Calvinism: Should It Be Kept Secret?

For many years there has been an ongoing debate among preachers concerning one’s openness as it relates to the Doctrines of Grace, also known as Calvinism. The question as to whether the terminology should be used before our congregations is apparently the most sensitive aspect of that question.

The concern centers on the likelihood of congregants being offended by such expressions due primarily to preconceived notions or misunderstandings. It has also been stated incessantly that the public usage of such terminology only serves to produce an offense and provides little or no edification to the body. Though these arguments have some merit, there has been little said about the downside of what I would call the “silent” treatment. It is my intention to address the negative aspects of not using theological terms openly and forthrightly.

My first argument concerning the specific usage of terms such as Calvinism and Arminianism in the pulpit is that almost everyone, other than the preacher, is using them. For those who may be a bit behind, Grandma at the First Baptist Church of Tywop, Arkansas, has already heard plenty about Calvinism. From the youngest to the oldest in our churches, Calvinism is being mulled over and talked about in their homes, as well as in their Sunday School classes.

Apparently, it seems to be politically correct to speak of Calvinism in the pulpit as long as the preacher is railing against it. The one person who is accused of lacking discretion is the preacher who seeks to teach his congregation the truth of what the term Calvinism actually denotes. Anyone who is paying attention should know that the old argument of keeping the pulpit quiet about Calvinism has now been rendered moot due to the proliferation of information coming from other sources, including the antagonists of the Doctrines of Grace.

Secondly, the argument of meaningful dialogue demands a proper usage of terminology. If, as a pastor, I am going to interact with my congregation concerning theological matters, then we must all know the actual meanings of words. I am sick of hearing people say, “I don’t like labels.” My response to such folly is, “Well, then stop talking.” Words are labels. Your name is a label. You don’t introduce yourself to another person by stating that you are the guy with black hair, a mustache, 6'1" tall with a 32-inch inseam who likes sports and plays golf at the country club. It is much easier to say, “Hi, I’m Sam.”

Isn’t it interesting that the only time people do not like labels is when they don’t like the concepts the labels portray? For instance, I have met some people who say they do not like labels, but they are upset that our congregation took “Baptist” off the church name. Their statements usually involve how proud they are to be Baptist.

Maybe I’m confused, but isn’t the term Baptist a label? Of course, it is. The word “horse” is a label, and it makes it easier to talk about a horse than to have to say each time we refer to a horse as that animal with the long nose and long legs that can run like the wind. Isn’t it much easier to say the label “horse,” realizing that the other person knows what we are talking about without the necessity of an elongated explanation about the multiple features and characteristics of said animal?

The desire to rid ourselves of “labels” is to move closer to chaos and confusion in the area of meaningful communication. Satan would love nothing better than to render preaching meaningless due to the reigning ignorance of what words actually mean. Calvinism is a word; it is not a monster, as some people seem to think. When it is used, most Calvinists use it, as defined by Charles H. Spurgeon, as a nickname for the Doctrines of Grace.

The doctrines may be rejected, but the meaning of the word describing the doctrines must be mutually understood, or our interaction is meaningless. This is advantageous to the advocate, as well as the antagonists. For the one, it determines the approach in advancing arguments. For the other, it guards against beating against the wind or fighting against a view that is not held by anyone.

A third argument is the desire of the preacher for his people to know what he knows. In a conversation a few years ago with a couple of theologians in the denomination in which I serve, I was confronted about my straightforwardness in using what they called divisive terminology, like Calvinism, Arminianism and Pelagianism. As they went on about my approach, I finally stopped them and asked a simple question: “What exactly is Calvinism?”

