Carey

(Apologies for the irregular font formations in this article. This is a gremlin in the works as I have tried on numerous occasions to fix them. Don't let them prevent you from reading the article and benefitting from it.) 

"YOUNG MAN! SIT DOWN! SIT DOWN! YOU ARE AN ENTHUSIAST! WHEN  GOD PLEASES TO CONVERT THE HEATHEN,HE'LL DO IT WITHOUT YOUR HELP OR MINE!"

The  words that adorn mar the beginning of this article are attributed to one John Ryland Senior when William Carey, William Fuller and others of like mind spoke at a Minister's Fraternal meeting about seeking to convert the heathen in India and other places to saving faith in Jesus Christ. I have seen this story disputed (I forget the source at the moment) on the basis that Ryland never referred to it at all. Laurence Vance used the word "supposedly" in relation to it. I have read of the speech being"perhaps with some embellishment" (Sketches of Church History by SM Houghton, BOT) while Peter Masters from the Metropolitan Tabernacle (Spurgeon's) in a public address indicated that, although basically true, the words are really a paraphrase of what was actually said.

If true (and I am not entertaining any doubts on the matter) then these words display a horrible Hyper Calvinistic spirit, totally inconsistent with true Biblical Calvinism. True, authentic Calvinism believes that when it pleases God to convert the heathen, not only will He raise up missionaries to go forth an reach them with the gospel, but that He has already displayed that pleasure and has already been raising up missionaries to fulfill His divine will and will continue so to do until the end of the age. John Calvin himself was a strong believer in the conversion of the heathen through gospel preaching. He wrote: 

 "It is no small consolation to godly teachers that, although the larger part of the world does not listen to Christ, He has His sheep whom He knows and by whom He is also known. They must do their utmost to bring the whole world into Christ's fold, but when they do not succeed as they would wish, they must be satisfied with the single thought that those who are sheep will be collected together by their work." (Comment on John 10:27)

Understandably - but only to a certain point - Ryland's words have been greedily seized upon by those who oppose Calvinism and who argue that it destroys the burden of evangelism and the need of world missions etc., However the story of William Carey is much bigger than one quote, paraphrased or otherwise, by  John Ryland Senior. If we are going to examine the role of the Calvinists in this incident, then please consider the following facts and then decide whether John Ryland Senior should be allowed to be the representative Calvinist as our opponents make him out to be. There is a certain shallowness and indeed injustice that seizes upon an individual quote and tries to effectively father it, or the thinking that lie behind it, on a whole school of thought.

* William Carey himself was a Five Point Calvinist. This important point is usually overlooked by those who repeat this incident to discredit Calvinism. David Cloud never bothers telling it. Laurence Vance, mentioned above, did so, but doggedly, and in my opinion very foolishly, fought on maintaining that Carey was an inconsistent Calvinist. I do not know what Dave Hunt wrote on the matter and I will hold my counsel until I gain more information.

* Carey's missionary friends were likewise Five Point Calvinists. Andrew Fuller was perhaps the best known among them - see below.

* The interest of Carey and his friends in missionary work was stirred, at least in part, by a book written by Jonathan Edwards of Northhampton, New England. Jonathan Edwards was another Five Point Calvinist and one of America's greatest soul winners, witnessing real, true revival in his church. Edward's book was entitled: "A humble attempt to promote explicit agreement and visible union of God's people in extraordinary prayer for the revival of religion and the advancement of Christ's Kingdom on earth." There could hardly be a more practical outcome to this book than having men of Carey's zeal and calibre offering themselves for missionary service with the subsequent results.

* William Carey tells us that he drew inspiration from the soulwinning zeal of an earlier Calvinist missionary, David Brainerd. I quote:"I was much humbled today by reading Brainerd. Oh, what a disparity between me and him! He is alway constant, I am as inconstant as the wind! (Diary for April 19th, 1794) 

* Twelve ministers from Ryland's denomination formed the "Particular (Calvinistic) Baptist (Missionary) Society, sacrificially contributing the initial sum of £13 2s. 6dwhich was all they could afford. These men were all Five Point Calvinists. This society is still operating today.

* Five Point Calvinist, William Carey, one of the above twelve, had already published a small pamphlet urging Christians to use all the means at their disposal in missionary effort. This booklet was entitled: "An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens in which the Religious State of the Different Nations of the World, the Success of Former Undertakings, and the Practicability of Further Undertakings, are Considered." The title is immediately followed by Paul's inspired missionary argument drawn from Romans 10: 10-15. 

* Five Point Calvinist Andrew Fuller published his book called "Gospel Worthy of all Exception." The Hyper Calvinists totally loathed it, but it was well received by those Calvinists of Calvin's own stamp. Later CH Spurgeon (another Five Point Calvinist) would refer to this book as a "classic of our faith" and mention it in the same breath as "Hodge's Outlines" and "Owen on the Spirit". Spurgeon also considered Fuller to be "the greatest theologian of his century" (cited Laws, Andrew Fuller, 127) and felt "so honoured" in the fact that he had been branded as a "Fullerite" (MTP: 12:68)  In the foreword of his book on the "Sovereignty of God" AW Pink referred to Fuller's name as "eminent and honored."

* In all my reading of books on Calvinism or by Calvinist writers, I have never seen anyCalvinist since defend John Ryland Senior's remarks. We have all been so quick to put as much ground as we can between us on him on this issue.

