How to Call for a Gospel Response Like a Calvinist

[12strings]

I was recently directed to this article from the Gospel Coalition. I thought it was helpful, though I'm sure it has some things people may take issue with. For the non-cals, it can at least show what one Cal thinks is a way to approach this.

How to Call for a Gospel Response Like a Calvinist
"Think like a Calvinist. Preach like an Arminian."

That is how one preaching professor taught his students to call people to faith in a sermon. He couldn't reconcile a theological system that embraces God's sovereignty in salvation with a plea for sinful people to change. Ultimately, this prof thought Calvinism makes sense biblically and logically, but not practically.

Perhaps you have struggled with this, too. I know I have.

There was a season of my ministry where I didn't call people to believe the gospel. I preached the gospel, of course, but only with the hope that the Spirit would use his word to regenerate spiritually dead teenagers against their will. I merely implied that they must believe the gospel.

But I have turned from this mindset. This is not because my pendulum has swung to a more balanced position between Calvinism and Arminianism---I don't believe there is such a thing. It's because I've grown to understand what Calvinism is and, perhaps more importantly, what it isn't.

It is Calvinistic to call people to respond with faith in the gospel.


Eschewing theological labels for a moment, it is biblical and Christian to call people to believe in the gospel. This is, after all, how Jesus began his ministry: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:14-15). You don't have to know Greek to recognize the imperatives.

But we Calvinists love to quote Ephesians 2:8. "Faith is a gift from God!" we exclaim. "It doesn't originate in the person!"

The question is: When non-Christians do repent and believe the gospel, do they express faith in Christ? Or does God grant the gift of faith in Christ to men? Yes! Why? Scripture teaches that faith in Christ includes both an objective and a subjective aspect. This is not a contradiction. Rather, the two must be held in tension.

Objectively speaking, faith is a gift from God (Eph. 2:8, although the "gift" is the whole work of salvation, not just the faith). Subjectively speaking, the person exercises faith in the gospel (Eph. 1:13). This is why Paul thanks God (the objective side) for the Ephesians' faith in the Lord (the subjective side; Eph. 1:15-16).

Since faith is both objective and subjective, we are right, as Calvinists, to call unbelievers to put their faith in Jesus.

Hyper-Calvinists inappropriately overemphasize the objective aspect of faith. Therefore, they have a hard time calling people to put their trust in Jesus. Arminians, on the other hand, inappropriately overemphasize the subjective aspect of faith, as ultimately the responsibility of the individual.

Calvinism, and more importantly the Bible, appropriately emphasizes both, which is why we can (must!) call unbelievers to put their faith in Christ, and mean it.

Calvinists believe there is power in the call to respond.

Someone might respond, "Okay, faith is objective and subjective. But if the person hasn't been regenerated, the call to faith falls on spiritually deaf ears, and therefore will necessarily be ineffective."

But this response fails to recognize that the power for a person to change lies not in their current spiritual condition. The power lies within the preached Word through the work of the Holy Spirit. "The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom. 1:16).

The Word is what works the change: Jesus told the paralytic to get up. God told the light to show up. Jesus told Lazarus to come out.


Charles Spurgeon once said:

The effectual call of grace is precisely similar [to that of Lazarus]; the sinner is dead in sin; he is not only in sin but dead in sin, without any power whatever to give to himself the life of grace. . . . Sovereign grace cries, either by the minister, or else directly without any agency, by the Spirit of God, "come forth!" and that man lives. Does he contribute anything to his new life? Not he; his life is given solely by God.

By God's grace, his Word, proclaimed by sinful people, contains the power to change hearts.

Calvinists pray for unbelievers to respond to the call.

Is there a point in praying for people to respond to the gospel if the number of those who will respond is fixed in God's plan from eternity?

Paul seems to think so: "Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved" (Rom. 10:1). Who is Paul praying for? Israel, who seeks to establish a righteousness of their own through the works of the law (Rom. 9:31; 10:3) rather than by faith in Christ.

Does it shock you that Paul prays for Israel's salvation in his most extensive section on God's sovereignty in election? Perhaps a prayer like this sounds Arminian to you. Perhaps it sounds like the future is open for the souls we preach to, and that they have not been predestined one way or the other.

