A Comparison: Calvinism and Wesleyan Arminianism

[Lee52]

Since many of the discussions are skirting this issue, I have posted this link of a very factual comparison of the two primary theological doctrines of Christians today.

http://www.onthewing.org/user/Arm_Arminian vs Calvinist - Wesleyan.pdf

 

[Somber]

Thank you for sharing! It is interesting seeing the differences.

 

[bbbbbbb]

One of the difficulties of Wesleyan Arminianism is that Wesley's theology was disjointed so that if one derives an understanding of his theology from his writings (which are quite numerous) one finds a very wide range of views, many of which contradict others.

 

[St_Worm2]

Since many of the discussions are skirting this issue, I have posted this link of a very factual comparison of the two primary theological doctrines of Christians today.

http://www.onthewing.org/user/Arm_Arminian%20vs%20Calvinist%20-%20Wesleyan.pdf

Hi Lee, I have both a question and a comment about your post (perhaps more than one question actually .. )

For his definition of the "T" in TULIP, Possehl says this:

TOTAL DEPRAVITY​

​

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]The corruption of man by sin was so complete that it left him without the ability even to call on God for mercy. This is termed "Total Depravity".[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]"Total Depravity" means that the Fall (which Adam could not prevent) cast man into a state of corruption and helplessness so complete that man is wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. Neither God's revelation in His world, in His Word, or in His Son can so enlighten and assist one to receive forgiveness unless the individual is effectually called and converted by sovereign grace." [/FONT][/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]First, who teaches that Adam could not have 'prevented the Fall'? That could only mean that God "forced" Adam to act as he did and that, my friend, is "Hyper-Calvinism" (which, just to be clear, is not a "form" or "type" of Calvinism, it's something different all together. IOW, it isn't "Calvinism").[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Second, I'm a little uncertain about his meaning concerning how "depraved" we are. If by "wholly" depraved, he believes that Calvinism teaches we are completely or utterly depraved and incapable of thinking or doing anything but evil all the time he, once again, has misunderstood what Reformed theology teaches.[/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Those two points aside and instead, getting to the heart of what else is said, how is this different from what any reasonable Arminian believes? I don't know any Arminians who believe man was born with the innate ability to choose God and enter into a saving faith relationship with Him apart for His enabling them to do so. Do you? That's Pelagianism (or some form of it).[/FONT][/FONT]​

Finally, my comment. You called this a "very factual comparison" of the two schools of thought. I must respectfully disagree with you on that point as it has a number of factual inaccuracies (some of which I have already pointed out) and many biased comments. It's as if you posted a comparison and review of Republicans and Democrats written by James Carville and expect us to accept Carville's portrayal of Republican ideals as the facts and nothing but the facts .. ​

This is at many times is nothing more than an opinion piece that shows the author's own misunderstanding (either intentionally or unintentionally) of various parts of Reformed theology. Surely there must be something better out there!!​

Yours and His,
David​

 

[WisdomTree]

I think the third father of the Reformation, Zwingli, had a similar view to Calvin. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Lutheranism is somewhere in between.

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

As far as salvation goes zwingli and Calvin shared views. Lutheran would be in between they would run at the idea of being called Arminian. Here is a quote used in LCMS question and answer document on the differences between Reformed and Lutheran Churches

