Did Arminius get a better understanding of truth than John Calvin, & it was rejected?

[Hobie]

the more I dig, the more I find as to how God leads men to understanding his truth. So the real question is, did Arminius get it right in a better understanding of predestination and free will, than John Calvin and it get set aside? Let go over what we can find.

Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch pastor born in 1559, only five years before the death of John Calvin. At the age of 17, Arminius enrolled at Leiden University and after five years of education, still too young for a pastorate, Arminius traveled to study at Calvin's academy in Geneva. Theodore Beza, Calvin's hand-picked successor, was the chairman of theology at the university, and admiration flowed both directions in his friendship with Arminius. Beza later defended Arminius by saying "let it be known to you that from the time Arminius returned to us from Basel, his life and learning both have so approved themselves to us, that we hope the best of him in every respect" [4] In late 1587, at the age of 28, Arminius returned to Amsterdam to fulfil his desire to be a pastor.
Arminius' entry into the predestination debate that was raging in Amsterdam happened only two short years after his return when he was asked by city officials to refute a modified form of Beza's high Calvinism. According to historic tradition, Arminius' study of the Scriptures led him to the conclusion that the Bible did not support Calvinism.[5] Other scholars believe that Arminius never accepted Beza's views, even while a student at Geneva.[6] Regardless, Arminius avoided adding to the controversy and, apart from two incidents regarding sermons on Romans 7 and Romans 9, he lived in peace for a little more than a decade.
When Arminius received his doctorate and professorship of theology at Leiden in 1603, the debate over Calvinism roared back to life. Arminius rose to the forefront of the debate, teaching and defending that Calvinist predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil. Instead, Arminius insisted, God's election was an election of believers and therefore was conditioned on faith. Furthermore, Arminius argued, God's exhaustive foreknowledge did not require a doctrine of determinism.[7]
History of Calvinist-Arminian debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As can be seen, Arminius was a strict Calvinist early on in the Reformed Church of Holland, but later he developed a set of doctrines that were divergent from the widely accepted doctrines of Calvinism. Arminius's teachings concerning sin, selection, predestination, and eternal security attracted many and they consolidated his teachings into the 5 concise points:

Arminianism

D = Depravity (Partial depravity or Dead, but somehow alive). Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does so in such a manner as not to interfere with man's freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner's gift to God; It is man's contribution to salvation.

A = Arbitrary Selection (Abolition of True Grace). God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was termined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

I = Inequitable Limitation (of Christ's selection). Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe in Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condtition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone's sins. Christ's redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.

S = Sovereignty (of the sinner). The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit's call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man's contribution) precedes and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man's free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ's saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God's grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.

Y = Yielding Eternal Uncertainty. Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith, etc. All Arminians have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ -- that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost. According to Arminianism: Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) -- man's response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, choose to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man's will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

 

[Hobie]

Now the Reformed Church of Holland conducted a formal inquiry into the claims of the Arminians, and thus, the Synod of Dort was formed. In 1619 the Arminians got their answers in the form of an article known as The Canons of the Synod of Dort. The synod answered each of the five points presented by the Arminians with five contrary points that we now call "The Five Points of Calvinism," :

Calvinism

T = Total depravity/ Total inability. Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not -- indeed he cannot -- choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ -- it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation -- it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God.

U = Unconditional Election. God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God's choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God's choice of the sinner, not the sinner's choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

L = Limited Atonement. Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, thereby guaranteeing their salvation.

I = Irresistable Grace. In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made to all without distinction) can be and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.

P = Perseverance of the Saints. All who were chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end. According to Calvinism: Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation. InTruth.net

 

[Hobie]

Now the Reformed Church of Holland at the Synod of Dort absolutely rejected Arminianism as heretical, and confirmed Calvinism as the true doctrine of Christ's church. Yet if you look at the points, it seems clear the Church was solidifying into the Calvinist Creed and rejecting a better understanding on these issues.

Lets look at John Calvins points that were articulated:

T = Total depravity/ Total inability. Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel.
How could man have free will if he cannot decide for himself to choose between good and evil? We are not robots, if our free will was gone, how could God show Satan was wrong in his accusations that God was not fair and just.

U = Unconditional Election. God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will.
How could man have even choose between good and evil, if the choice was already made? .

L = Limited Atonement. Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them.
I think most of Christianity would rejects this view.

I = Irresistable Grace. In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation.
This would make God unfair, and dont think that is the case.

P = Perseverance of the Saints. All who were chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.
This clearly leads to Once Save Always Saved, and we have seen how that has clearly been false.

Now lets look at Jacobus Arminius views:

D = Depravity (Partial depravity or Dead, but somehow alive). Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness.
Man has to have free will or there is no struggle between good and evil to show whether God is right.

A = Arbitrary Selection (Abolition of True Grace). God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call.
God does according to His will and purpose, not mans.

