I think that it is more of a myth than actual fact that saying we are Calvinists answers a multitude of questions. Am I a Amillennial or Postmillennial Calvinist? Am I a Baptist Calvinist or a Presbyterian Calvinist? Am I of the Pilgrims, Puritans, Huguenots, Dutch, or German variety? Am I from the doctrines of Reformed Palatinates, Scottish, or Scotch-Irish? Do I believe in New Covenant Theology or Covenant theology? To say that Christians, calling themselves Calvinist, simplifies things, is a panacea for all contrary opinions.
The fact that
Christians prospered and their doctrines of Grace were understood for over 1400 years
before Calvin was even a gleam in his father's eye,
is evidence enough that we don't need to be called Calvinists in order to have people know what we stand for. That is obviously just a convenient excuse to old to tradition. I don't want to be called Calvinist because I believe that it points to John Calvin and puts improper emphasis on him,
rather than on Jesus Christ. We should take His name alone as the identifier of our doctrines~as for me and my house, we shall.
Mark 9:5-7
- "And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
- For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.
- And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him."
Any way you cut it, calling ourselves Calvinists exalts Calvin and the doctrines he held, when we should be exalting
Christ alone, and the doctrines He held.
And the argument that because there are professing Christians who aren't faithful to Christ's Predestination doctrines, this is a good reason that we should take hold of the name Calvin,
has no solid basis. Because there has
always been unfaithful Christians, but that didn't make the church start calling themselves by the name of the Apostles, or of Paul or anyone else in order to differentiate themselves from those unfaithful people. Paul somewhat touched on this briefly in his epistle to the Corinthians. And we should consider it wisely.
1st Corinthians 1:12-13
- "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
- Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"
Clearly, this illustrates we should not be called of Paul or the Pauline sect, we should not be called of Apollos, and
we should not be called of Calvin either. Despite unfaithful teachings of some Christians, we are not divided. There are only Christians, and false doctrines. This argument of differentiation doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. The early Church didn't need these type labels to differentiate themselves from the many antichrists and sects by calling themselves "of Paul" to show they held to the Biblical doctrines.
And neither do we. Granted, we are a lot more creative today in coming up with reasons (imagined or otherwise) why we need to be called by John Calvin's name. But they don't stand the test of scripture, comparison nor of time. And this is the very topic Paul was addressing here. That we shouldn't say we are of Paul or of Apollos. We're not Apollians, or Paulites/Pauline, because
we are all just Christians, and Christ is not divided. That
divinely inspired message seems to be lost in our day where Calvinist Church traditions sometimes actually mirror Roman Catholic Church traditions. The truth is, we "really" don't need to say we are "of Calvin" anymore than these Godly men of the early Church needed to say that they were "of Paul" or Apollos. And make no mistake, the term Calvinism actually means "of Calvin." Moreover, I don't think (actually, I know) Calvin wouldn't have wanted that, anymore than Paul did. Of course, this is ignored.
