Are Calvinists Passionate about Evangelism?
Jun 12th, 2007 by Nathan White
Over lunch the other day a friend of mine shared with me a rather common perception about many who label themselves ‘Calvinists’. Calvinism, of course, is just a short way of referring to a few essential points of God’s sovereignty in salvation. Obviously, I am a Calvinist, and this gentleman was as well, but his opinion came out of a concern for what he sees within Calvinistic circles.
He said (paraphrased):
‘Have you noticed how Calvinists just aren’t as passionate about evangelism as the Arminians? Even when I was an Arminian, it seemed that I had such a greater fervor for witnessing and reaching the lost than I do now as a Calvinist.’
There is no doubt that this issue has been dealt with countless times, so I don’t plan to add anything profound to the conversation here. Let me make it clear, however, that whether or not the statement has any truth to it whatsoever by no means indicates whether Calvinism is indeed true or false. Scripture determines truth, not our perception or experiences.
Accordingly, I made it clear with my friend that I disagreed with his opinion -for several different reasons. But above all of the valid reasons that could be given to demonstrate this fallacy, only one lies at the heart of this matter, in my opinion. I believe that the offense of the cross is why A) this perception is favored by Arminians, and B) why this perception has some half-truths to is. Let me explain:
“For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” - 1 Cor 2
[A full study of this text and other scriptures on this subject reveals without a doubt that the message of the cross, i.e. the gospel, is utter foolishness to the unbeliever. I move forward in this post with the assumption that we are agreed on this point.]
It is because of this foolishness of the gospel message that, A) Arminians see Calvinists as ‘less passionate’ about evangelism.
Calvinists just do not see the need (much less the scriptural basis) for things such as altar calls, sinners’ prayers, the four spiritual laws, and other methods of manipulation that Arminians often live by. Remember, the Calvinist understands that God is sovereign, and He calls sinners to Himself through the preaching of the Word and that alone. So there is no need for manipulative techniques with this understanding of God’s sovereignty. Therefore, the Arminian looks at these lack of methods as a lack of passion for the lost. But quite the contrary is true. It is the Calvinist who cares more for the loss, because the Calvinist is interested in giving the unbeliever the only remedy for His sin, the gospel, and he will stop at nothing to remove all other hindrances of the gospel, less their faith rest ‘in the wisdom of men’ instead of ‘the power of God.’
It is because of the foolishness of the gospel message that, B) this perception is half true.
I say half true because I do believe it has an element of truth to it. Calvinist do seem to struggle a bit more with witnessing to the lost (notice that I do not affirm this is from a lack of passion). That is, the Calvinist understands point A above, in that manipulative techniques actually hinder the conversion of the lost and without the utter foolishness preached the true gospel message has been distorted. With the knowledge that only the foolishness of the gospel is acceptable in God’s eyes, the reproach of men upon being confronted with the message is certainly increased. Which leads to…
Conclusion:
Witnessing to the lost is much more difficult to the Calvinist because he understands that the gospel is utter foolishness; he knows that anger and hatred are likely to follow from the confronted unbeliever. The Arminian, on the other hand, is completely free to distort, manipulate, dumb-down, suppress the offense of and dress up the gospel to the point where the foolishness can been removed. The Arminian can resort to techniques, to self-helps, to culturally-acceptable, easy to believe gospel proclamations, and thus it is much easier to proclaim an inoffensive message to the unbeliever. Since the message becomes easy to proclaim, the Arminian will find it much easier to proclaim this easy message to anyone he runs into, and thus he looks on the Calvinist as lacking in evangelistic passion.
Thus, the Arminian is certainly more passionate about proclaiming his message to the masses, but the Calvinist is certainly more passionate about proclaiming the gospel to the masses -the foolishness of the cross and all.
Anyone can be passionate about reaching the lost when the message has been dumbed down to a culturally acceptable self help program, and thus that message is widely proclaimed. But it is quite another thing to be faithful in proclaiming the foolishness of the cross, knowing the response that is likely to follow.
May the Lord help us to be ever striving towards that end, the end of proclaiming the pure foolishness of the gospel, no matter what the consequences may seem to be.
