# Using the truth of John 6:44 in outreach



## Der Pilger (Dec 20, 2009)

Greetings all:

I think it was somewhere else on this board that I became aware of *this tract*.

I struggle with this kind of gospel presentation and honestly wonder about it. I'm not prepared to say it's wrong, but I'm not convinced that I should present the gospel to an unbeliever by essentially saying these two things: 

1.) You need to believe and repent.
2.) You cannot do either unless God regenerates you.

It's pretty obvious that we need to tell people the content of #1, but what about the second truth? Should we emphasize that to people at all? Does a person need to know truth #2 above, or to put it in stricter terms: If we don't communicate truth #2 are we preaching another gospel or communicating the gospel wrongly?

Here is the full text of the tract:



> The portrait on the front of this tract is of John Calvin. He is known for his teaching that occurred in the sixteenth century. A theme throughout his teaching was the gospel. Gospel means good news; but before you know the good news Calvin proclaimed, you must know the bad news. The Bible says a day of judgment is coming when you will stand before God and give an account of your life. God will judge your every thought, word, and deed. And if He finds sin, you will be cast into hell, as the punishment for your sins against Him. Sin consists of lying, stealing, lusting, jealousy, hatred, and blasphemy, to mention several. And since you have sinned against a holy God, hell awaits you. Although tragic, there's good news. Two thousand years ago, God the Father sent His Son Jesus Christ (fully God and fully man) to this earth. He lived the perfect life that you could not live. He was nailed to a cross, shed His blood, and was crucified taking upon Himself the wrath of God sinners deserve. Three days later, He rose from the dead. As a result of Jesus Christ's perfect life, shed blood, death and resurrecetion, you can have peace with God, have your sins forgiven, and inherit eternal life, but you must be "born again" (Jn. 3:3). Being born again is a supernatutal work that only God can do when He transforms your heart and gives you new desires. Once you are born again, God will enable you to repent (turn from your sins) and put your faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior. Evangelism Team


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 20, 2009)

We need to bring people to the Cross; this need not go through Geneva necessarily, nor does the name of Calvin need to be in the first sentence of an evangelistic tract. 

I would not use a tract like this. The first 3 sentences could all be deleted.

A few last thoughts: 

---The Gospel is more basic than the 5 points and one can preach the Gospel without preaching the 5 points.
---We need not speak of eternal decrees, but mainly need to concentrate on the plainest things (such as man's sinful state, the work of Jesus, and our response) when doing initial evangelism.




At least this tract isn't as tacky as the Calvin 1000 bill tract. YIKES.


----------



## jason d (Dec 21, 2009)

I've used these tracts in the past and like them better than most, especially the message cause it is consistent with my theology. I don't have a problem talking about regeneration or election if it comes up in a witnessing encounter and I don't see that Jesus (John 3) nor the apostles shied away from it either. Of course they didn't bring it up in every case but I don't think it is wrong.

Now-a-days I pass out more serious tracts though friends that I go witnessing with still use these "dollar bill" type of tracts and people really like them and have even asked for more and it helps them get into witnessing conversations.


----------



## Iconoclast (Dec 21, 2009)

I do not care for this tract because it obscures the issue. I looked at a few other tracts on the site and found that I do not care for the wording of them.

A person has to put the gospel in plain terms that they are comfortable with and that can be understood by the hearer.
Back to the OP.- The doctrines of grace can and are to be used in evangelism. No bible truth need be withheld *if*the conversation goes in that direction.
In general the order that the confessions of faith present are a good guide on what to present to unbelieving family ,friends, or those God puts in our path.
That the bible is the word of God is crucial to establish a groundwork to make a solid presentation and to follow up with.
That sin and death have entered as a result of the fall, leaving fallen men and woman as law breakers is also crucial.
That God has planned to save a multitude by the perfect life and law keeping ,substitutionary death ,and raising of The Son to sit on the throne and is currently doing so before the final judgment.
There is no need to back off from any question about God being in complete control of all things. We must be faithful and accurate with our response.
A section such as John 6:37-44 can be very effectively presented in several such instances. ie, 
1]God has purposed to save a multitude by being born from above. 
2]This multitude has been given to the Son by the Father.
3] *All* of these given to the Son shall *come*
4]And yet, No man can come,*unless* the Father which sent the Son draw him.
5]It is certain that at a point in time "all that are given will come" They will repent and they will believe by a God given faith and saving repentance.
6] If you have not come by a God given faith , you should be seeking God for mercy .

