Calvinist, Arminian, or Just Christian? (A Closer Look at Paul’s Warning in 1 Corinthians 1:10–17)

I became, convictionally, a Calvinist around 13–14 years ago. Since then, I’ve often met well-meaning unity-seeking Christians who say they are neither Calvinists nor Arminians, but simply “Christians.” Many appeal to 1 Corinthians 1:10–17, where Paul rebukes the church in Corinth for dividing over leaders—Peter, Paul, Apollos, or even Christ. But is Paul’s rebuke really about denominationalism or subscribing to a theological system? Well, not exactly.

First, Paul’s primary concern was with factions within a single congregation, where members were boasting in human leaders (“I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” etc.). Their pride turned gospel ministers into party flags, undermining unity in Christ. The problem was not formal denominations, but rivalry, status, and misplaced loyalties. That’s why Paul reminds them that Christ is not divided, and they were baptized into Christ, not into any man. Their unity rests in Christ crucified, not in personalities.

These verses are highly relevant today—especially to celebrity-pastor culture, where leaders can become rallying points for pride or division. But Calvinism and Arminianism are not about boasting in men. They are shorthand for theological systems. There’s nothing wrong with distinguishing truth from error—Paul himself contrasts sound and unsound teaching, maturity and immaturity (1 Cor 3:1–15; 11:17–34). Elsewhere, he commands believers to guard sound doctrine (2 Tim 1:13 14; Titus 1:9). So, 1 Corinthians 1 is not a call to erase theological distinctions.

Rejecting labels because “Paul said don’t follow men” actually confuses the issue. The Corinthians weren’t fighting about the doctrine of baptism or justification; they were quarrelling over personalities. So, whether you call it “the doctrines of grace (Calvinism)” or “the five points of the Remonstrants (Arminianism),” categories help us summarize Scripture and clarify truth. Used rightly, they serve the church, not divide it.

Of course, Paul’s warning still applies today. If labels become badges of superiority, or if secondary issues are treated as reasons for excluding others, we repeat Corinth’s error. But when churches form confessional bodies—Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran—it is frequently not pride but conviction, a desire to preserve faithfulness to Scripture. So, not all "division" is the kind of sinful and evil division we are warned against in Scripture. But, we must still acknowledge that indeed not all divisions are good, profitable and God-honouring, and there is true complexity in this issue.  

Finally, Paul is not saying, “Never divide over doctrine.” In fact, he often commands separation from false teaching (Gal 1:6–9; Rom 16:17). So, the issue in 1 Corinthians 1 is not discernment, but prideful partisanship. The Protestant Reformation was a good example of scripturally based and necessary division, and even there, the initial instinct was not division but reformation.

So let us take Paul’s warning seriously. May we never fracture Christ’s body through arrogance or personality cults. But let us also not abandon theological clarity, discernment, and conviction—all pursued with humility, love, and zeal for Christ’s glory.

Nino Marques