I = Inequitable Limitation (of Christ's selection). Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone.
I would say man must choose, and the Holy Spirit helps lead man to eternal life.

S = Sovereignty (of the sinner). The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation.
All are called and the Holy Spirit guides and transforms those who accept.

Y = Yielding Eternal Uncertainty. Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith
I would say man can loose their salvation even if they are doing Gods work. Jonah comes to mind as he resisted God, and Elijah and Moses both had days were they just wanted to give up or have their name taken out of the book of life.

To me it looks like God was unveiling more truth but as many churches of the Reformation did, the Calvinist Church hunkered down and solidified itself into a creed, and stopped unraveling more of Gods truth and rejected further steps of spiritual growth leaving the Reformation along with the other churches, for the lack of a better word, 'stranded'. We see in Gods Word that man can choose, they just have to do it.

Revelation 3:19-21
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

 

[David1701]

the more I dig, the more I find as to how God leads men to understanding his truth. So the real question is, did Arminius get it right in a better understanding of predestination and free will, than John Calvin and it get set aside? Let go over what we can find.

Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch pastor born in 1559, only five years before the death of John Calvin. At the age of 17, Arminius enrolled at Leiden University and after five years of education, still too young for a pastorate, Arminius traveled to study at Calvin's academy in Geneva. Theodore Beza, Calvin's hand-picked successor, was the chairman of theology at the university, and admiration flowed both directions in his friendship with Arminius. Beza later defended Arminius by saying "let it be known to you that from the time Arminius returned to us from Basel, his life and learning both have so approved themselves to us, that we hope the best of him in every respect" [4] In late 1587, at the age of 28, Arminius returned to Amsterdam to fulfil his desire to be a pastor.
Arminius' entry into the predestination debate that was raging in Amsterdam happened only two short years after his return when he was asked by city officials to refute a modified form of Beza's high Calvinism. According to historic tradition, Arminius' study of the Scriptures led him to the conclusion that the Bible did not support Calvinism.[5] Other scholars believe that Arminius never accepted Beza's views, even while a student at Geneva.[6] Regardless, Arminius avoided adding to the controversy and, apart from two incidents regarding sermons on Romans 7 and Romans 9, he lived in peace for a little more than a decade.
When Arminius received his doctorate and professorship of theology at Leiden in 1603, the debate over Calvinism roared back to life. Arminius rose to the forefront of the debate, teaching and defending that Calvinist predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil. Instead, Arminius insisted, God's election was an election of believers and therefore was conditioned on faith. Furthermore, Arminius argued, God's exhaustive foreknowledge did not require a doctrine of determinism.[7]
History of Calvinist-Arminian debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As can be seen, Arminius was a strict Calvinist early on in the Reformed Church of Holland, but later he developed a set of doctrines that were divergent from the widely accepted doctrines of Calvinism. Arminius's teachings concerning sin, selection, predestination, and eternal security attracted many and they consolidated his teachings into the 5 concise points:

Arminianism

D = Depravity (Partial depravity or Dead, but somehow alive). Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does so in such a manner as not to interfere with man's freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner's gift to God; It is man's contribution to salvation.

A = Arbitrary Selection (Abolition of True Grace). God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was termined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

I = Inequitable Limitation (of Christ's selection). Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe in Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condtition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone's sins. Christ's redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.

S = Sovereignty (of the sinner). The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit's call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man's contribution) precedes and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man's free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ's saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God's grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.

Y = Yielding Eternal Uncertainty. Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith, etc. All Arminians have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ -- that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost. According to Arminianism: Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) -- man's response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, choose to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man's will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

Arminius visited Rome, and his views changed after that (no-one seems to know what happened in Rome). The Roman Catholic organisation of the time viewed Arminianism as a "sovereign drug" with which to undo the Reformation.

"...a certain letter was found in the belongings of William Laud, the archbishop of Canterbury, after he passed away. It must be pointed out that Laud was a fervent Arminian and during his ministry the faithful were told to treat their church’s communion table as an altar, and they were now forced whether they like it or not to kneel to receive the bread and wine at the communion rail... This letter that was in his possession was dated by his own hand: March 1628, and the design of this letter was to give the Superior of the Jesuits, then resident at Brussels, an account of the posture of civil and ecclesiastical affairs in England; an extract from it I shall here subjoin: "Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sudden and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that sovereign drug called Arminianism, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresies; and it flourisheth and beareth fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritans, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke's (of Buckingham) ears; and we have those of our own religion, which stand continually at the Duke's chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and careful in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the main point: OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISM...”"

Arminianism: The Road to Rome | Monergism

by Augustus TopladyActually the title given to my article is not mine, it belongs to Augustus Toplady; the famous Calvinist pastor and hymn compositor.

www.monergism.com

 

[Josheb]

Did Arminius get it right in a better understanding of predestination and free will, than John Calvin and it get set aside?

