One of the first things we do is to extend the influences of the Enlightenment and insist on human reason as the end of all things -- even when God's revelation flies in the face of that reason every time we read it. That seems to be at the bottom of the whole issue in a lot of ways.
But I digress. The question I've raised is that those holding Reformed views of theology are equally (and sometimes more) involved with actual evangelism as those who do not, so where does the point of contention come in. Obviously someone is trying to paint someone else into a corner and make them look bad or incomplete. If we all know that isn't true, save for individual independent cases, which happen on both sides of this issue, why keep pressing a dead argument?
If Calvinists are evangelizing, then the main point against them is struck down, is it not? The main issue I see raised against Calvinists is that they do not evangelize because they "all believe" that God does all the work, so they don't have to. When is the last time you ACTUALLY found someone who was a Calvinist teaching ANY such thing? Is that not merely some point made by some pastor or professor somewhere that was learned by rote, but perhaps not really true?
I'm involved with several church planting organizations across the USA. To a one, they hold Reformed (Calvinistic) doctrines. I am not aware of any efforts of a like nature that are purely Arminian in doctrine. If there are some out there, I'd love to know about them, but that isn't the main point. The issue is, evangelism is happening among Calvinists, which the other side say should not happen.
As a matter of fact the great evangelists have tended to be Calvinistic. With the exception of Moody, Finney, and Wesley, I cannot think of any Arminian evangelists of real renown. One might argue that Billy Graham was an Arminian, and I suppose he was a two pointer most of his life, but he just admitted recently that he never had time to read the Bible like he needed and sat down and read it through in two months and became a 5-point Calvinist.
It seems to me that almost all other major names in truly Christian history of renown were Calvinists.
Spurgeon, the father of the mega church, was a thorough Calvinist. William Carey, the great Baptist missionary, was a Calvinist.
Lottie Moon, the woman whose name labels Southern Baptist International Missions, was herself a Calvinist.
Jonathan Edwards, the most brilliant theological and philosophical mind in American history and the fountainhead of the Great Awakening was a mighty Calvinist,
George Whitefield the spreader of the Great Awakening fire throughout the colonies was a Calvinist,
the Pilgrims, though perhaps not evangelists, certainly the bringers of the Gospel to this Continent, were Calvinists,
the Puritans were Calvinists,
Matthew Henry, the mighty Commentator whose commentary has touched the lives of multiplied millions was a Calvinist,
John Bunyan whose Pilgrim's Progress has convinced many to enter the Kingdom was a Calvinist,
of course Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation which may be responsible for bringing more people into the Kingdom of God than any other event since Pentecost, was a Calvinist,
John Wycliffe, the 'Morning Star of the Reformation', was a Calvinist,
John Huss, the great martyr for the faith, was a Calvinist,
Augustine was a Calvinist,
the Apostle Paul was a Calvinist, and the list goes on and on...
So the argument is utterly ridiculous and really just asinine that says that Calvinists are not evangelistic.