But to pray for someone to be saved is thoroughly Calvinistic. Why? Every prayer for God to save someone is at least an implicit confession that they can't respond to the gospel in their own power, whether or not we explicitly acknowledge this to be the case. When you pray for God to save someone, you say, "God, you must do the work to save this person, because otherwise, they won't turn to you."

How to think like a Calvinist and preach like one.

Where do we go from here? This discussion boils down to three ways Calvinists ought to proclaim the gospel:

Explicitly call the unregenerate to believe in the gospel.
Trust that the Holy Spirit will do the work to make that call effective in the elect.
Pray that God would save people through the inherent power of the gospel.
More than just being practical, Calvinism contains the power for calling sinners to respond to the gospel in faith.

Eric McKiddie is the junior high pastor at College Church in Wheaton, Illinois. He blogs at pastoralized.com.

 

[mandym]

this prof thought Calvinism makes sense biblically and logically, but not practically.

If that is true it discredits the entire system.

 

[12strings]

If that is true it discredits the entire system.

This author goes on to argue that it is NOT true.

 

[InTheLight]

Thanks for posting the article. Though I'm not a Calvinist it is good to understand where they are coming from.

Calvinists pray for unbelievers to respond to the call.

Is there a point in praying for people to respond to the gospel if the number of those who will respond is fixed in God's plan from eternity?

Paul seems to think so: "Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved" (Rom. 10:1).

Does it shock you that Paul prays for Israel's salvation in his most extensive section on God's sovereignty in election?

The answer to the question is no. Because Paul doesn't think God elects only certain people.

Acts 26
27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe.”
28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”
29 And Paul said, “I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become both almost and altogether such as I am, except for these chains.”

 

[humblethinker]

The article instructed, "Pray that God would save people through the inherent power of the gospel."

Why? What is there to the idea that we are morally obligated to do so? Is it only for the sake of obedience that we should pray?

 

[webdog]

Where do we go from here? This discussion boils down to three ways Calvinists ought to proclaim the gospel:

Explicitly call the unregenerate to believe in the gospel.
Trust that the Holy Spirit will do the work to make that call effective in the elect.
Pray that God would save people through the inherent power of the gospel.
More than just being practical, Calvinism contains the power for calling sinners to respond to the gospel in faith.

Nothing here is different than what I believe, so it is not calvinism that contains the power, it is the Gospel. The fact that it has been stated calvinism has any kind of power reeks of piety and arrogance.

 

[12strings]

The answer to the question is no. Because Paul doesn't think God elects only certain people.

Acts 26
27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe.”
28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”
29 And Paul said, “I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become both almost and altogether such as I am, except for these chains.”

does this verse teach that paul fully expected all who heard him would respond, or only that he desired it to be so?

 

[webdog]

does this verse teach that paul fully expected all who heard him would respond, or only that he desired it to be so?

Does it matter? Why would he desire for something if it were unexpectant?

 

[12strings]

Nothing here is different than what I believe, so it is not calvinism that contains the power, it is the Gospel. The fact that it has been stated calvinism has any kind of power reeks of piety and arrogance.

I agree that statement was unnecessary. He should have simply said the gospel has the power. However I think his point is that through his calvinistic understanding of the Gospel, He sees the Holy Spirit's power working though his calls for a response.

Even Spurgeon once said "Calvinism is the Gospel" Which I now think was not a very wise thing to say, but it has been quoted too often by calvinists seeking to make a point. Was Spurgeon arrogant to say this, or simply unwise? maybe both.

 

[12strings]

The article instructed, "Pray that God would save people through the inherent power of the gospel."

Why? What is there to the idea that we are morally obligated to do so? Is it only for the sake of obedience that we should pray?

We are told to pray to the Lord of the Harvest to send out laborors...Surely God knows where laborors are needed, yet he tells us to pray, and later in scriptures says that such prayers are "effectual" and "avail much."

 

[12strings]

Does it matter? Why would he desire for something if it were unexpectant?

I desire lots of things that I don't expect to actually happen.

 

[webdog]

I desire lots of things that I don't expect to actually happen.

Pertaining to spiritual matters? Is God not powerful enough?

 

[12strings]

Pertaining to spiritual matters? Is God not powerful enough?

Sorry, can we back up? I'm not sure exactly what we are debating.

Yes, God is powerful enough. Yes, we should pray expecting God to answer, but realizing his plan may be different than ours.