No.

Definitively, NO!

 

[Josheb]

the more I dig, the more I find as to how God leads men to understanding his truth. So the real question is, did Arminius get it right in a better understanding of predestination and free will, than John Calvin and it get set aside? Let go over what we can find.

Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch pastor born in 1559, only five years before the death of John Calvin. At the age of 17, Arminius enrolled at Leiden University and after five years of education, still too young for a pastorate, Arminius traveled to study at Calvin's academy in Geneva. Theodore Beza, Calvin's hand-picked successor, was the chairman of theology at the university, and admiration flowed both directions in his friendship with Arminius. Beza later defended Arminius by saying "let it be known to you that from the time Arminius returned to us from Basel, his life and learning both have so approved themselves to us, that we hope the best of him in every respect" [4] In late 1587, at the age of 28, Arminius returned to Amsterdam to fulfil his desire to be a pastor.
Arminius' entry into the predestination debate that was raging in Amsterdam happened only two short years after his return when he was asked by city officials to refute a modified form of Beza's high Calvinism. According to historic tradition, Arminius' study of the Scriptures led him to the conclusion that the Bible did not support Calvinism.[5] Other scholars believe that Arminius never accepted Beza's views, even while a student at Geneva.[6] Regardless, Arminius avoided adding to the controversy and, apart from two incidents regarding sermons on Romans 7 and Romans 9, he lived in peace for a little more than a decade.
When Arminius received his doctorate and professorship of theology at Leiden in 1603, the debate over Calvinism roared back to life. Arminius rose to the forefront of the debate, teaching and defending that Calvinist predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil. Instead, Arminius insisted, God's election was an election of believers and therefore was conditioned on faith. Furthermore, Arminius argued, God's exhaustive foreknowledge did not require a doctrine of determinism.[7]
History of Calvinist-Arminian debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As can be seen, Arminius was a strict Calvinist early on in the Reformed Church of Holland, but later he developed a set of doctrines that were divergent from the widely accepted doctrines of Calvinism. Arminius's teachings concerning sin, selection, predestination, and eternal security attracted many and they consolidated his teachings into the 5 concise points:

Arminianism

D = Depravity (Partial depravity or Dead, but somehow alive). Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does so in such a manner as not to interfere with man's freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner's gift to God; It is man's contribution to salvation.

A = Arbitrary Selection (Abolition of True Grace). God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was termined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

I = Inequitable Limitation (of Christ's selection). Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe in Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condtition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone's sins. Christ's redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.

S = Sovereignty (of the sinner). The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit's call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man's contribution) precedes and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man's free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ's saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God's grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.

Y = Yielding Eternal Uncertainty. Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith, etc. All Arminians have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ -- that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost. According to Arminianism: Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) -- man's response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, choose to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man's will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

First off, this is an imperfect view of Arminius' views. If we debate these positions under the auspices this represents Reformed Arminianism we will all be discussing, debate, arguing strawmen.

Arminius was an unreserved, unequivocal adherent of Total Depravity. On this point he was wholly Augustinian, and he argued that explicitly in his Disputation 11: On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers (see Article VII). He clearly stated the human power to do good is destroyed and useless unless excited by grace.

ANYTIME anyone ever reads a summary of Arminius' views that does not say what Arminius said in Article 7 of Disputation 11 is misleading the hearer/reader and should not be trusted for anything else they say. They are bearing false witness.

 

[Josheb]

Now lets look at Jacobus Arminius views:

A = Arbitrary Selection (Abolition of True Grace). God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call.
God does according to His will and purpose, not mans.

I = Inequitable Limitation (of Christ's selection). Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone.
I would say man must choose, and the Holy Spirit helps lead man to eternal life.

S = Sovereignty (of the sinner). The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation.
All are called and the Holy Spirit guides and transforms those who accept.

Not only are these three not accurate portrayals of Arminius' views, they each a seriously flawed theology that makes the Almight Sovereign Creator dependent on sin in sinful creatures. Let me clarify that: The Creator is never dependent on any creature but this "AIS" make Him dependent on sinful creatures, not good and sinless creature. Each of these is an antithesis to the thesis of God because God is always and everywhere omni-attributed, sovereign, righteous and never subject to anything in creation. Presuppositionally, every point here fails.

A = If God has to "foreknow" what will happen then His foreknowledge isn't omniscience. There is a "before," and a causally dependent "then" and "after" to that kind of "foreknowledge." It is not an all-knowing knowledge where ALL His knowledge "is." If the "A" is intended to imply God looked down the timeline of pre-history history then it's a complete abdication of omniscience because if God must look to obtain the knowledge, then not only is He dependent upon that which he created but His is omnipotently limited by an aspect of His creation and lacking in omniscience because He does not know unless or until He looks.

I = Simply put, the "I" makes God's work fruitless and Christ's blood worthless unless the sinful sinner acts.

S = The problem here is the assertion the omnipotent sovereign Creator did "all that He can." God can do anything and everything He wants to do. There is no "cannot" with God. If God wanted to do so then He would and could bring every single sinner to salvation. The fact that every single sinner does not come to salvation MUST mean He does not want every single sinner to come to Him in salvation - even though He has said that is His desire. He has said He desires to save all but He has also He intends to mete out the just recompense for sin and emphasizing the former at the expense of the latter is bias.



Disputation 15: On Divine Predestination provides information to clarify much of this to show the op is not a correct summary of Arminius.

 

[Josheb]

@Hobie

Most of those links in the op don't work (the Wiki link works). I suspect in order for any of them to work the person using the link must first be a member of the other forum and have already signed into that forum. If those links are personal opinions, then they are worthless.

 

[Josheb]

Fundamentally, this op re-creates the problem that chronically occurs in soteriology boards around the world: strawmen.

Neither Calvin nor Arminius were simple or simplistic. It is MUCH easier to misunderstand and misconstrue them than it is to get their views correct, and this is more so when reading second-hand or third-hand sources that summarize. This is especially true of Calvin who remains one of the most prodigious and rigorous theologians to have ever lived. We have the WCF and the Five Points (partly because some of Calvin's view have been discarded) but they are only summaries and neither includes every detail of Calvin or post-Calvin Calvinist monergism.

 

[Hobie]

Not only are these three not accurate portrayals of Arminius' views, they each a seriously flawed theology that makes the Almight Sovereign Creator dependent on sin in sinful creatures. Let me clarify that: The Creator is never dependent on any creature but this "AIS" make Him dependent on sinful creatures, not good and sinless creature. Each of these is an antithesis to the thesis of God because God is always and everywhere omni-attributed, sovereign, righteous and never subject to anything in creation. Presuppositionally, every point here fails.

A = If God has to "foreknow" what will happen then His foreknowledge isn't omniscience. There is a "before," and a causally dependent "then" and "after" to that kind of "foreknowledge." It is not an all-knowing knowledge where ALL His knowledge "is." If the "A" is intended to imply God looked down the timeline of pre-history history then it's a complete abdication of omniscience because if God must look to obtain the knowledge, then not only is He dependent upon that which he created but His is omnipotently limited by an aspect of His creation and lacking in omniscience because He does not know unless or until He looks.

I = Simply put, the "I" makes God's work fruitless and Christ's blood worthless unless the sinful sinner acts.

S = The problem here is the assertion the omnipotent sovereign Creator did "all that He can." God can do anything and everything He wants to do. There is no "cannot" with God. If God wanted to do so then He would and could bring every single sinner to salvation. The fact that every single sinner does not come to salvation MUST mean He does not want every single sinner to come to Him in salvation - even though He has said that is His desire. He has said He desires to save all but He has also He intends to mete out the just recompense for sin and emphasizing the former at the expense of the latter is bias.



Disputation 15: On Divine Predestination provides information to clarify much of this to show the op is not a correct summary of Arminius.

So Peter was not able to make a choice in what he did?
Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

I think we clearly can see that even the 'chosen' have a choice and can get themselves where the Calvinistic view would not agree.

 

[Josheb]

So Peter was not able to make a choice in what he did?
Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

I think we clearly can see that even the 'chosen' have a choice and can get themselves where the Calvinistic view would not agree.

Are you going to address the actual content of Posts 6 through 9 or not?

 

[Johan]

Fundamentally, this op re-creates the problem that chronically occurs in soteriology boards around the world: strawmen.

Neither Calvin nor Arminius were simple or simplistic. It is MUCH easier to misunderstand and misconstrue them than it is to get their views correct, and this is more so when reading second-hand or third-hand sources that summarize. This is especially true of Calvin who remains one of the most prodigious and rigorous theologians to have ever lived. We have the WCF and the Five Points (partly because some of Calvin's view have been discarded) but they are only summaries and neither includes every detail of Calvin or post-Calvin Calvinist monergism.

This is astonishing!

 

[Johan]

Fundamentally, this op re-creates the problem that chronically occurs in soteriology boards around the world: strawmen.

Neither Calvin nor Arminius were simple or simplistic. It is MUCH easier to misunderstand and misconstrue them than it is to get their views correct, and this is more so when reading second-hand or third-hand sources that summarize. This is especially true of Calvin who remains one of the most prodigious and rigorous theologians to have ever lived. We have the WCF and the Five Points (partly because some of Calvin's view have been discarded) but they are only summaries and neither includes every detail of Calvin or post-Calvin Calvinist monergism.

