Calvinism VS Arminianism Comparison Chart by L. Boettner

I'm still going over past threads on this board, but thus far, I've never seen this chart actually posted here.
I, myself, have referred to websites that have it posted, and perhaps others have...

I've even seen people refuse to be associated with either side, yet in their beliefs and doctrinal teachings, they undeniably fall in line with what is listed on the chart....one side or the other, for the most part.

For example, there are a few "Calvinists" here, like myself, that don't much care for the label.. but we agree with everything under "Calvinism" as a summary;
Perhaps not the entire body of "Reformed Theology", but everything under the headings on the chart.

Then there are others here that seem to take great exception to the term "Arminian", whose doctrinal beliefs fall either entirely on that side of the chart, or differ on one "point";
Perhaps not the entire body of "Arminianism" ( which I tend to call, "Wesleyanism" ), but everything under the headings on the chart.


To me, when it comes to how salvation is defined, this is a very helpful chart that can be used to determine where one's doctrinal beliefs actually fall.

 

Well, at least us non-Cals now know where you Calvinists get your erroneous (and strawman) viewpoints of our beliefs. The Arrminian view put forth on General Atonement was particularly enlightening. Thanks for posting this.

 

Are you an arminian?

 

No. And certainly not as it is defined in the chart.

I don't believe someone can lose their salvation. I don't believe election is by God foreseeing someone's faith. As I understand Arminianism this chart is doing it a great disservice by misrepresenting their beliefs.

 

The other thing that is troubling is the repeated mantra from cals found in the bottom of the gif. It is a dishonest characterization. I also assume the op is like most cals asserting that if you are not a cal you are an arminian which is also dishonest.

 

So?

 

True. But you can't beat this for downright effrontery:
"Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone."

Obviously, that is what Arminians believe!


Followed by this breathtakingly illogical reasoning:
"[Jesus'] death enabled God to pardon sinners..."

"God....did something....that allowed God....to do something....but it really didn't do it."

 

"Based on" and I suspect paraphrased, misquoted, twisted, and strawman-ized.

 

The dishonest problems with calvinists is that they characterize the position of those with whom they oppose in a way that satisfies their flesh and demonizes those with whom they disagree with in order to make the other position look as bad as possible and in a way that those with whom they disagree with would never agree to.

When you address it with them they give the pat answer and I paraphrase "well that is what it really is". Much like the op it is obnoxious and arrogant and disrespects the person with whom they disagree with. Such are strawmen and you have to wonder if this is nothing more than a debate tactic because they really are struggling with their own view and cannot do any better.

 

Who does it represent here today? Not the false characterization of those in the past? I have news for you bub, we are not going to tolerate it.

 

sigh, does anyone know what this means?

 

Wow, that is so profound!

 

Reminds me of aggressive non-Cals that call the Calvinist version of God a "puppetmaster" and humans "programmed robots".

Also the oft leveled charge that Calvinists don't believe in missions. "God has elected people from eternity past and since he is sovereign he will save these people, so let's sit on our hands and not spread the gospel."

Certainly Calvinists are sick and tired of these misrepresentations. So why do they promulgate their own false charges against non-Cals?

And why is it that the number of threads by Calvinists denigrating non-Cal beliefs dwarf the number of threads by non-Cals that call into question the Calvinist beliefs?

 

Uh no, if people like me say they do not represent me that is what we need to consider. I do not care about your archaic documents.