# Motivation to Evangelize



## Mushroom

Just wanted to see whether I'm off-base in my thinking. In my distant arminian past, the motivation to evangelize was that if we didn't there would be people going to hell who otherwise might not have. Now, rather than out of a concern for the 'lost', I see it as a desire to be of use to my Lord in retrieving my not-yet-regenerate brothers and sisters from the grips of the enemy. The lost are lost. The elect will not be. And I rejoice to participate in that harvest.

Is there error lurking in there somewhere?


----------



## Steve Curtis

I once was "lost" but now I'm found.

I have a concern for the "lost." Of course, if they are elect they are not lost from God's perspective; still, as Joshua said, we don't know which of the lost will remain lost eternally, and how many will be "found." My point is that a concern for the lost is not out of bounds. Let's be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

---------- Post added at 08:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 PM ----------

You are right to delight in the opportunity to participate in the harvest, by the way; I am not mitigating that. And, of course, the ultimate motivation is the glory of God.


----------



## "William The Baptist"

I was wondering the same exact thing last night. I had a conversation with an Armenian leaning friend yesterday who tried to convince me man was totally depraved, but still had a choice... for they could not understand me and why I would still share the Gospel if I believed in limited atonement/election. (I essentially said what you said in your first post). I wondered if there was any error in what I had said (though I did not use the word evangelize). So I suppose I am in the same boat as you.


----------



## Phil D.

...Because we know not who belongs to the number of the predestinated, or does not belong, our desire ought to be that all may be saved; and hence every person we meet, we will desire to be with us a partaker of peace. But our peace will rest upon the sons of peace. Wherefore, on our part, let correction be used as a harsh yet salutary medicine for all, that they may neither perish, nor destroy others. To God it will belong to make it available to those whom he has foreknown and predestinated.” (John Calvin [quoting Augustine], _Institutes_, 3:23.14)​


----------



## Rufus

Joshua said:


> "William The Baptist" said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with an Armenian leaning friend yesterday...
> 
> 
> 
> He's thinking of moving to Armenia?
Click to expand...


 I found a website once for Armenians against Arminianism.


----------



## Pergamum

I went to Piedmont Baptist College for one-year (for aviation mechanic training); it was an independant, fundy, baptist school. One of the worst years of my life, largely due to interpersonal struggles.

We had a chapel speaker, a missionary to Mexico, come and speak to us on the great need of foreign missionaries and he said (no lie), that God wants to save the heathen, but "He cannot" because "Christians are refusing the missionary call and not going out." A couple of my classmates didn't appreciate my comments after the chapel where I mused that this guy's God sounded like a big failure. At the high point of his sermon he said that God's purposes depended on us.


On the other extreme, I then went to several very calvinistic churches as I circulated and prepared to go overseas as a missionary. These churches prided themselves on their doctrinal strictness. Yet, several of these churches almost seemed smug about the state of the unsaved. There was little urgency. "The damned will get everything coming to them" (which is true), and "God will save them in his own sweet time" (which is true), and (like Josh's reminder) "No one ought to go except we really, really make sure they are called and are qualified because not just anybody is supposed to evangelize or do missionary work." (which is true..but farbeit for them to ever send out an unqualified missionary, because they have never sent out anybody at all). 

Several of these folks seemed to use these great doctrines of God's sovereingty to excuse their own lack of effort. 


Now, of course, all churches claim to be "missionary-minded." No church ever claims to be passive, or un-zealous, or restrictive when it comes to missions. But the practices of many (many calvinistic churches, too) hinder missions or put up unnecessary hurdles to the person desiring to serve God. Or through lack of zeal and a total absence of any sense of urgency these churches fail to mentor, raise up, screen, test and send out any missionaries from their midst ("God is not in a rush" one pastor rebuked me when I spoke of tribes who have not yet heard and of the need for prayer and urgent-ness in our efforts).


Now that I am on the field and am better connected, I know many evangelical calvinists that want to see souls saved, and are very aggressive in trying to win souls, and yet trust in God's sovereignty to call His People. 

I believe there is every cause for Gospel Urgency. 