* The practical refusal of those who oppose Calvinism to hardly acknowledge the existence of Hyper Calvinism (as opposed to real, authentic Calvinism) displays either gross ignorance of the subject or a desire to blacken the names and stands of good men. Phil Johnstone's primer on Hyper Calvinism is a good place to start. 
 
* Much opposition to Carey and friends came not only from the Hyper Calvinists but also from the Socinians whose presence and influence riddled many of the mainline denominations. However, all true Calvinists (and others) supported these men in their endeavours.

* It would be interesting to see a list of those who supported or encouraged these Five Point Calvinists in their soul winning work. We know that the Missionary Society in that hotbed of Five Point Calvinism in Princeton University wrote to encourage William Carey in 1821. John Calhoun in his History of Princeton records that the Princeton students wrote, "The different names by which we are known in the Christian church, and the different views we take of points not essential, will not be suffered to affect our feelings towards you, or to damp our joy at your success." 

* Why is it that those who are so opposed to the Doctrines of Grace are prepared to ignore the many examples of Calvinistic missionaries in order to highlight this one example of Ryland senior? If the definition of a missionary is one who leaves his homeland to preach the gospel in another, then Calvin himself was a missionary. Furthermore, his church in Geneva sent forth young men as missionaries to Brazil. These young Calvinists perished on the mission field. To say that any Calvinist missionary is the EXCEPTION rather than the rule (David Cloud's strange emphasis) is surely a non starter of an argument. Surely that can be said of missionaries from any doctrinal position? How many members does your denomination have? What percentage of them are on the mission field? Anything less than 50% of the membership being actively involved is the exception rather than the rule.

* We see similar tactics used by the enemies of Calvinism in regards to Spurgeon. Again, David Cloud likes to remind us all that many Hyper Calvinists opposed Spurgeon in his indiscriminate gospel appeals - except Cloud seems to have a phobia about using this term"Hyper Calvinists" and somewhat mischievously brands them as "Calvinists". What he doesn't tell his readers is that many prominent Five Point Calvinists agreed with Spurgeon, including the eminent Presbyterian John Kennedy of Dingwall in the Scottish Highlands (who brought Spurgeon to open his new church building) and many other Scots Presbyterians. ("Dinnae forget Spurgeon" was the cry of one Scots wife to her husband going  into the nearest market town) and other men like the Bonar brothers etc., Spurgeon's sermons saw great circulation, among Calvinists and non Calvinists alike, including the Five Point Calvinists in the Southern Presbyterian Church in the USA. It was only when Spurgeon criticised slavery that the sales fell somewhat in those quarters, but his warm evangelistic Calvinism matched their own and he was popular on that account. Incidentally, the Calvinists of today still love Spurgeon and seek to see his sermons circulated. 

This is a theme I would like to develope as more information becomes available. However, I believe I have done enough here to show that the Calvinists in the situation are best represented by Carey and his friends rather than by one man. 

THE END 

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

Invited

Last week, I had an interesting Twitter chat with a couple of Calvinist friends on the issue of the gospel being both a command and an invitation. You can follow it here.  

Evidently, the sinner is commanded to repent and believe the gospel. The imperative to both is found in Mark 1:15 while Acts 17:30 "God commandeth all men everywhere to repent" needs no explanation. It is a sin when sinners do not believe on Christ (John 16:9) and the cause of their condemnation (John 3:18/36) This is not the language of a mere suggestion, but a clear command to obey the gospel. The Lord Jesus is coming again to take vengeance on those who know not God and that obey not the gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:8)

The word invited only appears three times in the Bible. It is never used by God, but once each by Samuel (1 Samuel 9:24) Absalom (2 Samuel 13:23) and Haman referring to Esther (Esther 5:12). 

God is a God of love and compassion. When He was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, He is portrayed in the Bible as One who yearns over lost sinners. See Him weeping over the rebellious sinners of Jerusalem and telling us, midst His hot and copious tears, how He would have gathered them, but they would not (Matthew 23:37) I am pretty sure that His words of condemnation in Matthew 23 were delivered in severe tones. We are commanded in Romans 9 to behold both the goodness and severity of God, and a severe tone would do full justice to the words He uttered. However, it can hardly be anything other than right to suppose that His tones in John 7:37 (loud cry notwithstanding) and in Matthew 11:28-30 were delivered with all the sweetness of an invitation. 

The wise preacher, who always seeks out acceptable words (Ecclesaistes 12:10), will know when to employ and how to employ both methods of delivery. The great aim is to get the sinner to Christ and to do so by employing Scriptural language. Sometimes he will woo and other times, he will rebuke. Often, in the same sermon, being largely dictated by his text and its subsequent development. I would suggest that he tries to avoid coming to the end of every sermon with a blast of hell fire. Jonathan Edwards might have had the sinners clinging to their seat in fear of dropping into the Hell, but that was in his suitably entitled sermon: "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" based on Deuteronomy 32:35. It seems a bit rough to preach a whole sermon on "God is Love" and then labour at the end for 7 full minutes developing the thought of how hot the undying flames of an everlasting Hell really are. 

This business of command and invite reminded me of some words of CH Spurgeon - the great Calvinist evangelist par excellent.  In his sermon from Luke 14:23 "Compel them to come in" (Park Street 5 # 227) CHS used the words command in relation to repentance. 

