Arminianism is a movement of Protestantism initiated in the early 17th century, based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius and his historic supporters known as Remonstrants. Dutch Arminianism was originally articulated in the Remonstrance (1610), a theological statement submitted to the States General of the Netherlands. This expressed an attempt to moderate the doctrines of Calvinism related to its interpretation of predestination.

Classical Arminianism, to which Arminius is the main contributor, and Wesleyan Arminianism, to which John Wesley is the main contributor, are the two main schools of thought. Central Arminian beliefs are that God's preparing (prevenient) grace for regeneration is universal, and that God's justifying grace allowing regeneration is resistible.

Many Christian denominations have been influenced by Arminian views, notably the Baptists in the 17th century, the Methodists in the 18th century, and the Pentecostals in the 20th century.

Arminius' beliefs, i.e. Arminianism, did not begin with him.^[1] Before the Reformation, groups like the Waldensians similarly affirmed individual freedom over any predetermined predestination.^[2] Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier (1480–1528) also promoted much the same view as Arminius nearly a century before him.^[1] The soteriological doctrines of Arminianism and Anabaptism are roughly equivalent.^[3][4] In particular, Mennonites have been historically Arminian whether they distinctly espoused the Arminian viewpoint or not, and rejected Calvinist soteriology.^[5] Anabaptist theology seems to have influenced Jacobus Arminius.^[3] At least, he was "sympathetic to the Anabaptist point of view, and Anabaptists were commonly in attendance on his preaching."^[4] Similarly, Arminius mentions Danish Lutheran theologian Niels Hemmingsen (1513–1600) as holding the basic view of soteriology he held and he may have been influenced by Hemmingsen.^[6] Another key figure, Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563), who opposed Calvin's views on predestination and religious intolerance, is known to have influenced both the Mennonites and certain theologians within Arminius’s circle.^[7] Early critics of Arminians even cited Castellio as a primary inspiration behind the Arminian movement.^[8]

Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) was a Dutch pastor and theologian.^[9] He was taught by Theodore Beza, Calvin's hand-picked successor, but after examination of the scriptures, he rejected his teacher's theology that it is God who unconditionally elects some for salvation.^[9] Instead Arminius proposed that the election of God was of believers, thereby making it conditional on faith.^[9] Arminius's views were challenged by the Dutch Calvinists, especially Franciscus Gomarus.^[10]

In his Declaration of Sentiments (1608) Arminius presented his theology to magistrates of the States General of the Netherlands in The Hague.^[11] After his death, Arminius's followers continued to advance his theological vision, crafting the Five articles of Remonstrance (1610), in which they express their points of divergence from the stricter Calvinism of the Belgic Confession.^[10] This is how Arminius's followers were called Remonstrants, and following a Counter Remonstrance in 1611, Gomarus' followers were called Counter-Remonstrants.^[12]

After some political maneuvering, the Dutch Calvinists were able to convince Prince Maurice of Nassau to deal with the situation.^[9] Maurice systematically removed Arminian magistrates from office and called a national synod at Dordrecht. This Synod of Dort was open primarily to Dutch Calvinists (102 people), while the Arminians were excluded (13 people banned from voting), with Calvinist representatives from other countries (28 people), and in 1618 published a condemnation of Arminius and his followers as heretics. The Canons of Dort responded, among other topics, to Arminian doctrines, anticipating their later articulation as the Five points of Calvinism.^[10]

Arminians across Holland were removed from office, imprisoned, banished, and sworn to silence. Twelve years later, Holland officially granted Arminianism protection as a religion, although animosity between Arminians and Calvinists continued.^[9] Most of the early Remonstrants followed a classical version of Arminianism. However, some of them such as Philipp van Limborch, moved in the direction of semi-Pelagianism and rationalism.^[13]

In England, the so-labelled Arminian doctrines^[14] were held, in substance, before and in parallel with those of Arminius.^[15] The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (finalised in 1571), were sufficiently ambiguous that they were compatible with either Arminian or Calvinistic interpretations.^[15] Arminianism in the Church of England was fundamentally an expression of negation of Calvinism, and only some theologians held to classical Arminianism, but for the rest they were either semi-Pelagian or Pelagian.^[9][15][16] In this specific context, contemporary historians prefer to use the term "proto-Arminians" rather than "Arminians" to designate the leanings of those divines who generally didn't follow classical Arminianism.^[17] English Arminianism was represented by Arminian Puritans such as John Goodwin or High Anglican Arminians such as Jeremy Taylor and Henry Hammond.^[15] Anglican Arminians of the 17th century such as William Laud fought Calvinist Puritans.^[15] They actually saw Arminianism in terms of a state church, an idea that was alien to the views of Arminius.^[9] This position became particularly evident under the reign (1625–1649) of Charles I of England.^[15] Following the English Civil War (1642–1651) Charles II of England, who tolerated the Presbyterians, re-instituted Arminian thought in the Church of England.^[18] It was dominant there after the Restoration (1660)^[19] for some fifty years.^[15]