We have no idea who the Elect are. From our perspective, if we do not send missionaries, people will not hear the Gospel and be saved. We acknowledge predestination, even while we see that God ordains means and that (because we don't know God's secret will) from a human standpoint, if I do not go and tell some isolated peoples about Jesus, and no one else is doing so, then it appears that my lack of effort will result in them staying in that unsaved state unless God sends a voice from heaven or some non-regular means. Since we are not to be counting on these irregular means, we must make vigrous use of the regular means of Gospel Expansion.

We are not to make an idol of the means; but we are not to be idle in the use of means.

*The light of the Gospel is not as the light of the moon to sleep by; but is as the light of the sun, to work by!*

My belief in an all-predestinating God is not cause for me to whip out smug platitudes, such as, "Well, God is sovereign, he doesn't want those people saved yet." It is time for me to grieve like Jesus over Jerusalem or in the manner of Paul over his unbelieving kinsmen, and time for me to help support, send or go.

One proper motivation for evangelization is saving the lost, even if God's glory is to be the main motivation and even if we know that, in God's decree, 100% of the Elect WILL, without fail, come to repentance. In God's will, they will come to repentance after a preacher has been sent to them, and after that preacher prepares to go, and after God's people give funds to send him, and after many vigorous prayers are offered up, and after many sicknesses hinder the servant, and etc.

If we are lazy and churches drop the ball and feed themselves and make no great efforts to take the Bread of Life abroad, and people remain lost due to the church's disobedience or lack of zeal, then this is STILL disobedience, even if God has allowed this in His predestinating will. We are to bemoan our lack of efforts, not use God's sovereingty as an excuse.

There are enough Christians within solid Calvinistic churches at this time in history, and there is enough money and the means of transportation to get a solid Christian witness into every single unreached people-group in the world within this generation.


My view of God's sovereingty causes me to persevere even while working among an ignorant and resistant people. I believe that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and he has other sheep that are not of this fold, but He will gather them all without fail (yet through our vigorous efforts) and we will all, one day, be one sheepfold under one Shepherd.

Just as the Father sent the Son, the Son sends us into the world. Even though God spoke in times past with an audible voice, and even though I suppose he could write John 3:16 across the sky in clouds or send angels to every people on earth, he sends us and allows us an active part in this work. We get to occupy and see this victory happen before our very eyes! We are blessed to get an active role! We are priveleged with the gift of service! And God ordains that we actually be one of the means by which He will bring salvation to His Elect! 

Just as my son loves to stand beside me and try to help me while I work, and just as my son's work is not on the par of an adults, we Christians get to work for God and enjoy fellowship in God's labors in bringing glory to himself. And just as the workmanship of my son's hands are beautiful even though the nails be crooked, God takes delight in our labors as we suffer and sweat (out of gratitude) to please our Father.


----------



## Mushroom

Joshua said:


> It all depends on what you mean by _evangelize_, which is loaded with specific meaning . . . namely, the _authoritative_ and _official_ proclamation of the Gospel by a person who has been called, commissioned, and sent. Are you that man? If so, I see nothing wrong with your comments pertaining to motivation. We look to see God's elect brought into their rightful place in the church, and for the Lord to be glorified in His passing over those who are not, nor ever will be, His. Of course, we haven't a clue who they are, so we pray for each and all and encourage them to sit under the preaching of the Word. Well, I've gotta get to class!


Brother, you need not preach to the choir concerning the qualifications of those called to the _particular _work of evangelisim, but I participate in the _general_ work of evangelism as a member of the Body of Christ by placing the fruits of my labor in my particular calling at the disposal of those so called and qualified. You might know from previous conversations that I am of the same conviction concerning callings and qualifications, and that is not the subject of this thread.

My issue is with the wording that we should be concerned for the 'lost', which seems incongruant to me, since the vast majority of the 'lost' will remain in that state. I do, however, have a great desire to see all of those upon whom the mark of my God is made come out of the darkness of their pre-regenerate state to enjoy the blessings purchased for them at so great a price. I see the work of evangelism as the casting of a net whose design is such that it catches only those fish so marked, and see no reason to fret over those that pass through it unmolested. They are the enemies of the One who gave His life for me.


*Pergs*, amen and amen! Sweet priveleges they are! I would differ with you on your exegesis of the passages relating to our Lord's weeping over Jerusalem, but other than that, I agree fully with your post.


