Calvanism debate: If true, why [then] "the great commission"?

[Deavonreye]

If Calvanism is true, then the call of god is irresistable to the the saints. God has planned for their salvation, . . . so what would be the reason for "the great commission"? "Go into all the world and preach the gospel. . . making disciples . . .".

If they don't happen to be approached by someone to "hear the gospel", could they still believe it? For instance, in 1st century China?

 

[Drew]

I agree with your point - there is indeed no intelligible reason to preach the gospel, if the pre-destination position is correct.

The following argument “A†is often advanced to justify preaching the gospel in a world where some have been pre-destined by God unto ultimate salvation (in the strong “determinative†sense, not in the “pre-destined in virtue of foreknowledge†sense):

1. Some people are pre-destined to salvation;

2. We do not know who has been pre-destined to salvation;

3. We know that even those who have been pre-destined must hear the gospel in order for that salvation to be actualized;

4. Therefore we need to preach the gospel to all people.

Here is why A fails. Let's speculate about a person "Fred" who has been pre-destined by God unto salvation. By the very meaning of the concept of pre-destination, there is nothing that human beings can do (or fail to do) that will cause Fred to not end up in Heaven.

But note term 3 of A - even the pre-destined must hear the gospel in order to be ultimately saved. There are two possibilities in respect to term 3:

a. God has not pre-destined that someone will tell Fred the gospel;
b. God has pre-destined that someone will tell Fred the gospel.

Consider (a). If God has not pre-destined someone to tell Fred the gospel, then the possibility exists that no one will tell Fred the gospel. But this cannot be, since we know Fred is pre-destined to salvation and that he must, in virtue of item 3, hear the gospel to have that destiny actualized.

Now consider (b). If God has pre-destined someone to tell Fred the gospel, then there is no necessity to instruct us to tell the gospel - the gospel will most certainly be told to Fred. No one needs to be instructed to perform an action that has been pre-destined to occur. Does God "tell" somebody to tell the apple to fall to ground at 32 feet per second per second? Probably not, precisely because the apple is "pre-destined" to fall at that rate through the action of the laws of physics.

This argument that we still need to tell pre-destined people the gospel therefore fails.

 

[mondar]

Now consider (b). If God has pre-destined someone to tell Fred the gospel, then there is no necessity to instruct us to tell the gospel - the gospel will most certainly be told to Fred. No one needs to be instructed to perform an action that has been pre-destined to occur. Does God "tell" somebody to tell the apple to fall to ground at 32 feet per second per second? Probably not, precisely because the apple is "pre-destined" to fall at that rate through the action of the laws of physics.

This argument that we still need to tell pre-destined people the gospel therefore fails. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Drew, what you say does not have good logic. You make the assumption that if God predestines something, he cannot instruct that person to accomplish that deed or thing.

An example is the believer .... the believer is predestined to walk in righteousness, and at the same time, the believer is instructed in all manner of good deeds and personal righteousness in the scripture.

 

[John Zain]

When I was evangelising the small remote villages in Bulgaria,
the Lord told me there are 2 reasons for Him sending me:

1) the elect had to hear the gospel in order to believe it, etc.

2) Jesus does not want any unbelievers saying to Him on Judgment Day,
"No one told me about all of this ... it's just not fair, etc."

 

[coffeeelover]

2) Jesus does not want any unbelievers saying to Him on Judgment Day,
"No one told me about all of this ... it's just not fair, etc."

Jesus sounds spiteful.

 

[Drew]

Drew, what you say does not have good logic. You make the assumption that if God predestines something, he cannot instruct that person to accomplish that deed or thing.

This is not the point. The argument shows that there is no reason to instruct the person to "tell the gospel". The argument proves that the preaching of the gospel is entirely superfluous, at least in respect to having some cause and effect relation to the 'eternal fate' of the person to whom it is preached.

I am well aware that God could, of course, instruct a person "X" to tell the gospel to someone "Y" whose ultimate fate has otherwise been "pre-destined". However, the argument shows that X's telling of the gospel to Y accomplishes nothing in respect to Y's ultimate fate - there is no added value in having X tell the gospel to Y, at least in respect to Y's fate.

This does not mean that God cannot instruct people to tell people about salvation in Christ. I suggest that readers will judge for themselves whether it makes sense to instruct people to tell others a gospel of a salvation in a context where the hearer's fate will in no way be dependent on whether or not that message is indeed preached.

