# How should Calvinists evangelize?



## biblelighthouse (Jul 3, 2005)

My cousin Jeremy just joined the Puritanboard . . . everybody give him a warm welcome!

He made this great post at the end of a long thread . . . but I think it's worth pulling out as a seperate thread. (I've noticed that we are generally a lot more responsive to new threads, than we are to new questions posed at the end of already existing threads.)

Anyway, everybody toss in your  on this great question:



> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> I'm new to the Puritan board. In fact this is my first post, so go easy on me!
> 
> I've read a lot about Calvinist vs. Arminian evangelists. And debating this is all well and good. But I have yet to read about HOW a reformed Christian evangelizes.
> ...



I think a lot of new Calvinists have similar questions. So, what are your thoughts?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 3, 2005)

Wow, I struggle with the same issues! Last night at work a lady was telling me how she was going to go to the local "Free CHurch" for counseling with her kids. I wanted to badly to tell her to come to our church, but we offer nothing like that. Our pastor is wonderful and I am sure would have spoken to her at length, but we have no official counseling etc.

It seems that evangelicals have more "stuff" to offer hurting people than we do and that annoys me to no end.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> It seems that evangelicals have more "stuff" to offer hurting people than we do and that annoys me to no end.



 I totally agree with you!!!!! 

Of course, I am definitely not for watering down the sermons or the worship time. But I completely agree with your gripe, and I wish that more of the Calvinistic, biblically-sound churches would realize that it is important to have multiple programs and activites to get people more involved, and also to help people. Is the teaching of the Word most important? Certainly! But sometimes people aren't interested in listening to preaching until they first are touched by some other ministry of the church. So if offering various ministries helps bring people in so that they hear the Word, then so be it.

I'm with you, Adam.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 3, 2005)

Jeremy, I guess I already swerved away from the original post a bit . . . let me get back on track . . .

How should a Calvinist share the Gospel?

As for me, I guess you would have to say I just "share and wait". I try to clearly teach the Gospel to those who are not Christians, but then I do not encourage them to "pray the sinner's prayer" or "walk the aisle", or anything like that.

Only God can bring about conversion. I can only plant the seeds for it. Once God chooses to regenerate a person's heart, it will certainly happen, regardless of me. And me pushing a person can't make him/her come around any faster. 

So I plant the seeds, and then just patiently wait for God to make them sprout whenever He chooses.


----------



## BrianBowman (Jul 3, 2005)

Well,

I definitely qualify as a "new Calvinist" having only embraced the Reformed Faith one year ago. Prior to that I was a dispensationalist for 10 years who pretty much subscribed to the oxymoron of "decisional evangelism with eternally secure results". The following really helped clarify this for me. Athough I believe that Gospel Preaching is most effective as the Sciptures are exposited from the Pulpit, by a trained and duly ordained minster of the Gospel, the question: "how do we get the unsaved to Church so they can hear?" is still present. 

The "confrontational technique" presented in a portion of the linked article looks pretty good - especially if one the individuals doing the confronting is capable of competently defending the faith. In my experience, the ability to defend the Faith "on the spot" is often the most valuable skill that a Christian can have - especially if you live and work in an intellectual community.

The beautiful thing about the Reformed Faith is that God is completely sovereign in His election of grace, and that salvation is a monergistic work wrought by God via regeneration and the simultaneous gifts of faith and repentance to the elected individual. It would seem that we are not trying to "get decisions for Jesus" but to make Him visible as local expressions of the Covenant Community.

I do have many remaining questions about this issue. For example, based on the sovereignty of God, how do we pray for the unbeliever - or do we? Are there examples of Biblical Prayers for this?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2005)

How should Calvinists evangelize?

Biblically! Be responsible; Be obedient.

1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;

Be prayerful!

1Th 5:17 Pray without ceasing. 

1Ti 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

Believers should be confident:

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 


[Edited on 7-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Augusta (Jul 3, 2005)

to Jeremy! I have been recently sorting through this as well. I believe we are to be armed to the teeth with the Word of God. We are to be salt and light wherever we are. We are to be ready to haven an answer for the hope that lies within us. 

Colossians 4:5-6
5 Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time. 
6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.

1 Peter 3:15-16
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 
16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.

If I do talk to someone who is unsaved I make sure I speak the gospel to them and don't worry about other stuff. If it is fellow Christian then I will give an answer on any subject they are interested in, excepting in the case of an arminian. I will try to lace everything I say about other subjects back to the gospel. They almost all of the lead right back to that anyway. 

I as a woman would not street preach. I don't think it proper for an unordained person to street preach. I think as it says in Roman 10 that a minister of the gospel should be "sent." They should be annointed or ordained as such by a ruling body after they have been examined. Otherwise you may have preachers out there who may teach error. This is never good. I believe that God will raise up the preachers He needs to this end. He will reach all of His sheep one way or another.

I pray constantly for my unsaved family and friends. I minister to my children along side my husband. They are my top priority as a parent. If God puts someone in your path you may be His plan to water a seed He has planted. Be ready as the Bible says.

This gives me and idea for a poll.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> I do have many remaining questions about this issue. For example, based on the sovereignty of God, how do we pray for the unbeliever - or do we? Are there examples of Biblical Prayers for this?




Brian, welcome to the puritanboard! It's good to have you here. 

I do believe we should pray for unbelievers. In John 17, Jesus Himself prayed not only for those who were believers then, but also for those who would become believers later. However, He did _not_ pray for everyone in the whole world (cf. John 17:9).
Unlike Jesus, we do not know who is elect and who is not. So I believe we should pray for the salvation of people, while keeping in the back of our minds that God has not elected everyone to salvation. 

Pray, pray, pray! And if you accidentally end up praying for someone who's not elect, I don't think God will hold it against you.  It's times like that when we can pray, "not my will, but Thine be done".

[Edited on 7-3-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> The "confrontational technique" presented in a portion of the linked article looks pretty good - especially if one the individuals doing the confronting is capable of competently defending the faith. In my experience, the ability to defend the Faith "on the spot" is often the most valuable skill that a Christian can have - especially if you live and work in an intellectual community.



Keep in mind, God brings the increase! 

1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 

You never know what foundation you are building upon; for all you know, you will read John 11:35, "Jesus Wept" and the person becomes regenerate!

Mat 21:15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased, 
Mat 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? 

Perfect praise! Even from those at the breast.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Perfect praise! Even from those at the breast.




Amen, Scott! I hear another presumptive regeneration discussion coming on . . .


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Bite your tongue Joseph!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...




::gasp::

. . . trying . . . very hard . . . to bite . . . my poor little tongue . . .


----------



## BrianBowman (Jul 3, 2005)

Scott,

I in no way mean to distract from the simplicity of the Gospel. Ideally, we should never be ashamed or embarrassed to proclaim the wonders of Christ's redeeming grace; although how often do we all fail this in some way - I know I do. The following gives me hope:

Romans 1:13-17 (ESV) I want you to know, brothers,* that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians,* both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. 16 Â¶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,* as it is written, "œThe righteous shall live by faith."

This porition of scripture is pretty clear that Paul's mission included both "the wise" (GK: sophos - the "skilled" i.e. those to whom the faith might have to be defended as part of preaching the gospel) and the "foolish" (GK: anoetos - the unintelligent. of these Calvin says: "All teachers have also a rule here which they are to follow, and that is, modestly and kindly to accommodate themselves to the capacities of the ignorant and unlearned.").

Clearly, in the balance of Romans, the Holy Spirit inspires Paul to elucidate the greatest manifesto of systematic Christian doctrine known in history - a veritable defense of the Christian faith.

[Edited on 7-3-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2005)

Agreed. I, as well, in no way want to detract from being prepared in season and out. I am only trying to point out that we shouldn't _worry_ as it is God who gives the increase. 

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


----------



## BrianBowman (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Agreed. I, as well, in no way want to detract from being prepared in season and out. I am only trying to point out that we shouldn't _worry_ as it is God who gives the increase.
> 
> 2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.





This is the glory of "being a Calvinist". God gives the increase and we are simply "unprofitable servants".


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 3, 2005)

Here are some principles that seem good to me:

1. Christians should be able to testify as to what God has done for them (1 Pet 3:15). The "testimony" should give God all the glory.

2. Christians should be students of the Bible. "Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks."

3. Turn the "spiritual conversation" to Christ. Always.

4. Don't worry so much about the specialized content of the gospel you present--make sure what you say is BIBLICAL.

5. The reason for the above statement is this: All of God's truth is harmonius with itself. All finds its finality in Christ. Therefore, all Scripture ultimately points back to Christ. Some Truth is very close to the "core" of the gospel. Other Truth is not as close. If you did not "score" in one personal encounter by hitting close to the subject of the Cross or the Resurrection, I wouldn't worry about it for one moment. God was honored if you were faithful to his Truth, and defended it. 

It is the distinctly Arminian concern to get someone on one specific route to the Cross, and to get them to the "decision point." By this I am *not* saying, "There are many roads to God!" I am saying there are as many roads to the Cross as there are verses in the Bible! And nearly as many vantage points to seeing it clearly as there are faithful sermons. You will recall in _Pilgrim's Progress_ that the narrow way of the faith was found inside the wicket gate, not outside it. Christian encountered the evangelist several times, and went into more than one bypath in getting to that gate. Other's came as well, by different paths, some more, some less painful.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> It seems that evangelicals have more "stuff" to offer hurting people than we do and that annoys me to no end.



I always thought of myself as an "evangelical"... are fundamentalist Dispensationalists like Jerry Falwell the only "evangelical Christians" these days? if so, than the appellation does not fit me any more... words like "conservative" and "liberal" are no less hollow than "evangelical" these days--- words lose their meaning...


----------



## Robin (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> It seems that evangelicals have more "stuff" to offer hurting people than we do and that annoys me to no end.




The Evangellyfish does not soothe hurting people. How come? Because they insist that if the hurting person just did: XYZ they wouldn't hurt anymore. They invalidate their pain by offering countless modes of advice without really "listening" or "bearing one another's burdens." 

