Reformed vs. arminian vs. catholic


i am invovled in an ongoing conversation with a protestant friend about salvation doctrine. when i pointed out some of the fallicies of protestant doctrine, i was pleased to find out that he does not accept many of the typical protestant doctrines on salvation that i am familar with. his presentation of salvation doctrines is very close to the Catholic view, he even accepts some notion of purgatory. he claims that most of my objections were directed at reformed theology, which he rejects. he claims to be an arminian of weslyn tradition (and is a seminarian). obviously, though, there are some differences but i am not sure what they are. I need help:

what are the differences between reformed and arminian?
what are the major differences between arminian and Catholic doctrine on salvation?
any references to apologetic works specifically directed at arminian or weslyn doctrine?

any help would be appreciated,



My understanding is that John Wesley rejected what he called the ‘hateful doctrine’ of double predestination, i.e. the concept that God selected some people for damnation before time began. His Arminianism was one that stressed that salvation was available for all people. The question is how is salvation available. I’m not sure whether or not Welsey believed in baptismal regeneration rather than salvation solely by faith, but I think he did. If a sacramental view is accepted, then the question is how is the covenant with Jesus mediated. Scott Hahn’s writing and teaching on the sacraments is very powerful as good apologetics in this regard.


The problem with Wesley’s view (and Arminian views in general) is while they rightly reject double-predestination, they unbiblically deny single predestination. To the best of my knowledge, on the sacraments, Wesley was an Anglican in his views.

The Weslyan tradition, however, is fairly anti-sacramental. They developed a typical Holiness movement attitude toward them and focus instead on spiritual piety and ‘Holy Spirit’ baptism. They reject infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. They also teach a form of perfectionism. Methodists would be closer to the Anglican view of these subjects.


My understanding is that Arminianism goes back to Jacob Arminius in the early 17th century. It was basically an offshoot of Calvinism and was condemned at the Synod of Dort in 1618 when the 5 points of Calvinism were given. (TULIP). Armineans believed that God’s predestination was based on his foreknowledge of the choice people would make. They believe in the total depravity of man, that atonement is available to all, that salvation is by grace through faith alone. God’s grace can be resisted and salvation is dependent on continuing faith. Atonement is on the basis of penal substitution. God’s grace makes everyone capable of having faith.

Weslyian Arminianism arose from Anglicanism and agrees with much of classical Arminianism. However in its view salvation is not really on the basis of penal substitution. It is primarily a reconciliation with God. Unlike classical Armineans, Wesleyism believes that if someone loses faith they can regain it.Perfection is possible in this life in the sense of purity of intent in loving God and others.

If I am in error then perhaps some Methodist friend could correct me.


They are just minor distinctions between the various heresies of the protestants.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit