Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Arminianism and Calvinism, on the other hand, are directly opposing views that are to do with soteriology, not God's knowledge. Thus, you could be an Arminian Molinist or a Calvinist Molinist. The latter, however, is quite rare.
I don't believe someone can lose their salvation. I don't believe election is by God foreseeing someone's faith. As I understand Arminianism this chart is doing it a great disservice by misrepresenting their beliefs. The other thing that is troubling is the repeated mantra from cals found in the bottom of the gif.
Both of the main views (Calvinism and Arminianism) assert a free will of sorts - man is not as bad as he could possibly be and we recognise that non-Christians can make good and bad decisions. Furthermore, both sides agree that an unregenerate sinner cannot do anything to please God in terms of his works toward obtaining salvation.
Search titles only; Posted by Member: Separate names with a comma. Newer Than: Search this thread only; Search this forum only
At this point, the Calvinist has two options: 1) Accept the paradox and believe both 'penal substition' and 'universal atonement'. 2) Deny the paradox and invent creative ways to interpret the 'universal atonement' verses according to their theology. While 4-point Calvinists accept option 1), 5-point Calvinists unanimously accept option 2).
Arminianism is a response to Calvinism, with opposite views on each of the classic TULIP points in Calvinism, so yes, they are incompatible. Two opposite statements cannot both be true. One or both is wrong. However, Arminians and Calvinists to agree on quite a bit, in general.
Molinism and Thomism are two different approaches to predestination. In a nutshell the Molinists were keen to preserve man's free will and the Thomists were keen to preserve God's causal sovereignty, especially in the order of salvation. This means that the Molinists were often accused of Pelagianism and of undermining God's causal sovereignty ...
The debate regarding man's free will has been going on for well over 1000 years, and was even addressed by the Classic Greek Philosophers, but the important thing is the specific issue of Calvinism vs Arminianism.
The answer is Arminianism, because classical Arminianism is in fact a type of Calvinism. Jacob Arminius was a Calvinist who believed his Calvinism was more in line with Calvin and Augustine than that of his opponents, who came up with TULIP and condemned him at the Synod of Dort. –
So we do have a sort of free-will (a limited free will, really, that limits us to doing evil). Calvinism differs from Arminianism in that Arminianism holds that the decision to serve Christ isn't a work but a choice, and hence the above passage doesn't preclude people from choosing Christ, even though they do have sinful inclinations.