# Puritan Evangelism vs Finney's approach



## blhowes

I just finished reading a short article called Puritan Evangelism by Dr. J.I Packer. He gives a good comparison between puritan evangelism and the evangelism of Charles Finney. Its interesting how one's view of total depravity can affect their evangelism methods.

The article focused mostly on evangelism from the pulpit, which was interesting, but I'm interested in learning what the puritans taught about the layman's role in evangelism. What did they expect from their congregation with regard to personal evangelism or witnessing for Christ? Anybody know of any good puritan articles that talk about what's expected of layman?

In your church, or churches you've been a member of in the past, what is taught about the layman's role in evangelism? In many non-reformed evangelical churches today, its not uncommon for Saturday mornings to be set aside to go "door-to-door" to witness, invite people to church, etc. Does your church have similar/different approaches?


----------



## Pergamum

Sorry, but in paragraph 4 there is an error. 

There were camp meetings and special outdoor evangelism events before Finney came on the scene. Finney did not invent this, this was merely a by-product of preaching on the American frontier. 

Also, there were plenty of "protracted" meetings before Finney. 

Finney merely saw descriptively what was happening and made it a prescriptive formula for "success".


Finney invented a great number of unbiblical practices, but let's not say he invented everything or else we will be led to believe that some of the prior existing conditions were also unbliblcal innovations. Many of these things occurred when Edwards preached, and Nettleton too.


Here is my soapbox when it comes to calvinism and evangelism:

Everytime I read something "reformed" on evangelism, I hate to say but it always contains more of what evangelism is not then to say what it is. It always contains a mandatory denunciation of Finney rather than a positive description of the efforts fo Nettleton and Edwards, et al. This is a sure sign that we are reacting and are not developing our own views.

The article is a long defense against Arminian evangelism, but very little description of how puritan evangelism is actually done, only what we DON'T do.

We have a grand history, why even mention Finney but in passing?


----------



## Pergamum

In case I get criticized for my soapbox, let me restate my main point once again:

The article is a fine denunciation of modern evangelism by a calvinist. But this seems to be done all too frequently. It wasn't primarily about "puritan evangelism" at all, it was about the errors of modern evangelism. 

We give the enemy too much free advertisement. 

Write more about Nettleton, Edwards , et al, and forget about Finney.


----------



## JKLeoPCA

Not sure this is off topic, but do you think that preaching (in Calvinistic circles) is a bit timid to preach on passages that say to repent and believe? Like there is a fear that they have drifted into decision theology, and will have to explain themselves. So basically no one is asked to do anything in regards to salvation, but to sit, listen, and come back for more. Is it Calvinistic to ask someone to repent and believe? And if they do, do we trust that God gave it to them to do so through the hearing of the word preached through us, and then let catechism, and a good “New Comers,” class weed out their theology from there? By weed out I refer to instructing them in the way their old world view would have to be let go of, now in Christ. Are we preaching enough of Christ to be able to ask anyone to repent and believe?


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, I have heard many dry theological lectures pass off as sermons in calvinistic circles...


It seems that every sermon ought to drive one to action or decision. Not the last 5 minutes but the entire sermon! Edwards always drove home the point and made it a call for action. We need to also.


----------



## JKLeoPCA

trevorjohnson said:


> Yes, I have heard many dry theological lectures pass off as sermons in calvinistic circles...
> 
> 
> It seems that every sermon ought to drive one to action or decision. Not the last 5 minutes but the entire sermon! Edwards always drove home the point and made it a call for action. We need to also.



Yeah, not so sure this is the focus in any seminary any longer.


----------



## ReformedDave

I know Don Kistler has a new sermon series on evangelism that I'll be ordering. I'm sure he'll give the puritan approach.


----------



## Staphlobob

JKLeoPCA said:


> Not sure this is off topic, but do you think that preaching (in Calvinistic circles) is a bit timid to preach on passages that say to repent and believe? Like there is a fear that they have drifted into decision theology, and will have to explain themselves. So basically no one is asked to do anything in regards to salvation, but to sit, listen, and come back for more. Is it Calvinistic to ask someone to repent and believe?



Well, if "repent and believe" is biblical, then we have no choice, we MUST preach it. 