----------



## Pergamum

We should love and be concerned over all the lost, because we don't know which of those lost will be found. After the Last Judgment, then our concern will stop and we will praise all God's judgments; but here in this Age we are to weep and work for the lost...all the lost.


----------



## "William The Baptist"

Joshua said:


> "William The Baptist" said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with an Armenian leaning friend yesterday...
> 
> 
> 
> He's thinking of moving to Armenia?
Click to expand...


 You know, I didn't even think to ask if his inclination was as stated (; /// On a side note, my computer/spellcheck does not recognize Arminian as a valid word.



Rufus said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "William The Baptist" said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with an Armenian leaning friend yesterday...
> 
> 
> 
> He's thinking of moving to Armenia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I found a website once for Armenians against Arminianism.
Click to expand...


Something along these lines? Armenian Eagle » Armenians Protest Being Called Arminians


----------



## Rufus

"William The Baptist" said:


> Something along these lines? Armenian Eagle » Armenians Protest Being Called Arminians



Yes! That website.


----------



## JoannaV

Just yesterday my pastor told of how he and a group of pastors unknowingly upset an Armenian waitress at a restaurant who got confused upon over-hearing their conversation


----------



## Pergamum

Joshua said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, you need not preach to the choir concerning the qualifications of those called to the _particular _work of evangelisim, but I participate in the _general_ work of evangelism as a member of the Body of Christ by placing the fruits of my labor in my particular calling at the disposal of those so called and qualified. You might know from previous conversations that I am of the same conviction concerning callings and qualifications, and that is not the subject of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand and occur with the _sentiment_, just not the misuse of the term _evangelism_. Nevertheless, please forgive me as I did not mean to hijack the thread.
> 
> I also tried to affirm you insofar as your thinking goes. Since we know not who the elect are, we should pray for all to come under the preaching of the Word, that the _elect_ might be drawn in. This is simply another way of affirming that we don't want what God doesn't want (i.e. the reprobate to be saved). Practically, it doesn't make a difference, then, since we know not who the reprobate are. We give a charitable esteem to all of those who confess Christ in the visible church and assume them brethren short of excommunication, etc.
> The problem with most "evangelism" these days (besides that terrible abuses and misuses of the definition thereof! ), is that it is humanistic. We pray that God would be glorified in both the redeeming of the elect _and_ the damnation of the wicked. We affirm that God's Word always accomplishes its purpose, whether it be in salvation or damnation. It's the prediction by finite men of just what it is doing in this and that person's life that gets us in to trouble!
Click to expand...




> We pray that God would be glorified in both the redeeming of the elect _and_ the damnation of the wicked.




I question the phraseology here, no evangelist or missionary ever has as his goal the hardening of any people in sin. The Word may harden some, indeed, and this, too, accomplishes God's purpose, but no pastor or missionary or evangelist ever sets out to do that.

We pray for the salvation of the Lost, but can be glad in that God gets glory either way. We pray that God's kingdom come; preferably by conversion rather than the judgment on the wicked.

What is your definition of "humanistic?"


----------



## JoannaV

First and foremost, we go because we are commanded.


----------



## Reformation Monk

Brad said:


> Just wanted to see whether I'm off-base in my thinking. In my distant arminian past, the motivation to evangelize was that if we didn't there would be people going to hell who otherwise might not have. Now, rather than out of a concern for the 'lost', I see it as a desire to be of use to my Lord in retrieving my not-yet-regenerate brothers and sisters from the grips of the enemy. The lost are lost. The elect will not be. And I rejoice to participate in that harvest.
> 
> Is there error lurking in there somewhere?



Evangelization is a tough subject. 

The truth of the Scriptures are that Christ died for the elect and those that the Father gives to the Son have been predestined before time. ( to put it in very basic terms ) 

But this can not be a truth that pushes us into Hyper-Calvinism. Because the Scriptures also command us to go and make disciples. 

The Reformed church seems to tend to go to the other extreme sometimes compared to free-will Baptist's and Pentecostals holding alter-calls at the end of every service. 

But what do we see in the New Testament? We see the Gospel proclaimed and people being baptized on the spot do we not? Now I'm not saying that Reformed churches should start having alter-calls, but I'm just giving an example of how we should be encouraged to evangelize. 

I often think of the Apostle Paul. He understood Predestination obviously. But look at his life, he obviously was very convicted in the importance of evangelization. He also was very convicted in the importance of prayer.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

JoannaV said:


> First and foremost, we go because we are commanded.



