What Value has Evangelism in Reformed Theology

[TibiasDad]

I have just begun reading the book Deconstructing Calvinism, by Hudson Smelley, and in the prologue found this statement:

Calvinism completely compasses God's redemptive plan and teaches that God saves a small percentage of humanity based on His elective determination before creation and passes over the rest. Since God's redemptive plan excludes most people, there is no basis for us to tell a lost person that God loves them, that Jesus died for them, that they should believe in Christ for salvation, or that there is hope beyond the grave. If the lost person is not elect, we would be misleading them if we said any of those things. Indeed, it is difficult to see how we could make any honest gospel presentation knowing most people are by God's purposes not savable. Not only that, since salvation hangs on God's elective determination before creation and not on a present decision for Christ, we must make this TULIP reality personal. We must come to grips with the fact that many of those we know, and perhaps some of those closest to us, have no possibility of being reconciled to God because they are not elect.

What caught my eye is the idea that "there is no basis for us to tell a lost person that God loves them, that Jesus died for them, that they should believe in Christ for salvation, or that there is hope beyond the grave. If the lost person is not elect, we would be misleading them if we said any of those things."

I had always thought the Calvinistic evangelism was like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack,, the rare Elect person in the mass of reprobates, but had never thought of the effect of the presentation of the gospel to those who would never be able to experience it. Smelley terms it "misleading" them to think that they might be savable, when in fact, there isn't a sliver of hope that this would happen.

What are your thoughts, either pro or con to Smelley's thought?


Doug

 

[Dustoff]

I don't know who Hudson Smelley is but he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

The reason you preach to all is because no one but God knows who the elect are and the command is to take the gospel to the whole world. You preach to all and those ordained to eternal life "believe" Acts 13/48

I looked him up and it doesn't surprise me that he is a professor somewhere. Sometimes the more learning you get the less you know. Bonus points if you can write a book about it.

 

[Dustoff]

A much better book on the subject is "Against Calvinism by Roger Olsen" I found his book too wordy and somewhat tedious but at least he got the facts correct. I also disagreed with his arguments but they were based on scripture and reason.

I also agree more or less with the tulip position.

 

[royal priest]

What caught my eye is the idea that "there is no basis for us to tell a lost person that God loves them, that Jesus died for them, that they should believe in Christ for salvation, or that there is hope beyond the grave. If the lost person is not elect, we would be misleading them if we said any of those things."

It is a misleading statement because according to Calvinist theology, God does not have redemptive love for everybody, nor did Jesus die for everybody. To be consistent with Calvinism, you would need to say: "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."
You appeal to the condition of faith which is a gift of God. (Ephesians 2:8)

 

[Albion]

What caught my eye is the idea that "there is no basis for us to tell a lost person that God loves them, that Jesus died for them, that they should believe in Christ for salvation, or that there is hope beyond the grave.

That caught my eye, too, as a really dumb thing to conclude.

If the lost person is not elect, we would be misleading them if we said any of those things."

Only if you A) knew that he was not among the elect (which you do not)...and B) you don't think that reaching all men with the knowledge of God and his standards for human behavior, how it is that goodness is better than evil, that charity is better than selfishness, etc. is worth our effort AND that this is what Christ taught his disciples to do (which he did).

 

[FreeGrace2]

I have just begun reading the book Deconstructing Calvinism, by Hudson Smelley, and in the prologue found this statement:

Calvinism completely compasses God's redemptive plan and teaches that God saves a small percentage of humanity based on His elective determination before creation and passes over the rest. Since God's redemptive plan excludes most people, there is no basis for us to tell a lost person that God loves them, that Jesus died for them, that they should believe in Christ for salvation, or that there is hope beyond the grave. If the lost person is not elect, we would be misleading them if we said any of those things. Indeed, it is difficult to see how we could make any honest gospel presentation knowing most people are by God's purposes not savable. Not only that, since salvation hangs on God's elective determination before creation and not on a present decision for Christ, we must make this TULIP reality personal. We must come to grips with the fact that many of those we know, and perhaps some of those closest to us, have no possibility of being reconciled to God because they are not elect.

What caught my eye is the idea that "there is no basis for us to tell a lost person that God loves them, that Jesus died for them, that they should believe in Christ for salvation, or that there is hope beyond the grave. If the lost person is not elect, we would be misleading them if we said any of those things."

I had always thought the Calvinistic evangelism was like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack,, the rare Elect person in the mass of reprobates, but had never thought of the effect of the presentation of the gospel to those who would never be able to experience it. Smelley terms it "misleading" them to think that they might be savable, when in fact, there isn't a sliver of hope that this would happen.

What are your thoughts, either pro or con to Smelley's thought?


Doug

At least he is being honest with his theological grid. And wrong.

