Can Arminians and Calvinists Get Along in the Same Church?

Many people don't believe it is possible for Arminians and Calvinists to attend the same church, or even belong to the same denomination.  I believe they can, and I'm not the only one.  I am close to finishing a book called Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, edited by non-Calvinists David Allen and Steve Lemke.  The authors make a number of important points about protecting unity without compromising your beliefs on soteriology.  From the beginning, the editors express their sincere desire for unity with their Calvinist brothers.  They even quote from Jacob Arminius himself.  "May God grant that we all may fully agree in those things which are necessary to His glory and to the salvation of the church; and that in other things, if there can not be harmony of opinions, there may at least be harmony of feelings, and that we may 'keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.'"  It sounds like Arminius had a heart for unity and didn't want to divide over the issue.

This has not always been achieved.  In the early seventeenth century, a number of Dutch Reformed theologians challenged the teachings of Calvinism in a document called the Remonstrance.  These men were called the Remonstrants; they were the early Arminians.  In response, the Dutch Reformed Church held a council called the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) to resolve the dispute.  They formulated the Canons of Dort, or what came to be known as the Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP).  But they didn't merely clarify their position, they condemned Arminianism, persecuted the Remonstrants, "forced them out of their churches, arrested and imprisoned them, banished and exiled them, and even beheaded one of them (Calvinism, p. 4).  Clearly, if we're not careful this debate can get ugly.

In the introduction to Calvinism, Allen and Lemke write, "The contributors [of this book book] are not 'anti-Calvinist' and therefore are interested in dialogue, not diatribe... We claim Calvinistic believers as fellow believers and work hand in hand with them as we serve the Lord together.  However, we honestly disagree with some of their points of theology.  Our hope is that disagreement can occur in an irenic Christian spirit, without disagreeableness or harshness (p. 11)."

However, the answer is not to avoid the debate and not touch it.  This is no doubt how some churches handle the issue.  In the spirit of unity, some pastors prefer to sweep the issue under the rug and discourage any discussion.  Some brush it off as unimportant and uninteresting.  Still others even accuse those who engage in the debate of being divisive.  But I don't think it is wrong to study and discuss theological issues.  God wants us to love Him with all our minds; i.e., to think correct thoughts about Him.  I prefer the stance taken by the editors of Calvinism, articulated by Nathan Finn:  "If we are to move toward a more cooperative future, we must all be committed to defending and commending our particular convictions but not at the expense of either our cooperation with one another or our personal sanctification (quoted in Calvinism, p. 11)."

While Allen and Lemke's book disagrees with Calvinism, the editors proved their desire for unity by inviting a Calvinist to write the epilogue about how Arminians and Calvinists can get along and work together for the gospel.  The author is Trevin Wax, and he makes some very good points that will help our church stay unified without having to agree on this issue.  

Wax's first point might be the most important.  "We must not confuse the debate over Calvinism with the definition of the gospel itself."  Even Charles Spurgeon committed this error, saying, "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."  I've seen this first hand.  Recently I was watching a video by a Calvinist about why the "young, restless & reformed" movement died.  I enjoyed the video, but I noticed that the creator equated the five points of Calvinism with the gospel itself, so I reached out to him about it.  Here was my question:  "Southern Baptist Arminian here.  I enjoyed the video.  One problem I have is that you seemed to repeatedly equate Calvinism with the gospel.  Do you believe that those who don't agree with Calvinism don't believe in the gospel?  Does this mean that non-Calvinists aren't saved?  How many of the doctrines of grace do you need to affirm to believe "the gospel"?  All five points?  Many Baptist Calvinists reject limited atonement.  Are they not preaching the whole gospel?  Here's my point:  It is extremely divisive to equate Calvinism with the gospel.  Division is not always a bad thing.  I'm just asking for clarification.  I hear this often from Calvinists.  If indeed you equate Calvinism with the gospel, then there can be no fellowship between Calvinists and Arminians.  Right?"  The creator responded simply, "You don't need to affirm Calvinism to be saved.  Thanks for the comment!"  I appreciate the clarification, but I wanted more.  If you don't need to affirm Calvinism to be saved, then Calvinism can't be the gospel.  The creator either needs to say that he will stop conflating the two, or explain why he repeatedly did so in the video.  