If I'm not mistaken, Jonathan Edwards - definitely a 5 pointer - consistently used such language. He also used terms like "accept" quite frequently. Fear of hell was also a one of his great motivators.


----------



## blhowes

trevorjohnson said:


> Here is my soapbox when it comes to calvinism and evangelism:
> 
> Everytime I read something "reformed" on evangelism, I hate to say but it always contains more of what evangelism is not then to say what it is. It always contains a mandatory denunciation of Finney rather than a positive description of the efforts fo Nettleton and Edwards, et al. This is a sure sign that we are reacting and are not developing our own views.
> 
> The article is a long defense against Arminian evangelism, but very little description of how puritan evangelism is actually done, only what we DON'T do.
> 
> We have a grand history, why even mention Finney but in passing?


I thought pretty much equal time was given to the description of both sides. From what I gleaned from the article, Finney didn't believe in the total depravity of man, but believed all men had the ability to repent and believe. His methods reflected this belief. The puritans believed in the total depravity of man and his inability to repent and believe apart from the work of God on the heart. Their methods reflected this belief.


----------



## Pergamum

blhowes:

Equal time (i.e. 50%) is still way too much to dwell again on Finney. Almost every reformed book on evangelsim I have read concentrates so much on knocking Finney that positive explaantion of what TO DO instead of what NOT to do are often lacking.


----------



## blhowes

trevorjohnson said:


> blhowes:
> 
> Equal time (i.e. 50%) is still way too much to dwell again on Finney. Almost every reformed book on evangelsim I have read concentrates so much on knocking Finney that positive explaantion of what TO DO instead of what NOT to do are often lacking.


Like the saying goes, why don't we just chew on whatever meat we can find and spit out the bones.

I'm much more accustomed to the Finney style of services with altar calls, etc., so I'm real interested in learning the Puritan's methods. Going along with what you've said, telling what not to do doesn't help much unless you're also told what to do. 

It seems preaching is central to the puritan 'method' of evangelism. You preach the message God gives you and then wait on him to work in hearts. 

I'm primarily interested in learning the layman's (since that's what I am) roll in puritan evangelism, but I'll venture down a little rabbit trail. In this article, the point was made that Finney's evangelism methods were a reflection of his theology. He preached then called people to come forward, etc. Does his method necessarily conflict with Puritan/reformed theology? If you strip out the soft music playing in the background and other stuff that's typically done in an altar call, and just had the message with an invitation, is there necessarily a conflict? In any service, some may come forward and some may not. If you ask why some, and not others, the Puritan could say because God drew some and didn't draw others - the Finneyite could say that they just weren't persuasive enough for some, but were for others.


----------



## blhowes

...and the invitation doesn't necessarily need to follow the altar call type invitation, but could be like I've seen done in some churches. The preacher gives the message, and at the end he just says that if they have any questions or if God worked in their heart in some way, the elders and the preacher would be down front to talk with them. Not as big a deal is made, but still the invitation is there.


----------



## blhowes

Yet another rabbit trail...

I found this in the OPC BCO, for those studying to be a pastor:



> III. Evangelism
> Theology of Reformed Evangelism
> The Pastor's Role in the Practice of Evangelism
> GOAL: The candidate should be able to express the bearing of the Reformed faith on the practice of announcing the gospel to non-Christians. He should develop methods for bringing the message of Christ to others and should implement those methods by engaging in evangelism and by training others to do so.


Since I'd assume this would be in agreement with the way the Puritans evangelized, what other materials are available to the perspective Pastor to help him develop proper methods of evangelism? When it talks about training others to do so, is that referring to any laymen? What methods are typically used?


----------



## blhowes

*The Art of Manfishing*, by Thomas Boston

Anybody read this? Looks like a gem. Here's an excerpt from a book review.


> Perhaps this humility and passion, which are so evident in Boston, sprang from his conception of the ministry of evangelism. He saw conversion not as a glib, one-time decision, but an often long and always weighty process of being broken down by the law, so that one might be bound up by the free grace of the Savior. And he saw this process, moreover, as a supernatural affair, impossible to be counterfeited by human measures, and occurring ever as a testimony to God’s surprising power and grace. This may well be why Boston, who loved Jesus much, so desperately desired the conversion of souls. It may be why he was so ardently devoted to pursuing Christ in his evangelistic office. It is certainly why he was so humbly inclined to despair of himself as he looked instead to the one who alone is able, for all his strength both to persevere, and to preserve the gospel free from corrupting influences and motivations. In all of these particulars, we would all do well to drink deeply from the same spring.


