The Doctrines of Grace and Evangelism

Friend, you ask a great question. I must admit that the passage you snipped from Matthew 22 was one that troubled me for years. Here is how I understand it.

Jesus was addressing the Jews in this parable. Verses 1-10 concentrate on the fact that the heirs of the kingdom (Israel) have rejected it. Israel was supposed to be a nation like no other. Her mission was to announce the glory of the Lord to all the nations (Isaiah 49:6). The remaining part of the parable affirms, as R.C. Sproul so eloquently states, "receiving an invitation to God's kingdom does not guarantee inclusion; one must be properly clothed (cf. Zech. 3:3-5; Rev. 3:18; 19:8)." The general call is proclaimed to all. Scripture says, Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..." Just because all should does not mean all can. The Calvinist believes Scripture teaches only those who are chosen will repent. I believe the parable cited above does a good job of proving that point. Look at the illegitimate guest in verse 11. Here is one who comes into the wedding feast. He has probably already partaken of the feast for a period of time. This is similar to false professors who are in churches today. They benefit from God's grace upon His church. They experience the love that saints have for one another. They may be called "brother" or "sister" by true saints and treated as such. But in the end their calling and election was not sure (2 Peter 1:10). In the parable the king had them bound hand and foot and thrown into the outer darkness. In this world they may pass from this life, having sufficiently fooled others into thinking they were in the kingdom. But God is not fooled. Only those who have been invited and properly clothed will be in attendance at the wedding feast of the Lamb.

I understand how the doctrine of election can seem to be so cruel to those who don't believe it. I criticize my fellow Calvinists when they attempt to tamp down their defense of this great doctrine. It is what it is. God chooses some; not all. Yes. We don't possess spiritual 3-D vision. We cannot look into the heart of a person and know for certainty whether or not they are a Christian. That is one of the applications of the parable in Matthew 22. This doctrine is despised by those who don't hold to it. That is why it [election] and the larger issue of the DoG are met with such a visceral response. I do not know doubt for one moment that there are wonderful, god-fearing men and women who reject the DoG. I believe they have a deep and abiding love for our Lord, the Church, and the Gospel. Am I certain that they are wrong in their rejection of the DoG? Yes. Will it hamper my cooperation with them in ministry? Unfortunately, yes to that as well. This type of separation is the inevitable consequence of conviction. What is not an inevitable consequence is hating your brother for whom Christ died.

 

The fault lies with the sinner. The sinner is at fault for two reasons: 1. Original sin (born in sin) ~and~ 2. Willful disobedience. Are we to say God is at fault because a false professor may be in the Church? Was Joshua at fault because Achan stole some of the items that were under the ban (Judges 7:1) and then acted as though he was an obedient son of Israel? No. Achan answered for his own sin. John Bunyan wrote about this same thing in Pilgrim's Progress.

You are right on one count. If God invited people who were not really invited, and then proceeded to deny them entrance, He would be guilty of more than cruelty. But God does not invite those who are not really invited. God invites His elect. In the Matthew 22 the illegitimate guest was never invited. His improper clothing is proof of that. Please don't confuse this with the Church's responsibility in proclaiming the Gospel. Because God has commanded that preaching is the means by which the Gospel is to be delivered to sinners (1 Corinthians 1:21), the Church is under compulsion to do so. That compulsion is a mixture of fear and joy; of obligation and honor. Fear, because without conversion people are going to hell. Joy, because good news is proclaimed to the lost. Obligation, because we are commanded to do so. Honor, because God has entrusted this most sacred message to mortal beings.

In keeping with the intent of the OP, both camps should rejoice that the Gospel is proclaimed, even if it is done so by those we disagree with. I have never heard a Gospel sermon by a Calvinist preacher who says to his audience, "If you are not one of God's elect, I now ask that you leave the auditorium."

 

Friend, you asked some very good questions in post #20. I will humbly try to answer them.

My comment was directed at churches that are convinced on either side of the debate. A solidly convinced Calvinistic church and a solidly convinced Arminian church have very real obstacles that will prevent them from any meaningful cooperation. The issue of election and predestination will be like the elephant sitting in the room; the issue is always going to come up.

Now, what of those churches that are undecided on the issue; or what about associations (like the SBC) that are divided on the DoG? I do not say that an individual Christian should leave a church that has not achieved a consensus. Regardless of which way the church is leaning, a Christian should remain an active part of that local body until a consensus is reached. As is the case with the Founders Movement within the SBC; if a church wishes to remain in the SBC they should be active with the association and work for change. This is what Al Mohler and Mark Dever are doing.

One last thing. What if you're a Calvinistic Baptist and there is no church in your area that supports the DoG? In that case bloom where you're planted. Don't make the DoG a divisive issue in that church. Love the brethren. Pray for them. Serve them. Supplement the lack of teaching with online sources, broadcasts, books, and fellowship with other saints who are like-minded.

 

Friend,

Do you disagree with original sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 3:23)? It's an important question.

As to your second question. It has both practical and theological considerations. Practically speaking, how would we know who to preach to if we could only preach to the elect? Obviously, aside from special revelation, we couldn't. Theologically I believe the answer rests partly in the judicial aspect of the Gospel. Those who reject the Son are condemned by Him. Their rejection of the Gospel will be the very evidence presented against them.

 

What can I say? We have a systemic disagreement. I do thank you for your honesty. I wish that others would be as clear. I'm quite pleased to let our differences speak for themselves. Peace.

 

Either quote me directly or represent my words correctly. I wrote:

"If" is a very important word. "If" injects either doubt or choice into a sentence. I do not believe God invites people who He has not not elected. In fact, had you taken care not to misrepresent my words you would have quoted the following:

What difficulties? If there are difficulties they reside with those who reject the DoG. I do recognize the inherent problems the DoG presents to those who don't believe them. I feel bad that they present an obstacle to believing what I consider to be biblical truth. But they are not difficulties for those who believe the DoG.

Calvinism doesn't demand that anymore than drinking water causes a person to drown. What you believe about Calvinism places you in a paradigm that produces presuppositions. I've already addressed the "invited" issue.

It is obvious that you have a skewed understanding of the DoG.

The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith adequately explains the sinfulness of man; both as a result of original sin and volitional sin.

Men are guilty of sin. They are sinners by omission (original sin) and sinners by commission (actual sins committed).

Yes. Mankind are born sinners through no fault of their own but through the fault of Adam. That is accepted orthodoxy in most denominations; Calvinist and Arminian. It's the semi-Pelagian view (found in some Baptist denominations) that teaches mankind does not inherit original sin.

Calvinism recognizes God's exalted and perfect personage. God is holy. He neither sins nor is the author of sin. Adam sinned as our fair and legal representative. His sin is passed on to his posterity; not because God is responsible, but because Adam is responsible.

My friend, you are closer to believing in the DoG than you know. Martin Luther lamented what he considered to be the unfair and capricious nature of God, just prior to his conversion.