1. Hyper-Calvinism
Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism. Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.
2. Ultra High Calvinism
Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect. Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America
3. High Calvinism
Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect. Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink
4. Moderate Calvinism
Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace. Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney
5. Low Calvinism
Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace, Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal
6. Lutheranism
Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt
7. American Baptist
Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers
8. Arminianism
Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion. Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists
copyright Rev Jonathan James Goundry
Feileadh Mor 
Pingback: Are Baptists Calvinists? - Christian Forums
Pingback: 1Timothy 2:4 by CH Spurgeon - Page 15 - Christian Forums
Pingback: The Cool Chart - Christian Forums
Pingback: Calvinism=Total Freedom for man? - Page 5 - Christian Forums
Pingback: Hyper-calvinism - Page 6 - Christian Forums
Pingback: 2010 in review « Feileadh Mor
Pingback: Moderate Calvinism? - Page 2 - Christian Forums
Pingback: What type of Christian ["Calvinist"] are you? - Page 4 - Christian Forums
Pingback: The calvinism chart - Christian Forums
Pingback: calvinism - Page 7 - Christian Forums
Pingback: Total Depravity - Page 10 - Christian Forums
This is pretty good but needs some cleaning up on a couple of points, I think. #5 should be renamed Amyraldianism. Showing the difference between Lutheranism & Calvinism & Arminianism is very helpful, but the chart should probably be renamed as only 2-4 are actually Calvinism. #7 should probably be renamed “General/Freewill Baptist.” Finally, I’m not sure Arminius believed folks could lose their salvation, but remained unsure. Also, an interesting note can be found in Gordon Clark’s book “What do Presbyterians Believe” where he hints at the possibility of justification from eternity, but doesn’t pursue it. I do know he thought highly of John Gill’s theology though.
Throw me in category #2! 😀
Hi Patrick,
Arminius on THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS:
My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies — yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual.
Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, 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; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration.
Yours in the Lord,
jason
Good quote! I suppose that answers that question. It would also seem to place Arminius in group #7, haha…
You may want to add a last option: Open Theism. The belief that God is free to choose what He wants to know. God is not forced to know things He does not want to know.
I removed the links in your comment promoting open theism.
God is omniscient, meaning, He is all knowing and decrees what He knows will be. “All learning” as open theism suggests is not a characteristic of God found in special revelation. see also anthropomorphism
The links I posted gave evidence against your Calvinism. I suspect that is the real reason you deleted them. Calvinism is antithetical to the Bible and is purely platonism. The Bible shows God acting in time, repenting, and growing with his children. To illustrate the entire theme of the Bible, God does not do things He thought He was going to do:
Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Wouldn’t God have to know a proposition in order to choose not to know it? Let alone what damage such a doctrine would do to the immutability and simplicity of God…
This article claims the basis of Arminian salvation is freewill but Arminian primary sources reject the caricature that the will is the basis of salvation in Arminian soteriology.
“Because prevenient grace has justification and sanctification in view and not all are justified and neither is sanctification ever complete or perfect even for the most holiest of saints, prevenient grace is also said to be resistible in both its justification and sanctification modes of operation. Positively, in acceptance, prevenient grace is said to be passive and negatively, in rejection, the heart is said to be active—a volitional stand against God and the willful suppression of truth (cf. Paul’s argument in Romans 1*). Consequently, arguments against prevenient grace that hold as a premise that the human will is the basis of salvation, are simply in error—although they are very common. So common that I’ll state it again: arguments against freewill are not addressing Arminian theology. The only people who give a hoot about freewill are under-informed lay persons, philosophers, and Calvinist apologists who believe they are addressing Arminian soteriology in a meaningful way when they talk about free will but are, in fact, not addressing Arminian soteriology because Arminian soteriology is based upon how grace is thought to work and not how the human will is thought to work.”
Source: http://evangelicalarminians.org/what-are-those-arminians-thinking/