The real soteriological divide...

Calvinists are not the only ones who believe in once saved always saved, or more aptly put, once saved always changed.

Calvinists also believe that man freely believes as is saved and that God does not force salvation upon any.

And.. depending on your slant of Arminian beliefs, a few do hold that certain sins will cause a person to loose their salvation while a much larger majority do not believe there is any sin one can commit that will seperate us from God's love. Yet this group does hold that one can walk away from one's salvation, also known as forfieting (I know it is spelled wrong but it is 4 am here) it. So it isn't a matter, in their eyes, of one loosing their salvation but leaving it behind.

As far as I know the Catholic Church's soterological view is that of Arminian.

 

Oh I agree but was simply clarifying some of their views (which still are with in the Arminian view), of which they will disagree with both you and I as being likened to the same things.

 

Yes I think you're correct and the logic follows.

 

Incorrect, Arminians no more believe salvation is "maintained and outworked by works" any more than Calvinst believe that one can live in complete diobediance to God and be saved. While there are fringe groups on both sides that believe this to be true, it is far from what is actually taught by the main stream. Both of these beliefs stem from confusion and misunderstanding of what is believed by the other. This confusion come from forces whose intent is to divide rather than unite the Church.

The only "real" difference between the two is more of a belief on who was saved. For example, if a man proclaimns salvation, demonstrates the friuts of salvation for years, leads others to Christ and then in the later years of life he drifts from God, converts to hinduism and proclaims eastern philosophies then dies. Both groups would say the man was lost. However, the Armenians would say he was once saved while Calvinist say he was never saved. In truth only God and possibly the man himself are the only ones who truly know.

 

No doubt that there is a difference, but the OP suggest that Arminians believe in a "works" based salvation and that is not the case.

 

No the Op suggested a grace based salvation. Works is a compliment in salvation according to the OP's description of the workings of Arminianism and Catholicism.

 

No, the statement in the OP is

Unless I am misunderstanding (which is possible) this is stateing that Arminian's believe that their faith is maintained by works. If I am misunderstanding please explain to me what it is saying.

 

maintenance is not the same as basis. Unless I'm wrong. The basis would be grace. Complementary to the grace would be the maintenance by works.

 

Catholics believe and teach the infusion of grace through the sacraments. They teach the doctrine ex opere operato (out of the work, working). While faith plays some part in salvation - it is ultimately in the work of grace through the proper administration of the sacraments which saves. Arminus on the other hand, did reject the sacramental infusion of grace, as any Protestant would. Rather he embraced the doctrine of the imputation of righteousness by grace through faith in Christ alone. So while Arminians might believe they have the moral ability to respond to God's grace within themselves, they certainly don't identify with the Romish idea that God infuses righteousness through sacramental means.

 

Having read some of Wesley's statements, he had a high view of the sacraments of Baptism and Communion--he believed God used those acts to communicate grace. In fact, I think in many ways, Wesley's mature theology represents a good synthesis between catholic and reformed concerns as well as eastern and western theological emphases. (A good book on this subject is RESPONSIBLE GRACE by Maddox, I think)

 

You’re right DT and John Wesley and his view of the Sacraments (communication of grace; his father was a Sacramentalist) is what jumpstarted my journey that eventually lead me to the Orthodox Church.

In XC
-

 

Both Luther and Calvin taught the sacraments were a means of grace - contra Zwlingli. Yet they denied any efficacious work of grace in the sacraments without the presence of faith - contra Rome. Theirs was a sanctifying grace, not a salvific grace. They denied the Romish teaching of baptismal regeneration beleiving that faith was not so inherently tied to the moment of baptism that the two were soteriologically tied together, nor that the Eucharist was a means of maintianing salvific communion with God.

 

We both agree that we are saved by grace through faith, correct? Are we then saved by works? Of course not. So if faith is not considered a work in the initial salvation why would it be considered one after conversion? I can only speak from a Free Will Baptist perspective, and that is that faith alone saves, faith is not a work, and that faith alone keeps. It is only by faith in the resurected savior, Jesus Christ, that I am saved.

 

Arminius taught that faith comes from God. His contention was that the fall of man was not radical. In other words, God did not leave man completely unable to respond to grace. So while faith is a gift from God - it remains within the moral capacity of man to exercise the gift of faith apart from the regenerating work of God. In the Arminian scheme of things, faith preceeds regeneration - while Calvin taught regeneration preceeds faith. Yet both taught faith is the gift of God - and that faith is neccesary for salvation - distinguishing both of them from the teachings of Rome.