Calvinism vs. Arminianism – which view is correct?

Response

Calvinism and Arminianism are two theological systems that seek to clarify the connection between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility regarding salvation. Calvinism is named after John Calvin, a French theologian who lived from 1509 to 1564. Arminianism is named after Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who lived from 1560 to 1609.

Both doctrines can be outlined in five points. Calvinism upholds the concept of total depravity, whereas Arminianism supports partial depravity. Total depravity in Calvinism asserts that all aspects of humanity are tainted by sin, rendering individuals incapable of approaching God independently. On the other hand, partial depravity in Arminianism acknowledges that all aspects of humanity are affected by sin, but not to the extent that individuals are unable to choose to have faith in God independently. It is important to note that classical Arminianism rejects the notion of “partial depravity” and aligns closely with Calvinistic “total depravity” (although the extent and implications of this depravity are subjects of debate within Arminian circles). Generally, Arminians posit an “intermediate” stage between total depravity and salvation. During this phase, facilitated by prevenient grace, the sinner is drawn towards Christ and possesses the God-given capacity to opt for salvation.

Calvinism asserts that election is unconditional, while Arminianism advocates for conditional election. Unconditional election posits that God chooses individuals for salvation solely based on His will, without regard to any inherent merit in the individual or any actions performed by them. Conditional election, on the other hand, suggests that God selects individuals for salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ for salvation, thereby basing His choice on.

The condition is that the individual chooses God.

Calvinism views the atonement as limited, while Arminianism views it as unlimited. This is likely the most controversial of the five points. Limited atonement is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect. Unlimited atonement is the belief that Jesus died for all, but His death is not effectual until a person receives Him by faith.

Calvinism includes the belief that God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminianism states that an individual can resist the grace of God. Irresistible grace argues that when God calls a person to salvation, that person will inevitably come to salvation. Resistible grace states that God calls all to salvation, but many people resist and reject this call.

Calvinism upholds the perseverance of the saints while Arminianism upholds conditional salvation. Perseverance of the saints refers to the concept that a person elected by God will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him. Conditional salvation is the view that a believer in Christ can, of his/her own free will, turn away from Christ and thereby lose salvation. Note: many Arminians deny “conditional salvation” and instead uphold “eternal security.”

So, in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, who is correct? It is interesting that in the diversity of the body of Christ, there are all sorts of mixtures of Calvinism and Arminianism. There are five-point Calvinists and five-point Arminians, as well as three-point Calvinists and two-point Arminians. Many believers arrive at some sort of blend of the two views. Ultimately, it is our opinion that both systems fail in that they attempt to explain the unexplainable. Human beings are incapable of fully grasping a concept such as this. Yes, God is absolutely sovereign and knows all. Yes, human beings are called to make a genuine decision to place faith in Christ unto salvation. These two facts seem contradictory to us, but in the mind of God, they make perfect sense.