I actually agree with you on this point. When we witness and evangelize out of obligation or fear it becomes like another law for us to follow. We become like the Pharisees that travel over land and sea and make converts twice the son of hell. The motive for evangelism must be out of our passion for God and our passion for others. Those two can't be separated, by the way. The first command is to love God, the second it like it unto the same, to love others. What we do to the least of these we do unto Him. If we don't love others and have a passion to see them saved that is a symptom of a great sickness, which is that we don't really have love for Him and his glory.
AMEN! And that passion for our God is most notably displayed in our passion for our fellow man. Those two motives really can't be divorced. (not that you are saying they are, but I'm just emphasizing that truth)
It is a relief to agree for a change. You and I ought to discuss politics or Christian liberty every once in a while just to be reminded that we are not total enemies.
I will offer this addendum to what you said above, however.
They are TWO SEPARATE commands and not equal.
The First is the GREATEST and should be treated as superior to the other. They are NOT one in the same.
There is a host of things that I do for Him that have NOTHING to do with others. This is an important distinction.
And when I set out to evangelize as I am commanded, my FIRST passion must be STRICTLY for Him and his glory. Then and only then can I be moved for my neighbor. My concern for my neighbor should be real and powerful; but it should be far behind my concern for my God's honor.
What does seem to be the case with some of the Neo-Calvinistic movements is the lessoning of the zeal to persuade men, to beseech them to turn, to use every resource, to become all things to all men so as to win some. Much of these efforts to persuade are meet with the criticism that such "tactics" are "manipulative" (and sometimes they are, I'm not disputing that), but if one does believe God is going to effectually call his elect there is a tendency to shrink away from being persistent and persuasive in your efforts, don't you think? After all, if I've told them and they reject it then the rest is up to God to either regenerate him or not, right? Be objective. Surely that belief would affect the manner in which you might approach evangelism, right?
I'm not going to deny any of this. There have been and are today SOME Calvinists who let the doctrine of effectual call dampen their evangelism.
But on the other hand, we are Baptists and we know the name William Carey well. He was a devout Calvinist and though resisted by that ilk that abused the DoG into hyper-calvinism, William Carey is the father of modern MISSIONS.
He was a Calvinist.
Spurgeon was the father of the modern mega church and he was a Calvinist.
And you know very well that I could go on and on. I could speak of Hudson Taylor and on and on and on...
The DoG have circumnavigated the globe with the Gospel of Christ.
The RIGHT motive for evangelism is that motive which Calvinism, imo, ALONE emphasizes- the glory of God.
