Free Will or No Free Will? Does it Effect Evangelism?

This discussion has been had before, and the ardent non-Calvinists have been shown time and time again that Calvinists have good reasons to be out witnessing. What the ardent non-Calvinists keep attacking is the strawman of Hyper-Calvinism. They've been corrected before, but they keep on with their uncharitable attacks. Some of them have even encouraged Calvinists to reject all orthodoxy and embrace Hyper-Calvinism. That is the height of vicious, unloving rhetoric. It would be like me telling free-willers to embrace Roman Catholicism.

It's ugly, and it needs to stop.

Debate Scripture all the day long - I'm up with that - but please stop with the strawman attacks.

 

This is a misunderstanding. God has decided all things, but He still expects us to serve Him for in that He is glorified. Even if a person will never believe, God is glorified. In condemning people to eternal judgement or saving them for it, God is glorified.

I have never met a Calvinist who believes this, again this is a misunderstanding. God created us for His glory.

Again this is a misunderstanding. This type of anonomianism would more accuratly be the conclusion of Arminianism.

I would ditto my previous response.

Take the time to find out what actual Calvinists believe from their own mouths instead of reading or hearing it from an angry anti-calvinist who learned his stuff from another angry anti-calvinist.

 

MNW, the things you list are not the calvinists ultimate; rather, they are extremely poor caricatures of the doctrine. They don't even describe hyper-calvinism. Let me try to set some things straight.

Our service is effective and rewarding as it is in the will of God. To say that human effort is only worthwhile if it is associated with self-determination is nothing more than humanism.

My own journey into Sovereignty was helped along by trying to get a more precise definition of terms associated with the discussion. I'm still way behind in that. What you've done here is to take two words, yea, two concepts, torture and killing, to describe a doctrine which teaches no such thing. We calvinists believe that God, of his own will, IN MERCY, rescues certain individuals from their own destruction which they so fitly deserve. You have never heard or read a reputable calvinists say that God "tortures", or "kills" (in the sense you intend) for pleasure. Take it back.

Calvinists believe that the admonitions of God to live Holy lives are effectual in the hearts of the elect, that striving against sin is the fruit of salvation, by the working of the Holy Spirit within us. Ever heard of the Puritans? Any questions about holy living, refer to them. The reprobate world should be brought under law, whether they like it or not, because their human natures are unrestrained in their natural hearts.

True, God does as he pleases, including the giving of the Holy Spirit into our hearts, and so the Spirit strives against the flesh, and the flesh against the Spirit, so that we can not do the things that we would. However, you say "I cansay and do..." - the word "can" indicates ABILITY, and the natural man certainly has the ability to sin, but he does not have the ability to not sin. The regenerate have both abilities, the one by nature and the other by the supernatural infusion of God's Spirit into our hearts, making us mindful of His will, and changing our behavior in answer to the heart. This is the "fruit of the Spirit".

Again, the extremes you presented are not the extremes of calvinism, but rather represent the extremes that the opponenets of calvinism go to in their misunderstanding, or their virulent hatred, of the doctrine of God's Sovereignty.



Please try to understand calvinism by what reputable calvinists actually teach, and not by the outlandish conclusions of the system's accusers.

 

Dr. Bob's personal attack aside, it would help to know what "witness" really means,
Witness
WITNESS, n.

1. Testimony; attestation of a fact or event.


2. That which furnishes evidence or proof.


3. A person who knows or sees any thing; one personally present; as, he was witness; he was an eye-witness. 1 Pet 5.

4. One who sees the execution of an instrument, and subscribes it for the purpose of confirming its authenticity b his testimony.

5. One who gives testimony; as, the witnesses in court agreed in all essential facts.


WITNESS, v.t.

1. To see or know by personal presence. I witnessed the ceremonies in New York, with which the ratification of the constitution was celebrated, in 1788.

2. To attest; to give testimony to; to testify to something.

3. To see the execution of an instrument, and subscribe it for the purpose of establishing its authenticity; as, to witness a bond or a deed.

WITNESS, v.i.

1. To bear testimony.


2. To give evidence.

Witnessing is not "simply sharing the Gospel with someone". It is both a personal testimony of what Christ has done for us, and to let that person know of what Christ can do for them. Even if it were simply sharing the Gospel with someone, if the statements of truth you give to someone who is not "elected" is presented as fact, this truth becomes a lie to them, regardless if we know "who the elect" are or not.

 

Webdog, how is it lying to someone to tell them that they will be saved if they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?

Keep trying to pin your uncharitable depictions of what you think Calvinists have to believe.

 

I think it does make a difference, for I believe that the Arminian is inconsistent when they pray to God that God "would open hearts to receive the gospel" and other such slogans. For when such and such a person or group of people are being prayed about, asking that they would be saved, they are asking God to interfere with the free will they so desperately covet. If God would open their eyes to the gospel, if God "saves them" as a result of their prayers, then God has worked His will on the said person or group of persons in a way that is inconsistent with the Arminian/semi-pelagian view of the freedom of the will. Actually, the only person the Arminian can consistently pray to is the sinner themselves, for they believe that ultimately, the sinner themselves must be the one to effect their salvation by cooperating with God's grace and "decide for Jesus". So they can pray to God all they want for the salvation of a certain person, however, their view of the will limits God in such a way as to prevent Him from ever doing anything that really interferes with the sinner’s exercise of their "free will".