When was the last time you felt heard or supported by a friend or family member who ran over your heart's outpouring with their list of "how to's" to fix it?

The Calvinist has a more powerful way to comfort those suffering -- the Truth that we are ALL sinners, suffering in a cursed world...and even so, God alone is in control. So our suffering is neither pointless or aimless. Sometimes we come along-side and mourn with the sufferer and simply be there for them.

Teaching this takes guts....everyone else wants to "say" ignore, distract yourself from the pain; get more faith and you won't hurt; if you hurt, what did you "do" to deserve it? (In summary, Job's counselors revisited.)

Bottom line, for the Calvinist suffering pain, he says "Lord, though you slay me, yet will I trust You."

Can the Evangellyfish say that?

Getting to really know the book of Job is of great help. 

Therapy gives the mis-impression that it "fixes" things...when it does not. It has been said " the Christian therapy business flourishes where there is no confession of sins; administration of the Supper and right preaching of the Word." The so-called "Christian" feel-good messages actually cause neurosis.



R.

PS. As for how the Calvinist evangelizes....do nothing different than th Apostles. It's that simple. No more, no less. In Acts 2, three thousand were saved after hearing a sermon about Covenant theology. And if Scripture says they were saved, they were finally and forever saved....Billy Graham, try to beat those numbers!! Rick Warren, it's not a Purpose-Driven Life, it's a *PROMISE*-Driven one. The Gospel is Promise-Driven!

(See, you guys got me wound-up again... )


----------



## BrianBowman (Jul 3, 2005)

Robin,

What a wonderful post. Having been an "Evangellyfish" for about 20 years of my life (including a pile of therapy), I'll give testimony that what you say is ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Thank God for deliverance from this through the Scripturally integrated truths of Covenant Theology!! God's sovereignty admininstered through the present reign of Christ and expressed through His Church and the authority of His written Word! This is the "narrow way" to wholeness. Everything else is the "broad path" to destruction.

[Edited on 7-4-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## Augusta (Jul 3, 2005)

Big honking  to Robin.


----------



## JeremyConrad (Jul 3, 2005)

An Arminian evangelist (like Billy Graham) ends his sermon with an altar call, or "the sinner's prayer", or, at least, a verse or two of "Softly & Tenderly" and "Just As I Am".

How does a reformed evangelist end his sermon?

[Edited on 7-4-2005 by JeremyConrad]


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 3, 2005)

My late Great Uncle who was a Baptist preacher once found these two teenagers trespassing around the church bus and smoking something... He witnessed to them with an M1 Garand in hand... he was WWII vet. (One of my cousins mentioned that when I was harping about 2 Timothy 2:24-25 in Sunday School...) Seriously...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> An Arminian evangelist (like Billy Graham) ends his sermon with an altar call, or "the sinner's prayer", or, at least, a verse or two of "Softly & Tenderly" and "Just As I Am".
> 
> How does a reformed evangelist end his sermon?
> ...


See you in church!


----------



## Robin (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> An Arminian evangelist (like Billy Graham) ends his sermon with an altar call...How does a reformed evangelist end his sermon?
> [Edited on 7-4-2005 by JeremyConrad]



The background:

2 Corinthians 5:11---21 (read the entire chapter, btw.)
The Ministry of Reconciliation
Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience. We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart. For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. 

From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 


Here is the punchline:

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, *be* reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that*in* him we might become the righteousness of God.

No "sales pitch"....we deliver the Message of Christ and what He did.

The Gospel is a judicial "Summons"...(much like a court summons)...this why Paul says to "BE reconciled". He is calling his hearers to obey the Gospel.



Robin


----------



## Robin (Jul 5, 2005)

Here is an excerpt from a Reformed sermon (from Revelation) by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger. Note, the conclusion....


"That which we lost in Eden is regained in the heavenly city because of the saving work of the Lamb, who has triumphed over all of his enemies. And this is where the story of redemption inevitably leads, to a New Eden, an Eden which far surpasses the glories of the garden of Genesis 2-3. In the New Eden, we will not only drink freely from the River of Life, but we will eat from the same Tree of Life, the sacrament of the covenant of works, from which Adam was barred after the Fall. We read that its leaves are for the healing of the nations, which simply reminds us that all the nations have been healed once the curse has been removed. In the New Eden, all the nations are now joined together as one people in the heavenly city. We will no longer be divided by race, language, culture or social status. We will all be one, dwelling together in the presence of God.

Beloved, the glorious scene described here will one day become a reality for all of the people of God. We will be raised from the dead in imperishable bodies. There will be no more pain, no more tears, no more death, no more sadness. The curse will be gone and we will fulfill that end for which we have been created. In the New Jerusalem, we will see God in our flesh (as Job once prophesied and which John now confirms). We will drink freely from the River of Life. We will eat our fill from the Tree of Life. We will behold the glories of God described here, completely safe and in perfect peace. 

Therefore, as we sweat and suffer, struggle and grieve in this life, let us never loose sight of what awaits us in the next. Through the testimony of John, this morning we too have seen the new heaven and earth. Its glories are beyond description. It is that place where God Almighty and the Lamb dwell. It will be our eternal home. For the Lord Almighty and the Lamb are our God and we are his people. And this is our glorious inheritance which God has promised to all those in Jesus Christ. With this scene before our eyes, let us not become weary of believing what is true, and doing what is right. For a new heaven and a new earth await us where we will dwell in blessed peace and safety in the presence of God, forever, and ever and ever and ever . . . Amen!"

The entire sermon is here:
http://www.christreformed.org/resources/sermons_lectures/00000107.shtml?main

Robin


----------



## street preacher (Jul 5, 2005)

Evangelism is the redeemed saying so. It is public worship on the streets of in our churches or wherever. God will draw who He will and then comes the heart of evangelism, discipleship, teaching them and truly investing in the lives of those new covenant brethren. It isn't about getting them to say a prayer of majic, (that is so Catholic, say 2 our Father and 5 hail Marys and you will be fine.) it's about exalting God and through this God produces other worshippers as well.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by street preacher]


----------



## JeremyConrad (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, *be* reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that*in* him we might become the righteousness of God.
> 
> No "sales pitch"....we deliver the Message of Christ and what He did.



Thank you! That is the clearest answer so far!!



> _Originally posted by street preacher_
> God will draw who He will...



My fear is that I will become passive in evangelism. Being passive to me is kind of like a spider in a web just waiting for something to be caught in it's trap. Not that the Gospel is a trap, by any means. I'm just saying that I want to be active in evangelism, not passive.

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by JeremyConrad]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> 
> My fear is that I will become passive in evangelism. Being passive to me is kind of like a spider in a web just waiting for something to be caught in it's trap. Not that the Gospel is a trap, by any means. I'm just saying that I want to be active in evangelism, not passive.





We should all FLEE laziness in evangelism. That's why I love about our good ole' Calvinist buddy, the Apostle Paul: He was very active and fervent in sharing the Gospel. And yet he NEVER gave an "altar call" or invited anyone to pray "the sinner's prayer".

We should be VERY active. But our activity should not mirror the activities of Arminians.

Let us preach the Biblical Gospel fervently! And let us also leave it to God to bring about the sprouting of all seeds. We can plant and water like crazy, and we should. But we can't make anything sprout.


----------



## street preacher (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> We should all FLEE laziness in evangelism. That's why I love about our good ole' Calvinist buddy, the Apostle Paul: He was very active and fervent in sharing the Gospel. And yet he NEVER gave an "altar call" or invited anyone to pray "the sinner's prayer".



This is precisely my point. We are the messengers whose intent should be to worship the Lord through the proclamation of the gospel and God is the One who will do the work of conversion without the invention of man namely the alter call!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 6, 2005)

Interesting, isn't it, that the "altar call" didn't even _exist_ until it was invented in the 1800s, starting out as the "anxious bench".

All the evanjellyfish must wonder how anybody was ever saved during the prior centuries.

But, wait a minute . . . The book of Acts was written before the 1800s wasn't it? And that little revival called the "Reformation" . . . didn't that happen before the 1800s? 

But I know what they would probably say: "Just imagine how things would have gone _even better_ if they had just had the altar call back then. . . ." 

Here's the only "altar" for me, the only one for Christians in the New Testament: 

"*We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.* For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach." (Hebrews 13:10-13)

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 6, 2005)

Is the altar call really the standard mode of modern evangelism today? I have never been to a church that had one. My church's idea of evangelism is "personal evangelism".


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> Is the altar call really the standard mode of modern evangelism today? I have never been to a church that had one. My church's idea of evangelism is "personal evangelism".



The altar call is still BIG.

I grew up on the road with Arminian musician/evangelists for parents. We covered the 48 states, going from church to church. My dad loves the invitation and the altar call.

Also, in several of the churches I was in as a kid (when not on the road), the invitation and altar call were considered important.

When I was 12, I was "saved" because I responded to an altar call at a "revival" at a local baptist church.

As a teenager, I went to a number of conferences and youth camps. The altar call was a big deal in those cases, too.

Finally, I have two words for you: Billy Graham


I have seen altar calls throughout my life in numerous types of churches: Baptist, Nazarene, "non-denominational", Assembly of God, etc.

The altar call is a disease that still infects America with a vengeance.



[Edited on 7-6-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 6, 2005)

Must be a bigger deal down south. Up here it's mostly Lutherans, not many altar calls.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> Must be a bigger deal down south. Up here it's mostly Lutherans, not many altar calls.



Yeah, I have to admit I've never seen an altar call in a Lutheran or Presbyterian church!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 6, 2005)

> When I was 12, I was "saved" because I responded to an altar call at a "revival" at a local baptist church.



Take out "Baptist Church" and insert "Church of God" and that's my story!


----------



## JeremyConrad (Jul 6, 2005)

We're told in Acts that, after Pentecost, Peter preached to the entire crowd and they all heard in their own language. Luke then tells us that several thousand (I don't have it in front of me for the exact number) were added to their number that day.

First of all, does that mean those several thousand were saved (regenerated)?

