Removing the Doctrinal Obstacles to Calvinistic Evangelism

Is Calvinism incompatible with evangelistic zeal? This is one of the objections that is often raised against Calvinism.

One needs only examine Protestant history to see that Calvinists have been on the forefront of evangelism and missions. George Whitefield was outspoken in affirming all five points of Calvinism, yet he was one of the most zealous and effective evangelists of the Great Awakening. Wherever he traveled, both in England and America, people would turn out by the thousands to hear him preach in the open fields. The modern missionary movement began in 1792 when the Calvinistic Baptist, William Carey, left England to minister the gospel in India. With the help of William Ward and Joshua Marshman, he founded 26 churches and 126 schools, and translated the Bible into 44 languages including Sanskrit. In 1812, Adoniram Judson, another Calvinistic Baptist, sailed to Burma, becoming the first American to depart for the overseas mission field. He ministered there for many years, enduring warfare, imprisonment, and the death of his wife. During this time, he was diligent to produce a Burmese Bible and dictionary, and to personally train men for the pastorate. Other Calvinistic evangelists and missionaries of note include Jonathan Edwards, Asahel Nettleton and Charles H. Spurgeon. More than this, the Protestant Reformation was perhaps the greatest evangelistic movement of modern history. The Lord brought it about through the evangelistic zeal and unfailing courage of men who believed that God is fully sovereign in salvation—men such as Martin Luther,William Tyndale, John Calvin and John Knox, as well as lesser known men such as William Farel, George Wishart, Martin Bucer, Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley and countless others.

Still, there is a lingering suspicion by the critics of Calvinism that fixed decrees, a totally incapacitating depravity, and a redemption that is limited to the elect alone are somehow incompatible with the universal call of the gospel. Indeed, I fear that we who call ourselves "Calvinists" sometimes have difficulty knowing just how we ought to conduct our evangelism in the light of our Calvinistic convictions. It is all too easy to lose sight of the Biblical balance and tilt either to the side of a grace-denying Arminianism, or to a barren, isolationist Hypercalvinism. The truth lies atop the narrow ridge separating these two deep canyons, and it is essential that we seek a clear understanding of how to Biblically harmonize the doctrines of sovereign grace with man's responsibility to come to Christ for salvation, and with our own responsibility to take the gospel to a God-rejecting world.

Many of the works written by Calvinists are intended to defend our position against those who deny that God is sovereign in salvation and who claim instead that salvation depends upon man's free will decision. However, another threat to Biblical Calvinism comes from those who, through careless reasoning, take the truths of Calvinism and arrive at false and unbiblical conclusions concerning human responsibility and the character of evangelism. In this treatise, we seek to examine some of the fallacious arguments used by Hypercalvinists and Arminians alike who thereby conclude that Calvinistic doctrine is incompatible with the universal call of the gospel.

Hypercalvinism is a term that is subject to abuse or misunderstanding. It is often used in a relative way to refer to any view of predestination that seems more extreme than your own. For example, some Arminians like to think of themselves as "Calvinists" or "Cal-minians" (i.e. a hybrid of a Calvinist and an Arminian), and brand historic Calvinists as "Hypercalvinists". However, in the context of evangelism, the terms "Calvinist" and "Hypercalvinist" have well-established meanings in the history of Protestant Christianity, and it is these established views that we wish to examine and contrast in this article.

There are several standards we may use to define historic, evangelical Calvinism. Perhaps the most natural way is to say that it is the theology taught by John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, his Commentaries and in his other works, such as The Eternal Predestination of God and The Secret Providence of God. Hyper-Calvinism, then, is simply any view that goes beyond what Calvin believed and taught concerning the sovereignty of God, the depravity of man and the way of salvation. Other criteria we may use to define historic Calvinism would include such doctrinal standards as The Heidelberg Catechism, The Canons of Dort, the 1689 London Confession or the Westminster Standards. On the issues that divide Evangelical Calvinists from Hypercalvinists, all these sources are in agreement on the side of evangelical Calvinism, so far as they address these matters.

Historic Calvinism teaches that the gospel is to be proclaimed indiscriminately to all men, that all men are responsible to believe the gospel, and that God promises salvation to all who come in faith to Christ to receive it. For this reason, the term "Evangelical Calvinism" is an apt description of the historic Calvinistic position regarding the gospel. Historic Calvinists believe in proclaiming the gospel to all men indiscriminately, and calling all without exception to come to Christ and be saved. Some of the most prominent evangelists and missionaries of history were evangelical Calvinists, including George Whitefield, Charles H. Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Davies, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Asahel Nettleton, John Knox, John Calvin, and many others.

