Calvinism vs. Arminianism

Calvinism Arminianism

shirts at



  1. I have that shirt. Wear it all the time.

    One of my professors failed to see the humor and said to me, “Mr. Boulet, you should not make a mockery of the doctrines of grace.”

    Made the shirt even funnier to me.

    1. Calvinism is not “the doctrines of grace”. They just say it is. That premise remains to be proven.

  2. I try to take a 360 degree view, so as to approach the shirt from as wide of an angle as possible. And odds are there are angles I don’t even know about yet.

    It’s a shirt. It’s funny.

  3. It’s also a topic the best brains on earth haven’t got a clue on in terms of reconciling. Look into things deeper and you will see that Calvinism and Arminianism both speak the truth but both lack a proper understanding of the nature of time.

    So instead of delving into it deeper, we make shirts. Cool shirts. But nevertheless, shirts.

  4. This tension brings a dynamic to the Christian experience that keeps our finitude ever in view even as it promises our eternity.

  5. This is a gross misunderstanding of the doctrines of grace and i would advise you to take at least a little bit of caution in dealing with anything directly relating to God. It’s just not funny after you’re done laughing.

    And the guy who said arminianism and calvinism are both possible needs to go study some logic.

    1. Are you serious? Calvinism violates every know law of logic, and hence hides behind terms like :paradox” and antinomies. That’s what they call the blatant contradictions to Scripture, logic, our sense of justice and every day life experience. Calvinism has to be taken on a lot of “faith” because evidence from every direction comes against it.

  6. C.S.
    What can be argued from logic in this discussion? There is somewhat of a paradox here that defies logic.

    There are many who have tried to bring these two notions together. Some with cliche phrases and others with “logic,” but can this be done?


    Would you not agree that there are matters in the plan of God and extend beyond our ability to fathom? I would suggest that anything beginning with “omni” would have to fall into this category.

    On account of this, I find it increasingly difficult to argue from either side, from the middle, or even from 360 different angles.

    That he made an effort is to be commended. I made an effort in college and years later read of how I had resolved that paradox by holding both in the tension of compatibility (or coherentism).

    It humored me.

    I laughed at my effort.

    But maybe he has done a better job than I. Maybe I should read his paper and reflect on his thoughts. Maybe you should do the same before making such bold statements.

    Do you think it wise to mock a person for trying to bring resolution to a difficult subject. Can you tell me that he has not or will not come to a deeper understanding of God’s grace through all of this.

    Maybe we ought to pray to this end.

    Not that he might end up on one side of the fence or the other, but that he might come to know God better.

    Maybe we pray this for ourselves.

  7. I believe that Satan would love to divide Christians on these such matters. But I challenge Christians, work together and get out there and start sharing the Gospel. Scripture is clear that we are called to do that. In love brothers and sisters Seek first the kingdom of God.

  8. Justin, I would have to agree with you the sense that this doctrine should not inhibit us from sharing and preaching the gospel to all parts of the world. On the other hand I do not want to neglect the fact that this doctrinal issue should be set aside.
    I belive scriptiure is clear on this issue.
    If you look at even one attribute of God, for example his soverginty, it would reveal the inconsitancies of Arminianism.
    These inconsitancies are shown by removing God’s soverignty and leaving the first step of up to the individual in order to recive salvation rather than reciveing grace from God in order that we may see our sinfull nature and repent. By saying that an individual has the ability to choose God with out his grace would be contrary to ROMANS 9.
    As I said before, This doctrine should not inhibit our preaching of the gospel.
    Don’t misunderstand me I’m not a hypercalvinist. We are not called to leave the spreading of the gospel to God alone, but rather he has given us a divine mandate to do so.
    J I Packer wrote a good book on this called, “Evangelisim and the Soverignty of God”

    Through the perspicuty of scripture and carefull meditation one can see that God’s word resonunds with his soverignty through a number of facits one being our devine ellection.

  9. **corection to my prior comment***
    This issue should NOT be set aside.

    Grace and peace be to you brothers and sisters in christ.

  10. The problem with Arminianism is that it puts limits on what God can do. If Jesus died for all sins to be forgiven, then He failed if some go to hell. Yes, we have free will, but within the context that God rules sovereignly and we can only do that which He allows.

    I would recommend to anybody who really wants to get a good idea of the reasons behind why God has an elect…go and read the foreword (and then obviously the rest of the book) of Foundations of Grace by Steve Lawson. John MacArthur does an amazing job of breaking it all down and I feel even more honored to even be involved in the whole process of God showing love to Jesus.

  11. The point is that the wearer of the shirt is somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism…nobody seems to get that.


    1. Well said, Rick.
      “The wearer of the shirt is somewhere in between” and both doctrines are wrapped all around said person (what I have been saying all along, though you have done so with fewer words).

      Often we argue from the “emphasis” that we choose to embrace (or the emphasis that has chosen us) and we find our perspective quite logical from our “emphasis” and all other perspectives absent of logic from our “emphasis.” Then there are some who find themselves caught between both emphases and struggle with that tension.

  12. Romans 9 does not support Calvinist ideology. Read Romans 11 very carefully and see why.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s