Calvinism vs. Arminianism is a big debate about predestination and free will. Calvinism focuses on God’s control and predestination, while Arminianism supports human free will and conditional election. Understanding both views helps in discussing divine control and human choice in salvation.
In this article, we take a meticulous yet engaging journey through the landscape of two theological giants – Calvinism vs Arminianism. If you’re keen on theology or history, or you’re just curious, this guide is tailored for you.
Introduction to Calvinism vs Arminianism
Let’s kick things off by understanding why this age-old debate is still relevant.
So, why has Calvinism vs Arminianism stood the test of time? Why do these theological stances continue to captivate scholars, theologians, and laypeople alike? This debate tackles fundamental questions about free will, divine grace, and salvation. It’s not just a debate for debate’s sake; it’s a quest to understand the very fabric of our beliefs.
In this section, we will delve into the inception of both Calvinism and Arminianism, explore their core tenets, and understand the importance of their discourse in contemporary society.
Understanding these theological perspectives is akin to understanding the building blocks of various Christian traditions. It’s an essential exploration for anyone committed to deeper theological insights.
So, shall we?
The Importance of the Debate
Imagine two intellectual giants locked in a centuries-long chess match. That’s Calvinism vs Arminianism for you. The debate is critical because it addresses fundamental questions about human free will, divine grace, and the nature of salvation.
Think about it – how do we reconcile the notion of an all-powerful God with the free will He has bestowed upon us? How does God’s grace operate in the world? And when it comes to salvation, is it predetermined, or do we have a say in it?
These questions are not just theological curiosities; they’re the very foundation upon which many believers build their understanding of faith. The answers – or the search for answers – can shape how one leads their life, how communities form, and how churches operate.
This debate, like an age-old tapestry, is woven with rich histories, profound beliefs, and an enduring quest for understanding. It is a dialogue that has, for centuries, engaged thinkers and believers in a profound examination of the human condition in relation to the divine.
So, let’s put on our thinking caps and delve deeper into the enthralling theological chess match that is Calvinism vs Arminianism.
What is Calvinism?
Let’s turn back the clock and explore where Calvinism comes from.
Calvinism! It’s not just a word; it’s an entire theological framework that has shaped the course of Christian history since the 16th century. Named after the French reformer John Calvin, Calvinism is often associated with the Reformation period when the Protestant movement was gaining momentum.
But wait a minute, what does Calvinism actually stand for?
Get A Proven Marketing Plan That Increases Enrollments When You Book A Call Today!
Receive customized advice to help your school attract more families!
History of Calvinism
John Calvin, born in 1509 in France, was a central figure in the Protestant Reformation. His writings, particularly the Institutes of the Christian Religion, laid the groundwork for what we now know as Calvinism.
Calvin’s thoughts were deeply rooted in the authority of Scripture and the sovereignty of God. He argued that the Bible was the ultimate source of truth and that God’s will was supreme over human affairs.
Core Tenets of Calvinism
Let’s get down to brass tacks. Calvinism is often summed up with the acronym TULIP:
Total Depravity: This idea suggests that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every aspect of a human’s being – be it mind, will, or emotions – is corrupted by sin. In this state, humans are incapable of following or even choosing to follow God’s will on their own.
Unconditional Election: Unconditional election is the belief that from eternity past, God has chosen certain individuals for salvation. This election is not based on any foreseen merit or action on the part of the person, but solely based on God’s mercy and sovereign will. This is the cornerstone of the Reformed doctrine of predestination.
Limited Atonement: Also known as “particular atonement,” this tenet posits that Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was not a blanket redemption for all, but rather an atonement specifically for those whom God has elected. This implies that Christ’s sacrifice has a particular purpose and is ultimately efficacious for those elected.
Irresistible Grace: This principle maintains that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom He has determined to save. In essence, those whom God has elected will invariably come to a saving faith, as they cannot ultimately resist God’s divine will for their salvation.
Perseverance of the Saints: The final point of TULIP asserts that those who are elect in Christ will certainly persevere in faith. In other words, those who are truly saved will never fall away from or abandon their faith due to the preserving grace of God.
Each of these tenets is deeply interwoven and collectively forms the bedrock of Calvinistic theology, emphasizing the sovereignty of God in matters of salvation and grace. These principles have been both cherished and debated among theologians and continue to inspire rich theological reflection.
So, there you have it! A glimpse into the origins and core beliefs of Calvinism. It’s a rich and historically significant theological perspective that continues to shape Christian thought and practice today.
What is Arminianism?
Time to get acquainted with Calvinism’s counterpart.
Arminianism, often seen as the counterweight to Calvinism, carries its own historical significance and theological substance. Like the two sides of a coin, these theological perspectives complement and challenge each other.
If you love this post on Calvinism vs. Arminianism, you will also love this shocking solution to the free-will dilemma.
History of Arminianism
Arminianism emerged in the early 17th century as a response to Calvinism. It’s named after Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian. Arminius was initially a staunch supporter of Calvinism but, over time, developed reservations regarding certain aspects of Calvinistic doctrine, particularly predestination.
Arminius and his followers, known as the Remonstrants, presented a different take on salvation and human free will. The Five Articles of Remonstrance were formally published in 1610, and they serve as the foundation of Arminian theology. This theology gained traction and has had a significant impact on various Protestant denominations.
Core Beliefs of Arminianism
Now, let’s dive into the nitty-gritty. What does Arminianism stand for? At its core, Arminianism posits:
Human Free Will: Unlike the Calvinist view of total depravity, Arminians believe that while humans are fallen, they are not entirely deprived of free will. In the Arminian view, God’s grace is seen as a facilitator that restores the ability to choose faith. This means that individuals have the genuine capacity to accept or reject God’s grace through their own free will.