But do you spurn it? Do you still refuse it? Then I must change my tone a minute. I will not merely tell you the message, and invite you as I do with all earnestness, and sincere affection — I will go further. Sinner, in God’s name I command you to repent and believe.

Spurgeon developed this theme, concentrating on the fact that his authority for such a command came from God whose gospel he preached. But still, he could anticipate sinners sitting on in their sins. But Spurgeon wasn't for giving up. He seemed to sense that some of the fish he was supposed to be catching (compelling them to come in) were sniffing at the bait. So he changed tactic. He continued:

But do you turn away and say you will not be commanded? Then again will I change my note. If that avails not, all other means shall be tried. My brother, I come to you simple of speech, and I exhort you to flee to Christ. O my brother, dost thou know what a loving Christ he is? Let me tell thee from my own soul what I know of him. I, too, once despised him. He knocked at the door of my heart and I refused to open it. He came to me, times without number, morning by morning, and night by night; he checked me in my conscience and spoke to me by his Spirit, and when, at last, the thunders of the law prevailed in my conscience, I thought that Christ was cruel and unkind. O I can never forgive myself that I should have thought so ill of him. But what a loving reception did I have when I went to him. I thought he would smite me, but his hand was not clenched in anger but opened wide in mercy. I thought full sure that his eyes would dart lightning-flashes of wrath upon me; but, instead thereof, they were full of tears. He fell upon my neck and kissed me; he took off my rags and did clothe me with his righteousness, and caused my soul to sing aloud for joy; while in the house of my heart and in the house of his church there was music and dancing, because his son that he had lost was found, and he that was dead was made alive. I exhort you, then, to look to Jesus Christ and to be lightened. Sinner, you will never regret, — I will be bondsman for my Master that you will never regret it, — you will have no sigh to go back to your state of condemnation; you shall go out of Egypt and shall go into the promised land and shall find it flowing with milk and honey. The trials of Christian life you shall find heavy, but you will find grace will make them light. And as for the joys and delights of being a child of God, if I lie this day you shall charge me with it in days to come. If you will taste and see that the Lord is good, I am not afraid but that you shall find that he is not only good, but better than human lips ever can describe.

 I think this change of voice here is simply wonderful!  What! The vile, bankrupt  sinner sitting in the pew would not be commanded by the glorious God of Heaven and earth! What a great opportunity to thunder out Romans 9:20 "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" But Spurgeon didn't go there. He was determined to (metaphorically) kill the sinner with love. Did he sense the great door of the sinner's heart weakening? To rebuke might well have summonsed other nefarious forces to secure the door.  Spurgeon wanted in!  And, as we can see, often (under God) he got in. 

John Calvin is not our standard, but he is useful to show that Calvinism is not afraid of the invite word in relation to sinners coming to Christ. He wrote in his commentary:

These repetitions describe the patience of God in calling us; for he does not merely invite us once, but when he sees that we are sluggish, he gives a second and even a third warning, in order to conquer our hardheartedness. Thus he does not all at once reject those who despise him, but after having frequently invited them. (Isaiah 55:3)

To go back to Spurgeon again. I never tire of recommending Iain Murray's excellent little book "Spurgeon v. Hyper Calvinism - the Battle for Gospel Preaching." I command you to buy it, and if you don't, I plead with you to do so. Here is Calvinism at its purest and warmest.

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

gospelmeeting

To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.  (1 Corinthians 9:22)

Recently, while perusing a Hyper Calvinist site [Page no longer available], I came across the following article which basically attacks the idea of the Sabbath Evening "Gospel" Service (The word "gospel" being put in speech marks by the writer) I respond to the article below. 

The original article in black…my comments in red.

The Sunday Evening "Gospel" Service
The putting of the word "gospel" in speech marks is often recognised as a grammatical challenge of the veracity of the claim which is being made. This, at once, sets the tone for the whole article. Obviously the writer does not consider the issue at hand to be a matter of taste etc. The implication is that, although these meetings profess to be gospel meetings, the writer does not accept them as such. The writer does not attack just some professed gospel meetings - we all have reason to feel grieved ourselves at what passes for gospel meetings nowadays in some quarters - but he attacks the whole concept of having a regular church service dedicated to the evangelising of the lost. Even though these speech marks are used frequently in the article below, I need not draw attention to it again.

In many churches in the United Kingdom generally and in N. Ireland in particular, it is customary that the Lord’s Day evening service contains a "gospel" sermon. Moreover, sometimes even the morning speech is largely, or even especially, addressed to the unbeliever.
In over 30 years experience of gospel meetings (both within and without the FPC) I find that indeed the Lord's Day evening service is evangelistic in its nature. The morning meeting is usually given over to ministering to the people of God. However, more recently and in some quarters, this is sometimes reversed, due to the fact that there might be more unsaved attending in the morning and therefore common sense - not a redundant matter in church work - would indicate that this would be a good time to concentrate on those still out of Christ. There are no hard and fast rules. There would be very few churches (if any) where the messages would be evangelistic at both services. We recognise that the people of God need to be fed and exhorted etc., as well. 

There are, however, many serious problems with this practice, especially in the areas of exegesis, the nature of the gospel, doctrinal preaching, worship, Arminianism, hawking Jesus and the nature of the church.
The writer expands upon these concerns, below. We will see how "many" and how "serious" these "problems" really are.

