The debate between Arminians and Calvinists has lasted for over 400 years and has caused many divisions in churches, friendship groups and even families. At the center of this argument is the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, the first letter of the famous acronym TULIP. Arminians consider this doctrine to have limited God's grace and led many believers to a misinterpreted view of God's intentions. However, this hot debate should not be treated as in the past, with anger and hostility, but should be treated with love and grace, in order to emulate the love and grace of the very God we are talking about. . Even though this speech is a statement written by fallen man and will therefore, like all human work, be biased, we must not forget that we remain on the same team and serve the same loving God. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an original essay As in any debate, both sides will always bring their own assumptions, which help to shape their current position. Everyone already has biases before getting into a debate, so it's important to establish these positions before things get heated. It's possible that both sides agree on more than they think. Arminian holds many presuppositions that are important to his understanding of free will, grace and his refutation of TULIP which play an important role in their doctrine of salvation. These hypotheses are not only related to Armenian doctrine, but are those in which validity was granted during theological development. The first among many is that of the infinite grace of God. No one with orthodox theology will refute this claim, but for Arminians, this phrase is a picture of God's character that seems to suggest that God's grace is willing to extend as far as it must be in order to reach everyone who wants it. proclaim their need and desire. As was said in the previous paragraph, the debate is not about disagreement with the presuppositions but rather about what they mean for their respective parties. Members of Calvinist circles could easily say, “yes, God’s grace is without end, but for those whom He has predestined and chosen according to His will and grace.” On the other hand, Arminian might say, “God's infinite grace is offered to all humanity, and all who hear and believe can cling to this grace. » Neither statement is inherently unbiblical and both make their points effectively. Even though this is a debate over a particular doctrine of salvation, it is not a question of salvation, both groups are still saved and the opinion they have does not determine whether they are or they are not. Although personally Arminian's position is more compelling, that does not mean that there is not validity in each position. It is quite obvious that the Calvinists seem to have more blatant evidence for their understanding of salvation and election, while the Arminian proof lies in their understanding. of the character of God. The number one argument from the Arminian side of things is that it is God's will for all humanity to be saved, however, through free will, that same humanity is able to resist His call and unfortunately live out the eternity away from him, if they wish. The Calvinist side begins with that of predestination, an almost insulting word in certain circles, and the election of God's elect. “He predestined us to be adopted as sons by Jesus Christ, according to the purpose ofhis will” (Eph. 1:5). At first glance, this word has a very Calvinistic connotation and seems to strongly assert that God previously chose those who would be saved and named them His elect. Even Strong's Concordance translates it as "foreordain, predetermine, or delineate in advance" (Strong's Greek), so it seems like a good place to start. Then, turning to Romans, Paul says, “So then, it is not in the hands of human will or effort, but in God, who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16). With this we arrive at the Calvinist view of irresistible grace, the belief that once the Holy Spirit serves you, it is not possible to resist Him. Using the excerpt from Romans seems like a simple way to support this view, but you could just as easily translate it to mean that man cannot save himself and must therefore rely on God to do it. As we turn to the biblical evidence for Arminianism, we turn to the book of 2 Peter in which it is said: "The Lord is not slow in fulfilling his promise, as some suppose he is slow, but he is patient toward you, not wanting anyone to perish. but let all come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). This appears to be the stronghold of the Arminians, the belief that God does not want anyone to perish and therefore would not predestinate some to go to hell. This seems to contradict the will He has already made known. Other verses seem to suggest the same thing in different words, "who desires that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). The word “desires” suggests that although God wants everyone to be saved, He knows that some will not turn to Him. Finally, we have an excerpt from John saying, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” (John 12:32). This verse seems to propose that Jesus will draw all humanity to himself and that it will be up to them, in their free will, to choose whether or not to run after him. There is ample biblical evidence for both sides of the debate and therefore gives both sides validity as an acceptable option. According to our textbook, speaking of the doctrine of salvation in the Patristic era, "No ecumenical council dealt with disputes concerning salvation until the fifth century, so the Patristic era displays a remarkable lack of clarity or consensus on the subject” (K. Keathley, p.551). Despite this lack of clarity, we are aware of some issues that have arisen during this time. One problem was that of sacramentalism, the belief that one received grace by partaking of the Lord's Supper and being baptized. Specifically in the area of ​​predestination in the Patristic period, we look at Origen who believed that God's foreknowledge was based on the person's merit, knowing how they would become and therefore making a decision based on that knowledge. The medieval era was not much different, except that it took this idea of ​​sacramentalism to the extreme. They “were considered concrete and visible means by which indwelling grace is received, further sanctifying the practicing believer” (K. Keathley, p. 552). It was also at this time that the idea of ​​double predestination appeared among the monk Gottschalk of Orbais, who declared that God had chosen both men to be saved and go to hell. During the Reformation, the belief in salvation by grace alone returned to the forefront of the Church with proponents such as Luther and Calvin. It was at this time that Calvin described the difference between sanctification and justification, probably the paramount discovery of the Reformation. It was also at this time that Calvinism began and established itself as.