Calvinism and Arminianism: A Family Conversation

The words themselves—Calvinism and Arminianism—can sound intimidating, like the kind of antiquated theological vocabulary reserved for seminary professors arguing over coffee and dusty commentaries. Yet every so often (like during this weekend's Sunday School class in Ephesians), it's clear these words and their related discussions aren’t purely academic exercises.

The Heart of the Matter

They’re family conversations within the church, growing out of the most pressing questions believers face:

• Does God choose us, or do we choose Him?
• How much freedom do we really have when it comes to salvation?
• Can a true believer lose their salvation?
• How do God’s sovereignty and human responsibility fit together without contradiction?

Calvinists and Arminians answer these questions differently, but a fair and charitable spirit admits both camps share the same prevailing commitment: to honor God’s Word and magnify His grace. This is an “in-house” discussion among believers who love Christ and hold to Scripture’s authority.

Calvinism in Brief

Calvinism (sometimes called Reformed theology) takes its name from John Calvin, one of the great Protestant Reformers. At its core, Calvinism emphasizes – among other things – the sovereignty of God in salvation.

It’s important to remember, however, that Calvinism—or Reformed theology more broadly—is much larger than the so-called “five points of Calvinism,” often summarized by the acronym TULIP. Those five points were never meant to serve as a complete system of Calvinist doctrine, but arose at the Synod of Dort (1618–19) as a direct reply to the Arminian Remonstrance (protest). Reformed theology as a whole sets forth a far richer vision than the five points: the glory of God over every sphere of life, covenant theology as a framework for reading Scripture, the centrality of worship and the sacraments, the vital role of the church, and the sovereignty of God not only in salvation but in creation and providence.

Still, the five points remain a helpful summary of how Reformed theology understands salvation:

• Total Depravity: Sin has so thoroughly corrupted us that apart from God’s sovereign intervention, we cannot even take the first step toward Him. We’re not merely sick; we’re spiritually dead (Romans 3:10–12; Ephesians 2:1–3; Jeremiah 17:9; John 8:34).
• Unconditional Election: Before the foundation of the world, God chose to save a people for Himself—not based on foreseen faith or merit, but purely from His sovereign grace and purpose (Ephesians 1:3–6; Romans 9:11–13; John 15:16; 2 Timothy 1:9).
• Limited (or Definite) Atonement (Particular Redemption): Christ’s death did not merely make salvation possible; it actually secured salvation for the elect. His atonement is sufficient for all but efficient only for those the Father gave Him (John 10:14–15; Matthew 1:21; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25).
• Irresistible Grace: When God calls someone to Himself, His grace is effectual. The Spirit overcomes the sinner’s resistance and draws them freely and willingly into faith (John 6:37, 44; Romans 8:30; Acts 16:14).
• Perseverance of the Saints: Those whom God has justified He will also glorify. True believers will be preserved by God’s power and persevere to the end (Philippians 1:6; Jude 24; John 10:28–29; 1 Peter 1:5).

At its best, Calvinism underscores the sheer sovereignty of God, the certainty of His saving work, and the believer’s unshakable security in Christ.

Arminianism in Brief

Arminianism bears the name of Jacob Arminius, a Dutch pastor and professor who lived a generation after Calvin. While Arminius affirmed with the Reformers that salvation comes by grace alone, he raised questions about how God’s grace operates and how human responsibility is preserved.

Arminians today typically affirm:

• Prevenient Grace: Though sin leaves us helpless, God grants grace that “goes before,” awakening and enabling us to respond to Him. This grace does not compel the will but restores the genuine capacity to believe (John 12:32; Titus 2:11; John 16:8).
• Conditional Election: God’s election is grounded in His foreknowledge of who would freely respond in faith. Arminians see this as fully consistent with divine sovereignty, since God’s foreknowledge does not coerce the human will (Romans 8:29; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Timothy 2:3–4).
• Resistible Grace: God’s grace, though powerful and persistent, can ultimately be resisted by human beings (Acts 7:51; Matthew 23:37; 2 Corinthians 6:1).
• Conditional Security: While Arminians differ among themselves, many—especially in the Wesleyan tradition—hold that genuine believers can fall away if they persist in unbelief or rebellion (Hebrews 6:4–6; Revelation 3:5; 2 Peter 2:20–21).

At its best, Arminianism emphasizes God’s universal saving desire (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; John 3:16), the responsibility and decisions of human beings, and God's call to persevere in holiness (Hebrews 3:12–14; Revelation 2:10).

The Shadow of Pelagius

To understand why this debate matters, we must step back into church history. Long before Calvin or Arminius, the early church faced a different challenge entirely. In the fourth and fifth centuries, a British monk named Pelagius taught that people are born morally neutral, blank slates capable of choosing good or evil without divine assistance.