Something along this line is biblical and yet it highlights mans responsibility before a Holy God to savingly believe.
Questions about the condition of the heathen, infants who die, mentally handicapped persons can only correctly be answered by the doctrines of grace.
It falls upon you making the presentation to put it in plain speaking terms so that the hearer can read the verses you offer with understanding.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 21, 2009)

Isn't the _gospel_ *good* news?

So, it is good, and it is so whether or not a particular person believes it.

I agree with Pergamum. Tell the lost about Jesus, who he is, what he did. That's it. That's all we need to do; and the other stuff--about how God works in the background, what he will have to do to make a person receptive--none of that is especially relevant to the message of Christ.

The gospel isn't the good news about the recipient, or about what might happen to the recipient. What makes the gospel good news is the SUBJECT of the news, Jesus. He lived, he died, he rose again. 1Cor.15:3-4. Mixing up that factual gospel with the hypotheses concerning the variety of responses it generates is confusing categories.


----------



## JM (Dec 21, 2009)

$5 bucks a tract?


----------



## Jack K (Dec 21, 2009)

My first thought was to agree that the eternal decrees are probably not something to bring up at the start. Focus on the love of God in Christ at the cross. Call for faith and repentance.

BUT... back in John 3 Jesus gave an evangelistic talk to some guy named Nicodemus, and essentially began with God's sovereignty in salvation: "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Maybe Nic was one of those works-oriented Pharisees who would've turned a call to faith/repentance into something _he_ had to do, thus missing the point of the gospel. I know a lot of churchy Americans who're like that.

So, upon reflection I think some people in churchy cultures might need to be prompted to look for the Spirit's call to their heart, and reminded that deciding to say a prayer or starting to act good is not the same as conversion. Such truth disarms their self-sufficiency and makes them ready for the gospel of the cross (which Jesus did get around to with Nic).

I wouldn't do it in a tract, though.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 21, 2009)

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."

I think Jack's point is spot-on.

Jesus is speaking to people who claim to be religious, who are members of the one true church in the world at that time (Temple-Judaism), and who have been taught some Scripture, many (possibly most) from childhood.

He is also responding to people who are asking him questions, making their own claims, and who have been listening to him teach for a whole day (or more).

As a general tract for the masses, I can't see how it does much good evangelistically.

God uses the "odd verse" to convert some people (e.g. RCSproul); but a tract that calls men to repentance, but also uses its limited space to remind the reader that this material might not (probably won't?) do him any good--seems almost calculated to push people away, to glory in their rejection, and to increase pride when someone does seem to embrace "election."

Is it a tract about Jesus, or a tract about election? Is the goal to convert men to Christ, or convert them to a new form of self-perception?


----------



## Iconoclast (Dec 22, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Isn't the _gospel_ *good* news?
> 
> So, it is good, and it is so whether or not a particular person believes it.
> 
> ...



Hello Bruce, 
I am not sure I understand your point here;
1]



> The gospel isn't the good news about the recipient, or about what might happen to the recipient.



In Romans 1 Paul seems to address this differently,
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
It is the power of God, unto salvation- it is the power of God resulting in deliverance from the reigning power of sin. At that point it is good news to the sinner whom God saves.

2] You now give the historical facts in 1 Cor 15:3-4,and say that these facts by themselves are "the gospel". You said it this way:


> What makes the gospel good news is the SUBJECT of the news, Jesus. He lived, he died, he rose again.



However, if we would look more carefully at the text Paul seems to emphasize the covenant aspect and priestly work of the atonement as the "good news". He said it was that ;


> how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
> 
> 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:



That is he lived died and rose * according to the scriptures*
The work of our covenant head was according to the scriptures. The historical facts alone are not good news. 
The historic facts of the gospel applied to the sheep by the Spirit are the power of God resulting in salvation to the sheep. [ the recipients] The Head of the Church is not seperated from His body, those given by the Father in the covenant of redemption.
The truths of the doctrines of grace were openly spoken of and as a matter of fact , most often by Jesus to regular people as well as the religious.
Jn 3,jn4, Jn 6, Jn 8, jn 10

3] then you said:


> Mixing up that factual gospel with the hypotheses concerning the variety of responses it generates is confusing categories.


[/QUOTE]
In the parable of the sower we are told there are a variety of responses.
In the gospels Isa> is quoted several times explaining why it is many do not have a saving response, in that it is not given to them to-


> 37But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
> 
> 38That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
> 
> ...





> 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
> 
> 12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
> 
> ...




4] this part was also 


> about how God works in the background, what he will have to do to make a person receptive--none of that is especially relevant to the message of Christ.


 The unseen work of God is very relevant to the message of Christ. it might not be the first thing that comes up in speaking with a person about his lost condition,yet is right there below the surface at all times.
To explain that God has to give a new heart to allow someone to believe and that if and when he does, the sinner will repent and believe is central to the message.