 

[St_Worm2]

What caught my eye is the idea that "there is no basis for us to tell a lost person that God loves them, that Jesus died for them, that they should believe in Christ for salvation, or that there is hope beyond the grave. If the lost person is not elect, we would be misleading them if we said any of those things."

Hi Doug, one of the biggest reasons that we Calvinist types witness/evangelize to all is because we don't know who God's elect are anymore than an Arminian does (the only way that we know if someone is "elect" is when they come to saving faith).

We also take to heart words like these from the Apostle Paul,

Romans 10
17 Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
​

I had always thought the Calvinistic evangelism was like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack,, the rare Elect person in the mass of reprobates, but had never thought of the effect of the presentation of the gospel to those who would never be able to experience it. Smelley terms it "misleading" them to think that they might be savable, when in fact, there isn't a sliver of hope that this would happen.

Arminians believe that God looks down through a tunnel in time and "elects" those who He sees responding positively to the hearing of the Gospel, those He knows will come to saving faith.

That said, Arminianism also teaches us that God knows (from everlasting) who will ~not~ respond positively to the Gospel/will not come to saving faith. Do you think that these folks have a "sliver of hope", that they will perhaps fool the Almighty by changing their minds at the last second when the Gospel is presented to them?

The only thing that seems "misleading" to me is the author's (apparent) misunderstanding of Calvinism and what Calvinism actually teaches

God bless you!

--David
p.s. - perhaps author Smelley needs to read what Calvinists have to say about the necessity of evangelism and witnessing. Here's a quote to consider from Spurgeon.

 

[TibiasDad]

Only if you A) knew that he was not among the elect (which you do not)..

My problem with this is not the the ignorance of the evangelist, for indeed we do not know what the result will be in any given case, but it surely does effect the sincerity of the evangelist if they are truly mindful of the implications of their soteriology. How can we sincerely say to subject X that God showed his love to them by giving his only Son, so that if they believe in him, the Son, that they will receive eternal life when we know that God has preordained the impossibility of, for the sake of argument, 75-80% (the large majority of mankind) to ever receive that grace.

For myself, while I do not know what the ultimate result will be, I do know that what I am saying to any particular person is meant for them and that God has loved them in the giving of his Son. I have 100% confidence that God wants to save any one of us and is always desiring that we "would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us." (Note that ἑνὸς ἑκάστου, each one of us, means every individual is not far from God and can seek him, reach out for him and find him.) (Acts 17:27)

not)...and B) you don't think that reaching all men with the knowledge of God and his standards for human behavior, how it is that goodness is better than evil, that charity is better than selfishness, etc. is worth our effort AND that this is what Christ taught his disciples to do (which he did).

There is a huge difference in teaching moral governance for civility's sake and the gospel. The former is law based and temporal, while the gospel is gracious and seeks permanent transformation of heart and soul. The gospel is not a teaching of right ways of living, but of one way, one truth, one life. This is ultimately the means that makes keeping the "righteous requirements of the law" (Rom 8:4) an actual possibility!

Thank you for your considered response to my thread!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

It is a misleading statement because according to Calvinist theology, God does not have redemptive love for everybody, nor did Jesus die for everybody

Which is precisely the point! And since you know this to be true, you cannot truthfully say to any given person that the gospel is meant for them. It might be, but probably not!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Arminians believe that God looks down through a tunnel in time and "elects" those who He sees responding positively to the hearing of the Gospel, those He knows will come to saving faith.

This is a different aspect of the question. What I am trying to focus on is the effect of our perspective of God's intent toward any one of us in the presentation of the gospel. I could not honestly say, if I were a Calvinist, to any particular person that God loves them and wants to save them from sin if I truly believed in Calvin's teachings about election.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

The reason you preach to all is because no one but God knows who the elect are and the command is to take the gospel to the whole world. You preach to all and those ordained to eternal life "believe" Acts 13/

I agree, but you cannot say with certainty that it is truth for any particular person. You must preach to all only because you do not know who the Elect are. I must preach to all because I know that God's desire is that we all "would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us." (Acts 17:27)

Doug

 

[FreeGrace2]

It is a misleading statement because according to Calvinist theology, God does not have redemptive love for everybody, nor did Jesus die for everybody. To be consistent with Calvinism, you would need to say: "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."
You appeal to the condition of faith which is a gift of God. (Ephesians 2:8)

How do you explain Titus 2:11?

For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Hi Doug, one of the biggest reasons that we Calvinist types witness/evangelize to all is because we don't know who God's elect are anymore than an Arminian does (the only way that we know if someone is "elect" is when they come to saving faith).

But this isn't the issue in evangelism. The message is the issue. And the message of the gospel is directly to lost people who need saving.

If Christ didn't die for a person, giving them the gospel message would be a lie since there is no way that they can be saved.

Calvinists seems to always miss the real issue.

