Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God

Here is a related question with which I have been wrestling: What is/are the key differences between reformed evangelism and arminian evangelism with respect to methodology?

Is this “choice” a work that a person does to gain salvation? Or, put another way, is God bound to save those who choose Him? What if somebody “chooses” God for selfish reasons such as thinking God loves them and so just loving those who love themselves? Or what if somebody “chooses” God simply because they think it will bring them a better life but without really being broken over their sin?

I guess I’m wondering is, how is telling a person that must choose to follow God reall y any different than the way evangelism is done by the arminian other than the one doing the evangelism having a different framework for understanding what happens?

Coy: Thanks for the response and I agree. You said: “you are asking how evangelism looks to the sinner if an Arminian witnessed to him and then a Calvinist witnessed to him.” That is basically what I am getting at and the application is how should calvinists (using the term loosely) practice evangelism in contrast to the majority. I agree with what you wrote and here are some other things I’ve thought about:

If we believe what we do about God’s sovereignty (as well as with what you wrote), then why would we try to bring a person to a decision or to make a commitment? Isn’t that something they are doing at a time they control? Shouldn’t we instead exhort people to repent and seek God, teaching that salvation is in the Lord’s hands? This seems to be the way evangelism used to be practiced, at least in the limited exposure I’ve had to older books, but I’m sure I have much to learn on the subject.

STEVEE: You said: “He would be choosing and dismissing, culling the fields and discarding those whom He claims to love.” Is your view of God then that He loves all people and wishes them to be saved but because He doesn’t wish to invade man’s freedom, is powerless to save them? I think you need to realize that Calvinists do not view man as mere robots. Read Jonathan Edwards’ “On the Freedom of the Will.” God does not force us to do anything against our own loves and desirse. Total depravity, however, teaches that by nature (because of the sin-nature inherited from Adam) we have no loves or desires for God and cannot work them up. So everything we do is according to our own self-love. This doesn’t mean we are as bad as we could be, but simply that an unawakened mind does not delight in the things of God. It takes the work of God’s Spirit to open our eyes to His glory and see the terribleness of our sin.

Perhaps this view sounds to you like it makes man out to be a robot, but that is not what the 5-points of Calvinism teach. Instead, the glory of God is seen in that He is sovereign over all creation. The mercy and grace of God is seen in that it is He who has given grace to His people - not something we’ve chosen of our own will.

You also said: “Our hope becomes meaningless because we hope in nothing…it is not of us that it matters.” And so
I must ask, is hope for you only meaningful if self is at the center? If my hope was dependent on my making a choice, I would not have much hope because I know my sinfulness to some degree and know that there isn’t much to stand on. Then, you said “all become meaningless in an orthodoxy that believes all movement and thought, all life is a pre-ordained play that has only one outcome.” So do you believe there is more than one outcome in life? (It seems there was a TV show a while back that took this premise - I think it was called “Sliders”) If not, do you believe God knows the future and KNOWS the one outcome? If so, then how can He know the outcome if He is waiting to see what decisions we will make?

Just a few other comments and I’ll stop. While scripture definitely paints God as the Father to His people, I think we must be careful about taking the analogy too far in a worldly sense. Just because earthly fathers, for example, are not sovereign over their children and cannot know their every thought, does not mean God is the same way. The analogy, I think, was primarily refering to His love. Also, I agree that God IS love. SO let me ask just one more question: To whom or what is His love directed? And would it be idolatry for Him to love anything greater than Himself? (ok I lied, 2 questions)

Anyway, I must stop there. Please don’t take this as trying to attack you but simply questioning further some of the things you’ve set out.

COY: Here is where I struggle with the issue of evangelism. In your last sentence, you state “Later on, as he matures spiritually, he realizes from hindsight that God did it all, even giving him the ability to trust.” In reading this it would seem that such a person is really trusting in himself, or at least his ability to make a decision until he “matures spiritually.” If he truly thinks at the time of “conversion” that he did something, then is he putting his trust in Christ or trusting in a dead work?

Please don’t get me wrong - I do not think a person needs to have a certain level or type of theology in order to be saved. There are people who are opposed to so-called Calvinism but who trust completely in God. If you asked them why they are a Christian, they would respond with something like “only by the grace of God, of which I know I am completely undeserving.” And so I am not trying to say that a person needs to understand or even know about Calvinism to be saved. But I do often think about what the difference is between a person who looks to a choice or commitment they’ve made versus one who has come to the end of self, being utterly hopeless in anything he can say or do, and so pleads with God that he might be saved, undeserving as he is.

