Replies

As you can tell I have no desire for unity in the church , there is way too much error . I want no part of a works based salvation , not even if they are "nice" people .

Jacob Arminus and John Wesley were attempting to "return to some of the basic Jesuit teachings?" FOFLMHO ... wow ... what a self-revealing statement on your part. Where were you educated? Under whom did you study? What are your theological credentials? You betray the narrow limits of your training if you think that an attempt to pull hyper-Calvinism back from the brink of extremist heresy was, somehow, an attempt to "return to some of the basic Jesuits teachings."

Can we site a former benefactor of Wesley in the discussion?

Is not this too the very language of modern Arminianism? Do not the partizans of that scheme argue on the same identical terms? Should it be said, "True, this proves that Arminianism is Pelagianism revived; but it does not prove, that the doctrines of Arminianism are originally Popish:" a moment's cool attention will make it plain that they are. Let us again hear Mr. Bower, who, after the passage just quoted, immediately adds, "on these two last propositions, the Jesuits found their whole system of grace and free-will; agreeing therein with the Semipelagians, against the Jansenists and St. Augustine."6 The Jesuits were moulded into a regular body, towards the middle of the sixteenth century: toward the close of the same century, Arminius began to infest the Protestant churches. It needs therefore no great penetration, to discern from what source he drew his poison. His journey to Rome (though Monsicur Bayle affects to make light of the inferences which were at that very time deduced from it) was not for nothing. If, however, any are disposed to believe, that Arminius imbibed his doctrines from the Socinians in Poland, with whom, it is certain, he was on terms of intimate friendship, I have no objection to splitting the difference: he might import some of his tenets from the Racovian brethren, and yet be indebted, for others, to the disciples of Loyola.
Toplady

Arminianism was a protest over the EXTREMES of the Calvinist Reformation. Given that some those very same Calvinists dug up his dead body, tried him, and burned his dead bones illustrates the error of their extreme

He was a liar that had to use deception to teach his doctrine( much as Wesley slandered his "friend" Whitfield) .... look to the roots.

The fact is that Wesleyans/Arminians do not hold 2 points of the tulip as you posted yesterday .

We hold only the most basic of Christian salvation doctrine in common . The tulip emerged as a response to the Arminians who chose these five points to oppose. ( Remonstrants)
So to say that we share 2 is disingenuous at the very least .

Protestants protested the Roman church , not other reformation churches.

In your zeal to brand Wesleyan-Arminianism as not being part of the Protestant Reformation you overlook those elements within Roman Catholicism which Anglicanism and Methodist Anglicanism actually protested in their day.

Foolishness. The Wesleyan/Arminians were already OUT of the Roman church when they "protested". They protested the protesters...and you know that is true. They came closer to Roman doctrine not further away .

True protestants are the sons of the reformation in doctrine, the rest are simply non Catholic ( and wanted to move closer it seems)

BTW this is not a "personal discussion...I never argue seriously with another mac user :>)