# Do the Reformed Confessions Affirm the Duty of Evangelistic and Missionary Outreach?



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Brothers,

It doesn't appear to me that the WCF, Savoy, or 1689 adequately articulate and underscore the church's and individual Christian's obligation vis-a-vis evangelistic and missionary outreach (i.e., the Great Commission). Chris Coldwell has noted that Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 191 urges believers to pray for the spread of the gospel [C.C. see previous thread]. I haven't done a careful study of the Three Forms of Unity to venture an assessment on those continental symbols. I'm curious to get your input. Do you believe the Puritan confessions give sufficient space and attention to what is arguably one of the church's and Christian's central roles in a lost world? On a related note, would you agree with the Presbyterian theologian John Frame when he writes, "A church that is not preoccupied with reaching the unsaved is not merely a weak church; it is not properly a church at all"?


----------



## Scott1

The short answer to this is that Reformed Theology ordinarily sees evangelism as being done by discipleship through the local church. For example, in the PCA, a young person ordinarily makes a profession of faith to the Elders, is examined, and then becomes a "communing member." This happens regularly and it is evangelism.

Many Reformed churches are heavily involved in "mission" work with the method being church planting, that is discipling a community.

There is a tendency in Reformed Theology to teach the full counsel of God's Word, both Old and New Testaments, and draw out God's plan of redemption through that. The Confessions emphasize the authority and revelation of the person and work of Christ through Scripture, so it tends to come in that manner.


----------



## Pergamum

Most would say that, by extension, praying for God's Kingdom to Come is a prayer for at least some sort of expansion of Christianity.


----------



## JTDyck

*Canons of Dort*

In the Second Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort, the part that deals with Limited Atonement, Article 5 says:



> Moreover, the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel.



I think this is one of the best uses of the word promiscuous that I have ever heard!


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Scott1 said:


> The short answer to this is that Reformed Theology ordinarily sees evangelism as being done by discipleship through the local church. For example, in the PCA, a young person ordinarily makes a profession of faith to the Elders, is examined, and then becomes a "communing member." This happens regularly and it is evangelism.
> 
> Many Reformed churches are heavily involved in "mission" work with the method being church planting, that is discipling a community.



Thanks, Scott. I don't doubt that many Reformed churches are doing missions and church planting. Moreover, I agree that evangelism should be done in connection with the local church. My primary question is whether the Reformed Confessions adequately articulate the church's obligation to fulfill this role. A secondary and related question: Is evangelism through discipleship is fulfilled solely by means of inviting unregenerate people to church so they can hear a gospel sermon? Or are individual members of a local church responsible to propagate the gospel both by life and also by lip?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

George Gillespie, one of the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, says this regarding the work of an Evangelist: 'Tis therefore most agreeable to the Primitive pattern, that where Synods or at least Classes may be had, and are not by persecution scattered or hindred to meet, such as undertake either to goe & preach the Gospel to Infidels, Papifts, Turks or the like, or go about any negotiation abroad in any common bussines of the Church ought to be approved, and authorized by a nationall Synod, or (when that cannot be had, & if there be withal great danger in the delay) by a provinciall Synod, or at leaft, (where this cannot he had ) by a Classis. _Treatise of Miscellany Questions _1649), Chapter VII, “Of Prophets and Evangelists, in what sense their work and vocation might be called extraordinary; and in what sense ordinary,” 96-97.​


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

JTDyck said:


> In the Second Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort, the part that deals with Limited Atonement, Article 5 says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is one of the best uses of the word promiscuous that I have ever heard!
Click to expand...


John, thanks for the citation. That article clearly defines the publication of the gospel as a duty. So it looks like one of the continental symbols provides a good statement. Do you think the framers of the Canons of Dort would have made a distinction between the ordained minister's role in publishing the gospel as _proactive_ and the layman's role as _reactive_ (ala 1 Peter 3:15)?


----------



## Scott1

> Is evangelism through discipleship is fulfilled solely by means of inviting unregenerate people to church so they can hear a gospel sermon? Or are individual members of a local church responsible to propagate the gospel both by life and also by lip?



No. It's part of all-of-life discipleship. One is a missionary whether a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. 

God uses each of our lives as a means to reach the lost with the Gospel and to disciple one another in His Truth through the ordinary encounters in life. The difference is the Confessions don't emphasize pressing the lost to make "decisions" for God because man lost the natural ability to do so in the Fall.

There is also particular emphasis on discipling in God's Word (all of it, including the Gospel) with the family, that is, the covenant family. There is a high priority placed there, too.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

JTDyck said:


> In the Second Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort, the part that deals with Limited Atonement, Article 5 says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is one of the best uses of the word promiscuous that I have ever heard!
Click to expand...




J.L. Van Popta, _Evangelism: The church's missionary task in the world (1)_



> 3. Canons of Dort
> 
> The Canons of Dort can help us here. Many Reformed people think that the Canons are a difficult and dusty document. You study it once while you are in catechism. Then perhaps you study it once or twice more in your life at Men's or Women's Societies. There some keener will beat you over the head with it: "It says 'such and such' in Chapter 2 Article so and so of the Canons of Dort and therefore you are Arminian!" Then you tremble in your Sunday shoes and think, "Oh no, not me, I'm Reformed!" And you are cowed into silence.
> 
> But the Canons of Dort, though the least known, are not a difficult nor dry theological treatise. In fact the Canons in their presentation of Election in Chapter 1 and Redemption in Chapter 2 lay a ground-work for all evangelistic and missionary efforts. The doctrine of election should cause Reformed confessors and Reformed Churches, of all confessors and churches, to have the greatest zeal for evangelism. A truly Reformed church is an evangelizing Church.
> 
> The Canons of Dort 1 .1 -3 read:
> 
> Since all men have sinned in Adam, lie under the curse, and deserve eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had 314 been His will to leave the whole human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn it on account of its sin, according to these words of the apostle: that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; and, the wages of sin is death.
> 
> But then the gospel message!
> 
> But in this the love of God was made manifest, that He sent His only-begotten Son into the world, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16.)
> 
> So that men may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends heralds of this most joyful message to whom He will and when He wills. By their ministry men are called to repentance and to faith in Christ crucified. For how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?
> 
> And here you see the role of the church in mission and evangelism. As Calvin says, God uses the human voice to collect His church.
> 
> The wrath of God remains upon those who do not believe this gospel. But those who receive it and embrace Jesus the Saviour with a true and living faith are delivered by Him from the wrath of God and from destruction, and are given eternal life.
> 
> So then the only way to eternal life is through faith in Jesus Christ presented in the gospel.
> 
> Chapter 2 Article 5 reads:
> 
> The promise of the gospel is that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise ought to be announced and proclaimed universally and without discrimination to all peoples and to all men, to whom God in His good pleasure sends the gospel, together with the command to repent and believe.
> 
> The promise of the gospel is to be announced and proclaimed universally to all peoples and to all men. To nations and races - all peoples. To individuals all men. The promise comes: those who believe shall not perish. The command comes: you must repent from sin and believe. That is the bottom line of the gospel. A promise and demand that must go out to all and everyone, collectively and individually, without discrimination. The Canons of Dort highlight this evangelistic calling of the church and the task of God's people.
> 
> Calvin points out that it is a deadness which would cause believers to be silent about the gospel. The Canons of Dort set out the biblical doctrine that the gospel must be proclaimed universally to all men. As Reformed confessors we note that it is Christ who gathers his church, but we then with the Canons and Calvin remember that Christ uses first of all, the human voice and the agency of men to do that gathering work.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Westminster Directory of Public Worship on Public Prayer before the Sermon:



> That the Lord would vouchsafe to shed abroad his love in our hearts by the Holy Ghost; seal unto us, by the same Spirit of adoption, the full assurance of our pardon and reconciliation; comfort all that mourn in Zion, speak peace to the wounded and troubled spirit, and bind up the broken-hearted: and as for secure and presumptuous sinners, that he would open their eyes, convince their consciences, and turn them from darkness unto light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they also may receive forgiveness of sin, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ Jesus.
> 
> With remission of sins through the blood of Christ, to pray for sanctification by his Spirit; the mortification of sin dwelling in and many times tyrannizing over us; the quickening of our dead spirits with the life of God in Christ; grace to fit and enable us for all duties of conversation and callings towards God and men; strength against temptations; the sanctified use of blessings and crosses; and perseverance in faith and obedience unto the end.
> 
> To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction, and from the cruel oppressions and blasphemies of the Turk; for the blessing of God upon the reformed churches, especially upon the churches and kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland, now more strictly and religiously united in the Solemn National League and Covenant; and for our plantations in the remote parts of the world: more particularly for that church and kingdom whereof we are members, that therein God would establish peace and truth , the purity of all his ordinances, and the power of godliness; prevent and remove heresy, schism, profaneness, superstition, security, and unfruitfulness under the means of grace; heal all our rents and divisions, and preserve us from breach of our Solemn Covenant.
> 
> To pray for all in authority, especially for the King's Majesty; that God would make him rich in blessings, both in his person and government; establish his throne in religion and righteousness, save him from evil counsel, and make him a blessed and glorious instrument for the conservation and propagation of the gospel, for the encouragement and protection of them that do well, the terror of all that do evil, and the great good of the whole church, and of all his kingdoms; for the conversion of the Queen, the religious education of the Prince, and the rest of the royal seed; for the comforting of the afflicted Queen of Bohemia, sister to our Sovereign; and for the restitution and establishment of the illustrious Prince Charles, Elector Palatine of the Rhine, to all his dominions and dignities; for a blessing upon the High Court of Parliament, (when sitting in any of these kingdoms respectively,) the nobility, the subordinate judges and magistrates, the gentry, and all the commonality; for all pastors and teachers, that God would fill them with his Spirit, make them exemplarily holy, sober, just, peaceable, and gracious in their lives; sound, faithful, and powerful in their ministry; and follow all their labours with abundance of success and blessing; and give unto all his people pastors according to his own heart; for the universities, and all schools and religious seminaries of church and commonwealth, that they may flourish more and more in learning and piety; for the particular city or congregation, that God would pour out a blessing upon the ministry of the word, sacraments, and discipline, upon the civil government, and all the several families and persons therein; for mercy to the afflicted under any inward or outward distress; for seasonable weather, and fruitful seasons, as the time may require; for averting the judgments that we either feel or fear, or are liable unto as famine, pestilence, the sword, and such like.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Scott1 said:


> No. It's part of all-of-life discipleship. One is a missionary whether a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. God uses each of our lives as a means to reach the lost with the Gospel and to disciple one another in His Truth through the ordinary encounters in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds good to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is the Confessions don't emphasize pressing the lost to make "decisions" for God because man lost the natural ability to do so in the Fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I wrong to assume that the framers of the confessions believed in preaching the free offer of the gospel? Doesn't God's word call on sinners (indiscriminately) to repent of their sin and to believe in Christ? Does this entail a "decision" on the part of the sinner? Of course, I'm against what's often called "easy-believism" evangelism. But didn't our forefather's plead with men to "close with Christ"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is also particular emphasis on discipling in God's Word (all of it, including the Gospel) with the family, that is, the covenant family. There is a high priority placed there, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I definitely agree that parents should evangelize and disciple their children. I think, if I'm not mistaken, that was one of the great purposes of the confessions and catechisms.
Click to expand...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

See CHAPTER XVIII, Of The Ministers of The Church, Their Institution and Duties in the Second Helvetic Confession on how God uses ministers to build the church.


----------



## Scott1

Great questions.



> Dr. Bob Gonzales
> 
> The difference is the Confessions don't emphasize pressing the lost to make "decisions" for God because man lost the natural ability to do so in the Fall.
> 
> Am I wrong to assume that the framers of the confessions believed in preaching the free offer of the gospel? Doesn't God's word call on sinners (indiscriminately) to repent of their sin and to believe in Christ? Does this entail a "decision" on the part of the sinner? Of course, I'm against what's often called "easy-believism" evangelism. But didn't our forefather's plead with men to "close with Christ"?



