Calvinism versus Arminianism

            The debate between these two positions of theological thought has separated many churches and caused dissention between well meaning Christians.  I have personally battled with the results of this incongruity and it has caused hardship in my life.  This was not due to the position that I hold, but due to the dogmatic viewpoint of others.  When these positions are debated in a pure form, neither position is completely correct.  Therefore a person is left with the decision to either blend the positions or to stand behind a position that demands stubborn determination void of complete scriptural exegesis.  When a person has to explain away the text of the Bible in order to justify his position, then perhaps that position bears further thought. 

Calvinism:  It is founded on the teachings of John Calvin.  The main catch-phrase of Calvinism is the acronym TULIP. One important thing to note on this is that this acronym did not originate with John Calvin.  It originated at the Synod of Dort in 1618 in a response to the rise of Arminianism which we will discuss later.  John Calvin may not have completely agreed with TULIP, since it was a later development of his writings.  Calvin was an incredible expositor of the Bible.

T: Total Depravity: Man is totally depraved and cannot in any way relate to godly things.  This originated with Adam's fall, as a result of the sin, man cannot save himself or live a life good enough to qualify for salvation.  As far as relationship with God goes, man cannot relate to God since man cannot understand God's ways.  Man does not seek God in any way unless God draws us to Him.  (Ro 3:10-18; Eph 2:1-5; Jer 13:23; 17:9-11; 2 Cor 5:17)  U: Unconditional Election: Election and predestination are unconditional based on God's will and not on the will of man.  Man cannot respond in any way to bring himself to salvation because a spiritually dead man cannot make spiritual decisions.  God chooses who He will save and who He will send to hell seemingly apart from the will of man.  (Jn 1:13; Eph 1:5-12; Ro 9:16-23, 29-30)  L: Limited Atonement:  God knew who would be saved, and due to this knowledge, Jesus only died for the elect.  Jesus only died for those who He called, and for no one else. (Matt 1:21; Jn 10:11; 17:9; Acts 20:28) I: Irresistible Grace:  Christ died for those who were elected to be saved, which means that only these people were predestined for the kingdom of God.  The result of this is that when God calls a man, he is powerless to resist the call of God.  The result of this is that everyone that God calls will respond to God and will be saved. (Jn 6:37, 44; 10:16; Ro 8:28-31) P: Perseverance of the Saints:  Since God called and elected these believers, they could not resist the call of God, and therefore none of the ones called will be able to lose their salvation.  They are eternally secure, unable to become unsaved. (Jn 10:27-29; Eph 1:3-14; 1 Pet 1:3-5)

Most of the proof texts that support Calvinism can be seen in a different light when they are taken in context in the passages that they are in.  One of the downfalls of the texts is that they often address Israel, and God’s plan for her, the Apostles, and some are based on the Old Testament law.  The logical progression of thought through the five points makes it appealing in its simplicity.  Huge assumptions are taken which deny ultimate free will and reduce man to a victim of God either in salvation or damnation.  The total depravity/dead man argument negates any possibility of a man having a spirit before salvation, which the Bible teaches that a man is as good as dead without regeneration (Col 2:13; Eph 2:1, 5; Ro 6:11).  In the original language all of these passages indicate that we are dead by reason of transgressions. Man has a spiritually ineffective spirit which is theoretically capable of making a spiritual decision.

Arminianism:  Jacob Arminius was a follower of Calvin and was the catalyst that caused the development of TULIP by the Synod of Dort.  “Arminius also argued against supralapsarianism—the Calvinistic view that God decreed the salvation and reprobation of certain people prior to the Fall. He believed that supralapsarianism made God the author of sin” (Enns 1997, 490). His argument was that God’s grace could be resisted and that believers could lose their salvation (1 Pet 1:6-111).  “The five points of the Remonstrance emphasized: (1) conditional predestination based on the foreknowledge of God; (2) Christ’s death was universal; He died for everyone, but His death was effective only for believers; (3) saving faith is impossible apart from the regeneration of the Holy Spirit; (4) God’s grace can be resisted; and (5) although God supplies grace so that believers may persevere, the Scriptures are not clear that a believer could never be lost” (Enns 493).  These five points are almost a mirror opposite of the acronym TULIP, which makes sense since TULIP was designed to refute Arminius’ teachings. 

One major difference is the view of sin in that a person does not become a sinner until they actually sin (Ro 5:16).   Conditional Predestination is based upon the choice of man to place his trust in God, not on God to bring man to salvation.  Prevenient Grace gives the idea that there is a cooperative effort between God and man to accept or reject the Gospel.  Free Will indicates that man is a free agent capable of making choices (Jn 5:40). Terms of Salvation are basically the same except that the responsibility of man turning to God lies on the man, not on God.  Atonement is seen as universal, which according to their view does not promote universalism.  Christ atonement is for everyone, this view makes it possible for everyone to equally accept His work (Jn 3:16-17; Ro 5:8, 18; 2 Cor 5:14-15; 1 Tim 2:4; 4:10; Heb 2:9; 10:29; Matt 28:19; Mk 16:15; Lk 24:47; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:14).  Salvation may be lost (2 Tim 2:5; Heb 6:4-6) (Enns 495-499).

Arminius designed his argument to point out the holes that exist in the teachings of Calvin.  He drew a lot of fire in his days as he intentionally tried to overcome the disparity between those who agreed with Calvin and those who did not.  “In his attempt to give the human will a more active role in salvation than orthodox Calvinism conceded, Arminius came to teach a conditional election in which a person’s free will might or might not affect the divine offer of salvation” (Douglas and others, 1997).

The view of the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism hinges on the birth of this debate.  If each position is seen as a stand alone set of teachings, then neither can sufficiently explain scripture in an exact way from the original texts.  To believe solely in one position negates the other position, neither position is mutually exclusive and both use similar Bible verses to validate the claims.  This antimony has been debated for ages. “An antimony is simply an apparent contradiction between two equally valid principles …The truths seem mutually exclusive, yet Bible-believing Christians should hold them simultaneously even though that defies human reasoning, believing that, if we understood everything as God does, there would be no contradiction” (Gangel, 1998, 224).

In Summary both positions represent and are based on truth from Scripture.  Each believer is left to study and apply the scripture to his life so that the melding of the views will accurately portray an acceptable form of theology.  Arminius developed his view to point out discrepancies in Calvinism, not to refute it entirely.  Therefore we are left to carefully study, meditate and apply Scripture to our lives (2 Tim 2:15; 2 Pet 1:4-10).

Kenneth O. Gangel, Holman New Testament Commentary; Acts (Nashville, Tn;          Broadman & Holman, c1998).

J. D. Douglas, Philip Wesley Comfort and Donald Mitchell, Who's Who in Christian History, Illustrated Lining Papers. (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1997, c1992).

Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1997, c1989), 490, 493, 495-499 .