A Clay Jar

Encouraging, comforting, and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory. (1 Thess. 2:12 NIV)

A Summary of Arminian Soteriology

The posts that have come before this one have attempted to describe orthodox Arminian soteriology. This is what was taught by both Jacob Arminius and John Wesley. Unfortunately, there are many who claim to be Arminians who do not hold to the teachings of Arminius and Wesley. And oftentimes they do not even know what they are taught. Many even understand Arminianism to be whatever is not Calvinism. Many Calvinists who criticize Arminianism are also unaware of what Arminian soteriology actually teaches. And they are actually arguing against a strawman.

Estimated reading time: 11 minutes

What Arminianism Is Not

So, what is Arminianism? It may be beneficial to start with what it is not. Arminianism is not anything that is not Calvinism. Calvinism is actually a complete theological system developed initially by John Calvin. Jacob Arminius was an early follower of Calvin who took exception to the soteriology of Calvin. He believed that Calvin’s view of predestination was at odds with the nature of God. Arminianism deals with the doctrine of salvation. And, unlike Calvinism, has nothing to say about infant baptism, church government, and many other distinctive Calvinist beliefs.

Contrary to the picture many paint of Arminian soteriology, it is not semi-Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism teaches that man is able of himself to initiate his salvation experience. There are many today who hold this belief. But Arminianism agrees with Calvinism that mankind is totally depraved with no innate ability to seek God.

Nor is Arminianism the same as Open Theism. Arminianism believes that God is omniscient in regards to time; that he foreknew everything that would happen prior to creation. But without having to orchestrate every detail. Proponents of Open Theism believe that God has only limited foreknowledge of the future. The future does not exist, so how could God know it. And, even if he could, knowledge of the future would limit free will choices. It would, in their minds, mean that the future is fixed and unchangeable.

Comparing Arminian and Calvinist Soteriological Frameworks

The following will compare the soteriology of Arminianism with Calvinism. Calvinism soteriology is most often associated with the acronym TULIP while Arminian soteriology does not have a universally accepted acronym.

Total Depravity

This is the one point that both agree on. As a consequence of the fall, mankind is totally depraved. This does not mean he is as bad as he can possibly be. But it does mean that he is incapable, in his own efforts, of coming to God for salvation. Apart from the working of God’s grace, there can be no salvation.


Arminian soteriology holds to a conditional election. God elects, or chooses, all of those who respond in faith to his gift of salvation. We are able to respond, not because of something innately in us, but because of the enabling of the Holy Spirit via prevenient grace. The logical progression of salvation starts with the working of the Holy Spirit, enabling faith; a human response to the offer of salvation; and then regeneration.

Calvinist soteriology holds to what they call an unconditional election. That God sovereignly chooses some for salvation, independently of anything that the one chosen may believe or do. The logical ordering in salvation starts with God choosing those who will be saved; then regenerating and granting faith to the chosen, and then faith is exercised by the chosen and regenerated.


Arminianism holds to unlimited atonement. Christ’s atoning work on the cross was for all people, although it is effective only for those who believe. This is not universalism. While the atonement was for all, only those who believe receive its benefit.

Calvinism, on the other hand, generally holds to limited atonement. Christ’s atoning work on the cross was only for the elect. Atonement is only available for those God has foreordained to salvation. Some Calvinists reject this and accept unlimited atonement. This is also the point at which Lutherans disagree with Calvinists, rejecting limited atonement.

Resistibility of Grace

Arminian soteriology argues that the prevenient grace of God that is given to the unbeliever enables faith. Salvation is then offered as a gift that may either be accepted or rejected. The work of the Holy Spirit is resistible.

In contrast, Calvinism holds to irresistible grace. The Holy Spirit works in the life of the elect to bring them into a relationship with Christ. This working of the Holy Spirit is irresistible, all of the foreordained will come to faith.

Persistence of Salvation

This is the point that divides Arminians. We all believe that those who persist in their faith will be saved in the end. Some believe that all true believers will persist. Others accept the possibility that true believers have the ability to turn their backs on the grace of God. And, as a result, lose their salvation.

The Sovereignty of God

As you can see, there are some significant differences in how John Calvin and Jacob Arminius, and their respective followers, view the doctrine of salvation. But more significant than these differences is how they view the character of God. While both view God as sovereign, they understand the sovereignty of God in different ways. For the Calvinist, sovereignty implies complete and total control of everything that happens in the creation. If anyone is able to perform some action or make some decision that is not at God’s direction, then God is not sovereign.