I'm simply saying that in this case, all Paul says is he "would" that all who hear would be like him. I take that to mean he desires it. Does he also expect it to happen...esp. to ALL? He doesn't say. I would think Paul is a realist to know that some who hear would respond, and some would not.

 

[Jerome]

Even Spurgeon once said "Calvinism is the Gospel" Which I now think was not a very wise thing to say, but it has been quoted too often by calvinists seeking to make a point.

Refreshing candor from the head of the so-called "Founders" faction, Tom Ascol:

Ascol cited a statement by British Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Calvinism is the Gospel.” While Spurgeon’s other preaching made clear he did not equate the five points of Calvinism with the Gospel itself, Ascol said, “And though I would have never said it that way either, [in the past] I would have been content to just throw it in the face of people who didn’t agree with Calvinism and let them grapple with it. But now I want to be more gracious about that.”

Ascol credited spiritual growth—“God exposing pride in me”—and friendships with “good, godly men” for his change in attitude.

Florida Baptist Witness

 

[The Archangel]

Thanks for posting the article. Though I'm not a Calvinist it is good to understand where they are coming from.

The answer to the question is no. Because Paul doesn't think God elects only certain people.

Acts 26
27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe.”
28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”
29 And Paul said, “I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become both almost and altogether such as I am, except for these chains.”

As 12strings pointed out, your understanding of this verse is incorrect. Paul does not expect all in his hearing to be converted, though he does wish that it would happen.

Does it matter? Why would he desire for something if it were unexpectant?

It matters greatly because of the text. The word translated "would" is in the optative mood. In Greek the optative is not dealing with fact or actual occurrence. Rather, it is the mood of "wishing," for lack of a better term.

So, in the text, we see Paul preaching indiscriminately (not just to persons he might consider "elect"). He is hoping the people are converted through his preaching of the Gospel. But, it is clear he doesn't expect that to happen.

The Archangel

 

[humblethinker]

We are told to pray to the Lord of the Harvest to send out laborors...Surely God knows where laborors are needed, yet he tells us to pray, and later in scriptures says that such prayers are "effectual" and "avail much."

That answer sounds like you are agreeing that it is only for the sake of obedience.

In what way would prayers be effectual and avail much besides a "just because the Bible says so" answer? Are they "effectual" and "avail much" in making a difference in that "God would save people through the inherent power of the gospel"?

 

[webdog]

As 12strings pointed out, your understanding of this verse is incorrect. Paul does not expect all in his hearing to be converted, though he does wish that it would happen.



It matters greatly because of the text. The word translated "would" is in the optative mood. In Greek the optative is not dealing with fact or actual occurrence. Rather, it is the mood of "wishing," for lack of a better term.

So, in the text, we see Paul preaching indiscriminately (not just to persons he might consider "elect"). He is hoping the people are converted through his preaching of the Gospel. But, it is clear he doesn't expect that to happen.

The Archangel

where do you get Paul didn't expect it to happen? Why would he desire something if there was no chance of it happening, or more imporantly that would be in opposition to God's desire? I don't desire to fly by flapping my arms because I know its not possible. I also do not desire to win a million dollars via the lottery as its impossible since I don't play the lottery.

 

[The Archangel]

where do you get Paul didn't expect it to happen?

The use of the optative mood.

Why would he desire something if there was no chance of it happening, or more importantly that would be in opposition to God's desire?

You are reading into my comments and the passage. I never said there was "no chance." The text never said there was "no chance." In my comments and in the text "chance" is never discussed.

I said Paul wishes the persons hearing him would believe. But he doesn't expect that they all will.

More to the point I was making--Paul does not preach only to the elect. He preaches to everyone. This is not proof that Paul didn't believe in election as InTheLight stated.

I don't desire to fly by flapping my arms because I know its not possible. I also do not desire to win a million dollars via the lottery as its impossible since I don't play the lottery.

You are confusing desire with action. I would love to have a million dollars. That's desire. I take no action to procure that million dollars--lobbying philanthropists or playing the lottery. But, that does not diminish my desire to have the million dollars. One can desire without taking action (it happens all the time).

However, Paul both desired (wished) that the persons be converted (mostly Agrippa) and took the action of preaching the Gospel to him (and those in his court). But, he didn't expect here--nor anywhere else in the New Testament that I'm aware of--that preaching the Gospel would, ipso facto, bring conversions. In fact, Paul was well acquainted with preaching the Gospel where not everyone was converted.