The Baptist movement emerged in 17th-century in England. The first Baptists—called "General Baptists" because of their confession of a "general" or unlimited atonement—were Arminians.^[20] The Baptist movement originated with Thomas Helwys, who left his mentor John Smyth (who had moved into shared belief and other distinctives of the Dutch Waterlander Mennonites of Amsterdam) and returned to London to start the first English Baptist Church in 1611. Later General Baptists such as John Griffith, Samuel Loveday, and Thomas Grantham defended a Reformed Arminian theology that reflected the Arminianism of Arminius. The General Baptists encapsulated their Arminian views in numerous confessions, the most influential of which was the Standard Confession of 1660. In the 1640s the Particular Baptists were formed, diverging from Arminian doctrine and embracing the strong Calvinism of the Presbyterians and Independents. Their robust Calvinism was publicized in such confessions as the London Baptist Confession of 1644 and the Second London Confession of 1689. The London Confession of 1689 was later used by Calvinistic Baptists in America (called the Philadelphia Baptist Confession), whereas the Standard Confession of 1660 was used by the American heirs of the English General Baptists, who soon came to be known as Free Will Baptists.^[21]

In the Methodist-Calvinist controversy of the early 1770s involving Anglican ministers John Wesley and George Whitefield, Wesley responded to accusations of semi-Pelagianism by embracing an Arminian identity.^[22] Wesley had limited familiarity with the beliefs of Arminius and largely formulated his views without direct reliance on Arminius' teachings.^[23] Wesley was notably influenced by 17th-century English Arminianism and by some Remonstrant spokesmen.^[24] However, he is recognized as a faithful representative of Arminius' beliefs.^[25] Wesley defended his soteriology through the publication of a periodical titled The Arminian (1778) and in articles such as Predestination Calmly Considered.^[26] To support his stance, he strongly maintained belief in total depravity while clarifying other doctrines notably prevenient grace.^[27][28] At the same time, Wesley attacked the determinism that he claimed characterized Calvinist doctrines of predestination.^[29] He typically preached the notion of Christian perfection (fully mature, not "sinlessness").^[9] His system of thought has become known as Wesleyan Arminianism, the foundations of which were laid by him and his fellow preacher John William Fletcher.^[30][31] Methodism also navigated its own theological intricacies concerning salvation and human agency.^[32][33] In the 1830s, during the Second Great Awakening, traces of Pelagian influence surfaced in the American Holiness Movement. Consequently, critics of Wesleyan theology have occasionally unfairly perceived or labeled its broader thought.^[34] However, its core is recognized to be Arminianism.^[28][33]

Pentecostalism has its background in the activity of Charles Parham (1873–1929). Its origin as a movement was in the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles in 1906. This revival was led by William J. Seymour (1870–1922).^[35] Due to the Methodist and Holiness background of many early Pentecostal preachers, the Pentecostal churches usually possessed practices that arose from the Wesleyan Arminianism.^[36] During the 20th century, as Pentecostal churches began to settle and incorporate more standard forms, they started to formulate theology that was fully Arminian.^[37] Today, Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God hold to Arminian views such as resistible grace, conditional election, and conditional security of the believer.^[38][39][40]

Advocates of Arminianism find a home in many Protestant denominations,^[41] and sometimes other beliefs such as Calvinism exist within the same denomination.^[42] The Lutheran theological tradition bears certain similarities to Arminianism^[43] and there may be some Lutheran churches that are open to it.^[44] Newer Evangelical Anglican denominations also show a level of openness to Arminian theology.^[44] Anabaptist denominations, such as the Mennonites, Hutterites, Amish and Schwarzenau Brethren, adhere to Anabaptist theology, which espouses a soteriology that is similar to Arminianism "in some respects".^[45][46][44] Arminianism is found within the General Baptists,^[46] including the subset of General Baptists known as Free Will Baptists.^[47] The majority of Southern Baptists embrace a traditionalist form of Arminianism which includes a belief in eternal security,^{[48][49][50][44]} though many see Calvinism as growing in acceptance.^[51] Certain proponents of Arminianism may be found within the Restoration movement in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.^[47] Additionally, it is found in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.^[44] Arminianism (specifically Wesleyan–Arminian theology) is taught in the Methodist churches,^[52] inclusive of those denominations aligned with the holiness movement such as the Evangelical Methodist Church, Church of the Nazarene, the Free Methodist Church, the Wesleyan Church,^[47] and the Salvation Army.^[53] It is also found in a part of the Charismatics, including the Pentecostals.^{[47][54][46][55]}