This issue of this understanding of God’s sovereignty is what led Jacob Arminius to reject the soteriology of Calvinism. He saw divine determinism (God determines everything) as making God the author of sin. And that, to him, removed any real responsibility for sin from humanity. If a person can only act in accordance with God’s decrees, then when they sin it is a result of God’s decree; it is what God wanted them to do. For Arminius, God was sovereign over all of his creation. But that sovereignty included God’s permissive will, allowing humanity to act at odds with God’s desired will. But even as God allows evil, he uses it to accomplish his purpose. Our human choices are never unexpected or allowed to interfere with God’s purpose in creation.

The Doctrine of Predestination

The other issue Arminius had with the Calvinism of his day is in their related doctrine of predestination. Calvin modeled his doctrine of predestination after Augustine. God has chosen some to salvation prior to creation, irrespective of anything the individual might be or do. God seemingly arbitrarily chooses some to salvation. Some Calvinists will also argue that God has specifically chosen the rest of humanity to an eternity in hell. Others argue against that double predestination, but the result is the same. If you are not among the chosen, you are among the damned. To Arminius, this pictured God as a monster; creating some humans with no actual hope of escaping from the fires of hell.

Instead, Arminius, appealing to the Scripture as well as the early church fathers, argued that God loves all of humanity. An that he enables everyone to believe. Those that he foreknows will respond in faith he elects, while those who do not are condemned to damnation. But that condemnation is a result of a rejection of God’s grace, not an arbitrary action on God’s part. The Calvinist will argue that my choice to accept God’s offer of grace is an action on my part. Thus making salvation at least partly based on my own efforts. But Arminius responded that a free gift received, is still a free gift. My accepting the gift does not in any way constitute an earning of that gift on my part.

Free Will

Calvinists accuse Arminians of focusing on human free will, although they also claim to accept it after a fashion. But Arminius’ use of human free will was not to elevate humanity. Rather it was to make them responsible for their own sin, rather than making God responsible for it. Salvation is no less a work of God because I have the ability to accept or reject it.

Summary of Arminian Soteriology

As expressed earlier, Arminianism is not a complete theological system. Rather it is a particular way of understanding soteriology, the doctrine of salvation. God is our creator and he loves all of those within his creation. God created man as an autonomous moral agent with the ability to make real choices. In particular, the choice to obey God or to disobey him. God knew the choices humanity would make and planned around them. But he did not cause Adam and Eve to disobey and fall into sin. That was a choice that they freely made for themselves.

We Are a Fallen People

When our first parents disobeyed God and fell from their state of grace, they and all of their progeny lost the ability to function in the spiritual realm. No longer could we walk with God in the garden. No longer could we find him. And in fact, we were no longer even able to seek or desire him. As a result of the fall, we became totally unable to either desire or effect a return to God. Humanity continued on as free moral agents, doing good and bad and making free choices in the physical realm. But we were totally dead in the spiritual realm. And even worse, we faced eternal condemnation.

God Provided the Means for Reconciliation

But man’s fall did not diminish God’s love for mankind. Our fall was anticipated before the creation. And, because of God’s love and grace, the means of reconciliation was also planned prior to the creation. This means of reconciliation had two parts. The first was in the atoning sacrifice offered by Jesus, God incarnate. Jesus’ death on the cross serves to pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world. Jesus died in the place of all who would respond in faith to him.

And that leads to the second part of the means of reconciliation. In my own natural self, I am not able to respond to God in faith; my fallen nature does not have that ability. But God graciously works in the lives of people to enable them to believe. Freeing our depraved wills to accept the gift he offers.

Salvation Is a Gift Freely Offered

God now is holding out to us the means of salvation, the sacrifice of Jesus. And he gives us the ability to accept his freely offered gift. If I accept the gift I am saved and my spirit is born anew, able to seek after and to know God. If I reject the gift of salvation then I continue on toward condemnation and destruction. Only if I accept the gift of God am I delivered from that condemnation that I was born into. The gift of salvation that God offers to me is wholly and completely his work. My acceptance of his freely offered gift does not in any way make it less a gift on his part. Nor in any way worthy of it.