Again, though, the issue is the text and its use of the optative mood.

The Archangel

 

[12strings]

That answer sounds like you are agreeing that it is only for the sake of obedience.

In what way would prayers be effectual and avail much besides a "just because the Bible says so" answer? Are they "effectual" and "avail much" in making a difference in that "God would save people through the inherent power of the gospel"?

I am not saying it is only for the sake of obedience, though that should be enough.

I don't really know how it works. God says he has a plan, and it "cannot be thrwarted" (a good word for any occasion, btw). God also says, "you have not because you ask not." Does that mean, "even if you don't ask, I'm going to give anyway cuz I have a plan."? I don't think so. [It doesn't mean the opposite of what it says!] This verse says there are things I don't have because I don't ask.

Jesus said to pray to the Lord of harvest that he would send laborors. How do my prayers for the advance of the Gospel, which God says are "effective" and "avail much" rolled up into the sovereignty of God, who said "I will build my church"? I don't know.

 

[Winman]

That is how one preaching professor taught his students to call people to faith in a sermon. He couldn't reconcile a theological system that embraces God's sovereignty in salvation with a plea for sinful people to change. Ultimately, this prof thought Calvinism makes sense biblically and logically, but not practically.

How is Calvinism logical if it's not practical? Why would God beg people to be reconciled to himself when he knows it is impossible to do so? This is not logical at all. It would be like me going out in my yard calling my dog when everyone on my street knows my dog died a year ago and cannot possibly respond and come to me. Would that make me appear logical?

Perhaps you have struggled with this, too. I know I have.

There was a season of my ministry where I didn't call people to believe the gospel. I preached the gospel, of course, but only with the hope that the Spirit would use his word to regenerate spiritually dead teenagers against their will. I merely implied that they must believe the gospel.

You should struggle with this, it makes no sense.

But I have turned from this mindset. This is not because my pendulum has swung to a more balanced position between Calvinism and Arminianism---I don't believe there is such a thing. It's because I've grown to understand what Calvinism is and, perhaps more importantly, what it isn't.

I would disagree. You cannot reconcile "consistent" Calvinism with logic. It makes no sense for God to call people whom he knows cannot respond positively to him.

It is Calvinistic to call people to respond with faith in the gospel.

It is "scriptural" to call people to respond with faith to the gospel, but it is only logical and practical if people have the ability to respond to it.

Eschewing theological labels for a moment, it is biblical and Christian to call people to believe in the gospel. This is, after all, how Jesus began his ministry: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:14-15). You don't have to know Greek to recognize the imperatives.

Yes, it is scriptural to call people to believe in the gospel.

But we Calvinists love to quote Ephesians 2:8. "Faith is a gift from God!" we exclaim. "It doesn't originate in the person!"

Yes, and many would say Calvinists err in their interpretation of this verse, and that the gift referred to is "salvation", not faith.

The question is: When non-Christians do repent and believe the gospel, do they express faith in Christ? Or does God grant the gift of faith in Christ to men? Yes! Why? Scripture teaches that faith in Christ includes both an objective and a subjective aspect. This is not a contradiction. Rather, the two must be held in tension.

There is tension in the Ref/Cal view, there is NO tension in the Arm/Non-Cal view. Faith is a gift of God in that no man could believe in Jesus if God had not revealed him to us and called us by his Word and Spirit. The Arm/Non-Cal believes men have the ability to respond positively if they so choose.

Objectively speaking, faith is a gift from God (Eph. 2:8, although the "gift" is the whole work of salvation, not just the faith). Subjectively speaking, the person exercises faith in the gospel (Eph. 1:13). This is why Paul thanks God (the objective side) for the Ephesians' faith in the Lord (the subjective side; Eph. 1:15-16).

Since faith is both objective and subjective, we are right, as Calvinists, to call unbelievers to put their faith in Jesus.

Hyper-Calvinists inappropriately overemphasize the objective aspect of faith. Therefore, they have a hard time calling people to put their trust in Jesus. Arminians, on the other hand, inappropriately overemphasize the subjective aspect of faith, as ultimately the responsibility of the individual.