Arminian theology has found support among theologians, Bible scholars, and apologists spanning various historical periods and theological circles. Noteworthy historical figures include Jacobus Arminius,^[56] Simon Episcopius,^[13] Hugo Grotius,^[13] John Goodwin,^[57] Thomas Grantham,^[58] John Wesley,^[59] Richard Watson,^[60] Thomas Osmond Summers,^[60] John Miley,^[61] William Burt Pope^[60] and Henry Orton Wiley.^[62]

In contemporary Baptist traditions, advocates of Arminian theology include Roger E. Olson,^[63] F. Leroy Forlines,^[64] Robert Picirilli^[65] and J. Matthew Pinson.^[66] Within the Methodist tradition, prominent supporters encompass Thomas Oden,^[64] Ben Witherington III,^[67] David Pawson,^[68] B. J. Oropeza,^[69] Thomas H. McCall^[63] and Fred Sanders.^[70] The Holiness movement boasts theologians like Carl O. Bangs^[71] and J. Kenneth Grider.^[66] Furthermore, scholars such as Keith D. Stanglin,^[63] Craig S. Keener^[72] and Grant R. Osborne^[73] also support Arminian perspectives.

The Pelagian-Augustinian framework can serve as a key paradigm for understanding the theological and historical legacy of Arminianism.^[74] Before Augustine (354–430), the synergistic view of salvation was almost universally endorsed.^[75] Pelagius (c. 354–418), however, argued that humans could perfectly obey God by their own will.^[76] The Pelagian view is therefore referred to as "humanistic monergism".^[77][78] This view was condemned at the Council of Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431).^[79] In response, Augustine proposed a view in which God is the ultimate cause of all human actions, a stance that aligns with soft determinism.^[80] The Augustinian view is therefore referred to as "divine monergism".^[81] However, Augustinian soteriology implied double predestination,^[82] which was condemned by the Council of Arles (475).^[83]

During this period, a moderate form of Pelagianism emerged, later termed Semi-Pelagianism. This view asserted that human will initiates salvation, rather than divine grace.^[84] The Semi-Pelagian view is therefore described as "human-initiated synergism".^[85] In 529, the Second Council of Orange addressed Semi-Pelagianism and declared that even the inception of faith is a result of God’s grace.^[86][87][88] This highlights the role of prevenient grace enabling human belief.^[89][90] This view, often referred to as "Semi-Augustinian," is therefore described as "God-initiated synergism".^{[91][92][93][94]} The Council also rejected predestination to evil.^[95] As Arminianism aligns with key aspects of this view,^[96] it is seen by some as a return to early church theological consensus.^[97] Moreover, Arminianism can also be seen as a soteriological diversification of Calvinism^[98] or more specifically, as a theological middle ground between Calvinism and semi-Pelagianism.^[99]

Arminian theology generally divides into two main variations: Classical Arminianism, based on the teachings of Jacobus Arminius, and Wesleyan Arminianism, a closely related variation shaped primarily by John Wesley.^[100]

Classical Arminianism is a protestant theological view, that asserts God's prevenient grace for regeneration is universal and that the grace allowing regeneration and ongoing sanctification is resistible.^{[101][102][103]} This theological system was presented by Jacobus Arminius and maintained by some of the Remonstrants, such as Simon Episcopius^[104] and Hugo Grotius.^[105]

Arminian theology incorporates the language and framework of covenant theology.^[106][107] Its core teachings are summarized in the Five Articles of Remonstrance, reflecting Arminius’s views, with some sections directly from his Declaration of Sentiments.^[108] Some theologians have referred to this system as "classical Arminianism".^[109][110] Others prefer "Reformation Arminianism"^[111] or "Reformed Arminianism",^[112] as Arminius upheld the principles of Reformation such as Sola fide and Sola gratia.^[113]

Arminianism accepts classical theism, which states that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.^[114] In that view, God's power, knowledge, and presence have no external limitations, that is, outside of his divine nature and character.