Both of them spoke up and began to give me their views of what the “label” meant, which was the identical view I held as to its meaning. I then asked a follow-up question: “Where did you learn about Calvinism?” Both responded, “In seminary.” I then asked why would we want to hold out on our people concerning truth that we had the privilege of learning in seminary. From their responses, it seemed that they didn’t think our people could handle it. I responded by saying that kind of thinking sounds like Roman Catholicism. The priests have the capacity to understand, but the common people need to be kept in the dark due to their propensity toward confusion. It is personally offensive to me to think that the dear people that God has put under my charge can’t handle what I can handle. I don’t buy it, and I think we are underselling the wisdom of our congregants, as well as denying the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit to assist them, in comprehending hard truths.

There should not be a theology for the elite and another theology for the commoners. Such division of thought is without merit and is blatantly unscriptural. The preacher has no right to hold a secret theology, which is to be kept from the people of God due to their perceived incapacity to handle it appropriately.

Fourthly, if we want our people to read their Bibles and read good theological books, we must help them understand the terminology. I cannot imagine a preacher not wanting his people to read the great men of the faith in the past, as well as in the present. If they are going to read such, they’re going to be confronted by the same terminology that we are holding from the people due to our fear that it might offend.

Furthermore, the preacher down the street is already defining the terms for you, and they are usually false definitions. So while you are preaching the text clearly concerning election in salvation, the other preacher is telling your people what you mean. I would much rather tell the people I pastor what I mean rather than allow the preacher down the street, or the TV or the radio preacher, to tell them what I mean. If you do not define the terms for your people, another preacher will—and, most likely, he is not using the same dictionary you use.

Men, we are not mice; we are men of God. As such, we must pray for wisdom in these matters. One thing is certain: a man of God is not concerned with his popularity. If he is, in fact, a man of the Word, his desire is to proclaim the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth no matter what the consequences. To do that, words must be used with precision. They must be clearly defined by the preacher and taught from the text of Scripture. All preachers know that the Word offends. They also know that certain theological doctrines offend more than others. But that does not cause them to shy away from the hard sayings.

There is a price to pay, but the dividends are out of this world. When I stand before the congregation I have pastored for 18 years, I see a group of people who generally understand theological terms and seek to test all systems by the Word of God. Even our youngest children understand such terms as Calvinism, Arminianism and Pelagianism. More importantly, they know who Christ is, that God is holy and that it takes the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the gospel to save a man dead in sins. Don’t wait to teach them; teach them now. The young and old alike at Riverbend know that every theological perspective or system can only stand when it has been proven by the Truth as it is in the Word of God.

Trash any such system that is not according to the divine revelation, but don’t be afraid to use clearly defined words to communicate the theological matter of biblical revelation. The secret things are for the Lord, not for the preacher. What the preacher knows to be true, he is obligated to proclaim to his congregation.

I offer one last observation concerning the necessity of being forthright about our theology, even in the face of misunderstandings and contention. Some have asked, with some validity, why we should bring offensive terms like Calvinism before our people. The question is, “Why is it offensive?” The answer: “because its opponents offensively define it.” So are we to acquiesce to ignorance and allow the great doctrines as taught by the Reformers, Puritans and other stalwarts such as Whitefield, Edwards, Spurgeon, Boyce and Lloyd-Jones to continually be vilified? My answer is, “absolutely not!” How can we call ourselves purveyors of the Truth when we sit by and allow ignorance to maintain its hold on the people of God?

It is our duty to be used of God to enlighten people to truth. Instead of lying down in front of a plethora of ill-defined theological terms, I am going to define them according to their original intent. Calvinism does not mean that we follow a man named John Calvin, or that we do not believe that anyone who seeks the Lord will find solace and forgiveness in the full merits of Christ.

Calvinism does not mean that we shun the command to call all men to repentance. Nor does it mean that we are to shy away from using God-given means with all diligence to see the ordained end come to pass.

Calvinism speaks of a series of doctrinal points, also called the Doctrines of Grace, that were once held in high esteem among the greatest and mightiest of the church’s past. When it has flourished, evangelism, missions and prayer have been at their peaks. I want the church I pastor to know this truth and seek a reformation that indeed will bring true revival.

The late Dr. R.A. Hargrave