I disagree with the statement that “both views are true.” While Christians who hold differing views of salvation are our brothers and sisters in Christ, two theological positions that make contradictory claims about the basis of salvation cannot both be correct in the same sense.
Throughout church history, these questions have been carefully debated. Views emphasizing human ability and freedom have appeared in various forms, including Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism (Remonstrant theology), Wesleyan Arminianism, Molinism, and more recently Open Theism. On the other hand, the doctrines of sovereign grace were articulated by Augustine, recovered with renewed clarity during the Protestant Reformation, and expressed by the Reformers and the historic Reformed confessions.
These are not minor differences. They concern the nature of God’s grace, the extent of human inability after the Fall, the order of salvation, election, perseverance, and ultimately whether salvation is monergistic, God’s work from beginning to end, or synergistic, involving the cooperation of the human will.
That is why I believe we must approach these doctrines with humility, prayer, and careful exegesis. Like the Bereans (Acts 17:11), we should search the Scriptures daily, asking the Holy Spirit to illuminate His Word, always willing to submit our theology to what God has revealed rather than what we might prefer to be true.
Pelagianism (denies original sin and teaches natural human ability)
Semi-Pelagianism (grace assists, but the first move toward God comes from man)
Arminianism / Remonstrant theology (affirms original sin but teaches prevenient grace enables a free response)
Wesleyan Arminianism (similar to Arminianism with an emphasis on prevenient grace)
Molinism (God’s middle knowledge reconciles sovereignty and libertarian freedom)
Open Theism (God voluntarily limits His knowledge of future free acts)
J.