If Arminius and Calvin were so similar in their doctrines-then what is the truth about the division at Dort?

If you can brother-links would be helpful.
Johann

 

[Josheb]

If Arminius and Calvin were so similar in their doctrines-then what is the truth about the division at Dort?

If by "doctrines," you mean doctrines of salvation, then I think that question is best asked of someone who thinks Arminius and Calvin were similar in their doctrines, not me.

Arminius was a "one-point" Calvinist, possibly a one-point and four-halves Calvinist because Arminius certainly believed God decided His own mind, salvation worked only where God applied it and it accomplished what He intended, and God saw to the fitness of the saints. He simply believed these things led to different ends than Calvin because he believed in God-liberated human agency prior to regeneration. Those are not the words he used but regeneration precedes faith versus faith precedes regeneration is the most fundamental of dividing lines between monergism and synergism. I would not put too much stock in the DAISY of posts 1 and 3 because they are incorrect as far as Arminius himself goes. Arminius was a subscriber of the "T," or Total Depravity. This is very, very clear in his Disputation 11: On the Free Will of Man and Its Power. Article VII states very clearly humans are incapable of doing any good while in the sinful state. In addition to quoting Jesus, he quotes Augustine. In other words, when it came to human agency in the sinful state, Arminius was Augustinian. Most of the early Reformers were Augustinian, most of the Augustinians were Augustinian simply because they were Roman Catholic before becoming Reformers.

The dividing line is Arminius' "prevenient grace." In the broad sense prevenient grace is simply that grace God puts forth into any individual's life prior to that individual's conversion. When it comes specifically to conversion Arminius believed (hypothesized) there was a moment prior to regeneration where God freed the sinner so that the sinner He was saving could see and hear, perceive and understand, and make a free choice to choose God and that God, therefore, predicated saving the sinner from sin based on that individual's choice. God does not coerce salvation is how this is often phrased. That premise is nonsensical to Calvin and Calvinism because God is not coercing anything. The person is dead when they get revived. They do not have soteriological volitional agency to be violated or coerced. While the WCF may say God did not violence to the human will, Calvinism firmly asserts the effects of sin are very violent. Sin does not ask permission to corrupt, kill, and enslave. It does what it does.


If that doesn't answer your question, then clarify the inquiry for me so I know what's specifically being asked.

If you can brother-links would be helpful.
Johann

Sure. If you go to the link for Disputation 11 then you can work the links on that page to see Arminius' collected works, but the contents page is HERE. That website, CCEL, has lots of links to lots of writings by lots of classical Christian authors from a very diverse range of perspectives. I'd also encourage becoming familiar with the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). CRTA is another excellent resource for freely accessed writings by those who came before us but it is limited to the Reformed pov. Watchman Nee can be found ad CCEL but not at CRTA. As CRTA will links to all kinds of articles by Calvin and others on Calvinism, including Dort, but it is my personal opinion the best way to understand Calvin. is by reading Calvin's own words and his commentaries are a better source for that than his "The Institutes of the Christian Religion." My preference is Bible Hub. It's fast, easy to use, loaded with resources, and the ads don't slow it down or get in the way. When reading any of the Bible texts there is a link titled "Comment" that leads to a variety of preset commentaries (like Henry or Barnes) but you can also select Calvin's commentaries. Because they were written specifically about his view of specific scriptures and generally written later in his Protestantism they are, imo, more informative than the Institutes (which was originally written as a Catholic specifically to reform Catholicism).


Remember: Calvin was Catholic. Calvin taught a guy named Beza and Beza taught Arminius (who was a Calvinist apologist for many years). Being Catholic, Calvin believed the sacraments soteriologically salient, and he attributed his own salvation to his childhood baptism. Few Protestant Calvinists think that correct today. Arminius was an orphan who'd been raised by a Catholic priest who favored the Reformers. The soteriological doctrines we now call "Calvinism," and "Arminianism," don't look exactly like the views either man originally asserted because the passing of time has refined the arguments and positions - and it has also caused some diversity. A. W. Pink is a different sort of Calvinist than R. C. Sproul. Wesley much different than Olson. Then there are the poles of determinism and Pelagianism. The former thinks they are representative of all Calvinism and the latter representative of Arminianism, but both are wrong. I recently started a book on the diversity within Calvinism, but I cannot recall its name this minute. I can also recommend the Counterpoint Series. They have an excellent book titled "Four Views on Eternal Security," where four different theologians assert four different perspectives and critique each other's arguments. Ashby's Reformed Arminianism is markedly different than Harper's Wesleyanism. I also recommend avoiding the James White debate with Dave Hunt because Dave Hunt is a very poor Arminian apologist, a very poor exegete, and his logic is sloppy. Do not rely on Wiki, either.

That ought to keep you busy .

