Reconciling Predestination with Evangelism

Evangelism begins in theology. We might even say that evangelism begins in eternity. Its reason and guarantee begin in the mind and in the agreement between the Persons of the Triune God. That is the first bit of theology to get right in approaching evangelism. A second is that divine sovereignty and human responsibility must go together for real evangelism to happen.

God is sovereign over the who, the when, and the how of evangelism working. That means that God is sovereign over election (WHO), over regeneration and conversion (WHEN and HOW). In breaking things down that way I am going to have to explain how regeneration and conversion differ. In his book on evangelism, Will Metzger’s breakdown is very helpful:

“Regeneration and conversion are words to describe two different ways of viewing salvation. Regeneration is viewing salvation from God’s side; it is an instantaneous impartation of new life to the soul. We may or may not be conscious of the exact moment this happened to us. Conversion, on the other hand, is viewing salvation from our perspective. It is a process of the entire work of God’s grace from the first dawning of understanding and seeking to the final closing with Christ in the new birth. We respond in time to God’s action in eternity.”1

That last line is really important for our expectations in all gospel communication: not just evangelism. The power of the soul moving from death to life, and from earthly passions to heavenly affections, is entirely what God does from eternity. All of our actions are instrumental. And our own responses often look very different from those of others. 

In his classic Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, J. I. Packer employs a somewhat ingenious—albeit overstated—rationale for resting our evangelism in the sovereignty of God. All Christians are already committed to it! That is, when it comes time to pray, we all believe in it. He appeals to every Christian on their knees in two ways,

“In the first place, you give God thanks for your conversion. Now why do you do that? Because you know in your heart that God was entirely responsible for it. You did not save yourself; He saved you … You would never dream of dividing the credit for your salvation between God and yourself. You have never for one moment supposed that the decisive contribution to your salvation was yours and not God’s … There is a second way in which you acknowledge God is sovereign in salvation. You pray for the conversion of others. In what terms, now, do you intercede for them? Do you limit yourself to asking that God will bring them to a point where they can save themselves, independently of Him? I do not think you do. I think that what you do is to pray in categorical terms that God will, quite simply and decisively, save them: that He will open the eyes of their understanding, soften their hard hearts, renew their natures, and move their wills to receive the Savior.”  

Packer concludes,

“The situation is not what it seems to be. For it is not true that some Christians believe in divine sovereignty while others hold an opposite view. What is true is that all Christians believe in divine sovereignty, but some are not aware that they do, and mistakenly imagine and insist that they reject it … On our feet we may have arguments about it, but on our knees we are all agreed.”2

I agree wholeheartedly with this method of argument, but disagree totally with what lies beneath it for Packer. According to him the reason that many Christians get talked out of what all Christians believe “on our knees” is owing to “the passion for systematic consistency [and] … the supposed demands of human logic.”3 In short, the attempt to “reconcile” the doctrine gets us into trouble. It is no wonder, then, that Packer infamously consigns this mystery to the realm of inconsistency, or “antinomy,” as he called it in the next chapter. 

Note that Packer is well aware of how paradoxes are discernible. In other words, the fact that we can call a paradox only “an apparent contradiction” shows that we can resolve them. We can discover the sense in which the two terms (or propositions, or states of affairs) do not actually contradict each other. Not so, Packer insists, with an antinomy. The upshot is this. Divine sovereignty and human responsibility are both true, both to be confessed, both to be reckoned with in the process of evangelism. And we certainly agree with all of that. But Packer presses. How the two go together is “insoluble.”4 We cannot dispense with the tension. And this is where we must part ways. There is a better foundation; and I should point out that I am not the only one to say so.5 It is precisely in that the divine action is the efficient cause and all of the human actions are instrumental causes—it is exactly this insight that constitutes the reconciliation of what so many see as a conflict.

Although we will reject Packer’s epistemological foundation, we must heed his practical conclusion:

“Our evangelistic work is the instrument [God] uses for this purpose, but the power that saves is not in the instrument: it is in the hand of the One who uses the instrument … Let us work this out. If we regarded it as our job, not simply to present Christ, but actually to produce converts—to evangelize, not only faithfully, but also successfully—our approach to evangelism would become pragmatic and calculating.”6

There are actually two equal and opposite errors. If we do not reckon both with God’s sovereignty and with human responsibility, then we will either barge in as God’s successors or sit back as God’s spectators. And certainly no evangelism will get done at either of those extremes. As Packer remarked, “God did not teach us the reality of His rule in order to give us an excuse for neglecting His orders.”7

______________

1. Will Metzger, Tell the Truth: The Whole Gospel Wholly by Grace Communicated Truthfully Lovingly (Downers Grove, IL: 2012), 62.

2. J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (InterVarsity Press, 1961); 12, 13, 14-15, 16, 17.

3. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, 16.

4. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, 21.

5. Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and R. C. Sproul each have taken Packer to task on this section of his otherwise excellent book.

6. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, 27.

7. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, 34.