Hypercalvinism, in contrast, teaches that the unregenerate are not responsible to trust in Christ for salvation. Instead, the gospel call is viewed as being directed solely to the elect of God, and often, only to those who have already been regenerated by God. Hypercalvinists often manifest an apathy or even an antipathy toward evangelism and missions. This is epitomized by John Ryland's rebuke to William Carey when Carey expressed a concern for evangelizing the heathen: "Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, He will do so without your help or mine."

Several arguments are given to support the claim that the unregenerate are not responsible to trust in Christ for salvation. First, it is argued that salvation does not depend upon the will of man, but upon the will of God and that God's decrees were settled in eternity past, hence it is a denial of the doctrine of predestination to suggest that unregenerate men have a responsibility to come to Christ for salvation. Second, it is argued that unregenerate men are totally depraved, hence totally unable to come to Christ. Even their understanding is darkened, and hence it is impossible for them to understand what it means to come to Christ in a saving way. Third, it is argued that to make salvation depend on the faith of the individual introduces a human contribution to salvation and thereby denies the meaning of grace, and provides a basis for human boasting. Fourth, it is argued that Christ died only for the elect, and that His death is substitutionary, propitiatory and efficacious for those for whom He died and for no others; hence, there is no possible way a non-elect person could be saved even if he did come to Christ. Fifth, it is argued by some hypercalvinists that that one does not savingly understand the gospel if he does not acknowledge the efficacious, substitutionary nature of the atonement in precisely the sense that necessitates affirming the doctrine of particular redemption. (In other words, one must embrace the doctrine of Particular Redemption in order to be saved). A natural corollary to this claim is that there is no objective basis in the gospel alone for an unbeliever to savingly trust in Christ, since 1) he would have to know that he is elect in order to know that Christ died for him, and 2) no one can know himself to be elect until he has faith in Christ.

Argument 1: that it is a denial of the doctrine of predestination to say that unregenerate men have a responsibility to come to Christ for salvation.
To this we reply that God's decrees do not determine man's duty. Instead, it is God's preceptive will that determines man's duty. For example, God commands all men to obey His law, yet He has decreed that men will disobey His law. God's decree that men will disobey does not relieve them of the responsibility to obey. Likewise, God's decree to save the elect and to condemn the rest does not relieve the reprobate of the responsibility to come to Christ seeking salvation from Him.

God's decrees govern all things, and not simply who will be saved and who will not. God has decreed from all eternity whatsoever comes to pass in time. If men cannot be held responsible to come to Christ, simply on the basis that God has decreed they would not come, then men cannot be held responsible for anything they do. In this case, Adam cannot be held guilty for eating the forbidden fruit and those who crucified our Lord cannot be held guilty for murdering Christ. In short, no one could be held responsible for any sin he commits. If this is true, then no one is a sinner, and Christ died for no one's sins (since no one has sinned), and God would be unjust to condemn anyone. Argument 1 is thus seen to be wholly unscriptural, and falls under the weight of its obvious absurdity!

Moreover, if it is argued that salvation is of God, not man, then we reply that God, in grace, supplies what man, due to his depravity, refuses to do. Salvation is of the Lord precisely because He causes His elect to obey His command to come to Christ, when they, left to themselves, would forever refuse to do so. It is no argument, therefore, to say that, since salvation is of the Lord, God cannot command non-elect men to come to Christ to be saved.

We need to understand that predestination concerns not only the destination, but also the path and means whereby we arrive at that destination. God, in scripture, reveals to us that men arrive at the destination of eternal life through the preaching of the gospel, the regenerating power of the Spirit, and personal faith in Christ. When predestination loses sight of the intermediate causes—the guilt of mankind, and the means of salvation—and sees it merely as a decree of God that predetermines whether a person will inherit heaven or hell, we have lost the heart of the doctrine and have turned it into a doctrine that appears arbitrary, cruel and grossly unjust. Predestination is neither arbitrary, nor cruel nor unjust for the simple reason that men sin freely and willingly. God does not force anyone to sin—we freely choose to sin. God's decree to allow men to fall into sin was not a decree to force men to sin, nor to create a defect in man that would cause him to succumb to sin. Man was created upright, but with the ability to sin, and God in eternity past ordained that man would surely sin by his own free will.