From creation, God has predestined that those who will, as an act of faith, accept his gift of salvation, will be adopted into his family. And will share throughout eternity in the blessings of sonship. God’s choice of us is not arbitrary. Rather it is based on his knowledge of who would respond to him in faith. A faith that is enabled by his grace. Those who find themselves condemned have no one to blame but themselves. God’s grace enables all to believe, and Jesus’ atonement is sufficient for all. But that atonement is only applied to those who respond in faith.

The Five Sola’s

There are five foundational principles that come out of the Protestant reformation. Principles that in many ways define what it means to be a Protestant. For the Arminian, as for all true Protestants, these truths provide structure for what we believe and practice.

  • Sola Scriptura: The Scripture alone is our source for authority. While we might look to human sources in providing understanding or clarification, the Scripture alone is authoritative. Human and church tradition as well as creeds or confessions are secondary to the Scripture.
  • Sola Gratia: Salvation is by grace alone. It is solely because of God’s gracious action on our part that we can be saved. God’s grace enables us to believe and respond in faith. And his grace continues to work in our lives through regeneration, sanctification, and glorification.
  • Sola Fide: Salvation is also by faith alone. There is nothing we as humans can do to earn God’s favor or to make ourselves in any way acceptable to God. All who come in faith to God are regenerated.
  • Solus Christus: Christ alone has done everything that is necessary for my salvation. There is nothing I can do to add to what he has done.
  • Soli Deo Gloria: All glory to God alone. Because my salvation is solely a work of God, all glory for it should go to God. And all of my life should be lived in a way that will bring glory to God.

We may understand some of these Solas slightly differently than other Protestants do, in particular the role of faith. But orthodox Arminians do hold firmly to these five Solas and thus are firmly in the Protestant camp.


I believe that the soteriology of Arminius is more faithful to the Scripture than that of John Calvin. Or Martin Luther for that matter. And I believe it better represents the character of God. But I also believe that Protestants of every stripe are indebted to Luther and Calvin, as well as other early reformers, for helping the church to recover the doctrines expressed by the 5 Solas.

I have serious issues with what I see as the implications of Calvinist and Lutheran views of predestination on the character of God. But I do consider them to be true believers and brothers/sisters in the faith. There are times I may have seemed antagonistic toward Calvinist doctrine, but that has been primarily to illustrate the differences between the two. But I must also confess at least some irritation over the uninformed attacks of Calvinists against Arminian soteriology. I say uninformed because most of the time they are actually attacking a strawman, and not Arminian soteriology itself. Hopefully, I have not been guilty of that myself. And hopefully, this series of posts will help to clear up some of the misinformation that is so rampant concerning Arminian soteriology.

A Final Note

One last point to make. I have used the Arminian tag quite a bit during this series of posts. But Arminian is a label that only describes a particular framework for the doctrine of salvation. More properly it should be identified as Arminian soteriology. In all other respects, Arminius taught very much in line with John Calvin and his followers.


The views expressed here are solely mine and do not necessarily reflect those of any other person, group, or organization. While I believe they reflect the teachings of the Bible, I am a fallible human and subject to misunderstanding. Please feel free to leave any comments or questions about this post in the comments section below. I am always interested in your feedback.

If you have found value in this post, please consider subscribing to A Clay Jar so that you don’t miss any other posts. 

25 thoughts on “A Summary of Arminian Soteriology”

  1. 1 Corinthians 6:17 (NASB95)
    17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
    2 Timothy 2:13 (NASB95)
    13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
    One spirit with Jesus cannot be broken – cannot lose salvation – refutes Arminianism.

    • Arminius took no position on the topic of losing salvation. Nor did his earliest followers take a formal position. Arminians today are divided on the issue.

  2. Those He foreknew He predestined.

    God did not choose (“foreknew” in Greek means “seen beforehand” not “choose”) but He knows those who will (God lives outside of time) choose Him – refutes Calvin.

    He did predestine – once choosing Christ they are “in Christ” and “in Christ” they are predestine or “chosen” to be with Jesus forever. – refutes Arminius.

    • I do not understand you refutation of Arminius, who BTW, did not advocate the corporate election you are talking about, election of those in Christ.