Conditional Election: This concept proposes that God’s election of individuals to salvation is based on His foreknowledge of their free will choices. Essentially, God’s predestination is conditional upon an individual’s response to His grace. In this view, God is both omniscient and sovereign, but human decisions play a role in God’s election.
General Atonement: According to Arminianism, Christ’s atonement is universally applicable. This means that Jesus died for all individuals, offering salvation to every human being without exception. This is in contrast to the Calvinist belief of Limited Atonement, which posits that Christ died only for the elect.
Resistible Grace: Arminians hold that the grace of God can be resisted and ultimately rejected. While God extends His grace to all people, and desires that all come to repentance, individuals can use their free will to resist and reject this grace. This view maintains that God does not override human freedom.
Uncertainty of Perseverance: Arminians believe that an individual’s continuous faith is necessary for final salvation. This is the belief that it’s possible for a person to fall from grace if they choose to turn away from God after coming to faith. Salvation is seen as a dynamic relationship that requires ongoing commitment and can be broken through apostasy.
In a nutshell, Arminianism emphasizes human free will and responsibility in the salvation process while acknowledging God’s sovereignty and grace. This theological perspective forms the foundation for various Christian traditions and continues to be relevant in contemporary theological discussions.
If you are enjoying this article, you will also love to read more on Calvinism Vs Molinism.
Get A Proven Marketing Plan That Increases Enrollments When You Book A Call Today!
Receive customized advice to help your school attract more families!
TULIP Calvinism vs. Arminianism: A Comparative Analysis
Now that we’ve got our heads wrapped around the core tenets of Calvinism and Arminianism, let’s stack them side by side and weigh them against each other. What are the contrasts and similarities, and why do they matter?
Total Depravity vs. Human Free Will
Calvinism: Total Depravity in Calvinism holds that humans are inherently sinful to the core and are incapable of choosing God or doing good on their own.
Arminianism: Human Free Will, on the other hand, posits that humans, though sinful, are capable of choosing to accept or reject God’s grace.
This is a significant divergence. While both agree on the fallen nature of humanity, Calvinism sees humans as totally incapable, whereas Arminianism ascribes some ability to choose.
Unconditional Election vs. Conditional Election
Calvinism: Unconditional Election is the belief that God has elected individuals for salvation based solely on His will, not on any merit or choice of the individual.
Arminianism: Conditional Election posits that God’s election is based on His foreknowledge of who will freely choose Him.
Here, Calvinism emphasizes God’s sovereign choice, while Arminianism stresses human choice and God’s foreknowledge.
Limited Atonement vs. General Atonement
Calvinism: Limited Atonement means that Christ’s sacrifice was exclusively for the elect and only efficient for their salvation.
Arminianism: General Atonement, conversely, posits that Christ died for all people, and His atonement is available to all.
In this, we see Calvinism’s focus on the particularity of Christ’s sacrifice for the elect and Arminianism’s emphasis on the universality of the atonement.
Irresistible Grace vs. Resistible Grace
Calvinism: Irresistible Grace asserts that God’s call to salvation cannot be resisted by those He has elected.
Arminianism: Resistible Grace holds that an individual can choose to reject God’s grace.
This contrast highlights Calvinism’s view of an overriding divine will in the process of salvation and Arminianism’s view of human agency in accepting or rejecting grace.
Perseverance of the Saints vs. Uncertainty of Perseverance
Calvinism: Perseverance of the Saints means that those elected by God will inevitably persevere in faith.
Arminianism: Uncertainty of Perseverance posits that it’s possible for true believers to fall away from faith.
This difference points to Calvinism’s assurance of the endurance of the elect, contrasted with Arminianism’s position that perseverance is not guaranteed.
In conclusion, while both Calvinism and Arminianism seek to articulate the biblical doctrine of salvation, they differ significantly in their emphases on divine sovereignty and human free will. These distinctions have been the catalyst for theological debates and have shaped various Christian traditions.
What is Libertarian Free Will?
So, let’s pop open the hood and tinker around with this concept of Libertarian Free Will. How does it factor into the grand equation of Calvinism and Arminianism?
Get A Proven Marketing Plan That Increases Enrollments When You Book A Call Today!
Receive customized advice to help your school attract more families!
Defining Libertarian Free Will
Libertarian Free Will is a philosophical and theological concept asserting that individuals possess the genuine ability to make choices that are not determined or predestined by external circumstances, divine foreknowledge, or causal determinism. Essentially, it’s the belief that humans are active agents who have control over their actions and decisions.
Libertarian Free Will in Arminianism
Alright, let’s reel in Arminianism into the picture. Remember when we discussed Human Free Will as a core tenet of Arminianism? Well, that’s where Libertarian Free Will comes into play. Arminianism is heavily aligned with Libertarian Free Will. It holds that even though humans have a sinful nature, they can still make free choices – and this includes the decision to accept or reject God’s grace. According to Arminianism, God’s grace enables humans to make a genuine, free choice regarding their salvation.
Libertarian Free Will and Calvinism
Now, switching gears to Calvinism, here’s where things get a little thorny. Calvinism is not so keen on Libertarian Free Will. Remember Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace from Calvinism’s TULIP? Calvinism holds that due to total depravity, humans can’t make a genuine free choice regarding salvation. Moreover, with Irresistible Grace, the elect can’t say “no” to God’s call. These notions are fundamentally at odds with the concept of Libertarian Free Will.