It is, of course, a mystery to us how God could infallibly know that unfallen Adam would freely choose to sin. We humans don't like mysteries we cannot solve, and so we have a sinful tendency to seek a solution to this problem at any cost—and the cost is always that we end up denying an essential Biblical doctrine. Socinians prefer the "open theology" solution—claiming that God doesn't know all future events with certainty—that He cannot infallibly know the future, free-will decisions of men. Such a God is not the God of the Bible, who prophesied with absolute certainty and accuracy numerous sins, including the betrayal and crucifixion of Christ and the sins of the Antichrist, and the final rebellion of mankind. Liberals and Universalists prefer to deny the reality of hell, teaching that God will send no one to hell. Yet, Jesus spoke more about hell and the Judgment Day than he did about love or heaven, and he was never afraid to tell the self-righteous Pharisees that they were headed for hell.

The Hypercalvinist sometimes seeks to solve the mystery by claiming that God is the author of sin—that He not only predestined that Adam would sin, but actually, in some sense, caused him to sin, and held Adam accountable for the sin He caused Adam to commit. Such a teaching makes God both unholy and unjust, which is a double contradiction of scripture. The Westminster divines, when affirming that God predestines some to eternal life and others to everlasting punishment, were discerning enough to explictly deny that God is the author of sin.

Argument 2: that the unregenerate are unable to come to Christ or to understand the gospel.
To this we reply that human depravity consists in a hatred for the things of God, and an unwillingness to submit to God's authority. Unregenerate men can understand what God requires of them—this is why they often react with such hostility against God's truth and against His people—why they crucified Christ, stoned Stephen, beheaded Paul and killed the many Christian martyrs throughout the centuries.

Fallen man could trust in Christ if only he were willing to do so. His inability to believe results from his incalcitrant unwillingness to believe, and is not due to any lack of natural ability to exercise faith. Unbelievers exercise faith every day: some trust in their good works, some trust in their science (so-called) or in their unbiblical philosophy, some trust in idols or false religion. Their problem is that their faith is misplaced—it is placed in anything except Jesus Christ and His cross. The reason why their faith is misplaced is because of their enmity against God. They seek a salvation that does not lead them to the one true God, and so they reject the salvation God has provided in His Son.

Man's depravity does not relieve him of responsibility, but is, in fact, the very source of his sin and guilt. He deserves the wrath of God because, in his depravity, he very willingly despises God and His Word. His "darkness" and "ignorance" are due to the fact that he willfuly rejects and ignores God's truth, and not due to any lack of mental capacity to understand the gospel or to exercise faith in Christ.

Argument 3: that it introduces a human contribution to salvation and denies the meaning of grace.
To this we reply that the kind of faith God requires is one that looks in confidence to Christ, not to self. Faith is not a "thing" that man contributes, but is a forfeiture of any claim to self-reliance, and hence leaves no room for boasting. When the defeated enemy is told to "Surrender or die!" he does not boast of his good sense to surrender. The fact that God makes faith a condition for receiving forgiveness does not make it a work of righteousness or merit, nor a ground for boasting.

The true character of faith is exemplified by the publican who cried out "God, be merciful to me, the sinner!" (Luke 18:13). Here, we see that forgiveness is in the hand of a sovereign God to give or withhold as He pleases. Faith approaches God and pleads for mercy, and God, in compassion, pities the man who seeks mercy in this way. Hence, salvation is not automatically or mechanically procured by faith, but is sovereignly given by a compassionate God to the person who, through faith, seeks mercy from God and sees Christ as the perfect Savior who can save to the uttermost all who come to God by Him (Hebrews 7:25).

Actual salvation is entirely of God's grace, but this does not prevent God from setting forth a hypothetical way of salvation whereby men may receive forgiveness if only they, of themselves, would trust in Christ. Scripture often affirms that God does set forth just such a hypothetical way of salvation, just as it also affirms that all men, due to their depravity, refuse to avail themselves of it. No man will approach God for mercy unless God first regenerates his soul, giving him a desire for God's mercy. Salvation is always, therefore, entirely of God. However, this consideration does not preclude God from demonstrating the utter depravity of men by offering pardon to them on the condition that they trust in Christ in order to receive it, which leaves them wholly without excuse for rejecting this offer.