Besides, Arminianism view on God's sovereignty is based on postulates stemming from God's character. On the first hand, divine election must be defined in such a way that God is not in any case, and even in a secondary way, the author of evil. It would not correspond to the character of God,^[115] especially as fully revealed in Jesus Christ.^[116] On the other hand, man's responsibility for evil must be preserved.^[117] Those two postulates require a specific way by which God chooses to manifest his sovereignty when interacting with his creatures.

On one hand, it requires for God to operate according to a limited mode of providence. This means that God deliberately exercises sovereignty without determining every event. On the other hand, it requires for God's election to be a "predestination by foreknowledge".^[118] Therefore, God's foreknowledge is exhaustive and complete, aligning his certainty with human freedom of action.^[119]

Arminianism is aligned with classical free-will theism, adopting an incompatibilist position. It asserts that the free will essential for moral responsibility is inherently incompatible with determinism.^[120] In Arminian theology, human beings possess libertarian free will, making them the ultimate source of their choices and granting them the ability to choose otherwise.^[121] This philosophical framework upholds the concept of divine providence, allowing God's influence and supervision over creation.^[122] However, it permits the idea of God's absolute control over human actions, as long as such control does not involve human responsibility.^[123][124]

Arminianism holds that without the assistance of divine grace, human free will is incapable of choosing the spiritual good.^[125][126] Humans are therefore in a state of total depravity, possessing a corrupted spiritual nature inherited from original sin.^[127] Like Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, Arminius agreed that human free will is spiritually captive and enslaved.^[128][129] However, through the action of prevenient grace, human free will can be "freed",^[130] meaning it can be restored with the ability to choose the spiritual good, particularly the capacity to accept God's call to salvation.^[131]

Atonement is intended universally: Jesus's death was for all people, Jesus draws all people to himself, with the opportunity for salvation through faith.^[132]

Jesus's death satisfies God's justice: The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through the crucifixion of Christ. Thus Christ's death atones for the sins of all, but requires faith to be effected. Arminius states that "Justification, when used for the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of righteousness through mercy [...] or that man is justified before God [...] according to the rigor of justice without any forgiveness."^[133] Justification, therefore, is seen through mercy by the imputation of righteousness.^[134] While not rigidly defined, this view suggests that the righteousness of Christ is attributed to believers, emphasizing that union with Christ (conditioned on faith) transfers his righteousness to them.^[135][136]

Christ's atonement has a substitutionary effect which is limited only to the elect. Arminius held that God's justice was satisfied by penal substitution.^[137] Hugo Grotius taught that it was satisfied governmentally.^[138] Historical and contemporary Arminians have held to one of these views.^[139]

In Arminianism, God initiates the process of salvation, extending his grace, often called prevenient grace, to all people. This grace works within each person, drawing them toward the Gospel and enabling sincere faith, leading to regeneration.^[140] However, this grace operates not through an irresistible, deterministic method, but rather through an influence-and-response relationship that allows individuals to either freely accept or deny it.^[141] Humanity’s free will, upheld by God’s sovereignty, grants everyone the opportunity to embrace the Gospel by faith, while preserving the choice to resist.^[130] Consequently, conversion is understood as synergistic.^[142]

Election is conditional: Arminius defined election as "the decree of God by which, of Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in Christ, believers, and to accept them unto eternal life."^[143] God alone determines who will be saved and his determination is that all who believe Jesus through faith will be justified. According to Arminius, "God regards no one in Christ unless they are engrafted in him by faith."^[143]

God predestines the elect to a glorious future: Predestination is not the predetermination of who will believe, but rather the predetermination of the believer's future inheritance. The elect are therefore predestined to sonship through adoption, glorification, and eternal life.^[144]

Related to eschatological considerations, Jacobus Arminius^[145] and the first Remonstrants, including Simon Episcopius^[146] believed in everlasting fire where the wicked are thrown by God at judgment day.

