Calvinism and Evangelism - Not Compatible?

"If you believe this theology [Calvinism], then you cannot win souls" - Dan Sweatt (4/7/2009 - FBFI Meeting, The Wilds, NC)

Pastor Sweatt said earlier in the sermon that people today were too interested in theology and not enough in evangelism.

Suffice it to say, I hardly know where to start. In fact, I fully realize that my comments on the topic are not in league with those who have already responded quite adeptly (Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran to name two) and that I will say up front that I agree with their perspectives on the issue.

What can I contribute, if anything? Well, I am one of the younger fundamentalists that perhaps Dan Sweatt is trying to "reach."

He isn't reaching me very well.

The vitriol of his comments is not appealing, but for argument's sake, let's look beyond that. What's at the core of his message? Young fundamentalists, or at least those who are open to it, are at a point where they are vacillating: stick with fundamentalism (be careful in how you define that) or jump ship and follow MacArthur, Piper, Mohler, Dever, or Driscol.

First of all, I don't agree with his grouping of categories. I would hardly put Driscol in the same category as MacArthur or Dever, however, I am even willing to look beyond that.

I think the discussion needs to start with his first premiss (chronologically), namely that people are more interested in theology than soul winning or evangelism. Let's deal with that one, then we can deal with the Calvinism statement.

I would like to posit a theory about why people might be more interested in the latter group of men than what Sweatt calls 'fundamentalism.' They might be more interested in it because those men are preaching the Bible. Dave Doran pointed readers of his blog to a link on preaching that is most insightful and asks the question as to what is more appealing (and let's face it, which is more biblical) - the video link of Piper's view of preaching, or what Sweatt demonstrated at The Wilds. No honest student of the Word, after viewing those two options would choose Sweatt's model of preaching and philosophy behind it over what Piper put forth.

Maybe, just maybe, the Word of God still has power and force behind it. Maybe young men and women today are actually interested in learning the deeper theological truths of the Bible and they are not finding it in fundamental circles and are branching out to some of the more popular expositors of the day.

I would like to respond to that. I consider myself fundamental and believe that there is a fundamentalism worth saving (though not Sweatt's brand) because I wholeheartedly ascribe to these historic tenants (I refer you to the Nick of Time series "Understanding Conservative Christianity" by Kevin Bauder). Furthermore, I believe that there are still plenty who fit this description of fundamentalism: Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Mark Minnick - to name a few leaders, and countless other pastors.

I also don't believe that I would be too far off to say that these men love their theology and that it is precisely that love of theology, that love of deepening their knowledge of the Scriptures and personal relationship with their Savior that would drive them to pursue evangelism! When a person is truly born of the Spirit and begins to grow in their knowledge of the Word and hungers for more, exposure to God's truth and more importantly, his commands for us in our day-t0-day living, will convict us of our need to share the good news with others.

Then, I feel compelled to address the comment on Calvinism. Not only does Sweatt assert that theology and evangelism are not compatible, but also, more specifically, that the theology of Calvinism is not compatible with evangelism. Dr. Bauder has already addressed the issue of Calvinism vs. Arminianism so that does not need to be revisited (essentially saying that good men are on both sides of the debate and that being one or the other doesn't equate to being saved or not). I take umbrage with this statement because being Calvinistic or not really has little bearing on one's view of evangelism - in other words, being Calvinisitic is not causal to one witnessing or not, it is a system through which one understands the Word as a whole and ties together truths that are found throughout the Bible. Arminianism understands some biblical truths differently and thus comes up with a different system or grid through which one views the Bible - neither system is a model for evangelism.

The fact is, that the more I learn of God and his miraculous working in people's lives, the more I stand in awe of him and even more, that he saved me. It is not the business of the creature to pry into God's secret will, for that will only be known after the fact - thus, to try and ascertain whether a person is elect or not is not for me to know. My responsibility is to follow God's revealed will which, in part, says that I am to be a light to this world and to share the gospel with every person. This command I must respond to and it is therefore my duty to lovingly share the good news of salvation, by grace, through faith in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ and his resurrection from the dead with this lost and dying world - Calvinist or not.

I am a fundametalist, but not because of Dan Sweatt. In fact, I would prefer to distance myself from men such as him and their labeling because it is not what I understand fundamentalism to be. I appreciate men such as Piper, MacArthur, Mohler, Dever, etc. because they preach the word but I am not about to jump ship, as it were because they have a penchant for preaching. I believe that true fundamentalism is a fundamentalism worth staying in and that there are many out there that would agree. I am not attaching myself to Dan Sweatt's version of fundamentalism and neither am I abandoning fundamentalism to follow Piper, MacArther, Dever, Driscol, et al. There are plenty of men worth following right here, right now.