Argument 4: that Christ bore the sins of the elect only, and that there is no provision in the cross for the non-elect, and hence no way that God could save them even if they did come to Christ in faith.
To this we reply that God has the sovereign freedom to save anyone He wants to save, and that we should never think of Him as being a slave to His eternal decrees nor to any supposed limitation in the work of Christ. If the impossible did happen—that a non-elect person were to come to Christ—then God would have foreseen this in eternity past, and would have chosen him to salvation, and given Christ to die for his sins.

Because of the infinite dignity of the person who died at Calvary, the atonement is necessarily of infinite value—amply sufficient to atone for the sins of all men without exception. The limitation of the cross is not in its value, but in its purpose and application. We should never suppose, if God wanted to save more people, that Christ would have had to suffer more than He did.

God transcends creaturely time. He inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:15) and, with Him, a day is as a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8). Likewise, the sacrifice of Christ, by its very nature, is a work that transcends time, because at the cross God laid on Jesus the sins of elect men, some of whom had died long ago, some who were still living, and others who would not come into being until centuries later. Nor would their sins exist until centuries later. Hence, God, in some sense, reached forward in time to take those sins and lay them on Jesus. If He wished, God could now take the sins of other men and reach backward in time to lay them on Christ as well. The cross does not limit God's sovereignty, but is rather an instrument of His sovereignty that allows Him, without violating His perfect justice, to save whomever He pleases.

I am not suggesting that God does, in fact, impute to Christ the sins of anyone other than His elect, but only that He has the sovereign freedom to do so, which implies that He can honestly say to the nonelect man "You, too, may have eternal life if only you will come in faith to Jesus Christ to receive it." Hence, man's stubborn rebellion is the only thing that stands in the way of his receiving salvation when he hears the gospel.

Argument 5: that there is no basis in the gospel for an unbeliever to savingly trust in Christ, since he would first have to know that he is elect in order to know that Christ died for him.
If it is required for saving faith that men believe that the work of Christ is substitutionary and efficacious only for the elect of God, then no man can have confidence in Christ's ability to save him until he is assured that he himself belongs to the elect. How does a man come into possession of such knowledge? Does God, at regeneration, zap us with the knowledge and assurance that we are elect, so that we can then conclude that Christ's work is efficacious for our sins? This would make saving faith dependent upon a subjective feeling, rather than upon the clear statements of God's Word. No man alive on earth today can go to the scriptures and find his name written there. God does not give us in scripture an inspired list of the names of His elect people. (Note: If He did, then parents would be consulting the list when naming their children!) If saving faith depends upon having a subjective sense of our own elect status or of our regenerate condition, then it is a "faith" that looks to other conditions and considerations than Christ alone for its assurance.

When Scripture tells us to make certain of our calling and election (2 Peter 1:10), or when it says to "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith" (2 Corinthians 13:5), it is addressing believers. These passages are not addressed to a "regenerate unbeliever", teaching him that he must determine whether he is elect before he can have saving faith. Rather, they are warning believers to examine their faith to ensure that it is genuine.

True saving faith has these elements: (1) a sense of our own sinfulness and desperate need of forgiveness, (2) an understanding that Jesus Christ, by His death on the cross, satisfied God's justice so as to become the perfect Savior for everyone who comes to Him seeking forgiveness and reconciliation to God, (3) confidence in God's promise to save all who come to Christ for salvation and (4) the willingness to approach the sovereign God whom we have so sorely offended, crying out to Him for mercy while looking in confidence to Christ as the perfect Redeemer for sinners. In none of these elements is there the need to believe that Christ died only for an elect people, nor to worry whether I am included in that number. We come to Christ and trust in Him without knowing whether we are elect, and later conclude that we are elect, based on seeing the fruit of election (i.e. faith in Christ, repentance from sin, love for Christ, love for His Word, etc.). Saving faith is the first fruit of regeneration. It cannot, therefore, be conditioned on seeing some other fruit of repentance in the heart or life of the individual.

I am not suggesting that God does, in fact, impute to Christ the sins of anyone other than His elect, but only that He has the sovereign freedom to do so, which implies that He can honestly say to the nonelect man "You, too, may have eternal life if only you will come in faith to Jesus Christ to receive it." Hence, man's stubborn rebellion is the only thing that stands in the way of his receiving salvation when he hears the gospel.

I sometimes wonder if there aren't really 3 groups: (1) the elect, (2) the damned non-elect, and (3) the invited non-elect.

2 posted on 06/26/2007 3:39:46 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)

I sometimes wonder if there aren't really 3 groups: (1) the elect, (2) the damned non-elect, and (3) the invited non-elect.

