"First, you (Wesley) say that if this be so (i.e., if there be an election) then is all preaching vain: it is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. Therefore, the end of preaching to save souls is void with regard to them. And it is useless to them that are not elected, for they cannot possibly be saved. They, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be damned. The end of preaching is therefore void with regard to them likewise. So that in either case our preaching is vain, and your hearing also vain. Page 10, paragraph 9.
Wesley's point does have some logical support.
O dear Sir, what kind of reasoning--or rather sophistry--is this! Hath not God, who hath appointed salvation for a certain number, appointed also the preaching of the Word as a means to bring them to it? Does anyone hold election in any other sense? And if so, how is preaching needless to them that are elected, when the gospel is designated by God himself to be the power of God unto their eternal salvation? And since we know not who are elect and who reprobate, we are to preach promiscuously to all. For the Word may be useful, even to the non-elect, in restraining them from much wickedness and sin. However, it is enough to excite to the utmost diligence in preaching and hearing, when we consider that by these means, some, even as many as the Lord hath ordained to eternal life, shall certainly be quickened and enabled to believe. And who that attends, especially with reverence and care, can tell but he may be found of that happy number?
Something that has always puzzled me is just how a Calvinist knows whether election is true as they understand it. How can one determine if a free will decision is being made when someone accepts Christ as their personal Savior?
If the Calvinist position of election is true, preaching the Gospel is unnecessary, but the be must be some reason we a commanded to preach the Gospel to the world that has a real pupose. Whitefield's contention that it enables the elect to understand that he is part of that 'happy number' makes no logical sense.
On the contrary. I refer you to John 8. Our Lord Jesus shared the gospel with those He called children of the devil (v44). He also told some Jews later that they didn’t belong to Him:
“But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” John 10:26-27
Time and space forbids me to go into the parable of the “lost” sheep or the “lost” coin in Luke 15 but Luke gives a perfect illustration with Zaccheus in Luke 19 where all the “righteous people” complain that our Lord Jesus went to eat with “sinners”. Our Lord Jesus, recorded by Luke, states that
“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Luke 19:10
Quite frankly I can’t understand how much plainer it can get. Our Lord Jesus came to seek which is lost and His sheep hear His voice. We, likewise, are to seek which is lost and to allow Him to use our voice to call His sheep. We cannot do this unless we preach the gospel to all.
If the Calvinist position of election is true, preaching the Gospel is unnecessary, but the be must be some reason we a commanded to preach the Gospel to the world that has a real pupose. Whitefield's contention that it enables the elect to understand that he is part of that 'happy number' makes no logical sense.
It's called a command of the Lord, ctd. Whether it makes sense to us, or not, shouldn't matter, so long as we call Christ LORD. But if "reason" is your lord, and your own reasoning needs to understand the whole purpose before you'll obey the command, I suppose you have identified a real problem.
Notice that the article makes the following observations:
Under Whitefield's preaching the revival spread to Bristol and the West country in February and March 1739, and when he left that area at the beginning of April 1739, John Wesley was given the oversight of the work.Note that the revival work began with Whitefield. Also note that Whitefield was profoundly influenced by the great evangelists in the US...
he had, during 1740, made close friendships with such American evangelicals as the Tennents and Jonathan Edwards; through them he was doubtless led into a deeper understanding of Puritan theology and its relevance to evangelism and revivals. He also witnessed the outstanding blessing on their preaching.
Evangelism has always been a part of "orthodox" Calvinism. A failure to evangelize is often erroneously cited as a fault of Calvinism (as you point out above). A denial that evangelism is even neccesary is a defining trait of the perjorative "hyper Calvinism". Now, if we are not heeding our Lord's command to preach the gospel to, and make disciples of all nations, Calvinists indeed make themselves a woeful and reprehensible people for not following the words of our Lord.
(footnote) Before I posted this article, I was considering another article from albatrus.org to post - one that speaks more specifically to the question of Calvinism and evangelism. That article says this:
"this is the faith which has caused the Reformed Church in America to become one of the great missionary churches of all time. If you are conversant with the history of foreign missions, you know that, of course. You know that there are few churches, few denominations, which have sent forth so many to the mission fields of the world in proportion to their membership."I may still post it in the future, but for now you can read that other article here
Just because God wills something, does not mean there is no action on our part. Granted, we are not the initiators of our salvation, but we must certainly live it out to the end. I think you are confusing God's will with God's action.
Take this example:
God gave the promised land to the Jews but they still had to roam the deserts from Egypt to Israel to reach their promise. God obviously guided them and sustained them through this migration, but the Jews were still required to make the trip.
God uses ordinary means for His extraordinary will. Our salvation does not come at the snap of God's holy finger (although it could). God uses His scriptures, other people, and circumstances in our lives to reveal the Gospel to us. There are occasions of miraculous conversions but those are far outnumbered by the miracle of Christ revealed in ordinary means.
Maybe to some it doesn't "make logical sense", but from a Biblical perspective it makes perfect sense just as Whitefield noted in his reply. God ordains the ends and the means.
If they really believe it, who are they trying to convince? =]
"If the Calvinist position of election is true, preaching the Gospel is unnecessary, but the be must be some reason we a commanded to preach the Gospel to the world that has a real pupose."
May I ask why?
Arminians assume this must be the case, but you never give any thoughtful explanation as to why preaching the Gospel is meaningless due to election.