The Intersection and Conflict
So, we’ve got Calvinism and Arminianism locked in a theological dance around the notion of Libertarian Free Will. Libertarian Free Will is embraced by Arminianism as it paints a picture of a human being who, though sinful, has the capacity to choose God. Calvinism, however, waltzes in a different direction, stressing God’s sovereignty and a kind of grace that you can’t say no to if you’re part of the elect.
In essence, Libertarian Free Will is one of the pillars that distinguishes Arminianism from Calvinism. It’s a key component in the broader conversation and debate on human agency, divine sovereignty, and the mechanics of salvation. The differing perspectives on Libertarian Free Will in Calvinism and Arminianism have profoundly shaped theological discussions and understandings of soteriology.
If you looking to go even deeper, this debate is closely related to the logical problem of evil.
Calvinism vs. Arminianism – The Dilemma
Now, let’s delve into the nitty-gritty. The divide between Calvinism and Arminianism isn’t just some theological kerfuffle; it’s a profound debate that’s been brewing for centuries. But what exactly has these two sides locking horns?
Points of Contention between Calvinism Vs Arminianism
1. The Nature of Free Will
Calvinism maintains that humans, due to their totally depraved nature, do not have the freedom to choose God or salvation. Only the grace of God can enable such a choice.
Arminianism, conversely, asserts that humans have libertarian free will. While humans are sinful, they can still make genuine choices, including the decision to accept or reject God’s grace.
2. The Scope of Atonement
How wide is the net of Christ’s saving grace? Well, Calvinism asserts that it’s rather selective. Limited Atonement is the belief that Christ’s death was only for the elect.
Arminianism, on the other hand, believes in General Atonement, which posits that Christ died for all and that His saving grace is available to all.
3. The Mechanics of Election
Calvinism advocates Unconditional Election, the idea that God has elected certain individuals for salvation based solely on His will.
In contrast, Arminianism believes in Conditional Election, which is the idea that God elects individuals based on His foreknowledge of who will freely choose to accept His grace.
4. The Perseverance in Faith
Can true believers lose their salvation? Calvinism says no. It teaches the Perseverance of the Saints, meaning that the elect will inevitably continue in faith.
Arminianism has a different take. It holds the possibility of falling from grace if one turns away from God after coming to faith.
5. The Role of God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility
In Calvinism, God’s sovereignty is emphasized to the extent that God controls all events, including the election of individuals for salvation.
In Arminianism, there’s a balance between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. God’s sovereign will works in harmony with human free will.
Why Does Calvinism Vs Arminianism Matter?
Here’s the crux of the matter: These points of contention are not just theological abstractions; they touch on the very nature of God, human beings, and the salvation process. They speak to questions that have been contemplated for centuries: How free are we? What is the nature of divine grace? How does God’s sovereignty operate?
Understanding the nuances between Calvinism and Arminianism provides insight into different Christian traditions and how they interpret Scripture and theology. This debate is essential in shaping Christian thought, practice, and identity. It’s not merely about picking a side; it’s about engaging with deep theological questions that challenge and enrich faith.
If you love this post on Calvinism vs. Arminianism, you will also love this shocking solution to the free-will dilemma.
Get A Proven Marketing Plan That Increases Enrollments When You Book A Call Today!
Receive customized advice to help your school attract more families!
History of Calvinism vs. Arminianism
History buffs, this one’s for you. This theological debate didn’t just pop up out of nowhere. It’s got roots. So, let’s hop onto our historical time machine and check out how the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate shaped up.
The Reformation and the Rise of Calvinism
Our journey begins in the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation. John Calvin, a French theologian and pastor, was one of the central figures in the Reformation. His teachings, especially those in his magnum opus, Institutes of the Christian Religion, laid the groundwork for what would become known as Calvinism. He emphasized the sovereignty of God, predestination, and salvation by grace alone.
Jacobus Arminius and the Birth of Arminianism
Fast forward a few decades, and enter Jacobus Arminius. He was a Dutch theologian who started off as a supporter of Calvinist beliefs. However, as he delved into the Scriptures, he found himself questioning some of the tenets of Calvinism, particularly the notions of predestination and free will. This led him to develop an alternative theological framework, which was posthumously dubbed as Arminianism by his followers.
The Synod of Dort
Now, this is where things heat up. After Arminius’ death, his followers summarized his teachings into five points and presented them in a document called the Remonstrance. This document didn’t exactly receive a warm reception from the Calvinist camp. As tensions escalated, a church council called the Synod of Dort was convened from 1618 to 1619 to address the growing divide. The Synod rejected the Remonstrance and affirmed Calvinist doctrines, particularly through the formulation of the TULIP acronym.
The Debate in the New World
The theological ripples didn’t stop in Europe. They crossed the Atlantic and influenced Christian thought in the Americas. Both Calvinist and Arminian beliefs found fertile ground in the New World, especially in the United States. The Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th centuries were influenced by Calvinist thought, while Methodism and other evangelical movements were often aligned with Arminianism.
Modern Times
Even today, the debate continues. Different denominations and theological schools lean towards either Calvinism or Arminianism. The theological underpinnings of these traditions continue to shape sermons, biblical interpretations, and Christian education.
A Debate That Transcends Time
Calvinism and Arminianism have been, and will likely continue to be, significant theological frameworks within Christianity. The debate between them is more than just historical happenstance; it represents deep-seated theological explorations that have persisted across centuries. Through understanding this history, one gains a richer perspective on the multifaceted tapestry of Christian thought and tradition.
