Most of the reformers were Calvinistic in their thinking and teaching. This applies to reformers before , during and after Calvin. The Puritans , for example, were Calvinistic.
Do Arminian proponents know how Arminianism came about?
Do they know their origin?

5solas:
@Ubenedictus
Luther's summary on the ''part'' a man's will plays for his salvation.

http://www.reformedreader.org/bow.htm

that view if properly understood is actually catholic and is the same with the arminians. That human will cannot desire on it own or do good on it own is the very basics of our need for salvation.

Human will is not "free" strictly speaking, we fell in adam so without grace the human will is encouraged to sin and can not do "good", with grace human will is encourage to virtue and can do good, that was the point Luther made above.

That passage properly understood is exactly taught by both catholics and arminian. Infact it is a dogma in catholicism, that is d 1st canon of d council of trent on justification.


That quote is not even an issue to arminian, lutherans or Catholics.

The one that causes disagreement is irresistable grace, lutherans reject that teaching, arminians reject it too, catholics too, but Calvin teaches it. That is the strong issue.

5solas:
Most of the reformers were Calvinistic in their thinking and teaching. This applies to reformers before , during and after Calvin. The Puritans , for example, were Calvinistic.
Do Arminian proponents know how Arminianism came about?
Do they know their origin?

it is a bit arrogant to claim that reformer before Calvin were "Calvinist". Calvin agrees with a few other reformers but that doesn't make them Calvinist. Luther had a mind of his own, his line of arguements were different and to call him "calvinist" is funny.

5solas:
I doubt he did. I will paste some of his thinking on the matter very soon. He taught a whole lot of things in , ''The bondage of the will''. I doubt he disagreed with Calvin on regeneration. You shouldn't equate Luther's teachings with that of the Lutherans! It seems logical to do so, but I have observed before that the Lutherans (I am informed the latter ones) later deferred from him on predestination. Nonetheless, I will look at the Augsburg Confession and respond to you.

Not true.

You enlightened me on the meaning of the bolded, I thank you. Do Catholics actually teach it that way? I doubt that, because it is a middle position between Calvinism and Arminianism. The Catholic Church has hardly ever shifted its ground on these issues.Rather, Arminianism has always been a middle ground between Catholicism and Calvinism, taking apart as much as it can, the gains of the reformation by its compromises.
Why should Calvin believe that in the Eucharist, the bread and the wine used become the actual body and blood of Christ? If his view was that they were symbolic, which I think it was, I think he was right.

many people are misinformed about Catholicism, the teaching I explained is simple Catholicism, it is not a compromise between anything. That is how Catholics have always taught on the scope of the atonement. Luther adapted the teaching, arminian teach the same.

Calvin got it wrong Jesus said "This is my body" and all Christians for 1500yrs before Calvin have never doubted that he meant exactly what he said. Calvin invented his own new doctrine.

An2elect2:
The radical difference between Arminianism and
Calvinism is that the system of the former revolves
around the creature, whereas the system of the
latter has the Creator for the center of its orbit. The
Arminian allots to man the first place, the Calvinist
gives God that position of honor. Thus the Arminian
begins his discussion of salvation with justification,
for the sinner must believe before he can be forgiven;
further back he will not go, for he is unwilling that
man should be made nothing of. But the instructed
Calvinist begins with election, descends to
regeneration, and then shows that being born again
(by the sovereign act of God, in which the creature
has no part) the sinner is made capable of savingly
believing the Gospel.
Saved from the pleasure or love of sin. What
multitudes of people strongly resent being told that
they delighted in evil! They would indignantly ask if
we suppose them to be moral perverts? No indeed—a
person may be thoroughly chaste and yet delight in
evil. It may be that some of our own readers
repudiate the charge that they have ever taken
pleasure in sin, and would claim, on the contrary, that
from earliest recollections they have detested
wickedness in all its forms. Nor would we dare to call
into question their sincerity; instead, we point out that
it only affords another exemplification of the solemn
fact, that "the heart is deceitful above all things" (Jer.
17:9). But this is a matter that is not open to
argument—the plain teaching of God's Word deciding
the point once and for all, and beyond its verdict
there is no appeal.

AW Pink A Fourfold Salvation

Awesome! I read some excerpts from his,''Sovereignty of God'' some time ago, it was awesome too.

Ubenedictus:


that view if properly understood is actually catholic and is the same with the arminians.

Lol. Definitely not Catholic or Arminian. Too grandiose for them. It is actually called Amyraldism after Moise Amyraut. It sought to unify Calvinist and Arminian views on the extent of the atonement.

That human will cannot desire on it own or do good on it own is the very basics of our need for salvation.

