Calvinism and Arminianism: A Debate over First or Third Order Issues?

Dr. Al Mohler has written a helpful piece on theological triage. Briefly, theological triage is an attempt to "sort" the doctrines of Christianity according to their relative significance to the faith. First order doctrines are things that one must believe to be a Christian—things like the Triunity of God and the two natures of Christ. If you don’t believe Jesus died for your sins, you’re not a Christian, and this is the nature of a first order issue. First order issues divide Christians from non-Christians.

Second order doctrines are important, but believing Christians can and do disagree on them—things like who gets baptized and how we baptize them. Christians divide from each other over these issues.

Third order issues are, in Mohler’s words, "doctrines over which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations." An example of a third order issue is the question of whether or not there will be a millenium. Disagreement over this doesn’t mandate that we not worship together in the same church (it doesn’t affect our view of baptism or the Lord’s supper).

So here’s the big question: Is the dispute between Calvinists and Arminians a first, second, or third order dispute? I would like to suggest that, depending upon one’s view of the relationship between Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, it is either a first or third order issue. The fact that there have been both general (i.e., Arminian) and particular (i.e., Calvinistic) Baptists, along with the existence of Calvinistic Methodists, keeps this from being a second order issue.

So what determines whether this is an issue of the first or third order? This is probably an oversimplification, but because I think it is helpful I will suggest that if both Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility are affirmed, this is a third order dispute over whether the emphasis should lie more on God’s initiative or humanity’s freedom. But if one denies either Divine Sovereignty or Human Responsibility, this becomes a first order issue.

Some Calvinists assume that all Arminians deny Divine Sovereignty. But it is not fair to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a theological position by its worst representatives. The truth is that there are Arminians who have a high view of God’s sovereignty. After all, Charles Wesley wrote "And Can It Be," and a glance through Grant Osborne’s excellent commentary on Revelation will show that an avowed Arminian can affirm the absolute sovereignty of God (see for example Osborne’s comment on Revelation 17:17, Revelation, 627).

Some Arminians assume that all Calvinists deny human responsibility and as a result think that things like evangelism and prayer are unnecessary. I have often heard people talk about "hyper-calvinists"—people who deny human responsibility and say that evangelism is not necessary. But never in my life have I ever actually met a self-described hyper-calvinist, someone who would affirm this position. If someone denies the necessity of evangelism and prayer, the problem is not that some aspects of their thinking are Calvinistic, the problem is that they are ignoring the clear teaching of the Bible. Some Arminians seem to forget that William Carey, the father of modern missions, was a five point Calvinist, as was Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the "prince of preachers" (and many other evangelistic Calvinists could be cited). To assume that these evangelistic Calvinists are the exceptions that prove the rule is no more fair than the assumption that a biblical Arminian is an exception that proves the rule.

John Hannah often says we owe two things to everyone: (1) to understand their position as they would articulate it; and (2) to interact with that position fairly. Let us think charitably of one another as we contend for biblical and theological precision.

More could no doubt be said, but we must believe that God is sovereign and humans are responsible. If we sacrifice either of these truths we are unbiblical. Errors on both sides affect one’s view of God, and one’s view of God is determinative for one’s world-view. This is why many react to the dispute between Calvinists and Arminians as a first order issue—because one’s view of God determines everything (or should).

We must believe everything the Bible says about God. I maintain that as long as one can affirm that God is sovereign and humans are responsible, this is a third order debate. We should all be in the process of biblical and theological growth, and may the Lord give us grace to live up to the theology we have attained (Phil 3:16).

10 Comments

Filed under Bible and Theology

10 responses to “Calvinism and Arminianism: A Debate over First or Third Order Issues?

  1. Dr. Hamilton,

    Great post! What a wonderful and amazing tension! Whe should all be caused to worship because God is sovereign in all things and yet we are responsible. We need to open our eyes to a more complex and ruling God! May God do it!

    Great to have you back from England! See you soon.

    Travis

  2. This post has been removed by the author.

  3. This post has been removed by the author.

  4. Dr. Hamilton,

    I was struggling with some of the tension of calvinists and arminians and reconciling how to do church earlier this summer and I appreciate your post. I agree with you that it is a third order debate. Like Travis said it is great to have you back and hopefully I’ll see you before long.

    Billy

  5. This post has been removed by the author.

  6. Anonymous

    Welcome home, Jim. We’re glad you’re back.

    DAS

  7. Anonymous

    Fishy! Fishy! Fishy! Here fishy, fishy! To God be the glory. First or Third? To be loved by Jesus and pursued relentlessly. One cannot escape the the captivating beauty of our Lord. Let us join Him in His work and obedience to the will of the Father in heaven. “And Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” Oh to know the undying love of our Savior, the hope of glory in us who has called us out of darkness into His wonderful. Fellow disciple of Jesus. Let’s fish!

  8. Pat

    Dr. Hamilton,
    Thanks for causing me to think about this issue at Oxford. I came to understand your position more clearly and how you came to it through careful study of the Bible. I appreciate that you don’t dodge the tough issues.
    Pat

  9. I am dealing with some who want to teach contrary to what I teach which is evangelical calvinsim in my church. In creating elders at the church, one of the issues is unity in our doctrine and Philosophy of minsitry. I am not sure that this issue you refer to is a third level belief, especially when it affects first level beliefs or ones philosophy of ministry which I think is the case in the Arminian/Calvinism discussion. While I would not require affirmation from my church members on this issue, I do think that the elders of the church must have some sort of agreement, or otherwise they could not be in agreement on their Philosophy of Ministry. I also cannot get over that Arminians must deny the substitutionary death of our Lord Jesus. Wouldn’t this make this a second or first level issue depending on if one help their beliefs consistantly. (i.e. an arminian could hold to substitutionary atonement inconsistently)?
    This may be a second level issue that would prevent people from working together at the elder level of the church. I am still working this out.

  10. I am dealing with some who want to teach contrary to what I teach which is evangelical calvinsim in my church. In creating elders at the church, one of the necessary issues is developing and maintaining unity in our doctrine and Philosophy of minsitry. Because of these Elder issues, I am not sure that the issue you refer to (Arminiam/Calvinism discussion)is a third level belief, because it could affect the unity, doctrine taught, and the philosophy of ministry of the church. While I would not require affirmation from my church members on this issue, I do think that the elders of the church must have some sort of agreement, or otherwise they will not be in agreement on their Philosophy of Ministry. I also cannot get over that Arminians must deny the substitutionary death of our Lord Jesus. Wouldn’t this make this a second or first level issue depending on if one held to their beliefs consistantly. (i.e. an arminian could hold to substitutionary atonement inconsistently)?
    This may be a second level issue that would prevent people from working together at the elder level of the church. I am still working this out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s