Shallow preachers....

[JD731]

@JD731 . Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail to my rambling post. My opinions regarding the shallow preaching were what I had observed at my church starting in the late 90's if I remember right. Mostly I observed it with other churches though, and frankly it is much more of a problem in what's left of mainline Protestant churches.

I would say from your answer you show what I think is the Achilles heal of IFB churches. The tendency to separate over doctrine or standards or Bible versions is so strong that it's hard to keep them together and stability suffers. Most IFB guys I know don't like Calvinists and don't like Baptists who are association affiliated, don't like Billy Graham, don't like non KJV users and so on. You guys don't like John R. Rice and Sword of the Lord which to most other fundamentalists would be good reason to split from you over.

Actually, the tendency of IFB is to fellowship with Christians who understand and believe in the fundamentals of "the faith." Let me illustrate the importance of this with a passage in the beginning days of the Christians church after the gentiles were included. Read this:

Acts 14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
24 And after they had passed throughout Pisidia, they came to Pamphylia.
25 And when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down into Attalia:
26 And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.
27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
28 And there they abode long time with the disciples.

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised (put chosen before the foundation of the world right here) after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

If Paul & Peter & James and the other apostles and elders would have accommodated this doctrine of these Pharisees and made circumcision a fundamental of the faith, would there even be a church of Jesus Christ today? What would the world be like today if this doctrine were accepted by the men who had a personal and physical walk with Jesus Christ, and who alone had authority from God to address the doctrines of this age. Paul was right to contend with these men. Men who believed this doctrine had beat him and left him for dead because he would not comply at Lystra as told us in chapter 14. That was a persuasion of power by Satan and chapter 15 is a persuasion by infiltration and by subtle deceit. This is how he works.

These men separated from the apostolic faith and began their own church and was always the enemy of the gospel and withstood Paul everywhere he went. They were addressed in Galatians where they tried to undermine the doctrines of the faith and John the apostle, who was in the conference in Acts 15, said this about them.

1 Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

They rejected the authority of the apostles and added their own doctrines, taking away the glory of our Lord and his cross. When I go to the KJV Bible, I find out the gospel of the Calvinists is false. These are the words of the apostles about the matter. I believe them.

I am not accommodating this revision of the Christian faith by adding pre world election to it. This would make the cross of Jesus Christ an incidental doctrine, no more important than any other doctrine, and the election, the central theme of the Christian faith. What difference would it make to you if Jesus Christ died on the cross, a perfect sacrifice, if you were not chosen before this to be saved by this act? The answer is that it would make no difference. You were condemned by God before, during, and after the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. No difference! The cross would not change anything for you.

My point is, there are things worth separating over, no, it is critical that they be named and identified as false doctrines and avoided. The group we are dealing with today have already given us 100 different versions of the apostles words in our language with more on the way while marking fundamentalists as a problem.

I would like to start a thread on exactly what the fundamentals are. What would be the most concise statement to which everyone would agree that a person could hold to and be considered a fellow believer? But I don't think it would go well.

Well, this is a Baptist forum but there seems to be more Reformed here than anything else. I do not see any difference between Reformed Baptists and some of the Calvinists denominations, like the Free Presbyterians, a denomination started by Ian Paisley. A mixture of truth and error. Reformed Baptists have much more in common with them than with Baptists. If someone disagrees, then they can post those differences.

So, it might be a better use of your time to post a thread on exactly what is a Baptist.

 

[DaveXR650]

Actually, the tendency of IFB is to fellowship with Christians who understand and believe in the fundamentals of "the faith." Let me illustrate the importance of this with a passage in the beginning days of the Christians church after the gentiles were included.

Let's look at some of the "fundamentals" of the faith. No mixed bathing, so trips to the beach with your family were sinful. No drinking of course, but we were rebuked for eating at a restaurant that served alcohol, although we were tea totalers. King James Version only, to the point where once I had a question and a pastor took me up to his office and we looked up the passage in an NIV he had hidden in the bottom drawer of his desk, behind the files. He said he used it for difficult passages but don't tell anybody. I once went "soul winning" with a different IFB pastor who as we were going down the road said "By the way what Bible do you have?" I said Scofield. He said "which one?" I said I didn't know so I looked and said it was a New Scofield KJV. Do you know we had to stop back at my house and pick up a real Bible, an Old Scofield.