Second of all, how did Luke know? What was the evidence that they'd been regenerated? If several thousand TOLD him, wouldn't that be "Confession of Faith" the same as if they'd all come forward for a Billy Graham altar call?


----------



## JeremyConrad (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> Yeah, I have to admit I've never seen an altar call in a Lutheran or Presbyterian church!



That's the weirdest thing! Having grown up in the Nazarene church, there were altar calls nearly every week. I've visited two churches in the past couple of months, a PCA in March and an OPC in June, and they didn't even HAVE an altar. It felt strange to me because, even IF you don't go to the altar to get "saved" it is still a nice place to go and pray during a church service where others can pray with/for you.

Joe, you and I've talked about how Christ is our altar now, and I agree. So, let's call it something else. Or, better yet, let's keep calling it the altar - since it is part of the cultural dialect - and know that it isn't meant to replace Christ as our "true" altar.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> We're told in Acts that, after Pentecost, Peter preached to the entire crowd and they all heard in their own language. Luke then tells us that several thousand (I don't have it in front of me for the exact number) were added to their number that day.
> 
> First of all, does that mean those several thousand were saved (regenerated)?
> ...



Jeremy,

Those are EXCELLENT questions. But if I start to answer them, then this thread will turn into another credobaptist/paedobaptist debate.

I'll tell you what . . . go start a new thread focusing squarely on Acts 2. That way we won't interrupt the flow of this thread. Then I will be happy to respond, and to go into some detail regarding Acts 2.

Your covenantal Calvinistic cousin,
Joseph


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 6, 2005)

The two greatest "revivals" in the history of the world were the Apostolic Era (God's people were scattered abroad by persecution, Acts 8.1, and hence "turned the world upside down," Acts 17.6, because "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church," Tertullian) and the Reformation of 1517 and beyond. Both were works of the Holy Spirit through faithful ministries of the Word as proclaimed and lived by men and women who understood the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace.


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 6, 2005)

So, how do we put this into practice? We know what evangelism is not, i.e, an altar call, but what does it look like? How does a Calvinist evangelize? More specifically, how does a Calvinist lay-person evangelize?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 6, 2005)

*TELL* what great things God has done for mankind, and for the speaker himself.

*WARN* of the wrath to come.

Don't worry about giving instructions about "how to get saved," or some formulaic path. The message is "repent and believe." _Say what you know, and point them to the church._ A believer has both obligation and a (new) natural compulsion to draw near to God--i.e. worship. He does that most blatantly at public worship. That is why the preaching of the Word is the most potent means of grace. Outside the church (visible) there is no ordinary means of salvation.

Would you be able to answer a serious query, "OK! What must I do to be saved?" It's _better_ to have more ability than to have less. It's _better_ to be "mighty in the Scriptures" than puny. But you explain what you do know, and forget about the "results."

"God did this for me. Hallelujah! He can save you too. Repent and believe." What does it mean to repent? You know, if you've repented. What does it mean to believe? You know, if you have believed. "Go to church. Share the fellowship. Join the feast. Listen to Jesus."

How did Philip evangelize? He pointed the Ethiopian eunch to Christ.

Because we don't know a man's heart, we don't know (even when we think we do) when one passes from death to life--what is the "tipping point." There are thousands who were drawn to faith, who look back and honestly say, "a year ago when I started coming here I was not (to my knowledge) a Christian. Today I believe I am by God's grace. When did my conversion take place? How can I fix the moment? I cannot. Who cares? I know I am saved because right now I am trusting wholeheartedly on Christ for salvation and no other. He is my King and Savior."

No one should ever trust in a past "conversion experience." The only "saving experience" that has any meaning at all is the one you are experiencing RIGHT NOW.


----------



## larryjf (Jul 6, 2005)

This linke helped me. It is "Puritan Evangelism" by "J.I. Packer" ...
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Puritan Evangelism/JIPackerPuritanEvangelism.htm


----------



## just_grace (Jul 6, 2005)

*Funny thing...*

I have no problem in telling anyone about Jesus. I am a Christian, and after I have told them that from the outset they cannot think or expect anything from me that does not proceed from my initial statement, for good or bad, hopefully for the good.

May I never be ashamed of Christ. Hope that makes sense. I am dead to the world, why should I worry about what it thinks of me?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 6, 2005)

I think it is important to distinguish between preaching (proclamation of the gospel, ie., evangelism) which is restricted to those who are ordained or licensed lawfully (because the proclamation of the gospel involves the authority of the church as is evident in the Great Commission) and witnessing which is the duty of all Christians in the sense of being salt and light, letting our good works glorify our Father in Heaven, and being ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within us. Laymen are not called to evangelize, but woe unto those who are _called_ to preach the gospel if they do not do so. The best thing laymen can do is witness to the faith by word and deed, and invite others to church, to whom are given the oracles of life and wherein is the respository of truth and outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. And pray, pray, pray for the blessing of God upon the proclamation of the gospel. And if you read the Directory for Family Worship prepared by the Westminster Assembly, you will note that they attribute (humanly speaking, under the power of the Holy Spirit) the key to successful national reformation to family worship.


----------



## JeremyConrad (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...this thread will turn into another credobaptist/paedobaptist debate...



Joe,

I don't mind posting another thread that focuses on paedobaptism and covenantal regeneration. But I'm not arguing the fact that families were included in this number of "thousands" added to the faith because of a believing parent, husband, etc. In fact, I'm sure there were!

However: Let's say that if two thousand people were added to the faith, and that there WERE entire families added after Peter's sermon due to covenant promises, and, for the sake of arguement, say that there were 10 people in each family. That would mean that 200 families of 10 people were added that day. This STILL begs the question, how did Luke know that those 200 husbands, fathers, etc. were regenerate?

Maybe Peter said, "Who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?", and 200 men raised their hands. I doubt it, but this is what I'm asking in the thread. How did Luke know that EVEN ONE person was added to the faith that day?

Jeremy

PS - I'm not being argumentative, am I?


----------



## JeremyConrad (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> Don't worry about giving instructions about "how to get saved," or some formulaic path...[just] "repent and believe."



I know what you're saying, but doesn't this sound like you're contradicting yourself? Besides, if, in order to be saved, you simply have to "repent and believe", you're back to the Arminian synergistic position. YES, I agree that you must "repent and believe", but not so you can be regenerate. It is BECAUSE you're regenerate that you do this.



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> Because we don't know a man's heart, we don't know (even when we think we do) when one passes from death to life--what is the "tipping point."
> 
> How can I fix the moment? I cannot. Who cares? I know I am saved because right now I am trusting wholeheartedly on Christ for salvation and no other. He is my King and Savior."



Luke picked a fixed point in time when these thousands were added to the faith. You see, I'm not even arguing with you. I completely agree with what you're saying. I'm just trying to figure out how to bring together this dicotomy between "no one can know another's heart" and "thousands were added to the faith THAT DAY".

Jeremy

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by JeremyConrad]

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by JeremyConrad]


----------



## JeremyConrad (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> Laymen are not called to evangelize. The best thing laymen can do is witness to the faith by word and deed, and invite others to church.



Virginia,

What would you say in the case of my supervisors at work, a married couple, who have no knowledge of the Bible other than what they see in me? I've invited them to church many times, but they've never come with me. They ask me plenty of questions, though, about the Bible, about things they've seen on TV, about religion and about Christ. I do my best to answer these questions for them.

I am NOT ordained, but I started having a Bible study with them every two weeks. They're very interested and ask a lot more questions there. Am I not evangelizing? Should I not be having this Bible study since I'm not ordained? Should I just *complacently* keep asking them to church and do nothing else?

Jeremy


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



I pray God will work in the hearts of your supervisors. It may be that God will use this situation (ie., their contact with you) to open their hearts to the truth. However, I stand by my principled opposition to home Bible studies and other efforts at evangelizing or proclaiming the gospel apart from the authority of the church. 

Why not invite your pastor to teach the Bible study? By all means continue to witness to your supervisors. But God has ordained the means by which men are ordinarily saved and those means are through the church. Continue to invite them to church, if the occasion warrants, and if they are willing, there is much in the way of Biblical literature that you can provide them with. Pray with them, pray for them, and consider whether you might be called to ministry yourself. But also consider that the church is the channel through which salvation is ordinarily appointed by God.

Ultimately, their salvation is not in your hands. It is in God's hands. God has clearly put it in your heart to be concerned for their spiritual well-being, which is a very good thing, but remember that He is sovereign, and He, only He, can open their hearts. He has appointed the church to be the means of grace by which the gospel is made known to men. Your duty, as I see it, is to work within the means that He has provided towards that end. The highest end of our duty, of course, is not necessarily the salvation of men, but rather the glory of God, who is Lord over both the elect and the reprobate. We don't know who is who, but we do know that the church is the witness to the world by which the gospel is proclaimed. So our duty is to work within the church rather than outside the church.

From the Westminster Directory of Family Worship:



> III. As the charge and office of interpreting the holy scriptures is a part of the ministerial calling, which none (however otherwise qualified) should take upon him in any place, but he that is duly called thereunto by God and his kirk; so in every family where there is any that can read, the holy scriptures should be read ordinarily to the family; and it is commendable, that thereafter they confer, and by way of conference make some good use of what hath been read and heard.
> 
> VI. At family-worship, a special care is to be had that each family keep by themselves; neither requiring, inviting, nor admitting persons from divers families, unless it be those who are lodged with them, or at meals, or otherwise with them upon some lawful occasion.
> 
> VII. Whatsoever have been the effects and fruits of meetings of persons of divers families in the times of corruption or trouble, (in which cases many things are commendable, which otherwise are not tolerable,) yet, when God hath blessed us with peace and purity of the gospel, such meetings of persons of divers families (except in cases mentioned in these Directions) are to be disapproved, as tending to the hinderance of the religious exercise of each family by itself, to the prejudice of the publick ministry, to the rending of the families of particular congregations, and (in progress of time) of the whole kirk. Besides many offences which may come thereby, to the hardening of the hearts of carnal men, and grief of the godly.