Telling a lost person that there is new life available In Christ is at the heart of the gospel,as "the power of God"



> 4Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
> 
> 5For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
> 
> 6And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.


----------



## jason d (Dec 22, 2009)

Paul didn't have a problem speaking of God's sovereignty to Gentiles (Acts 17:26)


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 22, 2009)

Anthony,
Your response to my posts seems to be unfocused. But I will try to respond.

Regarding Rom.1: You are making no attempt to distinguish between WHAT Paul identifies as the gospel, and HOW the gospel is received. When he says, "the gospel IS...," he is NOT preparing to offer an immediate, concise definition of the gospel. He is getting ready to explain the theme of his treatise, that is: the purpose FOR the gospel. "*FOR* it is the power of God unto salvation [still hasn't individuated the purpose] UNTO everyone who believes [ah, here's the _application_ of the gospel, whatever _that_ is]."

You, yourself, even say the gospel is a "power" that "results" in salvation. At which time you say it "becomes" good news (to him). But you don't parenthesis the "to him," but seem to make that element essential to the very definition of the gospel.

Unless you acknowledge that the gospel is "good news" (that is, the very definition of the word is objectively true), you are not saying enough. No, the gospel is still the gospel whether it is "gospel" TO HIM BEING SAVED or not. And if we do not get this fact straight and right, we are going to corrupt the gospel.

Does the Person and Work of Christ [i.e. the gospel] have effect on individuals? Yes.
And was the Person and Work of Christ intended FOR individuals? Yes.

But WHAT HE DID is the gospel. WHY he did it is PRIOR to the gospel. HOW the gospel impacts ME is not the gospel. Misunderstanding on this issue is a _significant factor_ in the weakness of today's church. People are confusing the gospel on the one hand with appropriation of the gospel, and on the other hand with God's attitude or stance toward "the world" (or even individuals). Is there a "thread" that ties them all into a whole? Yes. But that thread is not the gospel itself.


Re. 1Cor.15:
Firstly, it is EXACTLY Paul's point that the gospel is the historic acts of God in Christ.

Secondly, "covenant" is an historic element.

Thirdly, "the Scriptures" are historic, publicly accessible documents, laying out the mission of Christ before it happens, and bearing witness through the events themselves that they were both predicted, and identifiable as the fulfillment of the predictions.

Fourthly, Paul appeals to LIVING WITNESSES of the events as subtantive proof that the events of Christ's Person and Work took place, and those witnesses and himself are the authoritative interpreters of the meaning of those events.

Once again, the fact that "Christ died [objective fact] for OUR sins [authoritative interpretation]" is Good News, no matter if ONE person believes it, and 99 reject it, or the other way around. No one is suggesting that the former statement should be expressed, and the latter not in some way. _So if your point is that *authoritative interpretation* needs to accompany the historic news, I say, "Amen."_

However, Paul is writing to persons who have already professed to believe the gospel. And we should not say to those who are outside the church, "Christ died for YOUR sins." We properly say to them, "Christ died for SINNERS, like you. Repent, and believe."


Your references to John's gospel are Jesus [standing there, speaking in history] calling to those before him to believe in the ONE sent into the world by God, standing there, talking to them. Accept his authority, his self-explanation.


Appealing to the parable of the sower does what? Shows us various _responses_ to the preaching of the Word/gospel. "Response" and "gospel" are ... the same thing in that parable, or different things? You tell me.


As for the rest, I'm already on record here as recognizing that "election" is tied into the plan and purpose of God for salvation, and should not be shied away from as if we can't talk about that to people in the context of evangelism. You didn't even make reference to Rom.9 which is part (the LAST part) of Paul's extensive presentation of his evangelistic message in the first 11 chapters of Romans.

If a person has come that far and still not believed in the Person and Work of Christ, and their questions/objections lead them to this point, first Paul rebuts them; and then he tells them to shut up and bow the knee, or they will be in Pharaoh's position.

But none of that is the "essential" gospel. All of it is MEANING of the good news: that God has sent Jesus into the world to live, die, and rise again. A man can die without ever understanding God's election, and go to heaven with faith in Christ. But he cannot go to heaven without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of God's promises [made in history] who came in history and did ... something.

WHAT he did could be printed in a newspaper. WHAT he did has received a variety of "interpretations." But only one of those interpretations should be believed. But even if it isn't, its still good news, and one day those who rejected it will wish they heard it rightly, along with those who never did hear that Good News (good, even though they never heard it).