We get into deeper theology here.

Basically, Reformed Theology recognizes an "outward call" and an "inward call." The outward call is done when the Gospel is explained to people. The inward call is something only God the Holy Sprit can do, in accordance with God's will in eternity past (eg God decided this before the person was created, born).

When God (unilateraly) regenerates a person, something happens to the constituent nature of a human being. They are not the same ever again. This regeneration affects every aspect of man's being (mind, will, soul, etc) and inclines the person to Christ. They were not inclined that way before God did this. Immediately, God gives faith to believe in Christ and to rest on that for salvation, something the person could not do before- they could not rest on this because they had a tendancy, a bias, a bondage toward sin before.

After God regenerates (effectually calls with an inward call) and gives faith, the person is free to "decide" for God and the person most freely does because now they really want to- because God changed their nature. This is marvellous.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bob,

I think the issue is that Reformed Word and Sacrament are measured against revival techniques more than Scripture in many cases and that assumptions about what constitues "Evangelistic and Missionary Outreach" are very rarely examined to determine if they are Scriptural and, in fact, whether or not they actually do the good that many actually believe they do.

I'm not the kind that likes to throw the baby and the bathwater out and acknowledge that there can be a complacency about being prepared to give an account for the hope that lies within. Nevertheless, what has supplanted Word and Sacrament in many corners is a success-oriented pragmatism that sees Church as too slow or inadequate for the job of reaching the lost.

The irony, however, is that as soon as a man strikes out on his own, apart from the Church, it is impossible to fulfill the Great Commission. Why? Because we are commanded to make disciples: 1) baptizing them and 2) teaching them everything the Lord commanded us.

What alarms me is not that the Reformed Church has a way of reaching the lost that I believe is completely Scriptural but that many that call themselves Reformed abandon Word, Sacrament, and Discipline and imitate the people that are "getting results". Seeing the results firsthand, I don't believe there is much that ought to be imitated.

I was recently very saddened to visit a Church in the NoVA area that was reporting on a mission trip to Peru. Teenage children of the members of the Church had done some good work for their neighbors in Peru and even helped a missionary with catechism. What was sad, however, was that the "testimonies" of these teenagers was a mis-apprehension of the Gospel itself and the missionary work was seen as a way to "get serious" about God as a way to draw near to Him. The poor children they were helping were viewed as "closer to God" because of their circumstances. As the young men and women recounted their "favorite verse" eisegesis ran rampant - especially true for one of the older men in the congregation known both for his zeal but, unfortunately, for his misapprehension of Scripture passages.

What is misfiring at this Church that has zeal for "missions" is that they're not firing on the "teaching them everything Christ commanded" cylinder. In other words, they have disciples in their midst and they do not train them. "Outreach" is seen as a higher priority than training. Thus, what is typical of many Churches today are ignorant disciples that are concerned about outreach to add to the ignorant Body of Christ.

I don't say this with arrogance but with sadness at the testimony of these disciples who are supposed to be trained. Left un-checked, many of these zealous adults and teens are borderline Pelagians. There's absolutlely no "borderline" about it at Churches that are not Reformed at all and I've seen Pelagianism on full display across the Evangelical spectrum.

Hence, you ask about evangelistic and missionary outreach in the Confessions and seem to assume it's not there because it appears that something explicit to the notions of "outreach" as currently defined must be found. I would argue that evangelism and missions are implied and will naturally result when Word, Sacrament and Discipline are Biblically applied.


----------



## Pergamum

_One is a missionary whether a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. _


I would like to explore this. 

If every Christian is a missionary, than no one really is. 


A missionary is one who is sent out. Your local butcher is not sent out anywhere except for your local environs. Acts gives us examples of those home local churches sent out and who went far to preach teh Gospel. This seems to be the missionary pattern.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

For some Puritan works on evangelism (see Joel Beeke, _Puritan Evangelism_; Erroll Hulse, Add to the Church: The Puritan Approach to Persuading Souls; Sidney H. Rooy, _The Theology of Missions in the Puritan Tradition: A Study of Representative Puritans: Richard Sibbes, Richard Baxter, John Eliot, Cotton Mather & Jonathan Edwards_; and James A. De Jong, _As the Waters Cover the Sea: Millennial Expectations in the Rise of Anglo-American Missions 1640-1810_ for a few modern treatments), see:

Samuel Lee, _What Means may be used towards the Conversion of our Carnal Relations?_, _Puritan Sermons_ 1:142-69
George Hamond, _How May Private Christians be Most Helpful to Promote the Entertainment of the Gospel?_, _Puritan Sermons_ 4:410-36
Daniel Burgess, _Wherein may we More Hopefully Attempt the Conversion of Younger People, than of Others?_, _Puritan Sermons_ 4:550-84
Thomas Boston, _The Art of Man-Fishing_


----------



## Pergamum

RICH:

Not sure why "outreach" and "training" even need to be done separately. 

Jesus took his students with him as he ministered. There was outrech during the training and Jesus used the training to do outreach it seems... an action-oriented mentorship whereby Jesus lectured his students, engaged in Q and A and even gave out assignments (the 70) and checked back on results.


----------



## Scott1

Pergamum said:


> _One is a missionary whether a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. _
> 
> 
> I would like to explore this.
> 
> If every Christian is a missionary, than no one really is.
> 
> 
> A missionary is one who is sent out. Your local butcher is not sent out anywhere except for your local environs. Acts gives us examples of those home local churches sent out and who went far to preach teh Gospel. This seems to be the missionary pattern.



Not to discount at all the hard work you are doing out there in the hinterlands as a missionary.

Generally, Reformed would see you as an Evangelist or Church Planter (Church officer under authority) whereas the all-of-life discipleship for every Believer makes them a missionary (in a sense) in whatever sphere God calls them.

Whereas broad evangelicalism tends to dichotomize sacred and secular, Reformed tends to see a unity of the two, all-of-life discipleship of every Believer.


----------



## Pergamum

Scott1 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> _One is a missionary whether a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. _
> 
> 
> I would like to explore this.
> 
> If every Christian is a missionary, than no one really is.
> 
> 
> A missionary is one who is sent out. Your local butcher is not sent out anywhere except for your local environs. Acts gives us examples of those home local churches sent out and who went far to preach teh Gospel. This seems to be the missionary pattern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to discount at all the hard work you are doing out there in the hinterlands as a missionary.
> 
> Generally, Reformed would see you as an Evangelist or Church Planter (Church officer under authority) whereas the all-of-life discipleship for every Believer makes them a missionary (in a sense) in whatever sphere God calls them.
> 
> Whereas broad evangelicalism tends to dichotomize sacred and secular, Reformed tends to see a unity of the two, all-of-life discipleship of every Believer.
Click to expand...


Those distinctions sound good to me. Please explain more, you've made some interesting points.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> RICH:
> 
> Not sure why "outreach" and "training" even need to be done separately.
> 
> Jesus took his students with him as he ministered. There was outrech during the training and Jesus used the training to do outreach it seems... an action-oriented mentorship whereby Jesus lectured his students, engaged in Q and A and even gave out assignments (the 70) and checked back on results.



I don't believe they need to be separate. My point is that training is often neglected as if outreach is the sole goal of the Great Commission.


----------



## Scott1

> Please explain more, you've made some interesting points.



In Reformed Theology, power tends to be de-centralized, especially to individuals and families. This comes partly from the "priesthood of all believers." Everything should not be dependent on the Minister, Elders or Deacons not merely for pragmatic reasons but because, biblically, each man stands as his own priest before God.

If God gives such responsibility to disciple to each believer, its not hard seeing each person as being a "missionary."

For example, someone called to be a computer architectural engineer is a "missionary" there, in that sphere as much as someone who braves the wilds of Africa to take the Gospel there. One can see how that view makes for a higher level of involvement for "layman" in the church because this is part of the all-of-life discipleship they are called to. One can also see this is a context which much Reformed evangelism gets done (Dr Gonzales).


----------



## Pergamum

RICH

Amen. "disciple" all nations, not merely get them in the door....


----------



## tcalbrecht

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Brothers,
> 
> It doesn't appear to me that the WCF, Savoy, or 1689 adequately articulate and underscore the church's and individual Christian's obligation vis-a-vis evangelistic and missionary outreach (i.e., the Great Commission). *Chris Coldwell has noted that Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 191 urges believers to pray for the spread of the gospel *[C.C. see previous thread]. I haven't done a careful study of the Three Forms of Unity to venture an assessment on those continental symbols. I'm curious to get your input. Do you believe the Puritan confessions give sufficient space and attention to what is arguably one of the church's and Christian's central roles in a lost world? On a related note, would you agree with the Presbyterian theologian John Frame when he writes, "A church that is not preoccupied with reaching the unsaved is not merely a weak church; it is not properly a church at all"?



I believe this points out the superiority of the Westminster Standards when taken as a whole over Savoy or the LBC insofar as the Confession is a "this is what we believe" document while the Catechisms are more "this is what we do" oriented. Missions and evangelism are not a thing that lends itself to confessional language, in my opinion.


----------



## Pergamum

Scott1 said:


> Please explain more, you've made some interesting points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Reformed Theology, power tends to be de-centralized, especially to individuals and families. This comes partly from the "priesthood of all believers." Everything should not be dependent on the Minister, Elders or Deacons not merely for pragmatic reasons but because, biblically, each man stands as his own priest before God.
Click to expand...


Are you sure about this? Here on the PB the concept of "every member ministry" has been criticized.


----------



## Scott1

> the concept of "every member ministry" has been criticized.



There is definate ecclesiastical authority in church office but all-of-life discipleship and the priesthood of all believers are very much a part of Reformed theology.

Remember what Martin Luther told the shoemaker who got saved when the shoemaker asked him, what must I now do? The shoemaker was thinking he had to go away and become a minister.

Martin Luther told him, "Be a better shoemaker."


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

I want to thank all of you for the helpful input. I also want to make it clear that my posted question is not motivated by any doubts that the Puritans believed in and practiced evangelism. (I'm excluding the strain of hyper-Calvinism that seemed to develop in the 18th century.) And I agree with the many comments that emphasize the importance of a biblically holistic and church-centered form of evangelism and missions. My original question was, "Do the Reformed Confessions Affirm the Duty of Evangelistic and Missionary Outreach?" It appears that the Canons of Dort make this affirmation. It also appears that the Directory for Worship and Larger Catechism at least encourage God's people to pray for the progress of the gospel. And I suppose that we might infer that the duty of evangelism and missions is inferred in the confessional statements related to the ministry of the Word and sacraments.

But in a day when we no longer live in a sacral society and the majority of our fellow citizens do not attend church, is it still adequate to have a confessional statement from which we may only infer one of the church's central roles in the world? Moreover, doesn't inferring the duty of evangelistic outreach and missions from statements affirming "the ministry of the word" run the risk of downplaying the layman's role in evangelism? I have heard that some Reformed Christians believe the pastor or missionary's role is to be _proactive_, whereas the layman's role is to be _reactive_ or _responsive_. This gives the impression, at least to me, that the lay-person is only to share the gospel when asked by an unbeliever. Are any of you aware of this view? Was this view advocated by any of the Reformers or Puritans?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Willem Teellinck in _The Path of True Godliness_, p. 132ff identifies the "third purpose of our lives: to promote our neighbor's salvation" and speaks at great length about the duty of Christians to witness to others. 

