Calvinist and Arminian differences in soteriology

civic

Well-known member
Arminius taught that Calvinist predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil. Instead, Arminius insisted, God's election was an election of believers and therefore was conditioned on faith. Furthermore, Arminius argued, God's exhaustive foreknowledge did not require a doctrine of determinism.

(John Calvin and Jacob Arminius) still stand as the pillars of modern soteriology. However, Calvinism cannot be credited to Calvin. For it was Augustine in the fourth century who first synthesized and systematized the New Testament’s doctrine on salvation. The same is true of Jacob Arminius. His theology was simply a reaction to the celebrated doctrines of Calvin’s and finds a portion of its theological roots in the works of Pelagius. Pelagius was the opponent of Augustine and was declared a heretic at the Council of Ephesus in 431. In other words, this debate between man’s free will and the sovereignty of God in salvation goes deep into the annals of Christian history.

The heart of the issue, however, circles around five core soteriological doctrines. The Arminians hold to the acronym F.A.C.T.S which stands for (Freed by Christ, Atonement for All, Conditional Election, Total Depravity, and Security in Christ). While these are not the exact titles for their historic position, they are the titles used in the modern view today. Jacob Arminius was only three years old when Calvin died in 1564. Later, he became a student of Theodore Beza (Calvin’s successor) and over time became troubled by elements of Calvin’s theology. He soon broke away from Beza initiating a group called The Remonstrates. It was this group who, out of a reaction to Calvin’s position, produced the “Articles of the Remonstrance” in July of 1610 (The first version of F.A.C.T.S). Several years later in 1618, a group of Christians gathered in Holland to formally review and respond to these articles. They rejected their position and countered their five doctrines with five of their own doctrines anchored in the orthodox reformed theology of Calvin and Augustine.[3] They are Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. You may know them as T.U.L.I.P. While there are some similarities between these two positions, they are more different than they are alike. To some, they believe these differences are irreconcilable and generate two completely different Gospels. To others, they are critical differences that may diminish Christian fellowship but do not require total division. Personally, I share the position of Dr. Martyn Llyod Jones who once said:

“I am a Calvinist; I believe in election and predestination; but I would not dream of putting it under the heading of essential. You are not saved by your precise understanding of how this great salvation comes to you. What you must be clear about is that you are lost and damned, hopeless and helpless, and that nothing can save you but the grace of God in Jesus Christ and only Him crucified, bearing the punishment of your sins, dying, rising again, ascending, sending the Spirit, regeneration. Those are the essentials… While I myself hold very definite and strong views on the subject, I will not separate from a man who cannot accept and believe the doctrines of election and predestination, and is Arminian, as long as he tells me that we are all saved by grace, and as long as the Calvinist agrees, as he must, that God calls all men everywhere to repentance. As long as both are prepared to agree about these things, I say we must not break fellowship.”[4] relearn.org

hope this helps !!!
 
So, what is Arminianism? It may be beneficial to start with what it is not. Arminianism is not anything that is not Calvinism. Calvinism is actually a complete theological system developed initially by John Calvin. Jacob Arminius was an early follower of Calvin who took exception to the soteriology of Calvin. He believed that Calvin’s view of predestination was at odds with the nature of God. Arminianism deals with the doctrine of salvation. And, unlike Calvinism, has nothing to say about infant baptism, church government, and many other distinctive Calvinist beliefs.


Contrary to the picture many paint of Arminian soteriology, it is not semi-Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism teaches that man is able of himself to initiate his salvation experience. There are many today who hold this belief. But Arminianism agrees with Calvinism that mankind is totally depraved with no innate ability to seek God.


Nor is Arminianism the same as Open Theism. Arminianism believes that God is omniscient in regards to time; that he foreknew everything that would happen prior to creation. But without having to orchestrate every detail. Proponents of Open Theism believe that God has only limited foreknowledge of the future. The future does not exist, so how could God know it. And, even if he could, knowledge of the future would limit free will choices. It would, in their minds, mean that the future is fixed and unchangeable.https://aclayjar.net/2017/11/arminianism-a-summary/

hope this helps !!!
 
continued :

Comparing Arminian and Calvinist Soteriological Frameworks​


The following will compare the soteriology of Arminianism with Calvinism. Calvinism soteriology is most often associated with the acronym TULIP while Arminian soteriology does not have a universally accepted acronym.


Total Depravity​


This is the one point that both agree on. As a consequence of the fall, mankind is totally depraved. This does not mean he is as bad as he can possibly be. But it does mean that he is incapable, in his own efforts, of coming to God for salvation. Apart from the working of God’s grace, there can be no salvation.


