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.

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

Absolutely correct. Noticed what this author states:

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.

I don't think any Calvinist would disagree with this statement. It is the outward call of God. The author (as is typical) gets into trouble when he tries to define "hypercalvinism".

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

I'm not sure what "hypercalvinism" is but I don't know of any readings that states the "unregenerate are NOT responsible...". People, including this author, fails to understand and distinguish the OUTWARD AND INWARD call of God.

I was reading today about David, Bathsheba and their first child. God tells David the child will die. David spends the next seven days praying and fasting in hopes that God will spare the child. God doesn't and the child dies. What is interesting in this story is David's response to which his servants couldn't understand. Once the child dies David gets up, refreshes himself, and has something to eat. The servants are puzzled but David rightfully understands that the fate of the child was in God's hands.

We should ask and beg God for mercy for others, but mercy depends on God's decision, not man's. And lest someone say God could change His mind about the child, David never complains that God did not answer his prayer of forgiveness. David instead admitted he didn't know what God's will was in regards to the child while, God had fixed the date of this child's death. This is the model of Calvinism evangelism.

His will is that depraved humans get to have free will.

Back to free will. Let's see what we mean by that.

If an unregenerate reprobate has not been elected by God, will he want to choose faith in Christ? Is he even capable of choosing faith?

No, his nature is fallen and he is incapable of choosing righteously. He is incapable of repentance and belief.

OTOH, if God has elected a man to be among His children (through nothing good in that man and most especially through no future good choice to believe) then that man will, at a time of God's choosing, definitely come to faith in Christ.

Why? Because God willed that walk of faith from before the foundation of the world; and the man had nothing to do with that decision. Thus, that man will not not believe. He is incapable of not repenting and not believing.

So we all play games with the term, "free will" because it satisfies that need to view life as egalitarian and fair.

But truthfully, God does not elect on fairness or righteousness or future choices or ability to believe; He elects for His own perfect reasons which are in no way dependent on the individual.

The fallacy of this article is the following statement --

"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."

Of course his disbelief is due to "a lack of natural ability to exercise faith." His "nature" is fallen and totally incapable of exercising faith.

Likewise, the only men capable of exercising faith are those who have been regenerated by God.

It's interesting how our Calvinist/Arminian discussions are going after all this time. You seem to have gotten more reformed, which is great news to us reformers. God's predestination of all things is an acquired taste, IMO. It takes a good long while to sink in because it's the antithesis of what most pulpits preach. But articles like this are more on the order of "Calvinist in the tradition of Arminius." 8~)

TULIP is a handy acronym. This article speaks against "total depravity" and "limited atonement" and most especially "unconditional election."

The only way to clarify what someone really believes is by asking questions. So, do you believe man is 100% incapable of believing in Jesus Christ unless and until God gives him faith?

Do you believe God elects based on His foreknowledge of men's eventual decision to believe, or on nothing in men.

Do you believe Christ died for every man, even those who don't come to Him?

Do you believe if God sends the Holy Spirit to give a man a new heart and eyes and ears, that man can resists the Holy Spirit? Is God's grace "irresistible?"

And finally, can any man fall away from his faith?

I'm happy this website lists Pink as one of its authors. However, some reformed sites actually leave out an entire chapter of Pink's book, "The Sovereignty of God." Imagine that; an entire chapter.

And what chapter do they ignore and try to pass off as Pink's complete work when it's not?

"The Sovereignty of God in Reprobation."

Obviously this is the hardest chapter and the one men resist the most. For that reason, it's probably among the most important because it further defines all the others.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION

Finally, does God give all men the same opportunity to believe in Him? Why do some men believe and not others? Why are some men only capable of resisting the Holy Spirit while other men are only capable of following the Holy Spirit?

If free will really existed, those questions couldn't be asked and answered.

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7

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?

Ahh, but the command is not one simply put forth as some measure of hoop to jump through. It is an obligation all men have. The creature is under moral obligation to acknowledge his Creator and be thankful...to submit himself to Him and be obedient.

The analogy you give is flawed, for God does not teach the reprobate to sin. Sin proceeds from the heart of man. God does not create fresh evil in man's heart...He works according to His purpose with what's already there.

Man is under obligation to obey. God is under no obligation to make them willing to do so. Thus there is no conflict between His command for all to obey and His selective enabling of some to do so to the exclusion of others.

I hesitate to invoke the name of Pelagius here, x, but the rationale you provided above is right along the same lines as his. He believed that God could not justly command something unless all men had the inate ability to obey. He felt that the universality of Original Sin and its effect upon the will of man (leaving him morally unable to obey by virtue of his depraved heart) would render God's commands unjust, so he rejected Original Sin. In similar manner, you are saying that God could not justly command something of a man and at the same time sovereignly ordain his disobedience. What you seem to be forgetting is the fact that God is not preventing man from doing what he would otherwise do, as though man could have obeyed had not God interfered or intervened.

(let me be clear..I'm not accusing you of being a Pelagian, only pointing out a flaw in reasoning similar to his)

The disobedience proceeds from the evil in man's heart. Whatever God ordains for that individual, that fact must be kept in focus lest we reach a point where God appears to be the author of that person's evil.

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.