Does this mean we shouldn’t call people to repent and turn to Christ? Absolutely not! I simply think that the heart is very deceptive and decisions can be made for selfish reasons, so we must be careful. Remember that Jesus didn’t tell every person he encountered to repent and believe. Look at the rich young ruler. Jesus went straight to the issue of his heart - that he loved possesions more than God. Jesus could have easily told this man to ask God for forgiveness and receive Him as Lord, of which this man might have obligingly done - but for selfish reasons not out of a broken and humble heart. His true love was for his possessions (of course we don’t know if later he repented or not).

I believe we need to be very careful in evangelism. Remember Charles Finney and the “burnt over district” as some called it. Bringing a person to a point where they can trust in something other than Christ is dangerous for their soul. How much worse to be self-decieved and end up in Hell when you think you are on the narrow road, than to be unsure about your state when you are truly a believer.

Steve: Romans 5, specifically verses 12-21 is primarily where I would see the doctrine of original sin and the teaching that through Adam, all have sinned. Romans 5:18 states “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.” Scripture also refers to man in the natural state as being “dead”. Ephesians 2:1 - “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins…” Also 1 John 3:14 - “We know that we have passed out of death into life because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.” And Paul refers to his body of death. This view would agree with David in Psalm 51:5 - “Behold I was brought forth in inquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” All men are sinners by nature and born in moral corruption.

Are we sinners because we sin or sin because we are sinners? Based on the above, I conclude the second is true. The Pelagian view is the opposite and that man is born with moral ability and could theoretically still live a sinless life. But what does it mean to be dead in sin or to abide in death? Can one who abides in death pull himself out of that death? Or do we agree with what John 6:44 teaches: “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”

There are so many directions we could go with this. The freedom of the will is a very important issue as well. What is the will free FROM? Is it free from the power of God? Or is it more along the lines of what Jonathan Edwards presents where the will is wrapped up with the loves and affections and a person’s free will is really him always acting according to his greatest desire. Tying this in with Adam & Eve, we could say that before the fall, their desires were free from bondage to sin. After the fall, however, the wills of all man are now in bondage to sin (what Martin Luther taught in what he said was his most important work) and so our desires are naturally only for evil apart from the grace of God. But God does not force us to act against our desires and so our will is free in that sense. But I believe that a libertarian view of the will puts man at the same level as God, which is to make man god and God something else.

My very inadequate view of God sees Him is the beginning and end of all things. All things are from, through, and to Him as Romans 11:36 states. I further see God’s love for the believer as love that is flowing from the Father to the Son and back. God sees Himself (the Son) in the believer and that is what He loves. In this view, believers are not technically the objects of God’s love but sharers in His love for Himself. God does all things for His own glory. Creation was not ultimately for man, but for Himself. In my mind, for God to have any ultimate cause and effect other than Himself would be idolatry. There, now you probably think I am very strange indeed (probably true), but I believe that a view of God that places man and his choices at the center is a view that strips away much (or all?) of His glory. Does this mean that we are not free to act according to our will? No. But it does mean that our will is not free from (or outside the power of) God.

Coy: We will never have a complete understanding of God, and I agree that one can be saved and really not know much about the sovereignty of God or other attributes. If they are truly born-again, though, I think they will continue to grow in their (true) knowledge of Him. Hmm.. many things to ponder. And so, just some more thoughts on this issue. Here is a quote from Jonathan Edwards in guiding those seeking salvation: “Remember that if ever God bestows mercy upon you, He will use His sovereign pleasure about the time when. He will bestow it on some in a little time, and on others not till they have sought it long. If other persons are soon enlightened and comforted, while you remain long in darkness, there is no other way but for you to wait. God will act arbitrarily in this matter, and you cannot help it. You must even be content to wait, in a way of laborious and earnest striving, till His time comes. If you refuse, you will but undo yourself.” (Note that his use of the word arbitrary is not meant to say that God does things arbitrarily, I think, but instead pointing out how it might look from our perspective). To me, this seems a very different way of evangelizing or presenting the gospel and way of salvation than is most common today among both the “reformed” and “non-reformed”. Are we garunteed that if we seek God we will find Him? I think the answer can be yes but only if our motives are not completely selfish, which is something that cannot come out of a dead sinful nature. So a person can be seeking God for salvation in a sense but not find it because they are seeking entirely for selfish/self-centered reasons. They may think they attain it (as is very common today) but are only deceiving themselves. How many pastors and evangelists aid in such deceptions by telling people to simply commit their lives to God and look to Him in faith that He has saved them (are they really just looking in faith to their commitment)? Perhaps that is why I am opposed to teaching people to make decisions & “commitments” or to “re-dedicate their lives” as a way of salvation. These are all actions under their control.. they are not flying to Christ, begging Him for mercy, and realizing that even their begging and crying out to Him is as a filthy rag.

