Arminianism and Calvinism are two systems for understanding predestination. There are significant overlaps and similarities between the views, more than both sides would care to admit. However, despite their significant overlap, there is no middle-ground belief that harmonizes the two views, a so-called "Calminianism."
Let's start by first looking at each belief in isolation, and then a summary of why the two are incompatible.
Arminianism
Named after Jacobus Arminius (1560 - 1609), an ordained member of the protestant church and professor at the University of Leiden, arminianism was popularised after his death. It started with a summary of his beliefs known as the Five Articles of Remonstrance. Despite popular misunderstanding, these were not five articles against Calvinism, rather, a defence of his own views that he considered orthodox.
During his time as university professor, Arminius had several debates with his fellow colleague Franciscus Gomarus, a high-calvinist that held fairly radical interpretations of John Calvin's work. Gomarus proceeded to smear Arminius and portray him as a heretic, which led to Arminius to his Declaration of Sentiments (1607), which is a defence of his views as orthodox, and why he should not be labeled as Pelagian. The five articles of remonstrance summarised his views as:
Total Depravity
Conditional Election
Unlimited Atonement
Prevenient Grace
Conditional Perseverence of the Saints
Underpinning all of these views is an interpretation of the bible that God's work of salvation is synergistic. God initiates and commences the work through Christ's atonement for all mankind, infuses a person with previent grace upon receiving the word of Christ, lifting the sinner out of their depravity to a state that is capable of accepting God's salvation plan. However, the choice to sin and reject God remains capable within the individual, so it cannot be described as irresistible.
You can find more in my article on Arminianism.
Calvinism
Named after John Calvin (1509 - 1564), a french theologian, pastor, and academic that significantly impacted the growth of the reformed church. Well-regarded by many in his day and even more-so today, the five points of Calvinism were not his own, but were formed in 1618 as an answer to the Remonstants. In fact, by the time that Calvin had died, Arminius was only a young boy.
In his final years he relied on Theodora Beza (1519 - 1609) to help him with his duties at the college he founded. When Calvin died in 1564, Beza became the successor and would eventually teach both Arminius and Gomarus at the University of Geneva. He taught a high-calvinist stance, which Gomarus agreed with, but Arminius disagreed with. Nevertheless, Arminius received a glowing recommendation from Beza when becoming ordained in Amsterdam.
After Calvin, Beza, and Arminius had died, Gomarus continued to battle with the Remonstants and participated in the Synod of Dort (1618 - 1619). This synod agreed to five main articles that are now called the Five Points of Calvinism:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverence of the Saints
Underpinning these views is an interpretation of the bible that God's work of salvation is monergistic. God alone chooses who will be saved, his atoning sacrifice is for the elect alone, who will inevitably hear the call of God and be irresistibly drawn by grace to salvation. Man neither has a choice in his reprobation or salvation, but it is God alone that regenerates the sinner.
You can find out more in my article on Calvinism.
What is the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism?
The fundamental difference between calvinism and arminianism is whether salvation is monergistic (God works alone) or synergistic (God works with man). Both Calvin and Arminius acknowledged that mankind is totally depraved and incapable of commencing, continuing, or completing salvation without God.
Irresistible grace and unconditional election are the major points of disagreement that Arminius raised, with limited atonement and perseverence of the saints logically depending upon the others.
Below are the four key differences.
1. Conditional vs Unconditional Election
Election and reprobation refers to those whom God saves for eternal life or damns to eternal death. Unconditional election emphasises that God foreordained particular individuals who he would save based on no conditions. Whereas conditional election emphasises that God foreknew those who would respond.
In short: did God decree those who would respond (monergistic), or did he know who would respond (synergistic)?
2. Unlimited vs Limited Atonement
Arminians and Calvinists both agree that there is eternal life and eternal damnation. They reject the teaching of Universalism. Where they differ is on the sufficiency and efficiency of the atonement. As Roger E Olson puts it in his book Arminian Theology (empashsis mine):
According to Calvinism the atonement is universal in value; it is sufficient to save everyone. According to Arminianism it is universal in intent; it is meant to save everyone. According to Calvinism it is limited in scope; it is intended to save only the elect and does save them. According to Arminianism it is limited in efficacy; it actually saves only those who accept it by faith
Both include elements that are universal and limited in nature. At the heart of this problem is what was God's intent when he decreed to save. Dr R.C. Sproul, in a sermon on limited atonement, explains the difference as such:
Was it the Father's intent to send his son on the cross to make salvation possible for everybody, but also with the possibility that it would effective for nobody? That is, did God simply send Christ to the cross to make salvation possible? Or, did God from all eternity have a plan of salvation, by which according to the riches of his grace and his eternal election, he designed the atonement to ensure the salvation of his people?
In short: the difference is whether Christ died for the elect (limited in scope) or for all people (universal in intent).
3. Prevenient vs Irresistible Grace
Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) developed the idea of prevenient grace as an opposition to the ascetic movement in the 4th and 5th century. He taught that man was totally depraved and relied upon grace before responding with faith.
Arminius and Calvin both held to the reformed teaching of sola gratia (grace alone) and sola fide (faith alone). There was no disagreement that faith came through grace, which was a gift of God. However, Arminius disagreed that the grace could be described as irresistible based on passages that suggested it is resisted.
Calvinism logically requires irresistible grace to be coherent. If it is not irresistible, the decreed elect might not attain the salvation. It is logically incoherent to say that the elect will definitely be saved and might not be saved, therefore the mode by which grace operates is irresistible not in a sense that is desirable, but in a sense that it is effective in every member of the elect.
In short: the difference between prevenient grace and effectual grace is whether it can be resisted.
4. Conditional vs Unconditional Perseverence of the Saints
The final difference is whether the saints always persevere, or if some saints fall away. However, a common misconception is that Arminius never argued that a believer could accidentally fall away or be snatched by the hands of Satan, rather, that a person may willingly choose to disobey God and reject his grace.
Calvinism maintains that grace is irresistible, it is therefore logically impossible for a saint to not persevere. Advocates argue that Calvinism offers greater eternal security for the elect, but that seems to be untrue.
In order to maintain logical coherence, any person that falls away is disregarded as elect by Calvinists. However, the question morphs into whether a believer is certain of their election and nobody knows the number or names in the book of life, so the answer is no, not until they die. Nevertheless, if they are elect, Calvinists believe they will persevere and cannot possibly fall or reject God.
In short: both sides argue that obedient believers will persevere to the end through God's grace alone. However, Arminians believe that some can reject continuous grace, whereas Calvinists maintain that it is irresistible.
Are Calvinism and Arminianism Compatible?
There is significant overlap between the two beliefs, but unfortunately, they are incompatible. Calvinism articulates God's salvation plan as being monergistic, God does everything. Arminians articulate the same plan as being synergistic, God works with humans to achieve the same ends.
In the end, both teach that God will only save the elect and that the description of the elect are those who have saving and persevering faith. Therefore, both sides of the debate are arguing on the means by which God saves the same people. While they might not be compatible, there is enough common ground for both views to co-exist within a congregation.
Comentarios