I agree completely. Dr. Little here at Southeastern tells the story of how he went to see Francis Schaeffer speak at Liberty University shortly before Dr. Schaeffer's death. He was very weak and had to give his lecture sitting down. At the conclusion, there was a question and answer session with the students and one student stood up and asked Dr. Schaeffer how in the world Christians could possibly "win" with so many things stacked against us. Dr. Schaeffer looked at the student and said, " Son, if your goal in evangelism is to win, then you have already lost. We do not do this to win, but because our Lord and savior Jesus Christ has commanded us to do so."


----------



## Andres

To contend that we must evangelize because we are commanded to, brings back up Josh's previous point about how we would define evangelism, and more specifically, who is to evangelize. I presume that those who argue that "we are commanded" are making reference to Matt 28:16-20.


----------



## Mushroom

JoannaV said:


> First and foremost, we go because we are commanded.


Amen!


> The Reformed church seems to tend to go to the other extreme sometimes compared to free-will Baptist's and Pentecostals holding alter-calls at the end of every service.


I believe that to be a false stereotype perhaps borne of the reaction to Reformed (biblical) soteriology on the part of those who hold to decisional regeneration. Leah pointed out an example of that in a post above. There are large Presbyterian communions throughout the world that refute the assertion. Yes, there are hyper-calvinists who may fit that stereotype, but they are few and not truly a part of the Reformed community. I have seen arminian and amyraldian churches that are just as anti-missional as hypers. They give different reasons, but in the end it is all simple disobedience.

---------- Post added at 07:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 AM ----------




Andres said:


> To contend that we must evangelize because we are commanded to, brings back up Josh's previous point about how we would define evangelism, and more specifically, who is to evangelize. I presume that those who argue that "we are commanded" are making reference to Matt 28:16-20.


Andrew, the Church is commanded to evangelize. As one body, we all participate in that general work through our prayers and financial support of it. Please don't turn the thread into the airing of pet peeves against the free-will egalitarian misconceptions that cloud the work in the minds of some.

---------- Post added at 07:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 AM ----------

First:


Joshua said:


> "William The Baptist" said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with an Armenian leaning friend yesterday...
> 
> 
> 
> He's thinking of moving to Armenia?
Click to expand...

And then:


> I understand and *occur* with the _sentiment_


I know you can't help yourself, Josh, so couldn't let that one go.


----------



## Reformation Monk

Brad said:


> I believe that to be a false stereotype perhaps borne of the reaction to Reformed (biblical) soteriology on the part of those who hold to decisional regeneration. Leah pointed out an example of that in a post above. There are large Presbyterian communions throughout the world that refute the assertion. Yes, there are hyper-calvinists who may fit that stereotype, but they are few and not truly a part of the Reformed community. I have seen arminian and amyraldian churches that are just as anti-missional as hypers. They give different reasons, but in the end it is all simple disobedience.




I believe I said "sometimes." I was referring to hyper-calvanistic reformed congregations. I realize that there are many Reformed Churches that do have a healthy view of evangelization. 

But on the other hand, I've seen many Reformed Churches that don't have hardly any focus on evangelization and I don't hold to decisional regeneration.


----------



## cih1355

First of all, God is far more glorious than anything else. Second, salvation is found only in Christ.


----------



## Mushroom

Reformation Monk said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that to be a false stereotype perhaps borne of the reaction to Reformed (biblical) soteriology on the part of those who hold to decisional regeneration. Leah pointed out an example of that in a post above. There are large Presbyterian communions throughout the world that refute the assertion. Yes, there are hyper-calvinists who may fit that stereotype, but they are few and not truly a part of the Reformed community. I have seen arminian and amyraldian churches that are just as anti-missional as hypers. They give different reasons, but in the end it is all simple disobedience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I said "sometimes." I was referring to hyper-calvanistic reformed congregations. I realize that there are many Reformed Churches that do have a healthy view of evangelization.
> 
> But on the other hand, I've seen many Reformed Churches that don't have hardly any focus on evangelization and I don't hold to decisional regeneration.
Click to expand...

