For the Calvinist, the "doctrines of grace" is a synonym for TULIP theology. So, do the Biblical Doctrines of Grace of Arminianism also follow a system, such as TULIP? Arminianism proper has not historically employed an acronym as the one used for nearly four centuries by Calvinists.

Let it be stated, however, that if it had not been for the followers of Arminius (the Remonstrants) presenting their five arguments to the state to be approved as orthodox consent, then the TULIP would have never been constructed. And the original order of the Remonstrants was Conditional Election (to those in Christ), Unlimited Atonement, Total Depravity, Resistible Grace, and Conditional Perseverance.

If the Calvinists had strictly followed the Arminian system, it would have spelled ULTIP, which is a bad acronym, considering Ultip is not a word. Worse off, the Arminian acronym would have been CUTRC. The best sense which we could make out of that construct is TRUCC, also not a word.

The word grace, from Genesis 6:8 to Revelation 22:21, is a word meaning "graciousness of manner or act" (literally), or "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life" (figuratively).1

Grace is a special favor bestowed upon an undeserving individual. Thus when a Christian minister quotes Paul as saying, "For it is by grace you have been saved" (Eph. 2:8), he or she means that the one saved was saved not by merit but by grace, undeserved favor. This is how to use the word grace biblically. In this we do not go beyond its clear meaning, nor do we fall short of what the Bible teaches.

Libertarian Free Will (LFW) is the idea that man is able to choose otherwise than he will choose. It’s contrasted with Compatiblism Free Will (CFW), the idea that free will and determinism are compatible. These are alternative views of the will; both can’t be true about a persons’ will at the same time.

The descriptions “libertarian” and “free” distinguish LFW from CFW, but are otherwise redundant. For those holding to LFW, the will is always at liberty, and is always free, else it’s not a will. Arminius put it: “the will cannot be forced”.

Is the grace of God which leads a sinner to salvation by faith or to faith? In Scripture it is by faith, in Calvinism it is to faith. The Calvinist incorrectly assumes that God's grace is directly related to regeneration in order for the sinner to then have faith in Christ (which is also a gift, in the absolute sense).

He is left to conclude that grace for salvation is not by faith but to faith, since salvation and election is by the unconditional choice of God. This "faith" seems to be one of proxy, for it is not the sinner's faith, but a faith given to him by God. This is an alien faith. It did not derive from the sinner but was (somehow) "planted within" him. The Scripture behind this idea (so admits the Calvinist) is Philippians 1:29, which reads, "For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (NASB).

Defending a term such as prevenient grace poses the same problem as defending such terms as trinity, total depravity, supra-, infra-, or sublapsarianism, or even Bible, for such terms do not appear in the Bible.

What, then, does the Arminian mean by the term prevenient grace? The word prevenient means "preceding;" thus the term, in its most simple form, means "grace which goes before," or, "preceding grace" (or, as in ancient usage, "preventing grace"). So when the Bible claims that people are "saved by grace" (Eph. 2:8), Arminians understand that this grace must precede salvation if a person is to be saved (something which no Calvinist would deny).

Is God's grace irresistible? The answer to that question will be determined by your theological convictions. If God must first regenerate people (whom He has pre-selected for salvation) in order for them to believe, then the answer to the question is yes, God's grace is irresistible.

However, if you believe that the Bible teaches that faith precedes regeneration, then the answer to the question is no, God's grace is not irresistible.

Arminius stated, "[The Internal Work of salvation] is by the operation of the Holy Spirit illuminating the mind and affecting the heart, that serious attention may be given to those things which are spoken, and that faith or credence may be given to the word.

On the heels of my recent post, I am still vying for the universality of the love of God for all people. Again, Fritz Guy writes, "If the preeminent characteristic of God is love, and if God is the source of all reality, there can be little doubt about the universal scope of God's love. It is unthinkable that the divine love is restricted to a fortunate part of creation and that another (perhaps even larger) part is excluded."1

We believe this because (1) God is love (1 John 4:8). The Bible teaches that God's nature is love, not that He merely possesses love. And (2) God does not show favoritism (Acts 10:34). The Calvinists' view of election is partial, particular, and based not on union with Christ, but on a decree founded in the vault of eternity. And while this portrait of election expresses God's love for some, it excludes God's love for others, since electing a person to hell falls short of any viable definition of "love."

