On his website, Arminian Perspectives, Ben Henshaw has a questions page at which he answers questions about Arminianism and Calvinism that visitors to his site pose in the comment section of the page. Here is some of a discussion from that page Ben had with multiple commenters. His responses are highlighted:
Jim: For quite a few years now my wife and I have been very discouraged as we visit from church to church looking for Christians who are serious about learning and studying their faith, and it never fails that the only churches that even come close to fitting the description are Calvinist. But we won’t stay in such a church because we are thoroughly opposed to the teaching of Calvinism. I would love to get your reaction to this and thank you so much for the great web site. You are certainly doing your part.
Ben: That is very hard to say. I would say in general that those from the Arminian viewpoint have been far more concerned with practical ministry, evangelism, and missions than those from the Calvinist perspective. Much of this is the natural outworking of the two theologies. Calvinist churches seem to be less concerned about outreach and more concerned with doctrine and scholarly endeavors, and proving their Calvinism. That might be why there is so much more out there from Calvinist perspectives, even though the church remains predominately non-Calvinist. But now that Calvinism is making a comeback, we are starting to see Arminians get more serious about such things and more works are being produced, like in the time of the early Methodists. That is an issue that sites like mine and SEA are trying to address.
Again, this is a general observation. Many C churches are very missions minded, but that has not always been the case, and I still think that they have a tendency to focus on it less than Arminian churches, and to focus more on doctrine than Arminian churches.
Jim: That makes a lot of sense to me. I have often wondered if there is perhaps a lack of motivation within Calvinist circles to evangelize, and I can see the general truth of what you are suggesting. So one could ask the question of Calvinism, e.g., why don’t we see more efforts toward wining souls for Christ within Calvinist leaning churches, etc.? And you have given an answer to that question.
Matthew: Many of the Calvinists I have met have basically had the attitude that evangelism is just a formality. “After all, God regenerates us, so what real need is there for people to hear a gospel message?” In my opinion, it’s actually a good thing that they choose to limit their evangelism, because when their doctrine reached that level of heresy, it was better to not spread it.
Paul: Even though I feel Calvinism is heretical at it’s core, I know a number of Calvinists in different local churches, and they are just as zealous about evangelism as my non Calvinists brethren. This has been my experience thus far.
Joseph: I’m a Calvinist, fellas; I live for personal evangelism. So does every Calvinist I know. I’m a Southern Baptist (Baptist roots being unarguably Reformed). Founders of the largest evangelistic endeavors in recent church history that I’m aware of were all Calvinists. E.g. The Reformation (surely none would call Luther Arminianistic) Calvin, Evangelism Explosion (D. James Kennedy), 2/3 of the force behind the 1st Great Awakening (Whitefield, Edwards). Our theology isn’t a restriction. It’s what leads us to evangelize if we’re approved workmen. For just some historical roots of this why not listen to a Calvinist on the subject? John Piper’s bio series, “Men of Whom The World Was Not Worthy” is nothing short of sensational. Very worthwhile. I warmly invite you into the world of a John Paton, Charles Spurgeon or Adoniram Judson. They are of my Calvinism. Call them lazy. Just keyword search for Piper’s series on DesiringGod.org. There are a ton of missionaries/evangelists who dare to call Christ Savior, not co-Savior as the Arminian must. In Arminianism, if you remove your faith (the sole “condition” of salvation) Wesley, you’re left only with the possibility of grace and the certainty of hell. That’s why you’re your own co-savior. Our theology cannot produce such an inevitable boasting. We go as laborers in the Lord’s vineyard well versed in Scripture. Your banter that we’re lazy evangelists because we’re theologians is historically unsupportable. I’m not talking hyper-Calvinism. I’m talking real gospel.
Ben: There is no need for all the misrepresentations (all of the co-savior nonsense), even if you are agitated. I said, more than once, that this was a generalization. That means it doesn’t apply to everyone. Piper hasn’t been around that long. I understand that these things are important to Calvinists on a much larger scale now, but that wasn’t always the case. Even though there are evangelistic giants from the Calvinist camp throughout history, that doesn’t mean that all of Calvinism has always followed suit. A lot of the major Calvinist writings are from a time when many Calvinists were more interested in doctrine. I am not even suggesting that they were not interested in evangelism, only that there was more of an emphasis on doctrine. Likewise, Arminians have never been entirely disinterested in doctrine. Far from it. But I think it is a fair assessment to say that over time, they have been more interested in outreach and practical ministry and less interested in defending doctrines or Arminianism, or writing extensive scholarly works (there have been huge exceptions to this, just as there are exceptions in Calvinism).