Brother, I did not mean to imply that you held to decisional regeneration, only that I believe that to be the swamp from which that creature crawled. I also find that many among the Reformed still buy into it, but in my own experience I found my tendencies to that opinion were remnants of my former way of thinking. I now reject the notion that Reformed believers are any less evangelistic than other communions, or any more 'frozen', for that matter. I've heard it a million times, I just haven't seen it to be true. That to me constitutes a false stereotype.

Hyper-calvinists are not by any stretch Reformed. They are heretical.

BTW, I'm assuming you didn't intend the double negative, so I'm reading it that way. If I'm wrong then please forgive my mistake.


----------



## Reformed Roman

I just thought about this the other day too. Acts 4 hit home because the disciples used God's sovereignty as a reason to evangelize. Knowing our weakness and knowing we can't save or persuade anyone, they know if they evangelize, no matter what happens it's God will. They can get put in prison or killed, but it doesn't matter. People can be saved or stay lost, but God will accomplish His purpose. His sovereignty should comfort us knowing God is the protector of us. That doesn't mean there isn't an urgency. There is a great urgency.

Reformed circles seem to see the missing link is building up the church. We do everything we can to build each other up. Whether it's podcasts or reading theology books. Once people are saved many churches make disciples, because typically those people want to be discipled. 

Those are all great things. But ultimately many churches are forgetting about missions and the reason why we are here. Jesus wants His bride and He is coming back. We are called to know God, yes. We need to know Him to share Him, yes. We need to live godly lives to glorify God, yes. But we are missing the urgency and importance of the gospel. I am in that same boat. Lately I haven't had this huge hunger to save the lost. I've misused the doctrine of God's sovereignty and twisted it to not evangelize. But in that I've missed the gospel. I'm forgetting how desperate my own condition was and how much I needed to be saved. I really wish I had a bigger passion for evangelizing. I just haven't seen the gospel as clearly lately and that's why. I find myself asking the simple question "why glorify God in this area", knowing God doesn't need me. I'm missing the gratitude and ultimately missing the gospel, just something I gotta pray about. But regardless I know I'm not alone in this and I know many churches and people in them are like this, and what makes it worse is they are content in it.


----------



## dudley

Brad said:


> Just wanted to see whether I'm off-base in my thinking. In my distant arminian past, the motivation to evangelize was that if we didn't there would be people going to hell who otherwise might not have. Now, rather than out of a concern for the 'lost', I see it as a desire to be of use to my Lord in retrieving my not-yet-regenerate brothers and sisters from the grips of the enemy. The lost are lost. The elect will not be. And I rejoice to participate in that harvest.
> 
> Is there error lurking in there somewhere?



Brad, I do not think there is error in your thinking. I believe we should reach out to the unbelioever and the misgided who might not be saved. I am an ex roman catholic and now a staunch avid Reformed Presbyterian Protestant.

I think as Reformed Protestants who know we are the true church as Christ intended it to be should be reaching out individually to Catholics you know who are delusioned and inviting them to come and experience the meaning of being a Christian by welcoming them as a guest to a Sunday morning service at your local congregation be it Presbyterian or Baptist. There are also remember, 15 million former Roman Catholics in the United States who like me are now Protestant; and many like me are now Reformed Protestants and several actually many here on the PB are like me now either Presbyterian as I am or Baptist and as many others are. 

The fact is many Catholics do become Protestants and far much more so in the last 20 years. In the United states the 51% Protestant majority is held by the Protestant churches only because of the 15 million ex Roman Catholics who have become Protestant in the last 20 years. 

The Roman church continues to make stories up of Protestant conversions to catholic and they are truly not correct, the national pew survey’s in this country show very few Protestants now becoming Catholics and a majority of religious conversions are from former Roman Catholics becoming Protestants and this is on the rise even in the last 5 years. I am one of the converts from Catholicism to Protestantism in the last 5 years.


----------



## MarieP

PS- I'm surprised I didn't see this thread until now....it didn't show up in my new posts...



Brad said:


> Now, rather than out of a concern for the 'lost', I see it as a desire to be of use to my Lord in retrieving my not-yet-regenerate brothers and sisters from the grips of the enemy.



I actually do have an issue with your comment...but first let me say I went through the same thought process after I became Reformed. Now, I see that we can have a righteous obsession with the glory of God (as my pastor likes to call it) as well as a healthy, Scriptural burden for lost souls.