Nathan,
Do you think the “message” that arminians preach contain the Gospel? You noted that
Does “his message” lead people to the Gospel and ultimately salvation?
Occasional lurker here…
I like this post. It makes good sense.
Like many other Christians I’ve gone through various witnessing training courses - canvassed the neighborhoods going door to door - visited “first time” Church visitors and lowered the boom on them, pressing them into a “sinners prayer”. I knew something wasn’t right, but we always did high-fives and got kudos from the Pastor when we got back to church to meet with the other teams and give our ‘praise’ reports! To be honest, sometimes it seemed more like passion to put another ‘notch’ on your belt rather than passion for souls. Looking back it makes me sad. I pray that God will be as gracious to those I may have helped confuse as he has been in opening my eyes…
I take witnessing to others more seriously now.. slower, more deliberate. I’m in no rush to get a commitment, I just want to be used by God as a tool to lead others to Him.
Great blog.. good insight!
One of the other Calvinist impediments, in my experience, is the fact that I feel constrained to provide a lot of information. I want people to actually understand what I’m trying to tell them, and in our culture, there is no basic level of familiarity with the teachings of Scripture. You have to start from ground zero.
An Arminian who has his Romans Road memorized can spout it off in the checkout line at the supermarket and walk away patting himself on the back for being a faithful witness. But I really need to sit down with you in a place where we won’t be terribly distracted. So “redeeming the time” of the elevator ride by “witnessing” is not only not going to work for me, but I think it can be quite counterproductive, if I wind up having just enough time to confuse somebody.
I am excited to share the gospel, but not every half-minute in a stranger’s earshot strikes me as an opportunity.
JZ said: Do you think the “message” that arminians preach contain the Gospel?
Well in all fairness, since we are not looking at any one specific gospel message, then determining whether it is in line with scripture is impossible. But, I understand what you mean (I think): Overall, that is, do Arminians preach a true gospel?
I wouldn’t be honoring the testimony of scripture if I said that the
Arminian gospel is the pure gospel as taught in scripture. However, for the most part, I would stop way short of calling the Arminian gospel a false gospel. That is, there are many gospel presentations that are flawed but that contain enough truth for God to use.
To take it even one step further, I know many false gospel presentations that lead people to salvation. That is, I know of Catholics and even Mormons who have come to real, saving faith in Christ by being exposed to just a nugget of truth within these false systems. It is God who draws, not men, and so He is free to draw people any way He chooses. Ultimately, however, everyone who is saved comes back to the Word of God which pierces the heart.
Thus, it would be a terrible mistake to look at the results of a gospel presentation –whether a Catholic one or an Arminian one–, and say, ‘well, I can put up with it because look at who is being saved by it’. All religions/systems that teach the Bible have the potential to accidently cause someone to come across the pure gospel.
Therefore, no, most Arminian gospel presentations do not cross into false doctrine category, but they without a doubt are dishonoring to God and we should love people enough to tell them so.
SDG
BTW, JZ, I hope you and others recognize that my intention in this post wasn’t to slam the Arminian, but to show that most of the American evangelical world has removed the offense of the gospel to the point where ‘witnessing’ is as easy as asking a stranger for an extra penny. Thus, because the message is easy, it goes out to many, and this causes them to look at those who strive to preach foolishness as ‘less passionate’ about the lost.
SDG
Thanks for the response. I read a bit too much into those last couple paragraphs.
God help us be obidient to preach the true gospel.
1 Cor 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
Nate, don’t you wonder, if God is sovereign and chooses people as He wills, why He only seems to “pick” people where the culture as a whole embraces Christianity? In other words, He seems to choose as Christians white, English-speaking people, not people where the Gospel is not preached with regularity (such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan). Their culture is not Christian, and most people there are not Christians.
Why do you suppose this is?
James, a couple of points to think about in regards to your question:
1. Christianity’s main “growth centers” around the world today are not in white, English-speaking cultures. Chritianity is growing rapidly in Africa, South America, and Asia. Christianity is in fact on the verge of regressing, if not there already, in the white West.
