How To Offend a Room Full of Calvinists [Calvinist Caucus]

Do you want to know how to make a Calvinist angry? Do you want to know how to offend a whole room full of them? Just bring up the old line about Reformed theology being incompatible with evangelism. We have all heard it, we have all read it, we have all rejected it.

It’s the word on the street, though, that Calvinists make poor evangelists. Many people are firmly convinced that there is a deep-rooted flaw embedded within Reformed theology that undermines evangelistic fervor. Most blame it on predestination. After all, if God has already chosen who will be saved, it negates at least some of our personal responsibility in calling people to respond to the gospel. Or perhaps it’s just the theological-mindedness that ties us down in petty disputes and nuanced distinctions instead of freeing us to get up, get out, and get on mission.

We like to answer this charge with facts. We go to the Bible to show that the sovereignty of God is not the snuff that extinguishes the ember of evangelistic fervor, but the spark that causes it to burst into flame. We go to the pages of Scripture to show that God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are not incompatible, but that people truly are both free and bound, that God both chooses some while extending the free offer of the gospel to all. We go to history to show that the great missionaries, great preachers, and great revivalists of days past were Calvinists, and that Reformed theology was what fueled their mission.

Those are good and valid responses. But, to quote the Bard, perhaps the lady doth protest too much. The Bible and history answer the charge. But do our lives? Do our churches?

When I look at myself, I have trouble finding a clear line extending from my Reformed theology to evangelistic zeal. I can easily draw a line from my Reformed theology to my beliefs about evangelistic zeal, and I can go to history and look to other men and women to draw a line from their beliefs about Reformed theology to evangelistic zeal.

But in moments of honesty, I have to own it: My life does not consistently display it. Too often I am the cliché. I have got the theory. I have got the facts. I have got the history. But I don’t have the zeal. Not often, anyway. Not often enough.

There are only so many times I can point to Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield and the Great Awakening, or William Carey and the great missionary movement of the nineteenth century, or Charles Spurgeon and the countless thousands saved under his ministry. Sooner or later I have to stop looking at my heroes and look to myself. I can’t claim their zeal as my own. I can’t claim their obedience as my own.

It is my conviction—conviction rooted in close study of God’s Word—that Calvinism provides a soul-stirring motivation for evangelism, and that sharing the gospel freely and with great zeal is the most natural application of biblical truth. But it is my confession—confession rooted in the evidence of my own life—that my Calvinism too rarely stirs my soul to mission. The truths that have roared in the hearts and lives of so many others, somehow just whisper in me. The fault, I’m convinced, is not with God’s Word, or even with my understanding of God’s Word; the fault is with me.

>>> I believe the import of those passages is that election is unconditional.

I’m not sure i have a full understanding of what this term is supposed to mean. Who’s election (choice) does this refer to? and who’s conditions are we talking about?

Unconditional election is just the idea that if God did choose us first, we would never choose Him. God elects us, chooses us to become believers, not because of what He sees us doing, but because He places His love on us, according to His own will and purpose. Unconditional here does not mean there are no conditions that lead to our salvation or sustain our relationship with God. We must have faith. We must repent of our sin. We must persevere to the end. But there is no condition we are capable of meeting that would cause God to choose us to receive all those gifts of His grace. We love Him, because He first loved us.

Which is why the "look ahead" theory is not Calvinism. Basically, it uses time travel to invert the causation. God is no longer the first cause of our being chosen. The condition to our becoming elect in the past becomes us choosing Him at some point in the distant future. It's a nice trick, but it has no Scriptural foundation.

Furthermore, the "look ahead" theory conflicts with the doctrine of Total Depravity, which is not that we are as evil as we can be, but that our decisions are all controlled by our sin nature, and no matter how much opportunity God gave us to get it right, we would always choose against Him. Unless He has elected us first.

Arminian theory embraces election as a result of the "look ahead" theory. That is not Calvinism. One certainly may or may not believe Scripture defends a given system, but it is helpful to properly identify what the system actually teaches. If someone believes that their current choice to believe is what caused God to choose them in eternity past, then they are not a Calvinist, at least not in terms of the classical Calvinist doctrine of salvation.

Peace,

SR

Correction
First line should be:

Unconditional election is just the idea that if God DIDN’T choose us first, we would never choose Him.

Sorry ‘bout that. ...

Peace,

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.