Pelagius denied original sin outright, insisting humans could obey God’s commands through natural ability alone. For him, grace was merely moral instruction or Christ’s inspiring example; it was helpful but not essential.

The church rightly rejected Pelagius’s teaching as heresy. Scripture insists that apart from God’s initiative, we are not merely weak; we are dead in our sins (Ephesians 2:1–5). We don’t need better advice; we need resurrection.

Later theologians softened Pelagius’s views into “Semi-Pelagianism,” the notion that humans take the first step toward God, who then responds with grace. But the church rejected this compromise as well, recognizing that even our initial stirrings of faith come only through God’s grace (John 6:44).

Why Arminianism Isn’t Semi-Pelagianism

Because Arminians emphasize human responsibility, critics sometimes accuse them of Semi-Pelagianism. This represents a misunderstanding of historic Arminian theology, especially as developed by John Wesley.

Faithful Arminians insist that even our ability to respond to God is itself a gift of grace. This is precisely the point of prevenient grace: God awakens, convicts, and enables the sinner to believe. Arminians do not teach that fallen humans can take the first step toward God through natural ability.

Rather, they believe God graciously restores our capacity to respond, so that when someone turns to Christ in faith, salvation remains wholly a work of grace. As Wesley put it: “There is no man unless he has quenched the Spirit, that is wholly void of the grace of God.”

This is why Calvinists and Arminians, despite their differences, can stand shoulder to shoulder in rejecting both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. Both traditions affirm the non-negotiable truth: salvation is entirely of grace.

The EFCA’s Principled, Charitable Approach

The Evangelical Free Church of America has long been marked by its firm commitment to the essentials of the gospel and its generous posture on secondary matters, including the often-contested questions of Calvinism and Arminianism. In this way, it occupies a somewhat unique place among evangelical denominations.

As such, many faithful Christians—both Calvinist and Arminian—do not view these issues as secondary at all. Ardent Calvinists fear that Arminian theology undermines grace by giving the decisive word to human freedom. Ardent Arminians fear that Calvinism undermines God’s character by portraying Him as arbitrarily withholding saving grace. Both raise serious, substantive concerns, and neither regards the debate as optional.

Why, then, does the EFCA allow diversity here? Because while the questions are weighty and important, both traditions affirm the essentials of the gospel: salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Both reject Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. Both proclaim Christ crucified and risen as the only hope for sinners. Both send missionaries across the world to announce the good news of the gospel of grace.

For this reason, the EFCA regards Calvinism and Arminianism as important, but ultimately “in-house,” disagreements among those who stand together on the authority of Scripture and the saving work of Christ. This is not theological weakness but an expression of biblical, peaceable wisdom. When Calvinists and Arminians worship, serve, and labor together in one body, they show that true unity rests on rightly ordered priorities: essentials held firmly, secondary matters discussed charitably, and all things pursued in love.

A Personal Reflection

I grew up in a Wesleyan Arminian setting that deeply shaped my understanding of God’s love and the call to holy living. Later, through study in college and seminary, I encountered Calvinism. Over time—and despite strong initial reservations—I have come to embrace a more Reformed understanding of salvation, convinced that God’s sovereign grace is what makes salvation possible, effective, and eternally secure. This conviction brings me deep comfort and fills me with wonder at God’s mercy.

Yet I remain deeply grateful for my Arminian upbringing, particularly its insistence on God’s compassion, the urgency of the gospel call, and the call to persevere in holiness. I am richer for having lived in both streams. I don’t see these as enemies but as voices within the larger choir of Christ’s church.

Our Common Ground

Of course, at the end of the day, our confidence rests not in a theological system but in a Savior. Jesus Christ is the one who saves, sustains, and secures His people. Calvinists and Arminians alike can—and must—rejoice in Him above all else. Paul’s exhortation still speaks across the centuries: “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace”(Ephesians 4:3).

History gives us a powerful example in John Wesley and George Whitefield. Wesley, a convinced Arminian, and Whitefield, a devoted Calvinist, often debated vigorously over predestination. At times their ministries stood apart, yet they never allowed those differences to erase their fellowship in Christ. Both were leaders in the great awakenings of the eighteenth century, and together they helped spark revival on both sides of the Atlantic. When Whitefield died, Wesley preached his funeral sermon, calling him “a man of God, an eminent servant of Jesus Christ.” He urged believers, “Have we not all one Lord and one faith? We are all one body; and shall we not all meet in heaven? O let us not be divided here!”

Their example reminds us that charitable disagreement is not weakness but strength. It shows the church at its best: holding convictions firmly, yet holding Christ even more firmly.

May those of us who walk in their theological streams learn to do the same today—disagreeing honestly, but loving deeply. For in the end, it is Christ—not Calvin or Arminius, not Wesley or Whitefield—who is our life, our hope, and our unity.