As was mentioned earlier, non-Calvinists (Helen and others of the usual suspects) have simply got to come to understand that God uses means to accomplish His ends.... and the means used are witnessing, Scripture reading etc.

we (Calvinists/Augustinians/predestinarians of every sort) have no idea what group of humans make up the number of the elect, it's simply not our business to even try to come to know that, and you will never find a reputable Calvinistic theologian saying any different.... thus, we preach the Gospel in season and out, knowing with great confidence that God uses broken vessels, we mere jars of clay (2 Cor 4:7) to accomplish His great ends, namely, to bring fallen sinners to Himself through the preaching of the gospel, either by spoken or written word.

This, God will in fact do, for we believe that all those whom God wants to come to Him, He will in fact bring to Himself through and as a result of the preaching and reading of the gospel.

The Arminian believes in a merely hypothetical atonement, thus, it could have been the case that no one could have or would have been saved because Christ's atonement only made salvation possible, it never could guarantee salvation for anyone. JI Packer puts it like this, in the Arminian scheme Christ died for everyone in general, and for no one in particular.

So Christ's great sacrifice, the sacrifice decided upon by God before the foundation of the world, only makes man savable, it doesn't really save anyone. So when the Arminian preaches, though they give a nod to the grace of God that makes salvation possible, when they preach, because of their view on the will, they have to effect (some say "manipulate") the will of the individual sinner in such a way as to (along side of the HS) convict them of their sin, they, the evangelist, has to get the sinner to exercise their "free-will" in such a way as to "get them to decide for Christ". That is, ultimately the sinner’s free will has to be moved, by the preacher, and by a synergistic combination of God’s grace and man’s free will, and the Arminian has to admit no matter what, the ultimate deciding factor in salvation in the Arminian scheme is not God’s grace, rather, it’s the exercise of the human will.

So the evangelist can possibly (note: I said possibly) start to think more highly of themselves then they ought, if they see great numbers of persons "go to Christ" as a result of their preaching or "revivals". After all, what is the difference between Arminian preachers? It's their level of rhetoric, their ability to get into the minds of those they are preaching to in order to get them to decide for Christ, raise a hand, sign a card etc. Whereas for the Calvinistic evangelist, there is no difference between the preachers themselves that leads to the salvation of certain people, rather it’s God’s electing grace. This is because despite the individual Calvinist's ability (eg the great public speaking of someone like a Charles Spurgeon) or even better, their lack of ability to "wow" people with their public speaking skills (e.g. Jonathan Edwards merely read his sermon manuscripts), ultimately salvation is "all of grace", and is not dependent on the rhetorical skill or lack thereof of the speaker themselves to move the human will.


Secondly, another reason why non-Calvinists have got to come to understand that their complaints re predestination/election etc from the Calvinistic perspective are unfounded is that they already believe it themselves! Most Arminians I know say that God provided a means for salvation, however, just because God did this, it does not follow that the Son would not have to still come, live a perfect sinless life, die on the Cross for the atonement of sins, and ascend to heaven to intercede on the Christian's behalf. In other words, God ordained both the salvation of sinners and Christ's sacrifice on the cross, but He also ordained the means to accomplish that very salvation as well as the events that led to Christ's crucifixion. Both salvation and Christ's work on the Cross were in a sense completed in God's mind in eternity, yet He still used and uses various means to accomplish both these goals.

Thus, for the non-Calvinist to continually and erroneously say that Calvinism automatically negates evangelism because those who will come to believe are already predestined to do so, and the number of the elect is already set, is for the non-Calvinist to have a double standard. One which agrees that God uses means to accomplish His ends (e.g. the Cross is the means God uses to accomplish the [possibility of] salvation of some), then they (Arminians) deny that same point when it comes to apply to the Calvinist's view on soteriology, and both the Arminian and the Calvinist agree with this very point: namely, that even though God has complete and exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, and that He has from all eternity decreed what will be and what will not be, He still uses means to accomplish the plans He has established, even though all these things were already known in eternity in God's mind and decree.

Also, the Arminian must also recognize that given their view of God's omniscience, those who will be saved in time and space is already known from all eternity, this number and individual identity of all those saved and all those damned is set (it will not ever increase or diminish) and is infallibly known by God, and nothing can change that. Otherwise, one would have to say that God is not omniscient, or that He was mistaken in His knowledge of those who will be saved in time and space where, albeit from the Arminian perspective God looks down the corridors of time and sees who believe and who will not. If He knew from all eternity that Johnny and Suzy would be saved, then they will in fact be saved, and if Billie and Jeanie are not going to be saved, then too, God knows from all eternity this fact. So the Arminian has to realize that when they preach, they are preaching to some who, no matter what they do or say, will not ever come to savingly believe. Yet, this does not dissuade them from preaching, does it? Nor does it then dissuade the Calvinist from preaching to everyone, while knowing that the number of the elect is set and nothing will ever change that. The only difference between the two is their view on how salvation itself actually takes place, they/we are agreed on the fact that God already knows all those who are His and all those who won’t be.


blessings,
Ken

 

4 His Glory,
Statements like "you only show your ignorance" do the cause of Calvinism and Christianity in general an injustice. Yes, indeedy, you are quite the example. It is possible to debate without name calling.

