# Evangelize like an Arminian



## steadfast7

You may have heard it before, something to the effect of,

"Evangelize like an Arminian, but pray and sleep like a Calvinist."

In general, Arminians have been known to "pull out all the stops" when it comes to evangelism and missions. As people who believe in an unbounded will capable of heeding the gospel, they are the masters of devising and employing natural means in their evangelism.

Calvinists have been known to be bold and daring in gospel proclamation, but not as "sensitive" to natural processes which bring people to faith. In a sermon on missions, Paul Washer said something like, "the modern missiological emphasis on contextualization and anthropology are the activity of little boys who do not know their God." 

If God indeed uses means (eg. contextualization, anthropology, mission strategy, social programs, etc.) to bring people to faith, Are Calvinists rightly charged for not doing their best in these areas?


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

I am a Calvinist (obviously) and I have no problem with contextualization...to a certain degree. I love Paul Washer but I think he is off on this point. Mark Driscoll says it best "Everyone contextualizes, the question is to what era". Paul said that he became "all things to all men" that he "might save some". Adapting to the, non-sinful, practices of a culture (ie music style, dress, and speech {again to a certain degree}) are things we expect of good foreign missionaries yet refuse to allow the men and women we send out on mission here in the US...odd idea if you ask me.


----------



## newcreature

I believe we are called to evangelize.



> Matthew 28:19
> Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,





> Mark 13:10
> And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations.





> Romans 1:1-6 ...set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David [2] according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name m among all the nations, 6 including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,



If we preach the gospel and proclaim the name of Christ, then will not God do the work of calling those whom he has predestined? Just my thoughts.


----------



## Pergamum

Dennis;

Read William Carey's _Enquiry into the Use of means in the propagation of the Gospel Among the Heathen_. Carey, a 5 pointer advances the use of means. The Modern Missions movement, therefore, was launched by calvinists who went to great lengths to evangelize.


I know Heartcry folks in general see the need for reseach in missions; and much of that research is anthropological and linguistic. ALL missionaries use anthropological tools and linguistics, or else they would never learn about their people-group, nor learn the language and customs of the people to whom they want to bless with the Gospel. 

Washer was probably preaching a sermon and meant to condemn the over-use of misuse of anthropology. There are "Christian missionaries" to muslims who have called Mhmd a prophet and the Krn a Holy Book and I know 1 who has repreated the Shahada, "There is no God but God and Mhd is his prophet." And this sort of stuff NEEDS to be condemned...severely. And in so doing, Washer probably was not careful enough in distinguishing good practices from bad practices.

I am sure he would have approved of William Carey's compilation of all the latest information regarding all the peoples of the known world (in his _Enquiry_ also, section 3). And I am sure he approves learning the language and idioms of a culture well. 

There are many areas in missiology that benefit from the social sciences, anthropology, linguistics, etc.

Also, regarding the use of the term "contextualization." All missionaries contextualize to a certain degree, so that the Gospel may be taught in local language and so that we may follow Paul's examples in Scripture. But most, in condemning over-contextualization practices, do not use the term "hyper-contextualization" or "C5 Contextualization" - they merely use the term "contextualization" and this misleads US churches that then condemn ALL forms of contextualization rather than the high-end practices which compromise the Gospel. 



The bigger problem in missions is actually not over-contextualization. Only a minority are doing that. The bigger problem is the NON-contextualization as Western churches export Western programs, heedless of local context and then local evangelists are forced to implement these Western programs because the Westerner is paying the fee and giving the handout.



Washer was probably rightly speaking out about the over-use of contextualization. But we need more precision.

Remember, sometimes in sermons we over-speak and sometimes we use words more broadly and do not define all the distinctives and we do not precicely spell out all the nuances needed.


----------



## steadfast7

newcreature said:


> If we preach the gospel and proclaim the name of Christ, then will not God do the work of calling those whom he has predestined? Just my thoughts.



Ultimately, Yes. But how this is to be done "most efficiently and effectively" has been the work of missiologists and in general they have served the church and the cause of missions in great ways. They incorporate anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, statistics, etc, which some Calvinistic attitudes may balk at as being unnecessary, worldly, and naturalistic. 

If there were no results from these endeavors, missiology would have died out, but it seems like it's more in popular and necessary than ever, and we cannot deny its effectiveness.

Though the Calvinists were the first and most aggressive band of early protestant missionaries, modern missions belongs to the Arminian, at least it seems. The mindset that seems to breed the best missiological strategists in our day has been Arminianism, because they tend to think more in naturalistic and humanistic ways. Indeed, a vast majority of modern day missionaries are Arminians.

Do you guys think that Calvinism tends (in general) to breed apathy for naturalistic endeavor in missions?


----------



## Andres

steadfast7 said:


> newcreature said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we preach the gospel and proclaim the name of Christ, then will not God do the work of calling those whom he has predestined? Just my thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, Yes. But how this is to be done "most efficiently and effectively" has been the work of missiologists and in general they have served the church and the cause of missions in great ways. They incorporate anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, statistics, etc, which some Calvinistic attitudes may balk at as being unnecessary, worldly, and naturalistic.
> 
> If there were no results from these endeavors, missiology would have died out, but it seems like it's more in popular and necessary than ever, and we cannot deny its effectiveness.
> 
> Though the Calvinists were the first and most aggressive band of early protestant missionaries, modern missions belongs to the Arminian, at least it seems. *The mindset that seems to breed the best missiological strategists in our day has been Arminianism, because they tend to think more in naturalistic and humanistic ways. Indeed, a vast majority of modern day missionaries are Arminians.*
Click to expand...


I am not sure how you are arriving at this belief. It seems to be only an opinion of yours.


----------



## Poimen

Arminian minded churches are in the majority so one would expect them to have more missionaries. However every Reformed church in NAPARC has several missionaries working in many different fields. 

Those that are faithful to God's chosen means will be the most successful in the long run. God can save people anyway He wants but has called the church to preach the gospel and disciple the nations. And so the best and most faithful missionaries are able to distinguish between biblical precepts and commands and cultural norms. Wherever these norms do not contradict scripture's teaching we may adapt ourselves, and wherever these norms contradict scripture's teaching we stand firm. 

The best way to 'do' mission, in my opinion, is to disciple local, indigenous people and have them evangelize their own in the context of their culture and traditions. In this way we can respect the prevailing ideas of the time (customs -Romans 13:17) without compromising the truth.


----------



## steadfast7

I don't know if anyone has bothered to survey all missionaries in the field and those who are doing missiological research at home, but it's certainly not a 50-50 split between Calvies and Arminians. My guess, 20-80 (anyone else care to pose a figure?) After spending 1/3 of my life in south east Asia and meeting many missionaries, Pergamum is probably the ONLY "full-on" Calvinist missionary (confessionally and practically) I've personally come across.


----------



## Pergamum

Dennis,

There are more calvinists out there than you think. 

While evangelicals, moreso than more rigid reformed churches, might be at the forefront, there are HORDES of evangelical calvinists out there that are filling the ranks. So arminians are not outdoing all of us, though they might be outdoing some branches of the "Reformed."

The Southern Baptists are doing WONDERFUL work in Central Asia, in many hard places, and many, many of these believe in calvinistic soteriology wedded to a baptistic/evangelical ecclesiology. Among the interdenominational mission boards, a high percentage believe in calvinistic soteriology. Even among arminian groups like New Tribes Missions, the ones I have met in SE Asia, a large minority are calvinistic.

And all of these calvinistic missionaries highly value Operation World, The Joshua Project, linguistics training, anthropology, and etc. 


Also, you must also distinguish between healthy missions and unhealthy missions. A vigorous zeal is not the only criteria of excellence. Many run, who are not sent. 

Sorry, brother, but I would context your main argument. Modern missions DOES NOT belong to the Arminians. 

Ralph Winter was a Prebyterian, David Sills is a southern Baptist calvinist, John Piper is a baptistic calvinist, and a great number of those I know are calvinists or at least believe in God's sovereignty in salvation (even if they just don't know about that 4th point of Calvinism).

-----Added 12/2/2009 at 01:42:40 EST-----



steadfast7 said:


> I don't know if anyone has bothered to survey all missionaries in the field and those who are doing missiological research at home, but it's certainly not a 50-50 split between Calvies and Arminians. My guess, 20-80 (anyone else care to pose a figure?) After spending 1/3 of my life in south east Asia and meeting many missionaries, Pergamum is probably the ONLY "full-on" Calvinist missionary (confessionally and practically) I've personally come across.



I can show you dozens of others if you will come out!!! 



NOTE:

Do not let people only define things in terms of five-point calvinism, and especially Totally Reformed missions versus Arminianism. I know dozens of missionaries who believe in monergistic salvation. Though their eccclesiology might notbe reformed or they may be unsure of Particular Atonement, they believe in God's absolute sovereignty in salvation and I can work with them well.

-----Added 12/2/2009 at 01:43:34 EST-----

NOTE 2: Also there is a need in some places to be "doctrinal" but not "doctrinnaire."


----------



## TeachingTulip

Pergamum said:


> NOTE 2: Also there is a need in some places to be "doctrinal" but not "doctrinnaire."



Missionaries, who bring a message of faith and grace, should function and operate according to what they preach.

Faith in the grace and powers of God to save sinners.

Strategies, methodologies, and cultural compromises do not compare with casting oneself, by faith, upon the Sovereignty and Will of God Almighty, knowing and believing He will unfailingly save who He wills from out of all the peoples, tribes, and nations. (Rev. 5:9; 7:9)


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks man!

That's great to know. I'm encouraged! I guess I've been mixing in the wrong circles for too long.


----------



## Pergamum

P.s. Dennis, many would not even call me "Confessional." I like the 1689 and agree with it, but "liking the confession" and "being confessional" might be two different things. I do not strive to teach the Confessions or Catechisms where I am at, but I try, instead, to create new materials based on these confessions that better fit the local context - though these new materials do not contradict the confession.

Again, let us *not* define "calvinist" as "Totally Reformed" in ecclesiology too, or even "Confessional Calvinist" but let us define it as "Monergistic view of salvation" and then you will find that Modern Missions is very calvinistic.

-----Added 12/2/2009 at 01:49:02 EST-----



TeachingTulip said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE 2: Also there is a need in some places to be "doctrinal" but not "doctrinnaire."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missionaries, who bring a message of faith and grace, should function and operate according to what they preach.
> 
> Faith in the grace and powers of God to save sinners.
> 
> Strategies, methodologies, and cultural compromises do not compare with casting oneself, by faith, upon the Sovereignty and Will of God Almighty, knowing and believing He will unfailingly save who He wills from out of all the peoples, tribes, and nations. (Rev. 5:9; 7:9)
Click to expand...


Huh? I do not understand what your main point is here?


----------



## steadfast7

yeah, the 1689 is good, but I'm glad you're not reproducing it on the field. Some on the board would think that's what missionaries should do. I've even heard comments like "Everyone should just learn Greek and Hebrew than translating the bible." ... wow!


----------



## larryjf

steadfast7 said:


> "Evangelize like an Arminian, but pray and sleep like a Calvinist."


To evangelize like an Arminian would put the emphasis on the evangelists persuasiveness rather than on the power of the Gospel itself.



steadfast7 said:


> In general, Arminians have been known to "pull out all the stops" when it comes to evangelism and missions. As people who believe in an unbounded will capable of heeding the gospel, they are the masters of devising and employing natural means in their evangelism.


I would suggest that Arminians use "human invention" rather than "natural means" in much of their evangelism.
I would think that it's rather the Calvinists who take advantage of natural means, understanding that God's providence has brought such natural means to come to pass.



steadfast7 said:


> Calvinists have been known to be bold and daring in gospel proclamation, but not as "sensitive" to natural processes which bring people to faith. In a sermon on missions, Paul Washer said something like, "the modern missiological emphasis on contextualization and anthropology are the activity of little boys who do not know their God."


The emphasis should not be on the contextualization or on the anthropology, but on God and His Word. But just because those things ought not be the emphasis doesn't mean that they don't play any part at all.

It seems to me that the Arminians are much more into artificial means, and therefore go against the "natural means" at their disposal. They tell someone to say the sinners prayer, and then tell them that they are saved. How artificial is that! Prayers don't save, Christ saves!


----------



## SolaScriptura

I profoundly disagree with the idea of "doing" evangelism like an Arminian.

(BTW - in this context I'm using the term in a general "the typical evangelical Christian who isn't a Calvinist" sense rather than in a technical sense.)

1. The ethos and pathos of modern Arminian evangelism is inexorably linked to the ideas and practice of Finney. This means that they take the easiest - and most "sure" - route to get one to engage the will, which is to say that they seek to convince the indvidual to make a decision, by means of emotive response. Thus they use dramatic rhetoric, overwhelming oration, hypnotic and mantra-like music, etc., to get people to say "YES!" to Jesus from a gut-level emotional response to the stimuli around them. Even when they make an intellectual argument it is through these means with the emphasis being on the emotional response. Calvinists who do evangelism like this are trusting in means over message, and confusing a quick "yes" with a genuine "yes." Calvinists do seek to engage the will, that is, to lead the person to make a decision, but Calvinists try to solicit that engagement of the will on the basis of the intellect first, then the emotions. This leads to my second difference.

2. Arminians are so desperate to get a "yes" and are willing to do all sorts of feats to conjure up the desired emotional response in the would-be convert because their theology tells them that a "yes" is good enough. While it isn't desireable that folks should come forward at a Crusade and then never receive any followup, ultimately that's ok because that one time decision was good enough. Calvinists, trusting that the Lord will save every one of His sheep, are more concerned with making disciples. And Jesus repeatedly talks about counting the cost of being a disciple. So we explain things passionately (because we believe it to be true), but we explain things thoroughly so that when the would-be convert makes a decision, the person has thought it over and understands that Jesus isn't a "get out of hell free" card.

3. Thus, doing evangelism like an Arminian necessarily means showcasing style over substance. Doing evangelism like a Calvinist necessarily means highlighting the message over the messenger.


----------



## Pergamum

Dennis, my son Noah just told me he wants me to get off and spend time with him....so I will be signing off until late tonight. 

But know that there is not conflict between your beliefs and missions and that there is much GOOD work going on out there.

I have NEVER felt a need to compromise and I preach in a fully calvinistic way wherever I go and do not hide my identity. And I will do all I can to introduce you into circles who will use you to bles others without trying to restrict your beliefs or practices..

See you late tonight.


----------



## steadfast7

TeachingTulip said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE 2: Also there is a need in some places to be "doctrinal" but not "doctrinnaire."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missionaries, who bring a message of faith and grace, should function and operate according to what they preach.
> 
> Faith in the grace and powers of God to save sinners.
> 
> Strategies, methodologies, and cultural compromises do not compare with casting oneself, by faith, upon the Sovereignty and Will of God Almighty, knowing and believing He will unfailingly save who He wills from out of all the peoples, tribes, and nations. (Rev. 5:9; 7:9)
Click to expand...


Ronda, although I agree in principle, I think you're demonstrating my point that (some) Calvinists tend to reject missiological enterprise and research.


----------



## Pergamum

steadfast7 said:


> yeah, the 1689 is good, but I'm glad you're not reproducing it on the field. Some on the board would think that's what missionaries should do. I've even heard comments like "Everyone should just learn Greek and Hebrew than translating the bible." ... wow!



One last point on the 1689: I have translated and simplified the headings for my own reference and I teach the topics in these headings frequently, but I have not yet introduced the document en toto as a binding document, though of course everything I teach will be in-line with this document.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Pergamum said:


> Missionaries, who bring a message of faith and grace, should function and operate according to what they preach.
> 
> Faith in the grace and powers of God to save sinners.
> 
> Strategies, methodologies, and cultural compromises do not compare with casting oneself, by faith, upon the Sovereignty and Will of God Almighty, knowing and believing He will unfailingly save who He wills from out of all the peoples, tribes, and nations. (Rev. 5:9; 7:9)
> 
> Huh? I do not understand what your main point is here?



I am simply saying that missionaries (and every witnessing Christian) should practice the faith in God that they preach.

Nothing more than faith in God fulfilling His purposes and promises is necessary to successfully proclaim the gospel message.

The power of God to save resides within His gospel message. (Romans 1:16-17)

Not in our methods.