In addition, we had of course the hair, the dress and the fact that "forsaking the assembling of yourselves together" applied to missing one Wednesday night. My one IFB pastor was opened minded though. He once told us that he thought a person who believed in a mid-tribulation rapture might be saved after all.

I say all that to point out how ridiculous it is to bring up the Judaizers adding things to salvation if you're an IFB. Didn't they say at the council for the gentiles to abstain from things strangled, from blood, and from fornication. So how do you add all that stuff above? And, every one of those things I experienced myself, personally first person. These are not things I heard or read about.

 

[Van]

Calvinism doesn't deny this at all. Historically Calvinists have been forefront in missions. Check out the Presbyterian church in Korea and China. It's vibrant and sending missionaries throughout Asia and the world. You are simply ignorant and leaning on a figment of your imagination.

1) First as usual, a Falseology advocate denies the well published position, that God predestines whatsoever comes to pass, thus Evangelism does not in the bogus view of Falseology, "hasten the day" as the "day" is fixed, i.e. predestined.
2) Did anyone say Calvinist do not engage in evangelism? Nope, so obfuscation on display.
3) This copy and paste poster who seems unable to even do a word search charges me with ignorance.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Evangelism will hasten the day of the Lord's return.

Common error in speaking (we all do that - shortcuts in the way we express biblical truth) that the Lord will return by "our efforts" of evangelism. Think about what that means if true: WE are in charge of the second coming of Christ! No one actually believes that.

BTW, when will Christ return in judgment to set up His kingdom? THAT is the question asked by those killed for His name as the curtain of heaven is opened for a glimpse.

Rev 6:9-11 When [the angel] opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the Word of God and for the Witness they had borne. They cried out loudly asking, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, HOW LONG before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”
Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

It seems that one way of looking at the Lord's return os that it is NOT when the "last soul has been saved" but when the "last martyr has been killed".

 

[Revmitchell]

There have been a few Calvinists that have been at the forefront of evangelism but that doesn't make all of Calvinism at the forefront. In fact it was Calvinism that has a rich history of "leave em alone, if god wants them saved He will do it."

 

[Van]

Common error in speaking (we all do that - shortcuts in the way we express biblical truth) that the Lord will return by "our efforts" of evangelism. Think about what that means if true: WE are in charge of the second coming of Christ! No one actually believes that.

BTW, when will Christ return in judgment to set up His kingdom? THAT is the question asked by those killed for His name as the curtain of heaven is opened for a glimpse.

Rev 6:9-11 When [the angel] opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the Word of God and for the Witness they had borne. They cried out loudly asking, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, HOW LONG before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”
Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

It seems that one way of looking at the Lord's return is that it is NOT when the "last soul has been saved" but when the "last martyr has been killed".

Most Baptists believe their understanding of scripture, so "to hasten the day" means (IMHO) to hasten the day.
No we are not "in charge of the second coming." We till, plant and water but God causes the increase.

Interesting observation concerning a possible interpretation of Revelation 6:11. I disagree, thinking our effective evangelism will aid in adding to the number, thus taking less time to reach the number, thus hastening the day. Thus the number will include all the martyrs, but the last one need not be one.

 

[Marooncat79]

that’s not Calvinism. That’s hypercalvinism

 

[AustinC]

1) First as usual, a Falseology advocate denies the well published position, that God predestines whatsoever comes to pass, thus Evangelism does not in the bogus view of Falseology, "hasten the day" as the "day" is fixed, i.e. predestined.
2) Did anyone say Calvinist do not engage in evangelism? Nope, so obfuscation on display.
3) This copy and paste poster who seems unable to even do a word search charges me with ignorance.

I am a terrible person for copying and pasting scripture, Van. We get it. You don't want to be confronted by God's word. Moreso, it seems you are calling the scripture I copied and pasted..."Falseology."
The discerning reader can... discern between you and me.

 

[JD731]

Let's look at some of the "fundamentals" of the faith. No mixed bathing, so trips to the beach with your family were sinful. No drinking of course, but we were rebuked for eating at a restaurant that served alcohol, although we were tea totalers. King James Version only, to the point where once I had a question and a pastor took me up to his office and we looked up the passage in an NIV he had hidden in the bottom drawer of his desk, behind the files. He said he used it for difficult passages but don't tell anybody. I once went "soul winning" with a different IFB pastor who as we were going down the road said "By the way what Bible do you have?" I said Scofield. He said "which one?" I said I didn't know so I looked and said it was a New Scofield KJV. Do you know we had to stop back at my house and pick up a real Bible, an Old Scofield.

