Since the beginning of time humanity has tried to explain the reasons behind certain unknown or unexplainable events-- often citing destiny or divine intervention as causes. The Christian Bible itself gives no direct comment on destiny, however there have still emerged a multitude of doctrinal beliefs addressing the topic. The theological perspectives of Calvinism and Arminianism are perhaps the most popular and polarizing of these doctrines among religious scholars and believers today. Both of these beliefs are closely related to one another-- often times they are rooted in the same scriptures-- yet they remain incredibly distinct in their own specific beliefs on the fundamental attributes of God. By exploring the similarities and differences of these two doctrines, we are better able to understand and appreciate the cultural identity created through faith, and acknowledge how the past, present, and potential future are affected by how we accept and perceive our own beliefs.
My desire to research perspectives on destiny within Christianity first came about through my previous research essay done in Honors 101, in which I explored the differences between Christian and Islamic soteriology (beliefs on salvation) and the importance of understanding these concepts in an increasingly atheistic world. This research on salvation inevitably lead into other religious disciplines that I was previously unaware of-- mainly eschatology (a religion’s beliefs on death, the afterlife, and the fate of humanity in the end of days). As an individual who grew up in a protestant church, I knew much of the Christian view on this, but quickly realized I knew little of the nuance which surrounded the debate over destiny and free-will amidst Christian soteriological and eschatological perspectives. Free-will theology and its counterpart of predestination revolve around such philosophical questions of whether a person's life is pre-planned by God, partly planned by God, or left completely up to the individual’s decisions-- which ultimately affect both their salvation and their eternal state. When researching my Honors 101 essay, one of the main passages of scripture that stuck out to me regarding predestination and free-will theology was Romans 8:28-30.
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (emphasis added)
This passage is problematic to me, mostly because of its word choice. What is Paul implying by his use of the word predestine within this passage? What else does the Christian Bible say about predestination? If God has already predestined everything, then is there really any such thing as ‘free-will’, or is it all just guidelines, or masked actions being controlled by some greater destiny? If we are all predestined, how does it affect the sovereignty and character of God? These questions are simply the smaller inquiries that make up the building blocks of a larger study on the world's most practiced religion. How have these ideas of destiny within Christian beliefs affected culture and politics around the world? How are these impacts still being felt today as society realigns itself towards an increasingly secular mindset?
With such complexities in mind, it has been my intention to study the different views on Christian predestination and free-will theology. In this paper I aim to compare and contrast the two main doctrines regarding these theological perspectives-- Calvinism and Arminianism. The structure of this essay is as follows: 1. A brief introduction to the major differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, 2. A closer look into the traditional Calvinist perspective 3. A closer look at the traditional Arminian perspective, 4. A nuanced analysis of how these views have changed over time and their effects on culture, 5. An overall comparative look at these two viewpoints, their successive tenets, and their continued relevance today and, 6. My personal insights, realizations, and concluding remarks on research. Initially, sources I targeted for this research included scholarly articles giving commentary on the interpretation of scripture within the Christian Bible, the Christian Bible itself, artistic and cultural interpretations of predestination, and interviews/journals by accredited leaders of local churches (important to gauge current popular sentiment). From this, I found and analyzed the sources which are cited throughout the essay.
What are the major differences between the Calvinist and Arminian views? How have these beliefs changed over time? What interpretations come straight from the Bible itself, and what opinions have become intertwined like folklore? What effects have these beliefs had on individuals, other groups within context, and society as a whole? Do Calvinists and Arminians have different interpretations of what Paul means when he uses the terms “foreknew” and “predestined”? When Paul speaks of some believers having a “calling”, is this specifically associated with predestination, or a separate belief altogether? These are all questions which I will try to answer through the following research. Answering these questions is important... not only due to my personal background and beliefs, but because knowing the answers to these questions allows us all to achieve greater perspective for others’ views-- leading to more tolerance and understanding for those things which we don’t understand.
