The Debate Over Calvinism and Armenianism

¶ … Providence debate or the debate over depravity and atonement, Armenianism vs. Calvinism is one of the "doctrines that divide."[footnoteRef:1] The debate continues among Evangelicals even though the original battle began in the seventeenth century. The crux of the difference between Calvinism and Armenianism is that the latter group believes that God has bestowed free will upon human beings, and as such, free will can be used to opt out of sinful behavior and therefore accept the grace of God. Calvinists are more deterministic, believing instead that God has predetermined who can and cannot be saved. [1: Erwin Lutzer. Doctrines that Divide. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998.]

However, an additional corollary to the Providence debate regards the principle of eternal security. Calvinists tend to favor the concept, as God has already preordained grace and salvation and therefore eternal security is either granted or it is not. Armenianists believe that free will is integral to salvation. Therefore, an Armenian believes that a person can just as likely use free will to sin again even after being saved through the grace of God once. Eternal security is impossible because it would mean that one could act in a depraved manner and doing so would not be conducive at all to salvation. The Calvinist point-of-view seems too willing to condone sinful behavior or what is known as backsliding. Worse, a person who loses faith and commits apostasy could too easily be presumed predestined for salvation. The doctrine of eternal security is sometimes considered a separate issue from the Providence debate entirely.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum. Second Edition. Baker Academic, 2009.]

As Boyd and Gregory point out, the Calvinist position is more convenient in its consistency; whereas the Armenian view seems theologically contradictory or at best, offers a "middle ground" perspective.[footnoteRef:3] Even so, the Armenian point-of-view makes more sense and provides far more opportunity to appreciate the nature of grace and Christian fruit-bearing. Fruit bearing refers to the act of becoming spiritually mature, as a plant in its maturity bears fruit. While the Calvinist would say that some trees are somehow flawed by nature and never will bear fruit, the Armenian would note that Christian fruit-bearing involves a far more meaningful process in which an innate sinner becomes transformed through the grace of God. Furthermore, no person can be assured salvation without taking some essential steps, the first of which would be cultivating faith in Christ. An Armenian would note that "to claim the assurance of heaven" would be akin to pride -- the "sin of presumption."[footnoteRef:4] A similar problem with Calvinism can be seen in with sacerdotilism, in which the presumed power to determine which individuals receive eternal security is a power that rests with priests. Ironically, sacerdotilism was one of the core conflicts between Protestants and Catholics and yet the debate over eternal security and Providence are considered modern Evangelical concerns. [3: Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum, p. 150.] [4: Erwin Lutzer. Doctrines that Divide, p. 88.]