 

[savedbygrace57]

If Calvanism is true, then the call of god is irresistable to the the saints. God has planned for their salvation, . . . so what would be the reason for "the great commission"? "Go into all the world and preach the gospel. . . making disciples . . .".

If they don't happen to be approached by someone to "hear the gospel", could they still believe it? For instance, in 1st century China?

The great commission is over now, and it was intially for the feeding of Gods sheep beginning in jerusalem and to go into the utter most parts of the world.

It was for the outcalling of The Church, the seed of Abraham that belonged to Christ..

 

[Deavonreye]

What. . . . . . no one is going to challenge savedbygrace's statement that "the great commission is now over"?

 

[mondar]

This is not the point. The argument shows that there is no reason to instruct the person to "tell the gospel". The argument proves that the preaching of the gospel is entirely superfluous, at least in respect to having some cause and effect relation to the 'eternal fate' of the person to whom it is preached.

I am well aware that God could, of course, instruct a person "X" to tell the gospel to someone "Y" whose ultimate fate has otherwise been "pre-destined". However, the argument shows that X's telling of the gospel to Y accomplishes nothing in respect to Y's ultimate fate - there is no added value in having X tell the gospel to Y, at least in respect to Y's fate.

This does not mean that God cannot instruct people to tell people about salvation in Christ. I suggest that readers will judge for themselves whether it makes sense to instruct people to tell others a gospel of a salvation in a context where the hearer's fate will in no way be dependent on whether or not that message is indeed preached.

OK, I see you point. In one sense of the word "reason" there is no reason to preach the gospel. Our efforts are certainly not needed to accomplish a persons salvation. God could have sent messengers from heaven, or even came himself to save his chosen. Then world evangelism would not be needed.

I still see what you are saying as not a complete truth because God not only predestined the result, but he predestined the means by which people are going to come to the gospel. The means is the "preaching of the word." God uses earthen containers to carry a heavenly message.

I thing you recognize that Calvinists are saying that our meager efforts are mere foolishness. Our efforts of evangelism would never convince anyone. In that sense, there is no reason to preach the gospel because we will absolutely never reach anyone. To draw a person to the gospel is certain the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore why preach the gospel? Certainly when looking at that truth (and not any other) what you say makes sense. I think this is why Paul (In 2 Corinthians) calls Christians "earthen vessels." Of course the other truth is that God ordained the means, that those earthen vessels would carry a glorious message. Without that truth, a person could focus on the truth that you focus on and come to the unbalanced conclusions you draw.

In fact, some focus on the truths that you mention to the extent that Calvinists do not consider them as one of our own. We generally give them the tag, "Hyper-Calvinism." R.C.Sproul calls them "subCalvinists."

Drew, I think you are drawing correct conclusions from a partial truth. Such conclusions are not valid when realizing that God ordains the means, as well as the result.

 

[mondar]

What. . . . . . no one is going to challenge savedbygrace's statement that "the great commission is now over"?

Your absolutely right.

 

[mondar]

The great commission is over now, and it was intially for the feeding of Gods sheep beginning in jerusalem and to go into the utter most parts of the world.

It was for the outcalling of The Church, the seed of Abraham that belonged to Christ..

This is error. When the "seed of Abraham" is completely called out, then evangelism will end. When the HS has drawn all those he intends to draw, then the commission is fulfilled. The Christians should continue going into all the world, until all those who Christ intends to save, are saved.

 

[Drew]

I still see what you are saying as not a complete truth because God not only predestined the result, but he predestined the means by which people are going to come to the gospel. The means is the "preaching of the word." God uses earthen containers to carry a heavenly message.

Why would you expect that I am going to address all aspects of the matter at issue in my post? Of course, any post that does not provide thousands of pages of theology cannot be a "complete truth"

Of course the other truth is that God ordained the means, that those earthen vessels would carry a glorious message. Without that truth, a person could focus on the truth that you focus on and come to the unbalanced conclusions you draw.

You are engaging in a little rhetoric here - calling my position "unbalanced" simply because I do not produce an overly lengthy treatment of my understanding of the complete Calvinist position. Yes, I am aware that you believe God ordains the means. But that does not change my point - the instruction to "preach the gospel" is entirely superfluous, as an instruction. There is no "added value" in instructed an agent to do something that is "pre-programmed" to take place.

