What's the big deal about calvinisms?

[ViaCrucis]

I may be missing something but I don't see a significant different between the two positions, only that that the same concept is expressed differently by the 2 groups. Also, I find Arminius to be close theologically to Melanchthon. The following article discusses this to some degree:

The Common Ground of Lutherans and Arminians With Regard to the Free Will of Men

Here is what the Lutheran Confessions say,

"For since man with [respect to] his free will is found and can be considered in four distinct, dissimilar states, the question at present is not what was the condition of the same before the Fall, or what he is able to do since the Fall and before his conversion in external things which pertain to this temporal life; also not what sort of a free will he will have in spiritual things after he has been regenerated and is controlled by God's Spirit, or when he rises from the dead. But the principal question is only and alone, what the intellect and will of the unregenerate man is able to do in his conversion and regeneration from his own powers remaining after the Fall; whether he is able, when the Word of God is preached, and the grace of God is offered us, to prepare himself for grace, accept the same, and assent thereto. This is the question upon which, for quite a number of years now, there has been a controversy among some theologians in the churches of the Augsburg Confession.

For the one side has held and taught that, although man cannot from his own powers fulfil God's command, or truly trust in God, fear and love Him, without the grace of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless he still has so much of natural powers left before regeneration as to be able to prepare himself to a certain extent for grace, and to assent, although feebly; however, that he cannot accomplish anything by them, but must succumb in the struggle, if the grace of the Holy Ghost is not added thereto.

Moreover [On the other side], both the ancient and modern enthusiasts have taught that God converts men, and leads them to the saving knowledge of Christ through His Spirit, without any created means and instrument, that is, without the external preaching and hearing of God's Word.

Against both these parties the pure teachers of the Augsburg Confession have taught and contended that by the fall of our first parents man was so corrupted that in divine things pertaining to our conversion and the salvation of our souls he is by nature blind, that, when the Word of God is preached, he neither does nor can understand it, but regards it as foolishness; also, that he does not of himself draw nigh to God, but is and remains an enemy of God, until he is converted, becomes a believer [is endowed with faith], is regenerated and renewed, by the power of the Holy Ghost through the Word when preached and heard, out of pure grace, without any cooperation of his own." - The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Article II, 3-5

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Andrewn]

without any cooperation of his own.

This is probably the contended phrase. The following quotation is from a Greek Orthodox site, but I think it is consistent with the Arminian view:

"God calls us by presenting the good to us in a form which, if we respond to it properly, can lead us to Him. Yet our will must be receptive, and so the call is, as Chrysostom puts it, “persuasive” (προτρεπτική) rather than “compulsory” (βιαστική)."

I don't think it is accurate to represent human beings as robots as in the phrase you quoted from the Formula of Concord.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is probably the contended phrase. The following quotation is from a Greek Orthodox site, but I think it is consistent with the Arminian view:

"God calls us by presenting the good to us in a form which, if we respond to it properly, can lead us to Him. Yet our will must be receptive, and so the call is, as Chrysostom puts it, “persuasive” (προτρεπτική) rather than “compulsory” (βιαστική)."

I don't think it is accurate to represent human beings as robots as in the phrase you quoted from the Formula of Concord.

We aren't robots, nor is that what the Formula of Concord is saying.

The question of the will is entirely in regard to spiritual matters.

For example, there's no question about us having a "free will" as it pertains to mundane matters. We aren't robots, we have the power of volition, which is why we are morally culpable for our thoughts, words, and actions.

-CryptoLutheran