Key Moments and Figures In Calvinism Vs Arminianism
From the Synod of Dort in the 17th century to the present-day discussions, the debate has evolved with various scholars and theologians contributing to the discourse. Let’s shine the spotlight on some key moments and figures in the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate.
1. John Calvin (1509-1564)
We can’t talk about Calvinism without mentioning the man himself, John Calvin. His Institutes of the Christian Religion is a cornerstone of Reformed theology. He emphasized God’s sovereignty, predestination, and salvation by grace through faith.
2. Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609)
The father of Arminianism, Jacobus Arminius, initially was a Calvinist. His in-depth studies led him to diverge from Calvin’s teachings, especially concerning predestination and free will.
3. The Remonstrants
After Arminius’ death, his followers, known as the Remonstrants, played a significant role in formulating and promoting Arminian theology. They summarized his teachings into five points which challenged Calvinist doctrines.
4. Synod of Dort (1618-1619)
This church council was a pivotal moment in the debate. It was here that the Calvinist response to the Remonstrants was formalized, resulting in the five points of Calvinism, represented by the TULIP acronym.
5. John Wesley (1703-1791)
Fast forward to the 18th century, and enter John Wesley, an English cleric and theologian who is credited with founding the Methodist movement. Wesley was a staunch Arminian and helped popularize Arminian beliefs, particularly in the United States.
6. Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892)
Charles Spurgeon, the “Prince of Preachers,” was a prominent Baptist preacher and a staunch Calvinist. He defended the doctrines of grace and was critical of what he perceived as the lax moral standards of Arminianism.
7. The 20th Century and Beyond
The debate continued into the 20th century and beyond, with scholars such as R.C. Sproul, a Reformed theologian, defending Calvinism, and Roger Olson, an evangelical theologian, advocating for Arminianism.
8. The Young, Restless, and Reformed Movement
In the early 21st century, a movement known as the Young, Restless, and Reformed, saw a resurgence in Calvinistic beliefs among younger evangelicals, with figures like John Piper and Mark Driscoll at the forefront.
9. Society of Evangelical Arminians
Established in the 21st century, the Society of Evangelical Arminians aims to represent and advance Arminian theology in response to the growing Reformed movement.
The debate between Calvinism and Arminianism has been marked by fervent theological wrangling, shaped by prominent figures and watershed moments. This historical and ongoing dialogue represents an earnest struggle to understand the intricacies of faith, grace, and human freedom within the Christian tradition.
Get A Proven Marketing Plan That Increases Enrollments When You Book A Call Today!
Receive customized advice to help your school attract more families!
Influential Figures in Calvinism Vs Arminianism
From John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius to contemporary theologians, there’s an illustrious list of proponents on both sides.
Calvinism:
1. John Calvin:
The originator of Calvinism, John Calvin’s writings, particularly Institutes of the Christian Religion, remain foundational to Reformed theology.
2. Jonathan Edwards:
An American preacher, philosopher, and theologian, Edwards is known for his fire-and-brimstone sermons. He played a critical role in shaping Calvinist theology during the First Great Awakening.
3. Charles Haddon Spurgeon:
Often referred to as the “Prince of Preachers,” Spurgeon was a Baptist minister in London in the 19th century. He defended Calvinism and is known for his passionate and powerful sermons.
4. R.C. Sproul:
A well-respected theologian of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, R.C. Sproul was known for his ability to explain complex theological concepts in an accessible manner. He was a staunch proponent of Reformed theology.
5. John Piper:
A contemporary theologian and pastor, Piper is one of the key figures in the Reformed theology resurgence among evangelicals, particularly through his Desiring God ministry and writings.
Arminianism:
1. Jacobus Arminius:
The namesake of Arminianism, Jacobus Arminius, was a Dutch theologian who challenged the Calvinist view on predestination and free will, laying the foundations for Arminian theology.
2. John Wesley:
The founder of Methodism, John Wesley was a fervent proponent of Arminian beliefs. His emphasis on personal holiness and social justice has influenced generations of Christians.
3. Hugo Grotius:
A Dutch jurist and theologian, Grotius was an early Arminian who defended the teachings of Jacobus Arminius and argued for religious tolerance.
4. Billy Graham:
While not a theologian per se, the evangelist Billy Graham leaned towards Arminianism. His inclusive message of God’s love for all humanity reflects the Arminian emphasis on universal atonement.
5. Roger E. Olson:
A contemporary theologian, Olson has been an articulate advocate for Arminian theology through his writings and teachings.
Calvinism and Arminianism have been championed by a host of intellectuals and theologians. Each side is marked by deep conviction and has contributed richly to the theological landscape within Christianity. These proponents, both past and present, have shaped the respective traditions and continue to inform the perspectives of countless believers worldwide.
Get A Proven Marketing Plan That Increases Enrollments When You Book A Call Today!
Receive customized advice to help your school attract more families!
Best Books on Calvinism Vs Arminianism
Grab your reading glasses and settle in, as we explore some of the most influential books that dissect the Calvinism and Arminianism debate.
For Calvinism:
1. “Institutes of the Christian Religion” by John Calvin
This is the magnum opus of John Calvin and a must-read for anyone wanting to understand the foundations of Calvinism.
2. “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented” by David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn
This book provides a modern and thorough look at the TULIP acronym and is often considered a standard reference on the Five Points of Calvinism.
3. “Chosen by God” by R.C. Sproul
R.C. Sproul brilliantly explains the concept of predestination and how it is linked to one’s understanding of God’s sovereignty and humanity’s free will.