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 22, 2009)

Thank you Bruce for this quote:



> But none of that is the "essential" gospel. All of it is MEANING of the good news: that God has sent Jesus into the world to live, die, and rise again. A man can die without ever understanding God's election, and go to heaven with faith in Christ. But he cannot go to heaven without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of God's promises [made in history] who came in history and did ... something.



The essential Gospel is basic, and to ride any hobby horse besides the Good News is to do a disservice in initial evangelism. We may mention many things, but we must be straight arrows and get the Good News to people who need it, i.e., there is no need to "lead" with Calvin or predestination or to mention the secret things of God or any secondary doctrine. We should speak the Gospel and make the Good News actually sound good.

The good is often the enemy of the best, and if you encounter a lost person on the street, they need to know of Jesus Christ primarily, not Calvin, decrees, etc.


----------



## Christopher88 (Dec 22, 2009)

JM said:


> $5 bucks a tract?



What ever happened to talking to people? So I agree with your question. 

I do not like tracts one bit, they do not speak the truth, they may have some scripture on it, but come on to someone who is not in the body, those scriptures make no sence. Tracts are a waste of God's money, there is a reason why we have a voice.


----------



## Iconoclast (Dec 22, 2009)

Pastor Buchanon,
Thank you once again for responding to my post. I found your response both helpful, and instructive.[as is mostly the case] I am in substantial agreement with what you have written,only you state it much clearer for the most part than I usually do
I might not have fully understood your first post,so the confusion was probably my mis-understanding to a certain extent. The other area where we might be looking at it a bit differently might be this;

The objective truth of 1 Cor 15 is certainly good news,as are all the revealed attributes and works of our Holy God.
When I think of this whole area of evangelism, the gospel, and our interaction with those who openly are opposing themselves and our Lord, somehow I think what is good news to us/at the same time is bad news to them if they remain in rebellion to Their Lord and Judge.
Like those who left the promise


> 1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
> 
> 2For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.


 This is where I get the idea that a promise left, "good news" rejected, becomes a promise of second death and eternal torment, bad news for the sinner apart from saving grace. It becomes a promise of full punishment without mercy.


> 29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
> 
> 30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
> 
> 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.



and again-


> 21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.



Paul speaks this way in 2cor2


> 14Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
> 
> 15For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
> 
> ...



Sometimes it becomes necessary to contrast the "good news" with the reality of sin and death leading to the second death.

The flood of Noahs day was necessary to preserve the godly line from the wicked of Gen6:5. The good news there was for those rightly related to the judgment,ie,inside the ark.
The parting of the Red Sea was good news to those who passed through it, but not very good for the egyptian army.
It is this sense that I was thinking of in reference to the OP.
Not that the objective work of redemption was not "good news " in and of it self , or the the person of Jesus coming as the One sent of the Father is not the greatest news possible.
Even those sent to hell from the white throne will bow and confess. It just does not seem to be the same good news in that they are not rightly related to it, to enjoy any of the benefits of it.
Bruce, I believe that second Peter 3 where Peter explains that it is the long suffering of God- to - usward [ the beloved] is the only reason the reprobates are not cut -off sooner, and evil takes place everyday.
This links the sovereign purpose, and design of God to those who labour in the gospel not to grow weary in well doing,despite the negative energy,and verbal presumptions of those who mock and resist.
I do not think we have to go into the nursing home and make sure Grandma,and Grandpa have taken a firm stand on supra/infralapsarianism before the hear about their sin and God's remedy.
More often than not I hear some who profess faith try to help God along ,and apologize for His wrath, his eternal purpose etc, that I react to.
Sorry if my posts are not as easy to understand.


----------



## Der Pilger (Dec 23, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Isn't the _gospel_ *good* news?
> 
> So, it is good, and it is so whether or not a particular person believes it.
> 
> I agree with Pergamum. Tell the lost about Jesus, who he is, what he did. That's it. That's all we need to do; and the other stuff--about how God works in the background, what he will have to do to make a person receptive--none of that is especially relevant to the message of Christ.



That is pretty much what I have thought all along, but I wondered if there might be any efficacy in telling others about their natural inability to believe and repent. I have heard others speak so highly of doing this that they almost make the doctrine of election itself the gospel, an idea with which I have serious issues.



> The gospel isn't the good news about the recipient, or about what might happen to the recipient. What makes the gospel good news is the SUBJECT of the news, Jesus. He lived, he died, he rose again. 1Cor.15:3-4. Mixing up that factual gospel with the hypotheses concerning the variety of responses it generates is confusing categories.



Thank you, Bruce, because this puts it into clear perspective. The gospel is about Christ, not about the recipient. The communication of the gospel should always point *toward* the person of Christ and *away from* the recipients as well as the communicators of the message.

