Calvinism and Arminianism represent two major Protestant theological systems that attempt to explain the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human free will in salvation. The debate between Calvinism and Arminianism stems from interpretations of key biblical passages concerning predestination, election, free will, total depravity, and the extent of the atonement. Here is a 9000 word overview comparing Calvinism and Arminianism and examining what the Bible teaches about these issues.
Total Depravity
Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that humanity is fallen and sinful as a result of Adam’s original sin. They differ however on the extent of how sin has affected human freewill and ability. Calvinists believe in total depravity – that sin has thoroughly corrupted human nature so that every part of man is tainted by sin and we cannot do anything to earn salvation. As Ephesians 2:1 says “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins”. Arminians hold to a belief called “partial depravity” where human nature is tainted by sin, but we still have the freedom to accept or resist God’s offer of salvation. The key question is whether the Bible teaches total inability or maintains that in spite of the fall, all people still have the free will to choose or reject Christ.
Calvinists point to verses indicating our utter inability such as Romans 3:10-12 “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” They argue that statements like “no one seeks for God” and “no one does good” indicate humanity’s complete inability to turn towards God.
Arminians however point out that there are verses that indicate unbelievers can and do seek God, such as Acts 17:27 which says God desires “that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him”. So Arminians believe the Bible presents both the devastating effects of sin on free will, yet maintains that unbelievers can still make a choice to either accept or reject God’s offer of salvation. The language of choice and freewill seems to be present, such as Revelation 3:20 in which Jesus says “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.”
Ultimately, Calvinists lean more heavily on passages emphasizing man’s inability, while Arminians emphasize verses that seem to indicate choice. There are good arguments on both sides, which is why this remains one of the most controversial points. There are around 60 verses indicating human inability, while around 90 verses emphasizing human responsibility and choice. Since Scripture affirms both realities, both positions have biblical merit. Perhaps the best approach is recognizing that human free will, while profoundly impacted by sin, is still able to make the choice to accept or reject salvation, albeit through God’s enabling grace.
Unconditional Election vs. Conditional Election
While Arminians believe God’s election is based on His foreknowledge of human faith, Calvinists contend that election is unconditional, completely independent of human choice. This is another fundamental difference between the two systems.
Calvinists affirm the doctrine of unconditional election, that God chooses Christians for salvation based solely on His sovereign choice, not because of any foreseen faith or merit. They point to verses like Romans 9:11-13 which says “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”” Here God seems to make His choice of Jacob over Esau unconditionally, before they had done anything good or bad, solely to fulfill His purpose in election.
Arminians however point out that this seems to contradict the overarching principle of Scripture that God is completely just. Conditional election based on God’s foreknowledge seems more consistent with verses like 1 Peter 1:1-2 which says “To those…who are elect…according to the foreknowledge of God…” If God simply chose some and rejected others unconditionally, it would make Him arbitrary and unjust. The Arminian view is that election is based on God’s foreknowledge of who would believe in Christ.
So in summary, Calvinists believe election is unconditional, made without regard to human choice, while Arminians see election as conditional, based on God’s foreknowledge of human faith. There are good arguments from both perspectives, which is why godly Bible scholars land on differing views. At the end of the day, God’s ways are higher than ours, and the exact mechanics between divine sovereignty and human responsibility remain a mystery.
Limited Atonement vs. Universal Atonement
This is perhaps the most controversial point of Calvinism. Limited atonement means Christ only died for and bore the sins of the elect, not for the whole world. This is contrasted with Arminianism which holds to universal atonement – that Christ died for all people and wants all to be saved. Which position does the Bible support?
Calvinists point to verses indicating Christ only came to save His people or sheep, not the whole world. Verses like John 10:15 where Jesus says “I lay down my life for the sheep.” Calvinists say if Christ died for all, then all would be saved, but since universalism is false, then Christ only died for the elect who believe. They also point to passages about God’s special love for the elect like Romans 8:31-39 and Ephesians 5:25. If God has a unique saving love only for the elect, then Christ’s atonement must be limited only to them.
Arminians however also have strong biblical support. There are many verses that indicate Christ died for the whole world and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. John 3:16 famously says “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son…” 1 John 2:2 says Christ “is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” 1 Timothy 2:4 says God “desires all people to be saved.” So Arminians believe limitation of the atonement undermines God’s universal love and offer of salvation.
