Discussion between Bruce Alderman and Mike

1:54 PM

1

A: What doctrines teach that people are inherently good or bad?

Because John Wesley is often called Arminian, we sometimes think he and the Methodists deny that the guilt of Adams sin was imputed against mankind, but this is not the case at all. Both Calvinists and Methodists adhere to the doctrine of original sin which rests on Adams guilt being imputed aga...

Bruce Alderman

As a matter of fact, Arminians do believe in total depravity. That's one Reformed doctrine that Arminius did not dispute. [source]

I have to give this a -1 until you've fixed that.

Mike

@BruceAlderman - thanks for the link and it is useful, however, I am not saying Arminius did not believe in something that seems a lot like total depravity, I am saying from what I have read real Arminians denied the 'imputation of guilt'. For example, here is a quote by an Arminian arguing with John Owen ‘Adam sinned in his own proper person, and there is no reason why God should impute that sin of his unto infants, saith Boraeus.’ I think Arminius believed in 'a depravity' but it was more like a unfortunate outcome of sin, not an actual transfer of guilt from Adam to infants.

Bruce Alderman

Yes, there are Arminians who do not believe in the imputation of guilt. Arminius' own teaching (and Wesley's) is that we are all born in sin, but that God's prevenient grace is already at work in our lives. Arminius discusses sin and grace here and on the following pages. It's rather dense writing and is kind of like listening to one side of a phone call, but he makes it clear that everyone is a sinner.

Mike

@BruceAlderman - are you saying Arminius beleived that 'guilt' was imputed. If you find a quote that would correct my misunderstanding. I have quote above showing Wesley actually accept the imputation of guilt. This might seem a minor issue but it was not to the Calvinistic reformers. If you find a quote I will change my statement to be some Arminians, those who argued with the early reformers.

@BruceAlderman - Bruce at a minimum you have caused me to doubt my view about Wesley so I posted a new question rather than asking you for research under comments. If I learn anything I will revise my post. I asked this question to get to the bottom of it. Cheers and thanks for getting me to dig deeper on something pretty interesting. christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9125/…

Bruce Alderman

I've moved the discussion to chat since it was getting long.

@Mike I've been scanning Arminius' writings to find a definitive statement one way or the other, and so far have found nothing. That in itself is telling, because Arminius was not shy about airing his disagreements with the Calvinist establishment. Yet it looks like he never said a word against the doctrine of imputed guilt.

Bruce Alderman

2:11 PM

This may help: This is the Five Articles of the Remonstrants, the summary document of the first followers of Arminius outlining their difference with Calvinists. See specifically Article 3, Deprivation. There is no exemption for "innocent children". This fallen state applies to all people.

This article has a quote from Arminius stating that righteousness comes only from the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us through his obedience. This would not be the case if we were born without sin.

Mike

3:03 PM

In response to your comments I found an answer. I looked up the works of Arminias downloaded Volumes 1-3. Right away in Volume 1 - ARTICLES XIII AND XIV, P228 he argues against the imputation of guilt on infants. Just google Arminias works volume 1 PDF easy to get a copy.

"When Adam sinned in his own person and with his free will, God pardoned that transgression. There is no reason then why it was the will of God to impute this sin to infants, who are said to have sinned in Adam, before they had any personal existence, and therefore, before they could possibly sin at their own will and…

Arminias from my first exposure as of today seems like quite the slime ball, even as he argues, this argument of 'his friend', he says his friend ' denies having ever publicly taught ' it, but only thinks it and discusses it and ' he considers that it was not unlawful for him so to do' Maybe he is being sly and slimy because he could be punished for the heresy?

I don't know - but this guy seems like a creep and quite different from Wesley, just as I suspected. Now I am confused if Arminias was such a creep is Wesley as good as he appears to me. I hope someone further confirms that Wesley did as it seems assume 'imputed guilt' and also was not a fan of Arminias. I do not have to read much to see Arminias is not a good man. At least that is how I feel.

@BruceAlderman - if you have trouble finding the works of Arminias I found this great resource while looking. his guy seems to have a lot of stuff collected including Arminias- davidcox.com.mx/library/library.htm

Bruce Alderman

@Mike I've answered the Wesley question. Wesley did indeed believe in imputed guilt, and also was a fan of Arminius (as am I). Please try to give Arminius a fair reading, rather than letting your Calvinist biases prejudice you against him from the start. Arminius was not a "creep" or a "slime ball".

For anyone else reading this: the works of Arminius are also found at CCEL if you want to follow along.

@Mike My first impression from this passage is that Arminius is simply defending his friend against false charges that he taught a certain doctrine from the pulpit. I agree fully with Arminius that it is not wrong for a pastor to privately question an official doctrine, and to remain silent upon it in the pulpit while his questions remain unresolved.

Furthermore, the doctrine of original sin, while derived from the Bible, is not found directly in the Bible, and therefore is not an essential Christian teaching. Borrius was not a heretic for privately raising questions about it.

Mike

3:45 PM

@BruceAlderman - thanks for your answer. I think I will move on now to other subjects. I can tell I do not like Arminias, but I do like Wesley, so it can't be just a Calvinist bias. Actually Calvin sometimes annoys me a bit also, even though I generally agree with him. Luther I just love. Anyway, I may be wrong about Arminias, it's not a big issue to me. I just have other fish to fry. Thanks again for your help.

Transcript for

Discussion between Bruce Alderman and…