Heidelberg Catechism:



> Q. 86. Since then we are delivered from our misery merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we still do good works?
> 
> A. Because Christ, having redeemed and delivered us by His blood, also renews us by His Holy Spirit after His own image; that so we may testify by the whole of our conduct our gratitude to God for His blessings,1 and that He may be praised by us;2 also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith by the fruits thereof; 3 *and that by our godly conversation others may be gained to Christ.4
> 
> 4 1 Pet. 3:1, 2—Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Matt. 5:16—Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Rom. 14:19—Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.*



BTW, a useful, indexed resource for studying the Three Forms of Unity and other confessional documents may be found here:

Links and Downloads Manager - Confession of Faith - The Confessions and the Church Order of the Protestant Reformed Churches - The PuritanBoard


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Scott1 said:


> Please explain more, you've made some interesting points.
> 
> 
> 
> In Reformed Theology, power tends to be de-centralized, especially to individuals and families. This comes partly from the "priesthood of all believers." Everything should not be dependent on the Minister, Elders or Deacons not merely for pragmatic reasons but because, biblically, each man stands as his own priest before God.
> 
> If God gives such responsibility to disciple to each believer, its not hard seeing each person as being a "missionary."
> 
> For example, someone called to be a computer architectural engineer is a "missionary" there, in that sphere as much as someone who braves the wilds of Africa to take the Gospel there. One can see how that view makes for a higher level of involvement for "layman" in the church because this is part of the all-of-life discipleship they are called to. One can also see this is a context which much Reformed evangelism gets done (Dr Gonzales).
Click to expand...


Scott, thanks for these comments. I tend to agree with this perspective. I recognize that there's a distinction between an officially recognized and commissioned "Missionary" (with a capital 'M') and a lay-person "missionary" (with a little 'm'). But I like the idea of encouraging all God's people to be "missionaries" where God has placed them in their respective vocations. Part of that involves being faithful at one's God-given task (e.g., making shoes). But I think it should entail more than living a good life and doing good work. Individuals should seek and pray for open doors to communicate the gospel. The Baptist Faith and Message (2000), Article XI: Evangelism & Missions, clearly articulates this calling:
"It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations. The new birth of man’s spirit by God’s Holy Spirit means that birth of love for others. Missionary effort on the part of all rests thus upon a spiritual necessity of the regenerate life, and is expressly commanded in the teachings of Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ has commanded the preaching of the gospel to all nations. It is the duty of every child of God to seek constantly to win the lost to Christ by verbal witness undergirded by a Christian lifestyle, and by other methods in harmony with the gospel of Christ."​ I wish that the WCF, Savoy, and 1689 contained such an affirmation. What do others think?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Heidelberg Catechism:



> Q. 86. Since then we are delivered from our misery merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we still do good works?
> 
> A. Because Christ, having redeemed and delivered us by His blood, also renews us by His Holy Spirit after His own image; that so we may testify by the whole of our conduct our gratitude to God for His blessings,1 and that He may be praised by us;2 also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith by the fruits thereof; 3 *and that by our godly conversation others may be gained to Christ.*


Andrew, thanks for the quote from the Heidelberg. By "conversation," are they merely referring to one's lifestyle? Or do they also intend the verbal proclamation of the gospel?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

> I believe this points out the superiority of the Westminster Standards when taken as a whole over Savoy or the LBC insofar as the Confession is a "this is what we believe" document while the Catechisms are more "this is what we do" oriented. Missions and evangelism are not a thing that lends itself to confessional language, in my opinion.


I'm willing to concede that the Westminster Standards taken as a whole say more about evangelistic and missionary endeavor than the Savoy and 1689. My second post on "The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism" highlighted this deficiency in the 1689. I'm not so sure that I agree that "missions and evangelism are not a thing that lends itself to confessional language." Apparently, the authors of the Canons of Dort did not think so. And denominations like the Southern Baptists have accorded this role of the Church and Christian confessional status. In a context where non-Reformed churches often accuse Calvinism and Reformed theology of a lack of concern for evangelism and missions (an accusation with which I do not agree), wouldn't it be helpful to include in our declaration to fellow Christians and the world what we actually believe about this? If the Lord Jesus expressly and frequently taught on this subject, then doesn't it merit a fuller treatment in our confessions? If professor John Frame's assertion, "A church that is not preoccupied with reaching the unsaved is not merely a weak church; it is not properly a church at all," contains a substantial element of truth, then it would seem that an entire paragraph on the church's and Christian's evangelistic and missionary role in the world would enhance our confessions rather than harm them.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Heidelberg Catechism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 86. Since then we are delivered from our misery merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we still do good works?
> 
> A. Because Christ, having redeemed and delivered us by His blood, also renews us by His Holy Spirit after His own image; that so we may testify by the whole of our conduct our gratitude to God for His blessings,1 and that He may be praised by us;2 also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith by the fruits thereof; 3 *and that by our godly conversation others may be gained to Christ.*
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew, thanks for the quote from the Heidelberg. By "conversation," are they merely referring to one's lifestyle? Or do they also intend the verbal proclamation of the gospel?
Click to expand...


I believe the meaning is primarily one's lifestyle or conduct, but I think the word is broad enough to encompass one's words as well as deeds. I would not understand the word "proclamation" in proper reference to the sharing of the gospel by one layman to another, personally, reserving that usage for the preaching of the word by a herald, or minister, of the gospel, but Johannes Vanderkamp make a point of saying in his exposition of the HC that "we should also seek by word and conversation to convert those who are wholly unconverted." We should certainly conduct ourselves, by word and deed, in such a way that others will see the grace of God working in us, and engage / be engaged by we who love the Lord.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> But in a day when we no longer live in a sacral society and the majority of our fellow citizens do not attend church, is it still adequate to have a confessional statement from which we may only infer one of the church's central roles in the world? Moreover, doesn't inferring the duty of evangelistic outreach and missions from statements affirming "the ministry of the word" run the risk of downplaying the layman's role in evangelism? I have heard that some Reformed Christians believe the pastor or missionary's role is to be _proactive_, whereas the layman's role is to be _reactive_ or _responsive_. This gives the impression, at least to me, that the lay-person is only to share the gospel when asked by an unbeliever. Are any of you aware of this view? Was this view advocated by any of the Reformers or Puritans?



I would argue that, in a day saturated by the idea of winning souls for Christ that what needs to be more explicit is the *need* for the Church. I honestly don't believe that men and women have a problem being zealous. We see that in every form of religion, whether false or true. What men and women need is to have their zeal focused more properly.

Catechetical instruction is severely impoverished in many corners. Not only do men and women not understand the need to mature in knowledge but many Pastors and Elders are severely negligent to the task. The training aspect of the Great Commission is boldly explicit in both the Scriptures and the Confessions and it is neglected to the harm of true Evangelism. Mind you I'm not talking about wooden repetition of theological facts as the solution but you simply cannot have true spiritual growth without instruction.

As I note in the mini-article on our site about why Reformed theology is important, the problem in most Churches today is an impoverishment of the Gospel itself. I think neglect in instruction in one generation (or in the case of Evangelical Americans several generations) leads to neglect of the Gospel itself in subsequent generations. Fundamentalist Churches once had a form of the Gospel but had little or no training in the things of Christ. The fruit is now Churches that have neither. Reformed Churches are still preaching the Gospel but I'm wont to find many that take training very seriously and I'm already seeing the fruit in generations that follow.

I know I'm sort of meandering but my basic point is that if a Church is faithfully preaching the Word, administering the Sacraments, and fully engaged in training the sheep and spurring them on to love and good works then fruit takes care of itself. That's not to say that the occasional boot in the butt is not needed but it is to say that the lack of zeal toward the lost can be attributed to poor discipleship and the fact that that zeal is for a different Gospel in other circles owes to a lack of true preaching and discipleship.


----------



## Herald

*1689 LBC on the gospel*

1689 LBC 20.3



> therefore in all ages, the preaching of the gospel has been granted into persons and nations, as to the extent or straitening of it, in great variety, according to the council of the will of God.



The preaching of the gospel has not only been granted, it is commanded. This the essence of evangelism. Methodologies may differ but the message cannot.

Conclusion? The confessions speak on evangelism.


----------



## Scott1

There are a lot of good comments here. 

At the root of this, is soteriology. If you believe man is ultimately responsible for his own salvation, you tend to behave one way, in the church and individually.

On the other, if you believe God is ultimately responsible for salvation, you behave another. If you believe that, your life is full of praise and obedience for what you could never have done for yourself.

Reformed Theology sees more that the job of the church is to worship Him and to make His invisible Kingdom visible, not to press people for "decisions" outside of the context of His Church.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Semper Fidelis said:


> Catechetical instruction is severely impoverished in many corners. Not only do men and women not understand the need to mature in knowledge but many Pastors and Elders are severely negligent to the task. The training aspect of the Great Commission is boldly explicit in both the Scriptures and the Confessions and it is neglected to the harm of true Evangelism. Mind you I'm not talking about wooden repetition of theological facts as the solution but you simply cannot have true spiritual growth without instruction.



Just to highlight this important, but often-neglected point, as Joel Beeke says in his chapter on "Catechetical Evangelism" in _Puritan Evangelism_, p. 66, "Third, catechizing was a follow-up to sermons and a way to reach neighbors with the gospel." That is a key component, in my opinion, of the kind of evangelism to which the Bible speaks and the Puritans embraced, that is, discipleship.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

North Jersey Baptist said:


> 1689 LBC 20.3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> therefore in all ages, the preaching of the gospel has been granted into persons and nations, as to the extent or straitening of it, in great variety, according to the council of the will of God.
> 
> 
> 
> The preaching of the gospel has not only been granted, it is commanded. This the essence of evangelism. Methodologies may differ but the message cannot.
> 
> Conclusion? The confessions speak on evangelism.
Click to expand...


Bill, thanks for the citation. I was aware of that statement, but wasn't convinced the language "it is granted ... according to the council of the will of God" communicates clearly the idea of _command_ since in the subject of paragraph 3 seems to be referring to God's sovereign dispensation in determining where the gospel is preached. Baptist historian Tom Nettles seems to think the duty of sharing the gospel could be more clearly underscored in this chapter and offers "A Suggested Addition to the Second London Confession." Here's what he adds to paragraph 3, a portion of which you cited:_His secret will and good pleasure in this wise providence, however, is not the rule of our action; but rather his church must be governed by his commission of the gospel to all nations as the means of their calling. The apostolic work of careful dissemination, defense, and confirmation of the Gospel among all nations bore fruit only by virtue of the sovereign, inscrutable, and insuperable work of the Spirit embedding the preached word with vital power, and at the same time manifested the apostolic understanding of his command to make disciples. [Acts 13:48; Philippians 1:6; Colossians 1:3-6; 1 Thessalonians 1:4-7; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15; 2 Timothy 2:8-10; James 1:17, 18; 1 Peter 1:22-25]_​I'd be interested to know your thoughts about such an addition.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Scott1 said:


> Reformed Theology sees more that the job of the church is to worship Him and to make His invisible Kingdom visible, not to press people for "decisions" outside of the context of His Church.



Scott, I don't see the need for a dichotomy. Pauline theology informs us to call men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. I like to think Reformed theology is consistent with Paul.


----------



## Iconoclast

Scott1 said:


> There are a lot of good comments here.
> 
> At the root of this, is soteriology. If you believe man is ultimately responsible for his own salvation, you tend to behave one way, in the church and individually.
> 
> On the other, if you believe God is ultimately responsible for salvation, you behave another. If you believe that, your life is full of praise and obedience for what you could never have done for yourself.
> 
> Reformed Theology sees more that the job of the church is to worship Him and to make His invisible Kingdom visible, not to press people for "decisions" outside of the context of His Church.