4. “Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist” by John Piper
John Piper makes a passionate case for the pursuit of joy in God as being the ultimate goal of the Christian life, reflecting a Calvinistic perspective on God’s supremacy.
For Arminianism:
1. “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities” by Roger E. Olson
This is an essential read for understanding Arminianism, as Olson addresses misunderstandings and lays out the true beliefs of Arminian theology.
2. “The Works of Arminius, Vol. 1-3” by Jacobus Arminius
For a primary source, this three-volume set contains the major writings of Jacobus Arminius, including his declaration of sentiments and his commentary on various scriptural passages.
3. “Why I Am Not a Calvinist” by Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell
This book presents a case for Arminianism by critiquing Calvinistic beliefs and asserting the importance of human free will in the context of God’s grace.
4. “John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology” edited by Albert C. Outler and Richard P. Heitzenrater
Wesley, a key figure in Arminianism, delivered powerful sermons that emphasized the availability of salvation to all. This anthology captures some of his most influential sermons.
For a Balanced Perspective:
1. “The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal to Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free” by James R. White
This book defends the Reformed tradition and responds to criticisms, providing a Calvinistic perspective on the sovereignty of God.
2. “Against Calvinism” by Roger E. Olson and “For Calvinism” by Michael S. Horton
This set of two books, written from opposing perspectives, offers a balanced look into the core beliefs of both theological systems.
Understanding the nuances of Calvinism and Arminianism requires diligent study. These books are fantastic resources for delving into the theological depths of these two enduring perspectives. Whether you’re seeking to understand one side or looking for a balanced overview, there’s plenty to explore and ponder.
If you like this post, you would also like to read more closely into Christian views on the philosophy of time and how God relates to it.
Well, that brings us to the end of this post on Calvinism vs Arminianism.
Get A Proven Marketing Plan That Increases Enrollments When You Book A Call Today!
Receive customized advice to help your school attract more families!
Calvinism Vs Arminianism FAQs:
Calvinism and Arminianism mainly differ in their views on human free will in relation to divine sovereignty, and the scope of atonement. Calvinism emphasizes God’s sovereignty, believing that God predestines certain individuals for salvation. Arminianism, on the other hand, emphasizes human free will, believing that individuals have the choice to accept or reject God’s grace.
Yes, Calvinists do believe in evangelism. Despite believing in predestination, they hold that evangelism is a means through which God brings His elect to salvation, and it is also a command from Jesus to preach the Gospel to all nations.
Arminianism generally holds that it’s possible for a believer to fall from grace through apostasy. However, some individuals who identify with Arminianism may also believe in some form of eternal security, emphasizing God’s sustaining grace.
The Reformation was a movement that aimed to reform the Roman Catholic Church and led to the development of Protestant churches. John Calvin was one of the leaders of the Reformation and his teachings formed the basis of Calvinism. Arminianism developed later, as a reaction to the perceived extremes of Calvinism.
Yes. Presbyterian and Reformed churches are generally Calvinistic. The Methodist and Wesleyan traditions, as well as some Baptist churches, are generally identified with Arminianism.
It is possible for someone to hold views that are a mix of Calvinist and Arminian beliefs. This is often referred to as Calminianism. However, some would argue that such a stance may lead to theological inconsistencies.
The debate can impact one’s view on evangelism, the assurance of salvation, and the understanding of God’s nature. It can shape the way Christians view their responsibility in living out their faith and how they relate to God and others.
This is a highly debated question. Calvinists would argue that their beliefs are more faithful to the Scriptures, especially the teachings on God’s sovereignty. Arminians would argue that their views better reflect the biblical teachings on human free will and God’s universal love.
The Synod of Dort was a church council held in Dordrecht, Netherlands, from 1618 to 1619. It was convened to address the controversies surrounding Arminianism. The result of the Synod was the rejection of Arminianism and the affirmation of what would become the Five Points of Calvinism.
Some believe that there can be a middle ground or synthesis between Calvinism and Arminianism, while others believe they are mutually exclusive. The debate continues to this day.
Question For Comments: Which theological view, Calvinism vs Arminianism, do you believe best represents the message of grace in the Bible, and why? Share your thoughts below!
Responses
needed opinion to clarify unresolved fundamental theological issues at hand particular for neo-reformed positioning
I reject Calvin’s theology because no god/God who is proclaimed as LOVE would in God’s own right heart and soul and mind condemn one of my sons to eternal Blessing and the other one son to eternal Damnation.
What do Calvinist do with John? John 3:15-17. It seems to me that this puts the argument to rest.
Hello John, Thanks for your question. I have put the verse below for reference. One argument I have experienced Calvinist’s use to debate the verse you provided is the concept of Irresistible Grace. They would agree that anyone who believes it saved, but they only believe because they are a member of the elect (they were preordained to believe by God’s foreknowledge). Because God new them in advanced, and God’s Grace is irresistible, they therefore choose to believe. Choose is the important word there. If you were to suggest that this doesn’t seem like choice, they will often say that it is in fact choice. It was once explined to me that “If I was offered $1,000,000, you will always say yes even though you choice is free”. You can learn more about Calvinism in our full post on the subject.
John 3:15-17 “15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”
“If I was offered $1,000,000, you will always say yes even though your choice is free”.
The key word in your statement is “will”. I “will” say yes but I COULD say no. When it comes to God’s grace and salvation, believe it or not, some do (“will”) say no.
Yes I agree with your point! I think people reject God all the time. I’m simply pointing out the argument I have heard Calvanists tell me (I grew up in a Calvanist church but myself am not one).
