I created the following chart to use in an undergrad Systematic Theology class. It distinguishes between the soteriological systems of Arminianism and Calvinism. I arranged the columns in their order because of the historical factors surrounding the “five points.” While Calvinism historically precedes Arminianism, the so-called Five Points of Calvinism are actually a response to the five points of Arminianism. For more information of this, see this link on the Synod of Dort, which oversaw this controversy.
The chart was created using information here and here, as well as the insights of some helpful folks over at the Puritan Board. Please read and post any relevant thoughts and comments below.
Update: Per the first first comment below, I’ve tweaked the chart; now it includes Scripture references for the Calvinism column.
Nice chart. Upgrade suggestion would be to add some key scripture reference both groups use to arrive at their point. I’m thinking of a young believer I know that has recently been introduced to Calvin’s teaching and I’d love to share this with him but will need to supply the scripture to help him out.
Thanks for sharing.
That is a great suggestion!
I will work on that today, and hopefully at least include Scripture on the Calvinist side. I need to go back and see if the Canons of Dort include proof texts.
With all due respect, sir, I am not sure that your chart at least on the point Human ability/inability reflect historic Arminianism. According to the third article of remonstrance
Historically speaking, Arminians understood that man was totally depraved could not come to Christ without a prior working of the Holy Spirit. It was only with the Pelagian influence of Charles Finney and his ilk, that some Arminians came to believe otherwise.
This is a good and fair point — modern Arminianism has moved much closer to Pelagianism than was the case with Arminius and the Remonstrants. Even with regard to later Arminians like Wesley, I read once the speculation that if he were to return today and see the current state of Arminianism (influence more by such things as 19th century idealism and romanticism), he would be shocked at the near-Pelagianism present. So your point in making that distinction is much appreciated.
However, this chart is meant to reflect more of the modern debate rather than the historic one (I mean to explain that as well, but using a different sheet of information). But thank you pointing out this historical deviation from the original statements of the Remonstrants.
With regard to this doctrine, I believe John Murray’s comments are helpful here: “Arminians do in general terms assert the depravity of fallen human nature. But a merely general statement of the fact does not touch the heart of the question. The real question is the seriousness with which the general statement of the fact is taken and the willingness there is to appreciate all the implications of it. In a word, it is the question of the totality or entirety of this corruption.”
Looking at your critique, it occurs to me that “regeneration” is not a helpful term in that box. I may need to revise or remove that phrase.
Update: I am considering changing the first box to read in this way: “.”Sin does not control man’s will. He is sick and near-sighted, but still has the ability to believe the gospel on his own. (Note: Classical Arminianism taught form human inability, but asserted that God gives to all men a kind of universal grace to believe and respond to the gospel.)
Gairney,
Thank you for your clarification, I was not sure what perspective you were coming at this from.
David S. Dittmer
Excellent. I’ve not the time to look at it now. But I shall after work. But….I don’t think the Arminianists are just flying by the seats of their pants on what they believe, I’m sure they have to back it up with scripture too. And though they may not interpret those passages correctly, they still base it off of scripture. So it would also be helpful to understand where they are coming from as well. Make sense? I am not coming from a critical standpoint and do not want to come off that way. Excellent work! Thanks for posting it.
Noah, I completely agree with you, and I don’t want it to come across that way. There were two reasons I did not post Scripture: 1) I did not want it to appear confusing in that I was defending Arminianism in any way (someone stumbling across this might say I am giving equal validity to both positions); 2) I am not an Arminian, and I do not always know how an Arminian might precisely defend each of these teachings in each case.
I suspect that I will have to at least address some of these objections in class tonight. It might be better to have the students come up with some of them on their own. And that might serve an additional purpose — most (all?) of them are Arminian in practice, they just don’t know it. If they find themselves defending the points in the first column, that might be eye-opening in itself.
Gairney,
Thanks for the clarification. I understand the reasoning behind the un-inclusion of the references. Thank you though for helping me understand why. And do well addressing the objections in class. I will be praying that you come across clear from a biblical point of view and that the Holy Spirit would use God’s Word to teach students. Thanks again.
Thanks, Noah! Good to have your comments here!
Loved the blog, tons of info here!!!…if you get a chance check out ours
http://www.thegracecommunity.wordpress.com
[...] Arminianism v. Calvinism This chart distinguishes between the soteriological systems of Arminianism and Calvinism. [...]