In addition, we had of course the hair, the dress and the fact that "forsaking the assembling of yourselves together" applied to missing one Wednesday night. My one IFB pastor was opened minded though. He once told us that he thought a person who believed in a mid-tribulation rapture might be saved after all.

I say all that to point out how ridiculous it is to bring up the Judaizers adding things to salvation if you're an IFB. Didn't they say at the council for the gentiles to abstain from things strangled, from blood, and from fornication. So how do you add all that stuff above? And, every one of those things I experienced myself, personally first person. These are not things I heard or read about.

Nothing about the fundamentals, Dave. In Acts 15, that I quoted, the Pharisees taught that one must be circumcised to be saved. Is that what these men were teaching? Your bad experience drove you to Calvinism because you wanted freedom to bath with the women and go to the beach and drink some booze and eat at a restaurant that sells booze, and believe the New Scofield and miss on a Wednesday night? None of those things they expected of you were fundamentals and I doubt they told you they were. So, it would have been okay to disobey the pastor. You would have still been saved if you have ever embraced "the faith" by believing it.

Landing in Calvinism is a bad response to this situation because of the things I have already pointed out and many more that I did not mention.

 

[Reynolds]

that’s not Calvinism. That’s hypercalvinism

That is not HyperCalvinism. Not even close.

 

[Marooncat79]

Response #85 is a prime example of Hypercalvinism

Calvinism and HyerC have specific definitions

we would all do well to learn them and go w them instead of always trying to redefine terms to our own liking

 

[JD731]

Common error in speaking (we all do that - shortcuts in the way we express biblical truth) that the Lord will return by "our efforts" of evangelism. Think about what that means if true: WE are in charge of the second coming of Christ! No one actually believes that.

BTW, when will Christ return in judgment to set up His kingdom? THAT is the question asked by those killed for His name as the curtain of heaven is opened for a glimpse.

Rev 6:9-11 When [the angel] opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the Word of God and for the Witness they had borne. They cried out loudly asking, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, HOW LONG before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”
Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

It seems that one way of looking at the Lord's return os that it is NOT when the "last soul has been saved" but when the "last martyr has been killed".

This would be true if Revelation 6 was in the same context of the church of Jesus Christ. The house that Jesus Christ is building will have been completed and removed before any martyrs of Re 6 for sure.

This op is about the shallowness of the IFB, but I suppose the author will not mind if we extend it beyond just the IFB to include others also. Most people do not even know that Jesus is building a house (family) in this age and that it will soon be a full house and complete. After that, other things will happen, such as Re 6. Our Lord is often referred to in the parables as the "householder." He is the head of this family that is entered into by the new birth. Adam was the head of a family and we all entered into it by the first birth. There was a division of this Adamic house called the children of Israel, who were also called the people of God, and the rules of their household was the Law that God gave them through Moses. There you go again, the trinitarian signature of God that he stamps on all things he makes. No other people on earth had this dispensation of law from God. It was for this one family and it was a theocracy. The other family of Adam lived under the principle of HUMAN government.

You are going to need to see this in holy print, remembering that the epistle of the Hebrews was addressed to the Hebrews;

Heb 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

One needs to pause and apply some meditation and logic and reason to what is said here. There is correction for you if you have gone astray in your theology.

Consider this parable of Jesus;

Lk 14:15 And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.
16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.
20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.
21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.
22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.
23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.

Notice the elect, those who were bidden, did not enter the house.

Now, if you were reading Romans 8. 9. 10, 11, you would see that those who were under the law of Moses, his house, would not come to this house of Jesus. However, a remnant, a small number of the whole did come. This left much room in the house because just a few had come so these servants were sent out in the way of the gentiles so the house would indeed be full. That is the plain meaning of the plain words of Jesus Christ when he gave the Luke 14 parable. This worked out in real time so it was a prophesy of our Lord Jesus.

Romans was 28 years later and the properties of this parable had been realized, except for the filling of the house, which will soon be realized as well. The servants had farther to go now to find those who will come to fill the house.

Now, if you will keep in mind that the nations are one house, Israel is another house, and the church is yet another house, all under different dispensations, or house rules, you will be on a right track to grasp some great and wonderful truths of God. See them all below;

1 Cor 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
The breakdown is in the history of the Acts of the Apostles. The explanation is in the epistles of the NT.

