Why can’t there be a mixing of the two views to produce what is sometimes called “Cal-minianism”?
- ‘The gap between them at several points is wide and deep. It centers around the middle three points of the famous TULIP scheme: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. While Arminians accept divine election, they believe it is conditional. While they accept a form of limited atonement, they reject the idea that God sent Christ to die only for a portion of humanity. The atonement’s limited nature is grounded not in God’s intention but in human response. Only those who accept the grace of the cross are saved by God; those who reject it and seek salvation elsewhere fail to be included in it by their own choice, much to God’s dismay. While Arminians embrace the necessity of supernatural grace for salvation (as for any spiritual good, including the first stirring of the will toward God), they deny that God irresistibly bends human wills so that they are effectually saved apart from their own spontaneous (not autonomous) response.’
-Roger Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, p. 63.
(Các Đoạn 39-42, 48-49 GSiV: Xem chi tiết)
(Election: Xem Chi Tiết)