----------



## Greg

A couple of books that I haven't read yet, but were highly recommended to me, are The Art of Manfishing: A Puritan's View of Evangelism and Words to Winners of Souls.


----------



## Greg

blhowes said:


> *The Art of Manfishing*, by Thomas Boston
> 
> Anybody read this? Looks like a gem. Here's an excerpt from a book review.



You beat me to the punch, Bob.


----------



## blhowes

Greg said:


> You beat me to the punch, Bob.


Thanks for the other recommendation. Both look like excellent books.
(and only $4.95 each, can't beat it)


----------



## blhowes

Greg said:


> A couple of books that I haven't read yet, but were highly recommended to me, are The Art of Manfishing: A Puritan's View of Evangelism and Words to Winners of Souls.



Isn't the internet great? The Art of Manfishing and Words to Winners of Souls online.


----------



## Larry Hughes

The first problem with “how to do” evangelism books is that they always lead to some clunky methodology, that people pick up on when targeted by the books users, and so rely on the method that the message is forgotten. Evangelism is not a hard thing to do, we make it hard, and in true blue American style seek out some “How to do…” book to aid us. Some 6000 years of Christianity and now suddenly we need “how to books”. That alone speaks volumes of the covering up of the Gospel from the pulpit.

As you really receive the Gospel FOR YOU into your own heart you will increasingly both know the message to give and be helpless to hold it in. How too books really at the end of the day just “get in the way” and the plethora of them out there shows this.

Take for example the fundamental question, “What motivates me to evangelize?” Well, depending upon who answers this you will get:

1.	I must love the lost.
2.	God has elected some.
3.	It’s my duty…etc…

But NONE of these are true Gospel motivations that allow a man to speak heart felt and from deep affections of the Saviour. In fact these are false motivations and legal motivations. They may “motivate” a clunky in your face robotic speech, but not a heart of Gospel. The motivation is this, “The more I understand the greatness of what Christ did FOR ME, pure Gospel, the more and increasingly more it is impossible for me to keep this inside of me and I more and more am driven to speak of so Great a Saviour.” The Gospel in the end over time is its own motivation and message, and thus Paul says “the power”. The Gospel begets the Gospel, not method books or methodology (Finney or otherwise). “To do books” basically reveal a lacking of the Gospel message in someone reading them and that is usually indicatory of a lacking of Gospel being given to that person from their church in Word and Sacrament.

The difference between Wesley and Whitfield was that Wesley finally admitted one time that his motivation was unto saving his own soul. To Whitfield it was the heart aflame for so great a Saviour for him. This is what inflamed Luther and Calvin, all evangelist.

God has NEVER promised anything in method, but has promised His grace in the Gospel Word and the Gospel sacraments. When the church realizes this again as it did in the reformation and at Pentecost, then it will be back on track. Methods, like sales techniques will get you numbers and “action”, but don’t mistake that for true spiritual movements of the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,

Ldh


----------



## JKLeoPCA

The Gospel is pretty simple to get out. You take a person, and present to them good news from a far away land. You take them away from their physical lives for a moment, and bring them to the throne room of God. In that presence you declare that their sin and corresponding guilt are very real, but that God solved the problem of this within His own Son's perfect life, atoning death, burial, and resurrection to new life, and that it is freely applied (imputed) to those who believe (or are given to believe). You don’t need a fancy script, or method, just an opportunity to talk. You leave them with the choice to repent and believe, relying that if anything you said even sparks an interest, that the Holy Spirit is at work, and you can follow up any time after that. A good break in question is "If you were given a chance to stand before God, before having died, and He of course knew everything about you, what do you think His judgment of you be, would you merit Heaven?" Then bringing them into a court room situation, ask something like, "What if God's judgment was not guilty, how could He make such a judgment justly?"


----------



## Pergamum

Great post Larry!  



And yet, if it is so simple, why don't more people do it more often? Even God's children? 



