Introduction
This seeks to be an introductory study into the differences between Arminian and Calvinistic theology. This study is by no means definitive, but exists merely to introduce the five main concepts in which the two traditions have fundamental disagreements. Scripture verses used as proof texts are provided for each concept and short, unbiased comments have been added to each proof text to show how the text supports that viewpoint. The best course of study is to examine each viewpoint and then examine the Scripture passages from which they are drawn.
Calvinism Defined
Calvinism is the theology that was a product of the Protestant Reformation and was largely defined by John Calvin (1509-1564). The doctrine emphasizes God’s omnipotence, man’s depravity and the salvation of God’s elect by grace alone.
Historically, the ranks of well-known Calvinists include Augustine, the Reformers of the 16th century, the Puritans of the 17th century, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon. More recent Calvinists include Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, Gresham Machen, Martin Lloyd Jones, J.I. Packer, Francis Shaeffer, R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur Jr.
Churches that teach Calvinist theology include Presbyterian Denominations (Presbyterian Church of America, Reformed Presbyterian Churches, Orthodox Presbyterian Churches, etc), the various Reformed Churches (Dutch Reformed, Christian Reformed, Reformed Baptist, etc) and traditionally many Baptist denominations, though recently this has changed.
Arminianism Defined
Arminianism is the theology of Jacob Arminius (1560-1609) and his followers, known as the Remonstrants. Arminianism arose as a rejection of Calvinism and its doctrines of predestination and election. Arminius taught that God has given humans free will, and humans are able to freely choose or reject salvation.
The ranks of well-known Arminians include historical and current day Roman Catholics, the Remonstrants of the 17th century and John and Charles Wesley. Recent Arminians include Charles Finney, Dwight Moody, Billy Graham, Rick Warren and most other “mainline” preachers and evangelists.
Most churches teach Arminian theology. Among them are most Baptist denominations, Wesleyan, Pentecostal and Catholic.
Important Information
It is important to note that not all Calvinists will subscribe to all five of the tenets of Calvinism. Likewise, not all Arminians will agree with all five pillars of Arminianism. Generally speaking, though, an Arminian can be defined as someone who believes in human free will and that humans are free to accept or reject God. See the definition of free will later in this series for more insight into this. A Calvinist is someone who rejects the Arminian concept of free will, believing that the will of all humans is bound by their sinful nature and will remain bound until God performs His regenerative work. The two systems of theology diverge at the foundational issue of human depravity. Calvin says “That man has the best knowledge of himself who most thoroughly knows his depravity.” Calvinism is founded on the belief that man is completely and utterly unable to make a choice to follow God because the will of the unsaved person is bound by his sinful nature.
Interestingly, despite the fact that Arminianism arose in response to Calvinism, it is the Calvinists that are on the defensive today, needing to defend their beliefs against the majority of Christians who are Arminian. Whereas by rights Arminianism should be defined in light of Calvinism, the opposite is generally true.
It is also very important to note that the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is not a salvation issue. Though the two viewpoints stand in contradiction to each other, meaning that one must be right and the other wrong, there are no beliefs in either tradition that would leave people believing the opposite outside of salvation. Christians should not allow the differences between these viewpoints to become divisive in their unity with other true believers. That being said, it is still important for Christians to search for the truth and to discern for themselves, in the light of the Bible, which viewpoint is more Scriptural.
Tomorrow we will look at the five main teachings of Calvinism.
Comments (3) »
1. David Heddle
November 24, 2003
4:50 PM
Cool—I was just posting comments about this on another blog—I can double dip.
I would not say that Calvinism rejects the notion of free will. Not at all.
It has a problem with free will if we define it as “being able to choose anything we want for no particular reason”. It doesn’t work. A better model is that we always choose what we want most at any given instant (even if what we want most is masquerading as some kind of self-denial.)
In this model of free will there is absolute determinism—self determinism. We are a slave not to God-the-puppet-master but, far worse, to our own instantaneous desires and inclinations.
This model fits nicely with Calvinism: before regeneration you are “free” to choose what you want. (In fact you will choose what you want). What you do not want, due to the fall, is God. (Rom 3:11). So you don’t choose Him. Ever. After regeneration, you want God, so with your free will you choose Him.
All Calvinism does is affirm what the bible teaches, which is: go ahead and use your free will all you like, unless God replaces your heart of stone with one of flesh, you will never choose Him. It is impossible, by definition, to choose what you do not want. But your will is absolutely free. You simply lack the moral ability to seek God. Nobody controls your choices but you. Isn’t that the essence of free will?
Arminians sometimes argue that unless I am free to choose anything, even God, even when I don’t want Him, then I have no free will at all. The notion that we are not free unless we are totally free is the hallmark of 20th century existentialism. It also confuses having free-will with autonomy. Calvinism (actually theism) rejects man’s autonomy—we cannot act independently and outside of God’s province, for He is sovereign.
I am looking forward to your posts.
2. Tim
November 24, 2003
6:37 PM
David,
That’s a good distinction. I spend more time in discussing free will in part two of this series and have more fully defined a “Calvinist view of free will” there. I define it roughly the way you suggest - we are free to choose, but only in keeping with our nature. With an unregenerate nature we can never choose against our nature. We choose, as you say, what we want. And of course, we never want God.
Thanks for the input.
Tim
3. Jabbok
January 1, 2004
2:02 PM
The will is only “Free” to do according to it’s nature. We are by nature the children of wrath.
A cow is free to eat a rabbit but cow’s don’t eat rabbits, it’s not in their nature.
We are “Free” to jump off a cliff but once we’ve jumped we’re not free to stop the result because a new law comes into effect - the law of gravity. The law of sin and death came into effect after Adam’s sin and we are not free to stop the results.