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.