(1) The Scriptures are written for the church and simply do not contain enough texts to preach exegetical sermons for unbelievers 52 times or more a year, year in and year out. This results in the "gospel" preacher engaging in forced, and thus flawed, exegesis. As a former lay preacher entrenched in this system and as one who has heard many such sermons, I know whereof I speak. Since often the text does not lead where the preacher wants it to go, it must be compelled to yield the desired evangelistic sermon. As well as grieving the Holy Spirit who inspired the Word of God (and the child of God who understands what is going on), this practice fails to teach the congregation to interpret the Scriptures rightly.
A small point first: Very few ministers, if any, preach in their own pulpit every single week, "year in and year out" so we are being introduced here to an inflated figure to fatten out the seriousness of the charge. Again, many preachers have successfully sustained a solid ministry of weekly evangelistic preaching. Spurgeon comes immediately to mind, as well as many lesser known but faithful mortals. Spurgeon wrote: "We need not be at all afraid of preaching from the same text twice, the word is inexhaustible, it may be trodden in the winepress many times, and yet run with generous wine. We ought not to hesitate to preach a second time from a passage, any more than anyone going to the village well would be ashamed to put down the same bucket twice, or feel at all aggrieved at sailing twice down the same river; for there is always a freshness about gospel truth, and though the matter may be the same, there are ways of putting it in fresh light, so as to bring new joy to those who meditate uponit." (MTP 15:866) The riches of Christ, which obviously include the gospel, are "unsearchable" (Ephesians 3:8) and there is no reason, under God, why a preacher should not be able to dig deep and faithfully present the gospel to the unsaved every single week. Many texts and passages can be preached again and again.

When AW Pink accepted a call to a Strict Baptist church which had hyper Calvinistic leanings and were "altogether lacking in evangelistic zeal," he sought to be "wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove"  By this, Pink means that he "proceeded slowly and gently" and "preached one sermon out of five to the unsaved" (Italics his) Where such conditions do not call for such "slow and gentle procedure" surely we can look forward to a weekly evangelistic effort?

That some preachers present flawed exegesis in their sermons is undeniable, but they are found among all groups. William Huntington, at times, saw Calvinism in texts where it was simply not there. We simply cannot blame the principle of a weekly evangelistic meeting for the failure of a preacher to do his homework properly and produce a forced exegesis. The blame lies elsewhere.

(2) This forced exegesis results in the "potted gospel" which always contains what the minister considers the bare essentials of the gospel (and not much else) and frequently finishes with an appeal of various length tacked on at the end. After a little exegesis at the start of the sermon, the message often consists of something little more than an expansion of the "five spiritual laws" with a concluding exhortation very like that of the week or month or year before.
There are many weekly gospel preachers who manage quite well to avoid [i] forced exegesis [ii] giving little else but the bare essentials of the gospel and [iii] finishing with an appeal (by which, I assume, that the writer means a "bowed head and closed eyes" and "hand in the air" appeal) There are certain truths which need to be stated and restated to make the sinner aware both of his condition and God's remedy. God uses the method of restating truth again and again. The "unsearchable riches of Christ" furnish the preacher with enough material, found in both Testaments, and given in many varied ways i.e. precept, example, promises, warnings etc., to make his sermons effectual. To father the faults and failings of some preachers upon the principle of regular gospel preaching is unacceptable.

Many listeners confess to being bored with such sermons.
Many listeners are bored with whatever sermons they hear. Indeed, (strange in the light of this charge) there is a quote elsewhere on the writer's web site attacking boredom when hearing the word. Boredom may be traced to many different sources. It may be a symptom of the hearer's own mental or spiritual condition. It may be traced to the drone of a preacher's voice, of his lack of ability to communicate truth or even lack of conviction in what he is saying. Why it should be baldly fathered on the faithful weekly preaching of the gospel is beyond me. I have sat in meetings when time simply flew by as God's servants have preached the gospel. The late Pastor Willie Mullan of Lurgan was particularly gifted this way. It is a fact that stifled yawns turn up in all sorts of conditions.

Christians are tempted to a certain smugness: "We’re forever hearing that people need to be saved, but we’re already converted. In at least half of the sermons we hear, the holy God of heaven and earth has little or nothing to say to us by way of doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness (cf. II Tim. 3:16)."
If a Christian attends the three basic meetings of his church - the two Sabbath meetings and the midweek Bible study/prayer meeting- then the ratio generally becomes 2-1 for the messages which are addressed directly to him as a believer (66.6%) If we include the Bible Class (adult or otherwise) this generally increases to 3 out of 4 services (75%) catering directly for the believer's need. This "at least half" ratio (50%) is a deflated figure, given to crank up the charge that the believer is being neglected. It must be born in mind also that the believer is well capable of reading the Bible for himself and is apt to do so. The unbeliever, generally speaking, is less likely to do so and may never open his Bible except on a Sabbath evening when so asked by a gospel preacher.  Again, even in the evangelistic preaching meetings, there is always room, where the text demands it, for doctrine and reproof etc., A preacher preaching (say) on the subject of the New Birth from John 3 may find cause in his sermon to give the evidences of the New Birth from 1 John. Furthermore, the reviewer has often been the most encouraged to live for Christ after such gospel meetings. If I may use a somewhat colloquial term, I often returned home on a Sabbath evening after hearing the "old, old story" with fire in my belly, determined to do all that I could to bring glory to God. 