----------



## steadfast7

larryjf said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calvinists have been known to be bold and daring in gospel proclamation, but not as "sensitive" to natural processes which bring people to faith. In a sermon on missions, Paul Washer said something like, "the modern missiological emphasis on contextualization and anthropology are the activity of little boys who do not know their God."
> 
> 
> 
> The emphasis should not be on the contextualization or on the anthropology, but on God and His Word. But just because those things ought not be the emphasis doesn't mean that they don't play any part at all.
Click to expand...


In fairness, I don't think Arm'ins would deny any emphasis on God's word. But they would want to explore every possible way make it relevant and get it into the hearts of the people, thus employing contextualization and anthropology.



> It seems to me that the Arminians are much more into artificial means, and therefore go against the "natural means" at their disposal. They tell someone to say the sinners prayer, and then tell them that they are saved. How artificial is that! Prayers don't save, Christ saves!



I don't quite understand your distinction between 'human invention' and 'natural process', and which one is supposedly 'artificial.' I argue that the socio-sciences, let's call them, are employed more deliberately by Arm'ins, on the whole, and this may simply be because there are more Arminian Christians in the world, as Poimen pointed out. Not every Arminian missionary is a Finney'ian evangelist.

the socio-sciences have been shown to be useful in the missionary enterprise and should be used more if God's kingdom is expanding as a result, why not? 

at the same time, the doctrines of grace and a firm grasp on truth should undergird everything we do. Indeed where Arminian theology produces faulty practices, they should be abandoned immediately, but I don't think the use of socio-sciences falls into that category.


----------



## Pergamum

TeachingTulip said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missionaries, who bring a message of faith and grace, should function and operate according to what they preach.
> 
> Faith in the grace and powers of God to save sinners.
> 
> Strategies, methodologies, and cultural compromises do not compare with casting oneself, by faith, upon the Sovereignty and Will of God Almighty, knowing and believing He will unfailingly save who He wills from out of all the peoples, tribes, and nations. (Rev. 5:9; 7:9)
> 
> Huh? I do not understand what your main point is here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am simply saying that missionaries (and every witnessing Christian) should practice the faith in God that they preach.
> 
> Nothing more than faith in God fulfilling His purposes and promises is necessary to successfully proclaim the gospel message.
> 
> The power of God to save resides within His gospel message. (Romans 1:16-17)
> 
> Not in our methods.
Click to expand...


Yes,

But remember that God blesses our means as well.

"We should neither make an idol out of the means, nor should we be idle in the use of means."

My calvinism leads to boldness and action. I have a vigorous doctrine of secondary causes.

-----Added 12/2/2009 at 02:23:49 EST-----

Dennis:

I will email you later...or give me a call later, and I can tell you of some brothers who are calvinistic and on the field.


----------



## larryjf

steadfast7 said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calvinists have been known to be bold and daring in gospel proclamation, but not as "sensitive" to natural processes which bring people to faith. In a sermon on missions, Paul Washer said something like, "the modern missiological emphasis on contextualization and anthropology are the activity of little boys who do not know their God."
> 
> 
> 
> The emphasis should not be on the contextualization or on the anthropology, but on God and His Word. But just because those things ought not be the emphasis doesn't mean that they don't play any part at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In fairness, I don't think Arm'ins would deny any emphasis on God's word. But they would want to explore every possible way make it relevant and get it into the hearts of the people, thus employing contextualization and anthropology.
Click to expand...

I was simply defending Paul Washer's statement. You seemed to be suggesting that when we don't make those things the emphasis it's as if we are not using them at all. If that wasn't what you were trying to bring out of Paul Washer's statement, i'm not sure exactly what his statement is supposed to show us then.




steadfast7 said:


> It seems to me that the Arminians are much more into artificial means, and therefore go against the "natural means" at their disposal. They tell someone to say the sinners prayer, and then tell them that they are saved. How artificial is that! Prayers don't save, Christ saves!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite understand your distinction between 'human invention' and 'natural process', and which one is supposedly 'artificial.' I argue that the socio-sciences, let's call them, are employed more deliberately by Arm'ins, on the whole, and this may simply be because there are more Arminian Christians in the world, as Poimen pointed out. Not every Arminian missionary is a Finney'ian evangelist.
Click to expand...

"natural process" would be those things that naturally happen with individuals such as culture and ethics...as well as those things that naturally happen within the context of a conversation or evangelizing such as logic and defensiveness.

"human invention" would be those things that we invent, but don't occur naturally. This would include such things as the sinners prayer or even a different Gospel that we create like "get your best life now."

The artificial one would be "human invention."

When you say that the socio-sciences are employed more deliberately by the armins...if you mean they put an emphasis on it more than the calvins do, then i'd agree with you. I don't think the emphasis should be on those things, though those things still have a place in evangelism. The emphasis must remain on God and His Word.


I would think it might be better to understand where you're coming form if you sited an example of the armin doing evangelism and then an example of the calvin doing evangelism.


----------



## Mushroom

I doubt these Arminian manipulations are having any real success. Sure, they may fill pews with those who've been easily 'sold', but whether they are actually members of the elect remains to be proven.

In fact, in my own experience, the Lord called me through the means of His Word, but the only place I knew to go for fellowship with other believers was to Arminian Churches. The inconsistencies with scripture were glaring, but appealing to my flesh, so I remained in spite of them. But God had mercy and drug me out of that mess after a season. None of the manipulations had any beneficial effect, they just served to keep me emotional and confused.

I would bet that to be the experience of most Christians who are delivered out of Arminianism.


----------



## steadfast7

larryjf said:


> "natural process" would be those things that naturally happen with individuals such as culture and ethics...as well as those things that naturally happen within the context of a conversation or evangelizing such as logic and defensiveness.
> 
> "human invention" would be those things that we invent, but don't occur naturally. This would include such things as the sinners prayer or even a different Gospel that we create like "get your best life now."
> 
> The artificial one would be "human invention."
> 
> When you say that the socio-sciences are employed more deliberately by the armins...if you mean they put an emphasis on it more than the calvins do, then i'd agree with you. I don't think the emphasis should be on those things, though those things still have a place in evangelism. The emphasis must remain on God and His Word.
> 
> 
> I would think it might be better to understand where you're coming form if you sited an example of the armin doing evangelism and then an example of the calvin doing evangelism.



The sinner's prayer and all such gimmicks should be abandoned for being simply wrong. I agree with you on that stuff. 

the natural process, such as evangelism through relationships, and using culturally sensitive forms, is perhaps "emphasized" more by Arm'ins, but not to the denial of God and his word. I sincerely hope that the main emphasis for every evangelist is to faithfully and clearly present the gospel, and that they strive to do it in the very best way that they can. Everyone wants to see souls saved and churches planted. I am simply wondering why Calvinism, as is apparent, should want to de-emphasize the use of the socio-sciences when it so clearly is useful as a means for accomplishing the task. We should strive to do the best we can, rather than a mediocre job and leave the rest to God.

It's not good to generalize on these matters, but some Calvinists refuse to contextualize the gospel or use culturally appropriate forms of worship because they believe that God will enlighten them, for example. But it has been shown that contextualization and cultural sensitivity makes a big difference in real situations.


----------



## Mushroom

> I am simply wondering why Calvinism, as is apparent, should want to de-emphasize the use of the socio-sciences *when it so clearly is useful as a means for accomplishing the task*.


I don't believe you have proven the bolded part of this statement to be true.


----------



## Pergamum

DENNIS:

There are many more issues at stake than arminianism and calvinism.

Calvinists sometimes fail in contextualziation because they are reacting (over-reacting) against dangerous trends in the other direction, where some have over-contextualized. 

But, knowing Heartcry, they are all for getting indigenous forms of music and local-language ministries into local cultures and local vernaculars (a form of contextualization) and appropriately contextualizing the Gospel. 

I think Washer was speaking, not of all forms of contextualization, but of the abuse and the over-use of these means and the constant search in missions for "golden keys" that - if we would just adopt this method, then world evangelization can at last be completed. He is calling us back to the hard work of Biblical missions and warning us not to run to the latest fad. I do not see this is a wholesale denunciation of all anthropology and research in missions, nor of all gradations of contextualization.


Also, some calvinist groups have fallen behind in missions due, not to soteriology, but to over-restrictive ecclesiologies, such as Landmarkism, and over-restrictive interpretations of the regulative principle of worship which promote the exportation of cultural forms. 

Example, in Indonesia, Javanese believers once had to take Dutch names, cut their Javanese hair, wear Dutch clothing to church and - once in church - sang old dutch tunes put to the pipe organ when their indigenous music used the suling and gamelan. A total cultural mismatch. They had to become Dutch to become Christian. I do not know the theological reasons for this, or if it was merely a productof colonial-era missions, but it was performed by calvinists. But I do not see that a calvinistic soteriology would promote these bad missiological practices, but possibly overly strict ecclesiologies might.

-----Added 12/2/2009 at 05:09:58 EST-----



Brad said:


> I am simply wondering why Calvinism, as is apparent, should want to de-emphasize the use of the socio-sciences *when it so clearly is useful as a means for accomplishing the task*.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you have proven the bolded part of this statement to be true.
Click to expand...


If you would like, we can start a new OP about the use of the social sciences in missions.

Literacy, lingusitics, anthropology have all served missions well (as long as they are subordinate to the Scripture). This is easy to prove and I will do so in another OP if you would like (though I would need to tomorrow, since I have no time today).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Let us also recognize that the huge number of non-reformed churches are *siphoning* resources from more biblically faithful ministries.

I don't know exactly why Christ allows it, but he does like to do something with nothing (see Gen.1 and 1Cor.1:28).

There's a whole lot of "effort" in some places to do missions, and the real results are slim to none.

Instead of looking at total-dollars spent by some of the larger denominations, with their big budgets, look at per-capita giving vs. the number of missionaries, and how many are supported fully. Look at how the money is divided at the top, and works its way down to the missionary level. What are folk's money actually getting with these churches and mission-organizations, always sending out the envelopes and begging for money?

A lot of the dog-and-pony stuff is just to get even more money to roll in. Meanwhile, the grunt-work is done by people doing lots with little.

Boasting about "decisions" (with no transformation) and "revivals" (scheduled, coming right up!) and "mission-trip projects" (which includes lots of self-congratulatory _sacrifices_ of wealthy suburbanites) is not a great mission effort. But it sure makes good pub.

And lots of these guys like to brag how their visible-ministry is obviously blessed of God, and the weak, little calvinistic churches are evangelism-despisers. Unfortunately, they can't see what cannot be seen by men, and they discount the long-term effects of both the showy-stuff (deleterious) and the secret-stuff (beneficial).

They need to read Mat.6:1ff, and Mark 4.

In the end, only one kind of missionary keeps at his work--the one who either in his heart or in his theology (hopefully both), believes in God's sovereignty. He is a Calvinist on his knees, regardless. The rest can't help but give up (trying to do spiritual work in their own strength), go into marketing (after burning out in the field), or retire after convincing themselves that they made a difference, and God will recognize all their works.

They need to read Mat.25:1-13.


----------



## Amazing Grace

steadfast7 said:


> the natural process, such as evangelism through relationships, and using culturally sensitive forms, is perhaps "emphasized" more by Arm'ins, but not to the denial of God and his word. I sincerely hope that the main emphasis for every evangelist is to faithfully and clearly present the gospel, and that they strive to do it in the very best way that they can. Everyone wants to see souls saved and churches planted. I am simply wondering why Calvinism, as is apparent, should want to de-emphasize the use of the socio-sciences when it so clearly is useful as a means for accomplishing the task. We should strive to do the best we can, rather than a mediocre job and leave the rest to God.
> 
> It's not good to generalize on these matters, but some Calvinists refuse to contextualize the gospel or use culturally appropriate forms of worship because they believe that God will enlighten them, for example. But it has been shown that contextualization and cultural sensitivity makes a big difference in real situations.




Who are ''the some calvinists?" I have heard this said over and over so many times, yet have never been shown a specific example of this. Dennis, your numerous threads as of late, have a common theme of some misinformed understanding that God needs us to save souls. Saving souls is not the focus of a missionary nor any believer. Glorifying God is always the goal. When that is replaced with anything, we miss the mark. No one should share the Gospel being predominately motivated by the 'great commission', nor some love for sinners, as important as they are. They should share the Gospel to exalt the Glory of The Lord Jesus Christ. In Romans 1:5 Paul tells you this clearly. He does what he does 'for the sake of His Name'... Do a search in the scriptures how many times this phrase or something akin to it is used. For the sake of His name, His glory his etc etc. God is first and foremost about God!!!!

There is no substitute for the pure unadulterated Gospel of Grace to be proclaimed. The Sovereignty of God and His name, His glory is the highest motivating factor I have, not saving souls. Stop thinking there is some 'trick' for missions. We worry so much about the 'means' that God sees fit to use in His providence, that the details just screw it up. It is not about anyone wanting to see souls saved or churches planted, where did you get this idea from? It is not about what we want at all. Is God dependent on man? We are only instruments, nothing more, nothing less. The thought that God uses programs to bring people to faith is a terrible misguided idea. One you should immediately flush down the toilet.

One more thing. I attended a conference where the speaker sounded like some motivational guru. It was like a pep rally that ended with the words: "Now you're ready, so get out there and save some souls" 

I later asked the gentleman, what if I do not do it. He responded that many will end up damned because of not heeding God's call. I could not believe he said this. To think that the salvation of the elect is dependent on me is ludicrous.


----------



## A.J.

steadfast7 said:


> I don't know if anyone has bothered to survey all missionaries in the field and those who are doing missiological research at home, but it's certainly not a 50-50 split between Calvies and Arminians. My guess, 20-80 (anyone else care to pose a figure?) After spending 1/3 of my life in south east Asia and meeting many missionaries, Pergamum is probably the ONLY "full-on" Calvinist missionary (confessionally and practically) I've personally come across.



There are URCNA and PCA missionaries in the Philippines. There are also other confessional Reformed folk doing missions in the other parts of Southeast Asia.

-----Added 12/2/2009 at 08:22:56 EST-----

Indonesia and Burma have indigenous and faithful confessional Reformed churches too.

-----Added 12/2/2009 at 08:23:29 EST-----

Also, there are Reformed (1689) Baptist churches in countries like the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia.


----------



## larryjf

steadfast7 said:


> The sinner's prayer and all such gimmicks should be abandoned for being simply wrong. I agree with you on that stuff.
> 
> the natural process, such as evangelism through relationships, and using culturally sensitive forms, is perhaps "emphasized" more by Arm'ins, but not to the denial of God and his word. I sincerely hope that the main emphasis for every evangelist is to faithfully and clearly present the gospel, and that they strive to do it in the very best way that they can. Everyone wants to see souls saved and churches planted. I am simply wondering why Calvinism, as is apparent, should want to de-emphasize the use of the socio-sciences when it so clearly is useful as a means for accomplishing the task. We should strive to do the best we can, rather than a mediocre job and leave the rest to God.
> 
> It's not good to generalize on these matters, but some Calvinists refuse to contextualize the gospel or use culturally appropriate forms of worship because they believe that God will enlighten them, for example. But it has been shown that contextualization and cultural sensitivity makes a big difference in real situations.



If you could give an example of a non-contextual calvinist Gospel presentation it would help...i've never seen such an animal.


----------



## steadfast7

Amazing Grace said:


> Dennis, your numerous threads as of late, have a common theme of some misinformed understanding that God needs us to save souls. Saving souls is not the focus of a missionary nor any believer. Glorifying God is always the goal. When that is replaced with anything, we miss the mark. No one should share the Gospel being predominately motivated by the 'great commission', nor some love for sinners, as important as they are. They should share the Gospel to exalt the Glory of The Lord Jesus Christ. In Romans 1:5 Paul tells you this clearly. He does what he does 'for the sake of His Name'... Do a search in the scriptures how many times this phrase or something akin to it is used. For the sake of His name, His glory his etc etc. God is first and foremost about God!!!!


Straw man. I never made the claim that saving souls is the "focus" of the missionary. 
Speaking of doing a search for "for the sake of". Watch and learn:

Romans 9:3
For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ *for the sake of my brothers*, those of my own race

1 Corinthians 9:23
I do all this *for the sake of the gospel*, that I may share in its blessings.

Ephesians 3:1
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus *for the sake of you Gentiles—*

Colossians 1:24
Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, *for the sake of his body*, which is the church.

