The Effect of Arminianism and Calvinism on Evangelism

By mark W. Christy, PhD

In the Bible, God is clearly revealed as being sovereign over all creation. In this role of King, He can and does enforce His will upon all that is, including the actions of people, in such a way that His divine decisions always become manifest (Gen 45:8; 50:20; Prov 16:9;21:1; Matt 10:29; Acts 4:27f; Rom 8:20f; Eph 1:11). While He reigns as King, He also serves as Judge, and this is where the theological conundrum between the Arminians and Calvinists begins. As Judge, God holds all people personally responsible for their actions which He Himself somehow sovereignly controls (Matt 25; Rom 2:1-16; Rev 20:11-13). Since both divine sovereignty and human accountability to the divine are true according to Scripture, it follows that both must be held together, even if their alignment remains outside human comprehension. In their attempt to square these seemingly disjointed divine declarations, Arminians and Calvinists have continued to wrangle back and forth for over 400 years.

When Charles H. Spurgeon, a Calvinist, was asked (rhetorically by himself during a sermon) how he joined divine sovereignty and human responsibility together, he replied, “I have long ago given up

trying to reconcile friends who never fell out. These two truths are both taught in Scripture, and

therefore they cannot be at variance with one another. You would be as much puzzled to prove where

they differ as I should be to show that they agree. I am confident that they do agree, because I find them

both in the Book. Therefore, let them both be preached.”[i]

Despite Spurgeon’s wisdom, both Calvinists and Arminians feel duty bound to persist in this debate given the persistence of both sides and the theological and pragmatic fallout that arises if one takes the opposing view. For the Arminians, they charge the Calvinists with presenting a deterministic view of salvation which tramples upon the free will response of humans to the gospel. While Calvinists attempt to silence this criticism by taking what is known as the compatibilist view (a view that tries to hold divine sovereignty and human responsibility in tension), they in turn charge the Arminians with breeching God’s sovereignty for the sake of human free will. The Arminians, of course, deny this charge and do their best to salvage God’s sovereignty, and yet it still remains unclear how people can possess an autonomous free will at the same time.

Since both of these theological camps claim to be concerned with evangelism and the biblical mandate to be zealous in proclamation, perhaps it would help to examine the affect that each stance has on the evangelistic endeavor. For the Arminian, Jesus’ atonement was for the sins of all people, and therefore, any person needs only to respond in faith to the gospel by an act of autonomous free will. If this is true, the work of God in salvation was completed at the cross, pending human response. In other words, one need not pray that God perform any regenerative work (in the form of prevenient saving grace) in the human heart (i.e., mind, will, desires, emotions) because God’s prevenient saving grace was fully vested in all humanity after the death of Christ.

With the free will response taking precedence over God’s salvation efforts in the evangelistic response, the evangelistic appeal must focus exclusively on persuading the potential convert to accept the gospel. Such an approach elevates the receptor, while de-elevating God, who makes salvation available. Should the recipient convert, he/she would certainly have cause to glory at least in part over his/her ability to make a good decision.

This elevation of humanity within the Arminian system also extends to the gospel proclaimer. For the Arminian preacher whose central task lies in persuading people unto the faith, since the work of God in the salvation of the individual was completed at the cross, there is much room for boasting based on the number of converts. To put this another way, prayer will have no effect in conversion under this system; rather, conversion, or persuasion unto faith, is strictly along the lines of successfully declaring the gospel in such a way that a free will response is rendered.

Among those who respond to the Arminian call to faith, they will surely like all Christians at times find themselves struggling with their assurance of salvation. When they come to their Arminian cleric with their doubts, they will encounter yet another problem with Arminian theology. By default, the minister cannot direct them to trust in God first and foremost because God’s work in salvation in regard to the individual hinges entirely upon his/her free will response. Given this, the minister will be forced to have them consider their sincerity when they gave their initial response. In other words, these struggling believers will be told to strive to regain their faith in themselves and their own decisions.

The aforementioned tension is readily apparent in Arminian churches throughout America where easy believism which prizes the free will response to the gospel is the order of the day. In these churches, people place their primary hope in their one-time decision to believe. Many leave the church and yet harken back to that moment when questioned about their worldliness. For those who remain in the church, they often find themselves poorly motivated to fervently pursue the path of holy living because their decision, rather than the quality of their lives, remains the bedrock of their assurance.

Unlike the Arminians, the Calvinists offer an assurance of salvation that is founded exclusively on the will of God who sovereignly chooses the Elect before the foundation of the world in such a way that Christ personally died for them and assured their salvation was secure. In this view, the salvation of the elect was personally completed by Christ on the cross. Since this was a personal act, God continues to act on behalf of those whom He has personally elected. Trusting in God’s sovereign call of the Elect and His ongoing willingness to work in their lives with His prevenient, saving grace, the Calvinistic proclaimer is motivated to pray for God to work in the hearts of these receiving the gospel appeal. For those who do respond, the proclaimer has no other choice but to give God all of the glory as salvation rests totally in the will of God. When the convert struggles with their assurance of salvation, this minister will not point to their salvation decision; rather, he will have them consider the fruits of salvation that should be on exhibit in the lives of those who are redeemed.

[i]C. H. Spurgeon “Sorrow and Sorrow,” Sermon #2691, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, available at: https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs2691.pdf#:~:text=2691%20A%20SERMON%20INTENDED%20FOR%20READING%20ON%20LORD%E2%80%99S-DAY,,of%20the%20world%20works%20death.%E2%80%9D%202%20Corinthians%207:10.