Logic and reasoning will help with this next series of verses:

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (He had been speaking to those of Abraham's seed)

19 Thou (gentiles) wilt say then, The branches (those of Israel) were broken off, that I (a gentile) might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches (Israel), take heed lest he also spare not thee. (this is a prophesy and the gentiles will come to a point when they will not believe)

Now watch this and remember the parable and think about the last guests to be brought in to the house in Lk 14. The gentiles.

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

When the last gentile gets saved in this age the family will be complete and will be taken away. What next?

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

No more remnant doctrine for Israel. The whole house (who are left on earth alive after the tribulation) will be saved.

Ponder these things. There will be new house rules for Israel and the gentiles at that time.

 

[DaveXR650]

Your bad experience drove you to Calvinism because you wanted freedom to bath with the women and go to the beach and drink some booze and eat at a restaurant that sells booze, and believe the New Scofield and miss on a Wednesday night?

The problems I had with fundamentalism were people like you in it, and the way you judge others. Look at your post. The fact is, I took my family to the Outer Banks where it was family oriented and they rolled up the sidewalks at 9PM. I said I was and still am a tea totaler but when we went into town on rare occasions we would dine at a wicked place called Red Lobster. As for Wednesday night I was one of the youth leaders and was an essential part of the bus ministry because only a couple of us could drive the surplus military bus we used. The New Scofield I had was a gift and I nor they knew there was a difference. The problem, and what damaged fundamental churches was this kind of silliness, this attitude and lack of love. I got no where near Calvinism for 20 years after leaving that particular church and that move was only because we moved out of the area. The more moderate fundamental church I was in after that was not so legalistic and I would still be there except they encouraged me to leave because I was at the time a 4 point Calvinist, like they had previously said they were and like Jerry Falwell the first claimed to be. Bottom line, there were some (not all) but some in the fundamentalist churches who would constantly look for a reason to separate and if you look hard enough you will find one.

Yeah that's how people who know me call it: He baths with women and drinks like a fish.
Oh, I forgot. I have been to I think 3 movies since 1986 so I do that too I guess.

 

[JD731]

The problems I had with fundamentalism were people like you in it, and the way you judge others. Look at your post. The fact is, I took my family to the Outer Banks where it was family oriented and they rolled up the sidewalks at 9PM. I said I was and still am a tea totaler but when we went into town on rare occasions we would dine at a wicked place called Red Lobster. As for Wednesday night I was one of the youth leaders and was an essential part of the bus ministry because only a couple of us could drive the surplus military bus we used. The New Scofield I had was a gift and I nor they knew there was a difference. The problem, and what damaged fundamental churches was this kind of silliness, this attitude and lack of love. I got no where near Calvinism for 20 years after leaving that particular church and that move was only because we moved out of the area. The more moderate fundamental church I was in after that was not so legalistic and I would still be there except they encouraged me to leave because I was at the time a 4 point Calvinist, like they had previously said they were and like Jerry Falwell the first claimed to be. Bottom line, there were some (not all) but some in the fundamentalist churches who would constantly look for a reason to separate and if you look hard enough you will find one.

Yeah that's how people who know me call it: He baths with women and drinks like a fish.
Oh, I forgot. I have been to I think 3 movies since 1986 so I do that too I guess.

Only someone looking for a reason would think I was accusing you of those things when the point was simply that those are not fundamentals of the faith, and it is silly to think they are.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are right. They were silly but they were causes for separation. And these were fundamentalist churches. So they do have a problem. The fact that those are not fundamentals of the faith is not the issue. The fundamentalist churches have painted themselves into a corner where they cannot fellowship with anybody. There is absolutely no reason why fundamentalist churches should not be able to fellowship with reformed Baptists.

 

[JD731]

You are right. They were silly but they were causes for separation. And these were fundamentalist churches. So they do have a problem. The fact that those are not fundamentals of the faith is not the issue. The fundamentalist churches have painted themselves into a corner where they cannot fellowship with anybody. There is absolutely no reason why fundamentalist churches should not be able to fellowship with reformed Baptists.

Except for the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Those fundamentals for Calvinists and for the IFB are completely different. Nothing is the same. You seemed to have missed the point.