2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure everything *for the sake of the elect*, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

Paul has many "sakes" for which he labours. God's glory is certainly ultimate and permeates everything, but the means by which God is glorified are multifacated. You are mistaking the ultimate goal (glory of God) with the immediate tasks (missions).



> There is no substitute for the pure unadulterated Gospel of Grace to be proclaimed. The Sovereignty of God and His name, His glory is the highest motivating factor I have, not saving souls. Stop thinking there is some 'trick' for missions. We worry so much about the 'means' that God sees fit to use in His providence, that the details just screw it up. It is not about anyone wanting to see souls saved or churches planted, where did you get this idea from? It is not about what we want at all. Is God dependent on man? We are only instruments, nothing more, nothing less. The thought that God uses programs to bring people to faith is a terrible misguided idea. One you should immediately flush down the toilet.



This is precisely what the hyper Calvinists told William Carey when he implored them to evangelize India. "Sit down young man!" they said, "If God wants those heathen saved, he will do it without your help or mine." He then went on to write the Calvinist-missions classic: 
_An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens. _Maybe you should give it a read. Your position was put to rest over 200 years ago and the true Calvinists won. God ordains the elect, and he also ordains the means.



> One more thing. I attended a conference where the speaker sounded like some motivational guru. It was like a pep rally that ended with the words: "Now you're ready, so get out there and save some souls"
> 
> I later asked the gentleman, what if I do not do it. He responded that many will end up damned because of not heeding God's call. I could not believe he said this. To think that the salvation of the elect is dependent on me is ludicrous.



*I'll leave you with some quotes from a Calvinist you might have heard of ...
*


> "I would sooner bring one sinner to Jesus Christ than unravel all the mysteries of the divine Word, for salvation is the one thing we are to live for."





> "Every Christian is either a missionary or an imposter."





> "Lost! Lost! Lost! Better a whole world on fire than a soul lost! Better every star quenched and the skies a wreck than a single soul to be lost!"





> "To be a soul winner is the happiest thing in the world. And with every soul you bring to Jesus Christ, you seem to get a new heaven here upon earth."





> "If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. And if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If Hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unprayed for."


 - Charles Spurgeon


----------



## steadfast7

larryjf said:


> If you could give an example of a non-contextual calvinist Gospel presentation it would help...i've never seen such an animal.



From the fact that many of this thread reject or down play the use and value of the socio-sciences like linguistics, cultural anthropology, study of religions (which are vital in the task of contextualization), this demonstrates the very attitude.

I've seen KJV-only Calvies insist that the words be translated to the host language word for word from the KJV to protect the perfection. never mind that this is linguistically impossible, but yeah...

Somewhat related, (but more so, Reformed ecclesiology), I spent 8 months in Thailand without ever taking the Lord's Supper, because we needed to wait for an ordained pastor administer it.

There was a time when (hyper)Calvinists did not believe the gospel should not be preached to all. this happens in some churches to this day. I've heard of churches who are not engaged in evangelism or missions in any way shape or form. It's the leave-it-to-God attitude.


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> I don't know if anyone has bothered to survey all missionaries in the field and those who are doing missiological research at home, but it's certainly not a 50-50 split between Calvies and Arminians. My guess, 20-80 (anyone else care to pose a figure?) After spending 1/3 of my life in south east Asia and meeting many missionaries, Pergamum is probably the ONLY "full-on" Calvinist missionary (confessionally and practically) I've personally come across.



Well, we don't have a 50/50 split between Arminians and Calvinists, so a 50/50 split between Arminian and Calvinist missionaries would be something incredible. It would prove Calvinists to be way _more_ missional than Arminians, since our numbers are definitely fewer by far.


----------



## Thomas2007

steadfast7 said:


> In general, Arminians have been known to "pull out all the stops" when it comes to evangelism and missions. As people who believe in an unbounded will capable of heeding the gospel, they are the masters of devising and employing natural means in their evangelism.



Maybe the latter part of your statement is true, but the question should be is this evangelism? Your first statement that one should evangelize like an Arminian doesn't make any sense, as Arminianism is not evangelical. The only reason you see Arminians attempting to evangelize is because they are standing on the borrowed ground of Calvinism but deny Predestination to God by transfering it to man.



steadfast7 said:


> Calvinists have been known to be bold and daring in gospel proclamation, but not as "sensitive" to natural processes which bring people to faith.



Yeah, well, I think you are misinterpreting the situation. The reality is that the Arminian despite his best attempts to transfer Predestination to man in a variety of ways, Christ is still preached and the Holy Spirit still regenerates His elect. In essence, then, the Gospel is so powerful that these miscreants can't screw it up totally, even when given their best effort.


----------



## Pergamum

For examples of calvinistic evangelism, study intensely the work of William Carey.

Here is the just the opening of the Serampore Covenant of 1805, which is profoundly moving. I can email you the rest if desired:



> *The Serampore Compact of 1805
> 
> OUR AGREEMENT*
> 
> 
> Form of Agreement respecting the great principles upon which the Brethren of the Mission at Serampore think it is their duty to act in the work of instructing the heathen, agreed upon at a meeting of the Brethren at Serampore, on Monday, October 7, 1805.
> 
> The Redeemer, in planting us in the heathen nation, rather than in any other, has imposed upon us the cultivation of peculiar qualifications. We are firmly persuaded that Paul might plant and Apollos water, in vain, in any part of the world, did not God give the increase. We are sure that only those ordained to eternal life will believe, and
> that God alone can add to the church such as shall be saved. Nevertheless we cannot but observe with admiration that Paul, the great champion for the glorious doctrine of free and sovereign grace, was the most conspicuous for his personal zeal in the word of persuading men to be reconciled to God. In this respect he is a noble example for our imitation. Our Lord intimated to those of His apostles who were fishermen, that he would make them fishers of men, intimating that in all weathers, and amidst every disappointment they were to aim at drawing men to the shores of eternal life. Solomon says: "He that winneth souls is wise," implying, no doubt, that the work of gaining over men to the side of God, was to be done by winning methods, and that it required the greatest wisdom to do it with success. Upon these points, we think it right to fix our serious and abiding attention.



-----Added 12/2/2009 at 11:50:03 EST-----



austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if anyone has bothered to survey all missionaries in the field and those who are doing missiological research at home, but it's certainly not a 50-50 split between Calvies and Arminians. My guess, 20-80 (anyone else care to pose a figure?) After spending 1/3 of my life in south east Asia and meeting many missionaries, Pergamum is probably the ONLY "full-on" Calvinist missionary (confessionally and practically) I've personally come across.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we don't have a 50/50 split between Arminians and Calvinists, so a 50/50 split between Arminian and Calvinist missionaries would be something incredible. It would prove Calvinists to be way _more_ missional than Arminians, since our numbers are definitely fewer by far.
Click to expand...


I don't have the statistics to back it up, but from what I have seen the number of baptist missionaries on the field who are calvinistic are disproportionately made up of calvinists compared to the average baptist church-goer in the US.

-----Added 12/2/2009 at 11:53:37 EST-----



steadfast7 said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you could give an example of a non-contextual calvinist Gospel presentation it would help...i've never seen such an animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the fact that many of this thread reject or down play the use and value of the socio-sciences like linguistics, cultural anthropology, study of religions (which are vital in the task of contextualization), this demonstrates the very attitude.
> 
> I've seen KJV-only Calvies insist that the words be translated to the host language word for word from the KJV to protect the perfection. never mind that this is linguistically impossible, but yeah...
> 
> Somewhat related, (but more so, Reformed ecclesiology), I spent 8 months in Thailand without ever taking the Lord's Supper, because we needed to wait for an ordained pastor administer it.
> 
> There was a time when (hyper)Calvinists did not believe the gospel should not be preached to all. this happens in some churches to this day. I've heard of churches who are not engaged in evangelism or missions in any way shape or form. It's the leave-it-to-God attitude.
Click to expand...


Dennis:

Two notes on your comments above in particular. 

(1) There are many, many, more KJV-Only arminians than there are KJV- Only Calvies. 

So, this deficient practice is not to be linked to any Calvinism-Arminian difference, but this is a problem of poor linguistical knowledge, 

and 

(2) The lack of the administration of the Lord's Supper for extended periods of time is, again, not a matter of soteriology but ecclesiology. 

Again, this problem that you pointed out is not a Calvy vs Arminian problem but a problem of questionably over-restrictive ecclesiological practices.


----------



## Amazing Grace

steadfast7 said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis, your numerous threads as of late, have a common theme of some misinformed understanding that God needs us to save souls. Saving souls is not the focus of a missionary nor any believer. Glorifying God is always the goal. When that is replaced with anything, we miss the mark. No one should share the Gospel being predominately motivated by the 'great commission', nor some love for sinners, as important as they are. They should share the Gospel to exalt the Glory of The Lord Jesus Christ. In Romans 1:5 Paul tells you this clearly. He does what he does 'for the sake of His Name'... Do a search in the scriptures how many times this phrase or something akin to it is used. For the sake of His name, His glory his etc etc. God is first and foremost about God!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man. I never made the claim that saving souls is the "focus" of the missionary.
> Speaking of doing a search for "for the sake of". Watch and learn:
> 
> Romans 9:3
> For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ *for the sake of my brothers*, those of my own race
> 
> 1 Corinthians 9:23
> I do all this *for the sake of the gospel*, that I may share in its blessings.
> 
> Ephesians 3:1
> For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus *for the sake of you Gentiles—*
> 
> Colossians 1:24
> Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, *for the sake of his body*, which is the church.
> 
> 2 Timothy 2:10
> Therefore I endure everything *for the sake of the elect*, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.
> 
> Paul has many "sakes" for which he labours. God's glory is certainly ultimate and permeates everything, but the means by which God is glorified are multifacated. You are mistaking the ultimate goal (glory of God) with the immediate tasks (missions).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no substitute for the pure unadulterated Gospel of Grace to be proclaimed. The Sovereignty of God and His name, His glory is the highest motivating factor I have, not saving souls. Stop thinking there is some 'trick' for missions. We worry so much about the 'means' that God sees fit to use in His providence, that the details just screw it up. It is not about anyone wanting to see souls saved or churches planted, where did you get this idea from? It is not about what we want at all. Is God dependent on man? We are only instruments, nothing more, nothing less. The thought that God uses programs to bring people to faith is a terrible misguided idea. One you should immediately flush down the toilet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is precisely what the hyper Calvinists told William Carey when he implored them to evangelize India. "Sit down young man!" they said, "If God wants those heathen saved, he will do it without your help or mine." He then went on to write the Calvinist-missions classic:
> _An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens. _Maybe you should give it a read. Your position was put to rest over 200 years ago and the true Calvinists won. God ordains the elect, and he also ordains the means.
> 
> 
> 
> *I'll leave you with some quotes from a Calvinist you might have heard of ...
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "To be a soul winner is the happiest thing in the world. And with every soul you bring to Jesus Christ, you seem to get a new heaven here upon earth."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. And if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If Hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unprayed for."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> - Charles Spurgeon
Click to expand...


Dennis, you obviously heard what i did not say. I did not say anything of the sort of the supposed comment made to Carey. I said that God is not dependent on us at all. We proclaim Him, and that is the highest motivation one can have.


----------



## Mushroom

> "Sit down young man!" they said, "If God wants those heathen saved, he will do it without your help or mine."


And it's obvious that there are at least two errors wrapped up in that statement.

One - That they assume missions or evangelism is 'helping' God rather than obedience to His command, and;

Two - That God does not use means in the proclamation of the Gospel, and that one of those means is His people going forth to faithfully carry it to those who haven't heard it.

Nobody here has suggested any such thing.

One thing I've noticed in myself is that when I've gotten on the extreme end of an issue, I tend to hear anything that is not in exact agreement with my position to be exageratedly on the far other end of the spectrum. Could that be happening in this case, Dennis?


----------



## steadfast7

Amazing Grace said:


> Dennis, you obviously heard what i did not say. I did not say anything of the sort of the supposed comment made to Carey. I said that God is not dependent on us at all. We proclaim Him, and that is the highest motivation one can have.



Agreed. No contention there. I was responding to ...



> Dennis, your numerous threads as of late, have a common theme of some misinformed understanding that God needs us to save souls. Saving souls is not the focus of a missionary nor any believer. Glorifying God is always the goal. When that is replaced with anything, we miss the mark. No one should share the Gospel being predominately motivated by the 'great commission', nor some love for sinners, as important as they are. They should share the Gospel to exalt the Glory of The Lord Jesus Christ. In Romans 1:5 Paul tells you this clearly. He does what he does 'for the sake of His Name'... Do a search in the scriptures how many times this phrase or something akin to it is used. For the sake of His name, His glory his etc etc. God is first and foremost about God!!!!



Here, you are echoing Piper and other Calvinistic missions advocates, who place the glory of God as the highest motivation. I thoroughly agree. I hope I did not come across as suggesting that the church's ultimate purpose is church planting or some such thing. Our ultimate end is worship. 

I am seeking to explore specifically the ways that Calvinistis and Arminians approach the use of means and it has been my general observation that Arm'ins are more prone to accommdate to the human condition, to understand the sociological, psychological, and cultural factors and employ this knowledge in their evangelism. Calvies, because of a stronger emphasis on God's sovereignty, are more reluctant to accommodate to people, their felt needs, their culture. They tend to resist contextualization and humanistic methods. The negative reactions to this thread are evidence enough of this tendency.

I think that both approaches are good, and we need not choose one at the expense of the other, but we should strive to excel in both - a strong theology of God's sovereignty AND a strategic use of "humanistic" tools. God's sovereignty is not undermined when we use means for the propagation of the gospel, rather, God is glorified when we do our best and employ every measure at our disposal to accomplish the unfinished task.


----------



## Prufrock

Dennis, would you be willing or able to present to us an example of a gospel contextualized to the sociological, psychological and cultural factors of another people, and demonstrate how it differs from "our gospel." Obviously, one must take the time to first explain various concepts to a people who might not have them (such as sin, judgment, etc.); but with all this talk about contextualization, I am wondering what you think it actually entails.

I am far removed from "the missionary scene," and have never had to trek through the jungle to explain the gospel to a tribe: so this is all probably ignorance and my part, and, strictly speaking, the topic is purely academic to me at this point. Nevertheless, I simply don't understand what such contextualization which I hear people speak of all the time actually looks like in practice, nor can I imagine such a thing which does not change the very fabric of the law and gospel. Please educate me.


----------



## LeeJUk

Prufrock said:


> Dennis, would you be willing or able to present to us an example of a gospel contextualized to the sociological, psychological and cultural factors of another people, and demonstrate how it differs from "our gospel." Obviously, one must take the time to first explain various concepts to a people who might not have them (such as sin, judgment, etc.); but with all this talk about contextualization, I am wondering what you think it actually entails.
> 
> I am far removed from "the missionary scene," and have never had to trek through the jungle to explain the gospel to a tribe: so this is all probably ignorance and my part, and, strictly speaking, the topic is purely academic to me at this point. Nevertheless, I simply don't understand what such contextualization which I hear people speak of all the time actually looks like in practice, nor can I imagine such a thing which does not change the very fabric of the law and gospel. Please educate me.



Mars Hill Church


----------



## Pergamum

Here is a historical example of contextualization by a Calvinistic Baptist, Adoniram Judson:




> In Burma in 1819, Baptist missionary Adoniram Judson adapted for Christian use Buddhist zayats, roadside shelters used for relaxation and discussions of current events. Judson and his wife Nancy attended Buddhist services held in zayats to become acquainted with seating patterns and other associated traditions. The Judsons' employment of zayats for Christian purposes quickly led to the first Burmese converts to faith in Christ.



Also, see here: http://www.thetravelingteam.org/node/112


Postures, dress, foods, and use of the vernacular are all ways in which we can contextualize without syncretism. 

The Dutch Reformed in parts of Indonesia did not adapt to the culture, and forced the Javanese to become Dutch in order to become Christian, but this was not due to calvinistic soteriology so much as due (possibly, wno knows their motives) to the colonial mindset of cultural superiority and possibly an over-restrictive ecclesiology.


Calvinists and Arminians alike both contextualize. This is not a Calvy vs Arminian thing.