I am speaking very generally here. That’s not to say that everyone who has made a “decision” isn’t really a Christian.. I think a lot of times people make some sort of decision or commitment and were already saved. What I am opposed to is using this as a method of evangelism because it puts the power of God unto salvation in the hands of man and his time tables.

Steve,

Read the entire Romans 5 passage. Especially verse 12. Paul is clearly setting out the sin nature of all men and condemnation that all are under. And does Eph 2:1 state that we are deserving of death, or are dead. Also, in 1 John, what does it mean to “abide in death” in contrast to your saying “not that our I’natural state is dead.” How can one abide in death but not be in a state of death? And what is David talking about in Psalm 51 if he does not believe he is sinful from conception? From my perspective you seem to be picking certain passages and twisting them to fit your theology.

When Paul says: “To those who by persistance in doing good, seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life” is he providing a work that can be done for salvation or showing that those who are saved WILL persist in doing good because of the righteousness of Christ and indwelling of His Spirit as taught in other passages?

I don’t agree with everything Calvin said, but I think the 5-points if understood the way they were intended, are an exposition of biblical truth. I prefer to avoid the term Calvinist, however, because most people today have a very warped view of what that historically meant. I must ask, though, what is the difference between a God who knows all future outcomes, decisions, etc. and one who has ordained them? Does God simply know all the possibilities but is not sure which ones will take place? That is what open theism teaches which, I submit, is neither biblical nor Christian. If God does actually know all things that ever did and will happen, then how can he know this without being sovereign or having ordained all things? Couldn’t somebody or something thwart his plan or change what He knows to be true?

I am confused as to what you are referring to in the term anthropomorphisim. I thought this was the giving of human qualities to animals or objects? Are you suggesting that I am giving humans human qualities? I am certainly not giving God human qualities in His essence. Yes, he condescended to take the form of a man and so exists in the eternal person of both God and man, but this is not to give him any of the sin qualities of man. I think you are missing what I said in my last post. The life of God IN man is not that God becomes like man, but that He puts His spirit in us so that we can be holy. Yet our flesh (sinful nature) wars with the new nature (spirit), which is why there cannot be sinless perfection until Heaven.

One more thing. You state, “No matter what fashion we place human will, or freedom, it exsists. A Calvinist might say our will is only to sin. Yet that would deny scripture just quoted where we by persistance in doing good…attain life.” First, nobody that I know of would argue that the will does not exist. Your assertion that the bondage of the will to sin is to deny scripture, yet the scripture you provide has nothing to do with the freedom or bondage of the will. Further, if Romans 2 is to be interpretted as you say, then the implication is that our salvation is of works of the will of man. That sounds suspiciously like the view of the Jehova’s witnesses. But Paul in this passage is not dealing with the reason or source of such persistence but presenting the judgement of God. If you take passages like these and let them stand alone outside of the broader context of the gospel (what Romans is all about), you could end up with pretty much whatever theology suits your fancy.

