t is our solemn duty to preach Christ and not Calvin. But depend upon it if someone preaches Christ correctly, he will be accused of preaching Calvin. We must therefore answer the question posed by the serpent in Eden, which is "Hath God said...?" If God has not spoken on these things, we must remain silent ourselves. And if He has spoken, then there is no possible reason for attributing the doctrine to Calvin.
If it is on account of grace and the cross, then it is an honor to be slandered as a "Calvinist." Christ said it was an honor when men speak evil of us, and it certainly is evil for the followers of Christ to be identified as the followers of a mere man. But just because we rejoice in the slander, it is not therefore necessary to join in the slander ourselves, and call ourselves these names. We are to rejoice in the slander; we are not to do our best to make the slander true. Christ did say to go the second mile, but we don't think this is what He had in mind.
In contrast, if it is on account of an obnoxious and churlish presentation, then there is no honor at all in being called a "Calvinist." Some who call themselves by this name do have a reputation for an approach which is not characterized by Christian charity. As John Newton pointed out, self-righteousness can feed on doctrines as well as works.
Should "Calvinists" seek unity of fellowship with Christians who differ with them on this issue? Absolutely. Why? Because election depends upon the good pleasure of the Father. And if He has bestowed His unmerited pleasure upon "Arminians" (which He most certainly does), then it makes no sense for a "Calvinist" to magnify the prerogatives of divine sovereignty by telling God He is not allowed to fellowship with any "Arminians," and that furthermore the "Calvinist" is going to try to set a good example for God through restricting his fellowship. Some Calvinism.
Woe to the pot who strives with the Potter! Woe to the "Calvinist" who objects to the loose fellowship standards of God the Father!
Is this to minimize the seriousness of "Arminian" error? Not at all it is a grievous error. Is this to minimize the truths contained in "Calvinism?" Not at all "Calvinism" is nothing more than a horrible nickname for a precious understanding of the gospel. All this is simply to say that God's grace is greater than all human error and sin. And the grace of God is most apparent when true Christians love each other.
But suppose an "Arminian" says that we cannot really love a brother if we say that he is mistaken about the gospel. We would paraphrase Paul and ask, "How we are his enemy simply because we speak the truth?" True Christians may be mistaken in their theology of the cross; our duty is therefore twofold. We must love all true Christians as brothers, and we must graciously dissent from all such mistakes about the cross. And at other points of doctrine or practice, where God uses "Arminians" to correct us, our duty is to receive it humbly.
If an "Arminian" is elect and chosen, then his election is not imperiled through his failure to understand the ninth chapter of Romans. Paul did not say, at the end of the eighth chapter, that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ except for shoddy exegesis. And if a "Calvinist" is reprobate, then he cannot earn his way into the approval of God through a self-righteous mouthing of the doctrines of grace. Unsaved "Calvinists" are like Solomon's beautiful woman without discretion a gold ring in a pig's snout.
When both share in a common election, their duty is to maintain a unity of love, and to strive for a unity of mind which is only possible through diligent study and application of the Scriptures.
But there are some who take the name "Calvinist," not out of a fractious party spirit, but because they don't want to seem uncharitable. "Mine is the biblical position. What's yours?" But however well-intentioned, it is still not within our authority to act as though something revealed in the first century was invented in the sixteenth. Keeping the peace is not an absolute priority.
And for those doctrinally-oriented "Calvinists" who are very concerned for the claims of truth, there is important instruction in the early chapters of Revelation. It is good to be concerned for truth; the ancient Ephesian church was not rebuked for that, but rather for abandoning their first love. We must proclaim the truth, and we must love the brethren. If we sacrifice the truth for the sake of love, it is not really love; if we sacrifice love for the sake of truth, it is not really truth. The Bible requires unswerving allegiance to both.
So it is not possible to put the issue to one side even to keep peace between Christians. We are commanded to preach the gospel, and all presentations of the gospel must presuppose the truth of one position or the other. So there is no neutrality; there is no third way.
The Bible reveals truth; it does not conceal it. A "Calvinist" is simply one who believes the revealed truth about foreordination as written. He does not seek to mix the plain statements of Scripture with human reasoning, or logical extrapolation. Therefore the label he uses must match what he is doing the last thing a label should do is mislead. It is therefore the editorial policy of this publication to avoid the term "Calvinist" in every way we can. But in no way are we seeking to minimize any biblical truths about the cross. Rather, we are seeking to detach a human name from God's truth. At the same time, the reader should know that whenever we refer in these pages to grace, faith, justification, the cross, election, etc. we are refering to what others call "Calvinism," and what the Bible calls grace.