Also, William Carey compiled vast amounts of data on people-groups of the world. The modern Operation World and Joshua Projects continue in this grand tradition, which was started by a Calvinistic Baptist. The social sciences can be very useful, as also linguistics and anthropology.

Again, this is not a Calvy-Arminian thing. It MIGHT be an issue of ecclesiology. Over-restrictive interpretations of the regulative principle of worship might freeze worship style and not account for cultural differences, or rigid views on music might disallow hymns to be adapted to local musical forms, but I do not see any reason why calvinism would disallow us from the use of the social sciences.


----------



## steadfast7

In some Reformed circles, the gospel is very tightly wrapped and strictly defined around the concept of penal substitution theory. With our centuries of theology that has been baking in a guilt-based culture very familiar with law terminology, we take penal substitution for granted as the only "true" way to conceive of the gospel.

I had a Calvinist friend in Thailand look up the word "substitution" in the Thai dictionary, and was going to use it straightway in his evangelism. Although he may "luckily" get his audience to have some fuzzy idea what he's saying, this is not generally advisable. it is important to understand the idioms and thought forms of the language and culture and craft the gospel in such that makes sense to them.

Such was the case with Don Richardson, missionary to Indonesia, who came upon a cannibalistic tribe that was at war with one another. Long story short, he discovered a cultural key whereby the tribe will exchange a "peace child" with a warring tribe and the fighting will cease. When the gospel was shaped using the peace child analogy, the tribe understood and responded to the gospel.

The bible itself is contextualized communication. God's pre-yahwistic name is "El", which is the name of Baal's father, the high god of Canaanite paganism. God borrowed this title from the surrounding culture. Likewise, God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Deuteronomy modelled after Hittite Suzerain-Vassal treaties, the NT term "Logos", etc. these are elements that made sense to the people, and were borrowed from the culture and re-packaged, so that certain concepts would be retained. God is not afraid of contextualization, rather he is the chief contextualizer.

Now, don't misunderstand, in the final analysis, there probaby is not a huge difference between a contextualized gospel and a "pure"/Calvinistic gospel. So it may be a splitting of hairs. But I have come across Calvinists who reject the importance of shaping the gospel according to the culture that's receiving it. They assume that the gospel is fixed in terms of penal substitution, not realizing (ironically) that this is itself a contextualized gospel that speaks to modern day western culture. If a Calvinist missionary enters into a tribal situation and insists upon teaching penal substitution, he may encounter problems being understood by the people. Calvinism is true, don't get me wrong. But the reason it makes sense to us is because it is a theology that is indigenous to our culture, and it speaks to our issues. People in other parts of the globe do not think in the same way, or have the same concerns. As one Asian theologian noted, "Western theology has excellent answers to questions we are not asking."


----------



## a mere housewife

> But I have come across Calvinists who reject the importance of shaping the gospel according to the culture that's receiving it. They assume that the gospel is fixed in terms of penal substitution, not realizing (ironically) that this is itself a contextualized gospel that speaks to modern day western culture.



And yet ironically it spoke to ancient culture, too 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f25/letter-diognetus-47473/


----------



## steadfast7

a mere housewife said:


> But I have come across Calvinists who reject the importance of shaping the gospel according to the culture that's receiving it. They assume that the gospel is fixed in terms of penal substitution, not realizing (ironically) that this is itself a contextualized gospel that speaks to modern day western culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet ironically it spoke to ancient culture, too
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f25/letter-diognetus-47473/
Click to expand...


Remember that that ancient world was one also very familiar with law and justice. Paul borrowed _dikaiosune_ from the language of the law courts, and he himself was a Pharisee, well versed in law. 

In God's providence, western culture has had a profound influence on the rest of the world, so it is easier now than ever to communicate in the western mode of thinking and be sufficiently understood. But in a hill tribe somewhere, law court imagery is quite a foreign concept.


----------



## au5t1n

Wow, penal substitution is a modern-day Western concept? Someone forgot to tell Paul he was ahead of his time. And the high priest in the temple didn't get the memo either.


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> Wow, penal substitution is a modern-day Western concept? Someone forget to tell Paul. And the temple priests too.



While penal substitution is the best way for us to conceive of the gospel, we need to allow that the Bible provides many metaphors for what Christ has done such as :

Redemption, ransom, triumphing over darkness, freedom from slavery, temple sacrifice, making peace, reconciliation, etc ...

these are all biblical metaphors. Any single one image does not fully exhaust the understanding of the atonement, hence the multiple metaphor.


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, penal substitution is a modern-day Western concept? Someone forget to tell Paul. And the temple priests too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While penal substitution is the best way for us to conceive of the gospel, we need to allow that the Bible provides many metaphors for what Christ has done such as :
> 
> Redemption, ransom, triumphing over darkness, freedom from slavery, temple sacrifice, making peace, reconciliation, etc ...
> 
> these are all biblical metaphors. Any single one image does not fully exhaust the understanding of the atonement, hence the multiple metaphor.
Click to expand...


All of these are BECAUSE of the penal substitution. Without that, the others wouldn't be possible.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any Eastern cultures that have not historically offered blood sacrifice to their god(s) for atonement of their sins.


----------



## Pergamum

Dennis:

It is true that Westerners think more in legal terms concerning our salvation, whereas in SE Asia, I have often noticed that people seem more moved by the relational terms of the Gospel, i.e, we are adopted into the family of God and we have our identity in Christ and God is our Father and Christians are all our brothers and sisters.

This does not deny that legal terms are appropriate, but it also shows that we read theology through cultural lenses to some degree such that the Protestant Reformation was led by many lawyers who spoke in legal terms and in SE Asia, the faith impacts many due to its relational terms. But God ordained it so in order to purify and reform the Church.

Also, I have noticed that we speak of guilt more, whereas locals where I am at speak of the shame of the Cross. We are more legal-forensic midned, whereas in SE Asia many are more "saving face" and "shame" minded, and thus, the fact that Jesus was stripped naked and his beard plucked REALLY moves some people in my local context ("he did THAT for us?") whereas I have never had these small details sink into my emotions before.

However, this does not deny that legal and forensic terms are appropriate. And a new appreciation of this lens helped shape the Protestant Reformation and helped the Church return to the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone.



Your other point is that the NT writers often adopted terminology that was in use by non-Christians. This is true. John's logos is one example. However, this does not make any of these doctrinsless true, it only shows that our God is a communicative God who is willing to utilize human language in all of its frailties to transmit divine truth.


----------



## TeachingTulip

austinww said:


> Wow, penal substitution is a modern-day Western concept? Someone forgot to tell Paul he was ahead of his time. And the high priest in the temple didn't get the memo either.



Abraham seemed to understand the concept quite well.

Genesis 22:1-14

*"And Abraham called the name of the place, 'The Lord Will Provide;' as it is said to this day, 'In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided.'" vs 14*

What was provided to Abraham, but a substitute offered to suffer the penalty of death, in place of Isaac?

A gospel message that does not proclaim the penal substitution of Jesus Christ, is no gospel at all, in my book.


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, penal substitution is a modern-day Western concept? Someone forget to tell Paul. And the temple priests too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While penal substitution is the best way for us to conceive of the gospel, we need to allow that the Bible provides many metaphors for what Christ has done such as :
> 
> Redemption, ransom, triumphing over darkness, freedom from slavery, temple sacrifice, making peace, reconciliation, etc ...
> 
> these are all biblical metaphors. Any single one image does not fully exhaust the understanding of the atonement, hence the multiple metaphor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of these are BECAUSE of the penal substitution. Without that, the others wouldn't be possible.
Click to expand...


I agree, there is a underlying narrative of penal substitution, but I believe it can be shaped in various ways, not just law imagery. But yeah, this is a touchy subject and I'm more on the Reformation side, rather than new perspectives and such.



> Off the top of my head, I can't think of any Eastern cultures that have not historically offered blood sacrifice to their god(s) for atonement of their sins.



Buddhism doesn't, I don't think. They have a very different concept of deity, sin and salvation. But who knows, they are so syncretistic there's probably some brand out there who does ...


----------



## Pergamum

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, penal substitution is a modern-day Western concept? Someone forget to tell Paul. And the temple priests too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While penal substitution is the best way for us to conceive of the gospel, we need to allow that the Bible provides many metaphors for what Christ has done such as :
> 
> Redemption, ransom, triumphing over darkness, freedom from slavery, temple sacrifice, making peace, reconciliation, etc ...
> 
> these are all biblical metaphors. Any single one image does not fully exhaust the understanding of the atonement, hence the multiple metaphor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of these are BECAUSE of the penal substitution. Without that, the others wouldn't be possible.
> 
> Off the top of my head, I can't think of any Eastern cultures that have not historically offered blood sacrifice to their god(s) for atonement of their sins.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is true that every culture seems to have had a history of rituals to appease spirit forces. These, however, were not so much penal or legal transactions, but appeasement of spirits.

-----Added 12/3/2009 at 12:21:22 EST-----



steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While penal substitution is the best way for us to conceive of the gospel, we need to allow that the Bible provides many metaphors for what Christ has done such as :
> 
> Redemption, ransom, triumphing over darkness, freedom from slavery, temple sacrifice, making peace, reconciliation, etc ...
> 
> these are all biblical metaphors. Any single one image does not fully exhaust the understanding of the atonement, hence the multiple metaphor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of these are BECAUSE of the penal substitution. Without that, the others wouldn't be possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, there is a underlying narrative of penal substitution, but I believe it can be shaped in various ways, not just law imagery. But yeah, this is a touchy subject and I'm more on the Reformation side, rather than new perspectives and such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head, I can't think of any Eastern cultures that have not historically offered blood sacrifice to their god(s) for atonement of their sins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buddhism doesn't, I don't think. They have a very different concept of deity, sin and salvation. But who knows, they are so syncretistic there's probably some brand out there who does ...
Click to expand...


Buddhists have a doctrine of the Bodhisattva I think, an enlightened person who chooses, rather than go to Nirvana, to delay this in order to help others. Sort of a Christ-like figure of self-sacrifice.


----------



## steadfast7

Pergamum said:


> Dennis:
> 
> It is true that Westerners think more in legal terms concerning our salvation, whereas in SE Asia, I have often noticed that people seem more moved by the relational terms of the Gospel, i.e, we are adopted into the family of God and we have our identity in Christ and God is our Father and Christians are all our brothers and sisters.
> 
> This does not deny that legal terms are appropriate, but it also shows that we read theology through cultural lenses to some degree such that the Protestant Reformation was led by many lawyers who spoke in legal terms and in SE Asia, the faith impacts many due to its relational terms. But God ordained it so in order to purify and reform the Church.
> 
> Also, I have noticed that we speak of guilt more, whereas locals where I am at speak of the shame of the Cross. We are more legal-forensic midned, whereas in SE Asia many are more "saving face" and "shame" minded, and thus, the fact that Jesus was stripped naked and his beard plucked REALLY moves some people in my local context ("he did THAT for us?") whereas I have never had these small details sink into my emotions before.
> 
> However, this does not deny that legal and forensic terms are appropriate. And a new appreciation of this lens helped shape the Protestant Reformation and helped the Church return to the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone.
> 
> 
> 
> Your other point is that the NT writers often adopted terminology that was in use by non-Christians. This is true. John's logos is one example. However, this does not make any of these doctrinsless true, it only shows that our God is a communicative God who is willing to utilize human language in all of its frailties to transmit divine truth.



Thanks Pergy. Certainly, nothing is denied by the existence of the other metaphors, that's for sure. I suppose at some point we need to choose and emphasize one particular metaphor that is most meaningful for us.


----------



## TeachingTulip

steadfast7 said:


> Certainly, nothing is denied by the existence of the other metaphors, that's for sure. I suppose at some point we need to choose and emphasize one particular metaphor that is most meaningful for us.



Christ's Mediatorship, Federal Headship, and High Priesthood are divine, spiritual realities . . . not metaphors.


----------



## Pergamum

DENNIS:


I think we need to pay full attention to all the metaphors. 

I also think that as God blesses the work of the Gospel to all the world, we - as a Global Body of Christ - will be enabled to more see the fullness of Jesus as some from every, tongue, tribe and nation all gather and interact and force others to see the full sepctrum of divine truth. Thus, if the West or the East over-emphasizes one meaphor to the exclusion of all others, as the Great Commission succeeds, our brothers across the seas will be able to force us to see more fully all the metaphors and, thus, we all will help one another to mature to the full man in Christ (Ephesians 4).

Having said all of this, we should not try to minimize the legal and forensic themes. Penal substitution is biblical and not mereley a product of Western culture, though - in God's providence - He has uniquely blessed Western culture with an ability to develop these legal-forensic themes and see them with unusual clarity.


----------



## carlgobelman

steadfast7 said:


> You may have heard it before, something to the effect of,
> 
> "Evangelize like an Arminian, but pray and sleep like a Calvinist."
> 
> In general, Arminians have been known to "pull out all the stops" when it comes to evangelism and missions. As people who believe in an unbounded will capable of heeding the gospel, they are the masters of devising and employing natural means in their evangelism.
> 
> Calvinists have been known to be bold and daring in gospel proclamation, but not as "sensitive" to natural processes which bring people to faith. In a sermon on missions, Paul Washer said something like, "the modern missiological emphasis on contextualization and anthropology are the activity of little boys who do not know their God."
> 
> If God indeed uses means (eg. contextualization, anthropology, mission strategy, social programs, etc.) to bring people to faith, Are Calvinists rightly charged for not doing their best in these areas?



Coming late to the party, but to say "evangelize like an Arminian" seems to imply a mentality that we, somehow, are crucial in the process of 'saving souls.' By 'crucial' I mean that we must somehow figure out ways and methods for persuading and convincing people into the kingdom. This places the methods of man over against the means God ordained. The bible is quite clear, we plant the seed and God provides the growth. Arminian evangelism wants to do both.

White Horse Inn had a brilliant broadcast a month or so ago with Greg Koukl about his book _Tactics_. His 'method' is to take an ambassadorial approach to apologetics/evangelism. Our sovereign King has a message to proclaim and we are his diplomats. We must know our material, use wisdom in our approach to witnessing (no one method is 'one size fits all'), and have a godly character (grace seasoned with salt). His approach is masterful and employs a Q&A method that engages with those whom we wish to win and places the burden of proof (if you will) on them. "What is it you believe?" "Why do you believe what you believe?" Etc. The goal is not to 'win souls' (since we CAN'T do that anyway), but to plant seeds (or as Koukl puts it, "place a stone in their shoe"). Get them questioning their own worldview. As Koukl put it, if we believe our position and worldview is right (which we do), then we need to listen and be attentive to the worldviews of others so we can find the 'fatal flaw' of their position (which has to be there if Christianity is true).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> yeah, the 1689 is good, but I'm glad you're not reproducing it on the field. Some on the board would think that's what missionaries should do. I've even heard comments like "Everyone should just learn Greek and Hebrew than translating the bible." ... wow!



If, by this, you mean to imply that an understanding of original language is immaterial I would ask you to reconsider how you seem to despise this idea.

I was reading Tremper Longman on the Proverbs yesterday and he made a very profound point. In a nutshell he noted that a translation of the Scripture is an extended commentary with no notes. All translation is interpretation. You're either aware of that point or you simply carry over theological concepts that may or may not be contained in the Scriptures themselves.

To the OP, I've had more than a little experience in bearing Gospel Truth to other cultures. I have seen, firsthand, how decisional theologies leave many impoverished in a form of Christianity that leaves it nearly bare of the Gospel. I've also seen the relative impoverishment of men and women who were never discipled to the point that they can carry on the teaching ministry of the Word organically to their own culture.

I have a number of dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ in Asia. I worshipped with them and didn't consider them objects of "mission" per se but simply taught what the Scriptures taught of God's power to save. I never believed I needed to add extraordinary measures but proclaimed the Truth in a way that they understood. I spoke more slowly for those whose English wasn't the best and even summarized some things so the Japanese secretaries could type up notes in the native language.

I couldn't see the fruit firsthand but have been humbled by the Pastor who came in after I left who told me that there were several people who had been Christians for years that told him that they believed they were converted to Christ during that period. I don't want to speak as a fool and pat myself on the back because hearing that only brought tears to my eyes that God could use a weak vessel like me for His holy ends but it does give me every confidence that God is, indeed, strong to save.

