The age-old debate between Calvinism and Arminianism continues to resonate within evangelical Christianity. While the post-World War II era saw a unified evangelical front, recent tensions, particularly a new stridency among some Reformed theologians, threaten this harmony. This article explores the historical roots of this theological divide, its contemporary manifestations, and the potential for finding common ground amidst disagreement.
Historical Roots of the Divide: From Dort to the Great Awakenings
The theological distinctions between Calvinism and Arminianism trace back to the early 17th century with Jacob Arminius’s challenge to certain Calvinist doctrines, leading to the Synod of Dort in 1618. This synod solidified the “five points” of Calvinism (TULIP: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints) and condemned Arminian views on free will, conditional election, and resistible grace.
This theological rift continued to shape the landscape of Protestantism, influencing movements like the Mennonites and Anabaptists, the Church of England, and even figures like John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards during the Great Awakenings. The debate also impacted denominations like the Baptists, dividing them into “Particular” (Calvinist) and “General” (Arminian) branches.
Arminianism and Calvinism: Two Sides of the Same Evangelical Coin?
Despite historical disagreements, Arminians and Calvinists have coexisted within the broader evangelical movement. Both affirm core evangelical tenets such as the authority of Scripture, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith. However, key differences remain on issues like predestination, free will, and the nature of grace.
Arminians emphasize God’s universal love and desire for all to be saved, highlighting verses like 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9. They believe in prevenient grace, enabling all to respond to the Gospel, but maintain that this grace is resistible. This perspective often leads to a focus on evangelism and missions.
Calvinists, conversely, underscore God’s sovereignty and control, emphasizing passages like Romans 9. They believe in God’s meticulous providence and unconditional election, asserting that God chooses who will be saved. This view often results in a strong emphasis on God’s glory and human dependence.
The Contemporary Landscape: “Hate Me Today, Love Me Tomorrow?”
The recent resurgence of a more strident Calvinism, questioning the evangelical credentials of Arminians, threatens the delicate balance within the movement. Organizations like CURE and ACE champion a “monergistic” view of salvation, emphasizing God’s sole activity in salvation and excluding any human cooperation.
This renewed emphasis on theological distinctions raises concerns about the future of evangelical unity. While robust theological debate is healthy, excluding those who hold differing views on secondary doctrines undermines the movement’s collective witness and effectiveness. Can both sides learn to co-exist and appreciate their unique contributions to the broader evangelical family?
Finding Common Ground: A Call for Unity and Humility
Despite their differences, Arminians and Calvinists share a common love for Christ and commitment to the Gospel. Rather than focusing on points of disagreement, both sides should seek to understand and appreciate the other’s perspective.
Arminians can learn from the Calvinist emphasis on God’s sovereignty and the depth of human sinfulness. Calvinists can benefit from the Arminian focus on God’s universal love and the importance of evangelism. Ultimately, humility and mutual respect are crucial for maintaining unity within the body of Christ.
Conclusion: Beyond “Hate Me Today”
While the “Hate Me Today” sentiment might capture the frustration of some within the debate, it should not define the relationship between Arminian and Calvinist evangelicals. By recognizing their shared commitment to core evangelical beliefs, focusing on common ground, and practicing humility, both sides can contribute to a stronger and more unified evangelical movement. The future of evangelicalism depends on it.
