor Michael.

[jerardosc]

I gladly call myself an Arminian, yet as another commenter wrote above, not all non-calvinists are arminians. You mentioned Dr Flowers who distinguishes himself from arminianism for good reason, he rejects total depravity/inability and the need for the arminian view of prevenient grace. Ironically he is having a back and forth with the president of the Society of Evangelical Arminians Dr Abasciano right now on their differences.

You were doing ok until you said, “the crux is the assertion that human dignity requires unimpaired freedom of the will”
as if arminians believe such a thing. The big problem between our views is the nature grace. The third article needs to be explained more also on the issue with regeneration.

[aletheia]

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

[R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

Brother, I do not doubt your heart is in the right place, but any attempt to tolerate TULIP for a non-Calvinist congregation is a huge mistake. 1:25 Have you ever been part of a non-Calvinist church having come under 'siege' by a a 'stealth' Calvinist pastor who literally got their job by hiding and misleading their true belief in TULIP and their purpose to REFORM that church on the 'sly' over time from the church board and congregation?
THAT is essentially the reason for Dr. Flowers channel. It began happening in mass 10-15yrs ago to SWB churches all over America. The 9marks program is 'fine-tuned' to do just that. These are Calvinists who are not interested in 'getting along'. They literally use the tolerance of unsuspecting non-Calvinists who are casually willing to 'go along' with the consideration that an alternative view of 'how' salvation occurs and 'who' is and is NOT eligible "AS IF" that is non essential???🤔 The Calvinists do this only for the purpose of gaining positions of leadership, after which it rather quickly becomes my way or the highway. Believing TULIP to be the 'correct', and only 'correct' way to interpret the Bible they justify their ends to deliver what they consider the only correct doctrine by any method necessary. ... After all .. who are 'you' to question God?
At least a Jehovahs Witness or a Mormon will show you their business card.
Arminian and Calvinism are not the only two options. In many ways they are essentially cousins still arguing over how to solve a problem which does not exist. I.e. How to get a man saved who cannot believe the Gospel. BTW there is not a single verse or passage in scripture which establishes any one ever was or is 'BORN' unable to respond positively to God. It's Calvin's 'missing link' it doesn't exist. And without the "T" there is certainly no need for "ULIP". But, neither is there a need for "Prevenient Grace" beyond hearing of what Christ has already done. Some men will believe, some will not, but anyone can. And That is Good News for everybody.