How would a calvinist explain 1 John 2:2? “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world”
Great Question Graeme,
Firstly, I welcome any Calvinists reading this to provide their responses as well. I believe Calvinist’s would agree that Christ’s salvation is for the sins of the whole world, so long as you understood the “whole world” to mean all of the elect who are in Christ, chosen through God’s foreknowable “before” creation. So it’s for all of those in the whole world who were also irresistibly called by God’s grace.
If that is true of Calvinist then they would be redefining the meaning of “whole world” used in other parts of scripture.
In Genesis 41 the whole world came to Joseph to buy grain… was that just the “elect” that game to buy grain?
In Zephaniah 3:8 is the Lord pouring out is wrath on the “elect”, are they consumed by fire from God’s jealous anger?
The “whole world” is according to script, the entirety of the earth.
Layne, thanks for sharing you oponion! Without delving into deeper study, my instinct is to say that the interpretation of that term should be done both in the context of the scripture as a whole, but also as the term pertains to the specific context as well. I look foreward to hearing what everyone else has to say!
Now, that seems to me to be wanting the Scripture to say what you want it to say by adding your Calvinist spin to it. If we read this scripture as it is written it says the following: EVERYONE that BELIEVES, may have ETERNAL LIFE in HIM.(1) Then, it says WHOEVER BELIEVES WILL NOT PERISH.(2) And finally it says in verse 17 to SAVE THE WORLD. (3). Now, what don’t we understand about this context? This is what happens when we read some idea to make it fit our dogma. We are to try to make sense out of what the scripture says least we make nonsense. What does it say, what does it mean, and what does it mean to me.?These are the easy rules of a good Hermenutic.
Hey Mike, thanks for your comment. To be clear, I am not a calvanist. I am attempting to allow a space for authentic conversation here in the comments. I have explained my personal opinion in depth in the article I linked below. It’s a novel attempt to reconsile the two possitions because it seems clear that both have precident in scripture. https://clickmill.co/on-the-nature-perception-of-beings/
Unless Graeme is suggesting that the “whole world” is going to receive salvation under an Arminian perspective, then there is no reason to believe that there would be a difference between Arminianism and Calvinism on a reading of this verse. That is, Jesus died for the sins of “the sins of the whole world,” but some people love the darkness so much that they can’t want to come into the light. John Piper describes it like this:
“Natural inability means you can’t do what you most deeply want to do. If that happens, you are not responsible to do it. If you are a quadriplegic lying on the floor and are told to get up with no help, you are not responsible to. But if you are lying on the floor because you love lying on the floor so much — you love it so much that you can’t even want to stand up — then you are responsible. In other words, there is a real “can’t,” a real moral “can’t” that leaves you still responsible. Disliking something so much we can’t do it leaves us responsible.“ (https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/if-our-will-is-not-free-are-we-accountable)
I appreciate the thought from both, but I feel that, while a systematic theological approach to the debate is a solid beginning, no attempt has been introduced regarding how covenant fits in to the narrative. Covenant (not covenant theology) underpins every promise of God. And without it having some voice in the debate, I feel both sides will always live with this tension. Covenant (I.e. blood covenant), I think, would bring significant polish into the debate.
Matt, thanks for your thoughtful addition to the article! Let us know what other subjects we should publish on in the future.
I’m concerned about my dear SIL. She prayed for me for a decade to get into God’s Word, then prayed I’d change my desire to divorce my husband, her husband’s brother. We all married in 1975, so we have a wonderful history. She’s been my spiritual mentor for decades. Now she needs help. I’ve combed through our Bible studies and found how she says her faith leans towards Armenian. I’ve never been one to get into any of theological debate. I want my faith to be like a child, as I grow up into spiritual education….Her husband was diagnosed 6/2/2020 with an aggressive stage 4 cancer. He’s survived to today, miracle after miracle by healthcare community – where he worked for nearly 50 years. The past few months, he’s taken a radical turn for the worst. She’s an RN while he was a CRNA. She has gone down a dark road, claiming she is full of anxiety and depression, that she failed her husband!
I stumbled on this article to try to understand more about Arminianism. She has admitted to many of that she “knows all the right verses” (Job 42 it takes living it to really KNOW and Understand as well as many verses in Hebrews but 6:1 was where she evoked Armeniasm), but she just can’t help herself get over this major grief and anxiety….suggestions?
Debbie, thanks for your comment and your authenticity. I’m happy to offer my personal recommendation. In times of grief, especially with that of a spouse of many decades, there is a natural cycle that will play out. Feeling anxious and depressed (from what you have described) is a completely normal part of this grieving process. In all likelihood, this will continue as she begins accept the reality that God has allowed her to be presented with. This is a difficult process and generally has 5 steps, I recommend you look up articles on the 5 stages of grief. I would further underlie, that no amount of referencing bible verses is going to stop her from feeling what’s natural in such situations. It’s okay that she is having this experience, and she needs to have it before she can move through it. The typical grieving process of a loved on is between two and three years, and this can be longer more difficult when a spouse of decades is lost.
What she needs more than theology in this season of her life is your presence. The most valuable gift you can give her is your willingness to sit with her thorough these difficult moments so she doesn’t feel alone in them. More valuable than words and philosophy are hugs. I would also recommend taking some time and praying with her. Listen to her and be willing and able to empathize with her experience and emotions. You can pray some of the Psalms where David is facing destruction and ultimately is victorious in Christ. Ps 23 is my favorite. I hope this is helpful for you, though i know it doesn’t make the situation any easier. I pray God blesses you and you ability to support SIL in such a difficult time.