Drew, I think you are drawing correct conclusions from a partial truth. Such conclusions are not valid when realizing that God ordains the means, as well as the result.

The fact that God ordains the means does not change the fact that, if person X's ultimate fate is "fore-ordained", and if the fact that agent Y is "fore-ordained" to tell X the gospel, there is no need at all to "instruct" agent Y to do so - by the terms of your own argument, Y is guaranteed to tell X the gospel, whether there is an instruction to do so or not. So the instruction is essentially superfluous. That does not make your view incoherent - it just places you in the odd position of having to explain why instructions are needed to accomplish something that is otherwise guaranteed to be accomplished.

 

[mondar]

.......You are engaging in a little rhetoric here - calling my position "unbalanced" simply because I do not produce an overly lengthy treatment of my understanding of the complete Calvinist position. Yes, I am aware that you believe God ordains the means. But that does not change my point - the instruction to "preach the gospel" is entirely superfluous, as an instruction. There is no "added value" in instructed an agent to do something that is "pre-programmed" to take place.

Yes, my apologies. In fact I now realize I did worse then what you said. I did not properly represent what you were saying. This was not done on purpose, but was accidental. The confusion here is entirely my fault. Can I retract what I said before? This is not a retraction of what I said that both "results" and "means" are predestined, but simply a recognition that the issue is not related to what you were saying.

Can I move in a completely different direction? The issue has nothing to do with God predestining both means and end result, it has to do with "human responsibility."

.......... if person X's ultimate fate is "fore-ordained", and if the fact that agent Y is "fore-ordained" to tell X the gospel, there is no need at all to "instruct" agent Y to do so - by the terms of your own argument, Y is guaranteed to tell X the gospel, whether there is an instruction to do so or not.

If I can rephrase your statement in my words, I would represent you as saying that predestination and human responsibility are incompatible concepts. You would say that where there is predestination, there is no human responsibility. That is the assumption that I disagree with. I see human responsibility coming from God's command. You seem to be assuming that responsibility comes from God's decree. As a Calvinist, I of course believe in both God's sovereign control in his decree and in the authority of his command. Human responsibility comes from his command. We do not evangelize because God made a decree for a certain result of our evangelization. If that were so, Calvinists would be in big trouble because we admit we were not with God in eternity past when he made his decree. How then could we know his decree?


I would agree that person Y does not need to be instructed to evangelize for person X to be saved. God could save person X any way God chooses. He could do it without instructing agent y to evangelize or by instructing agent y to evangelize.

So the instruction is essentially superfluous. That does not make your view incoherent - it just places you in the odd position of having to explain why instructions are needed to accomplish something that is otherwise guaranteed to be accomplished.

Your correct. I need to explain why instructions are needed. Instructions do not relate to results, predestination, God's decree, or when he decreed the means. God gave his commands for the purpose of human responsibility. He commands all men everywhere to repent. He does not predestine all men everywhere to repent. So then, the "odd position" of needed to explain the purpose for instructions relate to human responsibility.

 

[Dennyh]

The great commission is over now, and it was intially for the feeding of Gods sheep beginning in jerusalem and to go into the utter most parts of the world.

It was for the outcalling of The Church, the seed of Abraham that belonged to Christ..

wait wut? :

The Great Comission is over? I don't remember reading that in the Bible. What is the Scripture for that?

So there is a different "church" now than during the first century? I don't remember reading that either.

The Great Commission is one of the core tenents of the Christian faith. To deny that is to deny salvation to everyone outside of the first century, which would include everyone alive today. Are you saying everyone alive today cannot be saved?

 

[Drew]

Instructions do not relate to results, predestination, God's decree, or when he decreed the means. God gave his commands for the purpose of human responsibility. He commands all men everywhere to repent. He does not predestine all men everywhere to repent. So then, the "odd position" of needed to explain the purpose for instructions relate to human responsibility.

While I do not believe that the scriptures teach pre-destination, I entirely agree that, conditioned on other things you appear to believe, the above is an entirely reasonable and coherent position. Thanks for clarifying. For my part, I now see a new dimension to this issue - to the extent that "instructions are not related to results", I see how the "command to evangelize" fits into the "Calvinist" viewpoint.