However, it is also a fact that nearly every Calvinist movement has had trouble with hyper-Calvinism (where evangelism is certainly not considered necessary — even a sin), or has seen many in the Calvinist camp eventually moving towards hyper Calvinist thinking (you can’t just dismiss hyper-Calvinism as if it is not relevant to the conversation). That would never happen in Arminianism, and I think there is a theological reason for that. That is why we see so many Calvinists (like Piper and Sproul and many, many others) working so hard to explain why evangelism is still necessary in Calvinism. There is a reason for that. The reason is that even among Calvinists there are questions concerning how evangelism harmonizes with Calvinist doctrine.
Sproul himself recounts a class discussion where Professor Gerstner asked the class what the reason is for evangelism if God decreed election and reprobation form all eternity. Answers were hard to come by. Sproul admits that he was happy he was at the end of the semi-circle, so he could hear the other answers first. One student said, “”I don’t know sir, that question has always plagued me.” I think that represents a lot of Calvinists. Sproul wasn’t sure how to answer either, and said maybe it was because the Lord commanded it. Gerstner made a show of it. Of course that is the reason! So the explanation was simply that the Lord commanded it and that should be enough. OK, but that doesn’t explain why it is necessary, and I haven’t seen a good explanation yet. (Chosen by God, pp. 208-209- Sproul goes on to say that it is a great thing that “God allows us to participate in the greatest work in human history, the work of redemption” — now why don’t you see a belief in being a “co-savior” in Sproul’s statement?). This comes up over and over in Calvinist systematics or apologetics. Why? Because it is a very real problem for Calvinism and has always been since it is a legitimate and unavoidable logical inference that it is hard to explain motivation for evangelism given fundamental Calvinist presuppositions.
Oh, and nobody said Calvinists are lazy.
You also mention that your theology cannot produce such inevitable boasting, yet your post sure seems pretty boastful to me. And it is interesting to me that the big names in Calvinism have to so often address the issue of pride and arrogance among Calvinists (Piper has written articles on it, and even took a sabbatical so he could deal with pride). Likewise, the idea of being unconditionally chosen as God’s people plagued the Jews that Jesus often encountered and fueled their prideful rejection of Christ’s claims. So your comments are not only a straw man, but easily reversible.
I am glad you find evangelism so important and I am glad contemporary Calvinists like Piper are emphasizing it, despite the fundamental teachings of Calvinism that many see as directly undermining motivation for evangelism.
Paul: Ben, can I take a shot at explaining a Calvinist’s motivation for evangelism? I’ll start with an analogy I came up with a few years ago. I haven’t seen it used but seems sufficiently appropriate that I’d be astonished if it hasn’t been used before.
Imagine a family with a very young child is decorating for Christmas. The father commands the child to hang some ornaments on the tree to help decorate. The child has two choices; obey and help to the best of their rather limited ability, or not obey and demand to watch TV instead.
The father in that simple analogy has a plan for preparing for and celebrating Christmas. He could easily accomplish it himself (and probably a lot faster than having to rehang the ornaments after the child’s sincere but rather inept attempt at helping to decorate the tree). And, he will accomplish his plan regardless of whether or not the child chooses to obey. But, he would rather involve his child because he knows that the celebration of Christmas would be much more special and meaningful if the child was involved in preparing for it.
Similarly, from a Calvinist’s perspective, God’s command to evangelize is an invitation to be a part of His plan to advance His Kingdom. He will accomplish it, with or without our obedience. We have a choice to obey, with promises of both rewards as well as the joys related to participation in God’s plan, or to disobey.
I agree that passion for evangelism is less obvious for the Calvinist position, but (to me), there is still cause for it. As my small group covered Romans, we just went through CH. 6. Paul needs an entire chapter (and a somewhat complicated one) to explain why the gospel of salvation by grace through faith does not permit us to remain in sin. And, it’s clear that many through church history have taken the free gift of forgiveness and used it as a way to excuse continuing in whatever sin they fancy rather than striving towards Christ-likeness. So, in my mind, simply because it’s easy to distort a position towards an unbiblical extreme does not automatically negate the doctrine itself.
I’d be very interested in hearing responses from Arminians to my reasoning regarding evangelism.