[Edited on 7-6-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> Why not invite your pastor to teach the Bible study? By all means continue to witness to your supervisors. But God has ordained the means by which men are ordinarily saved and those means are through the church. Continue to invite them to church, if the occasion warrants, and if they are willing, there is much in the way of Biblical literature that you can provide them with. Pray with them, pray for them, and consider whether you might be called to ministry yourself. But also consider that the church is the channel through which salvation is ordinarily appointed by God.



Jeremy's pastor is an Arminian. Jeremy is far better equipped to evangelize his supervisors than his pastor is.



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Ultimately, their salvation is not in your hands. It is in God's hands. God has clearly put it in your heart to be concerned for their spiritual well-being, which is a very good thing, but remember that He is sovereign, and He, only He, can open their hearts. He has appointed the church to be the means of grace by which the gospel is made known to men. Your duty, as I see it, is to work within the means that He has provided towards that end. The highest end of our duty, of course, is not necessarily the salvation of men, but rather the glory of God, who is Lord over both the elect and the reprobate. We don't know who is who, but we do know that the church is the witness to the world by which the gospel is proclaimed. So our duty is to work within the church rather than outside the church.



When it comes to sharing the Gospel, it is impossible to do it "outside the church". When Jeremy, or I, or any other Christian shares Christ with people from the Scriptures, we act as Christ's ambassadors OF the church. 

If anyone has a clear opportunity to share the Gospel with someone, but they don't do it merely because they are not ordained, I think they are gravely sinning. What level of intelligence does it take to know the Gospel? . . . the intelligence of a child. And Jeremy FAR surpasses that. 

I'm pretty sure his supervisors are a lot more open to hearing the Gospel from him than they are to hearing it from Jeremy's Arminian pastor, whom they don't even know.

Keep up the good work, Jeremy!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Jeremy's pastor is an Arminian. Jeremy is far better equipped to evangelize his supervisors than his pastor is.



If Jeremy is part of an Arminian church, then that's a big problem. Christians ought to seek membership in a church that preaches the gospel. However, when I say that Bible studies should be lead by pastors or other ordained men, I am assuming the church in question is a gospel-preaching church, not an Arminian church. The principle of church authority in general still stands.



> When it comes to sharing the Gospel, it is impossible to do it "outside the church". When Jeremy, or I, or any other Christian shares Christ with people from the Scriptures, we act as Christ's ambassadors OF the church.
> 
> If anyone has a clear opportunity to share the Gospel with someone, but they don't do it merely because they are not ordained, I think they are gravely sinning. What level of intelligence does it take to know the Gospel? . . . the intelligence of a child. And Jeremy FAR surpasses that.
> 
> ...



Do you know what a parachurch is? It is an organization or ministry that attempts to fulfill functions of the church, yet outside the church. Likewise, are you acquainted with the house church movement? It is most certainly possible to preach the gospel or teach the Bible outside the church, yet it is not Biblically warranted to do so. 

There is a reason why the church ordains men who are called to the ministry. They are called, qualified and set apart to a holy task. Those who are not called to the task ought not to take up those responsibilities and that authority. Thus, only ordained men can preach the gospel, only ordained men can administer the sacraments, only ordained men can exercise church discipline. 

This is a Scriptural principle and one that is well articulated by the Westminster Standards. It is encapsulated in this verse: And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron, Heb. 5.4. See also Rom. 10.14-15. See also George Gillespie on this subject.

When Paul speaks of ambassadors of Christ (2 Cor. 5.20) he is specifically referring to ministers, not to laymen. "Faithful ministers are Christ's ambassadors, sent to treat with sinners on peace and reconciliation: they come in God's name, with his entreaties, and act in Christ's stead, doing the very thing he did when he was upon this earth, and what he wills to be done now that he is in heaven." (Matthew Henry)

As I have said, it is the duty of _every_ Christian to be prepared to give an answer for the hope that lies within us (1 Pet. 3.15). And it is our duty to support the work of the ministry by every lawful means according to our place and calling. But that is not preaching the gospel, that is witnessing. By words and by deeds we are all called to live the gospel, but not everyone is called to preach the gospel. The calling to preach the gospel is a function of the ministry of the church, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. Can we engage in functions of the church apart from the church? Yes. Can God providentially bring about good through such efforts? Yes. _Should_ we then take upon ourselves the tasks assigned to the church? No.

Westminster Larger Catechism:



> Q158: By whom is the word of God to be preached?
> A158: The word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted,[1] and also duly approved and called to that office.[2]
> 
> 1. I Tim. 3:2, 6; Eph. 4:8-11; Hosea 4:6; Mal. 2:7; II Cor. 3:6
> 2. Jer. 14:15; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4; I Cor. 12:28-29; I Tim. 3:10; 4:14; 5:22



[Edited on 7-7-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> ...



Our church has actually had a couple of them. I think that is a sign of the dangerous state my church is in. Although it is PCA, it leans toward a somewhat baptistic/fundamentalist mindset sometimes.

I hope my church is not representative of all PCA churches.


----------



## Robin (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by street preacher_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



Here's a springboard that may educate those adherents to the "altar call"...first, an altar in a true Church of Christ is an abomination. Why? Because Christ was slain on the final sacrificial "altar"...remember, the curtain was torn at that time? The idea of altar was done away...and replaced by the table of the Supper. The Supper where God's lambs receive the "sign and seal" of God's Promise to save them based on His Son's sacrifice. NOT the altar where WE offer a sacrifice or re-sacrifice Christ (as Rome insists.) 

Actually, the altar call is "Roman" by design....



Robin


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Here's a springboard that may educate those adherents to the "altar call"...first, an altar in a true Church of Christ is an abomination. Why? Because Christ was slain on the final sacrificial "altar"...remember, the curtain was torn at that time? The idea of altar was done away...and replaced by the table of the Supper. The Supper where God's lambs receive the "sign and seal" of God's Promise to save them based on His Son's sacrifice. NOT the altar where WE offer a sacrifice or re-sacrifice Christ (as Rome insists.)
> 
> Actually, the altar call is "Roman" by design....
> ...



Excellent point, Robin!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> ...


Jeremy, you asked a little earlier: "How does a reformed evangelist end his sermon?" I answered, "See you in church!"
Rick's question was "What does it look like... How does a Calvinist layman evangelize?" My answer has been consistent: be a witness of the great things God has done for you (1 Pet. 3:15).

But what if someone asks you at that moment "OK! I'm sure I need that same gift NOW?" (Maybe he's dying!) Can you tell them something? Sure, even if you don't know much, you can tell them to do what you did, "Repent and believe!" _Which is nothing less than a very condensed version of John the Baptist's, Jesus', Peter's, and Paul's own message, for example Acts:2:38ff._ There is nothing distinctly "Arminian" about the command--we leave the stuff we can't see (the work of the H.S.) to God.


> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> ...


Hey, I'm glad we're on the same sheet of music! But this isn't a hard question. We know because the _Spirit_ inspired Luke to inform us. He tells us in Acts 2 that He effectually called not less than thousands to saving faith from the first NT, post-ascencion sermon. I suggest that history teaches us that Pentecost was a "special occasion." And praise God there have been others. And will be again, I believe, if Christ tarries. But we won't have the same infallible guidance about the persons (and neither did Whitefield--but the proof was in the pudding, so to speak.)

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## JeremyConrad (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> ...this isn't a hard question. We know because the _Spirit_ inspired Luke to inform us...



You're absolutely right. But I doubt that Luke knew he was being Divinely inspired when he wrote this. Even if he DID know that, Theophilus didn't know it.

Here's my point:

1. One CAN know the specific time of one's *own* conversion or regeneration. Many of us can point to the specific time in our own life. 

2. Luke shows us that apparently one CAN know the specific time of another's conversion as well.

3. Since there IS a specific and fixed point of conversion and since you CAN know what that point is...what is that evidence? Luke actually SAW the evidence in thousands of people at one time.





Regarding the sinner's prayer as we discussed earlier:

A. Does anyone think that it is WRONG to pray it?

B. What if a person has truly been made alive in Christ and then prays the prayer?

C. What if the prayer is prayed in RESPONSE to what God has done?

_(Lord, I know I'm a sinner. I believe that You sent Your Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins. I place my faith in You and ask that You fill my heart completely with Your Spirit. Thank You for saving me. Thank You for loving me and dying for me even while I was living in sin. Thank You for the new life You've given me through Your Son. Amen.)_

Wow! What an awesome prayer of thankfulness - NOT because you think the prayer is what saved you, but because you've BEEN saved and want to offer this sacrifice of praise to the One who saves you.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> ...



I do not think Luke knew whether all these people were regenerate or not. Acts 2:41 just says, "Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day."

That is no different that someone saying "3000 people just joined my church". You rightly _assume_ regeneration, but you do not _know_ about the regenerate status of any given individual. Any one of those 3000 may have (and probably did) prove later to be an unregenerate covenant breaking apostate. There is no reason to think that 1 John 2:19 couldn't apply to individuals within these 3000, just as much as with any other individuals who join the church.



> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> 
> 
> Here's my point:
> ...



I disagree. (The apostle Paul may be an exception . . . but I think he is very much an exception.)

Rather, I would argue that MOST people do NOT know the specific time of their regeneration.



> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> 2. Luke shows us that apparently one CAN know the specific time of another's conversion as well.



I disagree with this statement even more. Again, look at 1 John 2:19. Or look at Matthew 7:22-23. There are many who _appear_ to be regenerate for a while, but then prove not to be. 

So, not only can we NOT know the time of another's conversion, we cannot even know _for sure_ that another person is converted. We can have excellent reasons to _believe_ so, but that doesn't mean we are always correct. Man can only judge outwardly. But God sees the heart directly. We cannot do that.



> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> 3. Since there IS a specific and fixed point of conversion and since you CAN know what that point is...what is that evidence? Luke actually SAW the evidence in thousands of people at one time.



The evidence he saw proved that those people became part of the visible church, but did not prove that they were all regenerate and became part of the invisible church. 



> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> 
> Regarding the sinner's prayer as we discussed earlier:
> 
> ...



If a person happens to choose to pray that prayer of their own accord, I have no problem with it. We should constantly be thankful to God for our salvation, and should thank Him for it throughout our lifetimes . . . not merely immediately after conversion. So, in that sense, we should all pray the "sinner's prayer" every day for the rest of our lives.

But I DO think it is WRONG to tell someone else to pray that prayer. 

First of all, we do not have Biblical precedent for it. Apparently the "sinner's prayer" was unneccessary throughout the New Testament, throughout the early church, and throughout the Reformation. We should fit our evangelism according to Biblical example. The apostles did not ask anyone to pray "the sinner's prayer".

Second, regardless of how you _intend_ a new Christian to pray the prayer, it dangerously lends itself to Arminian thinking, _especially_ with a new believer. It can be very easy for a person to look _back_ on their praying of "the sinner's prayer", and say, "That's when I became a Christian . . . and now that I'm a Christian for sure, I don't need to be concerned about a thing, because I can't lose my salvation." - - - This is "eternal security", as opposed to "perseverance of the saints", and it easily lends itself to antinomianism. 

The problem is that the person is finding assurance in the fact that they "prayed that prayer in the past", and so they now must be somehow magically protected by it. 

On the contrary, our only Biblical source of assurance is in our relationship with Christ NOW. If I am living rebelliously against Jesus TODAY, I have no right to try to glean ANY assurance from a magical "sinner's prayer" that I prayed in the past after walking down the aisle at a "revival".

So often, people push people into praying the "sinner's prayer", and then give them false assurance afterwards by saying, "Now you are a Christian!"

This is false, man-made assurance that is not Biblically based.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## JeremyConrad (Jul 7, 2005)

To argue both sides of the issue: So, are you saying that Luke was _assuming_ regeneration when he wrote that comment? Luke would not HAVE to assume if he was being Divinely inspired? 

Choice 1: Luke was Divinely inspired to write this comment, but had no hard evidence to make the claim to Theophilus (and ultimately to you and I). With no hard evidence, Luke still felt confident enough to write the comment because he _assumed_ regeneration. But why would Theophilus believe him not knowing Divine inspiration was involved?

Choice 2: Luke was Divinely inspired to write this comment, but he personally saw hard-and-fast evidence to make the claim to Theophilus and was not making an _assumption_. With this evidence, Luke felt confident in writing this comment to Theophilus knowing that he had personally seen the evidence.

Just a conjecture: Maybe the fact that a doctor wrote this gave Theophilus enough trust in Luke's writing that it didn't matter whether or not Luke saw evidence. If Luke said it, he would believe it.

Regarding the sinner's prayer, I wholeheartedly agree! I just wanted to see where people stand on this issue.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> To argue both sides of the issue: So, are you saying that Luke was _assuming_ regeneration when he wrote that comment? Luke would not HAVE to assume if he was being Divinely inspired?
> 
> Choice 1: Luke was Divinely inspired to write this comment, but had no hard evidence to make the claim to Theophilus (and ultimately to you and I). With no hard evidence, Luke still felt confident enough to write the comment because he _assumed_ regeneration. But why would Theophilus believe him not knowing Divine inspiration was involved?
> ...



I think everything becomes clearer if you notice that Luke didn't say _anything_ about their regeneration! He just said that 3000 were "added to their number" (i.e. "joined the church").

So I think all the questions about "hard and fast evidence" are moot. Luke wasn't even talking about the objective states of the people's hearts. He certainly had definitive evidence that the 3000 people had joined the visible church. And that's what he was talking about. He did not have infallible evidence that all 3000 were definitely regenerate, and he did not claim to have such knowledge.



> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> Regarding the sinner's prayer, I wholeheartedly agree! I just wanted to see where people stand on this issue.



Cool!


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> So often, people push people into praying the "sinner's prayer", and then give them false assurance afterwards by saying, "Now you are a Christian!"
> 
> This is false, man-made assurance that is not Biblically based.
> ...



Just so you know, I am in agreement with pretty much everything you've written. I have one question, however: When, and under what circumstances _can_ you tell a person "now you are a Christian"?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



Great question. In the back of my mind I was thinking I shouldn't have worded my paragraph quite the way I did . . . and I was right.

The word "Christian" is a multi-faceted term. It seems to be used in Scripture in reference to members of the _visible_ church. But of course the assumption is that a member of the visible church is also a member of the invisible church . . . i.e. regenerate. (But of course this is not always the case.) But it's common today to unequivocally draw an equals sign between the word "Christian" and "regenerate". I don't have any problem with this, just as long as we're careful. Obviously, when I used the word "Christian" in my quoted statement at the very top of this post, I was equating it with the term "regenerate".

And as long as by "Christian" we mean "certainly regenerate", then I do not think we can _ever_ tell that to another person with absolute certainty. Rather, if a person appears to be a new believer, we can say, "You are regenerate _if you believe such and such . . ._" 

We cannot be 100% certain that a person is regenerate, even if they are church members in good standing for 20 years. So much less can we know it for certain the moment after a person makes his/her first profession of faith.

Anyway, to answer your question, I am a little uncomfortable about saying "Now you are a Christian!" after a person professes faith, prays a prayer, etc. I don't want a person to think I am guaranteeing their regeneration because I saw them *do* or *say* something. 

In those circumstances, I would rather just tell them what regeneration means, what salvation is, and what you have to believe to be saved. Then leave it up to the Holy Spirit to give the person assurance.

Later, in the context of fellow believers talking about one another in Church, I don't have a problem with saying, "We're Christians", or "Come on, you're a Christian, so . . .", or "My friend Bob is a Christian", etc. --- I don't mind talking that way because I have really good reasons to _assume_ I'm correct, and that particular context of talking doesn't lend itself to false assurance, I think. I don't think Jack is going to go to church for months, and then hear me say, "Jack's a Christian" in a conversation, and then place his assurance of salvation upon that moment. But he very well *may* do that if I make the same statement after he prays "the sinner's prayer".

I hope I've made the distinction clear. Maybe everything would be less confusing if we just said "regenerate" every time we meant "regenerate", and just said "visible church member" otherwise. But then again, even the Bible doesn't talk like that. Scripture is not quite the systematic theology textbook that we might like it to be. A single word can have different meanings depending on different contexts.


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 7, 2005)

Thanks, Joseph. Great answer.


----------



## JeremyConrad (Jul 7, 2005)

I agree.


----------



## Robin (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> Just so you know, I am in agreement with pretty much everything you've written. I have one question, however: When, and under what circumstances _can_ you tell a person "now you are a Christian"?



Back again...

To Rick's good question...as I recall, in Scripture (OT and NT) true believers adhered to creeds and confessions. Yes, there are creeds in the Bible...."Hear, O Israel... our Lord is One" is an example of an ancient Biblical creed. Another is "Jesus Christ is Lord" - which back then, was dangerous to say (and never glibly expressed like today) because you'd be put to death by the Romans. This is why church membership via confessional standards is not only historic but really essential and Biblical to identify a TRUE "visible Church." Jeremy may not realize, but for the last hundred years or so in America, traits of hyper-individualism has tainted the church...so much so...that I'm sure he might be surprised to learn that throughout the entire history of the church, there have always been formal memberships assigning to confessions and creeds. (These days they call it "organized" religion. ???) (Church government is in the Bible.)

Also notable is:

The admonition in Scripture to "repent and believe" does not mean that in order to become a Christian, one must first refrain from sin (works) then believe. Obviously, (due to contexts) it actually means that the language there is a "summons" as in a judicial "call" --- repenting, being the command to change one's thinking from unbelief to belief. This summons is only as effective as the purity of the Gospel proclaimed before it. For the Gospel, alone, has the power to impart faith and life to a dead soul.

As in the case of the 3,000 (Acts 2:37) note that their reaction to what Peter previously proclaimed (the Gospel) was "what shall we do?" Here, evidence of faith is already at work in their hearts (as they were cut to the quick.) After this question, Peter continues with "repent and believe."

The Gospel (by design) is a _judicial summons_ to effectually call sinners to life and repentence. Sadly, most Christians doubt its power and/or are ashamed of a dead Rabbi coming back to life and/or are distracted by their own self-interests.

There's more to this, also....

r.


----------



## Robin (Jul 7, 2005)

Acts 2:41-47

So those who *received his word* were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the *apostle's teaching* and fellowship, to the *breaking of bread and the prayers*. And *awe* came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, *attending the temple* together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with *glad and generous* hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And *the Lord added to their number* day by day those who were being saved.

Some signs of a True Church....the truly converted....notice, the Lord added to their numbers via the apostle's teaching and their adherence to the content of what Peter proclaimed. (Not 10-tips to do XYZ.)

r.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> As in the case of the 3,000 (Acts 2:37) note that their reaction to what Peter previously proclaimed (the Gospel) was "what shall we do?" Here, evidence of faith is already at work in their hearts (as they were cut to the quick.) After this question, Peter continues with "repent and believe."



Robin, 

Thank you for making this excellent point. I know that it's true about salvation in general, but I appreciate being reminded of its truth directly from this passage in Acts.


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 8, 2005)

Andrew-

Could you clarify some things for me? You say that being a witness and preaching the gospel are two completely different things. How so exactly? I agree that only the ordained are called to the office of preaching. But where in scripture do we get the principle that only the ordained can evangelize? If we are witnessing as layman, this seems to be at least a form of evangelism. Ephesians 4:11 seems to contradict any idea of evangelism as being restricted to preachers. I would say say that only the ordained could be called to an office of evangelist (i.e. Billy Graham), but this does not mean that a believer cannot share the gosepl at all if he is only a layman. Being a witness in word and deed and not sharing the gospel means what? What does it mean for us to respond with the reason for our hope? Is this something other than the gospel that we must share?
In the context of your principled convictions, how do you deal with Acts 8:1 and 8:4? Is there not a difference between preaching the gospel, and the office of preacher? What about Matt. 28:18-20? How does this fit into your objection of lay evangelism?