2. The underlying implication of your question, which is the point I think you’re trying to make, is this: converts to Christianity are more a product of culture than any sovereign decision on God’s part. But this puts the cart before the horse. If there are some cultures that are more Chrisitan than others, it is because of all the converts and believers in that culture’s ancestry.
3. We don’t believe there’s any problem with affirming God’s absolute sovereignty in salvation on one hand, and on the other affirming that being born and raised in a Gospel-friendly culture is a particular blessing and is likely to result in more Christians. God will save His elect and one of the means He uses to that end is placing them where the Gospel is preached.
Gordon, yes Christianity is “growing” in the areas you mentioned, but that’s only because of an increase in Christian missionaries and the governments’ growing acceptance of evangelization. The vast majority of china’s 1 billion+ inhabitants are not Christian. The vast majority of India’s population .. again, not Christian. Same thing with most of the Arab countries.
It’s as if you’re suggesting that God has singled out these other races for condemnation, indicated by the lack of the popularity (and common-ness) of the Gospel.
I wouldn’t use the phrase “singled out” for condemnation. I believe we all deserve condemnation. God singles out those He saves.
The racial profile of Christianity right now is a snapshot in time. It used to be that only folks living around Jerusalem could be saved, because that’s where the message was. By God’s grace, that has greatly expanded. In time, it will continue. It won’t be long before these other races you’re talking about will represent the majority of Christians worldwide. Then, I suppose someone could come along and say, “Gee, God must’ve singled out white folks for condemnation.”
Gordon, my point is that, even if one believes in election, God is not bound to save only those who come to the Gospel by hearing it. It’s as if you’re saying that Christ died but limited the efficacy of that salvific work to those who come to the Gospel via men’s works (preaching). It’s neither consistent even with Calvinism nor logical.
In other words, CAN God save those who have never heard the Gospel from the mouth of man? Does He? If God is sovereign, He can.
James,
No, I’m saying that God has chosen to use the means of preaching (normally) to save the elect. He’s chosen the elect and He’s also determined how they will be saved. I would say that He uses the means of the Gospel almost exclusively. I believe He is free to act without, beyond, or above the means He normally uses.
But He will not save contrary to the Gospel. I mean, you can’t refuse Christ and hope that God will go some other route to save you.
Gordan: Were man able to play a role in his own salvation, would this necessarily deny God’s sovereignty? Why cannot both co-exist?
Further, why does “Power” alone take pre-eminence over all other possible attributes assigned to God (love, justice, mercy, etc)?
Where in Scripture is God defined primarily as “Power”?
The reason man is not able to play a role in his own salvation is because Jesus very clearly taught that “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” (John 6:44) As a certain country preacher once said, “if He ain’t a drawin’, they ain’t a comin’!” A sinner comes to Christ ONLY because God is drawning him to Christ in the first place. It doesn’t work any other way.
John wrote:
“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)
We see clearly in this passage that it is God who’s in charge of the New Birth. It’s not of “blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor of the WILL OF MAN, but of God!!!
Soli Deo Gloria!
James,
No Calvinist denies that men “play a role” in their salvation. We simply believe that role is purely passive. There are things we have to “do.” We have to repent and believe the Gospel ourselves; but we do not believe humans can stir these things up from within themselves. They are gifts from God. But in those who are saved, they must be displayed. God gives repentance; but you must actually repent.
What we deny is that we can cooperate with God to earn our salvation. We believe we are saved by the work of Christ alone.
So, that is why your question about why can’t it be both is wrong from the outset.
Calvinism: Salvation is all of God.
Synergism: Salvation is mostly of God, and partly of man.
A thing can’t be A and non-A at the same time. Either it’s all of God, or it’s not.
I don’t understand your question about “power.” I haven’t seen anyone here posit it as some sort of primary or ultimate characteristic of God. Calvinists believe that election is all about love, and mercy, and compassion.
Gordan — thanks for your responses. Couple more things and I’ll leave it at that as I’m sure I’m driving Nate crazy playing 20 questions.
1) “Calvinists believe that election is all about love, and mercy, and compassion.”
Well, sure, if you’re one of the elect. How would you describe election to one of the non-elect, were you given the knowledge of who they were? How would you explain to them why you were granted salvation by God and they were not?
