[Corin Stormhands]

The root error of the Arminian's gospel of freewill is its failure to see that man's part, repentance and faith, are the fruits and effects of God's work and not the essential ingredient's supplied by the sinner as "man's part of the deal."

While this may be taught in some Arminian churches (none that I've ever attended), the above statement is a misrepresentation of the gospel of Free Grace as taught by John Wesley:

First. It is free in all to whom it is given. It does not depend on any power or merit in man; no, not in any degree, neither in whole, nor in part. It does not in anywise depend either on the good works or righteousness of the receiver; not on anything he has done, or anything he is. It does not depend on his endeavors. It does not depend on his good tempers, or good desires, or good purposes and intentions; for all these flow from the free grace of God; they are the streams only, not the fountain. They are the fruits of free grace, and not the root. They are not the cause, but the effects of it. Whatsoever good is in man, or is done by man, God is the author and doer of it. Thus is his grace free in all; that is, no way depending on any power or merit in man, but on God alone, who freely gave us his own Son, and "with him freely giveth us all things.
John Wesley: Free Grace

No, we have neither proven freewill nor disproved election ... since it is impossible to do either.

We would probably all save ourselves a lot of time and grief if we remembered that in our discussions here.

[P-Marlowe]

Excellent post Corin. The problem is not Weslyanism or Calvinism per se. It is the overemphasis by some on either free will or on divine election that causes the contention. The Bible teaches both free will and divine election. To deny one or the other is to deny what the Bible clearly teaches. Our disgreements for the most part are in matters of minute degrees.

[Jean Chauvin]

"No, we have neither proven freewill nor disproved election ... since it is impossible to do either." -John Reisinger

"We would probably all save ourselves a lot of time and grief if we remembered that in our discussions here. " -Corin Stormhands

Corin, you must realize that Wesley and Arminius redefine "grace" and "election".

This is the common "trick" of Theistic Evolutionists. The Theistic evolutionist (and I've been taught by one of the "best") uses all the same language the creationist uses. He claims to believe in "creation", but he has completely redefined the word. The Theistic Evolutionist tells us he believes that God "created" man. But when one understands how he defines "creation" we see he defines "creation" as "evolution". We then understand that even though he "sounds" very close to the Creationist position, he is actually turning creation on its head!

Likewise, the Arminian redefines "grace" and "election" and "predestination". In doing so, the Arminian might "sound" very close to the Calvinist, but he actually turns the gospel on its head.

Jean

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen to your post! Exactly right!

The only difference between Wesley and the Calvinists is that (as Xzins noted) grace could be rejected.

That is a far cry form ascribing to man any part of his salvation as a 'work'