@BruceAlderman - I flagged your accusation of my being dishonest as rude, but if the moderator does not clean it, please remove it yourself. Besides I calrified my meaning and withdrew my comment about Arminias being dishonest.

I had no idea Arminias was s sacred cow, if you accused Calvin of being jerky or a alimeball on some subject, I would not be offended in the slightest.They are just men.

There us no need ti make it personal I was simply looking for the facts about an interest I had. I care nothing about whether some guy named Arminias was cool or not. Its irrelevant to me.

My interest is in Wesley cause he was not insignificant. I wanted to discern the difference between him and Arminias only because he allowed the label to be put on him.

Anyway I did not mean to kick a hornets nest and would appreciate if tou would return some kindness instead of insults, just after I kindly accepted your answer about Wesley. I stull think Arminias is shady in the way he attacks imputation of guilt indirectly without facing it head on and letting us know his belief directly.

Possibly he was afraid of suffering personal harm if admitting it? In any case, it makes a bug difference to how as a sort of extreme Calvinist (on this subject) I percieve somone.

That is why I want to know his view on this precise question. You yourself said some Arminians do not believe in the imputation of guilt? So why defend Arminias on the subject when the facts seem ti say he also is that kind of Arminian?

How about we recognize we had a collision over some confusion and we both delete all our comments under my posted answer, assuming the miderators dont' beat us to it. Deal?

@Mike I've deleted my comment accusing you of dishonesty. I'll delete my other comments after I can put together an answer of my own.

@Mike It would be highly inappropriate for me to accuse Calvin of being a slimeball or a jerk. I've seen too many internet communities destroyed by a descent into name-calling. I don't want that to happen here.

@Mike The main difference between Wesley and Arminius is that Arminius lived in a country where the government had the authority and the will to punish those who didn't adhere to Reformed theology. Arminius had the unenviable task of questioning certain dogmas that did not appear to be biblical while at the same time preaching what he had been taught.

Sometimes he had to defend things that he and his disciples still didn't have a complete answer for.

Sometimes he had to defend himself against allegations that stemmed from a misunderstanding of his teachings.

@BruceAlderman - Fair enough. This really is not a burning issue for me and good luck on trying to figure out what he actually taught.

Sometimes he had to defend ideas that maybe weren't the absolute truth, but were simply a grasping for a better answer than the received wisdom of the day.

It is 11 pm my time so going to bad, otherwise I might stick around and shoot the breeze off-topic. By the way, in today's world I do think Wesley and Whitfield were great examples of unity with diversity. God bless.

@Mike Take care.

@Mike One more point on imputation of guilt: Even some Calvinists--despite believing in imputed guilt--don't believe that all infants who die are eternally damned. Arminius points to Francis Junius, a professor at Leiden at the time and a committed Calvinist, who held that view. Adrian Borrius' position is therefore functionally no different from one that was considered acceptable in Calvinist Netherlands at the time.