Scott,
If you are speaking to someone outside of the church and working through a gospel presentaton, why not just work at combining some of the strong aspects of both evangelism and discipleship that have been mentioned in this thread. 
Explain That when God draws someone to Jesus , he places them into His body, the church, to come under the authority of a God called eldership. That church life is vital to spiritual growth, and gospel responsibilities.
Explain that body life among the called out sheep is commanded by The Lord Jesus.
Walk the person through 1Cor 12, and explain what you understand theologically, yet use the language that Paul used which was very easy to understand.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Theology sees more that the job of the church is to worship Him and to make His invisible Kingdom visible, not to press people for "decisions" outside of the context of His Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, I don't see the need for a dichotomy. Pauline theology informs us to call men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. I like to think Reformed theology is consistent with Paul.
Click to expand...


Agreed. I think the Gospel always goes forward with an imperative that the hearer is under obligation to believe. What I think makes Reformed theology distinctive is that it recognizes that the Holy Spirit converts and not extraordinary measures.

I wrote this article about 2 years ago when the Franklin Graham festival was in full swing in Okinawa: The Franklin Graham Festival in Okinawa and the Degeneration of Protestant Ecclesiology | SoliDeoGloria.com

It is characteristic of many people today to throw caution to the wind when it comes to telling people about Jesus as if simply making sure the maximum number of people hear about Him is what the goal is. Literally, people simply did not care what the Franklin Graham reps taught from the pulpit. It didn't matter how much eisegesis was used in order to motivate people to beat the bricks so that they would get the maximum number of "unsaved" people to the Festival. Of course, my problem with the whole mess was that these "converts" were plugged into Churches that made them twice as fit for Hell but most people have an attitude that it doesn't matter how you finish but merely hearing and responding is important.


----------



## Herald

> I was aware of that statement, but wasn't convinced the language "it is granted ... according to the council of the will of God" communicates clearly the idea of command since in the subject of paragraph 3 seems to be referring to God's sovereign dispensation in determining where the gospel is preached.



Bob,

I believe there is a principle embedded in scripture that when God bequeaths a stewardship to His church, it is not optional as to whether we are to use it (Matt. 25:13-30; 2 Tim. 4:2). The gospel is such a stewardship (1 Cor. 9:16-17). In my humble opinion if it's not optional than it's a command. I believe this command is given to the church corporate and ministers of the gospel _specifically_. Therefore, the church is commanded to evangelize through the preaching of the gospel. But in the OP your question was directed at two groups: the church corporate and individuals. Not every person can preach. But everyone can employ an evangelistic heart in the presence of their family, friends, classmates and coworkers. 

As to the "addition" of the 1689 LBC that you quoted, it's not bad. I don't have any theological objection to it at first glance. That said, we only have one 1689 LBC. Given the nature of Baptist polity I suppose an individual church can choose to supplement the confession.


----------



## Scott1

> I think the Gospel always goes forward with an imperative that the hearer is under obligation to believe. What I think makes Reformed theology distinctive is that it recognizes that the Holy Spirit converts and not extraordinary measures.



This is getting at the heart of the matter.

Perhaps my earlier statement would emphasize a couple words that might be more clear.



> Reformed Theology sees more that the job of the church is to worship Him and to make His invisible Kingdom visible, not to *press* people *for *"*decisions*" outside of the context of His Church.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

> I believe this command is given to the church corporate and ministers of the gospel _specifically_. Therefore, the church is commanded to evangelize through the preaching of the gospel. But in the OP your question was directed at two groups: the church corporate and individuals. Not every person can preach. But everyone can employ an evangelistic heart in the presence of their family, friends, classmates and coworkers.



I agree that not all persons are gifted and called to preach in the sense of delivering sermons. But does employing an evangelistic heart normally include verbal witness in your view, as opposed to mere "lifestyle" evangelism. As I noted earlier, some appear to make a distinction between the called pastor or missionary's duty to communicate the gospel _proactively_ and the layman's role to communicate the gospel _reactively_. The text used to distinguish the layman's reactive or responsive role from that of the ordained man of God is 1 Peter 3:15. I'm still wondering if this distinction finds its root in Reformed or Puritan theology.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Semper Fidelis said:


> Agreed. I think the Gospel always goes forward with an imperative that the hearer is under obligation to believe. What I think makes Reformed theology distinctive is that it recognizes that the Holy Spirit converts and not extraordinary measures.
> 
> I wrote this article about 2 years ago when the Franklin Graham festival was in full swing in Okinawa: The Franklin Graham Festival in Okinawa and the Degeneration of Protestant Ecclesiology | SoliDeoGloria.com
> 
> It is characteristic of many people today to throw caution to the wind when it comes to telling people about Jesus as if simply making sure the maximum number of people hear about Him is what the goal is. Literally, people simply did not care what the Franklin Graham reps taught from the pulpit. It didn't matter how much eisegesis was used in order to motivate people to beat the bricks so that they would get the maximum number of "unsaved" people to the Festival. Of course, my problem with the whole mess was that these "converts" were plugged into Churches that made them twice as fit for Hell but most people have an attitude that it doesn't matter how you finish but merely hearing and responding is important.


Rich, like you I'm opposed to propagating a truncated gospel. I'm also not in favor of counting mere decisions in order to boast of one's "converts." And I think we all agree that every sinner is under obligation to believe the gospel. My question is whether Reformed and Puritan theology sees it as the duty of every believer (in accordance with the gifts and opportunities God gives him) to entreat sinners indiscriminately to come to Christ with the promise that God desires (not necessarily decrees) their salvation. _If so, has Reformed and Puritan theology expressed the believer's duty to proactively evangelize the lost in manner and pathos described confessionally_?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Well, it's almost 11pm EST, and I'd better get some sleep since I'm teaching once and preaching twice tomorrow. I want to thank everyone again for the helpful input and discussion. I look forward to seeing what I find here tomorrow. Gratefully yours,


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. I think the Gospel always goes forward with an imperative that the hearer is under obligation to believe. What I think makes Reformed theology distinctive is that it recognizes that the Holy Spirit converts and not extraordinary measures.
> 
> I wrote this article about 2 years ago when the Franklin Graham festival was in full swing in Okinawa: The Franklin Graham Festival in Okinawa and the Degeneration of Protestant Ecclesiology | SoliDeoGloria.com
> 
> It is characteristic of many people today to throw caution to the wind when it comes to telling people about Jesus as if simply making sure the maximum number of people hear about Him is what the goal is. Literally, people simply did not care what the Franklin Graham reps taught from the pulpit. It didn't matter how much eisegesis was used in order to motivate people to beat the bricks so that they would get the maximum number of "unsaved" people to the Festival. Of course, my problem with the whole mess was that these "converts" were plugged into Churches that made them twice as fit for Hell but most people have an attitude that it doesn't matter how you finish but merely hearing and responding is important.
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, like you I'm opposed to propagating a truncated gospel. I'm also not in favor of counting mere decisions in order to boast of one's "converts." And I think we all agree that every sinner is under obligation to believe the gospel. My question is whether Reformed and Puritan theology sees it as the duty of every believer (in accordance with the gifts and opportunities God gives him) to entreat sinners indiscriminately to come to Christ with the promise that God desires (not necessarily decrees) their salvation. _If so, has Reformed and Puritan theology expressed the believer's duty to proactively evangelize the lost in manner and pathos described confessionally_?
Click to expand...


Bob,

I don't think every Christian is the one "...who is sent..." according to Romans 10. I think we all have responsibility to bear witness to Christ but not all are preachers of the Word.

For what it's worth, I believe my duty is to talk to others where I have opportunity and to invite them to Church where God's Word is preached and, should they be converted, they have opportunity to be discipled.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I believe this command is given to the church corporate and ministers of the gospel _specifically_. Therefore, the church is commanded to evangelize through the preaching of the gospel. But in the OP your question was directed at two groups: the church corporate and individuals. Not every person can preach. But everyone can employ an evangelistic heart in the presence of their family, friends, classmates and coworkers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that not all persons are gifted and called to preach in the sense of delivering sermons. But does employing an evangelistic heart normally include verbal witness in your view, as opposed to mere "lifestyle" evangelism. As I noted earlier, some appear to make a distinction between the called pastor or missionary's duty to communicate the gospel _proactively_ and the layman's role to communicate the gospel _reactively_. The text used to distinguish the layman's reactive or responsive role from that of the ordained man of God is 1 Peter 3:15. I'm still wondering if this distinction finds its root in Reformed or Puritan theology.
Click to expand...


Bob,

I struggle with this. The Baptist evangelistic methodologies that I have been exposed to have always been programmed. The corresponding guilt that was mine for the taking was always in bloom. As an elder I have to approach the subject of evangelism biblically. Is it biblical? If so, who is called to do it and how? I believe most of us are all settled on the role of the preacher in declaring the gospel. I doubt many on the PB will argue against missionaries proclaiming the gospel. But how about the individual pew sitter? Is there a biblical mandate for them to witness or share the gospel? Is one needed? If I am honest to scripture, I have to admit that I cannot find one inference that commands individuals to preach the gospel. Why is that?

I don't know if it's necessary to define "preaching." Proclaiming the gospel is preaching and it doesn't necessarily have to be done from a pulpit. But while venue is not addressed in scripture, it seems (to this Baptist) that is the office of pastor or elder to preach the gospel message. Because I don't claim to have this all buttoned down, I'm going to throw out a few questions:

1. Can trained lay people proclaim the gospel under the authority of the pastor and elders?

2. Is sharing or "witnessing" the same thing as preaching in regards to the gospel?

3. If #2 is allowed for the membership what form should this take? 

I ask these questions because there are many believers who are petrified to share the gospel. Beyond that, there are just as many who don't have a mastery of the message. I've heard pastors say that mastery of the message isn't important. The Holy Spirit has control over the effort and can even work through the mistakes of men. But how do we excuse a careless approach to to the gospel message, even if it's well meaning?

I am in favor of the church employing various methods in order to attract unbelievers. Community outreaches, family days, nursing home ministries, door-to-door visitation; all of these can be used to invite unbelievers so that they may hear the gospel proclaimed. These type of activities can involve the whole church membership while leaving the preaching of the gospel in the hands of those who have been called for that purpose.

These are just my thoughts. I'm more than willing to have them poked, prodded and dissected by the brethren here on the PB.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Scott1 said:


> There are a lot of good comments here.
> 
> At the root of this, is soteriology. If you believe man is ultimately responsible for his own salvation, you tend to behave one way, in the church and individually.
> 
> On the other, if you believe God is ultimately responsible for salvation, you behave another. If you believe that, your life is full of praise and obedience for what you could never have done for yourself.
> 
> Reformed Theology sees more that the job of the church is to worship Him and to make His invisible Kingdom visible, not to press people for "decisions" outside of the context of His Church.



I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean we don't exhort people to repent and believe? I certainly don't agree with trying to scam someone into praying a "sinners prayer" but the gospels and book of acts are filled with Christ and the apostles exhorting people to repent and believe the gospel. I may be misreading you.