Hypothetical situation:
If a person who is a christian is at the deathbed of their parent who is not a christian, is that person not allowed to share the gospel with the parent because they are not ordained? Are they only allowed to express the character of Christ in action and speech? Would that person have to wait until an ordained minister showed up and have him share the gospel? What if that ordained minister got stuck in traffic and the parent died before he could preach to him? What should the minister then say to the child?

I am just trying to understand what exactly you are saying.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Andrew-
> 
> Could you clarify some things for me? You say that being a witness and preaching the gospel are two completely different things. How so exactly?



Preaching the gospel is an authoritative proclamation of the gospel and is limited to those who are called (by God and by the church) and ordained as the Westminster Larger Catechism says (#158) (for example, men can preach but women cannot -- why? because it is a function of church authority to preach the gospel). Witnessing to the gospel is simply the duty of every Christian which means doing good works that others might see them and glorify our Father in Heaven, speaking the truth in love at all times, and being ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within us. 



> I agree that only the ordained are called to the office of preaching. But where in scripture do we get the principle that only the ordained can evangelize? If we are witnessing as layman, this seems to be at least a form of evangelism. Ephesians 4:11 seems to contradict any idea of evangelism as being restricted to preachers.



Ephesians 4.11 speaks to the office of an evangelist, which was a temporary office which has ceased. See Brian Schwertley.



> I would say say that only the ordained could be called to an office of evangelist (i.e. Billy Graham), but this does not mean that a believer cannot share the gosepl at all if he is only a layman. Being a witness in word and deed and not sharing the gospel means what? What does it mean for us to respond with the reason for our hope? Is this something other than the gospel that we must share?



I would never suggest that a believer could not tell an unbeliever about the gospel. The common vernacular today, however, in regards to "sharing" the gospel implies anybody can proclaim the gospel to anyone. Evangelism is the proclamation of the gospel with authority. "Thus saith the Lord." Ministers are called, qualified and equipped to do this. Laymen are not. Laymen are called to point others to the church where they can hear the gospel preached with authority. 



> In the context of your principled convictions, how do you deal with Acts 8:1 and 8:4?



See Matthew Henry: They were all scattered abroad (v. 1), *not all the believers, but all the preachers,* who were principally struck at, and against whom warrants were issued out to take them up.



> Is there not a difference between preaching the gospel, and the office of preacher?



There is of course a difference the _act_ of preaching and the _office_ of preacher. But the act of preaching is confined to the office, Heb. 5.4, WLC #158. 



> What about Matt. 28:18-20? How does this fit into your objection of lay evangelism?



See this previous thread and in particular this article. The Great Commission is specifically given to the officers of Christ's church, not to all believers in general. 



> Hypothetical situation:
> If a person who is a christian is at the deathbed of their parent who is not a christian, is that person not allowed to share the gospel with the parent because they are not ordained? Are they only allowed to express the character of Christ in action and speech? Would that person have to wait until an ordained minister showed up and have him share the gospel? What if that ordained minister got stuck in traffic and the parent died before he could preach to him? What should the minister then say to the child?
> 
> I am just trying to understand what exactly you are saying.



This is a pretty extreme example. Again, however, any believer can and should _witness_ by word and by deed. They should _testify_ of the grace of God working in them. They should _pray_ for their parent. They can _read_ or _sing_ the word of God to their parent. But preaching and witnessing/testifying/praying/reading/singing are not the same thing. As the Confession, salvation is ordinarily not found outside the church, and only the church has authority to preach. Are there exceptions to this rule? Yes. The thief on the cross is an example. But they are rare.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 8, 2005)

Andrew, how do you differentiate between teaching the Gospel "with authority" and sharing the Gospel "without authority"?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Andrew, how do you differentiate between teaching the Gospel "with authority" and sharing the Gospel "without authority"?



Joseph, If you read Brian Schwertley's article I think the distinction will become evident. I have previously referred to the example of qualifications for preachers (men may preach, women -- and children -- may not, for example). Those qualifications exist to set apart men for a special office. Preachers are ambassadors of Christ, sent under his charge (for laymen may goeth a warfare on their own charges, I Cor. 9.7, but not ministers) to proclaim the good news, baptize and make disciples. This gets at the heart of what is involved in ordination. The one who is ordained is 1) chosen by God 2) called by the church 3) qualified according to Biblical standards 4) equipped to teach 5) approved of men and 6) invested with authority to administer sacraments and exercise church discipline. The authority to preach is linked by God's Word in the Great Commission and elsewhere to the authority to administer sacraments and exercise church discipline. That connection is highly significant (see the Westminster Fomr of Presbyterian Church Government on pastors). Laymen, however, do not have authority to do any such thing and however gifted they may be they lack the commission of Christ and his Church and the authority that comes with it. Only a general duty applies to all believers to live and speak in accordance with the law of God, and the gospel, in all situations. 

Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government:



> Touching the Doctrine of Ordination.
> 
> NO man ought to take upon him the office of a minister of the word without a lawful calling.
> 
> ...



Brian Schwertley:



> ...every example of gospel preaching in the book of Acts is by ordained men....When discussing the preaching of Philip the evangelist, Luke uses the word kerrusso which signifies a heralding or a public proclamation of the gospel. While all Christians should explain the good news of who Christ is and what He has accomplished to their friends and acquaintances, only ordained gospels preachers are to publicly preach the word and administer the sacraments. The reason there is so much misunderstanding today regarding who is to go is that many people confuse the task of evangelism with the much more comprehensive task of discipling the nations. Discipling the nations involves church planting, the sacraments, an established preaching ministry, church discipline and so on. While all believers should evangelize, only some are called upon to go to foreign lands to establish churches.


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Preaching the gospel is an authoritative proclamation of the gospel and is limited to those who are called (by God and by the church) and ordained as the Westminster Larger Catechism says (#158) (for example, men can preach but women cannot -- why? because it is a function of church authority to preach the gospel). Witnessing to the gospel is simply the duty of every Christian which means doing good works that others might see them and glorify our Father in Heaven, speaking the truth in love at all times, and being ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within us.



What is this truth that we are to speak? Something other than the gospel? What is the answer for the hope that lies within us? Something other than the gospel?



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Ephesians 4.11 speaks to the office of an evangelist, which was a temporary office which has ceased.



So not only is B. Graham's arminianism wrong, but his role as an evangelist is wrong too? 



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Evangelism is the proclamation of the gospel with authority.



Agreed. But whose authority? The minister's or Christ's? Since Christ's authority is _through_ the officers of the church (not passed on to them), could not the officers equip the layman to proclaim this gospel in a non-formal preaching capacity? Don't all christians have the authority of Christ in some sense?




> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> See Matthew Henry: They were all scattered abroad (v. 1), *not all the believers, but all the preachers,* who were principally struck at, and against whom warrants were issued out to take them up.



I respect Matthew Henry but unfortunately he is not here for me to ask him further about his statement here. Where in these verses do we get the idea that "all" means "ordained preachers"? The scripture says that all of the church was scattered, not all of the preachers. Is there something in the greek that translates church here as strictly ordained officers? I just read Calvin's commentary, and he does not seem to agree with Henry here.



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> There is of course a difference the _act_ of preaching and the _office_ of preacher. But the act of preaching is confined to the office, Heb. 5.4, WLC #158.



If the act of preaching is confined to the office of preaching, then why is Philip, in the office of evangelist, preaching? And why are fathers responsible for sharing the gospel with their children? Or can non-ordained fathers only point their kids to the church if they want to hear the gospel?




> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> See this previous thread and in particular this article. The Great Commission is specifically given to the officers of Christ's church, not to all believers in general.



I am not convinced. I agree with what Patrick said in that thread. And Schwertley's article is a polemic against fundamentalists and dispensationalists. I am neither of these. One does not have to be either of those groups to disagree with his position. It could be the case that his view is an overreaction to the fundy/Dispensational view.



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> This is a pretty extreme example. Again, however, any believer can and should _witness_ by word and by deed. They should _testify_ of the grace of God working in them. They should _pray_ for their parent. They can _read_ or _sing_ the word of God to their parent.



I do not think it is an extreme example. Anything can happen in God's providence. 

If a layman can read and sing the word of God to their parent, is this not in a sense preaching the gospel to them? Or can they only read and sing the parts that do not touch on the gospel? 

If only the ordained can teach and preach, even in the broad sense of those terms, then what do parents do with their kids in family worship? Not all fathers are ordained to teaching or preaching offices in the church, but all fathers are called to teach the gospel to their kids. Your position seems inconsistent to me.



[Edited on 7-9-2005 by RAS]


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Brian Schwertley:
> 
> 
> ...



This only proves what I am saying. Notice his distinction between discipling and evangelizing.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> What is this truth that we are to speak? Something other than the gospel? What is the answer for the hope that lies within us? Something other than the gospel?



We are to speak the truth in love. That includes the gospel message. But with all due respect I think you are missing the difference between preaching and speaking. When the pastor preaches a sermon it is to be received "as the word of God" (WLC #160). Of course, every one of us is to speak according to the principles of the Word of God, but proclaiming the gospel is a function of the church, the repository of the truth, not ordinary laymen. Matthew Henry:



> Every Christian is bound to answer and apologize for the hope that is in him. Christians should have a reason ready for their Christianity, that it may appear they are not actuated either by folly or fancy. This defence may be necessary more than once or twice, so that Christians should be always prepared to make it, either to the magistrate, if he demand it, or to any inquisitive Christian, who desires to know it for his information or improvement.





> So not only is B. Graham's arminianism wrong, but his role as an evangelist is wrong too?



I don't recall his ordination status, but the office of evangelist has ceased. And yes, his Arminianism is wrong. 



> Agreed. But whose authority? The minister's or Christ's? Since Christ's authority is _through_ the officers of the church (not passed on to them), could not the officers equip the layman to proclaim this gospel in a non-formal preaching capacity? Don't all christians have the authority of Christ in some sense?