This entire “argument” is so bizarre to me. It seems necessary only to people that want to try and determine for themselves who is saved and who is not – which is not anyone’s place to do. Concentrate on what we are called to do and let God do what God does. I find it laughable that anyone thinks they have it all figured out. Preach the Gospel to all and let God sort it out.
Fully agree! Kind of petulant self-centered vases wanting to define and impose limits to the Potter!
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
One clear example from scripture settles this debate. How does Arminianism explain the concenversion of the Apostle Paul??? When did this great foundational apostle fall to the ground, on his own initiative, while on the road to Damascus, admitting his need for salvation, and then come to Christ by his own strength—as our Arminian friends would attest is the way salvation, i.e. how God saves people. Paul did nothing of the kind to win God’s favor, “not a snowballs chance in hades”—he would have never repented just by himself. As stated in Acts 9:15 he was a chosen vessel predestined, FIRST FOR SALVATION and then followed by ministry. Again, Paul (or Saul) did nothing to come to Christ on his own, God SELECTED him… as scripture declared him to be FIRST an example for all who believe. Read Acts 13:48, “The gentiles heard the word of God and rejoiced, and AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED (APPOINTED) TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.” God must first chose each individual! Then comes the believing part. And God does not choose everybody. Salvation is of the Lord, not of man. Calvin got things right (for a better explanation, please read the book, The Sovereignty of God by Arthur Pink).
“Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things … but with the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. He indeed was foreordained (predetermined) before the foundation of the world … who through Him believe in God who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory so that your faith and hope are in God.” My thought is that God “knew” and “predetermined” before foundation of world or before anyone was created that Christ would die for them. So God “foreknew” who would and who would not come to salvation then placed His election on those who would come to salvation. God is sovereign and Holy and Love and Mercy and Grace and can choose to create some for salvation and some not for salvation but His attributes favor “for whosoever will” giving each of us the opportunity to be drawn by the Holy Spirit but “choosing” or “election” of those He foreknew before the foundation of the world would come to Him. I heard one pastor share that “free will” and “election” are like two parallel tracks with amazing doctrine that will one day meet in eternity in the mind and heart of God: “For now we see in a mirror dimly but then face to face. And now abide faith, hope, love … but the greatest of these is love.” “And the Spirit and the Bride say Come! Whosoever desires let him take of the water of life freely.”
I really struggle as to why both can’t be completely correct if we look at it from Gods view point who is outside of his created time line. Does he or doesn’t he know the begging from the end? The alpha and Omega?
So yes I believe 100% in free will although the potter who can do anything he wants with the clay means he knows how it ends, what we ultimately choose with our free-will.
Esau I hated and Jacob I loved shows a God who operates on a different moral plane to us , he’s the creator , not us.
Hello Luke, I love what you are saying and I hold a very similiar view. I’m working on a logical/philosophical argument to lay out the possition and regoriously defend it. I have been writing this specific argument for over five years to show why the Free will vs Soveriegnty debate is a flase dilemma. I will be adding a little more to the argument but I published what I have so far in an article titled: On The Nature And Perception Of Beings.
I agree that both are correct. This is why. Clearly, God has the elect that He foreknew and predestined. But, remember Matt 21:43, the parable of the tenants. The kingdom was taken from them and now the Church of the gentiles will bear fruit for Jesus. Until the time of the gentiles is through. Then, all of the elect I’ll be saved.
Thanks so much for adding to the conversation!
I clearly believe that our enemy, the devil has used both theologies to cause great disunity in the Body of Christ. My greatest prayer is that we would set aside these differences. Let us take the Gospel and do as Jesus commanded. God have mercy on all our souls. MAY JESUS BE GLORIFIED
Great thought! Thanks so much for sharing.
I am grateful to have read this. It has helped me see an answer for truth. Jesus blood has made peace with every seen and unseen power and principality. Ephesians and Thessalonians says so. God sees everything and everyone now through the blood. I have seen then it’s not just for the elect. This is an error teaching. I am grateful to know this now. Thankful for this post.
Thanks for you comment
All the Calvinists I have spoken to have been eager to endorse predestination based on scriptures that emphatically support the notion like Romans 8:28 but I find that to be lazy. If they want to convince me they need to begin by either acknowledging or in some rational way refuting the following “Because the only way to accept the saving grace of Jesus’ sacrifice is for God to have predestined you for salvation all those that have or will go to hell were created by God with no choice but to sin, with no intention by God to save them from the sins they had no choice but to make, and suffer eternal damnation as a consequence for the actions they had no free will or agency in committing.” I don’t think that statement could be denied without renouncing predestination (at least no attempts I have seen have been satisfactory). If one accepts the statement as true I am then willing to hear them out as they explain how verses like Rev 3:20, 2 Peter 3:9 Mark 8:34 that to me only make sense in context of the rest of the books if they imply choice and free will mean something else, or Romans 10:17 that says faith comes by hearing, not that faith is inevitable for the elect. I am neither an arminian nor calvinist as I see strong biblical and theological support for aspects of both positions and I am open to being swayed into one camp or another if it is well thought out, but it has been my experience with calvinists that they spend tons of time thoroughly refuting objections I don’t have (like evangelism would be pointless if predestination is true) and have never had a good answer for the aforementioned objections. Conversely, I do believe that only the Holy Spirit can convict us of our sins and is necessary for salvation, no man can will himself to God without God making the first move, but I do not agree that God including a free will aspect in our salvation in any relegates our salvation to works based nor in any way limits the power of God. I believe that God maps out a path of salvation and one of damnation for all of us and allows us to choose. Choosing salvation is not a human works based salvation because it isn’t the choice that saves, it is the work of Christ on the cross that gives any meaning to the choice. If you shoot yourself in the chest and a surgeon seeks you out and asks you if you want him to save your life and you say “yes”, did you save yourself or did you accept the act of being saved by the work of another? Saying “yes” without the surgeon would be meaningless.