Start with the WCF and Arminius' Disputations. If you become familiar with those two resources, you'll be more knowledgeable than most posters in most forums. The more familiar you become the more likely you are to get the perspectives correct and more likely to recognize straw men when you see them.

 

[Johan]

. I recently started a book on the diversity within Calvinism, but I cannot recall its name this minute. I can also recommend the Counterpoint Series. They have an excellent book titled "Four Views on Eternal Security," where four different theologians assert four different perspectives and critique each other's arguments. Ashby's Reformed Arminianism is markedly different than Harper's Wesleyanism. I also recommend avoiding the James White debate with Dave Hunt because Dave Hunt is a very poor Arminian apologist, a very poor exegete, and his logic is sloppy. Do not rely on Wiki, either.

That ought to keep you busy .

This should keep me busy-no doubt about it!
Sir-you are the only person who explained all there is to Calvinism and even my Calvinist brother is rather shell shocked at the information and links provided-and he is a Calvinist for many years!
The book that you have started on the diversity within Calvinism would be a tremendous help if you should recall the name of the book!
I have bookmarked all the links you have so graciously shared and have Calvin's commentary on my e-sword.
I am going through the book "Four views on Eternal Security" at the moment.
I believe the Lord led me here-not so much to post, but to learn.
Just an aside-I have also stumbled upon Bob Utley and would appreciate an honest review on him from you.
This is going to be a daunting task as I am in South Africa with power outs twice a day-lasting 2 hours.
If I may-please pray for me and my family.
Shalom to you and precious family Sir-again, thank you so much.
Johann.
P.S. I hope the commentary I have re Calvin is not edited.

 

[Josheb]

The book that you have started on the diversity within Calvinism would be a tremendous help if you should recall the name of the book!

This is gonna bug me. I read four or five books at a time and cannot for the life of me recall the title. I just walked through the house to find it and can't. Might be in my other car that's in the shop. I'll let you know when I find it but I'll tell you the book is not specifically on salvation or TULIP. It one of those selected writings by many authors compilations sort of books.

I have bookmarked all the links you have so graciously shared and have Calvin's commentary on my e-sword. I am going through the book "Four views on Eternal Security" at the moment.

Let me know what you think when you're done.

I believe the Lord led me here-not so much to post, but to learn.

Every exchange in every forum is a divine appoint due to providence .

Just an aside-I have also stumbled upon Bob Utley and would appreciate an honest review on him from you.

I don't know much about Utley but I have watched a few of his videos and read a few of his articles. He says he rejects Calvinism but calls himself a "Sovereignist" and a "5-point Arminian. He's trained, pastored, and taught as a Southern Baptist. He denies Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace, but he misunderstands the "I" in TULIP. I've also heard him say he believes God makes his decision based on the merits of the individual. That, imo, is a serious flaw because it makes God dependent on humanity, God's choices become dependent on not just human action and human choices but since he believes faith precedes regeneration the actions and choice (the merits) upon which God bases His decision are sinful merits. Logically, that make's God dependent on sin, not the other way around. It contradicts Utley's own claim to be a "sovereignist." If God is sovereign, then He does not ever make His decisions or actions dependent on the conduct of sinners. Utley has not thought that through. I also heard him teach on Limited Atonement using Isaiah 52-53 and what caught my attention was the emphasis he places of "my hermeneutic." His hermeneutic can be found on his website Free Bible Commentary it is a very unusually approach that makes no mention of the standard exegetical precepts taught in most other hermeneutical models. Utley starts with history and literary style/genre and NOT with a plain reading of the text (like most hermeneutics do). What then struck me was some sloppy exegesis. He commendably noted how the Isaiah text stated Jesus died for the many but then he pitted Isaiah 53:6 against Isa. 53:11 and that's very sloppy. The solution lies in correctly identifying the "us" in verse 6 and Utley failed to do that in the teaching I heard.

Utley is also a teacher of hermeneutics and Old Testament Studies in the Baptist seminary and that always piques my interest because Christianity is built on the Hebrew/Jewish precedent, but Christianity is NOT Judaism. Sources like Tim Mackie, Michael Heisler, N. T. Wright, Israel Institute of Biblical Studies, and Messianic Jewish sources can have a lot of good material from which we can and should learn, but discernment must be used because Jewish theology had some very serious errors and those errors led to missing the Messiah. Judaization was a problem in the early Church, and it remains a problem today. I do not know, specifically, what Utley teaches overall but I did once hear him teach using the non-canonical books 1 Enoch, Baruch, and 4 Ezra, which he called "interbiblical books." 1 Enoch 1 contains a midrash which is, by definition, a commentary and not divine inspiration. That is not to automatically say the content is incorrect, but it does not possess the authority of inspired scripture. I also found that particular lesson filled with speculation. Speculation built on extra-canonical sources treated as having some authority is suspect, imo.

