What I am about to write will reveal my heart and my mind on the matter before us. We live in an age where there is plenty of latitudinarianism exists under the umbrella, which is called "Arminianism." Arminianism has always allowed a great deal of latitude, but has suffered when the boundaries of what is "Arminian" has not been defended and defined.

    Open Theology is not new. It is an old idea dressed in a new suit of clothes. Some of the core tenets promoted by Open Theists were expressed by Socinus in the 16th Century. Church history identifies him as a heretic whom Wesley opposed. Like Wesley, we must recognize that alterations to the doctrine of God, no matter how insignificant they may appear, can have profound ramifications upon the entire matrix of one's belief system. All credible theologians believe that the doctrine of God is the fountainhead from which all other truth flows.

James Leonard, "Why I'm an Arminian and Why Calvinism Is Dominating the Evangelical Book Market"

    Calvinists, on the other hand, think that God regenerates you in order that you can then believe. For them, regeneration makes it possible to believe. In effect, for Calvinists, a person has the new life of Christ prior to faith. I also think that union with Christ requires on-going faith, and not some past tense faith. That is to say, just because I believed in Christ back in 1967 does not guarantee that I will continue in faith. In fact, scripture repeatedly emphasizes that believers must persist in faith, and issues the direst consequences against those who make shipwreck of their faith.

Faith Alone, Grace Plus Nothing, and the Schoolmaster.

Now before we go farther, let me pause here to add another aspect to this discourse. What I will say has nothing to do with modern theology. Nor do I take aim at liberal theology. No! I am speaking of conservative theology and mainly the two systems of theology that have divided American Christianity and even the world wide Church. That is, Calvinism and Arminianism. Now I am on the Arminian side of this issue and I have no problem with the Wesleyan Arminian position. But after admitting this however, there is a larger point to be made with both views. Before the turn of the twentieth century both groups understood the problem of sin within the Christian body. Both preached against living in sin and the fact that in some sense of the word, victory could be had over it completely. In short, for them, the idea of a "sinning saint" would have been a terrible heresy.

Today many Calvinists teach that it is "grace plus nothing and you are saved." The Arminian position teaches it is "faith plus nothing and you are saved." In the process of teaching our twist on truth, we discover we are wrong because Paul says we are saved "by grace through faith ... and it is a gift of God." We before seem to ignore that it takes both grace and faith to save us. In our generation we seem content to stop at either grace or faith in the work of salvation. But Paul adds that we are to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling." And James no less supports this idea by saying, you know, I will show you a man's faith by his works. Works, while they cannot save, are certainly important no matter how you cut it. The great mistake of the modern American Church is that somehow, when a person becomes born again, that magically we know what is right and wrong, and therefore we need not worry about the "do's" and "don'ts" of the faith. Many American missionaries are propagating this concept throughout the world.