(3) It is evident from all this that the congregation is not properly fed through such a system. With at least half of the church’s services devoted to preaching the potted gospel, there is simply no way in which the minister can proclaim "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27)—something necessary for the great work of "edifying ... the body of Christ" (Eph. 4:12). Those who engage in the Sunday evening "gospel" service have lost the lively sense of the gospel as a sacred deposit of truth (II Tim. 1:13-14) that must be passed on to the succeeding generations (II Tim. 2:2). The Holy Spirit has led the church into the truth over the last 2,000 years, and the church’s calling is to declare that knowledge of God in Jesus Christ. By this means the elect grow in grace (II Peter 3:18). This requires doctrinal preaching, but where over 50% of the church’s worship services are given over to "gospel" services, the congregation will never grasp the riches of the Reformed faith. Especially the doctrine of God—His Being, Persons, attributes and decrees—and the doctrine of the church—its nature, attributes, marks, sacraments, worship and discipline—are corrupted or rarely treated in circles where the evening "gospel" service reigns. This results in serious ignorance of God’s truth and weakness in the church’s members, which leaves them susceptible to further errors. In the Brethren assemblies, this problem is particularly acute because they not only have an evening gospel service, but they also have no ordained and few able speakers. Thus they need special weekday "ministry" services through which some of their more capable men provide a supplementary diet.
Again these charges are being brought on the basis of "at least half" of the meetings of a church being evangelistic in nature and that gospel preaching cannot be doctrinal in its nature or Reformed. If I preach what is commonly referred to as the "3 R's of the gospel" i.e. "Ruined by the fall" - "Redeemed by the blood" and "Regenerated by the Spirit of God" then there is nothing here, as I state them, which is contrary to Reformed doctrine truth. Such truth can be preached evangelistically. Indeed true evangelistic preaching states the great doctrines of the word and applies them in a simple manner directly to the unsaved gathered in. It is true that some preachers, perhaps starting out in their preaching or perhaps not particularly deep in their knowledge of the Bible, may over emphasise the application end of things. This is not denied, but to suppose that this is practically the norm of a weekly gospel meeting goes beyond what is fact. While I am all for faithful, doctrinal, well researched sermons etc., I am not unmindful of Spurgeon's conversion when a poor unlettered Arminian -- sharp intake of breath :-) - preacher simply urged him to look to Christ. And he did.

(4) This all-absorbing focus on evangelism—what John Kennedy of Dingwall would call "hyper-evangelism"—shapes the whole evening service. Uninspired poems (called "hymns" in popular parlance) are sung instead of the God-breathed Psalms, in part because the Psalms simply do not serve the purpose of the "gospel" service for they do not create the right "atmosphere." Besides they are filled with imprecations on the wicked! Enter too the "ministry in song" whereby one or more singers, male or female, entertain the audience while seeking to sing the sinner into the kingdom of heaven. Personal testimonies in the worship service thrive in this environment, as does topical preaching filled with "wee stories." Thus the ethos of the "gospel" service moulds the church’s worship and hence the members’ ideas of the church.
The writer introduces here the Psalms only debate which is really outside the scope of the present matter. While there are "hymns" for which I wouldn't give you tuppence, yet there are evangelical hymns which are rich in doctrine and gospel application e.g. "There is a fountain filled with blood" or "Grace tis a charming sound" etc., Far from prophesying smooth things, several of these hymns are of a warning nature e.g. "Out of Christ without a Saviour" and must cause the greatest discomfort to those in that condition, if only they had to spiritual wit to see it. To baldly dismiss singers in the church as entertainers insults many of Christ's servants who would shrink from such a thought. That some people go to church services to be entertained cannot be denied. There is such a phenomenon as "sermon tasting." Members of the British Cabinet used to go hear Spurgeon preach, but it was feared only for the oratory. Whitefield suffered the same fate. But just as we do not dismiss the ministry of preaching because of abuse, neither should we dismiss other forms of Christian services for the same reason. And again, none of these things encroach upon the principle of having a weekly evangelistic service. 

(5) The whole approach proceeds from—and thus reinforces—Arminianism, revivalism, baptistic individualism and fundamentalism. In his book "Paisley: The Man and his Message," Ian Paisley, N. Ireland’s greatest exponent of the Sunday evening "gospel" service, includes amongst those who "primed [his] pulpit pump" noted Arminians, John Wesley and R. A. Torrey. The evening "gospel" approach and the Arminian hymnbooks mean that even where outright Arminianism is not preached, it must certainly be tolerated so that Arminians in pulpit and pew will not be disciplined. Thus confessional Christianity and sound doctrinal preaching enforced by church discipline are ruled out. Revivalism hereby excludes biblical reformation. Hyper-evangelism readily leads to lay preaching—a great scourge in the United Kingdom which is condemned by the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q & A 158). Those who forthrightly oppose Arminianism, and the Sabbath evening "gospel" meeting which it foments, are then dismissed as hyper-calvinists! Never mind that Calvin and all the Reformed fathers taught antithetically sovereign and particular grace and would have had no time for the modern innovation of the Sunday night "gospel" service with all its trappings!
Mr Calvin primed his pulpit pump from many quarters, not all of whom (including Augustine) were sound in every doctrine. Calvin recognised this. What Calvin did - as do others - is take what is good and leave what is bad or unacceptable. We reserve the odium of hyper Calvinist for those who deny the free offer of the gospel and who seek to restrict the preaching of the gospel promises to those who give evidences of being elect. Basically, if a preacher cannot look any sinner straight in the eye and say to him, "There is salvation for you if you will have it" then (at least in my book) that preacher is a hyper Calvinist.