Jim: Hi Joseph,
Do you believe the drowning man analogy in your post best represents the non-Calvinist position? And considering that it is merely an analogy, why take the liberty to make the drowning man so valiant? Why unnecessarily make him such a brave and hardworking participant? When the non-Calvinist is more accurately represented, then he likewise is able to say to the rescue worker, “If it wasn’t for you guys, I would be dead”.
The Bible says that salvation is a gift. So why not use the receiving of a gift as the example? A gift is not earned. If it were earned, it would not be a gift but rather a payment. And how does one receive a gift? By accepting it. Not by plunging into the waters and expelling breath in a death defying act of strength and bravery. Some gifts can be received with little more than the nod of one’s head or heart. It is the mere attitude of heart that says, “yes” and “thank you”. That is how you receive a gift. Now, I ask, where is the “work” in that? Where is the pride in that? The prideful man does not like to accept a true gift. And who has ever been congratulated for the part he played in accepting something that he did not and could not earn? Yet still, the gift had to be accepted. A gift can be given to a prideful man, and if he accepts it, and if he allows it, the inherent grace will melt his pride.
I don’t pretend to understand every: who, why, where when and what of salvation. Far from it. I simply believe that the free will acceptance of God’s gift of salvation, makes by far the most holistic sense out of the Bible.
Ben: Paul,
You write,
Similarly, from a Calvinist’s perspective, God’s command to evangelize is an invitation to be a part of His plan to advance His Kingdom. He will accomplish it, with or without our obedience. We have a choice to obey, with promises of both rewards as well as the joys related to participation in God’s plan, or to disobey.
This really doesn’t fit traditional Calvinism at all. In traditional Calvinism, there is no such thing as genuine choice [as normally defined]. God decrees everything. He decrees our every thought, desire, choice and action, which is why choice doesn’t make much sense in Calvinism, since there is only ever one way a person can go, the way decreed by God, see my post: http://evangelicalarminians.org/Henshaw-Determinism-Free-Will-The-Reality-of-Choice-and-the-Testimony-of-Scripture).
So it is hard to see this analogy as very accurate. Even in using his children, the Father is really just doing it himself, since in Calvinism God completely controls everything (that is how Calvinism defines sovereignty). Really, this is a much better analogy for evangelism in Arminianism.
Also, in Calvinism, those who are decreed to be saved are saved no matter what, and those decreed to be reprobated, cannot possibly get saved. Here is where motivation becomes a problem. Witnessing can be intimidating. A consistent Calvinist can always reason that if they do not evangelize or witness, it is just as God has decreed it. If a certain person doesn’t get saved, it is just as God decreed in accordance with His good pleasure. If one doesn’t evangelize, and the person is elect, God will certainly reach that person some other way. In fact, God decreed that the person should be reached some other way. So from a personal and practical perspective, there is no strong motive for evangelism. In the end, whether we witness or not, everything is going according to God’s plan and could not possibly go any other way. All we do or don’t do is in accordance with God’s decree and we could not have possibly done otherwise.
You mention Piper fairly representing Arminianism. That may be true to a large extent. The problem is that he isn’t always straight about all that Calvinism entails. The nature of God’s irresistible decree and exhaustive determinism is a view strongly held by Piper with some serious implications. I interact with it here: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/
I agree that passion for evangelism is less obvious for the Calvinist position, but (to me), there is still cause for it. As my small group covered Romans, we just went through CH. 6. Paul needs an entire chapter (and a somewhat complicated one) to explain why the gospel of salvation by grace through faith does not permit us to remain in sin. And, it’s clear that many through church history have taken the free gift of forgiveness and used it as a way to excuse continuing in whatever sin they fancy rather than striving towards Christ-likeness.
But again, if Calvinism is true, that is exactly how God decreed it to be. Those who use it as an excuse had no more power to not use it as an excuse and sin as to create a universe. Nobody can resist or act counter to God’s eternal decree.
So, in my mind, simply because it’s easy to distort a position towards an unbiblical extreme does not automatically negate the doctrine itself.
But the doctrine is not being distorted at all. It is simply being honestly evaluated.
I’d be very interested in hearing responses from Arminians to my reasoning regarding evangelism.
See above. The problem comes in the irresistible eternal decree of God which not only dictates who will be saved and how, but also dictates whether or not we will be motivated to witness (just as it dictates everything we think, desire, or do). If we don’t feel motivated, then that is just as God decreed it to be. Nothing really to worry about. That is the problem.