Nick, thanks for you thoughtful comment! I too have struggled with the limitations of both sides of the argument and presented my resolution to the problem in this article that’s here on the Clickmill website. I would love to hear your thoughts on that after giving it a read. Be aware, it’s targeted to people who are familiar with the free-will sovereignty dilemma and dives deep into the issue to provide a resolution.
Like of course, any man- made theology is confusing because it is nothing more than the pride of man attempting to clarifying their ignorance of Scripture. I think it is plainly clear we have a choice to respond to Gods grace. Where did sin start? By Eve CHOOSING to disobey. The simple is the most obvious, the most obvious is the most simple.
Thanks for you comment Robert!
Did debate that Calvinism supports and Arminianism support started back in the early church by a gentleman name polaigisn and another gentleman name St. Augustine
Yes, and they. Egan the debate in the 4th-5th century A.D.
I am a simple man and that has worked for me, but if someone could educate me why those who follow the Calvinist thought that all are predestined or are the “elect” by God then why would God have sent His Son, Jesus as a sacrifice. Then explain Matthew 16: 24-26.
Hey Mark,
Thanks for your comment. While I am not a Calvinist, I think I can offer a fair answer to your question from the perspective of a Calvinist. Any Calvinists are welcome to add to this answer.
I think a Calvinist would say that God still had to send His Son to create the ability for the “elect” to be saved. The “elect” are still saved through the sacrifice of Christ. So, for God to elect anyone, He first had to create a path to salvation. The Calvinist would say that they were elected for salvation in Christ.
The verse you linked to is a great example of the Bible pleading with its readers to choose salvation, which occurs on numerous occasions in the New Testament. This is difficult for the Calvinist to answer, but they would likely respond with something like the following: According to irresistible grace, man does have complete free will to choose or reject God; it’s just that His grace is irresistible, and nobody chosen by God would ever reject it. This happens in the same way that offering $1,000,000 with no strings attached to any random person will always result in the answer, “Yes, I’ll take the money.” They could say “no” to the money, but they won’t.
This creates an interesting perception of free will and also seems to contradict the ability for anyone to reject God, which also appears to have Biblical support. For this, the Calvinist would say: “They didn’t really reject God; they just weren’t truly elect.”
Hope these answers are helpful! God bless!
Brett,
I thank you for your quick response to my question(s). It really is the same question as to whether we have free will or if we are selected or given favor by God in eternity past. I do not have the answers to the election of one individual over another. It seems to me that view would limit the sovereignty of God by putting a limit of souls that would either be saved or doomed to eternal damnation. 2 Peter 3:9 tells us “…not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
The Word of God tells me in Genesis 2, that God created this beautiful garden full of everything pleasant and He called it Eden. After He had finished creating this wonder, He brought Adam to the garden and explained to him that he could consume anything there except from the one tree.
Well, we know the rest of the story. My question is did God give Adam free will or not? God gave him the ability to choose from any other fruit that he desired as long as he didn’t eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So, if we go back to Peter and say that it is God’s desire that not any should perish, why would God have planted the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
The only reason that I can think of is that God desires our obedience to His Word. It really matters very little whether you are a Calvinist or Arminian to God. We can fall into the trap of beating our chest and telling everybody that the way you worship is wrong or that my theology is more sound than your theology. What matters to God is “Jesus answered, The most important is Listen, Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this. Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no command greater than these.” (Mark 12: 29-31)
Mark, thanks for your follow up and for sharing you opinion. I agree that at the end of the day we are called to love God. I think that people, myself included, are naturally curious about how God works and the goal of trying to better understand these issues is to better satisfy that curiosity. Practically, we all live out the fact that we can choose God or not choose God in the day to day.
For a clear description of the Calvinist-Arminian debate see John Piper’s podcast:
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/the-heart-of-the-calvinist-arminian-divide
I believe if one would read through this and are Born again, plus know a little of the Bible, that is the KJV, they would have to agree we are both, Paul rights in Eph 1-4, we were chosen before the foundation of the world, just as Jesus tells us in John 3-16, whosoever would believe, will be saved, but we have to chose to follow Christ, so it is a choice, and we see that by mean are called but few are chosen, it is not an easy walk Jesus even told us broad is the way that lead into destruction and narrow is the way that leads to everlasting life Matt 7 13-14, so again I believe we are both.
Jerry, thanks for your comment. I think the Bible also makes a convincing case for both. Dr Craig points this out in his book Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview. He then points out the difficult with making the two ideas Philosophicaly compatible. The attempt to do so is called compatiblism. At face value, compatibilism seems to creat a logical contradiction by claiming both 2 mutually exclusive states of affairs (free will and sovereignty) are true simultaneously. The trick is finding a logical line of reasoning that supports both. This has been a problem that people have attempted to resolve for 100s of years.
Si la soberanía es conjunta al libre albedrío deja de ser 100% soberana y su el libre albedrío es conjunto a la soberanía deja de ser libre al 100%
Thanks for your comment!
Romans 9: KJV
v. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.
v. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
v. 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
v. 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
v. 22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known endureth with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
v. 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
v. 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Thanks for your comment John.