Yes, we all stand on the Word of God, even when the church becomes a synagogue of Satan and we find ourselves in opposition to the church as Martin Luther did. But the authority of Christ is vested in those whom he has called and sent in a way that it different and more compelling than those who are not called to be his ambassadors.



> I respect Matthew Henry but unfortunately he is not here for me to ask him further about his statement here. Where in these verses do we get the idea that "all" means "ordained preachers"? The scripture says that all of the church was scattered, not all of the preachers. Is there something in the greek that translates church here as strictly ordained officers? I just read Calvin's commentary, and he does not seem to agree with Henry here.



Did you read Brian Schwertley on this subject? There is simply no reason to think that everyone who was scattered preached the gospel. If that's true then women and children preached the gospel too. That would contradict the qualifications for the office of preacher.



> If the act of preaching is confined to the office of preaching, then why is Philip, in the office of evangelist, preaching? And why are fathers responsible for sharing the gospel with their children? Or can non-ordained fathers only point their kids to the church if they want to hear the gospel?



Philip as an evangelist was ordained and commissioned to preach. The office of evangelist, though it has ceased, is included in the office of minister, much like the diaconal office is included in the office of elder. 

Fathers are commanded in Scripture to teach their children. But if you look at the Directory for Family Worship it says this:



> III. As the charge and office of interpreting the holy scriptures is a part of the ministerial calling, which none (however otherwise qualified) should take upon him in any place, but he that is duly called thereunto by God and his kirk; so in every family where there is any that can read, the holy scriptures should be read ordinarily to the family; and it is commendable, that thereafter they confer, and by way of conference make some good use of what hath been read and heard. As, for example, if any sin be reproved in the word read, use may be made thereof to make all the family circumspect and watchful against the same; or if any judgment be threatened, or mentioned to have been inflicted, in that portion of scripture which is read, use may be made to make all the family fear lest the same or a worse judgment befall them, unless they beware of the sin that procured it: and, finally, if any duty be required, or comfort held forth in a promise, use may be made to stir up themselves to employ Christ for strength to enable them for doing the commanded duty, and to apply the offered comfort. In all which the master of the family is to have the chief hand; and any member of the family may propone a question or doubt for resolution.





> I am not convinced. I agree with what Patrick said in that thread. And Schwertley's article is a polemic against fundamentalists and dispensationalists. I am neither of these. One does not have to be either of those groups to disagree with his position. It could be the case that his view is an overreaction to the fundy/Dispensational view.



I respect your opinion but firmly disagree.



> I do not think it is an extreme example. Anything can happen in God's providence.



We are speaking of what is normative. That is not a normative situation. 



> If a layman can read and sing the word of God to their parent, is this not in a sense preaching the gospel to them? Or can they only read and sing the parts that do not touch on the gospel?



The word of God is for all. That is not inconsistent with the principle that only ordained men are called preach, teach and publically read the Scriptures, as the Westminster Standards state. You do not need to keep implying that my position means that ordinary Christians are to avoid talking about the gospel. I have said otherwise repeatedly. Please understand that.



> If only the ordained can teach and preach, even in the broad sense of those terms, then what do parents do with their kids in family worship? Not all fathers are ordained to teaching or preaching offices in the church, but all fathers are called to teach the gospel to their kids. Your position seems inconsistent to me.
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 7-9-2005 by RAS]



Again, read the Directory for Family Worship. The Westminster Assembly delved into all of these issues. I have cited them repeatedly because they addressed the significance of ordination in multiple authoritative writings. 

My view is consistent with the Westminster Standards and the historic Reformed understanding of ordination and gospel preaching.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> But with all due respect I think you are missing the difference between preaching and speaking.



Please explain to me what the difference is between proclaiming (preaching) and speaking?

Doesn't one have to speak in order to proclaim?



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Did you read Brian Schwertley on this subject?



Yes, I did read it. But I am interacting with you, not him. And even if I agreed with him, it doesn't prove he is right. 




> _Originally posted by RAS_
> I am not convinced. I agree with what Patrick said in that thread. And Schwertley's article is a polemic against fundamentalists and dispensationalists. I am neither of these. One does not have to be either of those groups to disagree with his position. It could be the case that his view is an overreaction to the fundy/Dispensational view.





> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I respect your opinion but firmly disagree.



What part of this do you disagree with?



> _Originally posted by RAS_
> If a layman can read and sing the word of God to their parent, is this not in a sense preaching the gospel to them? Or can they only read and sing the parts that do not touch on the gospel?





> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The word of God is for all. You do not need to keep implying that my position means that ordinary Christians are to avoid talking about the gospel. I have said otherwise repeatedly. Please understand that.



Andrew, brother, I sense that you are getting irritated with me? I never implied these things about you. When I said your position seems inconsistent, I meant inconsistent with other things you've said, not with the reformed faith. Example: you say that laymen are not to preach the gospel, then you say that they can sing and read the gospel to others. My question was simply, what is the difference? The gospel is the gospel, regardless of means expressed. If I asked you to explain the gospel to me right now, and you did, then we could say that you shared, or preached, or proclaimed the gospel to me. This would not mean that you are a Preacher with a capital P. You can do this without being in the office of preacher. That is all I am saying, and I was asking you questions because it seems as if you are saying that you couldn't even preach the gospel to me in this sense since you are not ordained. Am I making sense?

Do you think that I am denying the confessions and reformed faith? I will willingly subject myself to examination by the elders on this board to see if I am. As in my last post, I am only saying what Schwertly says in his article (what I highlighted in bold).

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by RAS]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 8, 2005)

The puritans, blessed precisionists that they were, distinguished Preaching (used in the Scriptures) _as a technical term_ from all other forms of speaking. That is the distinction that I believe VH is getting at. The terminology was borrowed from the language of civil law and government. Caesar (or kings) had "heralds." These were not mailmen. They were mouthpieces, officers of the government. When they spoke _authoritatively_ they spoke with the voice of Caesar. That authoritative speech was _Caesar_ speaking. It was called "heralding" or "proclaiming". In our Bibles the words are "preach" and "preaching". They had no other authority. They could not say anything they weren't authorized to say.

Preachers are Jesus' heralds. They have an official commision (ordination) and a specific message--the gospel. No one but a herald could speak with the authority of Caesar. No one but a preacher can speak with the authority of Christ. But Joe can tell you what he heard the herald say. He can tell you what he read off the placard that the city officials nailed up after the herald read it. And Joe can tell you what the preacher said on Sunday, and that he'll be back next Sunday to say it again. And he can tell you what he read in the Bible.

But there is no "woe" unto him for "not preaching the gospel" as there was for Paul, and for every gospel minister who fails to do his duty. He should speak of what great things God has done for him. He should encourage others to the same fountain of living water. He should point them to Jesus. He should speak of Jesus. But just as his authority as a law-abiding citizen is limited to advising his fellow man about the law (not arresting them, announcing the official government sentence over them), so his authority to proclaim has basic limitations.

How does one know he has to listen to the man in the uniform? That uniform and badge or robe of office are supposed to credential him--to give evidence that he is not just some busybody setting himself up as an officer. I'm sure anyone impersonating a herald of Caesar ran the risk of a death sentence. Jesus semms pretty lenient these days (but ask the seven sons of Sceva if impersonating the authority of Jesus was any fun).

All that I think is being said is: Preaching is specifically a function of lawful authority. In extreme cases sidewalk strollers can make a citizen's arrest. And we should go as far as we can as laymen to reach a man in extremity with the gospel. But the notion that we all have to have the "Roman's road" memorized is a pious fiction. It's wrong first for "formulizing" the gospel. And second it produces false guilt in many who fumble at speech presentation. But they may not be gifted nor called! 

Being trained to share your faith is a GOOD THING. But your obligation, AND YOUR AUTHORITY stops right there, if you are not a minister of the gospel.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 8, 2005)

EXACTLY, Bruce!! Thank you! You have said it much better than I. Much obliged!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Please explain to me what the difference is between proclaiming (preaching) and speaking?
> 
> Doesn't one have to speak in order to proclaim?



I defer to Bruce's response. 



> _Originally posted by RAS_
> I am not convinced. I agree with what Patrick said in that thread. And Schwertley's article is a polemic against fundamentalists and dispensationalists. I am neither of these. One does not have to be either of those groups to disagree with his position. It could be the case that his view is an overreaction to the fundy/Dispensational view.
> 
> 
> ...



I disagree that Brian Schwertley is overreacting to a "fundy/Dispensational" view. He is reacting (rightfully) to the view espoused by many in Reformed churches today that anyone can preach the gospel and that the Great Commission is directed towards all believers alike rather than church officers.



> Andrew, brother, I sense that you are getting irritated with me? I never implied these things about you. When I said your position seems inconsistent, I meant inconsistent with other things you've said, not with the reformed faith. Example: you say that laymen are not to preach the gospel, then you say that they can sing and read the gospel to others. My question was simply, what is the difference? The gospel is the gospel, regardless of means expressed. If I asked you to explain the gospel to me right now, and you did, then we could say that you shared, or preached, or proclaimed the gospel to me. This would not mean that you are a Preacher with a capital P. You can do this without being in the office of preacher. That is all I am saying, and I was asking you questions because it seems as if you are saying that you couldn't even preach the gospel to me in this sense since you are not ordained. Am I making sense?



Please pardon me if it seemed that I was testy in my response. I feel like I have been saying the same thing over and over. The distinctions between preaching and reading the Bible or singing a psalm to me seem quite self-evident. Those are separate activities. In most churches there is a clear dividing line during the worship service between a sermon that is preached and a psalm that is sung. Psalm singing and Bible reading may take place outside of public worship. Preaching is _always_ done by ordained (or licensed/in-training) men under the official authority of the church. And it is fundamentally different than ordinary conversation. Again, the reference I cited from the Directory for Family Worship makes the distinction well: fathers may lead their families in worship and provide godly counsel, but they may not preach a sermon in family worship. Bruce addressed what preaching is admirably so I think I have nothing to add to that. Except to again quote the Westminster Larger Catechism:



> Q156: Is the word of God to be read by all?
> A156: Although all are not to be permitted to read the word publicly to the congregation,[1] yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves,[2] and with their families:[3] to which end, the holy scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.[4]
> 
> 1. Deut. 31:9, 11-13; Neh. 8:2-3; 9:3-5
> ...