      • Thank you so much for your replies! I used to go to a Wesleyan church until they asked me not to re-up as a member because I believe in Eternal Security. I don’t know what orthodox Armenian soteriology teaches other than what I have read from you. The Wesleyan Church believes you can lose your salvation and I thought that came from Arminius. Thank you for your kind and gracious replies to what to you must have seemed like ignorant babbling. Thank you.

        • No worries, glad to be able to help.

          I have recently joined a Church of the Nazarene. Their official position is that a person can fall fall from grace and be lost. But in my experience they do not consider that doctrine an essential. Personally, I do not believe that a person is actually saved until they leave this life behind. So the debate is moot for me.

  3. Could Calvin and Arminius have decided on the outcome of their study (i.e., Calvin saying God is in complete control and Arminius saying man always has free will), and then gone to scripture to back up their opinions?

    Also, isn’t the Holy Spirit our teacher, not men?

    • Indeed, the Scripture, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is our authoritative source for faith and practice as believers. Both of these men did base their soteriology on what they believed the Scripture taught. But they came to different conclusions. And their differences were not as great as we sometimes make them out to be. Arminius understood Calvin’s doctrine of election to make God the author of evil. Free will makes us responsible for our own sin.

  4. Very well laid out and easy to understand. I appreciate that this post isn’t extremely wordy like many sources out there. I also very much appreciated how you defend both points of view while still holding to one yourself. God bless.

  5. Very helpful to help me understand what I believe and why. The Calvinist perspective, which I have loosely been introduced to, seems to rub me the wrong way. My inner man has trouble receiving the Calvinist thinking, although I have tried. Your explanation has brought peace. And clarity. Thank you.

    • A family member expressed to me that God decreed the holocaust as I talked about a recent read of Bonhoeffer, and my sense that as believers we are to influence culture. The family member’s comment confused my understanding of scripture and the God we serve. Isn’t there some responsibility on the part of believers to represent the King as His ambassador/soldiers given our born-again position in Christ? Aren’t we to uphold His Kingdom and enforce His Authority through our submission to Him?

      • The relationship between God’s sovereignty and our human responsibility is not as straightforward as we would like for it to be. I do not believe that God decrees such horrific acts as the holocaust. But he does permit it. However, I do not believe that he permits evil that he cannot use to help in the accomplishment of his purpose in creation. It is often hard to understand how he might use it. But it should be no surprise that finite men would have a hard time wrapping their minds around an infinite God. I trust that he is in control. And I do my best to be a light in this dark world.

    • I am glad you found it helpful. I know the first time I was exposed to Calvinist soteriology, I was appalled. And many years later, I still am troubled by how God is represented in Calvinism.

  6. You consider Calvinists to be true believers, but I struggle with that. What happened in Eden affected mankind corporately, but what happened on the cross affected mankind individually. God wants us to make a decision to accept or reject the Gospel ourselves and Calvinists state that God made that choice for them. “Believe in YOUR heart and confess with YOUR mouth that Jesus is Lord, and you will be saved.” They have not made that PERSONAL DECISION, God made it irrisistably for them already.

    • To be fair, Calvinists do believe that they have chosen to believe in Christ’s atoning death on the cross and have accepted him as Lord and savior. That they believe they had no choice but to do that does not detract from the fact that they did. I disagree with Calvinist soteriology. But I have dear friends who hold strongly to it. And I have no doubt about their love for God and of their salvation.

  7. I too appreciate your informative, logically consistent, noncombative comparison between the two. I personally disagree with your personal beliefs, but that’s OK. Brothers disagree sometimes. We see to agree that we are only saved by our faith in the restorative sacrifice of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, and His resurrection. To Him be all glory.

    • Thanks. I agree that we all too often fight over the things that divide us rather than logically discuss them like adults and then serve alongside each other in the kingdom’s work.

    • Jesus did not follow the teachings of either John Calvin or Jacob Arminius. It was they who sought to follow the teachings of Jesus. I believe, however, that Arminus did a better job of it.

  8. I’m not one to generally comment on blogs but this has been extremely helpful in my understanding of Arminianism. So much of what I see in the circles I am in (Calvinistic) varies greatly when it comes to the core of Arminian theology, and there is an abundance of misleading and confusing information out there on the topic. I sense this post to be balanced, fair, and most of all informed. Thanks from your Calvinist brother!

    • Thanks for your positive feedback. I am glad that you found it helpful. I seldom read a Calvinist source that seems to understand classical Arminianism.


Leave a Comment