There are many different academic disciplines which can be applied to this topic, other than the obvious overarching academic viewpoint of religion and Christian Biblical scholarship. Firstly, history has recorded these beliefs and their effects on culture throughout time, and even modern sentiments can be traced back to some of these beliefs. Thus, a global viewpoint of history is necessary when looking at this topic, along with the more specific view of religious history. By taking an in depth look into the historical developments surrounding each doctrine, we are better able to understand the relationship these events may have had on forming and reshaping doctrinal tenets over time. Likewise, we are also able to note instances in which each doctrine itself may have impacted history in some way-- be it positive or negative.
Secondly, looking at the topic of free-will theology and predestination through a sociological lens, we can better understand how certain cultures created and interacted with these beliefs. Through the analysis of these cultural interactions, we bring to light what kind of societal structures have been built by these opposing doctrines. These insights help answer our fundamental questions of how these beliefs were formed, changed, and continue to morph within the twenty-first century.
As a student who nearly went to seminary, my knowledge, openness, and curiosity towards my faith and that of others has made this the perfect project for me. Additionally, my strong background in history allowed for increased curiosity and drive to succeed from an analytical standpoint, something which I had to work at. I remain exuberant in presenting my research on how destiny is perceived within Christianity, and continue to learn more about my own beliefs in the process.
When considering destiny from a religious standpoint, one encounters two distinct camps of doctrine. The first of these camps, Calvinism, was developed by John Calvin during the protestant reformation, and emphasizes the belief of predestination-- the idea that one’s life and salvation has already been decided and planned by God before they are even born. The Calvinist view focuses on the sovereignty and power of God. The other major camp of free-will theology, Arminianism, was developed by Jacob Arminius after the protestant reformation, and emphasizes humanities free-will in life-- that while God has crafted a purpose for each person and made His grace available to them, their acceptance of these gifts are ultimately up to the individual (not God). The Arminian view focuses on the grace and mercy of God. Despite a seemingly large difference between these two Christian doctrines, Arminianism and Calvinism have been largely influenced by the same cultures over time, causing them to gain both similar and dissimilar aspects as they continued to develop and change to popular sentiment, even today.
Regarding Calvinist doctrine, it is firstly important to understand its origins and the true beliefs of its founders. In Luther and Calvin on Predestination: A Comparison, Ignatius W.C. Van Wyk discusses John Calvin's views on predestination, when Calvinism was first coming into existence. Van Wyk notes that Calvin believed God’s election (the choosing of who will go to Heaven or Hell) precedes faith (Van Wyk 6). According to Van Wyk, Calvin believed that, “God sometimes deprives [humans] of the capacity to hear his word; at other times he, rather, blinds and stuns them…” (Van Wyk 5). In Calvin’s eyes it is the act of God’s election that spurs a believer’s faith, not vice versa, and it is the only way to receive salvation. This focus on the power of God to decide salvation is the basic foundation of all Calvinist beliefs, which spread rapidly post-reformation, especially during the early stages of the romantic period in Europe and The First and Second Great Awakening.
In order to further understand the complexity of the Calvinist perspective on God’s sovereignty, it is important to not only analyze the founder’s original beliefs, but also those beliefs which changed and spread as the doctrine continued to develop. In his article, The Inner Life of Doctrine: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Calvinist-Arminian Debate Among Methodists, author and professor Bruce Hindmarsh speaks to other professors of religion and religious historians on the topic of Calvinism from a historical and cultural viewpoint. Hindmarsh explores how the sublime sovereignty of God was portrayed in literature, art, and poetry of the enlightenment, romantic period, and First and Second Great Awakenings (Hindmarsh 384-385). According to Hindmarsh, the sublime sovereignty of God, “overwhelms us by its sheer vastness and power” (Hindmarsh 386). Hindmarsh gives more historical perspective, mentioning the scientific discovery of a “new cosmology of vast interstellar space” which contributed to Calvinists believe that while God is sublime in His power and might, it remains “a very awful thing, to be in the immediate presence of God” which is meant to humble a believer (Hindmarsh 386-388). The European and American cultures of that time period embraced the belief of sovereignty above all else, causing it to become the cornerstone of all traditional Calvinist doctrine-- despite its perception as being overwhelmingly cruel or impersonal when compared to the graceful attributes attributed to God by Arminians.
Within the Arminian perspective, it is also firstly important to understand where the doctrine originated and what the basic tenets of faith are. In his source, Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Arminian Robert Olson (theologian and author of Christianity Today Magazine) writes to other believers on either side of the debate on predestination, urging them to work with one another, rather than against-- using the history of the doctrine as a base for understanding. According to Olson, the Arminian doctrine first came from Theologian Jacob Arminius, who was rejected from Holland at the Synod of Dort during the Protestant Reformation. After his death, his followers began practicing in more inclusive environments, where their doctrinal focus on the grace of God over His power soon spread (Olson 88). Olson states that while Calvinists believe in the “five points of reformed faith”, traditional Arminians choose to focus nearly exclusively on God’s grace, which can be freely accepted or rejected (Olson 88, 90). During the reformation, Arminianism spread quickly, as many believers found Calvinism to be restricting to their faith, and resembled much of the regulation and exclusivity within the Catholic Church (Olson 88). The basic belief that God loves humankind enough to give them the freedom and grace to choose their own fate, rather than conforming to strict, legalistic religion, thus became the defining tenet of Arminianism.
There is, however, more to the Arminian doctrine than simply applying caring attributes to God and allowing free-will regarding salvation. To truly understand the doctrine, one must explore the nuanced ways in which a sovereign God can allow free will, and how this perspective on God’s grace developed after its founding. In his source, Divine Knowledge and Free-Will Theism, a Chapter out of The Grace of God, the Will of Man by theologian Richard Rice, Rice writes in very technical and specific terms to inform other theologians and his peers of current attitudes and traditional interpretations of the Arminian doctrine. When considering a more intimate view of Arminianism, Rice claims that all humans have free-will because God sees all things, “in the infinite Now of eternity, which embraces all time”-- meaning God is outside of time and perceives the past, present, and future as a single moment of eternity (Rice 122, 124). Rice claims Arminian doctrine gives believers the ability to “accept or reject God’s offer of salvation” because God is responsive to the decisions made by humans given their free-will choices (Rice 122-123). Mainly, Rice points to the infinancy and unknowable characteristic of God in scripture as evidence of Arminianism. Because the true nature of God is incomprehensible to humans, the true extent of His love is also incomprehensible, allowing humans the free-will to accept or reject salvation without compromising God’s sovereignty. The reliance of this belief on the overwhelming love and grace of God finds support in a multitude of scripture (Rice 132-133).
After addressing the traditional doctrinal beliefs established by these two viewpoints, it becomes critical to analyze how both Arminianism and Calvinism have interacted with changing cultures over time to morph into the beliefs which are still being adapted to today’s society. The long-established Calvinist view of a harsh and severe God is now being challenged by some modern Calvinists, who have worked hard to reshape their faith as one which applies gentler attributes to God. In The Doctrine of Election in Calvinism, theologian and professor at R. J. Thompson Center for Theological Studies, Myk Habets, presents many modern arguments against the traditional Calvinist perspectives on God’s power and sovereignty. Habets first admits that God is sovereign, stating that “there is only one will of God not two, and yet his will is secret and hidden from us, reserved in his eternal wisdom, to be revealed at his glorious return” (Habets 349). However, Habets describes predestination as the “acute personalization” of Grace to individual believers within the faith, attempting to swap almighty, rathful power for graceful, comforting sovereignty (Habets 337). In Habets view, because Christ has died for those who accept him, and God has reached out to elect certain humans, predestination is inherently personal. In this way, Calvinism is adapting to the increasingly liberal and inclusive sentiment of the modern world.