I see no basis to differentiate between groups (2) and (3). The invitation is universal.

The “man of sin” in 2 Thess, for example, was written into the script as one of the “must be” damned. So are the beast and false prophet. So was Judas.

That is the distinction I’m making.

(BTW, did you see my legal question about The Scotus faith-based decision?)

4 posted on 06/26/2007 3:49:48 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)

The “man of sin” in 2 Thess, for example, was written into the script as one of the “must be” damned.... So was Judas.

True, but that doesn't demonstrate that the good-faith offer wasn't extended to either of them. Also, note that under Romans 9:19-24, the only two classifications are those who "must be saved" and those who 'must be' damned.

So are the beast and false prophet.

I'd be very careful about assuming anything in the Apocalypse refers to a specific individual.

I’m premil, so you know where I’m coming from. I’d have to include anyone in their armies, too, IIRC. Nonetheless, they are uniquely destined in that their listed destiny REQUIRES them to turn down any offer even if they hear it.

6 posted on 06/26/2007 4:06:18 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)

I’m premil, so you know where I’m coming from

And it's a reasonable position. I'm agnostic, leaning amil. Still, because informed, orthodox Christians disagree about the interpretation of Revelation, I'd be very cautious about using it as a support for another unrelated viewpoint.

Nonetheless, they are uniquely destined in that their listed destiny REQUIRES them to turn down any offer even if they hear it.

Nothing requires them to. It's not like anything other than the nature which we all have compelled them to turn down the universal offer.

from the article: It is no argument, therefore, to say that, since salvation is of the Lord, God cannot command non-elect men to come to Christ to be saved.

In the case of the scripted (damned) non-elect, the above cannot legitimately be maintained. You cannot both command someone to do XYZ and at the same time uniquely script him NOT to do XYZ. If you hypnotize your child ALWAYS to punch a bully in the nose, how reasonable is it to command him not to punch a bully in the nose?

8 posted on 06/26/2007 4:20:18 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)

"Why does he find fault? Who may resist his will?"

No one is finding fault and no one can resist His will.

God can command me to flap my arms and fly like a bird if He wants to. I just think I should explore other possibilities if I’m near to concluding that God wants me to flap my arms and fly like a bird.

10 posted on 06/26/2007 5:02:49 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)

No one is finding fault and no one can resist His will.

Just the other day you said men can resist the Holy Spirit.

So which is it?

11 posted on 06/26/2007 5:52:14 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)

12 posted on 06/26/2007 5:59:32 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)

13 posted on 06/26/2007 5:59:55 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)

Fallen man could trust in Christ if only he were willing to do so. His inability to believe results from his incalcitrant unwillingness to believe, and is not due to any lack of natural ability to exercise faith.

Oh, brother, x, this is just rehashed Arminianism.

Maybe Arminians think this is close to Calvinsim, but Calvinists know this is exatly the same thing Rome preaches -- try harder, concentrate more, think it through, accept God's offer of salvation, work for it.

14 posted on 06/26/2007 6:01:40 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)

The “obstacles” in this article are the Calvinist distinctions — straight from the Bible. Lose them, and we’re all Arminians preaching the gospel of Rome.

15 posted on 06/26/2007 6:03:09 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)

I answered your question in 13 and 14.

So now it's your turn -- can men resist the Holy Spirit, as you said last week, or are men incapable of resisting God, as you just said today?

16 posted on 06/26/2007 6:05:30 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)

17 posted on 06/26/2007 6:06:03 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)

Of course they are able to resist the Holy Spirit. The Bible says so in Acts 7.

They are able to do so, because as this article makes clear, depraved humans do have free will.

They cannot RESIST God’s accomplishing His purpose.

Check your freepmail.

18 posted on 06/26/2007 6:09:41 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)

The people resisted and killed the prophets who were led by the HS in the reference in Acts 7. Perhaps Dr. Eckleburg means being unable to resist a more direct approach by the HS. The Word being preached must fall on good ground to take effect, and good ground is different from thorny ground. Thorny ground cannot make itself good ground.

19 posted on 06/26/2007 6:30:38 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.)

You could be right about what DrE meant.

My sense is that they rejected the Gospel preached by Stephen, and Stephen knew the Holy Spirit was the source of his proclamation at that moment.

However, the truth is that no one ultimately resists God’s design for this world.

The saved will be saved, and the lost will be lost.

20 posted on 06/26/2007 6:33:01 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)

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.