----------



## Pergamum

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this command is given to the church corporate and ministers of the gospel _specifically_. Therefore, the church is commanded to evangelize through the preaching of the gospel. But in the OP your question was directed at two groups: the church corporate and individuals. Not every person can preach. But everyone can employ an evangelistic heart in the presence of their family, friends, classmates and coworkers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that not all persons are gifted and called to preach in the sense of delivering sermons. But does employing an evangelistic heart normally include verbal witness in your view, as opposed to mere "lifestyle" evangelism. As I noted earlier, some appear to make a distinction between the called pastor or missionary's duty to communicate the gospel _proactively_ and the layman's role to communicate the gospel _reactively_. The text used to distinguish the layman's reactive or responsive role from that of the ordained man of God is 1 Peter 3:15. I'm still wondering if this distinction finds its root in Reformed or Puritan theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> I struggle with this. The Baptist evangelistic methodologies that I have been exposed to have always been programmed. The corresponding guilt that was mine for the taking was always in bloom. As an elder I have to approach the subject of evangelism biblically. Is it biblical? If so, who is called to do it and how? I believe most of us are all settled on the role of the preacher in declaring the gospel. I doubt many on the PB will argue against missionaries proclaiming the gospel. But how about the individual pew sitter? Is there a biblical mandate for them to witness or share the gospel? Is one needed? If I am honest to scripture, I have to admit that I cannot find one inference that commands individuals to preach the gospel. Why is that?
> 
> I don't know if it's necessary to define "preaching." Proclaiming the gospel is preaching and it doesn't necessarily have to be done from a pulpit. But while venue is not addressed in scripture, it seems (to this Baptist) that is the office of pastor or elder to preach the gospel message. Because I don't claim to have this all buttoned down, I'm going to throw out a few questions:
> 
> 1. Can trained lay people proclaim the gospel under the authority of the pastor and elders?
> 
> 2. Is sharing or "witnessing" the same thing as preaching in regards to the gospel?
> 
> 3. If #2 is allowed for the membership what form should this take?
> 
> I ask these questions because there are many believers who are petrified to share the gospel. Beyond that, there are just as many who don't have a mastery of the message. I've heard pastors say that mastery of the message isn't important. The Holy Spirit has control over the effort and can even work through the mistakes of men. But how do we excuse a careless approach to to the gospel message, even if it's well meaning?
> 
> I am in favor of the church employing various methods in order to attract unbelievers. Community outreaches, family days, nursing home ministries, door-to-door visitation; all of these can be used to invite unbelievers so that they may hear the gospel proclaimed. These type of activities can involve the whole church membership while leaving the preaching of the gospel in the hands of those who have been called for that purpose.
> 
> These are just my thoughts. I'm more than willing to have them poked, prodded and dissected by the brethren here on the PB.
Click to expand...


A lot of worthy discussion packed in this post. I would love to hear this discussed too.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Pergamum said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that not all persons are gifted and called to preach in the sense of delivering sermons. But does employing an evangelistic heart normally include verbal witness in your view, as opposed to mere "lifestyle" evangelism. As I noted earlier, some appear to make a distinction between the called pastor or missionary's duty to communicate the gospel _proactively_ and the layman's role to communicate the gospel _reactively_. The text used to distinguish the layman's reactive or responsive role from that of the ordained man of God is 1 Peter 3:15. I'm still wondering if this distinction finds its root in Reformed or Puritan theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> I struggle with this. The Baptist evangelistic methodologies that I have been exposed to have always been programmed. The corresponding guilt that was mine for the taking was always in bloom. As an elder I have to approach the subject of evangelism biblically. Is it biblical? If so, who is called to do it and how? I believe most of us are all settled on the role of the preacher in declaring the gospel. I doubt many on the PB will argue against missionaries proclaiming the gospel. But how about the individual pew sitter? Is there a biblical mandate for them to witness or share the gospel? Is one needed? If I am honest to scripture, I have to admit that I cannot find one inference that commands individuals to preach the gospel. Why is that?
> 
> I don't know if it's necessary to define "preaching." Proclaiming the gospel is preaching and it doesn't necessarily have to be done from a pulpit. But while venue is not addressed in scripture, it seems (to this Baptist) that is the office of pastor or elder to preach the gospel message. Because I don't claim to have this all buttoned down, I'm going to throw out a few questions:
> 
> 1. Can trained lay people proclaim the gospel under the authority of the pastor and elders?
> 
> 2. Is sharing or "witnessing" the same thing as preaching in regards to the gospel?
> 
> 3. If #2 is allowed for the membership what form should this take?
> 
> I ask these questions because there are many believers who are petrified to share the gospel. Beyond that, there are just as many who don't have a mastery of the message. I've heard pastors say that mastery of the message isn't important. The Holy Spirit has control over the effort and can even work through the mistakes of men. But how do we excuse a careless approach to to the gospel message, even if it's well meaning?
> 
> I am in favor of the church employing various methods in order to attract unbelievers. Community outreaches, family days, nursing home ministries, door-to-door visitation; all of these can be used to invite unbelievers so that they may hear the gospel proclaimed. These type of activities can involve the whole church membership while leaving the preaching of the gospel in the hands of those who have been called for that purpose.
> 
> These are just my thoughts. I'm more than willing to have them poked, prodded and dissected by the brethren here on the PB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of worthy discussion packed in this post. I would love to hear this discussed too.
Click to expand...


I agree. Bill has raised some important questions. These are the very issues I've been wrestling with. From the seeming lack of emphasis on the Christian's responsibility to communicate the gospel to the lost in Reformed symbols, I've suspected that there might be some theological reason behind it. Yet, there are some passages in the NT that seem to me, at least presently, to give some warrant for laying a measure of evangelism responsibility at the feet of the saints (according to each one's gifts and opportunities). I've got to run off to church, but I'll try to return to this discussion later and identify some of those texts to solicit the input of you brothers.


----------



## Scott1

ManleyBeasley said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of good comments here.
> 
> At the root of this, is soteriology. If you believe man is ultimately responsible for his own salvation, you tend to behave one way, in the church and individually.
> 
> On the other, if you believe God is ultimately responsible for salvation, you behave another. If you believe that, your life is full of praise and obedience for what you could never have done for yourself.
> 
> Reformed Theology sees more that the job of the church is to worship Him and to make His invisible Kingdom visible, not to press people for "decisions" outside of the context of His Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean we don't exhort people to repent and believe? I certainly don't agree with trying to scam someone into praying a "sinners prayer" but the gospels and book of acts are filled with Christ and the apostles exhorting people to repent and believe the gospel. I may be misreading you.
Click to expand...


Mr Beasly,

That's certainly understandable. It is difficult to follow the back-and-forth on this.

It might be helpful to remember the original thread question is whether the Confessions adequately define an individual's responsibility to preach the Gospel.



> Dr Gonzales
> It doesn't appear to me that the WCF, Savoy, or 1689 adequately articulate and underscore the church's and individual Christian's obligation vis-a-vis evangelistic and missionary outreach (i.e., the Great Commission).



The thread back-and-forth has touched on the differences in the way "Reformed" and "broad evangelical" do missions and evangelism.

I was explaining that what Reformed calls "the doctrines of Grace" (5 points of Calvinism) greatly effect the way we understand salvation. That boils down to a God-centered versus a man-centered view. For example, Reformed would say that regeneration and faith in Christ are 100% gifts of God that must first occur, by God's action before a person can be saved. While that (e.g. the "5 points") are not being directly debated here, they effect the way evangelism and missions are done.

For example, Reformed does not tend to do "crusade ralies" or emphasize "making decisions" for Christ but rather focus on discipleship within the local church as a way of bringing out the Gospel. When missionaries go out, Reformed would tend to send them a church planters under church authority and the gospel would work out through discipleship, that is building a local church.

In addition, all-of-life discipleship (emphasized in Reformed, but not in Broad Evangelicalism) tends to make each individual a "missionary" in their sphere of influence. Not as a "preacher" or what we would understand as a "teacher" (elder) but as an individual's "all of life" discipleship.

The Westminster Confession doctrinally, goes into great detail about the Gospel (i.e. justification by faith alone) but in the context of building the local church rather than a charge to layman to go out, on their own, to evangelize.

There's more than we can cover here in one thread, but due to the understanding of "covenant families" Reformed also emphasizes discipling within the family. That is a whole other aspect, but a very real aspect of evangelism that is emphasized, particulary to heads of families in Reformed Theology. (It's more than a hope, because of special grace and promises we see to the children of Believers).

Many outside of Reformed Theology don't think Reformed does missions or evangelizes much which stems from a misunderstanding of several things, including the doctrines of salvation (soteriology). But, if you look historically, what Calvin did in Switzerland, the founding of this country, evangelism in South Korea, the number of domestic and international missionaries in the PCA per capita- the impression is not only incorrect, but very very incorrect. I don't say this defensively, only with assurance and confidence that the Reformed Confessions integrate evangelism in every aspect of the life of the Church and the Believer (more so, than do "broad evangelicals.")


----------



## MW

WCF 8:8, "To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation."

Presbyterian theology is primarily concerned with asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer, not with meeting human needs. The Presbyterian church has never been preoccupied with "reaching the unsaved," but with the faithful administration of Word and sacraments. 1 Cor. 4:2, "Moreover, it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful." This is to be carried out wherever the Lord providentially opens the door, i.e., as is "most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation." The Lord has His people in every place to which the Gospel comes. The church spreads the gospel net and gathers both good and bad fish. The judgment day will manifest the quality of what has been gathered.

What should the Presbyterian church think of judging the ministry of the church by the mark of "reaching the unsaved?" Let us examine the thought of inspired submission to the will of God as expressed by the apostle Paul, "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment; yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God," 1 Cor. 4:3-5.

Dr. Calvin comments: "the Corinthians did not mark with unjaundiced eye the character of each individual, but, blinded by ambition, groundlessly extolled one and depreciated another, and took upon themselves to mark out the dignity of each individual beyond what is lawful for men. Let us know, then, how much is allowed us, what is now within the sphere of our knowledge, and what is deferred until the day of Christ, and let us not attempt to go beyond these limits."

It is remaining within the bounds of human knowledge to judge ministry on the basis of its faithful administration of Word and sacraments. We go beyond these bounds when we insist that this administration should also have a certain positive outcome which it is not in the power of human resourcefulness to secure.


----------



## Scott1

> *armourbearer *
> Moderator
> 
> Presbyterian theology is primarily concerned with asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer, not with meeting human needs. The Presbyterian church has never been preoccupied with "reaching the unsaved," but with the faithful administration of Word and sacraments.



While I never would have thought of using the word "crown" like this in a sentence, this is an excellent summary of some things I have not quite been able to articulate in response to this question.

Thanks for putting this so succinctly!

It's so well said, the banana's have been summoned to celebrate:


----------



## Christusregnat

Scott1 said:


> *armourbearer *
> Moderator
> 
> Presbyterian theology is primarily concerned with asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer, not with meeting human needs. The Presbyterian church has never been preoccupied with "reaching the unsaved," but with the faithful administration of Word and sacraments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I never would have thought of using the word "crown" like this in a sentence, this is an excellent summary of some things I have not quite been able to articulate in response to this question.
> 
> Thanks for putting this so succinctly!
> 
> It's so well said, the banana's have been summoned to celebrate:
Click to expand...



Scott,

I just have to say how much I appreciate how funny you are!


----------



## Pergamum

MATTHEW:

Your quote: _The Presbyterian church has never been preoccupied with "reaching the unsaved," but with the faithful administration of Word and sacraments. _ seems like a false dichotomy to me. I have seen churches do both.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Your quote: _The Presbyterian church has never been preoccupied with "reaching the unsaved," but with the faithful administration of Word and sacraments. _ seems like a false dichotomy to me. I have seen churches do both.



One cannot adapt Word and sacraments to "reaching the unsaved" without making them ill-suited to their fundamental purpose of "gathering and perfecting of the *saints*," WCF 25:3.

John 21:15, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He [Jesus] saith unto him, Feed my *lambs*." John Calvin comments: "nothing could have been spoken that was better fitted for encouraging the ministers of the Gospel, than to inform them that no service can be more agreeable to Christ than that which is bestowed on feeding his flock. All believers ought to draw from it no ordinary consolation, when they are taught that they are so dear and so precious in the sight of the Son of God, that he substitutes them, as it were, in his own room. But the same doctrine ought greatly to alarm false teachers, who corrupt and overturn the government of the Church; for Christ, who declares that he is insulted by them, will inflict on them dreadful punishment."