Preservation is conditional: All believers have full assurance of salvation with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned.^[147] Arminius believed the Scriptures taught that believers are graciously empowered by Christ and the Holy Spirit "to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies."^[148] Furthermore, Christ and the Spirit are ever present to aid and assist believers through various temptations. But this security was not unconditional but conditional—"provided they [believers] stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling."^[149][150]

Arminius believed in the possibility of apostasy. However, over the period of time he wrote on this question,^[151] he sometimes expressed himself more cautiously out of consideration for the faith of his readers.^[152][153] In 1599, he stated that the question required more scriptural examination.^[154] In his "Declaration of Sentiments" (1607), Arminius said, "I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect."^[155]

However, elsewhere Arminius expressed certainty about the possibility of falling away: In c. 1602, he noted that a person integrated into the church might resist God's work and that a believer's security rested solely in their choice not to abandon their faith.^[156][157] He argued that God's covenant did not eliminate the possibility of falling away but provided a gift of fear to keep individuals from defecting, as long as it thrived in their hearts.^[158] He then taught that had David died in sin, he would have been lost.^[159][135] In 1602, Arminius also wrote: "A believing member of Christ may become slothful, give place to sin, and gradually die altogether, ceasing to be a member".^[160]

For Arminius, a certain class of sin would cause a believer to fall, especially sin motivated by malice.^[135][161] In 1605 Arminius wrote: “But it is possible for a believer to fall into a mortal sin, as is seen in David. Therefore, he can fall at that moment in which if he were to die, he would be condemned".^[162] Scholars observe that Arminius clearly identifies two paths to apostasy 1. "rejection", or 2. "malicious sinning".^[163][135] He suggested that, strictly speaking, believers could not directly lose their faith but could cease to believe and thus fall away.^{[164][153][165]}

After the death of Arminius in 1609, his followers wrote a Remonstrance (1610) based quite literally on his Declaration of Sentiments (1607) which expressed prudence on the possibility of apostasy.^[163] In particular, its fifth article expressed the necessity of further study on the possibility of apostasy.^[166] Sometime between 1610 and the official proceeding of the Synod of Dort (1618), the Remonstrants became fully persuaded in their minds that the Scriptures taught that a true believer was capable of falling away from faith and perishing eternally as an unbeliever.^[167] They formalized their views in "The Opinion of the Remonstrants" (1618) which was their official stand during the Synod of Dort.^[168] They later expressed this same view in the Remonstrant Confession (1621).^[169]

Arminius maintained that if the apostasy came from "malicious" sin, then it was forgivable.^[135][170] If it came from "rejection" it was not.^[171] Following Arminius, the Remonstrants believed that, though possible, apostasy was not in general irremediable.^[172] However, other classical Arminians, including the Free Will Baptists, have taught that apostasy is irremediable.^[173][174]

John Wesley thoroughly agreed with the vast majority of what Arminius himself taught.^[25] Wesleyan Arminianism is a merger of classical Arminianism and Wesleyan perfectionism.^{[175][176][9]}

Wesley’s view of atonement is either understood as a hybrid of penal substitution and the governmental theory,^[177] or it is viewed solely as penal substitution.^{[178][179][180]} Historically, Wesleyan Arminians adopted either the penal or governmental theory of atonement.^[139]

In Wesleyan theology, justification is understood as the forgiveness of sins rather than being made inherently righteous. Righteousness is achieved through sanctification, which involves the pursuit of holiness in one's life.^[181] Wesley taught that imputed righteousness, which refers to the righteousness credited to a believer through faith, must transform into imparted righteousness, where this righteousness becomes evident in the believer’s life.^[182]

Wesley taught that through the Holy Spirit, Christians can achieve a state of practical perfection, or "entire sanctification", characterized by a lack of voluntary sin.^[183] This state involves embodying the love of God and neighbor.^[184] It does not mean freedom from all mistakes or temptations, as perfected Christians still need to seek forgiveness and strive for holiness. Ultimately, perfection in this context is about love, not absolute perfection.^[185]

Wesley believed that genuine Christians could apostatize. He emphasized that sin alone does not lead to this loss; instead, prolonged unconfessed sin and deliberate apostasy can result in a permanent fall from grace.^[186] However, he believed that such apostasy was not irremediable.^[187]

The majority Arminian view is that election is individual and based on God's foreknowledge of faith. In the corporate election view, God chose the believing church collectively for salvation, rather than selecting individuals.^[188] Jesus is seen as the only person elected, and individuals join the elect through faith "in Christ".^[189][190] This view is supported by Old Testament and Jewish concepts, where identity is rooted more in group membership than individuality.^[191]