Arminianism has also been shaped over time by the cultures which surrounded it, and ultimately by the ways in which supporting scripture itself was and is interpreted today. In The Arminian Notion of General Redemption, and a Milder Law, chapter six of Baptist theologian John Glazier Stearns’ book Calvinism and Arminianism Compared and Tested by the Scriptures, Stearns evaluates the major tenets of Arminianism from a critical view, strictly comparing scripture from the Christian Bible (and its common interpretations during The Great Awakening) to the beliefs declared by Arminians at that time. Stearns reveals that Arminians at that time practiced a general redemption, yet believed that actual deliverance (salvation) is based on certain conditions that must be met and chosen under a human’s free-will (faith in Christ) (Stearns 81, 88). Stearns also reveals some factional Arminian beliefs as they developed during the Great Awakening (chiefly, salvation in infancy and its relation to the doctrine of original sin) and aims to establish a scriptural basis for these beliefs (Stearns 81). Stearns cites Romans 5:18-- “By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life”-- to support the then growing belief that “... the atonement of Christ, [covers] all mankind in infancy” and that children “are born into the world in this state [of purity]” (Stearns 81). Stearns later revisits his contemplation on the issue of original sin within Arminianism, using Titus 2:14-- “[Jesus] gave himself to us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works”-- as a counterargument against the factionist belief, stating that ultimately, “None are redeemed but his peculiar people, his seed, the church” (Stearns 88-89). Finally, Stearns admits that only God can judge the sincerity of the heart, leaving salvation to Him in the end (Stearns 91). This belief is different from most Armenians today, who believe that grace is available to all persons, that original sin is a burden which all people carry, and that humans always have the free-will to accept or reject grace. In this way, Arminian beliefs have also developed over time based upon how scripture was chosen to be interpreted, and how those interpretations met the standards of certain groups within history.
Overall, the Christian doctrines of Arminianism and Calvinism have been changed and shaped by culture over time, in some ways mirroring one another, and becoming complete opposites in others. When comparing Stearns’ Arminianism in The Arminian Notion of General Redemption, and a Milder Law to that of Olson’s Arminian viewpoint in Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Arminian, and Rice’s doctrine in Divine Knowledge and Free-Will Theism, the perspectives begin to diverge dramatically. While Olson and Rice focus on the graceful characteristics of God and His attributes, Stearns embeds his Arminian doctrine within strict scriptural interpretation of soteriology (the religious study of salvation) and the extent of atonement (Olson 88) (Rice 130) (Stearns 81). Thus, while both Olson’s and Rice’s perspectives on Arminian doctrine create a sense of personal relationship between sinner and saviour, Stearns’ doctrine largely ignores this idea (Olson 90) (Rice 122). In this way, Stearns’ beliefs are actually closer to those of Calvinist Van Wyk and Hindmarsh in Luther and Calvin on Predestination: A Comparison and The Inner Life of Doctrine: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Calvinist-Arminian Debate Among Methodists, who focus on God’s ultimate sovereignty and power (Van Wyk 5) (Hindmarsh 384). However, unlike the Calvinists, who use the profound magnitude of God to establish such sovereignty, Stearns looks towards the falling away of the old covenant and establishment of the new covenant (God’s peculiar people) to support the awesomeness of God (Stearns 91). This further refines Stearns position as separate from both the traditional Arminians and traditional Calvinists, and merges both the doctrine of grace (which establishes the new covenant) and that of God’s sovereignty, to create a quasi-legalistic doctrine. It could be argued that such a belief automatically requires a personalization of that grace, creating a relationship between Stearns’ belief and Habets’ belief of “acute personalization” of grace seen in The Doctrine of Election in Evangelical Calvinism, which states that the act of grace in and of itself is personal to each believer who accepts it (Habets 337). Additionally, Stearns’ further strays from the other Arminians when considering the law of God, admitting in agreement with Van Wyk and Habets that only God knows the sincerity of a believer’s intentions and actions, thus assuming only God can ultimately decide who is saved and not saved (Van Wyk 3) (Habets 349) (Stearns 91). In this sense, it would appear that Stearns factionalist Arminian doctrine is only Arminian in its tenet of free-will when choosing salvation, if that salvation has not already been limited by God’s choosing or scripture (Stearns 80, 88-89). Importantly, Stearns and Hindmarsh both show how the culture surrounding a doctrinal belief can transform it into something new, while Olson and Van Wyk present traditional interpretations of their perspectives, and Rice and Habets reveal how such beliefs are still being nurtured and reformed today. Thus, it can be said that neither the Calvinist focus on sovereignty or the Arminian focus on a doctrine of grace were ever truly set in stone, but evolved to the needs and desires of those believers who practiced them throughout time, and continue to evolve today-- even while many Christians remain unaware.