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Scott1 said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of good comments here.
> 
> At the root of this, is soteriology. If you believe man is ultimately responsible for his own salvation, you tend to behave one way, in the church and individually.
> 
> On the other, if you believe God is ultimately responsible for salvation, you behave another. If you believe that, your life is full of praise and obedience for what you could never have done for yourself.
> 
> Reformed Theology sees more that the job of the church is to worship Him and to make His invisible Kingdom visible, not to press people for "decisions" outside of the context of His Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean we don't exhort people to repent and believe? I certainly don't agree with trying to scam someone into praying a "sinners prayer" but the gospels and book of acts are filled with Christ and the apostles exhorting people to repent and believe the gospel. I may be misreading you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr Beasly,
> 
> That's certainly understandable. It is difficult to follow the back-and-forth on this.
> 
> It might be helpful to remember the original thread question is whether the Confessions adequately define an individual's responsibility to preach the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gonzales
> It doesn't appear to me that the WCF, Savoy, or 1689 adequately articulate and underscore the church's and individual Christian's obligation vis-a-vis evangelistic and missionary outreach (i.e., the Great Commission).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thread back-and-forth has touched on the differences in the way "Reformed" and "broad evangelical" do missions and evangelism.
> 
> I was explaining that what Reformed calls "the doctrines of Grace" (5 points of Calvinism) greatly effect the way we understand salvation. That boils down to a God-centered versus a man-centered view. For example, Reformed would say that regeneration and faith in Christ are 100% gifts of God that must first occur, by God's action before a person can be saved. While that (e.g. the "5 points") are not being directly debated here, they effect the way evangelism and missions are done.
> 
> For example, Reformed does not tend to do "crusade ralies" or emphasize "making decisions" for Christ but rather focus on discipleship within the local church as a way of bringing out the Gospel. When missionaries go out, Reformed would tend to send them a church planters under church authority and the gospel would work out through discipleship, that is building a local church.
> 
> In addition, all-of-life discipleship (emphasized in Reformed, but not in Broad Evangelicalism) tends to make each individual a "missionary" in their sphere of influence. Not as a "preacher" or what we would understand as a "teacher" (elder) but as an individual's "all of life" discipleship.
> 
> The Westminster Confession doctrinally, goes into great detail about the Gospel (i.e. justification by faith alone) but in the context of building the local church rather than a charge to layman to go out, on their own, to evangelize.
> 
> There's more than we can cover here in one thread, but due to the understanding of "covenant families" Reformed also emphasizes discipling within the family. That is a whole other aspect, but a very real aspect of evangelism that is emphasized, particulary to heads of families in Reformed Theology. (It's more than a hope, because of special grace and promises we see to the children of Believers).
> 
> Many outside of Reformed Theology don't think Reformed does missions or evangelizes much which stems from a misunderstanding of several things, including the doctrines of salvation (soteriology). But, if you look historically, what Calvin did in Switzerland, the founding of this country, evangelism in South Korea, the number of domestic and international missionaries in the PCA per capita- the impression is not only incorrect, but very very incorrect. I don't say this defensively, only with assurance and confidence that the Reformed Confessions integrate evangelism in every aspect of the life of the Church and the Believer (more so, than do "broad evangelicals.")
Click to expand...


Ah, I see what you're saying. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Well my friends, I believe in proclaiming the gospel to whomever I can whenever I have opportunity (not to say I don't fail). I don't try to lead people in sinners prayers but I look to exhort them to repent and believe the gospel. Though only the elect *CAN* repent and believe, all men are responsible to (as Jonathan Edwards argued and the apostles demonstated) so I proclaim to all and God saves whom He will.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your quote: _The Presbyterian church has never been preoccupied with "reaching the unsaved," but with the faithful administration of Word and sacraments. _ seems like a false dichotomy to me. I have seen churches do both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One cannot adapt Word and sacraments to "reaching the unsaved" without making them ill-suited to their fundamental purpose of "gathering and perfecting of the *saints*," WCF 25:3.
> 
> John 21:15, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He [Jesus] saith unto him, Feed my *lambs*." John Calvin comments: "nothing could have been spoken that was better fitted for encouraging the ministers of the Gospel, than to inform them that no service can be more agreeable to Christ than that which is bestowed on feeding his flock. All believers ought to draw from it no ordinary consolation, when they are taught that they are so dear and so precious in the sight of the Son of God, that he substitutes them, as it were, in his own room. But the same doctrine ought greatly to alarm false teachers, who corrupt and overturn the government of the Church; for Christ, who declares that he is insulted by them, will inflict on them dreadful punishment."
Click to expand...



Your statement sounds anti-missions without this adition:

The Presbyterian church has always sent out people for church planting. 

Gathering people into the already existing curch is NOT all there is. 

The formation of new churches has also always been a priority.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Your statement sounds anti-missions without this adition:
> 
> The Presbyterian church has always sent out people for church planting.
> 
> Gathering people into the already existing curch is NOT all there is.
> 
> The formation of new churches has also always been a priority.



I suppose the Presbyterian concern for *church extension* would look anti-mission to an Independent who is consumed with the idea of *new churches*. Acts 2:47, "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."


----------



## Herald

I wonder whether church's approach to evangelism is really one of purpose and function? The church's purpose is to worship God, a function of which is preaching the gospel.

To borrow a term that Matthew used, if the church is to "spread the gospel net", that is a function. I believe it is a commanded function. The LBC uses the word "granted", but as I said earlier, the word "granted" is one of stewardship that requires action. Preaching the gospel is not the sole function of a church, nor should it be.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement sounds anti-missions without this adition:
> 
> The Presbyterian church has always sent out people for church planting.
> 
> Gathering people into the already existing curch is NOT all there is.
> 
> The formation of new churches has also always been a priority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the Presbyterian concern for *church extension* would look anti-mission to an Independent who is consumed with the idea of *new churches*. Acts 2:47, "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."
Click to expand...



God can add to the church daily by creating new local bodies. Acts 2 does not rule out church planting or church multiplication.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

> Presbyterian theology is primarily concerned with asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer, not with meeting human needs.


Matthew, 

I think the theology of all true churches (whether Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, etc.) should be concerned with asserting the crown rights of King Jesus. But I'm not comfortable with the seeming dichotomy you've drawn. Part of "asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer" is doing what His word bids us do and walking in His steps. And since Jesus did not merely go about Palestine proclaiming "I'm the Promised Messiah" _but also healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, feeding the hungry, causing the lame to walk, etc._, I think we're on tenuous ground if we overlook, depreciate, or fail to imitate (without the miraculous elements of course) this facet of his ministry. In other words, I believe it is the duty of the church and every Christian to see the the multitudes, be moved with compassion, and to meet human needs both temporal (when possible and appropriate) and eternal (by pointing them to Christ). 



> It is remaining within the bounds of human knowledge to judge ministry on the basis of its faithful administration of Word and sacraments. We go beyond these bounds when we insist that this administration should also have a certain positive outcome which it is not in the power of human resourcefulness to secure.


I'm not sure what you're alluding to here. If you're alluding to the statement of John Frame, viz, a concern for the lost ought to be a mark of a genuine church, then I think you've misread him. He did not say that a true church is marked by "a certain positive outcome." Rather, he said the church is marked by a certain preoccupation with or concern to win the lost. This seems to have been a mark of Paul's ministry: "I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:22). _Should not such a concern also mark the church?_


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

2 Cor. 5:20 Now then _we are ambassadors for Christ_, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 

I always took this as applicable to _all _Christians, not limited to the Apostles. It is in this sense that we may all be missionaries.


----------



## Herald

Gomarus said:


> 2 Cor. 5:20 Now then _we are ambassadors for Christ_, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
> 
> I always took this as applicable to _all _Christians, not limited to the Apostles. It is in this sense that we may all be missionaries.



Jim, Paul refers to Timothy and himself as "us." They are the ambassadors and the Corinthians are the ones being addressed. As way of application a preacher of the gospel is acting in the role of Paul and Timothy, as ambassadors for Christ.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I wonder whether church's approach to evangelism is really one of purpose and function? The church's purpose is to worship God, a function of which is preaching the gospel.



Bill Brown has made an observation worth further reflection and that leads me to a text that might be relevant to our discussion regarding the church's corporate responsibility and possibly also the Christian's personal responsibility to communicate the gospel not merely in the corporate gatherings of the church but also outside those corporate gatherings to a lost and dying world. According to 1 Peter 2:9, the people of God are something _in order that_ they might do something.But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that [_hopos_ = purpose] you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.​So God has granted the church _privileged status_ in order that she might carry out a _particular function_. That function is described as "proclaiming the praises (or excellencies) of our Redeemer. The Greek verb translated "you may proclaim" is _exangello_. The basic meaning is to report, announce, declare. Calvin writes, "It behooves us to declare these excellencies not only by tongue, but also by our whole life" (_Calvin's Commentaries on the NT_, 12:266). According to John Brown, "Christians, as the called of God, are intended to show forth the excellencies of God, both passively and actively." "By your lips, by your lives ... honour Him who has called you ..." (_Expository Discourses on First Peter_, 317, 321). The addition of the preposition _ex_ may convey the idea of _declaring_ _abroad_. Edmond Hiebert argues that the verb "conveys the picture of a message being proclaimed to those outside what has taken place within. It indicates the evangelistic function of the church.... Both word and conduct are involved" (_1 Peter_, 144). The fact that Peter addresses the church both in corporate (e.g., "a spiritual house") and also in individual language (e.g., "living stones) would seem to suggest that the privileged responsibility has both a corporate and individual dimension. 

It seems, from a perusal of certain other NT texts, that individual members of the church sensed this privilege and responsibility, and accordingly they engaged in evangelistic endeavor. For example, Saul's persecution of men and women in the church resulted not only in their dispersion but in their "publishing the good news [_euangelizomenoi ton logon_]" (Acts 8:4). Later, the now converted Saul praised the newly planted church in Thessalonica because "from [them] the word of the Lord has sounded forth [_exechetai_; from which we obtain the verb "to echo"] not only in Macedonia and Achaia but in every place." Indeed, the apostles boasts, "Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything" (1 Thess. 1:8). I don't believe we can limit the Thessalonian witness merely to a godly lifestyle since a godly lifestyle has no meaning apart from a propositional interpretation of that lifestyle. Paul could only say, "We do not need to say anything," because the Thessalonians apparently had sufficiently communicated the word. While Paul may be using a little hyperbole here, it does seem to me that he's acknowledged and praised an active effort of evangelism on the part of these relatively new believers. 

Of course, I do recognize the potential problem to which Bill and a few others have made reference. First, there are many individual members who are afraid to share the gospel. Second, to use Bill's words, "there are just as many who don't have a mastery of the message." I agree. Consequently, we need to be patient with the fearful just as Jesus was patient with his disciples. Nevertheless, in the end we must embolden them with the same words Jesus communicated to his disciples, "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt. 10:28). Moreover, we need to do all we can to thoroughly ground our people in the faith so that each one can heed the words of Peter and "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15). Think also of the admonition Hebrew's author gives to certain members of the church:For though by this time _you ought to be teachers_ [emphasis added], you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of God's revelation. You need milk, not solid food. or everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to _those who are of full age_, that is, _those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil _[emphasis added] (Heb. 5:12-14).​The implication of this text seems to be that _individual believers ought to strive for doctrinal and practical maturity in order that they might communicate accurately the gospel to others_. Certainly, of all believers those who are members of Reformed church and are indoctrinated with Reformed theology ought to be among the most qualified to communicate the gospel to the lost. 