 

[DaveXR650]

@JD731 . I started a thread in the Calvinist/Arminian section if you want to contribute. Thanks

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Let's look at some of the "fundamentals" of the faith. No mixed bathing, so trips to the beach with your family were sinful. No drinking of course, but we were rebuked for eating at a restaurant that served alcohol, although we were tea totalers. King James Version only, to the point where once I had a question and a pastor took me up to his office and we looked up the passage in an NIV he had hidden in the bottom drawer of his desk, behind the files. He said he used it for difficult passages but don't tell anybody. I once went "soul winning" with a different IFB pastor who as we were going down the road said "By the way what Bible do you have?" I said Scofield. He said "which one?" I said I didn't know so I looked and said it was a New Scofield KJV. Do you know we had to stop back at my house and pick up a real Bible, an Old Scofield.

In addition, we had of course the hair, the dress and the fact that "forsaking the assembling of yourselves together" applied to missing one Wednesday night. My one IFB pastor was opened minded though. He once told us that he thought a person who believed in a mid-tribulation rapture might be saved after all.

I say all that to point out how ridiculous it is to bring up the Judaizers adding things to salvation if you're an IFB. Didn't they say at the council for the gentiles to abstain from things strangled, from blood, and from fornication. So how do you add all that stuff above? And, every one of those things I experienced myself, personally first person. These are not things I heard or read about.

I always appreciate the passionate "bible believing" unashamed of Christ attitude of IFB pastors (yet I also have to wonder how much of that is a show for Sunday morning), but I think their zeal is misguided in many ways to the point of legalism (as you articulated) and sometimes even heresy.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There have been a few Calvinists that have been at the forefront of evangelism but that doesn't make all of Calvinism at the forefront. In fact it was Calvinism that has a rich history of "leave em alone, if god wants them saved He will do it."

I wonder if you can provide examples of this 'rich history.' The legend that William Carey was told, "Sit down, young man; when it pleases God to convert the heathen, he will do it without your help," seems to have been exposed as a myth.
My thoughts go to David Brainard, dying of consumption, riding through the wilderness, coughing up blood, desperate to reach the native Americans in the area; and finding them and preaching the Gospel to them before going home to die very shortly afterwards.
Or they go to William Carey, moving mountains to raise money to get missionary work started in India; and getting out there and spending 9 years without seeing a single convert and having heart-breaking family issues, but persevering and seeing some hundreds of conversions before his death, and becoming the spiritual ancestor of the 65 million Indian Christians today, not to mention translating the Bible into more than a dozen different Indian languages and dialects.
Or to Adoniram Judson, stuck in a filthy jail cell in Burma for preaching the Gospel in that country.
Or John Paton, missionary to the New Hebrides (now Vanuatu), who had to keep guard over his wife's grave for several days to stop the natives digging her up and eating her. After his death, the grateful islanders put up a memorial to him which states, "Before he came, there was no light; when he left, there was no darkness."

All these were Calvinists. That is not to say that Arminians may not have done similar missionary work and comparisons would be odious, but it is to say that it is utterly false to claim that there have been only 'a few' Calvinists at the forefront of evangelism.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

I wonder if you can provide examples of this 'rich history.' The legend that William Carey was told, "Sit down, young man; when it pleases God to convert the heathen, he will do it without your help," seems to have been exposed as a myth.
My thoughts go to David Brainard, dying of consumption, riding through the wilderness, coughing up blood, desperate to reach the native Americans in the area; and finding them and preaching the Gospel to them before going home to die very shortly afterwards.
Or they go to William Carey, moving mountains to raise money to get missionary work started in India; and getting out there and spending 9 years without seeing a single convert and having heart-breaking family issues, but persevering and seeing some hundreds of conversions before his death, and becoming the spiritual ancestor of the 65 million Indian Christians today, not to mention translating the Bible into more than a dozen different Indian languages and dialects.
Or to Adoniram Judson, stuck in a filthy jail cell in Burma for preaching the Gospel in that country.
Or John Paton, missionary to the New Hebrides (now Vanuatu), who had to keep guard over his wife's grave for several days to stop the natives digging her up and eating her. After his death, the grateful islanders put up a memorial to him which states, "Before he came, there was no light; when he left, there was no darkness."

All these were Calvinists. That is not to say that Arminians may not have done similar missionary work and comparisons would be odious, but it is to say that it is utterly false to claim that there have been only 'a few' Calvinists at the forefront of evangelism.

Or the american puritans who worked diligently to evangelize the indians.