(6) Arminian terminology such as "accepting Christ," "commitments" and "letting Jesus into your heart" find ready acceptance in Sunday night "gospel" services. In his "Jesus Saviour and the Evil of Hawking Him," Herman Hoeksema speaks of "hawking Jesus" as "one of the most sinister" of "the evil tendencies of our age" (p. 1). He explains,

"By hawking Jesus I mean all such preaching as leaves the impression, directly or by implication, that He is impotent to save unless the sinner first wills and gives his consent. This is done directly by the denial of predestination, by the preaching of a Jesus for all, and by the teaching of the freewill of man by which the latter is able to accept or to reject the proffered salvation. But it is also done indirectly, when preachers change the grace of God into an offer of God to all and present Jesus as a poor beggar, standing outside the door of man’s heart, begging him to let Him in and give Him a chance to save the sinner. It is done in various forms and degrees. But all such preaching as finally leaves the impression that it is at all up to man, to the sinner, whether Jesus will save him or not, is hawking Jesus, or rather, it is an attempt to hawk Him." (p. 17). 

Another man referred to this as "making a begging bowl out of the Son of God." This is rife in N. Ireland, especially where the Sunday evening "gospel" service has gotten a hold.
Many Sabbath evening gospel services are totally void of such Arminian terminology, preferring instead the scriptural exhortations to "repent and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:15) or similar words. But here is a good place to point out the obvious: There is no heresy or discrepancy involved to use an "if" in gospel preaching. The very first "if" in the Bible was used by God to a reprobate sinner (Cain) in Genesis 4:7 "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." If a preacher's use of the "if" in gospel presentation means anything untoward, then the Lord Himself must be found guilty of this Arminian crime.

(7) The Sunday evening "gospel" service proceeds from a total misunderstanding of the nature of the church which is "the house of God" and "the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim. 3:15) and "an assembly of those who are saved" (Belgic Confession 28). The true gospel minister must address the Lord’s congregation: "Beloved in our Lord Jesus Christ, called to be saints." This, of course, does not rule out direct addresses in a sermon to those outside of Christ, especially where the text itself leads this way.
There is no reason why the Sabbath evening gospel service, conducted under the auspices of the local Church, should compromise the nature of the church. Why should it? Even the paragraph above admits the presence of those in the service outside of Christ and allows that they may be addressed in the sermon if the text so allows. Wherein do the two services differ? How does a Reformed preacher, faithfully and regularly, every Sabbath evening preaching directly to the unsaved compromise anything? The church to him is still all 1 Timothy 3:15 says it is. Even with limited understanding, the unsaved will still be aware that this is no ordinary meeting of people. The preaching will soon dispel any misunderstandings. The preacher will open up to his view the difference which God makes i.e. between those who receive Christ and those who will not come that they may have life. The songs will be different. There will be the offering up of reverent prayer etc., We have here a difficulty which is no difficulty at all.

 But true Reformed churches do not want to go the way of the Sunday evening "gospel" service. Few Reformed churches have become apostate overnight. Normally, the way of apostasy runs like this: a Reformed church becomes an evangelical church which, through further departure, slides into a fundamentalist church, and eventually its Arminianism takes it into full blown modernism.
To say that setting one preaching service out of three or four (or more) for direct preaching to the unconverted is the first step to modernism (even the full blown variety) is simply amazing. To imply that abandoning such activity with no indiscriminate offer of salvation to the unsaved is an antidote to full blown modernism undermines the seriousness of the danger. Modernism is fought with the constant faithful preaching of the word of God. The saints need to be made aware of its dangers and the Bible's answer to it. Every preaching meeting of the people of God may be used to this end.

Conclusion:

The "many serious problems" which the original writer is determined to foster upon the simple practice of preaching one weekly meeting specifically to the unconverted are more imaginary than real. He does raise some real dangers which may creep in to the church of Christ. That the weekly preaching of the gospel to the unconverted is a six lane highway for the same is demonising something which rather should be praised. Although I contend for earnest, well studied out doctrinal preaching of Reformed truth, I would rather have the scenario of a poor unlettered man, even if basically Arminian in his faith, indiscriminately urge all sinners to "look and live" than have a cold, so called Reformed (?) meeting which seems more designed to keep the none elect out than the bring the true elect in.

1 Letter to Mr Brooks, December 1927, quoted in "Life of Arthur Pink" by  Ian Murray (p.55)

THE END 

Other useful pages include:

*  Hyper Calvinism cartoon answered
*  Chart showing how balanced Calvinism cf. Arminianism/Hyper Calvinism  

*  John Calvin on Christ's efforts to bring Judas to repentance

*  John Calvin on Full blooded Evangelism

*  John Calvin on World Evangelism

INDEXES:

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX

chart

I hope this chart proves helpful to some. Saves getting confused between Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism. See also this earlier post.