Before conducting my research, I had personally held a mostly traditional Armenian viewpoint when concerning Christian free-will theology. I attribute this belief to many factors within my life: my upbringing, intimate religious experiences, the local community, tradition, etc. As an individual from a small town with a considerably large protestant population, the idea of predestination was only talked about in brief, but never fully addressed as a serious way in which God worked. Calvinism’s doctrines and legalistic views caused many to classify it as relating too closely with Catholicism, thus the doctrine was drowned out by the overwhelming grace and freedom being taught by my local Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal churches-- all of which are denominations who hold to traditional Arminian beliefs. I believed that God loves humanity, and to show this love He gives us, believers, the free-will to make decisions as we please. This was the extent of my Arminian belief at the beginning of this research, as I knew little more of the complexity within the topic.
However, several key points have been brought forth which I find altogether problematic and enticing, and it is important to note their effect on my opinion as I end my research. Firstly, I find it problematic and counter-intuitive that traditional Calvinists, such as Van Wyk, use the sovereignty of God to explain His election of certain individuals (Van Wyk 6). By making such an argument, it appears that God’s sovereignty is actually limited, and that God’s grace is selective because of this. When considering the mutually inclusive relationship given to God’s sovereignty and grace in this example, Van Wyk creates the image of a God whose graces is reserved only for those fitting enough to experience His sovereignty, and those who are unelect are simply left to worship a God whose grace is not powerful enough to permeate their sinful hearts. Moreover, the implied tenet of unconditional election given by Van Wyk-- the idea that a believer must accept grace once elected-- seems obligatory, and not of a God whose desire is to have a relationship with His creation (one of the most fundamental, non-controversial attributes of God among Christians).
Additionally, I find Stearns’ view on the tenet of original sin becoming null due to Christs’ sacrifice difficult to support in my understanding of scripture (Stearns 81-91). Stearns’ use of Romans 5:18, “By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life” to support this tenet seems to contradict itself, as the verse makes no implied reference to original sin, but through its use of the phrase, “justification of life” points towards the atonement of sin in general and its punishment of death. Furthermore, if atonement is to be considered a gift from God, would not this gift have to also be accepted or rejected by the recipients? While such an interpretation of Romans 5:18 shows obvious support for traditional Arminianism over Stearns’ factionalist viewpoints, it also brings a weighty argument against the Calvinistic tendencies found within his perspective-- rejecting both the nullification of original sin and predestination as a whole. Ultimately, other Christian Biblical scripture seems to support the traditional Arminian perspective on Romans 5:18 briefly noted above. Perhaps the most cited verse to support the tenet of original sin (and the availability of grace to all persons) is Romans 3:22-24, which states “There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus”, a redemption that Paul later states as being “received by faith” in verse 25. This verse echoes the inclusivity mentioned by Paul in Romans 5:18, while also giving a more precise and decisive answer on the application of original sin to all of humanity.
Despite my distaste for certain authors’ viewpoints, I admit that after much inner deliberation and searching, I find myself agreeing with certain aspects of the Calvinist argument. Regarding the sovereignty of God, I cannot deny my inability to see the attribute as the ultimate blueprint of God’s character, however, I do believe that it plays a pivotal role in the distribution of His grace. Much like Hindmarsh, I accept that the sovereignty of God is so powerful it, “overwhelms us by its sheer vastness and power” (Hindmarsh 386). As a believer coming from a Pentecostal background, I also agree that it is “a very awful thing, to be in the immediate presence of God”-- especially considering both the modern and archaic meaning of the word awful (Hindmarsh 386-388). The sheer might of God is clearly seen throughout both the Old and New Testament, simultaneously inspiring and often giving powerful conviction to those who interact with it (i.e the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus 14 and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19; the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 and the healing of the lame man at the temple gate in Acts 38 within the New Testament). Using this scriptural evidence, I must concur with the Calvinists’ belief in God’s unlimited sovereignty, while especially enjoying the sublime, almost purifying sovereignty presented by Hindmarsh.