Coy: It does seem that Edwards and others in that time approached salvation a bit differently. I don’t think Edwards would agree with telling somebody “you may not be called right now, so just long to be saved, but you can’t do anything about it now.” He would say it is your duty to seek God, seek Him while He may be found. He would exhort people that if they think they might seek Him at a later time they are deceiving themselves (God might harden you heart). He would tell people to use the “means” - prayer, reading the bible, fasting, and abstaining from all known sin in their seeking for salvation. In the ultimate sense, however, yes he would say that man can do nothing “about” God’s salvation because it is completely a gift of umerited grace. To tell people to do a certain thing or seek God for a certain time would be to have human constraints and so (in my mind) a “work” to be done. I agree with what you say about the “decision”, but if this is true, why even bring people to a decision about their own salvation in the first place? Perhaps we are not saying things all that different. In the case of children, that can be very hard and I suppose you are right in saying “I think they are believers.” It seems that we need to be focusing on issues of the heart as opposed to outward moral action. I think it is very easy for a person to be outwardly moral (or to appear that way to many people), but what is in the heart? Does true love for God flow out of it or are all things done out of love for self? That seems to be the indicator of true salvation especially in reading through 1 John. And so I agree that we must be cautious and would add only that professions of faith are often done out of self love (a desire simply to escape hell, or possibly the approval of man). We should proclaim God to people and the wickedness of sin and leave room for Him to work. We don’t simply want to make intellectual converts who have assented to certain things, but people whose hearts have been broken and changed by God.

Steve: Heh, don’t worry, I don’t think you’re a JW (not that my opinion matters), but certainly some of the things you were writing sounded strangely that way. I suppose this discussion could go on until the download of this page would be impossible for a dial-up user :). But my will is not free to resist, so I must continue a bit longer. You said, “See, for any kind of scripture passage that seems to support Calvinism, an Arminian could counter with just as many that either contradict what was said, or stand in direct opposition to it. The reverse is true also, as we’ve seen demonstrated in the banter many of us just partook in.” First, this is a very odd way to approach scripture. If one truly believes the scripture to be inerrant, then the seeming contradictions are just that: seeming. I also don’t think the reverse of your statement has been demonstrated. Yes you provided some scripture verses, but came to conclusions not warranted by the text and further did not offer much of a response to passages that were given in support of total depravity. You seem to operate under the principle that scripture can contradict itself and not have a problem with that. While I would agree that we can never fully understand God or the things about Him, I also believe that scripture does not contradict itself. So John 6, for example, cannot contradict what is taught in other parts of the Bible. If it does, then our theology is wrong and we need to reevaluate it. To simply offer other passages and then conjecture something like, “they contradict each other, therefore neither must be true, or both must be true and we just can’t understand it” does not seem to me as a very sober way of approaching the Word of God. I suppose we will have to let the readers decide on this one, though.

On to a few other things. You said, “An Arminian would say they planted the seed and its up to God to make it grow.” Do you know of any “Calvinist” who would disagree with this statement? Then, “How much does He do? Scripture does not say.” Wow, that is a pretty bold statement. I hope you have studied the scriptures through and through enough to be able to come to this conclusion. And the clencher, “Scripture is not about God. It is about what God expects of us.” ….. I am really at a loss here. This probably sounds arrogant (it isn’t meant that way), but how can a person read and meditate on scripture and conclude that it is not primarily about God but about us (or what God expects of us)!? You admit the scripture gives us “glimpses” of God, but this is an EXTREMELY huge issue. I read scripture and see it as God’s revelation to man of Himself. No, it does not teach us every single thing about God since that is impossible for any to know except God Himself. But to view scripture as a simple how-to/self-help book is a very low view of God’s Word, in my opinion. The heart of our differences is becoming more clear. I view scripture as THE source of divine truth in which God manifests His glory to us. In light of this, it makes me tremble to think that I could twist scripture to my own selfish desires (which I’m sure I do in some cases unknowingly - be very wary of a person who thinks they have a perfect understanding of the Bible). This view of scripture constrains me to wrestle with hard passages and compare scripture to scripture. True understanding of God, however, comes only by the power of the Spirit. Perhaps you are right in that the Bible only gives us a glimpse of God, but that is because God is infinite, not because that isn’t the purpose of His Word. There is so much that tells of who God is.. Psalm 36:9, Isaiah 43:10-13, John 5:26, etc. etc. In fact, I might as well just reference the whole Bible it is so dripping of GOD. I would recommend reading “The Attributes of God” by Pink.. it’s short and shows how scripture sets out some of God’s attributes. If we don’t agree on the purpose of the Bible or approach it in a similar manner, then how will we ever agree on anything it teaches?

