You’re right that Arminians, like Calvinists, believe in total depravity. Things are already so complicated that I won’t talk about the variations in beliefs about total depravity in each camp, but there are variations. But remember that I said that I believe those parts of TULIP that are held in common by Arminians. This is one example.
I disagree that Arminians add anything to grace in Article 1. First, even if Romans 9:16 teaches unconditional election, which I obviously don’t believe, Article 1 doesn’t add anything. First, how one gains salvation and whether that gained salvation can be lost are two analytically distinct questions (see, e.g., the last paragraph of this post, so those—like me—who believe that salvation can be lost are not addressing whether salvation is by grace alone or by “grace plus.” Believing/having faith is simply not a “work” or an “effort” as those words are used in Scripture.
Second, saying that man must believe/have faith is not adding anything to grace. This is demonstrable numerous ways. I’ll limit it to three. First, Calvinists do not cut Romans 10 out of their Bibles—man MUST believe. In addition to all the things Chapter 10 DIRECTLY says about the necessity of belief, note that trying to establish righteousness under the Law, and going to Heaven or Hell to bring Christ up or down are examples of “works” or “efforts” that are being CONTRASTED to belief, which—to repeat—is REQUIRED for salvation to occur.) On the other hand, those who believe are also described (v. 20) as those who “did not seek” God and “did not ask for” GOD. Simply believing after God sacrificed His son and sent evangelists into the world, is NOT a “work” or an “effort.”
Second, (I hope you can follow the “firsts” and “seconds” inside other “first” and seconds”; sorry about that) this is in complete accord with the great sola’s of the Reformation. There is nothing in the above view that stands in contrast with sola fide or sola gratia.
If I am right about the first tow point, we should see this view in the writings of (at least) the EARLIEST, i.e., pre-Arminian (pre-I’m right-no-I’M-right-no-you’re a heretic-no YOU’RE-a-heretic) Reformers. And, of course, it IS there. The easiest example is Calvin himself. In his commentary on Romans 10, we read these things: In discussing what faith is and how it is different from salvation by works, Calvin writes: “Sufficient then for pacifying minds, and for rendering certain our salvation, is the word of the gospel; in which we are not commanded to earn righteousness by works, but to embrace it, when offered gratuitously, by faith.” Yes, we must “embrace” it, we must “believe” it, we must “have faith”—these terms are synonymous. Again, Calvin writes: “from this distinction we learn, — that as the law demands works, so the gospel requires nothing else, but that men bring faith to receive the grace of God.” Salvation must be embraced, received, believed; it must be the object of faith. Calvin goes further: “10. For with the heart we believe unto righteousness, etc. This passage may help us to understand what justification by faith is; for it shows that righteousness then comes to us, when we embrace God’s goodness offered to us in the gospel. We are then for this reason just, because we believe that God is propitious to us in Christ. But let us observe this, — that the seat of faith is not in the head, (in cerebro — in the brain,) but in the heart. Yet I would not contend about the part of the body in which faith is located: but as the word heart is often taken for a serious and sincere feeling, I would say that faith is a firm and effectual confidence, (fiducia — trust, dependence,) and not a bare notion only.” Note that Calvin is addressing only man here.
So synergism becomes a red herring. If it is used as the Orthodox and Catholics do, it does teach grace/faith plus. If it means believing, it is something the Arminians, Calvin (and MANY other Reformers), and the Bible all teach.
For the life of me, I can’t understand how believing/receiving/accepting/embracing/having faith—in this Arminian/Calvin-ist/biblical sense—is grounds for boasting.
As for Romans 9, I think it (as all of chapters 9-11) means something very different than what you have suggested in your other thread. The reason Paul anticipates that someone might accuse God of unrighteousness is because He chose Abraham and made a covenant with him. Yet, Paul explains that many of Abraham’s descendants are NOT going to be saved AND many non-descendants ARE going to be saved. In this context, Paul explains that Ishmael’s descendants were not part of God’s chosen people, that Esau’s descendants were not part of God’s chosen people, that only the remnant of Judah/Israel were ever going to partake of the covenant promises, and that Gentiles were always going to be included.
Having established in Chapter 9 that those who will be saved will be drawn from both Jews and Gentiles, Paul goes in Chapter 10 to explain that ALL those who enter the New Covenant must do so by BELIEVING.
Incidentally, if anything can be drawn from this passage about election, it COULD (but only "could") be that just as not all of the members of the Abrahamic covenant received its promises, not all members of the New Covenant will receive its promises, i.e., election is not unconditional, i.e., one can lose (read “abandon”) salvation.
"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow Galahad or Mordred; middle
things are gone." C.S. Lewis
“The chief purpose of life … is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all the means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks. To do as we say in the Gloria in Excelsis ... We praise you, we call you holy, we worship you, we proclaim your glory, we thank you for the greatness of your splendor.” J.R.R. Tolkien