DOCTRINE	UNBALANCED ARMINIANISM	BALANCED CALVINISM	UNBALANCED HYPER CALVINISM
Man's responsibility	Rightly emphasise it but believe it implies man's ability. (See below)	Believe that man is absolutely responsible for his actions while God is absolutely sovereign.	Deny man's responsibility in a vain effort to protect the doctrine of man's depravity. Effectively reduces man to being a block of wood.
God's Sovereignty	Believe it in regards to creation and providence etc., but effectively deny it in the most important matter of all i.e. salvation.	Believe this truth holds in every situation. "All my ways shall ever be, ordered by His wise decree"	Hold to this doctrine but over emphasise it to the exclusion of man's responsibility.
Man's depravity	Deny this doctrine believing that all men have been given the ability to repent and believe the gospel.	Believe that while all men are required to repent etc., SIN has robbed them of the power to do so.	Hold to this doctrine but over emphasise it to the exclusion of man's responsibility.
Election	Make it conditional upon faith. Effectively self election rather than "God's election"	Place it where it belongs - in the hand of God. Unconditional so as to put God under no obligation.	Hold to this doctrine but over emphasise it to the exclusion of man's responsibility.
Extent of the Atonement	Believe that it extends to every last son of Adam, including those who eternally in hell when Jesus died.	Believe that although sufficient for all men in its merit, yet intended to redeem only the elect.	Afraid to preach the universal aspect of the atonement (Compare the Calvinist belief) lest they be considered Arminian.
Effect of the Atonement	Largely ineffectual since many ofthose for whom Christ is said to have died are bearing those same sinsin Hell for which He is said to have died.	Totally effectual since every last one for whom Christ died will be gathered in, thus making His feeling of satisfaction (Isaiah 53:10) credible.	There does not seem to be any imbalance here on this particular point.
Preaching of the Atonement	Although sound in preaching the free offer of the gospel, their theology of atonement is inherently compromised - see previous box.	Preach the free offer of the gospel, assuring every last man (elect or not) that if they come to the Cross, they will find pardon.	Will only preach it as a fact. As above, will not offer it. Believe that the free offer implies creature power. Which it doesn't.
Effectual grace	Believe that the grace of God can always be resisted by the sinner.	Believe that the elect and non elect alike can resist the grace of God, but there comes a time when the elect find it irresistible.	Too much emphasise on this doctrine leaves them in a state of practical fatalism.
Perseverance of the Saints	Rank Arminians believe that true Christians can lose their salvation. Others who disbelieve the first 4 points of Calvinism, effectively believe the last.	The elect will persevere in holiness unto the end and so will be saved, being kept by the power of God through faith.	Although they believe this doctrine in theory, yet their over emphasise on other points leaves them constantly in a state of gloomy doubt.
Evangelism	Believe it in although their basic message is compromised and they have no absolute assurance of the success of their mission.	Believe in it - can offer a Saviour who actually accomplished something at Calvary - as opposed to merely making it possible - and have absolute guarantee by divine decree that their mission will be successful.	Hardly believe in evangelism at all. At best will but state the gospel facts, but will not plead with men to be saved as the great Calvinist evangelists did in the past.
Holiness	Holiness is to be found among all schools of God's people, often despite their doctrine.	Holiness is to be found among all schools of God's people, often despite their doctrine.	Holiness is to be found among all schools of God's people, often despite their doctrine. Unfortunately there are those in the Hyper camp who believe that if you are going to be saved, then you will be saved no matter how you live. Such Antinomianism is to be abhorred and separated from.

                      
 
Note: I recently received a tweet from a professing Arminian friend who denies this my claim that Arminians deny Total Depravity. When asked to supply a suitable brief replacement text, he sent  this:


 "Humans are entirely sinful and corrupt and unable to make any move toward salvation without God's enabling grace." 

I therefore decided to remove the charge. Always and only interested in stating facts.

 

THE END

ALL INDEXES:

* PROTESTANT INDEX 
* CALVINISM INDEX 
* CH SPURGEON INDEX  
* EVANGELISM INDEX  
* HERE AND THERE INDEX

hypercartoon

 HYPER CALVINIST ANTIPATHY CARCIATURE OF EVANGELISM ANSWERED HERE

 
The above cartoon, taken from a Hyper Calvinist website, aptly sums up the way Hyper Calvinists (as opposed to true 5 point Calvinists) think about evangelism. As the words in the last box suggest, they believe it is an utter waste of time. Basically this cartoon has taken a Scriptural truth about the sinner being dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1) and perverted it with a wrong application. I will comment on it frame by frame.

Frame One: Preacher addressing corpse with the words: 
"There is nothing you can do to be saved! All you have to do is…"        
My comment: It would be better to say to the spiritual dead sinner: 'You cannot save yourself by your own efforts or by church based activities etc., but you can save yourself by attending to and heeding the message of the gospel." [1]


Frame Two: Preacher addressing corpse with the words: 
"Accept Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour!"        
My comment: While there are some who might quibble with the word "accept" yet we are happy enough to run with it in this article. Here the preacher is inviting/urging the sinner, as a responsible being, to take that step which bring him into the experience of salvation. [2]

Frame Three: Preacher addressing corpse with the words: 
"Can't you see the Kingdom of God?"        
My comment: Here is a better question. "Why not look to Christ and be saved?" [3]

Frame Four: Preacher addressing corpse with the words: 
"Walk in the newness of life!"         
My comment: If there is any quibble here, it is only on the grounds that no such exhortation actually appears in the Bible, except addressed to the people of God (Romans 6:4) However, this would not stop me from telling a sinner: "If you come to Christ, you can know what it is to walk in newness of life…Come to Christ etc.," and warn them that failure to find this life is because they will not come and receive it (John 5:40)

Frame Five: Preacher addressing corpse with the words: 
"Can't you hear me? I'm trying to save you!"        
My comment: I think we are moving here into the realms of the caricature. The work of the gospel preacher is to bid the unconverted to hear the word of Christ. As elsewhere, God often takes such exhortations to undo the spiritual damage which sin has wrought.