I conclusion, these are some passages in the NT that presently seem to me to give some warrant for laying a measure of evangelistic responsibility at the feet of the saints. Of course, I think it's also vital that we make appropriate qualifications. Not everyone is called to serve Christ as an ordained pastor or missionary. Nor does every Christian have the same measure of opportunities. Nor does every child of God possess the same level of doctrinal and practical maturity to effectively and accurately communicate the gospel. So the weight of responsibility upon each individual Christian will differ. Nevertheless, it does not appear wide the mark to conclude that the Scriptures do seem to give warrant for us in our confessions to affirm not only the church's responsibility to preach the gospel in the context of corporate worship and to commission church planters and missionaries to take the gospel to the nations _but also the individual believer's responsibility to be salt and light (by life and lip) in the midst of a lost and perishing world_.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Gomarus said:


> 2 Cor. 5:20 Now then _we are ambassadors for Christ_, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
> 
> I always took this as applicable to _all _Christians, not limited to the Apostles. It is in this sense that we may all be missionaries.



Jim, I agree with you that in a qualified sense all Christians may in some form or another be missionaries (see my post above). But I do think, in agreement with Bill, that in this particular text, Paul is probably referring to those specifically ordained (Eph. 4:11).


----------



## Pergamum

Watch out, Dr Gonzales, this board can get addictive. I fear you are already an addict. I tell myself often, "I can quit anytime."


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Pergamum said:


> Watch out, Dr Gonzales, this board can get addictive. I fear you are already an addict. I tell myself often, "I can quit anytime."



Brother, I think you're right. I get the shakes whenever I'm not hooked up.


----------



## Scott1

There are some deep principles and concepts at stake here and many of us are trying to "get their arms around" them.

No question Reformed theology and broad evangelicalism have some significant differences in the way they approach evangelism, church growth, and discipleship. Both groups are rightly highly prioritized on salvation but the way that is done is not the same.

It's not that one group is more concerned about "seeing souls saved," its more about how that gets done.

It flows from deep theological doctrines of soteriology, I think. This discussion has well-researched and well-expressed thoughts that are helping clarify this for all of us- thanks!


----------



## Iconoclast

When you say the church casts out the gospel net,How do you mean that exactly? Just when it gather's to hear the word preached?
If unsaved providentially come into our meetings,then the net closes on them? In ISA.54 when he speaks of lengthening the cords,and strengthening the stakes ,how does that happen?
Why cut out the vast majority of believers from speaking forth the word of God like the Thessalonians did? Why not both?
I have never seen a Pastor on any job site I am on speaking to anyone! As am matter of fact, I am happy if I meet a christian who speaks a word in season.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

ManleyBeasley said:


> Well my friends, I believe in proclaiming the gospel to whomever I can whenever I have opportunity (not to say I don't fail). I don't try to lead people in sinners prayers but I look to exhort them to repent and believe the gospel. Though only the elect *CAN* repent and believe, all men are responsible to (as Jonathan Edwards argued and the apostles demonstated) so I proclaim to all and God saves whom He will.



Manley, now I know why you picked Spurgeon as your avatar. You have his soul-winner's heart.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Part of "asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer" is doing what His word bids us do and walking in His steps. And since Jesus did not merely go about Palestine proclaiming "I'm the Promised Messiah" _but also healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, feeding the hungry, causing the lame to walk, etc._, I think we're on tenuous ground if we overlook, depreciate, or fail to imitate (without the miraculous elements of course) this facet of his ministry. In other words, I believe it is the duty of the church and every Christian to see the the multitudes, be moved with compassion, and to meet human needs both temporal (when possible and appropriate) and eternal (by pointing them to Christ).



It comes down to preoccupation. By stating the Presbyterian's preoccupation with the crown rights of Jesus there is no denial of the necessity and usefulness of good works. Rather, these are established by a proper recognistion of our Lord's mediatorial authority. Good works are to be done in faith to Jesus Christ; but in order for them to be constituted good works they must be such as Christ has commanded. This brings us back to the primacy of Christ.

Where there is a preoccupation with "souls," and the meeting of human needs, the necessity and usefulness of good works is distorted. A good work is not such as is done in obedience to Christ's command, but such as serves to benefit the souls of men. The preaching of the gospel is then no longer a matter of spreading the savour of Christ as an act of worship to God, but it is a humanitarian deed which seeks the individual's good foremost.

The commission given to the church is not to "reach souls," but to "disciple all nations," teaching them to observe all things which are commanded by the Head of principalities and powers. If one is preoccupied with reaching souls, then his foremost responsibility is to connect with people. If one is preoccupied with the authority of Christ, then his foremost responsibility is to ensure that he and those within his sphere of influence are obeying the truth as it is in Jesus. The dichotomy is a fact of human experience. The preoccupation cannot be syncretised.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> This seems to have been a mark of Paul's ministry: "I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:22). _Should not such a concern also mark the church?_



Yes, a mark of the church is the sound preaching of the Word by those ordained thereunto. As the apostle states in that chapter, necessity was laid upon him, which evinced that a dispensation of the gospel was committed unto him.


----------



## Scott1

> armourbearer
> Moderator
> Good works are to be done in faith to Jesus Christ; but in order for them to be constituted good works they must be such as Christ has commanded.



This is hard for human nature to accept. 

"Good" works are not only external but involve an inner heart to please God (which the non-believer does not have). Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XVI summarizes the doctrine of Scripture on this.

The Reformers called "outwardly seemingly" good works as works of "civic virtue." They may be done out of motive to prevent the inconvenience of punishment, to be praised of men, to receive a tax deduction, many reasons but not from a heart priority to obey God. Therefore, from God's standpoint, and from a salvation and sanctification standpoint, they are not "good."

There are some soteriological differences here when an Arminian-influenced theology (i.e. broad evangelicalism) will not necessary understand it this way, Reformed will.


----------



## Scott1

> armourbearer
> Moderator
> 
> The commission given to the church is not to "reach souls," but to "disciple all nations," teaching them to observe all things which are commanded by the Head of principalities and powers.



I think I understand what you mean here, in context of your post and in that of earlier posts. 

Is it fair to say that Gospel presentation is not only part of "discipleship of all nations," (Great Commission) but also part of the all-of-life discipleship Scripture calls each individual to yet within the overall priority of Christ's authority over all Creation and his command to make disciples through His Church?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of "asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer" is doing what His word bids us do and walking in His steps. And since Jesus did not merely go about Palestine proclaiming "I'm the Promised Messiah" _but also healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, feeding the hungry, causing the lame to walk, etc._, I think we're on tenuous ground if we overlook, depreciate, or fail to imitate (without the miraculous elements of course) this facet of his ministry. In other words, I believe it is the duty of the church and every Christian to see the the multitudes, be moved with compassion, and to meet human needs both temporal (when possible and appropriate) and eternal (by pointing them to Christ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It comes down to preoccupation. By stating the Presbyterian's preoccupation with the crown rights of Jesus there is no denial of the necessity and usefulness of good works. Rather, these are established by a proper recognistion of our Lord's mediatorial authority. Good works are to be done in faith to Jesus Christ; but in order for them to be constituted good works they must be such as Christ has commanded. This brings us back to the primacy of Christ.
> 
> Where there is a preoccupation with "souls," and the meeting of human needs, the necessity and usefulness of good works is distorted. A good work is not such as is done in obedience to Christ's command, but such as serves to benefit the souls of men. The preaching of the gospel is then no longer a matter of spreading the savour of Christ as an act of worship to God, but it is a humanitarian deed which seeks the individual's good foremost.
> 
> The commission given to the church is not to "reach souls," but to "disciple all nations," teaching them to observe all things which are commanded by the Head of principalities and powers. If one is preoccupied with reaching souls, then his foremost responsibility is to connect with people. If one is preoccupied with the authority of Christ, then his foremost responsibility is to ensure that he and those within his sphere of influence are obeying the truth as it is in Jesus. The dichotomy is a fact of human experience. The preoccupation cannot be syncretised.
Click to expand...


Matthew, I am nonplussed. First, you make it sound as if only Presbyterians are concerned about the crown right of Jesus. I'm sure you don't intend it this way, but it comes across as denominational snobbery. Second, you once again introduce a false dichotomy. You affirm that you believe in good works, but then you remind me that for such to truly count as "good works," they must be done in faith and obedience to Christ. But didn't I already say that? I'll say it again: "Part of 'asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer' is doing what His word bids us do and walking in His steps." Thirdly, you seem determined to maintain this dichotomy as a "fact of human experience," arguing that loyalty to Christ and genuine concern for the biblically defined needs of men "cannot be syncretized." To this I offer the following observations:

1) Jesus syncretizes them on the Day of Judgment: "Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.' Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 'When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 'Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'" (Matthew 25:34-40). Reflect: if these sheep were so preoccupied with "asserting the crown rights of Jesus" when they were meeting the needs of those in misery, why were they so surprised when Jesus claimed that they had in effect _done it unto him_? It turns out that these sheep were able to love people and love Christ simultaneously. 

2) Does God save sinners for his own glory or for their eternal happiness? Biblical answer: both. "I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not keep them back!' Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth -- Everyone who is called by My name, _Whom I have created for My glory_ [emphasis added]" (Isaiah 43:6-7). "For God _so loved the world_ [emphasis added] that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). Indeed, the Shorter Catechism reminds us that the two belong together coordinately: "Man's chief end is to glorify God _and enjoy him_ forevever [emphasis added]." Man's enjoying God cannot be divorced from glorifying God with respect to the chief end for which he was created and redeemed. The two are inseparable. One cannot truly and fully glorify God (in the sense intended by the framers of the catechism) without enjoying God.

3) Must we draw such a contrast between "discipling the nations" and "reaching souls"? Can they not be ways of _looking at the same objective from two different perspectives_? To the Corinthians, Paul says, "I will very gladly spend and be spent _for your souls_ [emphasis added]" (Corinthians 12:15). "Receive with meekness the implanted word, _which is able to save your souls_ [emphasis added]" (James 1:21). "Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving the end of your faith -- the salvation _of your souls_ [emphasis added]" (1 Peter 1:8-9). One might also note that in the context of the text I cite below--1 Cor. 9:22)--the Greek verb for "win" (_kerdaino_) is employed five times (9:19-22).

Let me make it clear--I don't advocate preaching a truncated gospel and pressing men to make superficial "decisions" for Christ. I believe in discipling men and bringing them into the fold of the church. I believe one must confess Jesus as Lord not just Savior (Romans 10:9). But the idea that a heartfelt concern for lost and needy images of God and "asserting the crown rights of Jesus" are incompatible is, in my opinion, neither biblical nor truly Presbyterian. 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> This seems to have been a mark of Paul's ministry: "I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:22). _Should not such a concern also mark the church?_





armourbearer said:


> Yes, a mark of the church is the sound preaching of the Word by those ordained thereunto. As the apostle states in that chapter, necessity was laid upon him, which evinced that a dispensation of the gospel was committed unto him.
> 
> 
> 
> Please take the time to read my post above, #65, where I offer several passages of Scripture that appear to lay some measure of evangelistic responsibility _at the feet of laypeople_. Once again, I don't draw dichotomies. I don't deny the proper place of the ordained minister. I don't deny that evangelistic and missionary endeavor should be conducted under the general oversight of the church. But Paul's preoccupation to save sinners [and note the active voice--'that I may by all means save'--not, 'that I might simply assert the crown rights of Jesus and let Jesus do the saving'] should be reflected not merely in the heart of the ordained minister but should also reverberate in the hearts of all God's people, from the least to the greatest.
> 
> In closing, I commend your zeal for Christ's lordship and his church. But I do not believe it's inconsistent with either Scripture or our creeds to have simultaneously a zeal for God and a concern for the welfare of human souls made in God's image. The word of Christ and his example (as well as that of his apostles) constrain me to be and to encourage others to be preoccupied with both.
> 
> Cordially,
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> 1) Jesus syncretizes them on the Day of Judgment: [cut] Matthew 25:34-40. Reflect: if these sheep were so preoccupied with "asserting the crown rights of Jesus" when they were meeting the needs of those in misery, why were they so surprised when Jesus claimed that they had in effect _done it unto him_? It turns out that these sheep were able to love people and love Christ simultaneously.