Q: What are the major differences between the Missouri Synod and Reformed churches?
A: Just as there are many significant differences in theology and practice between Lutherans of varying
denominations, the same is true when it comes to different churches within the Reformed tradition.
Differences exist among Reformed churches even regarding such fundamental issues as the authority of
Scripture and the nature and centrality of the doctrine of justification.
Historically, however, most Reformed churches adhere to the five points of Calvinist theology commonly
summarized by the acrostic "tulip" as these were set forth at the Synod of Dort (1618-19). On page 41 in
his book, Churches in America, Dr. Thomas Manteufel reviews these five points and explains how they
compare and/or contrast with what Lutherans believe regarding these matters.
T (Total Depravity) The Calvinists rightly teach that all descendants of Adam are by nature totally corrupt
in spiritual matters. People do not have freedom of the will to turn to God in faith or cooperate in their
conversions (Eph. 2:1; John 3:5-6; Rom. 8:7).
U (Unconditional predestination) Scripture does teach that it is by grace that God has predestinated the
elect to eternal salvation and given them justifying faith. It is not because of any condition fulfilled by
them (2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 1:4-6; Phil. 1:29). However, the Bible does not teach, as do the Calvinists, that
some are predestined for damnation. God wants all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4).
L (Limited atonement) It is true that Christ died for the church and purchased it with His blood (Eph.
5:25; Acts 20:28). Furthermore, His atoning death does not mean that all people are saved (1 Cor. 1:18).
However, Jesus died for all (2 Cor. 5:15).
I (Irresistible grace) We agree that God makes us alive by His mighty power, without our aid (Eph. 2:5;
John 1:13). But Scripture warns that we can resist God’s gracious call (Matt. 23:37; Acts 7:51; 2 Cor. 6:1).
And some people do resist God’s grace, or all would be saved (1 Tim 2:4). Furthermore, God warns us
not to resist His grace (2 Cor. 6:1; Heb. 4:7).
P (Perseverance in grace) We affirm with Scripture that those who are predestined to salvation cannot
be lost but will continue by God’s power to a blessed end (Rom. 8:30; 1 Peter 1:5). Scripture does not
teach, however, that those who come to faith cannot lose that faith (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29; Ps. 51:11).
God urges His people not to continue in sin but to live in repentance and faith (Rom. 6:1-4).
Churches in America by Dr. Thomas Manteufel; p. 41 (St. Louis: CPH, 1994).

Frequently Asked Questions - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

 

[WisdomTree]

Since many of the discussions are skirting this issue, I have posted this link of a very factual comparison of the two primary theological doctrines of Christians today.

http://www.onthewing.org/user/Arm_Arminian vs Calvinist - Wesleyan.pdf

Though abundant and widely discussed, I wouldn't call it "two primary theological doctrines" considering there is also Lutheransim, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy.

 

[Knee V]

Though abundant and widely discussed, I wouldn't call it "two primary theological doctrines" considering there is also Lutheransim, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy.

Word!

 

[Knee V]

They are two sides of the same coin, as far as I'm concerned. Both see sin and salvation as a strictly legal matter, and both deal with a God who is torn between wanting to punish people and wanting to save people. The only difference is how they view the number of people He wants to punish and the number of people He wants to save. So although Calvinists and Arminians see each other as radically different, I see very little difference between the two.

 

[Albion]

They are two sides of the same coin, as far as I'm concerned. Both see sin and salvation as a strictly legal matter, and both deal with a God who is torn between wanting to punish people and wanting to save people. The only difference is how they view the number of people He wants to punish and the number of people He wants to save. So although Calvinists and Arminians see each other as radically different, I see very little difference between the two.

I tend to agree with your POV. Arminianism is revisionist Calvinism made famous by a Calvinist (Jacobus Arminius).

The idea that the sides that faced off at the Synod of Dort represent all the theological possibilities doesn't make sense, especially since it more or less assumes that whatever was believed prior to the Reformation isn't different from Arminianism.

 

[WisdomTree]

I tend to agree with your POV. Arminianism is revisionist Calvinism made famous by a Calvinist (Jacobus Arminius).

The idea that the sides that faced off at the Synod of Dort represent all the theological possibilities doesn't make sense, especially since it more or less assumes that whatever was believed prior to the Reformation isn't different from Arminianism.

Unfortunately, in the modern day "[Post]-Protestant Christianity" in the Anglo-Sphere, the thinking has become that you are either Arminian or Calvinist. They don't understand the historical reason for their existence.

 

[Albion]

It seems to me that the Catholic and Lutheran views have to be included as alternatives to the Calvinist and the Arminian

 

[WisdomTree]

It seems to me that the Catholic and Lutheran views have to be included as alternatives to the Calvinist and the Arminian

Don't forget Orthodox, as their views are distinct from Catholics (they have been accused of "semi-pelagianism" at times).