Through my recognition and denunciation of the above viewpoints, I have formed my new (or perhaps previously buried) perspective, which combines the graceful characteristics of God given by Arminians with the undeniable sovereignty overly-relied on by Calvinists. In my personal viewpoint, God is so overwhelmingly sovereign and powerful that in His power He is able to give love, free-will, and ultimately justice to us, while continually pointing us towards His desired path of righteousness until the end of time. This perspective rejects the mutually inclusive relationship given by Van Wyk between grace and sovereignty, but does not establish one which is mutually exclusive either. It is my opinion, shown through my research, that God’s grace, sovereignty, and justice are all disjoint variables-- meaning they are able to interact and affect one another, but are not dependent on those interactions. From this, I can conclude that God’s sovereignty cannot force us to accept His grace through Jesus, but rather gives us the free-will ability to accept or reject it on our own basis as we grapple with the consequences of original sin.
There are several instances throughout my research (on either side) which support this claim-- starting with the strict, scriptural interpretation brought forth by Stearns when referencing Titus 2:14-- “[Jesus] gave himself to us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Stearns 88). While Stearns seems to use this passage of scripture to support a Calvinist like view in which God’s peculiar people are only those He has elected, it is my interpretation through the lens of Romans 3:22-24 mentioned above, that God’s peculiar people is intended to be those who accept His grace freely (Stearns 88-91). Rice also cites scriptural support in 1st Timothy, 2nd Peter, Luke, and other books of the Christian Bible, giving evidence for a God who’s not only powerful and loving enough to allow His creation free-will, but one who chooses to do so knowing that many will turn away from Him (Rice 132-133). Therefore, God is not so sovereign that it is blasphemy to believe in human free-will, but, rather, He is sovereign enough to allow free-will and accept the consequences of rejection. This scriptural outline shows that God is not a monarch looking to rule over His subjects like they are robots; He is a responsive father who shows His love by allowing His children to fail and learn lessons the hard way, despite His recommended path, which is only one option in the endless possibilities seen by God as he exists in Rice’s “infinite now of eternities” (Rice 122, 124, 130). God is able to do this because of His overwhelming sovereignty presented within the Calvinist perspective, and if His recommendations are rejected, He immediately crafts a new, individualized plan. This individualized plan is a calling, because God has called/asked that it be done. This is separate from one’s destiny, which is the overarching plan of an individual's life. With these definitions in mind, it can be said that God gives each of us an anointing (a special gift, talent, etc.), and calls us to use it for His recommended path of righteousness for our lives-- a calling which we are destined to accept or reject every moment of every day. Thus, as conceded by nearly every author of every source in my research, God’s ultimate will for our entire life is unknown, but our own will for our lives and our attempts to understand and live by His current calling, are not.
One might argue, in defiance of this perspective, that God’s grace and sovereignty cannot co-exist in such a freely defined way, pointing to His violence in the End of Times and the Old Testament-- in which God often smited individuals, cities, or even nations, without what would seem to be a second thought. However, such an implication that the God of the Old Testament is only violent in His sovereignty is easily debased. Under the Old Covenant/Mosaic Law followed by the Israelites, God called for strict adherence to moral righteousness, complicated ritual, and emphasized physical, sacrificial atonement (see Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy for specifics). Such legalism made it impossible to stay ceremonially clean, leading to a perpetual cycle of sin, punishment, and temporary restoration. Under the Old Covenant, God was indisputably violent and powerful because His laws were continually broken and required a somatic sacrifice. Despite this display of sovereign power, God also exhibits His grace on several occasions to individuals who live according to His will (i.e Lot being saved from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, while his wife is turned into a pillar of salt for disobeying in Genesis 19, or the sparing of Nineveh in the book of Jonah). In this way, it can be seen why God’s sovereignty seemed to outweigh His grace throughout the Old Testament, while continuing to support the idea that both variables and attributes retain their ability to act independently, despite any involvement that they may happen to have with one another. Additionally, through the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ, the New Covenant of grace is established, breaking the perpetual cycle established under the Mosaic Law. This new law of grace is why God is not seen as being as violent throughout the New Testament, with the exception of Revelation. However, God is violent in the end of times because he is displaying His sovereign justice, not absolute sovereign power as described earlier. Because we have already uncovered how His grace and sovereignty are independent, we can logically explain how His grace covers those who accept it from his sovereign justice in the End of Days, which he is able to execute because of his sovereign power. In this case, it can be seen that all three variables/attributes are not working together, but separately of their own accord to help God determine who does and does not have a true relationship with Him, through Christ the Redeemer, who atones for sin.