If you or others are interested, I would commend Thomas Ridgeley's _Commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism_ wrt these particular points.



> Do you think that I am denying the confessions and reformed faith? I will willingly subject myself to examination by the elders on this board to see if I am. As in my last post, I am only saying what Schwertly says in his article (what I highlighted in bold).
> 
> [Edited on 7-9-2005 by RAS]



If you are in agreement with the Westminster Standards that *only ordained men can preach* the gospel, then our debate is at an end. 

P.S. Incidentally, as an aside, I am ordained (not as an elder, but as a deacon) though not serving in that capacity currently.


[Edited on 7-9-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## street preacher (Jul 9, 2005)

Right, How can we help God fulfill His plan? I know the alter call would definitely help God be more effective and efficient.


----------



## street preacher (Jul 9, 2005)

Andrew, I agree with you. It is the same thing concerning communion. It is the ordained ministers job to fence the table by not allowing just anyone to partake of that holy sacrament, not the lay people. The Pastor/Elders is to oversee all that goes on within the church and is responsible as under-shepherds, or representatives of Christ, to correct or to speak on those issues. So the Elders job includes more than just speaking on these things but, like you and the Scriptures say, this includes the Gospel to, and that they are the ones appointed for this.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by street preacher_
> Andrew, I agree with you. It is the same thing concerning communion. It is the ordained ministers job to fence the table by not allowing just anyone to partake of that holy sacrament, not the lay people. The Pastor/Elders is to oversee all that goes on within the church and is responsible as under-shepherds, or representatives of Christ, to correct or to speak on those issues. So the Elders job includes more than just speaking on these things but, like you and the Scriptures say, this includes the Gospel to, and that they are the ones appointed for this.



 Thanks, brother!


----------



## street preacher (Jul 9, 2005)

Andrew,I think that we can witness to others concerning what the Lord has done for us in saving us. For example, the early Christians in Jerusalem went out to do the work of the ministry by testifing about Jesus but I think that the preaching that you have mentioned is different. What say you?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by street preacher_
> Andrew,I think that we can witness to others concerning what the Lord has done for us in saving us. For example, the early Christians in Jerusalem went out to do the work of the ministry by testifing about Jesus but I think that the preaching that you have mentioned is different. What say you?



Yes, we are all called to witness to the glory of God and his work of grace in us. Being salt and light in this fallen world ought to make us stand out in a crowd. Lord willing, we all have providential situations where by word and by deed we can testify to the grace of God. Preaching, though, is a specific function given to ministers of Christ who proclaim the good news on his behalf and by his charge. 

There is a reason why the minister's sermon in church is different than a mere lecture or godly conversation between friends. Anyone can speak of the things of God, but there is special authority when a duly called and sent minister speaks (as Bruce put it) as the _herald_ of Christ.


----------



## street preacher (Jul 9, 2005)

I totally agree. Thanks brother for the confirmation!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by street preacher_
> I totally agree. Thanks brother for the confirmation!


----------



## JeremyConrad (Jul 11, 2005)

This just goes to show that you can agree with many parts of a confession and not all of it.  I subscribe to the WCF, but this part about not proclaiming the gospel "with authority" without ordination is hard for me to swallow. As is no musical instruments in church. But, you take the good with the bad, I guess.


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 18, 2005)

Andrew-

Sorry for my delayed response, my fiance was hospitalized all last week and had to tend to her and other serious matters that have recently come my way.

Anyways, I just came back to this thread after my last post and it seems that it is assumed I was debating you and disagreed with you and what others have said. My initial questions were for clarification, because it seemed that you were saying something other than what I and others were saying, and taking an extreme position. As the thread went on I was concerned that a distinction was being lost, so I asked further questions for clarification. For the record I agree with everything Bruce said, and ironically this was the very content I was trying to see if you were denying, because some of the things you were saying seemed to stray from what Bruce subsequently said. So without seeking a debate with you nor taking a position different from the confessions (as both seem to be assumed about me in this thread), I was only wanting clarification for my benefit in case I misunderstood something. I was searching to see if you were making an extreme separation, rather than a distinction, while you may have assumed I was commiting the error of confusing two things.

My position:
1. only those ordained to the office of pastor are called to preach
2. "preach" means "to proclaim", therefore if a layman reads Phillipians 3:9 to a dying ubelieving parent, in a certain sense that layman has "preached" the gospel; they have "proclaimed" it
3. if a layman sings a psalm to an unbeliever, and that psalm has the gospel in it, in a certain sense they have "preached" the gospel.
4. points 2 and 3 I think are to be distinguished from the concrete form of preaching from the scriptures that only ordained Pastors are allowed to do. This is the distinction I was concerned I was not seeing in what you were saying. Apparently I was not alone, because Joseph also was seeking the same clarification. We picked up something that seemed inconsistent with what Bruce said and I was trying to understand that. I recently come from a hyper-calvinist community that said some of the same things you seemed to be saying, and they used this as a way to avoid evangelising at all, in any form whatsoever. Needless to say this congregation has remained at a membership total of 100 or less for 20 years now. (Not a comment on small churches, just pointing out that after 20 years one would think there would be at least some numerical growth)
5. an analogy: we refer to public speakers as those who are called to go on the lecture circuit and publicly speak. But not all of us have to be public speakers to speak publicly. This is the distinction I was concerned was being denied in evangelism. Preachers are called to proclaim the gospel, and so are layman. But how they do so is what distinguishes the office from the general command.
6. as an aside, I think that the growth of "evangelism training" isn't so much to bring in souls, but rather so that Pastors do not have to do the work of evangelism and so that churches can grow numerically in membership with little or no concern for the fact that the more a church grows in substance the more the church will grow numerically almost by default simply because Christians live more effective lives of witness. 

Hope I have clarified myself, and I am glad we are in agreement.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Andrew-
> 
> Sorry for my delayed response, my fiance was hospitalized all last week and had to tend to her and other serious matters that have recently come my way.



Allan,

It's good to hear from you. I am so sorry to hear about your fiance. I hope that she is better now. And I pray that all is well now otherwise.



> Anyways, I just came back to this thread after my last post and it seems that it is assumed I was debating you and disagreed with you and what others have said. My initial questions were for clarification, because it seemed that you were saying something other than what I and others were saying, and taking an extreme position. As the thread went on I was concerned that a distinction was being lost, so I asked further questions for clarification. For the record I agree with everything Bruce said, and ironically this was the very content I was trying to see if you were denying, because some of the things you were saying seemed to stray from what Bruce subsequently said. So without seeking a debate with you nor taking a position different from the confessions (as both seem to be assumed about me in this thread), I was only wanting clarification for my benefit in case I misunderstood something. I was searching to see if you were making an extreme separation, rather than a distinction, while you may have assumed I was commiting the error of confusing two things.



I appreciate your clarification, brother. 



> My position:
> 1. only those ordained to the office of pastor are called to preach
> 2. "preach" means "to proclaim", therefore if a layman reads Phillipians 3:9 to a dying ubelieving parent, in a certain sense that layman has "preached" the gospel; they have "proclaimed" it
> 3. if a layman sings a psalm to an unbeliever, and that psalm has the gospel in it, in a certain sense they have "preached" the gospel.
> ...



I think I understand what you are saying. I grant that my definition of "preach" and "proclaim" and "evangelize" are probably stricter than yours (stricter being a value-neutral term). My preferred distinction is Preach (confined to the ordained)/Witness (given to all). By "evangelize," I refer to the proclamation of the gospel with authority in the Puritan sense that Bruce referred to. By "preach" and "proclaim" I mean that the gospel is spoken with the authority of the church behind it, in a way not possible for the unordained. By "witness" I mean that testimony that we all give by word and by deed according to 1 Peter 3.15 and other Scriptures which teach that our light should so shine before men. That includes helping the work of the ministry, inviting others to church, reading the Scriptures with others in appropriate contexts, etc. 

I don't believe that laymen are "off the hook" when it comes to sharing their faith. But I am strongly against the parachurch mentality which minimizes the office of minister and assumes that the Great Commission is given to all men and women to preach the gospel, thus bypassing the qualifications for minister set forth in Scripture. The distinction between the office and function of the minister vs. the duties of all believers is an important Puritan principle to uphold as is the concept that salvation is ordinarily found only inside the church, ie., through the preaching of the word, which is in fact a means a grace, unlike ordinary conversation. 

In my own experience, I have met people (laymen) who feel guilty if they don't preach a mini-sermon to the waitress who serves them at a restaurant or the bus driver who is chatting with them. But -- without minimizing our responsibility to bear a faithful witness at all times -- the onus is not on unordained to preach the gospel. I'm not at all against taking advantage of providential opportunities to speak a good word in due season. And I'm not suggesting that we be passive in all situations. God uses all sorts of means to lead people to himself. But he has ordained preaching by ordained gospel ministers to be the means of grace. That is my emphasis -- but not at all to the exclusion of actively witnessing as God gives us the opportunity, according to our place and station. 

I hope this is helpful. Cheers, and God bless!

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 19, 2005)

I'm a little late to this thread, but if you all would like some fine examples of Calvinistic evangelism, especially in light of the new neonomianism infecting our Reformed churches today (i.e. personal covenant faithfulness...) I would highly recommend sermons from the Marrow men, in particular, Boston and the Erskines, and the Marrow of Modern Divinity. Excellent specimens of Reformed evangelism and the Free Offer in action.


----------



## Herald (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



There seems to be two issues at hand: 1. Sound doctrine 2. Loving the brethren. Often we are zealous for upholding Sola Scriptura (as we should be), but our singular focus blinds us to meeting the needs of those who are hurting within our midst. We need to do # 2 without compromising # 1.

[Edited on 8-28-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Herald (Aug 27, 2005)

Sorry...it should be, "not compromise #1"


----------