Steve: I certainly was not intending to have a contest between Calvinism and Arminianism in my initial comments, but was trying to focus on how teachings that I believe are biblical affect how evangelism is practiced. You state that you were trying to demonstrate that Calvinism and Arminianism are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I agree, especially in light of the fact that the 5 points were a direct response to “Arminian” teachings so I would think would stand opposed. Would anybody argue otherwise?

I am glad that you believe scripture does not contradict itself. Without this belief, we end up relying on our own desires for what scripture should mean. Sadly, more and more are throwing out the infallibility of God’s Word in order that they can believe whatever their evil heart is set upon.

I don’t know how helpful it is, however, to quote someone like Calvin and then find a scripture passage that seems to disagree. Why not go straight to the passages that prompted people like Calvin to make statements like that? Then you can compare scripture to scripture and not man to scripture. Or perhaps you would like to assert that Calvin did not ground any of his teachings in scripture? For example, in the quote you provide, why not compare the passages of scripture Calvin uses to build his case (Matthew 15:13, Romans 9:20-23, Proverbs 16:4, Colossians 3:25, and others). This particular quote is one that seems to pop up quite a bit, but it can be read in its conext with all the references to scripture in Calvin’s Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 23.

So when you say, “So, whom then, do I believe? I will go with God,” you are not really dealing with the scripture but trying to sweep it under the rug by setting up a false comparison between man and God. Of course you should choose the Word of God over man! But if what a man says is grounded in the Word of God, then to the degree it comes from scripture, you must deal with it. For example, when you quote 2 Samuel 14:14 you must see how it fits with the above passages. Certainly Psalm 36:9 speaks of all life coming from God. I could agree that death does not come from God in the same sense that life does. But if all life comes from God, and all things are upheld by the power of His Word, then he needs only to remove his supply of life and death/destruction will result. What is 2 Samuel talking about? Are you prepared to say that all death is outside the realm of God because of what a Tekoan woman says in the context of helping David return from exile? If not, then what does this passage mean? You can’t just use it to refute a particular quote and not follow your interpretation through to its logical conclusion.

Heh, must be getting late.. I meant helping Absalom return from exile w.r.t. the 2 Samuel passge.

Steve: Please do not mis-represent what I said. I certainly did NOT say that Calvin came up with his teachings in reponse to Arminius. Instead, I said that the 5-points were a response to “Arminian” teachings. After Arminius’s death, his followers came up with a “Remonstrance” which was also known as the 5 points of Arminianism. These were rejected by the Synod of Dort in what would be called the 5-points of Calvinism. All of this happened AFTER both Calvin & Arminius were dead. I really think you ought to read a bit of church history, and perhaps also ought to read things a little more carefully before you assume their meaning. Actually, a recent DVD called “Amazing Grace” did a pretty good job of laying out the historical context of the Arminian/Calvinism debate if you are interested.

On another point, “calvinists” don’t believe Calvinistic teachings because they are from John Calvin but because they can be found in the Bible. And John Calvin certainly was not the first to believe many of the things he wrote. You can find a lot of the same teachings in Martin Luther, Augustine, and, I would argue, even the apostle Paul among others. This may be a reason I don’t really like using the term Calvinist (John Calvin probably wouldn’t approve anyway). Calvinists are not followers of John Calvin (in fact, many would disagree with him on several issues), but they are so-called usually because they simply affirm the truth of the 5-points as set out at the Synod of Dort.

In reading back through these series of posts, it appears to me that there has not been any realy meaningful discussion of difficult passages of scripture. It’s one thing to throw out quotes (out of context) of a mere man and then find a scripture that seems to contradict what has been said. It’s another to deal with scripture itself and how the whole of scripture can be brought to bear on each passage. I once heard the analogy of scripture study being like an upside-down pyramid. That is, we bring the entire weight of scripture to bear on a particular book / chapter / verse / (even word) in order to understand its meaning. Not a perfect analogy, but it has definitely been helpful for me.

At any rate, it seems this conversation is becoming less and less productive and so I might slowly make my exit. I still think that how we do evangelism is vitally important. The souls of men must be handled with the utmost of care. We must avoid making intellectual converts only and also avoid giving man a work to do that he might “save himself”. If any are interested, a recent series of articles addressing this issue has been posted here (this is the 1st, parts 2-8 are linked on the right, and more should be forthcoming in future weeks).