There are good cases for both positions. Perhaps the best synthesis is recognizing that Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to save all, but is only efficient and applied to those who believe. This view upholds God’s universal love while recognizing not all will accept Christ’s sacrifice. The Bible presents a nuanced perspective – speaking of God’s love for the whole world while also indicating Christ laid down his life specifically for His people. We should avoid the extremes of making the atonement mechanically limited or universal and instead preserve the mystery of God’s complex plan of redemption.
Irresistible Grace vs. Resistible Grace
Calvinists believe God’s calling of the elect to salvation cannot be refused – it is an irresistible work of the Spirit. Arminians hold that the Spirit calls all to salvation, but this grace can be resisted and refused by human free will. Who does the Bible support?
For irresistible grace, Calvinists refer to verses like John 6:37 “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” They emphasize God as the primary cause of salvation, not human choice. For the elect, when God calls them to Christ, they will not be able to resist His will. It is a monergistic work of God rather than a synergistic work between God and man.
Arminians however point out that even Calvinists acknowledge the universal Gospel call which can be rejected (Matthew 22:14). They point to verses indicating salvation can be resisted like Stephen’s rebuke in Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit.” Also, if grace were truly irresistible, it would imply conversion against someone’s will, which seems problematic. So Arminians see grace as resistible and salvation as a cooperation between God’s will and human free response.
As with other areas of disagreement, there are strong cases for both positions. There is definite biblical evidence that God is the primary agent in salvation, while also passages warning unbelievers not to resist the Spirit’s call. Both irresistible and resistible grace can claim scriptural support. This is likely another area where holding the divine sovereignty-human responsibility tension in balance is healthiest.
Perseverance of the Saints vs. Conditional Security
While both Calvinists and Arminians teach assurance of salvation, they differ on whether a Christian can lose their salvation or not. Calvinists affirm perseverance of the saints – once genuinely saved, a believer will remain saved until the end. Arminians hold to conditional security – a believer can fall away through unrepentant sin. Who does Scripture support?
Calvinists point to verses about God’s preservation of His elect like John 10:28 where Jesus says “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” Philippians 1:6 says “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” So Calvinists believe God will complete the salvation of the elect – they will persevere by His grace.
Arminians cite verses warning believers against falling away. Hebrews 6:4-6 warns “For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened…if they then fall away, to restore them again to repentance.” Another example is James 5:19-20 which says “My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death.” So Arminians believe these passages teach that genuine believers can fall away if they persist in unbelief or unrepentant sin.
As with the previous points, both sides present viable cases. Calvinists emphasize God’s initiative in saving and keeping the elect, while Arminians point to warnings against falling away. This is likely another area where mystery remains regarding the exact nature of human free will and divine sovereignty. While salvation cannot be earned, believers are called to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you” (Philippians 2:12-13). The Bible encourages assurance while also warning against apostasy. Finding the right balance is key.
Implications and Conclusion
Beyond the five primary points of disagreement, Calvinism and Arminianism have wider implications for one’s theology. Calvinism emphasizes divine sovereignty, glory, and purposes, seeing God as the primary cause behind all things. Arminianism places a stronger emphasis on human free will and responsibility in God’s plan of salvation. Both are attempting to formulate biblically faithful understandings of salvation.
Throughout church history, godly men have stood on both sides of these debates. Famous Calvinists include Augustine, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, and R.C. Sproul. Prominent Arminians include John Wesley, Charles Finney, C.S. Lewis, and Billy Graham. Views range across a spectrum, from classical 5-point Calvinism on one side to Wesleyan/Arminianism on the other, with many holding mediating positions.
Regardless of where one lands, it is important to have charity and not break fellowship over this issue. While these doctrines have eternal significance, the exact mechanics of how divine sovereignty and human responsibility interact in salvation remain a mystery. Sincere Christians can study the same Scriptures and arrive at different conclusions. But what believers affirm in common is more important than these areas of dispute – namely salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.
Calvinism and Arminianism represent two major Protestant attempts at synthesizing key biblical truths. The reality is that some aspects of the debate cannot be fully resolved in this life. The Bible affirms both God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, though exactly how they work together remains in tension. As long as the discussion is civil and charitable, with a spirit of grace and truth, such theological dialogue can sharpen believers and benefit the church. In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.
