My understanding of Calvinism is that they don't even discount free will completely, but it would be better for people more familiar with it to expound on it.
I've never found the subject be resolved between the two theologies.
However, Both Calvinists and Arminians hold to salvation by grace through faith in Christ, not of works.
The only *wildly divergent* interpretations occur between Catholicism and Protestantism, not within Protestantism. Claiming that Protestantism is that divided is just an attempt to portray Non-Catholic churches to have more division within them than exists in order to portray the Catholic church in a better light, claiming that it's unified, therefore, better some how.
Joshua 24:14-15 14 "Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
It's more than a claim, they are divided, they divide themselves over theology. Protestant churches have split over this very issue in the past, likely more will in the future.
Yada yada, change the subject.
The subject was the validity of the claim of sola scriptura guided by the Holy Spirit. Specifically your disagreement with the statement: "individual Protestants can have wildly divergent interpretations of scripture and still be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit."
Examples were produced of one example concerning salvation by election vs. free will which you pronounced as not wildly divergent.
It would seem the history of Calvinism vs. Arminianism alone (ignoring other subjects and interpretations with different theology among sola scriptura churches) would suffice to convince otherwise.
Not so apparently. Your claim expands to "Protestanism is not that divided" in order to minimize the differences in interpretation. I think clear facts are otherwise. A couple of examples from just one denomination over this issue only:
Calvinism creates Baptist dissension
"It went against everything I'd been taught growing up in Southern Baptist churches," Batson said. "It didn't teach that I'd made a choice. It taught the opposite, that God had made a choice. That's frightening when you first see it."An Interview with Dr. Frank S. Page, President and CEO of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention (Oct. 18, 2011)Batson's fright soon gave way to a more fervent belief in God's sovereignty in choosing an elect group to save. But the majority at Lee Road didn't agree. After much dissension, Batson, pastor Dean, associate pastor Johnny Touchet and approximately 130 others left eight months ago to form a new Taylors church, Covenant Baptist."…
…"The Bible teaches both viewpoints, and they're diametrically opposed,"agreed the Rev. Tony Beam, pastor of Pleasant Grove Baptist Church in Fountain Inn. "
In July, 115 people left Mount Pisgah Baptist Church in Easley to form Mount Moriah Baptist, which calls itself theologically Reformed instead of Calvinist…
The state's regional Baptist associations invited a Columbia pastor, Dr. Dick Lincoln, to speak about Calvinism at a statewide conference a few weeks ago. He handed out a sheet that included a list of "Scriptural Reasons I Am Not a Calvinist."
In more recent history, the controversy has rolled through the Southern Baptist Convention as pastors wrestled with the implications of inerrancy. For every Acts 13:48 that Calvinists point to, Arminians answer with a Romans 10:13: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."…
"I think one of the issues which is a tremendous challenge for us is the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism. Everyone is aware of this, but few want to talk about this in public. The reason is obvious. It is deeply divisive in many situations and is disconcerting in others. At some point we are going to see the challenges which are ensuing from this divide become even more problematic for us. I regularly receive communications from churches who are struggling over this issue."And again, these cites are to exemplify the degree of divergence: big enough to split churches over.
The argument is that: individual Protestants/denominations can not have these "divisive," "opposite," and "diametrically opposed," interpretations of scripture and still be infallibly guided by the (same) Holy Spirit. By definition.
Another great joke!! These outright detours around the Trugh and attempts at diversion just aren't working for ya'll. People realize that for all the talking about Scripture the "Sola Yourselfa" crowd does, 90% or more of their arguments start with something taken out of context or a statement equivllent to, "that's what it says, but that's not what it means".
The falsehood of "essential and nonessential doctrine" which is found nowhere in Scripture was whipped up in hopes of papering over the thousands of differences between the various Protestant and Protestant derived groups. If there are no wildly divergent interpretations no such false doctrine would have ever been dreamed up.
None of the current crop of Fundamentalists is going to feel very comfortable in a Southern Baptist Church for long due to the differences in their doctrines and the Southern Baptists and Fundamentalists are much closer together than many other groups are. No sincere Southern Baptist is going to sit through many Presbyterian sermons nor would they offend Christ by entering an Episcopalian church where a queer is the ordained pastor. So sure, pretend these things aren't differences in doctrine if you like but no one is buying it. Everyone knows better and everyone knows that there aren't tens of thousands of different denominations and nondenominations just because they each like different sorts of tablecloths and silverware at their Church picnics.
It's just like Bologna about there being no priesthood and denying that even though God the Father Himself punished Core for the heresy of, "the priesthood of all believers" it's no longer an issue. Pretend all you like, but it's just not so and anyone who doesn't throw out portions of their Bible and ignore other portions knows better. That's why there's the need to have a separate instruction on how to deal with accusations against a priest, they're a separate and identifiable group. It's also why you're told to obey the prelates over us, something not possible if each and every individual interpreter of Scripture is supposed to be their own priest and the ultimate authority for themselves in all matters of faith and morals.
Or, to avoid obeying Scripture, do some folks just throw Scripture they don't like rather than twisting and distorting the clear meaning of The Word the way they twist direct quotes of what Christ Himself said? Claiming to believe in Scripture only after throwing out portions of the Bible that were accepted as Scripture by Christ, the Apostles, and the Berans so many claim to admire isn't even a clever ploy, it's another example of how those who pursue heresy always trip themselves up with their own doctrine. It's always clear that the doctrine they claim to uphold is something to disguise the heresy they're indulging in. Mo did it when he started Iz Lame by admitting that Satan guided him, the Mormons do it by claiming to believe the Bible but accept a prophet after John the Baptist, and the "Sola Yourselfa" crowd give themselves away by first throwing out portions of the Bible and only then claim to believe in Scripture alone.
To complete the discussion:
You’ve seen on this thread such divergent interpretations on baptism, the Holy Trinity and Unitarianism, the Eucharist and salvation doctrine divergent enough ( termed “opposite,” and “diametrically opposed, by pastors involved) to split congregations.
The position that sola scriptura does not result in individual Protestants with wildly divergent interpretations of scripture while claiming to be infallibly guided by the same Holy Spirit is shown to be false.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/Blueprint%20For%20Anarchy
http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2008/04/doctrinal-chaos-argument-one-of.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/12/special-pleading-of-sola-ecclesia-ists.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2010/05/patrick-madrid-is-evil.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/vicious-circle.html
http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html
http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/TheGreatSchism.htm