A secondary argument against my above perspective, and most Arminian doctrine in general, is that it encourages a humanistic outlook outlook on God or may lead to an abuse of His grace. Humanism is essentially the belief that when given the correct resources and situations, human nature is good and will prevail, usually without God. My altered Arminian viewpoint presented above does not support this statement, as it continues to rely on the tenet of original sin-- meaning that human nature is inherently bad, not good. Nevertheless, it is again important to note the capability of humans to become good through the acceptance of grace given by an activist God, thus denouncing any inclination of deism. While the moral degradation caused by original sin may tempt some to squander grace, the truth of the matter remains as it was earlier stated by Van Wyk, Habets, and Stearns-- only God knows the true intents of an individual’s heart (Van Wyk 3) (Habets 349) (Stearns 91). This is why Romans 10:9 states, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved”. This is the only contingency of God’s grace, true belief and acceptance, which only He can determine. If an individual claims to accept the grace of God but does not begin to change and display the Fruits of the Spirit over time, they have not truly accepted that grace and believed in their heart, and therefore have no true incentive to want that change (see Galatians 5). This truth is best expressed by John the Evangelist when he writes, “[a]nyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them” (1st John 2:10).
Calvinism is largely a factional belief today, lost amidst a world that rejects predestination in search of more liberal and open-minded tenets. This change is good, and should be encouraged as to stop the spread of a stereotypical God who rathfully smites believers without question or chance at mercy. This portrayal of God championed by Calvinists through their insistence on His sovereignty, only reestablishes the cyclical process of guilt and sin, rather than embodying change and upliftment of our communities, as was intended by Christ when he called believers to love their neighbors as themselves and turn the other cheek. To be a true Christian is to have an insatiable desire to express and encompass the love that believers say Christ showed to them. While God is sovereign in the end, humanity is still in charge of creating its own storyline-- and choosing to believe this frees us to take responsibility for our own actions in a fallen world, by seeking righteousness and forgiveness from God and each other. Believers cannot continue to sow the traditional Calvinist seeds of hate and isolationism… but must focus, like Jesus, on loving people in their sin, creating an inclusive, accepting atmosphere, and convincing them of their faith not through doctrines, tenets, and sermons, but through the purity of their actions and beliefs.
For centuries now, the Calvinist-Arminian debate has progressed and adapted over time. As I conclude the findings of my research, it is important to note that these views continue to change as they are practiced, despite the fact that most believers are unaware of the deep theological basis for the seemingly simple phrases “God is almighty” and “God is graceful”. Further research may be conducted into how Calvinism and Arminianism have struggled to overtake one another throughout history, with Arminianism currently being accepted the most widely among modern sentiment. I would be very interested in creating a study on how Arminian doctrine has affected the Charismatic, Pentecostal, and Holiness movements, as much of my own Christian tradition and belief is rooted in those events-- beliefs which I hear echoed greatly in my personal argument for an altered, New Age Arminianism, which relies on a sovereign grace. Ultimately, it is important to understand how these two doctrines have affected so many cultures and people unknowingly, and how much growth is available to believers and non-believers alike through this analysis.
Habets, Myk. "The Doctrine of Election in Evangelical Calvinism: T. F. Torrance as a Case Study." Irish Theological Quarterly 73.3-4 (2008): 334-54.
Hindmarsh, Bruce. "The Inner Life of Doctrine: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Calvinist-Arminian Debate Among Methodists." Church History 83.02 (2014): 367-97. Print.
Holy Bible: New International Version. Zondervan, 2017.
Olson, Roger E. “Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Arminian.” Christianity Today, 1999, pp. 87–94.
Pinnock, Clark H., and Richard Rice. The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism. Grand Rapids: Academie, 1989. Print.
Stearns, John G. "The Arminian Notion of General Redemption , and a Milder Law." Calvinism and Arminianism, Compared and Tested by the Scriptures. By John G. Stearns. Rochester: William Alling and, Printers, 1836. 79-100. Print.
Wyk, Ignatius W.c. Van. “Luther and Calvin on Predestination: A Comparison.” In Die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi, vol. 52, no. 3, 2018, doi:10.4102/ids.v52i2.2342.