Witnessing History

Yesterday (May 24, 2009) may very well prove to be an historic moment in conservative fundamentalism. What happened? Pillsbury Baptist Bible College graduated their 52nd and final class.

My wife and I attended the small graduation ceremony, which in itself was unique from other commencements of the like in that it was not held at their campus in Owatonna, MN but at a small church in St. Paul. There was a reason for this of course - the college campus was closed in December, 2008.

So, how did they graduate this 52nd and final class when their campus closed? The small graduating class of '09 had been there for three and a half years and the school wanted them to be able to not only have a PBBC diploma, but also to be able to have a commencement together because the class had split up to various Bible Colleges throughout the country to finish their last semester. This in itself was momentous, that all the colleges of like faith and practice would open their doors and absorb these students in an hour of great need. Actually, it is not that surprising, for what else is a sister college to do when a dying institution is in need?

The thing that got me to thinking about this was the closing prayer by Dr. Julian Suarez. In this prayer, Dr. Suarez mentioned the fact that this was the 52nd and final class and that for the past 50 years the world had been feeling the effects of PBBC graduates who have gone into the ministry, and now, with this final class, if the Lord would tarry, those who walked across the platform yesterday would have the opportunity to make the final impact on the world for Pillsbury. Obviously it is understood that they would make an impact for the Lord, but the point is that they received their Bible training at this institution.

There has been discussion about the causes leading up to PBBC's closing and whether or not it could have been prevented. That need not be addressed here for it is 'water-under-the-bridge' so to speak (unless one is discussing the current institutions and strategies to survive in the present economic situation). The fact is, what Dr. Suarez said is true, that for the next 50 years, if the Lord tarries, these young men and women will be able to be a testimony of the value of training at a Bible college, and more specifically, at Pillsbury Baptist Bible College.

Only eternity will fully tell the impact that these 52 graduating classes will have had for Christ, and my prayer is that it is widespread and meaningful.

Churches will come and go, and so will academic institutions, but the Word of God will never pass away. I am thankful for the vision of such men as R.V. Clearwaters, the first president, to Greg Huffman, who presided over the school in its last days (see a brief history here, though Dr. Huffman is not mentioned - he succeeded the presidency after Dr. Crane and his tenure was extremely short).

My last musing on this topic occurred as we drove away from the commencement, namely that it is too bad that schools don't do more together, especially those who are on the same page doctrinally. Upon further reflection, this will probably never take place, and that's okay, but bear with me. I realized that when I went through my undergraduate, at what is now Northland International University, I didn't know many people from the other institutions. I suppose that is largely unavoidable due to geographical differences as well as the focus (which should legitimately be there) on academics and study, but it is encouraging to see other young men and women who are passionate to serve the Lord in ministry graduating from these other schools.

Pillsbury Baptist Bible College has now passed into history, but its story is still being written as its students go into the ministry and continue to share the gospel, preach the word, and be a light in a dark and dying world.

Responding to Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind - pt. 2

In The Closing of the American Mind between pages 286-287 we find Hobbes, one of the formative thinkers and contributors to America today. He seemed to promote a police state of sorts, citing that it would be best for the public, because, after all, it is the fear of death that drives men, and further, to compliment that would be the pursuit of health, meaning that the only two important things in a society that believes this would be doctors (health care) and police. How interesting this is because those are the subjects of our general conversations today. At least many of the philosophers saw this, but in the very postmodern world that we live in today, this may not be the case anymore.

Hardly anyone thinks about death - at least in the sense that they don't want to. The truth is likely that the person does think about death but wants to suppress it and deny its reality until it is pressed upon them at the time of their own immanent death or the same of a close loved one. Everything is about the here and now - this life. What happens after death in inconsequential at best and irrelevant at worst. Thus, they might think upon death, but only insomuch as to postpone it a little bit.

To many of the postmodern persuasion (if not all) they subscribe to annihilation at the end of life. To them the spiritual doesn't even exist. This thought is hardly new. Richard Weaver speaks to this in the introduction of his book Ideas Have Consequences. He points out that this thinking actually dates back to the 14th century and the ideas of William of Occam - the elimination of the existence of transcendentals. This is an interesting (in a morbid sort of way) side note, because he wasn't even talking about believing in a certain transcendental. It wasn't the idea that you agreed or disagreed with it - it was the idea that, in order to realize your full potential as a human being, you had to disallow for their existence altogether. When this happens then the conscience becomes ambiguous and the existence of God becomes a fable.