One thing I do remember thinking while there was that it is much more satisfying to see a handful of people have their eyes grow wide at the grace and mercy of God than seeing a Church full of people transplanting their American theology to a native soil so they can feel at home while at Church. Many were driven away to larger Churches. I wept to see them go but they wanted the programs and other features of large Churches we could not provide. People asked me what our Church offered in terms of programs and all I could say is "not much but we preach Christ and Him crucified." It was enough to see the handful that really wanted that.

More than anything, though, what gladdens my heart is to see men who have been Christians for 30 years who never understood the Word enough to teach others who now devote themselves to the Word and are teaching others. The Great Commission is baptize, teach so the roots grow deep, and others will rise up in God's Providence to teach others. A personal emphasis on raw numbers with shallow watering simply doesn't get it done.


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> Thanks Pergy. Certainly, nothing is denied by the existence of the other metaphors, that's for sure. I suppose at some point we need to choose and emphasize one particular metaphor that is most meaningful for us.



Dennis, don't you think it might be ultimately more submissive to Scripture to say that we need to learn to appreciate the significance of each aspect of the work of Christ as it is presented in Scripture? Instead of me choosing what I like best, I need to accept all that God says. And the same thing is true for other cultures: of course you start where you are able to explain things to people most simply, but you also have to go on to introduce them to new ideas. You can't translate the Bible or teach theology by "transposing" everything into immediately relatable terms: on the contrary, you have to introduce people to a new world of ideas. You start with what is simplest for them, but leaving them there is simply refusing to carry on discipleship. 
I would also be very leery of the terminology of "metaphor" and the assumption that God took over things from pagan culture. What archaeology tells you, like everything science tells you, is partial, provisional, subject to change and reinterpretation. Hittites have gone from being a mocking proof of the falsity of Scripture to the hermeneutical key to the OT, but tomorrow a new discovery or a scientific revolution might render them largely irrelevant. The language of metaphor is problematic because in one sense (see Owen Barfield) all communication is metaphorical; in another sense, Christ is not a sacrifice or a priest merely in metaphor, but in reality. (Just as, for instance, God is not called a Father _metaphorically_ as though human fatherhood were the pattern on which God modeled his relations to His elect, but in fact human fatherhood is a dim shadow of the reality of God's relation.)


----------



## au5t1n

Dennis,

Buddhism is a religion. I said culture.  Buddha taught in India, and his culture did offer sacrifices.


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, the 1689 is good, but I'm glad you're not reproducing it on the field. Some on the board would think that's what missionaries should do. I've even heard comments like "Everyone should just learn Greek and Hebrew than translating the bible." ... wow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If, by this, you mean to imply that an understanding of original language is immaterial I would ask you to reconsider how you seem to despise this idea.
Click to expand...


Learning the original languages is good and necessary, I was despising the idea that this should be done _instead _of translating the bible into the vernacular.

-----Added 12/3/2009 at 03:36:19 EST-----



py3ak said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Pergy. Certainly, nothing is denied by the existence of the other metaphors, that's for sure. I suppose at some point we need to choose and emphasize one particular metaphor that is most meaningful for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis, don't you think it might be ultimately more submissive to Scripture to say that we need to learn to appreciate the significance of each aspect of the work of Christ as it is presented in Scripture? Instead of me choosing what I like best, I need to accept all that God says. And the same thing is true for other cultures: of course you start where you are able to explain things to people most simply, but you also have to go on to introduce them to new ideas. You can't translate the Bible or teach theology by "transposing" everything into immediately relatable terms: on the contrary, you have to introduce people to a new world of ideas. You start with what is simplest for them, but leaving them there is simply refusing to carry on discipleship.
> I would also be very leery of the terminology of "metaphor" and the assumption that God took over things from pagan culture. What archaeology tells you, like everything science tells you, is partial, provisional, subject to change and reinterpretation. Hittites have gone from being a mocking proof of the falsity of Scripture to the hermeneutical key to the OT, but tomorrow a new discovery or a scientific revolution might render them largely irrelevant. The language of metaphor is problematic because in one sense (see Owen Barfield) all communication is metaphorical; in another sense, Christ is not a sacrifice or a priest merely in metaphor, but in reality. (Just as, for instance, God is not called a Father _metaphorically_ as though human fatherhood were the pattern on which God modeled his relations to His elect, but in fact human fatherhood is a dim shadow of the reality of God's relation.)
Click to expand...


Every theological tradition is basically a grid or structure made of certain emphases and acts as pegs on which we hang our interpretations or a lens through which we interpret the bible. We Calvinists emphasize the sovereignty and glory of God as highest values in theology. Arminians emphasize the free will of man, Romanists emphasize the eucharist and the authority of the church, etc. because our finite minds cannot take in the whole of scripture at once, we need this grid structure to give us a basic framework for theology.

Ruben, I find it interesting that your position on metaphor on this topic leans toward a "leeriness" toward transposing everything into immediately relatable terms. In our discussions on the attributes of God in another thread, you are more than enthusiastic to affirm that we should read God's emotions anthropopathically. Why should emotions be regarded non-literally, but Christ's priesthood literally?

-----Added 12/3/2009 at 03:41:17 EST-----



austinww said:


> Dennis,
> 
> Buddhism is a religion. I said culture.  Buddha taught in India, and his culture did offer sacrifices.



The culture didn't offer sacrifices because it was fun and there was nothing else to do. They sacrificed because their religion dictated it. There is a complex interplay between culture and religion that cannot easily be separated. 

Of all the religions, Buddhism is perhaps most prone to syncretism with the surrounding culture, thereby creating a culture that possesses strands of Buddhist thinking. Many do not consider Buddhism a religion at all, but a highly flexible philosophy.


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> Every theological tradition is basically a grid or structure made of certain emphases and acts as pegs on which we hang our interpretations or a lens through which we interpret the bible. We Calvinists emphasize the sovereignty and glory of God as highest values in theology. Arminians emphasize the free will of man, Romanists emphasize the eucharist and the authority of the church, etc. because our finite minds cannot take in the whole of scripture at once, we need this grid structure to give us a basic framework for theology.
> 
> Ruben, I find it interesting that your position on metaphor on this topic leans toward a "leeriness" toward transposing everything into immediately relatable terms. In our discussions on the attributes of God in another thread, you are more than enthusiastic to affirm that we should read God's emotions anthropopathically. Why should emotions be regarded non-literally, but Christ's priesthood literally?



Dennis, please look again at what you said. Are the differences between Arminians, Calvinists, and Romanists merely differences of emphasis? If you affirmed that I assume you wouldn't have been interested in the board. But do you not see how that is the implication of the form in which you stated your point? That, of course, makes it a really bad example, because in general Calvinists are right in the things that distinguish them from Arminians and Papists. I don't mean to sound condescending at all, but it seems to me that you really ought to spend some time familiarizing yourself with theology from a time when people were not afraid to be dogmatic and when it was asserted that what God had said could be apprehended, inasmuch as he said it to us. While in actual practice no doubt it is often the case that we superimpose a grid on Scripture, the goal is for Scripture itself to give us the hints about the organizing categories.

Without desiring to rehash the other thread over here, let me point that there is a big difference in God illustrating aspects of His proceedings or character from things familiar to us, and God creating or instituting certain things as types of His superlative reality. With fatherhood, for instance, we have Ephesians 3:15, but there is no comparable verse asserting that God is the archetype of drunken warriors waking up. Christ's priesthood is literal because it is after a definite order, it contains all the essential elements of priesthood, it is grounded on the Father's oath, and it deals with the real problem of sin: also the paraphernalia of the Aaronic priesthood was made after a heavenly model: as the Tabernacle represented heaven, the priests represented Christ. Anthropopathic descriptions of God are figures, among other reasons, because God is "blessed for ever" and in Him there is no variableness nor even a shadow of turning, and consequently He does not pass through varying emotional states: He is unchangeable in His blessedness. But that topic takes us off the point of this thread, so I'm going to leave it there.


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis,
> 
> Buddhism is a religion. I said culture.  Buddha taught in India, and his culture did offer sacrifices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The culture didn't offer sacrifices because it was fun and there was nothing else to do. They sacrificed because their religion dictated it. There is a complex interplay between culture and religion that cannot easily be separated.
> 
> Of all the religions, Buddhism is perhaps most prone to syncretism with the surrounding culture, thereby creating a culture that possesses strands of Buddhist thinking. Many do not consider Buddhism a religion at all, but a highly flexible philosophy.
Click to expand...


You're right, but my point was simply that Eastern cultures also have blood sacrifice to obtain atonement from the gods. It is a worldwide idea - a corrupted version of what God originally required in Genesis. But the point is that they are familiar with the concept of something else dying in their place to appease a deity.


----------



## steadfast7

py3ak said:


> Dennis, please look again at what you said. Are the differences between Arminians, Calvinists, and Romanists merely differences of emphasis? If you affirmed that I assume you wouldn't have been interested in the board. But do you not see how that is the implication of the form in which you stated your point? That, of course, makes it a really bad example, because in general Calvinists are right in the things that distinguish them from Arminians and Papists. I don't mean to sound condescending at all, but it seems to me that you really ought to spend some time familiarizing yourself with theology from a time when people were not afraid to be dogmatic and when it was asserted that what God had said could be apprehended, inasmuch as he said it to us. While in actual practice no doubt it is often the case that we superimpose a grid on Scripture, the goal is for Scripture itself to give us the hints about the organizing categories.



No one said that the emphasis of Arminians and Papists are _right _ones, and they are by no means exhonerated by their choice of organizing structure, but they do have an emphasis nonetheless. The hints which can be found in scripture are certainly present, but the Reformers did not settle upon the sovereignty or glory of God as core principles through an inductive search through a scriptures, counting the passages and weighing their prominence against other competing themes. It was an active and intentional decision to emphasize these themes and downplay others in light of the battle for doctrine that ensued in their era. In our day, we find their emphases to continue to be the most God-glorifying, soul-satisfying, rationally coherent and biblically faithful - hence our allegiance.

-----Added 12/3/2009 at 08:39:05 EST-----

Also, another little fact about contextualization. There are Ethiopian Coptic Christians who do not hold to the Chalcedonian formula of 2 natures in the 1 person of Christ. I'm not sure of the details, but there's something about their language paradigm that makes it utterly unintellible to conceive of something having two natures. It sounds like an issue where they should just shut up and believe, but they're simply unable to. However, their Christianity is by no means heretical. Their formulation and articulation of Christology is such that they do end up making the correct orthodox distinctions about the divinity and humanity of Christ that we have in Chalcedon, while not using the precise language.


----------



## Pergamum

steadfast7 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis, please look again at what you said. Are the differences between Arminians, Calvinists, and Romanists merely differences of emphasis? If you affirmed that I assume you wouldn't have been interested in the board. But do you not see how that is the implication of the form in which you stated your point? That, of course, makes it a really bad example, because in general Calvinists are right in the things that distinguish them from Arminians and Papists. I don't mean to sound condescending at all, but it seems to me that you really ought to spend some time familiarizing yourself with theology from a time when people were not afraid to be dogmatic and when it was asserted that what God had said could be apprehended, inasmuch as he said it to us. While in actual practice no doubt it is often the case that we superimpose a grid on Scripture, the goal is for Scripture itself to give us the hints about the organizing categories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one said that the emphasis of Arminians and Papists are _right _ones, and they are by no means exhonerated by their choice of organizing structure, but they do have an emphasis nonetheless. The hints which can be found in scripture are certainly present, but the Reformers did not settle upon the sovereignty or glory of God as core principles through an inductive search through a scriptures, counting the passages and weighing their prominence against other competing themes. It was an active and intentional decision to emphasize these themes and downplay others in light of the battle for doctrine that ensued in their era. In our day, we find their emphases to continue to be the most God-glorifying, soul-satisfying, rationally coherent and biblically faithful - hence our allegiance.
Click to expand...


If Christianity had sprung up more pronounced in the East rather than in the West, the confessions probably would have addressed ancestor worship rather than the Pope being the Antichrist. And as the Church now springs up among many cultures, they may feel a need to draft their own documents rather than adopt the Reformation-era documents. This would not be a bad thing, as long as the core principles of all true confessions are the same.


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> No one said that the emphasis of Arminians and Papists are _right _ones, and they are by no means exhonerated by their choice of organizing structure, but they do have an emphasis nonetheless.


Yes, but that doesn't mean the differences between the people who get it wrong and the people who get it right are questions of emphasis.


steadfast7 said:


> The hints which can be found in scripture are certainly present, but the Reformers did not settle upon the sovereignty or glory of God as core principles through an inductive search through a scriptures, counting the passages and weighing their prominence against other competing themes. It was an active and intentional decision to emphasize these themes and downplay others in light of the battle for doctrine that ensued in their era.


Do you have any source for this assertion? The flood of commentaries from Reformed authors certainly indicates a tremendous amount of inductive study being done. While they may have had to _defend_ certain things more than others because they were more attacked, I seriously doubt that you can produce any statement from their writings saying, "We decided to overlook this theme". I agree it probably wasn't so much considering how often Scripture presents a certain theme, but more how Scripture presents it, and in connection to what.


steadfast7 said:


> In our day, we find their emphases to continue to be the most God-glorifying, soul-satisfying, rationally coherent and biblically faithful - hence our allegiance.


When you say Biblically faithful, you just gave away your whole previous argument. They are Biblically faithful because they reflect what the Bible actually says. Thus they are not a premanufactured grid imposed on Scripture, but a system that arose from considering Scripture's text and it's good and necessary consequences, comparing that with the exegetical tradition of the church, and doing their best to give solid answers to difficulties of interpretation, disagreements between authorities (including Jewish authorities to the extent of their availability - see for instance Peter Martyr), or the arguments of opponents.


----------



## steadfast7

Good point Pergy. I've read not a few threads that make it seem that the confessions are virtually equal to the scripture in infallibility and authority.

-----Added 12/3/2009 at 08:56:55 EST-----



py3ak said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hints which can be found in scripture are certainly present, but the Reformers did not settle upon the sovereignty or glory of God as core principles through an inductive search through a scriptures, counting the passages and weighing their prominence against other competing themes. It was an active and intentional decision to emphasize these themes and downplay others in light of the battle for doctrine that ensued in their era.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any source for this assertion? The flood of commentaries from Reformed authors certainly indicates a tremendous amount of inductive study being done. While they may have had to _defend_ certain things more than others because they were more attacked, I seriously doubt that you can produce any statement from their writings saying, "We decided to overlook this theme". I agree it probably wasn't so much considering how often Scripture presents a certain theme, but more how Scripture presents it, and in connection to what.
Click to expand...


The relationship between text and theology is probably more complex than we can sort out. I agree that the Reformers were thorough biblicists, but the Reformation had already begun when the exegetes began seriously reading and commenting on the Bible afresh. The indictments made by Luther against the church and her doctrine came somewhat concurrently, and somewhat prior to his exegetical conclusions, and Calvin along came some decades later. They had to build the airplane while in mid-flight, as it were. In terms of "leaving out themes", we do see this in Luther's assessment of James' epistle. It didn't lend very much weightage to his argument on justification, thus he named it the "epistle of straw."




steadfast7 said:


> In our day, we find their emphases to continue to be the most God-glorifying, soul-satisfying, rationally coherent and biblically faithful - hence our allegiance.
> 
> 
> 
> When you say Biblically faithful, you just gave away your whole previous argument. They are Biblically faithful because they reflect what the Bible actually says. Thus they are not a premanufactured grid imposed on Scripture, but a system that arose from considering Scripture's text and it's good and necessary consequences, comparing that with the exegetical tradition of the church, and doing their best to give solid answers to difficulties of interpretation, disagreements between authorities (including Jewish authorities to the extent of their availability - see for instance Peter Martyr), or the arguments of opponents.
Click to expand...


We are now heirs of the work that the Reformers did in laying out the structure and shaping the hermeneutical lens through which we now read scripture. Because of their work, we are able to see the truth clearly and obviously. The context of the Reformation helped to make obvious what what not obvious.


----------



## Pergamum

DENNIS:

Research the Coptic churches more. I am not sure if they are sound or not. They might not be your best example.


----------



## steadfast7

Pergamum said:


> DENNIS:
> 
> Research the Coptic churches more. I am not sure if they are sound or not. They might not be your best example.



My mistake, they're not Coptic, they're the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (EOTC). Steve Strauss wrote a good article in the book, "Globalizing Theology", eds. Craig Ott and Harold Netland, put out by TEDS.