Good! It was the song of the reformers.

Human will is not "free" strictly speaking, we fell in adam so without grace the human will is encouraged to sin and can not do "good", with grace human will is encourage to virtue and can do good, that was the point Luther made above.

True. To be precise, (in proper context) can only do good after the salvation experience.

That passage properly understood is exactly taught by both catholics and arminian. Infact it is a dogma in catholicism, that is d 1st canon of d council of trent on justification.

Definitely not taught in the same way. In Luther's view, grace comes so free that no amount of endeavouring towards good is necessary.

That quote is not even an issue to arminian, lutherans or Catholics.

Definitely not true, Catholics have been screaming freewill since A.D 1525 while Arminians since about A.D 1590. Both groups are clearly against predestination.

The one that causes disagreement is irresistable grace, lutherans reject that teaching, arminians reject it too, catholics too, but Calvin teaches it. That is the strong issue.

Not true.

Ubenedictus:
it is a bit arrogant to claim that reformer before Calvin were "Calvinist".

Check again, I didn't say they were Calvinists ! This is what I said:

Most of the reformers were Calvinistic in their thinking and teaching. This applies to reformers before , during and after Calvin. The Puritans , for example, were Calvinistic.
Do Arminian proponents know how Arminianism came about?
Do they know their origin?

Ubenedictus:
Calvin agrees with a few other reformers but that doesn't make them Calvinist. Luther had a mind of his own, his line of arguements were different and to call him "calvinist" is funny.

See my clarification above. The Protestant understanding of grace remains the dividing line between them and Catholics.

Ubenedictus:


many people are misinformed about Catholicism, the teaching I explained is simple Catholicism, it is not a compromise between anything. That is how Catholics have always taught on the scope of the atonement. Luther adapted the teaching, arminian teach the same.

Not true. That view is by Moise Amyraut 1596 – 1664, and it is called Amyraldism.

Calvin got it wrong Jesus said "This is my body" and all Christians for 1500yrs before Calvin have never doubted that he meant exactly what he said. Calvin invented his own new doctrine.

Calvin didn't and he was right in virtually all his views.
Calvinism is not about Calvin, get that right, it is about the reformed faith.

@Ubenedictus

Calvinism (also called the Reformed tradition, Reformed Christianity or the Reformed faith) is a major branch of Protestantism that follows the theological tradition and forms of Christian practice of John Calvin and other Reformation-era theologians.

Calvinists broke with the Roman Catholic Church but differed with Lutherans on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, theories of worship, and the use of God's law for believers, among other things.[1][2] Calvinism can be a misleading term because the religious tradition it denotes is and has always been diverse, with a wide range of influences rather than a single founder. The movement was first called Calvinism by Lutherans who opposed it, and many within the tradition would prefer to use the word Reformed.[3][4] Since the Arminian controversy, the Reformed — as a branch of Protestantism distinguished from Lutheranism — are divided into Arminians and Calvinists.[a][5][6] Reformed churches may exercise several forms of ecclesiastical polity. Most are presbyterian or congregationalist, but some are episcopalian.

While the Reformed theological tradition addresses all of the traditional topics of Christian theology, the word Calvinism is sometimes used to refer to particular Calvinist views on soteriology and predestination, which are summarized in part by the Five Points of Calvinism. Some have also argued that Calvinism as a whole stresses the sovereignty or rule of God in all things—in salvation, but also in all of life.

Early influential Reformed theologians include John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Theodore Beza, and John Knox. In the twentieth century Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, B. B. Warfield, Karl Barth, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark were influential, while contemporary Reformed theologians include J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, Timothy J. Keller, Alister McGrath, John Piper, John MacArthur, and Michael Horton.

The biggest Reformed association is the World Communion of Reformed Churches with more than 80 million members in 211 member denominations around the world.[7][8] There are more conservative Reformed federations like the World Reformed Fellowship and the International Conference of Reformed Churches, as well as independent churches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

Do Arminians know their origin?

ABDULADINO:
Are there any elect in hell?

good question

Of all I have posted so far, this is the sum, Calvinism is not all about Calvin! This is the error false teachers peddle to keep believers from the truth. More than that, it is the reformed faith, the faith of the reformers! It stood in opposition to the Catholic Church. Until Arminianism came up to water down its influence.

