Am I REALLY an Arminian? What am I?

When I had a Twitter account with the same name as this blog, I would be accused by historic and/or Reformed Arminians of not really being an Arminian. At least not technically. 

Admittedly, I still use the term as a title of self-identification because there is no other designation that communicates better when someone asks, "Are you a Calvinist or an Arminian?" 

Yes, due largely to the invaluable ministry of Dr. Leighton Flowers from Soteriology 101 (LINK), another term has become well-known. That term is Provisionism/Provisionist. In short, Provisionism asserts that, in the atoning work of Christ, God has "provided" what is needed for everyone who has ever or will ever live to be saved. 

Technically, Arminianism differs from Provisionism in that historic Arminians affirm some form of the doctrine of Total Depravity as understood by the Protestant Reformers. 

By Total Depravity, the Reformers really mean Total INABILITY. This means that mankind, being "dead" (Col. 2:14, Eph. 2:1), is UNABLE to respond to the Gospel and must therefore be "regenerated" by God before believing.

Provisionists, as represented by Dr. Flowers, do not believe this. They believe that mankind can respond to the Gospel. In other words, even in our sinful, fallen state, we have the ability to respond to the Gospel when it is preached/presented. 

Together, Arminians and Provisionists believe that God does not want anyone to be lost. They both affirm that Christ's atoning work was for the sins of everyone who has ever lived (meaning no "Limited Atonement" as Calvinists believe).

Therefore, I don't think Arminians and Provisionists, need to argue with each other. They have in common the most important thing - God is willing to save anyone and everyone and has provided all that is needed for that to happen.

Arminians argue that since man is dead in his sins and unable to respond to the Gospel, God provides "Prevenient Grace", which is grace that "precedes" to resurrect him from his spiritually dead state to be able to believe the Gospel and be saved. 

The early Church did NOT believe that mankind's condition was what the Reformed Christians called Total Depravity/Total Inability. 

The early Christians believed that mankind was fallen and in sin. But they did not believe that being "dead" meant that we were unable to respond to God. 

What Calvinists should be shocked to learn is that their concept of Total Inability actually originated in Gnosticism and not what the Church taught. 

The church only began to embrace this concept/notion of Total Inability in the early 5th Century (AD412) when St. Augustine abandoned the church's original understanding and mixed his former Manichean teachings (Gnostic) with neo-Stoic and Platonic ideas (pagan Greek philosophy), which was a RADICAL DEPARTURE from the Apostolic church of the first 4 centuries.

The Eastern Church (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East) has never embraced the theological/doctrinal accretions introduced by Augustine.

The Council of Orange in AD529 pushed back against Augustine's gnostic and pagan innovations, but the damage was done. Augustine had successfully "baptized" Gnostic/pagan ideas, and they have remained incorporated in our Western theological tradition (both within Roman Catholicism and Protestantism).

An interesting study would be to consider how the Council of Orange, which the Eastern Orthodox accept as one of the accepted Seven Ecumenical Councils, affected Eastern Orthodoxy. This would leave only the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Church of the East as the historic Christian families to have NEVER adopted any of Augustine's errors.

To get back to my original question, for some, I will simply use the term "Arminian" for myself as it is descriptive and understood as identifying myself as one who rejects Calvinism. If that is the binary, Arminian or Calvinist, then I am an Arminian.

But, as one who rejects Total Depravity/Total Inability as an unBiblical, NON-Apostolic doctrine that originated in Gnosticism as opposed to Christianity, then I cannot technically be considered an Arminian.