-----Added 12/23/2009 at 07:14:56 EST-----



JM said:


> $5 bucks a tract?



I think it's $5.00 per package of 100.


----------



## Iconoclast (Dec 23, 2009)

Der pilger,


You said this


> The gospel is about Christ, not about the recipient. The communication of the gospel should always point toward the person of Christ and away from the recipients as well as the communicators of the message.


 How do you explain the gospel to someone?
Do you mention the fall?
Did Adam die or was he wounded?
When you say- away from the recipients- what do you mean?

Do you just float the idea that Jesus came ,died and rose, and we just should believe that?

What about when the person says to you " I have tried to believe and just don't seem to be able to. I have these doubts and I try to believe but I just cannot figure it out.
Or , I tried going to church and listening to sermons but am not seeming to understand them.
What do you say to them instead of using any of the *other verses*dealing with God's purpose.

Is it a good idea if they believe,or is it commanded ? 
In other words how much info is okay, and how do you convey a sense of urgency, or that this is the most important thing a person needs to come to grips with.

How about when people ask about the heathen and is it fair that for those who never heard the gospel, what is their condition?

How would you suggest we go about this? What type of verses would you suggest to offer to someone on these issues?

Have you ever come across a person asking these type of questions?
How did you address them/


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 23, 2009)

Obviously one cannot mention everything and explain the whole contents of Scripture exhaustively. One must keep central doctrines central.


----------



## Der Pilger (Dec 23, 2009)

Iconoclast said:


> Der pilger,
> 
> 
> You said this
> ...



I try to focus on these topics: God, sin, Jesus Christ, faith and repentance.



> When you say- away from the recipients- what do you mean?



I mean that our message should not bring undue attention to ourselves or to the recipients--to ourselves by way of excess use of personal testimonies, which do not constitute divine revelation and therefore offer nothing to the unbeliever that can be responded to in saving faith, or to the recipients in the manner that Bruce pointed out.



> What about when the person says to you " I have tried to believe and just don't seem to be able to. I have these doubts and I try to believe but I just cannot figure it out.
> Or , I tried going to church and listening to sermons but am not seeming to understand them.
> What do you say to them instead of using any of the *other verses*dealing with God's purpose.



I would probe deeper to find out exactly what they were trying to believe and how seriously this attempt to believe really was. Perhaps they heard a name-it-and-claim-it, prosperity-gospel preacher tell them that if they believe such and such they will receive such and such in return. Perhaps it is some other false doctrine, or alleged promise of God, that they have been attempting to believe. Moreover, perhaps their attempt to believe was nothing more than a spasm, a minor twinge they experienced rather than a setting of their heart to seek after the Lord. Many make the claim that they have tried to believe but I fear have not really sought the Lord with their whole heart. Therefore, I would exhort them to ask, seek, and knock, and to keep doing so until they get an answer, as Jesus taught--provided, of course, that they are asking for, seeking, and knocking for the right thing.



> Is it a good idea if they believe,or is it commanded ?
> In other words how much info is okay, and how do you convey a sense of urgency, or that this is the most important thing a person needs to come to grips with.



By focusing on the five topics I listed above.



> How about when people ask about the heathen and is it fair that for those who never heard the gospel, what is their condition?



I actually like it when people bring up that age-old objection because they are revealing more to me about themselves than they realize, which gives me cues about how to proceed with them. The question is a loaded one, driven by their own incorrect doctrines of man and God. Their doctrine of man is incorrect because they suppose that the heathen are innocent because they have never heard the gospel. Their doctrine of God is incorrect because they portray God as being unjust to condemn them because they have not had a chance to hear the gospel. In order to be fair, they think, God must give everyone an equal opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel.

But all they have done is arrogated to themselves the position of lawmaker, created their own standard which they feel God must obey, and then proceeded to accuse God of injustice on these grounds. Therefore, I don't believe that the question is a sincere one, raised out of genuine curiosity. It is driven by both error and arrogance. 

The right response, then, is to correct these faulty presuppositions. I do this by pointing out that God is just to condemn such people because they reject what they do know about him and willfully rebel against him (Romans 1). Having sufficient knowledge to avoid idolatry, they are responsible and without excuse. That answers both incorrect doctrines to which they cling. I also like to point out that God is not obligated to show mercy to anyone, mercy being a free act on his part. Contrary to what those who ask this question think, God does not *owe* those heathen a chance to hear the gospel. The only thing God owes anyone is justice, and that is what he gives them. If God did not give them justice, then, and only then, could God be said to be unfair to them. That, however, will never happen.


----------