Actually, I would say that it is Calvinists who overemphasize the Arm/Non-Cal view that man is able to respond to God's calling. Cals love to say the Arm/Non-Cal view is man centered, when no Arm/Non-Cal feels this way.

For example, last year my best friend called and invited me to a Super Bowl party at his house. He told me there would be all sorts of food and drink (non-alcoholic) and many other friends from church. I accepted his invitation.

Now do you think I walked in and told my friend how lucky he was I came to his party, and that he should be thanking me for eating his free food and watching the game on his big screen TV?

Now really, isn't that the silliest thing in the world? Nobody in their right mind would do such a thing in real practical life. In real practical life you would thank your friend for being so kind to invite you to his party, and you would bring along something to show your appreciation, which is exactly what I did.

So, Calvinism presents a very unrealistic and illogical argument. Any person who realizes they are a sinner and worthy of death is not going to have this kind of attitude. They are going to be thankful and appreciative to God for sending his Son to die for our sins and calling us with his gospel.

Calvinism, and more importantly the Bible, appropriately emphasizes both, which is why we can (must!) call unbelievers to put their faith in Christ, and mean it.

I disagree. If a Calvinist is truly "consistent" then it cannot "emphasize" both. It must emphasize the effectual call. It really does not make sense to urge someone to believe if there is a real possibility they cannot. It would make more sense to simply preach the gospel and sit back and watch who responds. Those who are regenerated will respond without any urging or persuasion on your part, those who are not elect cannot possibly respond if you begged them for a thousand years. So why put emphasis on the response?

Calvinists believe there is power in the call to respond.

Only for the elect at a given time. Calvinists don't believe the gospel is powerful to the elect until a certain time, then at this certain point it is. This is non-sensical and illogical, as the scriptures call us to believe TODAY. If God wants you to believe TODAY, why would he wait years to regenerate you?

And Calvinists NEVER believe the call is powerful toward the non-elect. This is illogical as well, as God does not speak meaningless idle words.

Someone might respond, "Okay, faith is objective and subjective. But if the person hasn't been regenerated, the call to faith falls on spiritually deaf ears, and therefore will necessarily be ineffective."

Yes, this is how people will respond, because it is a logical and reasonable response.

But this response fails to recognize that the power for a person to change lies not in their current spiritual condition. The power lies within the preached Word through the work of the Holy Spirit. "The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom. 1:16).

Only for the elect at a given time. Before that given time it was powerless. And for the unelect it is always meaningless and powerless.

The Word is what works the change: Jesus told the paralytic to get up. God told the light to show up. Jesus told Lazarus to come out.

The paralytic had faith as did Lazarus. But even the spiritually dead have the ability to respond to Jesus, in John 5:25 Jesus said the dead shall hear his voice (notice he said they could hear), and those that hear (believe) shall live. The spiritual is not the same as the physical.

Jn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

By God's grace, his Word, proclaimed by sinful people, contains the power to change hearts.

Only the elect at a given time. The rest of the time it is powerless.

Calvinists pray for unbelievers to respond to the call.

Is there a point in praying for people to respond to the gospel if the number of those who will respond is fixed in God's plan from eternity?

Paul seems to think so: "Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved" (Rom. 10:1). Who is Paul praying for? Israel, who seeks to establish a righteousness of their own through the works of the law (Rom. 9:31; 10:3) rather than by faith in Christ.

I would say Paul's prayer is illogical if Calvinism is true. If God has already determined who will be saved before the foundation of the world, how can prayer change anything? Again, this is illogical if Calvinism is true.

Does it shock you that Paul prays for Israel's salvation in his most extensive section on God's sovereignty in election? Perhaps a prayer like this sounds Arminian to you. Perhaps it sounds like the future is open for the souls we preach to, and that they have not been predestined one way or the other.

YES, it does sound Arm/Non-Cal. It makes no sense if Ref/Cal is true. You recognize this yourself.

But to pray for someone to be saved is thoroughly Calvinistic. Why? Every prayer for God to save someone is at least an implicit confession that they can't respond to the gospel in their own power, whether or not we explicitly acknowledge this to be the case. When you pray for God to save someone, you say, "God, you must do the work to save this person, because otherwise, they won't turn to you."

I disagree, it is inconsistent with Calvinism. If God has already determined who will be saved, prayer is meaningless, it cannot change a thing.