What used to be the activity of the whole church as a whole - the laymen doing the lion's share - has now become a technical field that only a few experts or specifically called persons engage in. The very ontological being of the early church was evangelism and now this same evangelism is now relegated to a program...


----------



## Staphlobob

trevorjohnson said:


> Great post Larry!
> 
> And yet, if it is so simple, why don't more people do it more often? Even God's children?




The question is significant. I note that you ask why don't more "people" do it more often and distinguished them from "God's people." Do people sitting in the pews really believe the Gospel? Are they wheat or tares? Have they any experience of God's grace, knowledge of His Word, and transformation of life, that would motivate them to evangelize? 

How about fear? It certainly dampens things for even the most ardent of God's children. After all, the power of sin must be stressed at some point and that certainly won't win any friends. But such fear need not quench the light entirely. 

Perhaps also there is also a confusion in the term "evangelize." I know it goes on in my own congregation. For many the notion of evangelism often means getting people to come to church; talking up the programs, people, etc (hence methods are important). So it has little-or-nothing to do with sin, the cross and forgiveness. Completely wrong, but not uncommon.

However I do like John's icebreaking questions. I will often use the simple evaluative questions from Evangelism Explosion in the same way, but then go in whatever way seems best.


----------



## blhowes

Larry,
Thank-you for your excellent comments. Your comments are the kind of thing I'm looking for.



Larry Hughes said:


> The first problem with “how to do” evangelism books is that they always lead to some clunky methodology, that people pick up on when targeted by the books users, and so rely on the method that the message is forgotten. Evangelism is not a hard thing to do, we make it hard, and in true blue American style seek out some “How to do…” book to aid us. Some 6000 years of Christianity and now suddenly we need “how to books”. That alone speaks volumes of the covering up of the Gospel from the pulpit.


I have enough, and have used enough, "how to books on evangelism", which is why I'm interested in what the Puritans had to say about evangelism. When Jesus said, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature...", what is everybody's role? I've heard (I think here on the PB) that that command is primarily for clergy who's job it is to preach the gospel from the pulpit and that the layman's role is more of a witnessing and inviting them to church type role. 



Larry Hughes said:


> “To do books” basically reveal a lacking of the Gospel message in someone reading them and that is usually indicatory of a lacking of Gospel being given to that person from their church in Word and Sacrament.


...Or a desire to evangelize biblically. 



Larry Hughes said:


> God has NEVER promised anything in method, but has promised His grace in the Gospel Word and the Gospel sacraments. When the church realizes this again as it did in the reformation and at Pentecost, then it will be back on track. Methods, like sales techniques will get you numbers and “action”, but don’t mistake that for true spiritual movements of the Holy Spirit.


Methods can be misused and abused, but do you think we should throw out methods altogether? Regarding evangelism, you said *"The motivation is this, “The more I understand the greatness of what Christ did FOR ME, pure Gospel, the more and increasingly more it is impossible for me to keep this inside of me and I more and more am driven to speak of so Great a Saviour.” * which I agree with wholeheartedly. This would also be true for preachers delivering sermons. But preachers have methods they use, outlines that they write to keep them organized, to jog their memory if they lose track of what they're saying, and generally to help the message be communicated as clearly as possible. Should methods or outlines for evangelism be eliminated altogether?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

trevorjohnson said:


> In case I get criticized for my soapbox, let me restate my main point once again:
> 
> The article is a fine denunciation of modern evangelism by a calvinist. But this seems to be done all too frequently. It wasn't primarily about "puritan evangelism" at all, it was about the errors of modern evangelism.
> 
> We give the enemy too much free advertisement.
> 
> Write more about Nettleton, Edwards , et al, and forget about Finney.



Trevor,

I think we need both: We need to positively put forward how we will evangelize while negatively rejecting methods that are man-centered. The latter is necessary as many believe that only man-centered approaches "work". The Biblical approach is much more intensive, frustrating, and potentially slow-moving as the Pastor focuses on training mature people that can be sent. There is always a tendency on immature, but zealous, people to go out without being either trained or sent. I think you need both - maturity without becoming inwardly focused. 