2) “We simply believe that role is purely passive.”
Do you personally feel as if you’re on auto-pilot and just sort of swept along in a tide of things you have no control over? To what degree does this passivity play out in everyday life? Everything or just spiritual things? I mean do you feel God moves you to do only God-related things (such as repentence) or do you feel that He’s in control over what time you get up in the morning, whether you drink tea instead of coffee, that sort of thing? (I don’t mean that to sound snide … many believe in that)
James said: How would you describe election to one of the non-elect, were you given the knowledge of who they were? How would you explain to them why you were granted salvation by God and they were not?
This is asking me to participate in a hypothetical situation which is actually an impossibility. I’ll admit off the bat that I don’t know why God chose to save me. But before we even get there, why would the non-elect care, anyway? None of them truly seeks God; none are really interested in pleasing Him on His terms. So, even if I had the perfect explanation, they wouldn’t be interested in hearing it, and even if it made perfect sense they would hate it.
In the real world, my responsibility is to preach the Gospel to everyone without distinction. If they wind up in hell anyway, I assume that either a) they’ll be completely cognizant of why, or b) they will be spewing too much hatred and venom to care why.
As to your other question, no I don’t feel inactive at all. I am faced with choices for which I am held morally responsible. I do believe all things whatsoever may happen have been ordained. But when I do evil, I get all the credit for that because I do it most willingly, of my own “free will,” nobody forcing my hand.
Now I know that’s a tough one to wrap a human brain around. If God controls all things, how does He then still find fault? This is precisely the issue Paul addresses in Romans 9. At some point, as a simple country preacher, I have realize that IS what the Book says, and I’m under obligation to believe it, even if I can’t figure out how all the gears mesh together. I admit that the Incarnation and Trinity still boggle my mind in similar fashion, but this is not an excuse to disbelieve these things.
James,
I have let this conversation go on (for several months now) in hopes that you would pay closer attention to the specific words of scripture in some of these areas. But as I have said to you before, the words of scripture must be the centerpiece of all discussion here. If you read my beliefs as stated on this blog, I hold that the only knowable truth to man is revealed in the 66 books of the Bible. Thus, unless you wish to counter my or anyone else’s assertion with a biblical text that supports your position, then I think we should cease this discussion.
You asked earlier why man cannot play a small role in the salvation process, and the Apostle Paul directly answers that question in saying:
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. -Rom 4:4
If man can DO anything for salvation, then that salvation is earned just as a laborer earns his wages.
Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. -Rom 3:27
Hey guys,
I think this is a worthwhile discussion. I must tell you that Dr. Hargrave has just come out with a book titled, “What is Evangelism?” He deals with both sides of the coin and he is a avid, 5 point calvinist. If you’re interested it’s a 56 page booklet and you can purchase it for $6 at www.graceworx.com/Resources.html. I think you guys will find it addresses a lot of the discussion points here. God bless.
I would add that all the pleadings of the Arminian you name (altar calls, emotive appeals, etc.) actually undercut his belief in libertarian freedom. Libertarianism reduces to causeless choice, but all those methods seek to provide the object of evangelism with a warrant to believe. A warrant to believe is actually incompatible with the notion of a causeless choice, because that would provide a reason for him to believe. That’s one reason, among many, I can’t be an Arminian. It’s built on surd epistemology.
I’d like to chime in here if I may…
I’m a Calvinist and also and evangelist (for lack of a better word) I go out regularly and witness, pass tracts, and Open Air Preach. I find no problem with the fact that we are commanded to preach the gospel and that God will save whom He chooses…
One more comment; to the person who said that he couldn’t give a gospel presentation in a minute or two…yes you can…if you remember that you’re not responsible for the outcome…you’re just the delivery system…
www.wayofthemaster.com has some good resources to help…I never leave home without a tract or two in my pocket for the times in the grocery line when there is only a second or two to make contact with someone. Usually there is more time than we think their is…
[…] evangelism. Sometimes it is confusing as to why these types of perceptions arise. One reason, which I have covered before, is because Arminians recognize that Calvinists do not go about evangelism in the same manner as […]