The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism.

I owe a post on misconceptions about Arminianism. This is not, actually, that post. However, for the time being, it should serve a similar purpose:

A Brief Summary on the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism

What do we mean by each?

By Calvinism, we mean the soteriology as explicitly laid out by the Canons of Dort in 1619. These canons laid out soteriology in a series of five points, and the concept of five point Calvinism is fairly common and alive and well, today.

            What is not as widely known, however, is that the famous five points of Calvinism were actually written in response to five points put out by Arminianism, known as the Articles of Remonstrance in 1610. The Remonstrant/Dortian conflict was over the interpretation of the Belgic Confession from 1566, which was the standard for the Dutch Reformed church. (Dutch Reformed churches now hold what are called the ‘Three Forms of Unity, which accept the Canons of Dort as well as the Heidelberg Catechism 1563, in addition to the Belgic.)

Interestingly enough, both Calvin (1564) and Arminius (1610) were dead by the time Dort and Remonstrance were penned.

In brief, here is how Dort and Remonstrance compare:

Both held that man is totally incapable of choosing salvation without the grace of God in their lives. (Essentially, this is known as ‘total depravity’.) For the Calvinist, this grace is always a sufficient condition for man to accept God and be saved. For the Arminian, this grace is merely enough to make the free will of the individual alive, and then the individual must choose to accept Christ.

            Both held that God elected people to salvation. For the Calvinist, this election is made without any merits of the individual being considered, it is completely unconditional. In Arminianism, God elects people based on his ability to foreknow who would accept salvation of their own free will. The subject of how free will is defined is disputed between these two groups, and we will cover that later.

            The two sides are divided on the nature of the atonement. The Calvinist believes that the atonement of Christ is only intended for those who God elected. Thus, the atonement is effective for everyone for whom it was attended. The Arminian asserts that the atonement is intended for all men, and it’s effectiveness is contingent on man choosing to accept the work as such in his life.

                        -There’s a bit more to the atonement than this, however. The Calvinist believes that the atonement was a ‘penal substitutionary’ atonement. This means that when Christ died on the cross, he was literally accepting the full penalty of all the sin he intended to die for once and for all. Obviously, if this is the case, then we understand why the atonement is limited, because if Christ intended to die for all, then all would be saved, and universalism would be true. In the words of Puritan John Owen:

“The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:  All the sins of all men all the sins of some men, or some of the sins of all men. In which case it may be said:
 That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

-The vast majority of Arminians accept Owen’s dilemma as being valid. Therefore they have responded by saying that the atonement was not a penal substitutionary one. Instead, they present other theories, the most common of which is the ‘ransom theory’, which says that when Christ died he paid the cost of all sin in the divine economy of justice. This, obviously, leaves room for all men to have a part in the atonement while maintaining that they are responsible for accepting that payment for their debt, in the same sense that a hostage may become convinced of the dogma of his captors, and choose to remain with them, a sinner may be convinced of the dogma of his sin, and choose to remain in it.

On the last point of Dort and Remonstrance we see an instance of saying the same thing in different ways. Both the Arminian and the Calvinist taught that only those who persevere in the faith until the end would be saved. However, the Calvinist teaches that since his faith is decreed before the foundation of the world, and God is the active agent all the way through, then God ensures that the Christian perseveres in the faith and the elect never fall away. The Arminian, by contrast, teaches that man, of his own free will, can choose to reject the faith even after he has entered into it. So, in Arminianism, it is possible to be saved at one point in life and not saved later on.

-Many Baptists who agree with the other features of Arminianism have rejected it on this last point. They believe that since God knows who will be saved from the start, then a person’s salvation is just as set in stone as it is in Calvinism, and they agree with the Calvinists on the point of how perseverance works.

FREE WILL

As we noted, Calvinists and Arminians define free will differently. However, it is very important to note that both sides do believe that man has free will in such a way that he is morally responsible for his sin. For the Arminian, for the will to be ‘free’ it is essential that the ability to do otherwise lies with the agent in relation to his decision. So, as we see in salvation, God looks into the future and sees what an agent will do of his own free will, and then, consents to let that will be the case and decrees that the world will be that way.

Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that the will is free so long as man does what he wants to do. So, if my choice aligns with my strongest desires, my choice is free. Now, one may say that I do not want to get out of bed and go to work in the morning, so how is it a free choice that I do so? The answer is that while I may not want to get out of bed, I do want to keep my job and pay my bills and take care of my family. The desire to do those things outweighs my desire to not get out of bed, so I get out of bed, and accomplish what I most want to do. As it relates to salvation, without the grace of God I do not want to come to God, and so I freely choose not to… I am morally responsible for my evil choice to not follow God because I did what I wanted to do.

Other options

Now, there are nuanced versions of these two views, including some folks that would be considered ‘four point Calvinists’ who explain the nature of the atonement in a way that tries to split the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism (see Bruce Ware’s God’s Greater Glory for a great example. On the Arminian side, there are differences on how exactly God’s foreknowledge and his decree work together, and we usually distinguish at the very least between ‘Classical Arminians’ who hold to Simple Foreknowledge and ‘Molinists’ who adhere to something called Middle Knowledge. (Ware, mentioned above, uses Middle Knowledge as well, but he uses it to come to Calvinistic conclusions about free will and grace.) There are also extremists on both sides, from warped versions of Calvinism that deny that man has any free will, (we call them fatalists) to warped versions of Arminianism that insist that God does not know the future (we call them Open Theists.) Lutherans hold a slightly different view than both camps, though in fairness they probably have a bit more in common with Calvinism. Roman Catholics have a bit more in common with Arminians, overall, on this issue.

For a good introduction to the classic Calvinist view, I suggest: Chosen by God by RCSproul

For a good introduction to a more traditional Arminian view, I suggest: Elect in the Son: A study in Divine Election by Robert Shank

Conclusion

In brief, there’s your difference between the different views. As you might have noticed, I very strongly support the classic Calvinist notion of election.  However, what gets missed way too often in this debate is how close, theologically, the original Calvinists and Arminians actually were, and even today, Southern Baptists hold to both views. (The ‘Baptist Faith and Message’ was adapted from the Calvinistic ‘New Hampshire Confession’, and the very first Southern Baptist Confession, the ‘Abstract of Principles’ was Calvinistic as well, but, in an unfortunate turn in history, racism was the primary unifier that brought together the Southern Baptist Convention just before the Civil War, and by the time they finally wrote a statement of faith in 1925 they wrote it so that it would be neutral on the question of Calvinism.) What I get sick of is Arminians treating Calvinists as though their view makes God evil, or Calvinists treating Arminians as though their view makes God not sovereign. I’m very adamantly convinced of Calvinism, but there’s gotta be enough perspective there to realize that what we are arguing about is the metaphysics of God’s decree and man’s freedom, and the hairs getting split there are very fine, indeed.