I will say, alternatively, my personal anecdotal report is worth little, logically speaking, and my limited exposure to Utley cannot be the measure of the man's teaching as a whole.

If I may-please pray for me and my family. Shalom to you and precious family Sir-again, thank you so much.

Of course, and the appreciation is appreciated.


Just so you know, I started out my walk with Christ as an Arminian Dispensational Premillennialist and now identify as a partial-preterist monergist apostmillennialist (a mixture of amillennialism and postmillennialism ). Much different now than where I started 40 years ago. As far as the op goes (let's not forget the op), a study of Calvin and Arminius will better inform their respective soteriologies and that's important because Cals often get Calvinism incorrect and Arminians often get Arminianism incorrect. The points of TULIP are somewhat misnomers because the terms do not mean what is stated in the labels outside the context of monergism. Monergism is God-centric and never human centric.

 

[Johan]

This is gonna bug me. I read four or five books at a time and cannot for the life of me recall the title. I just walked through the house to find it and can't. Might be in my other car that's in the shop. I'll let you know when I find it but I'll tell you the book is not specifically on salvation or TULIP. It one of those selected writings by many authors compilations sort of books.

Let me know what you think when you're done.

Every exchange in every forum is a divine appoint due to providence .

I don't know much about Utley but I have watched a few of his videos and read a few of his articles. He says he rejects Calvinism but calls himself a "Sovereignist" and a "5-point Arminian. He's trained, pastored, and taught as a Southern Baptist. He denies Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace, but he misunderstands the "I" in TULIP. I've also heard him say he believes God makes his decision based on the merits of the individual. That, imo, is a serious flaw because it makes God dependent on humanity, God's choices become dependent on not just human action and human choices but since he believes faith precedes regeneration the actions and choice (the merits) upon which God bases His decision are sinful merits. Logically, that make's God dependent on sin, not the other way around. It contradicts Utley's own claim to be a "sovereignist." If God is sovereign, then He does not ever make His decisions or actions dependent on the conduct of sinners. Utley has not thought that through. I also heard him teach on Limited Atonement using Isaiah 52-53 and what caught my attention was the emphasis he places of "my hermeneutic." His hermeneutic can be found on his website Free Bible Commentary it is a very unusually approach that makes no mention of the standard exegetical precepts taught in most other hermeneutical models. Utley starts with history and literary style/genre and NOT with a plain reading of the text (like most hermeneutics do). What then struck me was some sloppy exegesis. He commendably noted how the Isaiah text stated Jesus died for the many but then he pitted Isaiah 53:6 against Isa. 53:11 and that's very sloppy. The solution lies in correctly identifying the "us" in verse 6 and Utley failed to do that in the teaching I heard.

Utley is also a teacher of hermeneutics and Old Testament Studies in the Baptist seminary and that always piques my interest because Christianity is built on the Hebrew/Jewish precedent, but Christianity is NOT Judaism. Sources like Tim Mackie, Michael Heisler, N. T. Wright, Israel Institute of Biblical Studies, and Messianic Jewish sources can have a lot of good material from which we can and should learn, but discernment must be used because Jewish theology had some very serious errors and those errors led to missing the Messiah. Judaization was a problem in the early Church, and it remains a problem today. I do not know, specifically, what Utley teaches overall but I did once hear him teach using the non-canonical books 1 Enoch, Baruch, and 4 Ezra, which he called "interbiblical books." 1 Enoch 1 contains a midrash which is, by definition, a commentary and not divine inspiration. That is not to automatically say the content is incorrect, but it does not possess the authority of inspired scripture. I also found that particular lesson filled with speculation. Speculation built on extra-canonical sources treated as having some authority is suspect, imo.

I will say, alternatively, my personal anecdotal report is worth little, logically speaking, and my limited exposure to Utley cannot be the measure of the man's teaching as a whole.

Of course, and the appreciation is appreciated.


Just so you know, I started out my walk with Christ as an Arminian Dispensational Premillennialist and now identify as a partial-preterist monergist apostmillennialist (a mixture of amillennialism and postmillennialism ). Much different now than where I started 40 years ago. As far as the op goes (let's not forget the op), a study of Calvin and Arminius will better inform their respective soteriologies and that's important because Cals often get Calvinism incorrect and Arminians often get Arminianism incorrect. The points of TULIP are somewhat misnomers because the terms do not mean what is stated in the labels outside the context of monergism. Monergism is God-centric and never human centric.

Thank you for your honest, unbiased review on Utley brother-I am a "late starter" and don't claim to know the Scriptures nor am I eloquent, English not my mother tongue.
I had to look up what you really are and believe! And still don't know where you stand.
But I am learning so much from Utley-that I have to confess.
Will speak with you later.
Johann.

 

[Johan]

I will say, alternatively, my personal anecdotal report is worth little, logically speaking, and my limited exposure to Utley cannot be the measure of the man's teaching as a whole.

