Historical Theology
Calvinism and Arminianism are two well-known theological systems that introduce different methods to explain the relations which develop between God and people which are directed to achieve salvation. John Calvin is the founder of Calvinism in the middle of the 1500s, and Jacobus Arminius is the theologian, who offered Arminianism at the end of the 1500s. The contrast of Calvin’s and Arminian doctrines is the nature of election: Calvinists support the idea of the unconditional election, and Arminianists offer the importance of the conditional election. On the one hand, the differences between these two schools create a number of questions. On the other hand, these differences help to identify the weaknesses and strengths of both positions and make a choice that depicts personal attitudes and knowledge. Regarding these differences and the necessity to choose, the representatives of my church denomination seem to be in more agreement with the Arminian position according to which Christ’s death is defined as a substitute for a penalty and the possibility for people to make choices whether to believe in or reject Christ because my church believes that Christ died for all people, not the elected ones.
The discussions of the basic requirements of faith and works and the atonement between Calvinists and Arminianists have a long history. Though some Calvinistic ideas seem to be irrational for devoted believers, Calvin believed that it was wrong “to lose other things if we may retain the main thing.” Some people were confused with the necessity to make independent decisions and clarify their own opportunities and demands instead of thinking about their complete faith in Christ and the role of God in their lives. At the same time, Calvin’s ideas of salvation helped to create a milestone within the frames of which justification to sanctification was possible. Calvinists, as the main reformers of the 16th century, introduced the atonement as the possibility to satisfy the justice of Christ and cover the sins of elected people. The atonement turns out to be a limited notion. Faith is also justified by Calvinists, and works cannot be the sign of righteousness but the reality of justification. Therefore, Calvinists can accept nothing except the idea of the perseverance of the saint.
Such an attitude to unconditional election caused many disagreements and concerns among the representatives of Arminianism. The repercussions of the Arminian position had their impact in different parts of the world and made people think about the possibility to change their minds about the atonement and faith in God. According to this school, the atonement cannot be defined as a strict equivalent for sin. It is wrong to believe that some people could be forgiven, and some people had to live with their sins all the time because they were not elected. Therefore, Arminianists believed that the atonement should be a kind of a good substitute for a penalty in regards to which Christ was able to atone the sins of all people regardless of their class, gender, or history. People are free to choose their faith and works. They are also free to reject Christ, but they could never neglect the power of the Holy Spirit, who fell back into the world and lost his salvation to maintain eternal life.
In general, both positions have the right to existence. Still, like all other debates, there are many supporters and opponents of each. Regarding personal attitudes to religion and the role of God and Christ in this world, I would like to stay in agreement with the Arminian position and the thought that there are no elected people for God.
Bibliography
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology: Revised and Expanded. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014.
Jones, David Ceri. “Some of the Greatest and Most Illustrious Beauties of the Reformation’: John Elias and the Battle over Calvinism in Early-Nineteenth-Century Welsh Methodism.” Bulletin of the John Ryland Library 90, no. 1 (2014): 113-134.
Svensson, Manfred. “Fundamental Doctrines of the Faith, Fundamental Doctrines of Society: Seventeenths-Century Doctrinal Minimalism.” The Journal of Religion 94, no. 2 (2014): 161-181.