Basically, to the Tewahedo and their language, the Chalcedonian formula is a masked form of Nestorianism, and so they have felt the need to re-formulate the creed into their own language so as to protect from heresy.


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> The relationship between text and theology is probably more complex than we can sort out. I agree that the Reformers were thorough biblicists, but the Reformation had already begun when the exegetes began seriously reading and commenting on the Bible afresh. The indictments made by Luther against the church and her doctrine came somewhat concurrently, and somewhat prior to his exegetical conclusions, and Calvin along came some decades later. They had to build the airplane while in mid-flight, as it were. In terms of "leaving out themes", we do see this in Luther's assessment of James' epistle. It didn't lend very much weightage to his argument on justification, thus he named it the "epistle of straw."



Just one question. How, exactly, did Luther come to realize the truth of justification by faith? What was his job when that came upon him?



steadfast7 said:


> We are now heirs of the work that the Reformers did in laying out the structure and shaping the hermeneutical lens through which we now read scripture. Because of their work, we are able to see the truth clearly and obviously. The context of the Reformation helped to make obvious what what not obvious.



That still isn't upholding the point you claimed previously.


----------



## steadfast7

py3ak said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The relationship between text and theology is probably more complex than we can sort out. I agree that the Reformers were thorough biblicists, but the Reformation had already begun when the exegetes began seriously reading and commenting on the Bible afresh. The indictments made by Luther against the church and her doctrine came somewhat concurrently, and somewhat prior to his exegetical conclusions, and Calvin along came some decades later. They had to build the airplane while in mid-flight, as it were. In terms of "leaving out themes", we do see this in Luther's assessment of James' epistle. It didn't lend very much weightage to his argument on justification, thus he named it the "epistle of straw."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one question. How, exactly, did Luther come to realize the truth of justification by faith? What was his job when that came upon him?
Click to expand...


Ultimately, the Holy Spirit led him to re-read the text and to revisit the theology of Augustine. His inner turmoil was a pretty big factor as well. Justification by faith was but one breakthrough in Reformed theology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the systematization of the doctrines of grace came much later, and Luther probably didn't hold to predestination as strongly as the followers of Calvin. We really take our structure from Calvin, not Luther.



steadfast7 said:


> We are now heirs of the work that the Reformers did in laying out the structure and shaping the hermeneutical lens through which we now read scripture. Because of their work, we are able to see the truth clearly and obviously. The context of the Reformation helped to make obvious what what not obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That still isn't upholding the point you claimed previously.
Click to expand...


My only point was that dogmatic grids do not rise purely from an inductive search through the scriptures but are heavily influenced by external factors. We can also point to the 4th century Christological controversies that gave rise to the council of Nicea, Nestorianism that led to Ephesus and Chalcedon, liberalism that led to fundamentalism, etc. and nearly all major dogmatic decisions, Emphases are often shaped by the surrounding culture.


----------



## py3ak

You missed the point of my question, Dennis. _What was Luther doing?_ What was his job, his role, his task? In what activity was he professionally engaged when he came to understand justification by faith?

You can point to the same sort of factors in the development of the NT itself - but it is still inspired, infallible, sufficient and perspicacious.


----------



## steadfast7

He was a professor of theology. 

I anticipate that you will then say that he came to his conclusion through an inductive study of Paul's epistles. While this is true in part, this is not to deny that his personal circumstances did not help him to arrive at this much needed illumination in his life. I don't suppose you're arguing that the impetus for the Reformation is purely exegetical, are you?

And yes, God's providence was leading these men of God all along.


----------



## py3ak

OK. So you can't say that the Reformers created a grid out of thin air and then turned to Scripture to make it line up. A little timeline of Luther is enough to prevent that theory.


> 1514-15 Lectures on the Psalms
> 1515-16 Lectures on Romans
> 1516-17 Lectures on Galatians
> 1517 October 31- Posts 95 Theses



You've acknowledged that their "grid" is Biblically faithful. You've acknowledged that questions of their circumstances can be equally applied to the authors of Scripture, and I assume you agree that this does not relativize the Scriptures; by parity of reasoning, neither does it relativize the Reformed interpretation. (And remember, the meaning of Scripture is Scripture.)

That should mean that you back down from some of your assertions in the thread. But when you remove what is inconsistent with what you've agreed to, I'm left to wonder what the discussion is about?


----------



## steadfast7

py3ak said:


> OK. So you can't say that the Reformers created a grid out of thin air and then turned to Scripture to make it line up. A little timeline of Luther is enough to prevent that theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 1514-15 Lectures on the Psalms
> 1515-16 Lectures on Romans
> 1516-17 Lectures on Galatians
> 1517 October 31- Posts 95 Theses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've acknowledged that their "grid" is Biblically faithful. You've acknowledged that questions of their circumstances can be equally applied to the authors of Scripture, and I assume you agree that this does not relativize the Scriptures; by parity of reasoning, neither does it relativize the Reformed interpretation. (And remember, the meaning of Scripture is Scripture.)
> 
> That should mean that you back down from some of your assertions in the thread. But when you remove what is inconsistent with what you've agreed to, I'm left to wonder what the discussion is about?
Click to expand...


Truth is not relativized by the existence of dogmatic grids, in fact they help us to recognize them as truth. 

I don't think I've backed down from any assertions thus far. My argument is that cultural factors play a role in determining the emphases (the grid) which lead to our theology. As Pergy said, if the Reformation occurred in east Asia, the theology would centre around other matters of concern to that context. If you're arguing that Reformed theology was derived on purely exegetical grounds without the aid and influence of the historical circumstances and culture of the time, it's a very narrow view that I don't think can be substantiated.


----------



## py3ak

I didn't relate dogmatic grids to relativization - I denied that human situatedness equates to relativization. 

That the situation requries you to focus on certain aspects for polemical purposes does not mean that _governs_ your approach. For instance, in any context, most polemicists are also going to come into contact with pastoral and liturgical concerns. All of these different things drive you (ideally) to Scripture. How you got there may color what you're looking for, and so will influence what you tend to emphasize, but I suspect that any one being faithful in reading Scripture will from time to time be surprised by coming across something he wasn't looking for. So that Scripture is not passive putty in the hands of faithful interpreters, but is itself an active and formative influence in all their concerns.


----------



## Pergamum

DENNIS:


Trying to get your OP back on track. 


Your contention seems to be that, either

*(1) the Reformed are less adaptable in missions because they are less likely to contextualize, to be culturally sensitive and to utilize the social sciences in the pursuit of missions.*

Or, is your dispute also that 

*(2) the reformed are less zealous in missions?*



NUMBER 1: If *your dispute is that the Reformed are less likely to contextualize, to be culturally sensitive and to utilize the social sciences in the pursuit of missions, *then these following notes are relevant:


-Yes, many of the reformed see the abuses of contextualization and this makes them suspicious, for good and bad, of contextualization. 

-Some of the Reformed don't even believe in music. Therefore, I would not expect any of them to approve of my own efforts to fit the Gospel into local musical forms (a contextualizing strategy). The issue then would not be their deficiency in contextualization but in their error of Exclusive Psalmodry, which is another topic. Not many fans of ethno-musicology for worship among the EPers I would guess.

-Using the Regulative Principle of Worship, some Reformed have frozen worship and disallowed for cultural expressions in their worship. But, the RPW speaks of principles of worship and allows for differing circumstances of worship. Worship can and should look slightly different based on the culture. There are many reformed groups that would agree with me.

-I have seen some "Reformed" groups try to teach the abstract questions of the Catechism to half-literate tribal groups. It just does not fit. The Reformed groups that I am thinking of have not prioritized learning the indigenous languages but have instead only translated the catechism (even before any Scripture portions) into the trade language in a very exact, literal and abstract way...and the people just cannot understand. 

Narrative teaching lessons and chronological bible-storying works so much better in a tribal context and yet the Reformed in the province where I am at cannot see this due to their feeling that the catechism must be prioritized first and kept literally translated, insead of the lessons being told in story form or local illustrations. But, this group in my province, I hope, is the exception and not the rule.

-Missionaries coming into missions are given psychological testing. We research people-groups using anthropology and social sciences. On the whole, it is true, some of the Reformed are more suspcious of these practices. I knew one man that was incensed that a missionary society would give him a background check and a psychological test. But, I cannot blame the sending agency - they need to check their people, because the mission field is full of HUGE stressors and some missionaries I know have chronic fatigue and PTSD symptoms from things that they have seen and expereinced on the field.

--Also, concerning anthropology and the social sciences, I have heard some churches criticize Operation World and the Joshua Project for trying to chop up humanity into ethne. But there are practical reasons, and also theological reasons for trying to see what groups make up the _panta ta ethne_ that we are to reach in Matthew 28. We want to allocate our limited resources in the best way possible, and so studying the peoples of the world is necessary. If we are to go into "all the nations" we need toknow where those nations are located. 

A very good OP to branch off of this thread would, in fact, be the role of anthropology and the social sciences in missions. 

Remember, William Carey's _Enquiry_ (in Section 3) contains a list of all the peoples of the world, the first ethnography or compilation of the ethne of the world...and it was created to serve in missions.

-Historically, there have been some very poor examples of how the Dutch Reformed have done missions in SE Asia, often due to the missionary arriving on the same boat as the colonial master and the Europeans looking down upon the local Asians. Missions was done from the center of power, often with social rewards, rather than the church spreading among the lowest classes and the poor, as in the ancient church.

-Also, the union of Church and State kills healthy missions. The Modern Missions Movement was launched largely by those that did not believe or were unconcerned with the union of Church and State (William Carey, Baptist Missionary Society, Baptists in America). 

Here is a summary of this trend from something I wrote in the past (about trends in missions):



> Trend 5. Persecution, the demise of colonialism, and the return to Pre-Constantinianism
> 
> Pre-Constantinianism? What do I mean by this term?
> 
> This term attempts to characterize how the church operated prior to the contaminating influences of the era of Constantine on the early church. Pre-Constantinianism includes two main thoughts, (1) that missions is now being done in the face of the disappearance of Western colonial power and in a manner more reflective of New Testament practice, and (2) Pre-Constantinianism is an attempt to show that missions is now increasingly being done in places where there is a rise in persecution, without the protection of Western governments.
> 
> The early church, an oppressed minority, spread like wildfire. From the fringes of power rather than the center, poor and persecuted Christians multiplied despite having no civil backing and little wealth, spreading not only despite persecution but often because of persecution. With Constantinian preference, the church and the civil state married into an unholy matrimony that not even the Protestant Reformation remedied. Christianity spread only with the spread of the civil state. The fiction of “Christendom” crept in. The Protestant Reformation did not expunge these faults and the new Protestant States continued these errors with the policy of, “cuius regio eius religio,” stating that whoever’s region it was, that also was the religion, the political powers fixing religion.
> The Moravians were the first to send out missionaries not associated with the colonizing powers; and what a great example of missionary devotion they continue to be, even selling themselves as slaves to evangelize poor plantation workers. The Moravian Church sent out missionaries at a rate of 1 in every 12, a virtual tithe of church members into missions, and inspired William Carey, who proposed that voluntary associations of private Christians, i.e., missionary societies, be formed to reach the world for Christ, an idea that launched the Modern Missions Movement.
> Missions is almost entirely done now by groups not wedded to the State and missionaries are increasingly finding ways into hostile regions where persecution is not merely a possibility, but an expectation. There has never been a time when more Muslims are turning to Christ. In North Africa, the small embers of churches that have long been almost stamped into extinction are now beginning to blaze anew, despite renewed persecution.
> In Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, there is periodic violence against Christians and hundreds have been killed, and hundreds of churches have been burned or closed. Despite all of this, the official statistics regarding Christians are constantly in need of revision as perhaps over 20 million Christians now exist in this beleaguered country.
> 
> A case study: Indonesia is a wonderful illustration of the blessings of this current trend. During the Dutch Colonization, evangelism was slow going and national Christians succeeded where most Western mission efforts failed. Most Dutch mission efforts failed altogether, most Javanese thinking that to become Christian was to model the overly rigid Dutch Reformed patterns of ecclesiology and even adopt Dutch dress. National identity and religion merged into one amorphous mass. Islam and Christianity actually entered the interior of Java at about the same general time period and yet, due to hatred of the Dutch colonizers, more and more Javanese turned to Islam until it became the clear majority all throughout the region, despite “Christian” powers being in control and despite vigorous efforts by Dutch missionaries, who rode the colonial ships over to land on the mission field and lived besides tea plantation masters. Since Merdeka (Independence), and especially since Islamic fundamentalism has begun to gain power, Christianity has spread like wildfire.





*Also, many of the Reformed did away from Voluntary Associations and specialized societies for missions:*

The Reformation did not really do missionary work outside of Europe for over 100 years, though abortive efforts were made to Brazil and Calvin helped plant hundreds of churches in France, which would rightly have been called a mission field at that time. Protestant Europe was just trying to survive, but also there were other factors as well. Going far away was just not in the Protestant mentality until Carey proposed the Voluntary Association, the mission society, to give legs to their missions impulse. The Reformed lagged behind due to lack of Sending Structures for missions.

Below is something I wrote on this topic:



> Why William Carey taught me not to fear missionary societies:
> 
> In “Section Five” of his Enquiry, Carey proposes the following:
> Suppose a company of serious Christians, ministers and private persons, were to form themselves into a society, and make a number of rules respecting the regulation of the plan, and the persons who are to be employed as missionaries, the means of defraying the expense, &c.&c. This society must consist of persons whose hearts are in the work, men of serious religion, and possessing a spirit of perseverance; there must be a determination not to admit any person who is not of this description, or to retain him longer than he answers to it.
> 
> From such a society a committee might be appointed, whose business it should be to procure all the information they could upon the subject, to receive contributions, to enquire into the characters, tempers, abilities and religious views of the missionaries, and also to provide them with necessaries for their undertakings.
> And then he concludes;
> 
> I would therefore propose that such a society and committee should be formed amongst the particular baptist denomination.
> 
> In 1792, The Particular Baptist Society for the Propagation of the Gospel among the Heathen was formed, and within the lifetime of Carey, dozens of missionary societies sprang into being, giving legs to local churches. An explosion of missionary sending resulted.
> 
> This formation of missionary societies should not be viewed as a totally new and unbiblical innovation. In the book of Acts we see the highly fluid advancement of the Gospel and the itinerant nature of many of the missionary bands, to include the Apostle Paul and his “fellow-workers.” We see churches forming, and yet we see these apostolic bands being sent out from the churches to plant new churches, voluntary associations of sent-out Christians laboring together in the specialized task of planting new churches and taking the Gospel to The Nations. Throughout the centuries, as the life and doctrine of the Church morphed into the corrupt Leviathan of Catholic Medieval Christianity, the content of the Gospel was corrupted, and yet something of the apostolic function of these early missionary bands was preserved in the Catholic missionary orders, and these orders acted as sending structures which spread Catholicism as far as India, China and Japan, long before William Carey was even born.
> 
> I want to ask you a question: Why is William Carey hailed as the “Father of Modern Missions?” He was not even the first to go out. The Moravians went out many decades before Carey. Carey was not even the first missionary to India. And the Catholics, with the Holy Orders as their “legs” of proselytization, had already preceded the Protestants to India and China by hundreds of years and even used the lack of Protestant missionary sending as a proof of the spiritual bankruptcy of the Reformation. So what makes Carey distinctive?
> 
> William Carey is the “Father of Modern Missions” because he helped to promote the use of “means” in reaching the heathen. He helped put feet to the Gospel and helped revive a sending structure for missions. Carey did combat the Hyper-Calvinism of his day, that is true, but Carey went further than merely promoting a motivation for missions; Carey also advanced a methodology of missions, specialized bands of sent-out-ones, mirroring the example of the missionary bands found in the book of Acts in their outward expansion towards the Uttermost Parts of the World. Carey is the “Father of Modern Missions” because he restored the outward impulse of Christianity by advancing the idea that voluntary associations of missionaries could be sent out from local churches and then, once on the field, could work together for the advance of the Gospel in small and specialized teams. If trading companies could organize to travel to far flung shores, Carey reasoned, surely our charter is much greater.






Now, if you believe that the Reformed lack the zeal of the Arminians, this might also be true in somewhat rare and isolated cases where hyper-calvinistic tendencies prevail. 