When the immature want to head out early, it helps to be able to encourage them in their zeal while tempering that zeal with Biblical understanding. Unfortunately, I agree with you that the only kind of zeal that many Reformed have is zeal to criticize instead of going out and spreading the Gospel. You can have the latter without being blind to the former.


----------



## Pergamum

Well said Rich;



Many will find fault with me using surveys, but here where I live over 60% of people come to Christ based on simple family witness and seeing the lives of Christians. Apologetics and deep theological talk are not the main reasons. You shall know them by their fruits, it seems. But in the Reformed tradition we are heavy on apologetics and technical jargon and light on getting out there sometimes. 

I was shocked when I recently read over Paul's list of qualifications for the eldership again and realized anew that most of these qualifications were character issues - not knowledge of doctrine. The Gospel should make us attractive lights to the world, not merely cold conveyers of archane knoweldge such as the order of the decrees of God.

Our theological training makes us speak a different language many times and creates a distance or gap with people. Too, our theological precision sometimes becomes a hindrance rather than a help in showing people the way to Christ.

Ironically many of us spend more time reading about evangelism than actually doing it. Or, when we actually do it we try to win arguments instead of winning people. 


I am not saying we should dumb ourselves down, but a simple non-technical explanation of the Gospel is a must, along with an impeccable life to match. Often the most effective evangelists (non-technically speaking, with a little "e") are those laymen who live steller and attractive lives, even though they only know the basics. We are, on the other hand, often over-fed on theology and underpracticed on communication and practical simple helping and loving our neighbors. That is the best "method" it seems.


----------



## Chris

> “The more I understand the greatness of what Christ did FOR ME, pure Gospel, the more and increasingly more it is impossible for me to keep this inside of me and I more and more am driven to speak of so Great a Saviour.”



   

Larry,

As someone in a denomination utterly_ plagued _by programs, let me say that you have hit on the heart of the issue. I wish the SBC would in a single breath lose all memory of every program we've ever had, and be forced to go back to Scripture, and find our motivation and methods there, and nowhere else (with the possible addition of church history). 

Thanks for your post. It was truly appreciated.


----------



## JKLeoPCA

trevorjohnson said:


> I am not saying we should dumb ourselves down, but a simple non-technical explanation of the Gospel is a must, along with an impeccable life to match. Often the most effective evangelists (non-technically speaking, with a little "e") are those laymen who live steller and attractive lives, even though they only know the basics. We are, on the other hand, often over-fed on theology and underpracticed on communication and practical simple helping and loving our neighbors. That is the best "method" it seems.



 
I know the books, and classes are there to help impart knowledge to try to remove some of the fear that someone might ask me something I don’t know. But people do that every day in social circles, and I still have to say things like, I'll get back to you on that," or "Hey Bob, will know the answer to that, lets go see him, or call him." I think it would be a bit silly to think that before anyone could witness they would have to know every answer to every question/criticism that might be presented. To fear the counter argument is no reason to never make the right argument. To want all the answers first is to some degree (at least a little bit) pride, and reliance on our ability (method), and a lack of reliance on the Holy Spirit to work, inspite of my reasoning.


----------



## kvanlaan

With regards to motivation for missions, I heard this recently: the reason for motivation cannot be your love for man; that is romantic and noble, but it simply is not enough. What should drive us SDG folks in our zeal is that somewhere, even now, God is _not_ being given all the glory. And it belongs to Him. 

Now, if we don't get up off our behinds and do it, God will still do His work BUT He is giving us the privilige of being involved. 

Every one of us wants to preach the gospel to the lost, but it is the _why_ of it that has so many of us chasing our tails.


----------



## blhowes

kvanlaan said:


> With regards to motivation for missions, I heard this recently: the reason for motivation cannot be your love for man; that is romantic and noble, but it simply is not enough. What should drive us SDG folks in our zeal is that somewhere, even now, God is _not_ being given all the glory. And it belongs to Him.
> 
> Now, if we don't get up off our behinds and do it, God will still do His work BUT He is giving us the privilige of being involved.
> 
> Every one of us wants to preach the gospel to the lost, but it is the _why_ of it that has so many of us chasing our tails.



That's an interesting way of looking at it. That 'should' be our motivation. Good food for thought.