Consider Paul's heart for his kinsmen according to the flesh-

"I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen."- Romans 9:1-5

Of course, Paul adds in the very next verse- "But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel"

And then, after Paul's glorious description of the sovereignty of God in salvation, he says again, "Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge" (Rom. 10:1).

Of course, this isn't to say that in heaven we will be saddened that people are in hell. I think it was Sproul who said that we will be able to see our own mother there and be satisfied. But that's not because we didn't care enough to point them to Christ and seek their souls good. It's not because we weren't ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us, imploring them, on Christ's behalf, to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:21).

My pastor taught an excellent Sunday School several years ago on motivations for evangelism (all of which he argued were good and right and Biblical)

Motivation to Share the Gospel - SermonAudio.com

A brief outline:

Godward motivations
- the glory of God
- the compassion of God
- the fear of God
- the Lordship of God

Manward motivations
- a desire that men not be damned
- a desire for man's blessing

Gospelward motivations
- the function of the Gospel as the power of God unto salvation
- the design of the Gospel as worthy of all acceptance
- the Gospel is something to be shared

Selfward motivations
- there is joy in sharing the Gospel
- it is necessary for us when we love the Gospel and the souls of men
- the thought of seeing sinners saved

On the one hand, we don't want to be those who think that all the results are up to us, and that if no one is converted that we are abject failures. (Though it could be because of lack of prayer, coldness of heart, or an un-needed barrier we've erected). But we also don't want to be like the man who told the young William Carey to sit down because if God wants to convert the heathen, He'll do so without us.

---------- Post added at 08:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 AM ----------




"William The Baptist" said:


> who tried to convince me man was totally depraved, but still had a choice



Technically, on the face of it, this is true. They do have a choice. It's just that the unregenerate man will choose to reject Christ every time, unless God has appointed him to eternal life and calls Him by the same power that raised Christ from the dead..


----------



## Mushroom

Some thought-provoking points, Marie. Thank you. The passages referred to in Romans give me some pause, however. I have related that in my mind to the death of my own father, who left this life believing he was to be re-incarnated, and found himself most likely (barring divine intervention at the point of death) in hell the next moment. That grieved me beyond comprehension. In fact, it led to a long period of struggle over my faith and assurance. But in the end the Lord brought me to the place where I can accept that His will is best. So I don't know if Paul's grief is one of sorrow over the damnation of the lost in general, or one of familial sorrow.

The only point of those you cite of your Pastor's series that troubles me is that which speaks of a desire that men not be damned. That strikes me as contradicting the desire of God. As a generality, it may be said that we are directed by scripture (love your enemy) not to _desire_ the damnation of men (as distinct from sorrowing over it), but in specificity it would seem incongruant that we would want an individual to be saved whom God has ordained to destruction. I would like to determine if those seemingly dichotomous assertions are valid, and if so what affect they have on the motivation for evangelism. Maybe none at all that would be visible, but perhaps applicable within our own hearts?


----------



## AThornquist

Why to evangelize:

1) The Church is commanded to bring the Gospel to all peoples.
2) God ought to be worshipped by all peoples, and the proclamation of the Gospel is the means that the LORD has chosen to create more worshippers.
3) We must love our neighbor as ourselves, and perhaps the greatest act of love that can be done for our neighbor is to bring him the Gospel that he may believe and be saved. How could we _not_ be concerned about the state of the lost? Consider Paul, who "with tears" spoke of those who walked as enemies of the cross (Phil 3:18).


----------



## MarieP

My pleasure, brother! I am thankful that my post was of help! And thanks for sharing about your father. I would think Paul's sorrow was familial, since he calls them his kinsmen according to the flesh. I had a somewhat similar situation to yours, though it was not as close a relative as my father, and I didn't have as deep a grief as Paul apparently had. Almost 9 years ago, my aunt and uncle, who I had witnessed to quite a bit, were murdered by their teenage son. I was sad, yes. But even as a self-professed Arminian, I knew that I was innocent of their blood (I had just listened to an excellent sermon by Dr. Mohler, who I had no clue was a Calvinist at the time, on Ezekiel 33:1-6). I knew I had done my duty, and that I had prayed for them and sought to point them to Christ as the only way. I was sad they were in hell, but I knew it was the consequences of their sin, which they willfully chose instead of Christ. And I also knew that God for whatever reason chose not to open their eyes to the Gospel. Amazing, when Arminians begin to think like a Calvinist and don't realize it...