Finally, all that goes for missions in our day is not to be applauded. Research the beliefs and practices of YWAM if you want to be alarmed. I believe many are running ahead who are not sent, and the West is exporting our theological errors to the Third World. However, seeing the errors and the deficiencies of others should not cause us who believe in God's Sovereign Grace to be less zealous, but our churches ought to be sending out 10 times the numbers.


DENNIS, that is why you should go. And that is why you should study all of these issues very carefully and also seek to only unite and work with a group that teaches a healthy Gospel message.

-----Added 12/4/2009 at 12:49:14 EST-----



py3ak said:


> I didn't relate dogmatic grids to relativization - I denied that human situatedness equates to relativization.
> 
> That the situation requries you to focus on certain aspects for polemical purposes does not mean that _governs_ your approach. For instance, in any context, most polemicists are also going to come into contact with pastoral and liturgical concerns. All of these different things drive you (ideally) to Scripture. How you got there may color what you're looking for, and so will influence what you tend to emphasize, but I suspect that any one being faithful in reading Scripture will from time to time be surprised by coming across something he wasn't looking for. So that Scripture is not passive putty in the hands of faithful interpreters, but is itself an active and formative influence in all their concerns.



Ruben

I don't think Dennis is saying that Scripture is _passive putty _in the hands of the interpeter, but merely that we interpret Scripture through our own cultural lenses. I do not think Dennis is trying to relativize Scripture. We read Scriptures as Westerners, Easterners, etc, and this causes us to emphasize certain things. For instance, in the West religion has become very privatized and individual whereas the Scripture seems to prefer corporate worship and community over isolation...and yet, that was hard for me to see until I left the US and interacted with Asians. Sometimes culture causes us to have blindspots.


----------



## Peairtach

I haven't read this thread. I wouldn't advise "evangelising like an Arminian" if that involves "altar calls" , encouraging people to read some rote "sinner's prayer", etc, etc.

If the Spirit's working He'll give people something to pray. 

We don't want the Church filled with the unconverted, who think they're saved because they "went forward" or repeated a prayer.

Where do we read of Paul and the other Apostles using such "techniques"?

We'd all love to have a technique for getting people saved but once the Word is preached/spoken/delivered salvation and assurance of salvation should be left in the hands of God.

We don't read of arm-twisting and mind-twisting techniques in the NT.

Such techniques sometimes coincide with genuine conversions, but overall they do more harm than good.


----------



## Pergamum

We are not talking about altar calls I don't think.


----------



## py3ak

Pergamum said:


> Ruben
> 
> I don't think Dennis is saying that Scripture is _passive putty _in the hands of the interpeter, but merely that we interpret Scripture through our own cultural lenses. I do not think Dennis is trying to relativize Scripture. We read Scriptures as Westerners, Easterners, etc, and this causes us to emphasize certain things. For instance, in the West religion has become very privatized and individual whereas the Scripture seems to prefer corporate worship and community over isolation...and yet, that was hard for me to see until I left the US and interacted with Asians. Sometimes culture causes us to have blindspots.



No, and I didn't say that he was; but he's made specific claims and provided specific examples, which fall apart when pressed and whose implications go beyond what he appears willing to affirm. Hence the effort to promote a critical review of those assertions, examples and implications so that the point can be made in a chastened, defensible, accurate way.


----------



## Pergamum

RUBEN;

Okay. 

You spoke of "human situatedness." How might human situatedness affect local communities of believers as they look at Scripture?


----------



## py3ak

For instance, if believers are undergoing intense persecution, they may temporarily focus more on the "enemies" and "suffering" texts and aspects of Scripture. But focussing on those, if they are able to engage in any sort of detailed Bible study, will lead them into a nexus where they also have to consider issues of divine righteousness and of sin, and that will take them to the Cross. So they may have started from the ungodly arising to eat their flesh, but if they are actually studying Scripture they won't be able to stop there.


----------



## Pergamum

py3ak said:


> For instance, if believers are undergoing intense persecution, they may temporarily focus more on the "enemies" and "suffering" texts and aspects of Scripture. But focussing on those, if they are able to engage in any sort of detailed Bible study, will lead them into a nexus where they also have to consider issues of divine righteousness and of sin, and that will take them to the Cross. So they may have started from the ungodly arising to eat their flesh, but if they are actually studying Scripture they won't be able to stop there.



So, it sounds like you and Dennis are saying close to the same thing; that we interpret Scripture to some degree through our cultural lenses. Our human situatedness influences what we emphasize in our theology. I do agree that we must consult with the historic church and what the church in other parts of the world are doing to gauge as to whether or not we have a right interpretation of Scripture (even with our own local emphasies) or are merely over-focusing on our local situations and not giving heed to the "whole counsel of God."

Hence, the Reformation era confessions focus on the Pope as Antichrist and leave out ancestor worship. The Reformation-era Confessions were forged in the controversies of that time and thus reflect those controversies. And even now, culture impacts how we read Scripture. We focus on guilt whereas many cultures focus on shame. In the USA, worship was become private and individual and in the East there is still more of a communal sense. 

Though "metaphor" is maybe not the best term for this, there is a truth in that our culture exerts a huge influence in our theologizing and you will never be able to get to an a-cultural theology. A cultural "lens" might be a better way of expressing this dynamic.

Thus, there are twin dangers: (1) The danger is over-contextualizing and letting the culture rule the reading of the text as eras and times change, and thus throwing out the witness of the historical church and exchanging it for the latest fads,and (2) trying to freeze theology and reading all theology through this frozen grid (i.e., through the lens of Reformation-era Western European theologians) to the exclusion of newer and non-Western voices.

Also, if Dennis is preparing for missions work in a cross-cultural context, we would expect him to emphasize the contextualizing aspect, whereas many western churches try to artificially freeze the grid and export western forms (which they mistakenly think are "Biblical forms"). 


An example of how culture influences our reading of Scripture: I just went to a church that is outside of the US. When I was greeted at the church, I was greeted by several of the women with kisses on my cheek. This really struck me odd. My first inclination was to find fault with it; but perhaps they are being more literal to the NT reading than I am used to being (when I apply the "holy kiss" to merely a "warm greeting"). This was an example of how much of a child of my own culture that I am.

Sometimes, it is true that more conservative churches are more firm in practices and less likely to change. And many of the Reformed are more conservative. Thus, it appears that more of the Reformed are less willing to practice contextualization (both healthy and unhealthy forms) and also there is greater suspicion of anthropology and the social sciences than those groups that are not as biblical conservative. 

It is, again, however, not merely a Calvy-Arminian thing, for Fundy Arminian Baptists are also suspicious of contextualization and anthropology and social sciences, and the Fundy-Arminian Baptists are some of the worst for exporting a Western cookie-cutter Gospel overseas.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Pergamum said:


> Though "metaphor" is maybe not the best term for this, there is a truth in that our culture exerts a huge influence in our theologizing and you will never be able to get to an a-cultural theology.



I am sorry, but I disagree with this statement. I believe theology, which is _the study of the revelation of Immutable God,_ and the preaching of the _Everlasting Gospel,_ transcends any and all eras and cultures.

Especially now in these latter days since the incarnation of God the Son.

For "There is one body (church) and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling. . one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Ephesians 4:4-6



> (2) trying to freeze theology and reading all theology through this frozen grid (i.e., through the lens of Reformation-era Western European theologians) to the exclusion of newer and non-Western voices.



I may be naive, but I thought the purpose of the confessions and creeds was meant to "freeze" and protect sound theology from error and heretical assaults. 

If a new doctrine arises or a non-Western interpretation of the gospel becomes the accepted norm, then the belief that there is objective truth, and only one truth, provided to man by the revelation of God . . . is in danger of being lost.

This could easily become a slippery slope that causes a drift of the visible churchs into a Post-Modern mindset where truth becomes relative and subjective; and sound theology is abandoned altogether.

I would rather theology be frozen, than abandoned to corruption and rot.


----------



## py3ak

I would think that to be a missionary it would be superlatively important to be grounded in the truth and be able to distinguish metaphors from themes, and so forth. To take the instance of translation, naturally, you must be versed in the target language, or you get this:







"Third-like explosion" does not convey much meaning about what you are ordering.

But without a solid grasp of the original you get results like "the lobster shall be a load" instead of _la langosta será una carga_, which though correct by the dictionary should have come out to, "a grasshopper will be a burden". You can't mess with your original and come to an accurate translation, no matter how well you understand the target language.

And that is where the difficulty I was having with Dennis' arguments comes into play. We can leave questions of history aside, as they were merely examples, I think. But a given starting point from which to interpret Scripture does not make the theology arising from it suspect or localized. If the exegesis is done well, it will hold true in 13th century Spain or in 8th century Australia. And so it is not the case that you can come to Japan or an Amazon tribe and start from scratch and ignore what the Church has already done. So while you might start at a different place, you will go on to expand their horizons and teach them as best as you can the full spectrum of Biblical revelation. In other words, to take one example, _substitution_ is not an optional part of Christian doctrine; at some point it has to be set out and explained. That is at the root of a lot of my discomfort with the way these discussions are sometimes carried out: you have a deposit of truth, as a missionary, that you are responsible for transmitting whole and entire. We are not free to pick and choose among the parts of the deposit what suits us best or sounds most meaningful: we are free to start with people where is most convenient for them, but we are not free to stop there. It would not have been acceptable for Timothy to transmit Paul's hamartiology and not his eschatology.


----------



## Josiah

LeeJUk said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis, would you be willing or able to present to us an example of a gospel contextualized to the sociological, psychological and cultural factors of another people, and demonstrate how it differs from "our gospel." Obviously, one must take the time to first explain various concepts to a people who might not have them (such as sin, judgment, etc.); but with all this talk about contextualization, I am wondering what you think it actually entails.
> 
> I am far removed from "the missionary scene," and have never had to trek through the jungle to explain the gospel to a tribe: so this is all probably ignorance and my part, and, strictly speaking, the topic is purely academic to me at this point. Nevertheless, I simply don't understand what such contextualization which I hear people speak of all the time actually looks like in practice, nor can I imagine such a thing which does not change the very fabric of the law and gospel. Please educate me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mars Hill Church
Click to expand...


I couldnt disagree more. Ask the average Seattle'ite(Scroll down and view any article), who is typically very liberal, what they think of Mars Hill's attempts at contextualization and I am sure that you would be dissapointed.


----------



## Pergamum

py3ak said:


> I would think that to be a missionary it would be superlatively important to be grounded in the truth and be able to distinguish metaphors from themes, and so forth. To take the instance of translation, naturally, you must be versed in the target language, or you get this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Third-like explosion" does not convey much meaning about what you are ordering.
> 
> But without a solid grasp of the original you get results like "the lobster shall be a load" instead of _la langosta será una carga_, which though correct by the dictionary should have come out to, "a grasshopper will be a burden". You can't mess with your original and come to an accurate translation, no matter how well you understand the target language.
> 
> And that is where the difficulty I was having with Dennis' arguments comes into play. We can leave questions of history aside, as they were merely examples, I think. But a given starting point from which to interpret Scripture does not make the theology arising from it suspect or localized. If the exegesis is done well, it will hold true in 13th century Spain or in 8th century Australia. And so it is not the case that you can come to Japan or an Amazon tribe and start from scratch and ignore what the Church has already done. So while you might start at a different place, you will go on to expand their horizons and teach them as best as you can the full spectrum of Biblical revelation. In other words, to take one example, _substitution_ is not an optional part of Christian doctrine; at some point it has to be set out and explained. That is at the root of a lot of my discomfort with the way these discussions are sometimes carried out: you have a deposit of truth, as a missionary, that you are responsible for transmitting whole and entire. We are not free to pick and choose among the parts of the deposit what suits us best or sounds most meaningful: we are free to start with people where is most convenient for them, but we are not free to stop there. It would not have been acceptable for Timothy to transmit Paul's hamartiology and not his eschatology.



Yes, totally agreed. We must be grounded in the originals as we strive to transmit truth across strange and varied cultural contexts.

-----Added 12/4/2009 at 07:41:45 EST-----



TeachingTulip said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Though "metaphor" is maybe not the best term for this, there is a truth in that our culture exerts a huge influence in our theologizing and you will never be able to get to an a-cultural theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, but I disagree with this statement. I believe theology, which is _the study of the revelation of Immutable God,_ and the preaching of the _Everlasting Gospel,_ transcends any and all eras and cultures.
> 
> Especially now in these latter days since the incarnation of God the Son.
> 
> For "There is one body (church) and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling. . one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Ephesians 4:4-6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) trying to freeze theology and reading all theology through this frozen grid (i.e., through the lens of Reformation-era Western European theologians) to the exclusion of newer and non-Western voices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may be naive, but I thought the purpose of the confessions and creeds was meant to "freeze" and protect sound theology from error and heretical assaults.
> 
> If a new doctrine arises or a non-Western interpretation of the gospel becomes the accepted norm, then the belief that there is objective truth, and only one truth, provided to man by the revelation of God . . . is in danger of being lost.
> 
> This could easily become a slippery slope that causes a drift of the visible churchs into a Post-Modern mindset where truth becomes relative and subjective; and sound theology is abandoned altogether.
> 
> I would rather theology be frozen, than abandoned to corruption and rot.
Click to expand...


I suppose you have arrived and are totally unaffected by your culture and background then.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Pergamum said:


> I suppose you have arrived



Arrived?

I have been saved by the grace of God and unconditionally elected, justified, and eternally sanctified in His Son.

Is that the "arrival" you refer to?





> and are totally unaffected by your culture and background then.



My cultural background played no part in my conversion and my being brought into spiritual union with Jesus Christ.

The Holy Word of God (Gospel of Grace), which is the absolute truth, saved my soul, despite my sorry background.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I've been mulling over this cultural lens issue and I have become increasingly bothered by the assumption, by some, that forensic justification is a "Western" concept.

First, I fully understand that we need to be aware of our cultural and theological biases when we read the text but that is a far cry from _assuming_ that a Confession written in England that purports to summarize the main headings of Scriptural doctrine is _by definition_ "Western".

Quite frankly, this smacks to me of post-modern notions of philosophy where everything is seen as a power play and each community forces its interpretation upon a written document. White Europeans are, by definition, White Europeans and their Confessional understanding of the Scriptures says little to Asian cultures that need not be bound in the least by the theological formulations that have taken over a millenia to develop.

It ignores the fact that the Confessions are based, in large measure, on Creeds that were catholic and neither Western nor Eastern.

It ignores the Providential blessing of God Who gave the Scriptures to men.

It smacks of modernistic arrogance that assumes that these Western White men simply foisted their culture upon the Scriptures and doesn't do justice to the very counter-cultural ideas that went very much against the tide of the day.

It ignores the illumination of the Holy Spirit to the Church.

Finally, a note on "culture" in general and translation.

I'm increasingly convinced that many people don't understand how much "vocabulary", both in terms of ideas and words, that the West has that owes to the Scriptures. There is a reason why Westerners have a linear and not a cyclical view of history. There is a reason why the idea of "person" emerged in the West. It's not to the credit and brilliance of men but the grace of a revealing God whose revelation is the fount of all human knowledge.

We are naive to believe that every thought in Scripture has a corresponding vocabulary or even pattern of thinking in another culture. We err in "mistranslating" an idea simply because another culture has no word for it or concept for it. That's what the Church exists for such that, given time invested and generational commitment, people might turn from the darkness to the light. 

Do we think too much like humanists to think that categories of thinking are naturally built into the brain? 
Is it even a sign of our "Western arrogance" that takes credit for Biblical modes of thinking forgetting to thank God that we live in a culture that has language and ideas for certain things thanks to the blood and toil of Saints upon whose shoulders we are ingrates?
Is it further a sign of our Western arrogance and forgetting of the fallen state of men that we don't remember that Sin has profound affects on the mind of man and that cultures are bound up in Sin?

The solution is not to make other cultures "Western" but it is to remember that there is no neutral culture. I've ministered to Asian cultures and men are still fallen. They have conceptions for things that differ but don't tell me that forensic justification is a Western obsession that a man in the Far East can't get because I can "name names" of men who will testify to the contrary. They will also testify to the Truth that this is most central to them even though they once had other concerns.