Some of the other comments on the video were not so nice and revealed the true beliefs of many Calvinists.  One commenter wrote about Arminianism, "Free will and synergy.  This is not the gospel.  This is not Christianity... Arminianism is a dangerous theology."  I actually thanked one Calvinist commenter for his honesty.  He said that Calvinism is a first-order doctrine, and that "to deny election is to deny gospel truth," and that those who deny election are not Christians.  I know this is what many Calvinists believe, so it was refreshing to hear one admit to it.  Conflating Calvinism and Arminianism with the gospel will never fail to divide.  If Calvinism/Arminianism is the gospel, then it should divide us, but it is not the gospel.  

Trevin Wax writes about the importance of "theological triage," an analogy coined by Al Mohler.  Theological triage is a system of prioritization, similar to the way that "doctors, when encountering multiple people with health challenges, must develop a process to determine which injuries need the most urgent attention."  Doctrines also have different levels of importance.  First-order doctrines must be affirmed to be a Christian, such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the death and resurrection of Christ.  Second-order doctrines must be affirmed to belong to the same local church.  This is specified in a church's doctrinal statement.  Third-order doctrines allow for disagreement within the church.  Wax, designates Calvinism and Arminianism as a third-order doctrine, so that people can have multiple views within the congregation or among the church leadership.  I agree.  If you elevate Calvinism and Arminianism to a first or second-order doctrine, then unity in the church is not possible.  As long as we remember that it is a third-order doctrine, then we can get along.  

If Calvinism is a third-order doctrine, then that means we need to disagree without being disagreeable or uncharitable or disrespectful.  Don't call the other side heretics, or false teachers, or semi-Pelagians, or bad Christians.  Don't say things like, "Calvinism is the gospel."  

For the sake of brevity, I'll only mention one other point that Trevin Wax makes about Calvinists and Arminians getting along in the same church.  "Avoid making arguments based not on your opponent's beliefs but on the potential trajectory of those beliefs."  This is called the slippery-slope fallacy.  It is an argument that says if you embrace A, it will inevitably lead to you embracing B.  Wax writes, "It's one thing to point out the path from one position to a more problematic position, but it's another thing entirely to claim that the current position necessarily entails the more problematic or inexorably leads to the problematic position.  When we do the latter, we find a person who holds position 1 (or at least suspect) of holding position 2."  Another way to put it is that Calvinists and Arminians "must take care in debate to not ascribe something to their opponent falsely.  Point out inconsistencies, yes, but do not misrepresent your brother or sister.  Do not claim that Calvinists make God out to be the author of evil when you know that Calvinism rejects such an idea.  Likewise, do not claim that Arminians are really just Pelagian or semi-Pelagian, when you know that non-Calvinists insist on the important distinctions that separate their view from heresy."  For example, Arminians must not say that Calvinism inevitably leads to a loss of evangelistic zeal.  In fact, many of the greatest soul-winners in history are Calvinists.  And Calvinists must not say that Arminianism leads to theological liberalism.  Unfortunately, theologian Tom Nettles of Southern Seminary made this mistake, claiming that "the bulwark against theological liberalism is a robust Calvinism."  In an article on the website of Founders Ministries, Nettles wrote, "A soteriology without Calvinism is a path to bad religion and compromised churches."  Tell us how you really feel, Dr. Nettles!  In response, Wax admits, "This idea overlooks the degeneration of once-robustly Calvinist denominations such as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as well as the leap of some Calvinists to universalism.  It also overlooks the fact that non-Calvinist leaders were the ones who led the charge in bringing the SBC back from the brink of liberalism (with the collaboration, of course, of Calvinists who held a high view of Scripture)."  I can give you many examples of this.  The Reformed Church in America split in 2022 split over disagreements of same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ clergy.  The Christian Reformed Church of North America voted in 2024 that LGBTQ-affirming churches must repent or leave.  By June of this year, 34 churches had left, and that number was expected to grow.  Calvinist churches and denominations sometimes go liberal, but it would be unfair to blame it on their Calvinism.  It's also unfair to blame a church's or denomination's liberal shift on their Arminianism.  

I want our church to be a big tent, including both Arminians and Calvinists.  I believe we can achieve this, and not by avoiding the topic.  I'm a passionate Arminian and will continue to teach the Bible from an Arminian perspective.  The way to achieve unity is to remember that Arminianism/Calvinism is a third-order doctrine.  It is not on par with the gospel, and your view on the subject is not indicative of your level of piety, biblical literacy, or orthodoxy.  If a doctrine is not clearly specified in the church's doctrinal statement (for us, the BFM 2000), then it is fair game.  We can disagree, but only in a way that is respectful and not distracting from the mission of the church -- to win souls and make disciples of Jesus Christ.