Inherent with this shift is the idea that man is basically good. Some philosophers have been teaching this for some time now, but never has this idea run so rampant before. On page 291 Bloom states that modern philosophers "did not [. . .] understand the ineradicable character of evil." When talking with a gentleman yesterday (May 4, 2008) I asked him about sin and he looked at me as if I had just grown a third eye, as if that were a question with an obvious answer, and, it seemed, the man could figure out, so why couldn't I? To propose the concept of sin was nearly too much for this gentleman, so archaic that no one would even study that theory. He says that either what you call "bad" or "sin" is only your opinion, or, it is not your fault and is probably due to brain damage, maybe even from going through the birth canal!

How does one talk to such a man? He all but spit upon God's Word, obviously showing his distaste for it.

Responding to Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind - pt. 1

Pp. 164-165 - All men seek that particular form of government which will best serve this primary need for survival. The problem is that it used to be that man had to do this on a relatively small scale, if not alone. This would naturally lead to, in today's technology, some sort of ability to protect one's inherent right to life - i.e. right to keep and bear arms.

Now, however, we have become convinced that it is the government, and not ourselves, who must protect us and we have willingly surrendered ourselves to them and in turn, they have trampled us underfoot, as they have long abandoned those foundational principles and rights which set the course of sail for the Unites States so long ago.

Is there still hope for the America we once knew?

The following is a response to a forward that I received from some relatives about a man, Charlie Daniels, who said he was basically fed up with America and where it is headed. . .

I couldn’t resist replying to this one. I enjoy your forwards, so please don’t think that I am saying anything to the contrary. The issue here is that this man, Charlie Daniels says that he would love it if there were just ONE politician who didn’t care what others said or thought of him, that would just do the right thing and vote for the people of the United States and the Constitution – well, there is one and that man is Ron Paul. I am quite honestly perplexed as to why nobody ever seems to pay attention to him or hear about him. He is a published author (several books over the years), a fiscal conservative, truly believes in a limited form of government where the power actually resides in the people, not the politicians, is in his 11^th term of congress and is the only politician to have a consistent, constitutional voting record for the last 20+ years! And, to boot, he is still in the running for the office of the President this fall – he is still in the race and gaining support all the time.

The problem isn’t that there isn’t anyone out there, the problem is that we have extremely liberal media who refuse to give such a man the time of day or any recognition, even (in Ron Paul’s case) negative recognition. The reason? They’re scared of him. There are others besides Ron Paul, but he is probably the most public of them. The fact is, our country is so corrupt that it is hard to even imagine; and, what’s more – once you start digging into our past to find the roots of this terrible corruption you will discover that it has so thoroughly permeated this country for so long and is the result of a long, well-thought-out strategy that has been implemented for decades upon decades, that to get rid of it would be quite impossible.

We are at the point now where our government does what it wants to do, regardless of the input from the common man. They tell us what they want us to hear. They brainwash us in the public schools, and the few, faint voices of objection are drowned out in the cacophony of apathy by the rest of the parents who want nothing to do with their own children’s education. They tell us that global warming is real (Al Gore, by the way, is not a scientist, nor does he have any reputable scientists working with him to propagate his claims) when nothing could be further from the truth (http://www.globalclimatescam.com). They start a “war on terror” that is nebulous in its objectives, but which has been disastrous in its consequences, both in lives lost and in policy. Thanks to this illegal act of war (check the constitutional guidelines as to how it should have been carried out) we stand at a precipice of true globalization – a precipice that once we fall over as a country we will never be able to go back to what we once were. The American public has been seduced by the media to believe wholeheartedly that words such as “constitutionalist,” “libertarian,” “conspiracy,” and many, many more are awful words, nefarious at best – words that should be shunned and frowned upon when used in nearly any circumstance. Thus, if you believe as I do, that 9/11 was a conspiracy – in the truest sense of the word – on behalf of our government to advance their own causes (and don’t think for a moment that they would have any qualms about sacrificing the lives of Americans to accomplish their goals); causes which have affected global policy and certain key attitudes and laws, as well as taking away some very precious rights of our own (please read about the Homeland Security Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006) (cf. http://www.ae911truth.org), then you are considered a radical, and are written off as such and completely discredited. If you are confronted with evidence then you call it as it is. You know the old saying: “call a spade a spade.” If the government is conspiring to hurdle us headlong into world government and all the evidence points toward that then call it a conspiracy.

