This is from another thread on our forum that I reposted here so we can all see the differences between Soteriology of determinists and non determinists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
hope this helps !!!!