Brad said:


> The only point of those you cite of your Pastor's series that troubles me is that which speaks of a desire that men not be damned. That strikes me as contradicting the desire of God.



How so? In Ezekiel 33:11, God says, "Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’"

Lamentations 3:33- "For He does not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men."

John 3:17 says, "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

I would agree with those who say that there can be a difference between the decretive will of God and the prescriptive will of God. We see this worked out in our daily lives too. I was actually studying and becoming convinced of this during the time of a snowstorm, which prevented us from meeting for prayer meeting one Wednesday night. Does God command us to gather to pray? Of course He does! Did God decree there would be that snowstorm which would prevent us from traveling? Of course He did! I'm just glad it didn;'t happen on a Lord's Day, which does happen...



Brad said:


> but in specificity it would seem incongruant that we would want an individual to be saved whom God has ordained to destruction



How do you know God has ordained them to destruction? (I'll leave out the issue of supralapsarianism/infralapsarianism here). We don't know who the elect are until they believe.

My pastor just preached from Acts 18 yesterday on the ministry of Paul in Corinth. When the Jews in the synagogue blasphemed and rejected, Paul said, "Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." He left only to go next door to the house of Justus, one of the God-fearers who probably heard him there. And then Crispus, the ruler of that synagogue, believed with all his household. And so did many Corinthians believe.

God used that warning of judgment for the salvation of many, including at least one he'd just said he would no longer go to (for the time being).


----------



## Mushroom

AThornquist said:


> Why to evangelize:
> 
> 1) The Church is commanded to bring the Gospel to all peoples.
> 2) God ought to be worshipped by all peoples, and the proclamation of the Gospel is the means that the LORD has chosen to create more worshippers.
> 3) We must love our neighbor as ourselves, and perhaps the greatest act of love that can be done for our neighbor is to bring him the Gospel that he may believe and be saved. How could we _not_ be concerned about the state of the lost? Consider Paul, who "with tears" spoke of those who walked as enemies of the cross (Phil 3:18).


Thanks Andrew. I agree with all three points. But I'm not sure that the Phil. passage implies a tearful yearning over the lost. It appears to me (and to M. Henry) that Paul is warning against following seducers and false teachers. Are those tears of regret over the apostates or tears of warning that his brethren not suffer the pains and sorrows that following such enemies of the cross will surely inflict upon them?

Maybe I come at this with different presuppositions and that affects how I read some of these passages. The verse Marie posted from Ezekiel I have heard many times as representing God's sorrow over the fate of the lost, but not taking pleasure in a thing is far different from sorrowing over it. How could He sorrow over a thing He ordained to be? Doesn't this simply mean that He is not finding enjoyment in it? The passages in the Gospels where Jesus mourned or wept over Jerusalem are again often offered as evidence that He was sorrowful over those who were lost, but I read them as His sorrowing over the pain and abuse His chosen had suffered at the hands of those who resisted His gathering them together, and then He pronounces judgements upon them for doing so.

Maybe my presups are a reaction against what I used to be taught and believed, that we have _to go _because if we don't they might never be saved and how sad that would be for them. Now I believe we (as the Church) have _to go_ because to do otherwise is disobedience, and by doing so we participate in the work of our Lord in plucking our brethren out of the fire, which is a great joy.


> How do you know God has ordained them to destruction? (I'll leave out the issue of supralapsarianism/infralapsarianism here). We don't know who the elect are until they believe.


We don't know _who they are_ (the reprobate), but we know _they are there. _The same is true of the elect (and in fact I would venture to say we don't really know who they are on the basis of profession, but that's another subject). Now, I can see being sorrowful over the elect who are not yet regenerated due to the suffering they endure in that state, even though that suffering is ordained by God for their good, but to be sorrowful over the lot of the reprobate doesn't seem to make sense to me. But maybe that is overcorrecting my earlier error.


----------



## yoyoceramic

When thinking about evangelism, the embassador idea Paul mentions has helped me; the idea that as a believer I have an official office as a citizen of the Kingdom (ambassador) to be alerting those who are in the Kingdom of darkness, that while there is still time, my King is receiving new subjects daily.


----------