By the way, I mentioned Ron Paul’s books. His latest book The Revolution: a manifesto, made #1 on Amazon’s list, and for quite a while. That means that there are a lot of people who are perking up to this and who realize that there is a significant problem. The problem now is that there is not enough organization on behalf of those who want a restored country and government. There is not enough commitment to the ideal. In other words, they (or should I say “we” because I am a part of that crowd?) have not reached their breaking point yet. Throughout man’s history this type of problem has only ever been solved one way, through revolution, i.e. war, i.e. bloodshed. That was how our country was founded – on bloodshed, and at this point, that is the only way it will ever be won back. Will America, the true America, wake up to this fact before it is too late? Personally, I doubt it. The problem fundamentally lies in the common philosophy found in this once great country. This common philosophy has completely rejected any idea of the transcendental, has looked with futility at man’s “goodness” while completely rejecting the idea that there could be evil in the very nature of man. Yes, this philosophy is a terminal cancer. It has been put forth by our “great thinkers of late,” Locke, Hobbes, Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, Rousseau – men whose ideas have literally been damning to all who read them. One cannot read these men only. No, if one is to get a true perspective of The Conversation, as it is known, then he must continue to delve deeper into the discussion. Why stop four hundred years ago? Why not read Thomas Aquinas? What about Luther? What about Augustine? Chrysostom? Plato? Aristotle? The Bible? Ahh – if one were to read the aforementioned list, he would have a much different impression of the authors first mentioned, and would be able to discern a distinct change in tone. Then the thinking individual would then have to ponder where that change came from, how it came about and the process it took to get there. Now comes the argument that this is too much work – even for those who are fed up with this country and want change – they don’t want it badly enough to do that kind of work! They don’t want it badly enough to give up their precious materialistic lifestyle that is bent solely on hedonism.

Herein lies the problem. Could I do something drastic for the cause of liberty that would make a statement? Of course I could; but, one man, no matter what his cause is only a lunatic. The press and government would have no problem writing the one off. Even a group of several hundred would not be effective, for that would merely be a cult. The work would be a little more on the part of the press, but it still could be painted in such a way as to indicate that the group was a fringe group and didn’t really represent the views of the majority. In order for a true revolution to happen here in the United States, the effort would have to be organized, with weapons and training, and the numbers would have to be serious – in the tens of thousands at the very least. We will not get our country back without bloodshed and right now, the people who say they want this very thing think that it can be accomplished peaceably when nothing could be further from the truth!

The real question personally is ‘would I join such a group if it formed?’ The answer to this would most probably be no, though I would have to ponder that some more. The reason that I would hesitate is my unswerving belief that the Bible is truly God’s Word to us, and that it is authoritative and true. Thus, I can see that the ultimate endgame – the endgame for this earth – is one where the world is eventually run by a world government. Try as one might to find it, America just doesn’t seem to be found in the end of the Biblical timeline for the earth – at least, not the America we have known. God’s Word has always come true, and these last days will be no exception. Does that mean that I give into without a fight? Certainly not, but what is the most important thing? Martha had a little trouble realizing what the most important thing was. She was busy getting things together and trying to be a good host. She then got frustrated at her sister, Mary, who was not helping, and wanted the Lord to rebuke Mary. What she got instead was a lesson about the one necessary thing (cf. Luke 10:38-42). The point is – there will wars and rumors of wars (Matt 24:6), and nations will come and go. Unfortunately, we have every reason to believe that this nation is in its twilight, both biblically and pragmatically. Biblically because Romans 1 maps out the course of a nation that abandons God and we seem to fit into that course near the end. And pragmatically, because the rest of the world is moving on – they don’t care about America anymore (cf. The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria). Personally, I am fed up, but with nothing really to do about it. I believe that the events we are seeing today are occurring under the sovereign hand of God. Further, I believe that the one needful thing in today’s morally and ethically starved world is the gospel – the same thing that was needed 2,000 years ago, and will be needed to the end of the world. That is the one needful thing. That is the one thing that is worth spilling blood for and I would do it in a heartbeat, for as Paul said in Philippians 1:21 – “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.” Or, in Romans 8:18 – “for I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)