John Wesley, The Doctrine of Original Sin according to Scripture, Reason, and Experience in Answer to Dr. Taylor (1817)

Now available here online, John Goodwin's Redemption Redeemed may be the best defense of Arminianism ever written. Published in 1651 by the Arminian Puritan John Goodwin (1593-1665), it is written in seventeenth century English with a Puritan writing style, which can make for challenging reading. But it contains tremendous biblical exegesis. The patient reader will be rewarded with a powerful, classic, comprehensive, biblical defense of five point Reformation Arminian theology.

The book runs 740 pages and is made available here in eight file attachments. There is a table of contents along with the first part of the body of the book in the first file. Besides the last part of the body of the book, the final file also contains a Scripture index, a subject index, and a table of general rules for interpreting Scripture. The material is arranged like so:

File 1: Preliminary matter through page 78
File 2: Pages 79-173
File 3: Pages 174-268
File 4: Pages 269-363

Hodges' Argument
Hodge argues that unless grace is resistible, the ultimate reason some believe and not others is found in us and not in God. Hodge says this would make believers better, more impressible or less obstinate than others.¹

Problem Non-Unique

Personally, I find this one of the most powerful Calvinistic arguments. The idea that I can take credit for my salvation is intolerable, as is the idea that I am better than someone else. But the Calvinistic solution is no solution, and it creates more problems than it resolves.

Let’s take the argument that believers can take credit for their faith. But Calvinists also say that people believe. Therefore Calvinism entails that people can take credit for their faith.

Arminius's comments are presented here in the first person, as though he were addressing you personally.

On the issue of Free Will, Grace, and Synergism, let me ask, "What liberty does the will have in a sinful state?" I distinguished between five kinds of liberty as applied to the will: freedom from control of one who commands, freedom from the government of a superior, freedom from necessity, freedom from sin and its dominion, and freedom from misery. The first two apply only to God; the last, to man, but only before the fall. As for freedom from necessity, it is the very essence of the will. Without it, the will would not be the will.

Let this be distinguished from Pelagianism. I say that the will which is free from necessity may not be free from sin. That is the point in question. Is there within man a freedom of will from sin and its dominion, and how far does it extend? Or rather, what are the powers of the whole man to understand, to will, and to do that which is good? The question must be further restricted to spiritual good. The question, then, is briefly: What is the power of free will in fallen man to perform spiritual good?