Frame Six: Preacher addressing corpse with the words:
"Get up man! Save yourself! Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve."      
My comment: These are fair enough exhortations if given in the gospel i.e. after explaining the crippling power of sin. If they are used in the sense of mere man made reformation, then they are useless. But if we have explained the need for and the way of salvation…then these words or similar are proper. Peter's sermon at Pentecost actually uses these words "Save yourselves"

Frame Seven: Preacher walks away from the corpse with the words: 
"Another lost soul! He didn't chose Jesus or life!"         
My comment: Assuming that the preacher did "preach unto him, Jesus" (Acts 8:35) before the various exhortations, then he cannot be faulted for these words. He is putting the blame where it belongs i.e. on the sinner. We assume that he would try again, through the means of gospel preaching, to arouse this dead sinner to see his spiritual need. [4]

Frame Eight: All words. Quotes and applies the words of Ephesians 2:1 and concludes: 
"All the evangelising in the world will do him no good!"     
My comment: If this conclusion is right, why then do we evangelise at all? Why then the great commission addressed specifically to "every creature?" (Mark 16:15) If not evangelism, what other means then does God use to achieve the great end of the ingathering of His elect? See 8 reasons why Calvinists evangelise.

NOTES:

[1] If this sounds almost heretical to you, remember what Peter said when preaching indiscriminately to the multitude at Pentecost: And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. (Acts 2:40) John 'Rabbi' Duncan (An eminent Scottish Calvinist from a past century) said well: "Is man active or passive in regeneration? He is both; he is active about it and passive in it." The Bible never exhorts the sinner to sit back and accept his fate.

[2] Based on the words of John 1:12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." It is not wrong to preach this text to sinners, nor to put its basic thrust into a precept form. Peter again in the Pentecost message (Acts 2) urged spiritually dead sinners to "hear" (v14/22) again "know assuredly" (v36) "Repent" (v38) and again "save yourself" (v40) We don't have to believe in the natural ability of the sinner to urge the sinner to an evangelical response. The sinner's responsibility is enough for us to make these kind of exhortations.

[3] As God Himself urges the whole earth full of sinners: "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." (Isaiah 45:22) We can hardly leave this thought without mentioning Spurgeon's report of his conversion. Read it for yourself. True, the preacher was not a Calvinist, but this is not the point. He was a faithful evangelist and on that morning, a very successful one too. Was Spurgeon a spiritually dead sinner that morning? Yes, he was. And yet God used the very exhortation itself to bring him to Christ. The word was attended by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit and through the means of this exhortation, Spurgeon was drawn irresistibly to Jesus Christ. To quote John Duncan again: "Look! You say you cannot, but 'Look ye blind' He bids you." Remember, it's not for us to play God.

[4] The words of the preacher here reminds us of the very words of Christ Himself when He said to the spiritually dead people of His day: "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5:40)

COMMENTS OF JOHN CALVIN ON ACTS 2:40

"AND WITH MANY… Although in these things which we have had hitherto, Luke did not recite the words of St Peter, but did only briefly touch the chief points; notwithstanding he telleth us again in this place, that Peter did not use doctrine only, but did add the pricks of exhortations. And he expresseth plainly that he stood much hereupon. Whereas he saith, that he did exhort and beseech, he noteth therein his earnestness. For it was not so easy a matter for them by and by to take their leave of those errors wherewith they were of late infected, and to shake off the government of the priests whereunto they were accustomed. Therefore it stood him upon to pull them violently out of this mire. The sum was this, that they should beware of that froward generation. For they could not be Christ’s unless they would depart from his professed enemies. The priests and scribes were then in great authority, and forasmuch as they did cover themselves under the visor [mask] of the Church, they did deceive the simple, This did hinder and keep back a great many from coming to Christ. Also some might waver, and other some might fall away from the right faith. Therefore Peter plainly declareth that they are a froward generation, howsoever they may boast of the title of the Church. For which cause he commandeth his hearers to separate themselves from them, lest they entangle themselves in their wicked and pestiferous fellowship. Whereas he saith, Be ye saved, he signifieth unto them that they shall surely perish if they couple themselves with such a plague. And surely experience doth teach us, how miserably those men are tossed to and fro who cannot discern the voice of their pastor from the voice of other men; and again, what an hindrance softness and sluggishness is to a great many, whilst they desire to stand in a doubt. Therefore he commandeth them to depart from the wicked if they will be saved. And this point of doctrine is not to be neglected. For it were not sufficient to have Christ set before us,unless we were also taught to flee those things which do lead us away from him. And it is the duty of a good shepherd to defend his sheep from the wolves. So at this day, to the end we may keep the people in the sincere doctrine of the gospel, we are ever now and then enforced to show and testify how much Papistry differeth from Christianity, and what a hurtful plague it is to be yoked with the unfaithful enemies of Christ. Neither ought Peter to be accused of railing, because he calleth the reverend fathers, who had the government of the Church in their hands at that day, a froward generation. For those dangers which may draw the soul unto destruction are to be showed by their names. For men will not beware of poison, unless they know that it is poison. "  (EMPHASIS MINE)

THE END 

SEE INDEX PAGE FOR FULL LIST OF ARTICLES ON THIS BLOG

the end