 

Hey Helen. Nice to see you around again.

This statement reveals a problem in your thinking I believe. The difference it makes is that God gets the glory. That is the most important thing. More important than the salvation of men.

Do you believe that God's foreknowledge can fail? If not then: "Therefore you must think God commanded you to waste an incredible amount of time, money, and resources for no effect at all."

 

BTW, it makes some difference to some people.

The more extreme free willers use pressure sales tactics and promote easy believism/"1-2-3 pray with me". Since they think a decision by the sinner yanks God's chain and causes Him to regenerate the sinner... almost exclusive priority is put on getting the lost sinner to give assent to the gospel and "do something" like say a prayer.

I saw some 16-18 year old boys from a Hyles type church corner a drunk man in the beer aisle at Walmart once. They were engaged in a rapid fire assault of challenges, accusations, and Bible verses. There's a good chance that the man said the sinner's prayer just to get them to leave him alone.

 

We've been over this before in other threads,but it's worth repeating. The non-Calvinist has no reason to pray for the lost. He cannot ask God to save someone, because He cannot if the sinner will not, and thus is pointless. It is entirely up to the sinner to make the decision.

The non-Calvinist has no warrant to ask God to do anything whatsoever to save a sinner, for by dying on the cross, Jesus has done all He can, even though it's not quite enough.

The lost person need not pray a sinner's prayer; all he needs to say "I am making the decision to accept Jesus as my Savior."

The ultimate end of non-Calvinist evangelism is to bring lost people to "make the decision."

That's why revivals can be "scheduled.

Yep, your soteriology does drive your evangelism.

 

How is it not a lie if the person you are telling that to happens to be one of the "predestined, non elect"? Can they be saved?

 

How is it not a lie if the person you are telling that to happens to be one of the "predestined, non elect"? Can they be saved? </font>[/QUOTE]again, it doesn't matter from our point of view who is elect and who is not... its not our job to obsess over that issue, whether we be Calvinists or Arminians, Augustinians or Semi-Pelagians. we are commanded to preach knowing that this is the means God normally uses to bring sinners to Himself.

and since God knows from before the foundation of the world who will be His and who won't, both sides preach the gospel knowing full well that they will inevitably preach to those whom God knows will never be His... so no matter what the Arminian evangelist does, no matter how much they plead with those whom God knew and knows will never be His, they never will in fact come to savingly believe.....

the only way to avoid this is to be a consistent Arminian, eg an Open Theist or Socinian, who deny that the Lord has exhaustive foreknowledge.

blessings,
Ken

 

How is it not a lie if the person you are telling that to happens to be one of the "predestined, non elect"? Can they be saved? </font>[/QUOTE]again, it doesn't matter from our point of view who is elect and who is not... its not our job to obsess over that issue, whether we be Calvinists or Arminians, Augustinians or Semi-Pelagians. we are commanded to preach knowing that this is the means God normally uses to bring sinners to Himself.

and since God knows from before the foundation of the world who will be His and who won't, both sides preach the gospel knowing full well that they will inevitably preach to those whom God knows will never be His... so no matter what the Arminian evangelist does, no matter how much they plead with those whom God knew and knows will never be His, they never will in fact come to savingly believe.....

the only way to avoid this is to be a consistent Arminian, eg an Open Theist or Socinian, who deny that the Lord has exhaustive foreknowledge.

blessings,
Ken </font>[/QUOTE]This is the same exact answer I always get from a calvinist...a non answer. It makes no difference if we know, don't know. If we are presenting something to them as "fact" without them being able to respond, it is a lie.

 

The point is that free willies, to be consistent, should not pray for the salvation of any soul, since God is powerless to do what they ask unless that soul is willing.

Calvinists may pray to God to save someone because He is perfectly able to to what they ask, and is able to quicken the rebellious heart so that he will be willing.

Both views understand that no one is dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom.

Jesus purposed to give blind Bartemaeus his sight and possessed all the power to do it. He still made Bartemaeus ask.

 

If you carefully read what you just wrote, it will not be a low blow to tell you that the problem with your post is that you are like a Jew.
Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:22-24 -

You require, or look for, or want, something tangible. Something you feel, or heard, or know.
Your security and trust lies not in what Christ did, but on what you did, or at having witnessed someone and heard someone pray a sinner's prayer.

Calvinists and those who hold to the Doctrine of Grace do not require unbelief because it is God that makes them believe.

Search the writings of Spurgeon, or Augustus Toplady, or John Newton, or any of the old Puritans and Reformers, and if you find one instance where they pooh-pooh unbelief, then post it.