The third verse of the hymn The Love of God reads as follows:

Could we with ink the ocean fill, And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill, And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above, Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole, Though stretched from sky to sky.

I seriously doubt that any Christian could overstate the love of God for His creatures. While some Calvinists, such as James White, tend to focus on God's love solely for His elect (a notion contradicted by Jesus at Mark 10:21), most Arminians tend to laud Him for His love for all people. And why not? We believe that He loved the world in such a manner as that which motivated Him to send His only Son into the world to die for their sins, so that whoever would trust Him would be saved from sin and hell. Is that not, after all, what the Bible teaches? Oh, what a Savior!

I found this mockery at a Calvinist's blog, who will remain nameless:

"Arminian 'grace!' How strange the sound, Salvation hinged on me. I once was lost, then turned around, Was blind, then chose to see.

"What 'grace' is it that calls for choice, Made from some good within? That part that wills to heed God's voice, Proved stronger than my sin.

"Thru many ardent gospel pleas, I sat with heart of stone. But then some hidden good in me, Propelled me toward my home.

"When we've been there ten thousand years, Because of what we've done. We've no less days to sing our praise, Than when we first begun."

I'd like to hear Chris Tomlin do something with that one! John Newton would have been proud of our Calvinist "friend." Actually, I think Newton would have been disgusted. I think every Christian should be disgusted with the heresy mentioned in that re-working of a classic hymn. And if that encapsulated Arminian theology, I would never adhere to such nonsense.

Among such biblical texts as Romans 8 and 9 and Ephesians 1, Calvinists are convinced that John 6 secures the notion that Jesus taught a Calvinistic soteriology. I am convinced, however, that Calvinists tend to see Calvinism in every text. I know. I used to be one.

My zeal for Calvinism clouded my interpretation of Scripture. Whatever scriptures I encountered which contradicted Calvinism, I had to find a way to make it mean something other than its simplistic meaning. I am not saying that all Calvinists are necessarily guilty of this very thing. But I will admit that I was immersed in the writings of John Calvin, John Piper, John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Iain Murray, John Owen, Martin Luther, Loraine Boettner, John Murray, and others, and was raised, spiritually speaking, on a strict Calvinistic hermeneutic of Classical Reformed theology.

JOHN WESLEY'S VIEW OF MAN: VERSUS FREE WILL

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Irwin W. Reist, Th. M., S. T. D. (candidate)
Associate Professor, Bible and Theology, Houghton College

I. INTRODUCTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF MAN FOR THEOLOGY

JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Robert Doyle Smith

Introduction

The tone of the eighteenth-century debate between Arminians and Calvinists finds apt description in John Wesley's observation that to say, "This man is an Arminian," was, to some, much the same thing as saying, "This man is a mad dog."1

JOHN FLETCHER'S INFLUENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF WESLEYAN THEOLOGY IN AMERICA

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
By John A. Knight

Introduction

Not until recent years has the significance of John Fletcher's theology been assessed by interpreters of the history of Christian doctrine. For almost two hundred years his work was eclipsed by the Wesleys and by some in the Calvinistic wing of the 18th century Evangelical Revival in England, except for occasional references by historians and biographers of his contemporaries.

David C. Shipley's perceptive study, "Methodist Arminianism in the Theology of John Fletcher," unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Yale, 1942, was a pioneer work in this country. Particularly in the last two decades others have begun to recognize the importance of Fletcher to the development of Wesleyan theology.1

Calvinists love to point out that we are dead in sin. That we are dead in sin prior to conversion cannot be denied (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13); the question has to do with what it means to be dead in sin.

Calvinist are fond of comparing spiritual death to physical death. This gives them the framework with which to press their theological conviction that regeneration precedes faith. If being dead in sin means that we are as helpless as physical corpses then we are told that we certainly can no more "hear" the gospel or "see" our need for Christ than a physical corpse can hear or see. But is there any justification for such a strict parallel between the spiritual and the physical?

The apostle Paul wrote that his prayer was that Christians would know "what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places" (Eph. 1.19-20).

Many Calvinists insist that Arminianism is a graceless theology. God has been cast aside in favor of honoring man. Humanism reigns supreme. This is due, mostly, to the Calvinists' doctrine which mistakenly equates God's grace with regeneration.