I am really so grateful you made this statement brother-I have been hurt-emotionally and spiritually from certain Churches and still bear the scars and I really do believe the Lord allowed me to visit his site and learn-and have a deeper appreciation of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Wherever I go, trouble seems to follow me and have been ousted by many CF's.
This Forum will be my last "attempt" to see where I fit into the somati of our Lord.

God bless
Johann.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

the more I dig, the more I find as to how God leads men to understanding his truth. So the real question is, did Arminius get it right in a better understanding of predestination and free will, than John Calvin and it get set aside? Let go over what we can find.

Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch pastor born in 1559, only five years before the death of John Calvin. At the age of 17, Arminius enrolled at Leiden University and after five years of education, still too young for a pastorate, Arminius traveled to study at Calvin's academy in Geneva. Theodore Beza, Calvin's hand-picked successor, was the chairman of theology at the university, and admiration flowed both directions in his friendship with Arminius. Beza later defended Arminius by saying "let it be known to you that from the time Arminius returned to us from Basel, his life and learning both have so approved themselves to us, that we hope the best of him in every respect" [4] In late 1587, at the age of 28, Arminius returned to Amsterdam to fulfil his desire to be a pastor.
Arminius' entry into the predestination debate that was raging in Amsterdam happened only two short years after his return when he was asked by city officials to refute a modified form of Beza's high Calvinism. According to historic tradition, Arminius' study of the Scriptures led him to the conclusion that the Bible did not support Calvinism.[5] Other scholars believe that Arminius never accepted Beza's views, even while a student at Geneva.[6] Regardless, Arminius avoided adding to the controversy and, apart from two incidents regarding sermons on Romans 7 and Romans 9, he lived in peace for a little more than a decade.
When Arminius received his doctorate and professorship of theology at Leiden in 1603, the debate over Calvinism roared back to life. Arminius rose to the forefront of the debate, teaching and defending that Calvinist predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil. Instead, Arminius insisted, God's election was an election of believers and therefore was conditioned on faith. Furthermore, Arminius argued, God's exhaustive foreknowledge did not require a doctrine of determinism.[7]
History of Calvinist-Arminian debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As can be seen, Arminius was a strict Calvinist early on in the Reformed Church of Holland, but later he developed a set of doctrines that were divergent from the widely accepted doctrines of Calvinism. Arminius's teachings concerning sin, selection, predestination, and eternal security attracted many and they consolidated his teachings into the 5 concise points:

Arminianism

D = Depravity (Partial depravity or Dead, but somehow alive). Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does so in such a manner as not to interfere with man's freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner's gift to God; It is man's contribution to salvation.

A = Arbitrary Selection (Abolition of True Grace). God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was termined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

I = Inequitable Limitation (of Christ's selection). Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe in Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condtition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone's sins. Christ's redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.

S = Sovereignty (of the sinner). The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit's call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man's contribution) precedes and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man's free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ's saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God's grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.

Y = Yielding Eternal Uncertainty. Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith, etc. All Arminians have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ -- that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost. According to Arminianism: Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) -- man's response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, choose to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man's will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

I believe in most of that but not "A". I don't believe "God has perfect foreknowledge of who would choose Him".

If God really had that foreknowledge He would not have created man.

Gen 6:5-6 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

The term foreknowledge in Early writings, certainly had no deterministic meaning. Foreknowledge was the idea that God knew people would either be evil or good, not that He made them so. It also could be said to include a "planning" element, when linked to scripture.

Justin Martyr (110-165) - Dialoque with Trypho

Chap. CXL. — In Christ All Are Free. The Jews Hope for Salvation in Vain Because They Are Sons of Abraham.

...Furthermore, I have proved in what has preceded, that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault, but each man by his own fault is what he will appear to be...

Chap. CXLI. — Free-Will in Men and Angels.

...But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so. So that if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God: and the Scripture foretells that they shall be blessed, saying, ‘Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin;’...

Foreknowledge by my meaning is:

• God knew some would choose His ways, but did not know how many, or who, but he knew some would
• These ones He marked out for salvation, planned to give life
• When He encountered these, he acted out the predetermined plan for them

 

[Bob Carabbio]

the more I dig, the more I find as to how God leads men to understanding his truth.

And since NEITHER Arminianism, NOR Calvinism is of any importance AT ALL when it comes to a Person being Born Again, personally I see no real reason to bother with EITHER "Systematic" at all. Paul appears to AGREE, saying that he limits his evangelism to "Jesus, and Him Crucified - since the Holy Spirit is the one doing the Conviction of SIN, and the FAITH to receive.

THEN, after taking Jesus YOKE upon you, you can begin to LEARN OF HIM. Getting into the Bible for yourself is a really good thing, because what you need to know is there.