If there is neither Jew nor Greek with respect to the Gospel then there is neither American nor Filipino or Japanese or Chinese. There is not one Gospel for one and another for the other. Let's give God's Providence in the forming of His Church a little credit and knock off the post-modern gobbly gook.

If we really believe that Western Confessions are culturally bound then we believe that no minister can possibly exegete and communicate the Scriptures. Do you really believe that every Pastor in the West that gets up into the pulpit tomorrow AM is going to simply parrot Western ideas and have no capacity, even with the aid of original languages, training, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, to communicate the meaning of the passage of Scripture to you?

If so, I suggest you stay home because we're all doomed if the Scriptures can't be communicated across culture.


----------



## Pergamum

Forensic justification is not a "Western Concept." It is a Biblical one. But it took the events that happened during the Reformation for us to see this Biblical truth more clearly.

-----Added 12/5/2009 at 01:32:54 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> I've been mulling over this cultural lens issue and I have become increasingly bothered by the assumption, by some, that forensic justification is a "Western" concept.
> 
> First, I fully understand that we need to be aware of our cultural and theological biases when we read the text but that is a far cry from _assuming_ that a Confession written in England that purports to summarize the main headings of Scriptural doctrine is _by definition_ "Western".
> 
> Quite frankly, this smacks to me of post-modern notions of philosophy where everything is seen as a power play and each community forces its interpretation upon a written document. White Europeans are, by definition, White Europeans and their Confessional understanding of the Scriptures says little to Asian cultures that need not be bound in the least by the theological formulations that have taken over a millenia to develop.
> 
> It ignores the fact that the Confessions are based, in large measure, on Creeds that were catholic and neither Western nor Eastern.
> 
> It ignores the Providential blessing of God Who gave the Scriptures to men.
> 
> It smacks of modernistic arrogance that assumes that these Western White men simply foisted their culture upon the Scriptures and doesn't do justice to the very counter-cultural ideas that went very much against the tide of the day.
> 
> It ignores the illumination of the Holy Spirit to the Church.
> 
> Finally, a note on "culture" in general and translation.
> 
> I'm increasingly convinced that many people don't understand how much "vocabulary", both in terms of ideas and words, that the West has that owes to the Scriptures. There is a reason why Westerners have a linear and not a cyclical view of history. There is a reason why the idea of "person" emerged in the West. It's not to the credit and brilliance of men but the grace of a revealing God whose revelation is the fount of all human knowledge.
> 
> We are naive to believe that every thought in Scripture has a corresponding vocabulary or even pattern of thinking in another culture. We err in "mistranslating" an idea simply because another culture has no word for it or concept for it. That's what the Church exists for such that, given time invested and generational commitment, people might turn from the darkness to the light.
> 
> Do we think too much like humanists to think that categories of thinking are naturally built into the brain?
> Is it even a sign of our "Western arrogance" that takes credit for Biblical modes of thinking forgetting to thank God that we live in a culture that has language and ideas for certain things thanks to the blood and toil of Saints upon whose shoulders we are ingrates?
> Is it further a sign of our Western arrogance and forgetting of the fallen state of men that we don't remember that Sin has profound affects on the mind of man and that cultures are bound up in Sin?
> 
> The solution is not to make other cultures "Western" but it is to remember that there is no neutral culture. I've ministered to Asian cultures and men are still fallen. They have conceptions for things that differ but don't tell me that forensic justification is a Western obsession that a man in the Far East can't get because I can "name names" of men who will testify to the contrary. They will also testify to the Truth that this is most central to them even though they once had other concerns.
> 
> If there is neither Jew nor Greek with respect to the Gospel then there is neither American nor Filipino or Japanese or Chinese. There is not one Gospel for one and another for the other. Let's give God's Providence in the forming of His Church a little credit and knock off the post-modern gobbly gook.
> 
> If we really believe that Western Confessions are culturally bound then we believe that no minister can possibly exegete and communicate the Scriptures. Do you really believe that every Pastor in the West that gets up into the pulpit tomorrow AM is going to simply parrot Western ideas and have no capacity, even with the aid of original languages, training, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, to communicate the meaning of the passage of Scripture to you?
> 
> If so, I suggest you stay home because we're all doomed if the Scriptures can't be communicated across culture.



I do not disagree with anything you have said. 

I do hope, however, that you are all for getting the Scriptures into the vernacular - which requires that we learn the languages/cultures of others as we apply eternal truth. 

I also hope that you realize that some truths are harder or easier to see because of our cultural lenses and, as Ruben says, our "human situatedness." I think (I hope) this was, perhaps, what Dennis was driving at.


----------



## Mushroom

Cultural subjectivity is just as much of an error as individual subjectivity in the understanding of God's Word.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Forensic justification is not a "Western Concept." It is a Biblical one. But it took the events that happened during the Reformation for us to see this Biblical truth more clearly.
> 
> I do not disagree with anything you have said.
> 
> I do hope, however, that you are all for getting the Scriptures into the vernacular - which requires that we learn the languages/cultures of others as we apply eternal truth.
> 
> I also hope that you realize that some truths are harder or easier to see because of our cultural lenses and, as Ruben says, our "human situatedness." I think (I hope) this was, perhaps, what Dennis was driving at.



Yes, I understand that we need to learn the languages and cultures of others. What I'm reading, however, is that "Western" concerns gave rise to Creedal and Confessional formulations and I think that those who state such ought to consider whether or not it is the poison of "Western" structuralism or deconstructionism that gives rise to this idea. It parrots the idea that history is simply written by men. In other words, here is the natural extension of some of the logic that I'm concerned with:

White men wrote a Confession that reflects upon the history of Creedal formulations as well as the historical outworking of the Scirptures in their times. BUT:
-What do white men have to say to Eastern men?
-What do white men have to say to feminist theology?
- What do white men have to say to Black liberation theology?

Theology is, in many ways, history. It's the way it's communicated in the Scriptures and the Providential outworking of the Church in history is not simply the "power play" of Western men to co-opt and decide what's important. It assumes a very small God and too much of men.

I believe we need to learn other cultures: not only so that we don't offend by those things in our own attitudes that are culturally bound but also so we know where to begin in re-shaping idolatrous patterns of thinking that have enslaved people for centuries.

That said, let's not act like the liberals and try to arrive at the "kernels of Truth" underneath the husk of men's historical labors and cultural blindness. If we throw off the shackles of such thinking, we just might learn from the historical development of some theology and learn even more that would benefit the Church wherever the Gospel bearer trods.


----------



## Pergamum

Brad, 

The second part of your assertion should also include the fact that all cultures then (even the culture of the Reformers) suffer under this subjectivity. That is why we need the voice of the historical church and also the worldwide church to keep us in check. Again, I think (and hope) that this was Dennis' assertion, and no more.




Ruben gave a good example of a group of Christians under persecution who focus more on the "persecution texts" of Scripture. This often happens. Due to culture and "human situatedness" certain Biblical truths stand out more than others. This is because we approach the Word of God as humans who are part of a culture and time period. If we bow to the Word and struggle to understand what it really says, then we can grasp its meaning. However, we can never do this 100% accurately in all things (though, due to perspicuity, we can grasp all essentials enough for salvation), and some items still get distorted due to our cultural lenses, so that we need to go back to the ancient church, the NT, and also the voice of the Church in other cultures as well, to check our reading to insure accuracy. 

For instance, in the West we tend to read things more individually, whereas other cultures are more communal. Keeping this in mind can act as a corrective, since much of the NT is more communal and less individualistic than Western culture, and through awareness, we can remove our cultural blinders to really realize what the NT is saying. Also, just a note, the Reformed confessions also emphasize the corporate nature of worship as well. So, if a Western individualistic believer looks to the church in other cultures and also looks to the historical church in its ancient documents, they might be shaken out of their cultural lens and see that their cultural subjectivity has painted an overly individualistic view of Scriptures, when, in fact, the "Corporateness" of the church is highly emphasized in Scripture and confesssions (in fact, corporate worship is to be preferred over private worship).


So, due to human situatedness, documents from the Reformation era bear evidences of the historical controversies of their time. The Reformation-era documents are very much more against the errors prevalent at the time (those of Rome), leaving out issues such as ancestor worship and animism, and were written to combat those errors ofthat time and place, though the truth contained therein can be applied more generally.

-----Added 12/5/2009 at 02:24:25 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forensic justification is not a "Western Concept." It is a Biblical one. But it took the events that happened during the Reformation for us to see this Biblical truth more clearly.
> 
> I do not disagree with anything you have said.
> 
> I do hope, however, that you are all for getting the Scriptures into the vernacular - which requires that we learn the languages/cultures of others as we apply eternal truth.
> 
> I also hope that you realize that some truths are harder or easier to see because of our cultural lenses and, as Ruben says, our "human situatedness." I think (I hope) this was, perhaps, what Dennis was driving at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand that we need to learn the languages and cultures of others. What I'm reading, however, is that "Western" concerns gave rise to Creedal and Confessional formulations and I think that those who state such ought to consider whether or not it is the poison of "Western" structuralism or deconstructionism that gives rise to this idea. It parrots the idea that history is simply written by men. In other words, here is the natural extension of some of the logic that I'm concerned with:
> 
> White men wrote a Confession that reflects upon the history of Creedal formulations as well as the historical outworking of the Scirptures in their times. BUT:
> -What do white men have to say to Eastern men?
> -What do white men have to say to feminist theology?
> - What do white men have to say to Black liberation theology?
> 
> Theology is, in many ways, history. It's the way it's communicated in the Scriptures and the Providential outworking of the Church in history is not simply the "power play" of Western men to co-opt and decide what's important. It assumes a very small God and too much of men.
> 
> I believe we need to learn other cultures: not only so that we don't offend by those things in our own attitudes that are culturally bound but also so we know where to begin in re-shaping idolatrous patterns of thinking that have enslaved people for centuries.
> 
> That said, let's not act like the liberals and try to arrive at the "kernels of Truth" underneath the husk of men's historical labors and cultural blindness. If we throw off the shackles of such thinking, we just might learn from the historical development of some theology and learn even more that would benefit the Church wherever the Gospel bearer trods.
Click to expand...


I cannot speak for what Dennis is writing, but I think part of the kernal of his argument was that culture does effect how we view Scripture and attention to culture is important. How much or how little attention, and how we interact with cultures are other issues. But, I hope this was Dennis' main assertion, and if so, I can get behind it, of course, guarding against excesses.

In the NT we have Paul quoting OT Scriptures to Jews, and quoting pagan poets to Greeks. There was a difference of approach. Though, if we dissect all of Paul's messages, we do have a core and a basic list of Gospel truths that, despite differences of emphases or approach, are unchangeable. 

I don't think that Dennis was falling into Postmodern deconstructivism. He seemed to be emphasizing the varied approaches that Paul used when dealing with other peoples. He may have been over-emphasizing one aspect to the exclusion of the other, but that is also the danger of his opponents.

Also, I am not sure whites wrote the creeds, since Jesus was born in the ancient Near East, and the early church was first in Asia Minor and then North African, before it was ever European. But, I do think that the historically controversies of that time forced the era of Confessionalism. If it were not for those historical controversies and the need for groups of Protestants to define themselves, we would have not had the great explosion of confessions during that short time period. Thus, we see how God works through history and how "human situatedness" affects our theologizing to some degree in the reason and emphases of how we define ourselves.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> So, due to human situatedness, documents from the Reformation era bear evidences of the historical controversies of their time. The Reformation-era documents are very much more against the errors prevalent at the time (those of Rome), leaving out issues such as ancestor worship and animism, and were written to combat those errors ofthat time and place, though the truth contained therein can be applied more generally.



Are you aware of any Churches that are pushing animism and ancestor worship as Biblical?

Confessions are not meant to cover every set of cultural sins that the Scriptures might address. They are not even meant to be a comprehensive theological or practical treatise involving every possible theological controversy that might arise.

They usually arise during controversy to draw boundaries as to what is/isn't orthodox when error arises that is leading the Church away into error. They provide safe boundaries within which the normal teaching ministry of the Word can take place to address any number of issues that people are struggling with and are not meant to be all-encompassing checklists that a particular Christian in a given cultural context can rely upon simply to answer every question or receive full instruction on a subject.

I would also suggest that animism and ancestor worship are not unique to the Eastern cultures and that the Church has had to wrestle with these things everywhere she has trod (including early European and Near Eastern culture).


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, due to human situatedness, documents from the Reformation era bear evidences of the historical controversies of their time. The Reformation-era documents are very much more against the errors prevalent at the time (those of Rome), leaving out issues such as ancestor worship and animism, and were written to combat those errors ofthat time and place, though the truth contained therein can be applied more generally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware of any Churches that are pushing animism and ancestor worship as Biblical?
> 
> Confessions are not meant to cover every set of cultural sins that the Scriptures might address. They are not even meant to be a comprehensive theological or practical treatise involving every possible theological controversy that might arise.
> 
> They usually arise during controversy to draw boundaries as to what is/isn't orthodox when error arises that is leading the Church away into error. They provide safe boundaries within which the normal teaching ministry of the Word can take place to address any number of issues that people are struggling with and are not meant to be all-encompassing checklists that a particular Christian in a given cultural context can rely upon simply to answer every question or receive full instruction on a subject.
> 
> I would also suggest that animism and ancestor worship are not unique to the Eastern cultures and that the Church has had to wrestle with these things everywhere she has trod (including early European and Near Eastern culture).
Click to expand...


Yes, I am aware of animistic churches and also places where churches sinfully downplay the syncretistic honor/worship to ancestors. While this is widespread throughout fallen humanity, it does, in fact, predominate in Non-Western churches.


Rich, I see from your post above that we are in essential agreement. I can say amen to what you wrote.



Are there any other points of concern? 

Perhaps in Dennis' zeal to emphasize the "cultural" he unintentionally downplayed the "universal." 

I have seen both syncretistic churches that sold their souls to culture, and I have seen North American "imports" that applied a cookie-cutter American evangelistic program to peoples whose culture and lifestyles varied widely. In our zeal to guard against one error, sometimes people fall into emphasizing what sounds like the other extreme.


Should I start a thread on the role of the social sciences, linguistics, anthropology in the missionary task? This appeared to be one of Dennis' main contentions.

-----Added 12/5/2009 at 03:58:19 EST-----

P.s., I am trying to bow out of this thread. Dennis's argument seemed to have strayed from arminian/calvinism dynamics in evangelism to cultural issues and discussing those issues might be better done in a new OP.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I appreciate the interaction Perg. I sensed essential agreement but I simply wanted to underline this aspect because it is a tired argument that our Confessions or our theology is simply "Western." I believe you remember enough from previous posts over the years how much I despise American imports of ideas that have nothing to do with the "catholic" faith and have everything to do with Americans who don't understand what is/isn't cultural. I simply don't believe that the Confessions themselves are the fount of those problems. Rather, clumsy, unthoughtful and, in many cases, cultural misapprehensions of a faith once for all delivered to the Saints are the real root.

The challenge of any missionary activity, whether at home or abroad, is to allow the Word to transform and renew our minds. The Word is neither "liberal" nor "conservative" with men deciding to advance new cultural ideas or preserve old structures but each generation needs to be challenged as to how it is taken captive by the spirit of the age.

I don't have the quote but one of my Elders notes that Mike Horton gives a great analogy. Whenever you lose your keys, you always go back to where you first left them. The Confessions and Creeds represent a time where the Church had a clear sense of the Keys and they are useful to go back to not to confirm ensconced cultural ideas but to challenge them so we know how Christ and His light challenges the darkness that surrounds us in ever new ways (or a re-hashing of very old ways that we tend to forget).

Thanks for the interaction. You are welcome to start whatever thread you like that speaks to any rabbit trails that might have been formed.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Rich. 

Yes, I have appreciated your posts while you were in Okinawa about American Exported religion. And I do thank God that we are one Church, throughout all ages and we can go back and find our keys when we lose them.

I'm bowing out and, after a rest, will perhaps explore social sciences, anthropology, linguistics, etc, in missions, trying to see both the benefits and dangers of the use of these sciences.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

I'm a little late getting to this thread, but to the original post, here's a good response to the phrase 'work like an Arminian, sleep like a Calvinist':

Like a Calvinist all the time. - Life | Doctrine | Music. - Discussion Forum

Courtesy of Anthony Carter.  Best word I've heard on the subject.


----------