And what Spurgeon said still misses the point. However, I read somewhere that he was a firm believer in the fact that Christ died for all. Maybe he was a "4-pointer".

 

[Albion]

My problem with this is not the the ignorance of the evangelist, for indeed we do not know what the result will be in any given case, but it surely does effect the sincerity of the evangelist if they are truly mindful of the implications of their soteriology.

I don't see how.

How can we sincerely say to subject X that God showed his love to them by giving his only Son, so that if they believe in him, the Son, that they will receive eternal life

when we know that God has preordained the impossibility of, for the sake of argument, 75-80% (the large majority of mankind) to ever receive that grace.

For one thing, the evangelist doesn't know who is among the elect and who is not, and there is no way for him to be sure.

Second, we do not know the percentage of those who will be saved, which in any case is irrelevant to the matter of evangelizing. If the evangelist were instead a freewill person, he would still face almost the same situation. Think about it.

And third, God (according to the Calvinist POV) does not simply name his elect and that's the end of it. They still need to be converted, and that is the task of the followers of Christ who have been commissioned in all ages to go into the world with the Gospel. There are, as a matter of fact, very few Calvinists who think that doing so is pointless (a POV called hyper-Calvinism).

Thank you for your considered response to my thread!

Doug

Thank you, Doug.

 

[TibiasDad]

I don't see how.


For one thing, the evangelist doesn't know who is among the elect and who is not, and there is no way for him to be sure.

Second, we do not know the percentage of those who will be saved, which in any case is irrelevant to the matter of evangelizing. If the evangelist were instead a freewill person, he would still face almost the same situation. Think about it.

And third, God (according to the Calvinist POV) does not simply name his elect and that's the end of it. They still need to be converted, and that is the task of the followers of Christ who have been commissioned in all ages to go into the world with the Gospel. There are, as a matter of fact, very few Calvinists who think that doing so is pointless (a POV called hyper-Calvinism).


Thank you, Doug.

I think the “almost” is the point. As I’ve said, the free will evangelist doesn’t know who will respond any more than the Reformed, but the free will evangelist knows that no one is exempt from the real potential of being saved when they hear the gospel, something that the Calvinist cannot say! Sure, they don’t know who the elect are, but they do know, or should know, that not everyone can believe, that for some (the majority) belief is an impossibility because God has chosen not to save these, even from before the creation of the earth.

Doug

 

[Albion]

I think the “almost” is the point. As I’ve said, the free will evangelist doesn’t know who will respond any more than the Reformed, but the free will evangelist knows that no one is exempt from the real potential of being saved when they hear the gospel, something that the Calvinist cannot say!

That's true, but my point is that both still have reason to evangelize. In practice, both should be out there in the world doing exactly the same thing, that which Our Lord specifically said his people should do.

Sure, they don’t know who the elect are, but they do know, or should know, that not everyone can believe, that for some (the majority) belief is an impossibility because God has chosen not to save these, even from before the creation of the earth.

...which is exactly the same situation facing the freewill evangelist as he brings the Gospel to someone. He doesn't know who will rally to the message and which others don't care a whit about it and will not be moved by hearing it.

 

[royal priest]

Which is precisely the point! And since you know this to be true, you cannot truthfully say to any given person that the gospel is meant for them. It might be, but probably not!

Doug

What you should say is that you will be saved if you trust in Jesus for eternal life.

 

[royal priest]

How do you explain Titus 2:11?

For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

Yes, the offer is to all, but not all will receive it.
Many of the most persuasive preachers were Calvinist. Although they believed salvation would occur only if the Spirit opened the hearts of their audience, they also knew that God used their message to do so. Although we believe that faith is a gift of God, we also believe that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. That is why, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men.

 

[TibiasDad]

That's true, but my point is that both still have reason to evangelize. In practice, both should be out there in the world doing exactly the same thing, that which Our Lord specifically said his people should do.


...which is exactly the same situation facing the freewill evangelist as he brings the Gospel to someone. He doesn't know who will rally to the message and which others don't care a whit about it and will not be moved by hearing it.

Fair enough, thanks for your input! For me, I would have a difficult time, knowing that God has irrevocably withheld hope from the majority of those that I might share with, speaking with confidence that what I am saying that God sent his Son for him, that they can be saved, is actually a true statement. If I cannot say this is definitely true for person X, why should anyone believe what I say?

Doug

 

[royal priest]

Fair enough, thanks for your input! For me, I would have a difficult time, knowing that God has irrevocably withheld hope from the majority of those that I might share with, speaking with confidence that what I am saying that God sent his Son for him, that they can be saved, is actually a true statement. If I cannot say this is definitely true for person X, why should anyone believe what I say?
Doug

You can say Jesus was sent to save every sinner that turns to Him. This doesn't rob anyone of hope of salvation because the terms are same whether you are elect or not; Turn to Him and He will save you. Believe in Him, then your calling and election will be sure.