Arminians came up with their own teaching from within the reformed church. The reformers were alarmed at their teaching, it had Jacobus Arminius as its leader. Arminius by some account would give his students, (he was a professor and theologian), books by Catholic scholars while speaking deprecatingly of reformed teachers. His teachings were noticed to be unsound when he taught that Paul was talking about the unregenerated man in Romans 7. The reformers views were different and they wandered how the unregenerated man can ''delight in the law of God after the inward man''. Also the students of Arminius, while on holidays were displaying their new found ''knowledge'' back home. By another account, he was asked to debate a certain Conhaert, who held Catholic views. On the day of the debate, he turned around to support Conhaert's view.
Arminius was repeatedly asked to state his views so that the reformed teachers would consider them and adopt them, if they found it in accordance with scripture or to denounce it, if otherwise. Arminius refused to air his views, he was to die some years later. Sometime after his death, his followers emboldened by political power, came up with a document that is now called the Remonstrance. In it , they mentioned five points in which they were not in agreement with the reformed teachers. This was all happening in Holland. The reformed teachers called for a Synod. Theologians were invited from several countries. At the end of the Synod it was held that the views of the Remonstrants were not different from those of the Catholic Church and that of people who teach that good works were necessary for salvation (the Pelagians). In the light of that , the views of the Remonstrants, who were later to be called Arminians, were unanimous condemned. They were told not to preach it anymore. The Synod then continued without the Arminans and answered the five objections the Arminians raised against their teaching. These points later came to be called The Five Points Of Calvinism.

Protestants, please know your origin.

5solas:
@Ubenedictus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

sorry what was ur point. The article gave a non exhaustive list of the 'calvinist reformers' and didnt talk about the lutherian ones. And noted that calvinist prefer to address themselves as reformed, how does that affect dis discussion?

5solas:

Not true. That view is by Moise Amyraut 1596 – 1664, and it is called Amyraldism.

i know u will try to change it.

Catholicism predates amyraldism. Besides mr amyraut borrowed his views from the luther.

Years before amyraut formulated his modification d council of trent had already taught universal atonement and limited salvation
But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated.
council of trent session 6.

Both luther and amyraut borrowed universal atonement from d catholics.
Amyraut tried to modify d teachin of calvin predestination by teaching a form of universal atonement.

Calvin didn't and he was right in virtually all his views.
Calvinism is not about Calvin, get that right, it is about the reformed faith.

calvin was wrong on almost all his views. Jesus did die for all according to scriptures, d atonement is universal in scope. On That among other calvin was wrong.

5solas:

Lol. Definitely not Catholic or Arminian. Too grandiose for them. It is actually called Amyraldism after Moise Amyraut. It sought to unify Calvinist and Arminian views on the extent of the atonement.

I find it suprisingly arrogant and naive that you think the teaching is too grandiose for catholic theologians, when d protestants simply copied and modified catholic views.

Centuries before martin luther, Calvin and Amyraut were born, st Thomas of Aquina taught.
"[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect."

st thomas aquinas commentary on titus.


I cannot tell u what to believe, but I can give u the facts. I know some calvinist love to think that christianity started with d reformation and that before then there was no real theology but that is not true.

The teaching in question is distinctly catholic, and predates d reformation my centuries, amyraut only copied and modified.

Before d discussion ends u'll see many teaching d reformers borrowed from catholics.

5solas:

Good! It was the song of the reformers.

one funny thing about the reformers was that they tried to sing to the choir.

The catholics were already teaching that so why try to make it seem like a new doctrine?

True. To be precise, (in proper context) can only do good after the salvation experience.

this is another difference btw luther and calvin. Calvin said u have to b regenerated before u can chose to become a Christian and be baptised. Lutherian and even catholic believe in 'predisposing" grace that enables on chose to b a christian. Lutherans believe regeneration occured in baptism.

5solas:
Good! It was the song of the reformers.

take a look at what the catholic taught.

On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.


The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the
prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of
the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom

council of trent session 6

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

Council of trent.


That teaching was not new.


And thus according
to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul <sic> commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God.
And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares,
"For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And again, "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of
God" (Eph. 2:. And as the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was faithful," but "to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (Jas. 1:17). And again, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from
heaven" (John 3:27).

There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient.

Council of orange.

5solas:

Definitely not taught in the same way. In Luther's view, grace comes so free that no amount of endeavouring towards good is necessary.

even catholic will agree that salvific grace is free and preceeds works, i believe aminian will say the same.

What do u mean by "no endeavoring towards good is neccesary"?

Definitely not true, Catholics have been screaming freewill since A.D 1525 while Arminians since about A.D 1590. Both groups are clearly against predestination.

catholics have been screaming free will before 1525, they have been discussing free will since the time of the apostles. They alway taught that grace and will must work together. Augustine once said "he who created thee without thy help will not justify thee without thy help". That is another very old teaching.

Catholics are not against predestination, neither are lutheran or even arminians. They are against the double predestination of Calvin!