Election​


Arminian soteriology holds to a conditional election. God elects, or chooses, all of those who respond in faith to his gift of salvation. We are able to respond, not because of something innately in us, but because of the enabling of the Holy Spirit via prevenient grace. The logical progression of salvation starts with the working of the Holy Spirit, enabling faith; a human response to the offer of salvation; and then regeneration.


Calvinist soteriology holds to what they call an unconditional election. That God sovereignly chooses some for salvation, independently of anything that the one chosen may believe or do. The logical ordering in salvation starts with God choosing those who will be saved; then regenerating and granting faith to the chosen, and then faith is exercised by the chosen and regenerated.


Atonement​


Arminianism holds to unlimited atonement. Christ’s atoning work on the cross was for all people, although it is effective only for those who believe. This is not universalism. While the atonement was for all, only those who believe receive its benefit.


Calvinism, on the other hand, generally holds to limited atonement. Christ’s atoning work on the cross was only for the elect. Atonement is only available for those God has foreordained to salvation. Some Calvinists reject this and accept unlimited atonement. This is also the point at which Lutherans disagree with Calvinists, rejecting limited atonement.


Resistibility of Grace​


Arminian soteriology argues that the prevenient grace of God that is given to the unbeliever enables faith. Salvation is then offered as a gift that may either be accepted or rejected. The work of the Holy Spirit is resistible.


In contrast, Calvinism holds to irresistible grace. The Holy Spirit works in the life of the elect to bring them into a relationship with Christ. This working of the Holy Spirit is irresistible, all of the foreordained will come to faith.


Persistence of Salvation​


This is the point that divides Arminians. We all believe that those who persist in their faith will be saved in the end. Some believe that all true believers will persist. Others accept the possibility that true believers have the ability to turn their backs on the grace of God. And, as a result, lose their salvation.


The Sovereignty of God​


As you can see, there are some significant differences in how John Calvin and Jacob Arminius, and their respective followers, view the doctrine of salvation. But more significant than these differences is how they view the character of God. While both view God as sovereign, they understand the sovereignty of God in different ways. For the Calvinist, sovereignty implies complete and total control of everything that happens in the creation. If anyone is able to perform some action or make some decision that is not at God’s direction, then God is not sovereign.


This issue of this understanding of God’s sovereignty is what led Jacob Arminius to reject the soteriology of Calvinism. He saw divine determinism (God determines everything) as making God the author of sin. And that, to him, removed any real responsibility for sin from humanity. If a person can only act in accordance with God’s decrees, then when they sin it is a result of God’s decree; it is what God wanted them to do. For Arminius, God was sovereign over all of his creation. But that sovereignty included God’s permissive will, allowing humanity to act at odds with God’s desired will. But even as God allows evil, he uses it to accomplish his purpose. Our human choices are never unexpected or allowed to interfere with God’s purpose in creation.


The Doctrine of Predestination​


The other issue Arminius had with the Calvinism of his day is in their related doctrine of predestination. Calvin modeled his doctrine of predestination after Augustine. God has chosen some to salvation prior to creation, irrespective of anything the individual might be or do. God seemingly arbitrarily chooses some to salvation. Some Calvinists will also argue that God has specifically chosen the rest of humanity to an eternity in hell. Others argue against that double predestination, but the result is the same. If you are not among the chosen, you are among the damned. To Arminius, this pictured God as a monster; creating some humans with no actual hope of escaping from the fires of hell.


Instead, Arminius, appealing to the Scripture as well as the early church fathers, argued that God loves all of humanity. An that he enables everyone to believe. Those that he foreknows will respond in faith he elects, while those who do not are condemned to damnation. But that condemnation is a result of a rejection of God’s grace, not an arbitrary action on God’s part. The Calvinist will argue that my choice to accept God’s offer of grace is an action on my part. Thus making salvation at least partly based on my own efforts. But Arminius responded that a free gift received, is still a free gift. My accepting the gift does not in any way constitute an earning of that gift on my part.


Free Will​


Calvinists accuse Arminians of focusing on human free will, although they also claim to accept it after a fashion. But Arminius’ use of human free will was not to elevate humanity. Rather it was to make them responsible for their own sin, rather than making God responsible for it. Salvation is no less a work of God because I have the ability to accept or reject it.
 
Actually "Grace" (unmerited favor) doesn't "Save" anybody. What it DOES DO is allow a person to SURVIVE PHYSICALLY after they've fallen short of God's glory, for long enough to become Born Again BY FAITH in the perfect SIN OFFERING of Jesus.

That would be mercy.

The Bible literally says "by grace you have been saved."
 
Back
Top Bottom