Part of a series on
Protestantism
Outline
Concepts Anti-Protestantism Bible Criticism Culture Demographics Ecclesiology Liturgy Relations with Catholics Theologies Five Solas
History Proto-Protestantism Bohemian Reformation Reformation Magisterial Radical Counter Martin Luther Ninety-five Theses Augsburg Confession Huldrych Zwingli John Calvin Arminianism Crypto-Protestantism Nonconformists Dissenters Puritans John Wesley Pietism Great Awakenings in America Revival meetings
Branches Proto-Protestants Hussites Waldensians Lutherans Reformed Continental Presbyterians Congregational Anglicans Continuing Anabaptists Amish Hutterites Mennonites Quakers Baptists Methodists Radical Pietism Shakers Stone-Campbell Plymouth Brethren Adventist Irvings Holiness Keswickians Eastern Protestant Pentecostals United and uniting churches Nondenominational
Movements Augsburg Catholics Charismatics Confessionalism Confessing Movement Convergence Church Growth Ecumenism Emerging church Evangelicalism Fundamentalism High church Liberalism Mainlines Neo-charismatics Neo-orthodoxy New Calvinism Paleo-orthodoxy Progressivism Spiritual Christianity
Christianity portal

Pelagianism is a doctrine denying original sin and total depravity. No system of Arminianism founded on Arminius or Wesley denies original sin or total depravity;^[192] both Arminius and Wesley strongly affirmed that man's basic condition is one in which he cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek God.^[193] Arminius referred to Pelagianism as "the grand falsehood" and stated that he "must confess that I detest, from my heart, the consequences [of that theology]."^[194] This association is considered as libelous when attributed to Arminius' or Wesley's doctrine,^[195] and Arminians reject all accusations of Pelagianism.^[196][197]

Semi-Pelagianism holds that faith begins with human will, while its continuation and fulfillment depend on God's grace,^[84] giving it the label "human-initiated synergism".^[85] In contrast, both Classical and Wesleyan Arminianism affirm that prevenient grace from God initiates the process of salvation,^[198][199] a view sometimes referred to as "Semi-Augustinian", or "God-initiated synergism".^[96][92] Following the Reformation, Reformed theologians often categorized both "human-initiated synergism" and "God-initiated synergism" as "Semi-Pelagianism",^[200] often leading to mistaken belief that Arminianism aligned with Semi-Pelagianism.^[201][202]

Calvinism and Arminianism, while sharing historical roots and many theological doctrines, diverge notably on the concepts of divine predestination and election. While some perceive these differences as fundamental, others regard them as relatively minor distinctions within the broader spectrum of Christian theology.^[203]

• Human spiritual condition – Arminians agree with Calvinists on the doctrine of total depravity, but differ in their understanding of how God remedies this human condition.^[204]

• Nature of election – Arminians believe election to final salvation is conditional on faith,^[205] while Calvinists hold that unconditional election is based on God's predeterminism^[206] making Him the ultimate cause of everything, including human faith.^[207]
• Nature of grace – Arminians believe that, through prevenient grace, God universally restores the individual spiritual ability to choose and that subsequent justifying grace is resistible.^[208] Calvinists however, assert that God's effectual call is given only to the elect and that subsequent grace is irresistible.^[209]
• Extent of the atonement – Arminians, along with four-point Calvinists, advocate for a universal atonement, contrary to the Calvinist doctrine that atonement is limited to the elect.^[210] Both sides, excluding hyper-Calvinists, believe the Gospel invitation is universal and should be presented to everyone without distinction.^[211]
• Perseverance in faith – Arminians believe preservation to final salvation is conditional on faith and can be lost through apostasy. They contend for a present security in Christ, relying on His protection from all external forces.^[147] Calvinists, on the other hand, hold to the perseverance of the saints, asserting that the elect will persevere in faith until the end of their lives.^[212] However, a believer cannot know with certainty if they are elect until they reach the end.^[213] This leads to different interpretations on the assurance of final salvation within Calvinist circles.^[214][215]

The doctrine of open theism states that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, but differs on the nature of the future. Open theists claim that the future is not completely determined (or "settled") because people have not made their free decisions yet. God therefore knows the future partially in possibilities (human free actions) rather than solely certainties (divinely determined events).^[216] Some Arminians, reject open theism, viewing it as a distortion of traditional Arminianism.^[217] They believe it shifts away from classical Arminianism toward process theology.^[218] Others view it as a valid alternative perspective within Christianity, despite not aligning it with Arminian doctrine.^[219]

• Covenant theology
• Salvation in Christianity
• Grace in Christianity
• Sovereignty of God in Christianity
• Order of salvation
• Substitutionary atonement
  • Satisfaction theory
  • Penal theory
  • Governmental theory
• Justification
• Free will in theology
• Decisional regeneration
• Synergism
• Apostasy in Christianity

• The Society of Evangelical Arminians