----------



## Coram Deo

First we should aleast define evangelism in order that we might know what methods are at our disposal....

Evangelism is the preaching of the whole gospel. This is the meaning of the word, evangelism - a biblical word in the Greek of the new testyament. Evangelism is the activity of publishing, or announcing, the evangel, the gospel, i.e the glad tidings of Jesus the Christ, crucified and risen. The fact is that gospel preaching is preaching "the whole counsel of God", that is, all of Scripture. There is, therefore, no such thing as , nor any need for a special gospel message or evangelistic service especially when that is nothing more than haranguing sinners or pressing them for some decision..

Now that we have answered what Evangelism is, WHO should evangelize?

Answer - Evangelism is done today by ordained ministers ser apart for the work of going with the gospel to those outside the established church. Evangelism therefore is the work of the Church. It is the Church that preaches the word. This is the Biblical pattern..

But does not every saint have the duty to evangelize. Emphatically NOT! It is unbiblical to hold that every believer may and must evangelize. This is to maintain that every saint can and must preach the gospel. Where in Scripture is this authority given to every believer?

Where in the practical parts of the New Testament epistles is this made the responsibility of every Christian? The notion that every member of the church is a missionary destroys the fundalmental truth of the office in the church. Most pernicious of all is the utterly reckless act of putting this awesome burden on the shoulders of our teen age children who, altogether apart from the matter of office, ought not to be teaching, but learning the Word of God. This does not however take away from the methods that bible has called every Christian to be a witness for Christ sake... Let us now look at the Biblical Methods of Evangelism set in Scriptures....

1. Worship / Preaching the Whole Counsel of God, Luke 24:47, I Cor 1:21, Mark 16:15
True Worship that is in Spirit and Truth and bound to the Scriptures and preaches the whole counsel of God is Evangelism. All Scripture is Evangelizing for both the unbelievers and the believers who are called to repent of their sins daily.


2. Lifestyle Evangelism, Matthew 5: 13-16, 1 Peter 2:11
Just our changed life's and how we live is a witness and evangelize those around us.. Let us keep the Laws of God and it will be evident in our lives..


3. Able to give the reason of your faith that is within you, 1 Peter 3:15
When asked about your faith, give reason....


4. Church Sending out Missionaries, Acts 11:22, Acts 13: 1-5, Romans 10:15
Church send out men who are qualified to be ministers to go missionary to an area and set up a plant church..


5. Praying Fervently, 2 Thess 3:1
We should pray for Missionary pastors and for churches that preach the Word everyday for the spread of God's Kingdom..


6. Support Financially, Phil 4:14
Give with a cheerful heart and support church planting and the building of true Gospel preaching Churches that preach the Whole counsel of God.

These are the Reformed View on Evangelism and the Only methods at our disposal according to Scriptures... We are not free to invent our own methods.. If we want to see true Reformation and an Awakening lets start by following the Scriptures on Evangelism and see the power of the Triune God at work..

Two finally notes... Some might say, well some get saved this way, or that way... I will add that the Ends does NOT justify in the Means... Just because someone might be truely saved from lets say music or some other means does not mean God is pleased with the method, but praise be to God for that Salvation...

Second, someone might say what about the Evangelist in the Scriptures, or the man in scripture that go town to town, like Paul... I might remind those that the office of Apostle and Evangelist have ceased and so does their special temporary functions.

Hope this helps... This has been a great study for me this year and has changed the way I look at evangelizing......

Michael






blhowes said:


> I just finished reading a short article called Puritan Evangelism by Dr. J.I Packer. He gives a good comparison between puritan evangelism and the evangelism of Charles Finney. Its interesting how one's view of total depravity can affect their evangelism methods.
> 
> The article focused mostly on evangelism from the pulpit, which was interesting, but I'm interested in learning what the puritans taught about the layman's role in evangelism. What did they expect from their congregation with regard to personal evangelism or witnessing for Christ? Anybody know of any good puritan articles that talk about what's expected of layman?
> 
> In your church, or churches you've been a member of in the past, what is taught about the layman's role in evangelism? In many non-reformed evangelical churches today, its not uncommon for Saturday mornings to be set aside to go "door-to-door" to witness, invite people to church, etc. Does your church have similar/different approaches?


----------

