Following is a response to my article “Do the Doctrines of Grace Affect Evangelism?” published on SBCToday 4/6/2014. I published the same article on this blog 5/26/14.
Hello Daniel
Thanks for your interaction with my article, which begins, “Some Calvinist’s aver that ideas like limited atonement, unconditional election, and selective regeneration really make no difference in the nature of the evangelistic endeavor.” I then quote a well-known Calvinist who says exactly this and then expound on this.
You said, “This is a very common straw-man argument made by the anti-Reformed crowd and has been refuted time and time again.”
I have neither the desire nor time to construct straw men; consequently, I would appreciate you being specific. Please let me know where I have misrepresented consistent Calvinism. What particular idea is not true of Calvinism? Am I to assume that you do not believe the doctrines of Grace inform, guide, and color your evangelism, how so?
You said, “As a Calvinist who is evangelistic, I find little to no truth offered in this article about my position. [I]f Calvinists are naturally unevangelistic due to their theological beliefs, then how does the author deal with the scores of mainstream Calvinist evangelists throughout history?”
Please tell me where I said that a Calvinist cannot be evangelistic or where I denied the existence of evangelistic Calvinists in history. Moreover, show me one place that I have ever argued such in my over thirty-years of writing. Actually, in my book, I demonstrate how a Calvinist can be evangelistic. Signed Puzzled.
You said, “No real attempt to interact with actual, mainstream, Reformed positions on this issue were presented; instead the proposed “Calvinist” opponent (i.e. straw-man) was custom made for being destroyed by the author and not to accurately represent the Reformed position on evangelism or soteriology.”
Please be specific where you think that I violate the logic, declarations, and entailments of consistent Calvinism and my picture of Calvinism is therefore “presuppositionally flawed.” Again, note that I allow for some variations in my beginning statement “some Calvinists,” but I am seeking to deal with mainstream understanding. If I am misrepresenting my brothers and sisters in Christ, I take that very seriously. If so, I will gladly correct my understanding and apologize if need be. My quest is to illumine consistent Calvinism rather than obscure it.
You said, “I’m wondering also why the author doesn’t see the dilemma that he places himself in with his questioning of the Calvinist position.”
First, to have this discussion, you cannot, at any point, superimpose compatibilist concepts upon my position. Now, for the sake of discussion, compatibilism may be correct, or Libertarian free will may be correct, but discussions are absolutely unprofitable if we fail to grant the other position what it in fact entails. It appears to me that is what you are doing.
For example, many, at this point I am one, believe that it is actually impossible to create truly free beings with otherwise choice and guarantee they will not sin or reject God. Thus, if God, being the sum of love, creates, He does so in a way that gives the greatest opportunity to the most people to be saved while maintaining choice, which seems to me to be the inarguable picture painted in the Scripture. We unashamedly and joyfully shout this from the rooftops. This is ubiquitously addressed in Molinism, my writings, as well as others who find Calvinism’s explanatory power lacking. There is absolutely no dilemma for God to choose to bless those who will avail themselves by grace enabled faith while letting others truly reject when they could have done otherwise. That is the inexpugnable nature of libertarian free will. We believe that concepts like worship, love, valor, evil, wrong, etc., involve the idea of otherwise choice and find compatibilism as philosophically inadequate, biblically unwarranted, and a grand dishonoring superimposition upon God and His word.
Second, God knowing who will and who will not choose to believe does not thwart the love of God in providing a genuine opportunity to everyone. While He knows some will reject even though they could have accepted, it would be a dilemma indeed if God did not bless because some will use good for evil. Water is good, but some use it to drown others, should God have not created water. Do you believe that freedom should not exist because some use it for evil? I do not. God is sovereign and will not allow the evil of some to stop Him from offering love to all, and this includes those who finally spurn His love (John 3:16).
Third, in my position, contrary to Calvinism, God’s knowing is not because He created man to inevitably freely choose to sin, and elected to offer an actually accessible way of escape to some that He forcibly changes their nature so they will freely exercise faith compatibilism. Rather, God created man where he could sin, but did not have to choose to sin; although, God knew he would and comprehended that, as well as every decision, in His creation-redemption plan. That God knows who will freely reject His merciful offer of love does not affect one whit God’s genuine offer nor ours. The view outside of Calvinism is that God’s knowledge of who will reject is according to His infinite knowledge of what one will do with his contrary grace enabled choice, and if the person had chosen to believe, God would have known that. Further, God does not look down the halls of history to learn, but rather this knowledge has always existed in Him. Consequently, contra Calvinism, the offer of God and of us is genuine, and the choice to avail or reject lies with the individual which is contrary to the provision and desire of God “who is not willing that any perish.” Additionally, guarantying the predetermined free choice of individuals is an entailment of compatibilism and not libertarianism. We do not believe God’s sovereignty is so portrayed in Scripture; nor do we believe that He is incapable of being sovereign over truly free beings with otherwise choice. Therefore, we do not default to compatibilism. Finally, contra compatibilism, if the libertarian free will position is the biblical position, then the choice of God is to either create and offer good to all, knowing that some will reject, or not to create because some will reject His grace and therefore withhold His love from all. Thankfully, He chose the former.