Our love for souls should flow out of love to Christ. It should be the love of the Lord Jesus which we show to our neighbour and brethren. The priority rests with the Lord Jesus. John 14:15, "If ye love me keep my commandments." It is not "simultaneous." The expression of love to "souls" depends entirely on what Jesus tells us to do to and for them. It is liberalism which teaches love to others gives expression to moral norms. Conservatism teaches that moral norms are dictated by Jesus Christ, Who provides the expression which is to be manifested in love to others. Again, the preoccupation is with the Lord Jesus Christ, not with souls.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> 2) Does God save sinners for his own glory or for their eternal happiness? Biblical answer: both.



Eph. 1:6, "To the praise of the glory of His grace." Again, it is a question of priority. The salvation of the sinner is subservient to the manifestation of God's glory. The damning of sinners is to the praise of the glory of His justice; hence it cannot be that the "eternal happiness" of "sinners" is first.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> 3) Must we draw such a contrast between "discipling the nations" and "reaching souls"? Can they not be ways of _looking at the same objective from two different perspectives_?



No. As deviant theologies have shown, one might "reach souls" for reasons other than "discipling the nations." Hence we must emphasise the need to disciple the nations as a priority, and the idea of "reaching souls" must be made subservient to this commission. If "nations" are to be reached for the purpose of making them disciples of Jesus Christ, there will be an emphasis on maintainig the ordinances of Christ in going out into the world. If, on the other hand, souls are a priority, then what is fitted to reach the souls of men might be considered acceptable evangelism in and of itself, without respect to the ordinances of Christ.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Paul's preoccupation to save sinners [and note the active voice--'that I may by all means save'--not, 'that I might simply assert the crown rights of Jesus and let Jesus do the saving'] should be reflected not merely in the heart of the ordained minister but should also reverberate in the hearts of all God's people, from the least to the greatest.



Again, it is a matter of preoccupation. The Philippians were in fellowship/partnership with Paul in the gospel, Phil. 1:5. This means, in the first place, they were supporters of His ordained ministry, or dispensation, as he sometimes called it. They prayed for him, they financially assisted him. This is first and foremost. If there is not this practical partnership in the gospel there will be no visible extension of the kingdom. Further, they were to endeavour to have a conversation as becomes the gospel, Phil. 1:27. The whole life of a Christian is to be a gospel-life, living out the great truth of reconciliation through the blood of Jesus Christ and waiting for His glorious coming. And this no doubt includes speaking about the things which are believed and practised, both within the fellowship of the church and outside of it. But this is not preaching the gospel. We might call it sharing one's faith; but evangelism, in the NT sense of the word, is the official proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ, commanding sinners to repent of their sins and believe upon Him for the salvation of their souls.

Such are my Presbyterian beliefs. It is not a matter of displaying denominational snobbery, though uncharitable judgment might be inclined to see it that way. Denominations indicate that there are divisions in the body of Christ. We attach ourselves to one of those denominations in faithfulness to Jesus Christ because we believe that denomination is more consistent in its adherence to the claims of truth as revealed in the Scriptures. I am a Presbyterian because I believe the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the Westminster Standards is the most faithful exposition of the mind of Christ as revealed in Scripture amongst all the denominations calling themselves churches today. Honesty calls upon me to maintain, assert, and defend what I believe to be the truth.


----------



## MW

Scott1 said:


> Is it fair to say that Gospel presentation is not only part of "discipleship of all nations," (Great Commission) but also part of the all-of-life discipleship Scripture calls each individual to yet within the overall priority of Christ's authority over all Creation and his command to make disciples through His Church?



The New Testament employs a specific terminology. Preaching the gospel is an ordained function. Each believer is to be a partner in the gospel and to live a life worthy of the gospel, Phil. 1 (please refer to my previous post); but it is the one set apart to preach who has a charge committed to him to proclaim the gospel to every creature, such that the blood of men shall be required at his hands if he fails in his duty.


----------



## Scott1

> armourbearer
> 
> And this no doubt includes speaking about the things which are believed and practised, both within the fellowship of the church and outside of it. *But this is not preaching the gospel. We might call it sharing one's faith*; but evangelism, in the NT sense of the word, is the official proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ, commanding sinners to repent of their sins and believe upon Him for the salvation of their souls.



I'm not trying to interrupt this very good back-and-forth, only to clarify following all this.
When we share our faith, in our family, in the covenant community, and in our sphere of influence in life- don't we do this with the end of hoping/believing/praying that God will redeem sinners as a result of it?

Isn't this sharing the Gospel?

Isn't this commanded of the Believer?


----------



## Iconoclast

armourbearer said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it fair to say that Gospel presentation is not only part of "discipleship of all nations," (Great Commission) but also part of the all-of-life discipleship Scripture calls each individual to yet within the overall priority of Christ's authority over all Creation and his command to make disciples through His Church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Testament employs a specific terminology. Preaching the gospel is an ordained function. Each believer is to be a partner in the gospel and to live a life worthy of the gospel, Phil. 1 (please refer to my previous post); but it is the one set apart to preach who has a charge committed to him to proclaim the gospel to every creature, such that the blood of men shall be required at his hands if he fails in his duty.
Click to expand...


Matthew,
I am enjoying this thread and would like to expand on some of the idea's discussed. Everyone agree's the call of the gospel minister,and his duties are clearly spelled out in the word of God. Along that same line. Is it not true that all godly men should aspire to the characteristics of a godly elder, or deacon as set forth in 1Tim, and Titus.
And as such we should strive as you say as partner's in the gospel,living lives worthy of the gospel. What seperates office bearer's from non office bearer's would be degree of gift and calling, physical abilities [perhaps ie, ability to preach, necessary mental facalties, and discipline] 
Having His house in order so as to be able to take on the over-sight of the assembly he is pastoring.
Now what about gifted persons in the church who lack all of the "must be"qualities listed in Timothy,and Titus so that they come up short of full qualifications for office bearing. Take one of these men who leads a home bible study, or ministers at a nursing home to shut in's. Think of many of the men in seminary now, or who study as many of the men in here do.
If they faithfully pray for unsaved persons, invite them to sit with open bibles and try to remove some obstacles and answer questions they have.
You would not say that God would not use His word in these situations would you? Either for salvation , or damnation.
The goal would be to faithfully give an answer for the hope that is in us. Many times christian couples open their home via hospitality with a view to be friendly enough to present the claims of the Lord to the visitors.
This should be done as a part of the body, the local assembly .
Many people have been drawn to truth,through interactions with cults. They were forced to read the word, and were converted,without hearing the word preached. Later on they found their way into a local assembly and were further discipled. Do you know of such examples? Or woul;d you be of a mind to say that they were never truly converted until they physically sat under gospel preaching?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> The expression of love to "souls" depends entirely on what Jesus tells us to do to and for them. It is liberalism which teaches love to others gives expression to moral norms. Conservatism teaches that moral norms are dictated by Jesus Christ, Who provides the expression which is to be manifested in love to others. Again, the preoccupation is with the Lord Jesus Christ, not with souls.
> 
> 
> 
> My response:
> Okay, Matthew. For some reason we seem to be talking past each other. I'll cite what I said earlier (post #62) once again--this time in CAPS: Part of "asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer" IS DOING WHAT HIS WORD BIDS US DO AND WALKING IN HIS STEPS." So, yes, I do believe we should love sinners and demonstrate that love to them in tangible ways BECAUSE Jesus COMMANDS IT AND BECAUSE HE EXEMPLIFIED IT. And since Jesus commanded it and exemplified it, then it must be a matter of priority to him! Indeed, I question whether one can claim to keep the first greatest commandment while rejecting the second.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Does God save sinners for his own glory or for their eternal happiness? Biblical answer: both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You respond:
> 
> 
> 
> Eph. 1:6, "To the praise of the glory of His grace." Again, it is a question of priority. The salvation of the sinner is subservient to the manifestation of God's glory. The damning of sinners is to the praise of the glory of His justice; hence it cannot be that the "eternal happiness" of "sinners" is first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My rejoinder:
> Is Judas fulfilling his chief end as defined by the Shorter Catechism while he's suffering in hell? Answer: Absolutely not. Judas' chief end was to glorify and enjoy God forever. True, by virtue of God's decree even sinners in hell will glorify God. But the Shorter Catechism Q1 is not referring to God's decree. How do we know that? Because Q2 tells us the rule by which man is to fulfill his chief end, namely, the revealed will of God in Scripture. And according to Scripture, God commands his images to glorifying him by means of loving him with all their heart, soul, mind and strength. Since Judas Iscariot is not doing that in hell, he is not fulfilling his chief end.
> 
> Also note carefully that the framers of the catechism question do not speak of "ends" (plural) but of "end" (singular). So they were not referring to two separable ends but of one inseparable end (probably a literary device, hendiadys). Let me offer you a few citations from the Reformed tradition:Because God hath_ inseparably joined them together_, so that men _cannot truly design and seek the one without the other_. They who enjoy God most in his house on earth, do most glorify and enjoy him. ‘Blessed are they that dwell in thy house; they will be still praising thee.’—Ps. lxxxiv. 4. And when God shall be most fully enjoyed by the saints in heaven, he will be most highly glorified. ‘He shall come to be glorified in his saints.’—2 Thess. i. 10 [emphasis added](Thomas Vincent, _The Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture _[1674; reprint, Banner of Truth, 1980], p. 15)​Glorifying and Enjoying God, _are Inseparably joined together_; there can’t be the one without the other. [We] must be Holy, or can’t be Happy; but those who are Holy shall be Happy, Mat. 5.8. Heb. 12.14 [emphasis added] (Benjamin Wadsworth, _An Help to Get Knowledge: or, an essay, familiarly to explain the Assemblies Catechism, to the capacity of the weakest learners; and prove the truths therein contained, by plain Scripture _[microfilm; Boston: printed by B. Green, for Nicholas Buttolph, 1714], p. 3)​Because he who desires to glorify God desires also to enjoy Him, and he who desires to enjoy God feels the impulse to glorify Him. The two desires, although distinguishable in thought, _are inseparable in fact _[emphasis added] (James Harper, _An Exposition in the Form of Questions and Answers of the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism_ [1905], p. 17).​Last but not least, B. B. Warfield:The peculiarity of this first question and the answer of the Westminster Catechisms, it will be seen, is the felicity with which it brings to concise expression the whole Reformed conception of the significance of human life. We say the whole Reformed conception. _For justice is not done that conception if we say merely that man’s chief end is to glorify God._ That certainly: and certainly that first. But according to the Reformed conception _man exists not merely that God may be glorified in him, but that he may delight in this glorious God_. _It does justice to the subjective as well as to the objective side of the case_. The _Reformed conception is not fully or fairly stated if it be so stated that it may seem to be satisfied with conceiving man merely as the object on which God manifests His glory—possibly even the passive object in and through which the Divine glory is secured. It conceives man also as the subject in which the gloriousness of God is perceived and delighted in_. _No man is truly Reformed in his thought, then, unless he conceives of man not merely as destined to be the instrument of the Divine glory, but also as destined to reflect the glory of God in his own consciousness, to exult in God: nay, unless he himself delights in God as the all-glorious One_ [emphasis added] (“The First Question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism,” _The Princeton Theological Review _[1908] printed in _The Westminster Assembly and Its Work_ [1931; reprint, Baker Books, 1991], pp. 396-97). ​So, once again I post the question: Does God save sinners for his own glory or for their eternal happiness? According to these divines the Catechism says "both." I think the Bible does too. And here is where John Piper has it right: "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him."
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Must we draw such a contrast between "discipling the nations" and "reaching souls"? Can they not be ways of _looking at the same objective from two different perspectives_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew writes: No. As deviant theologies have shown, one might "reach souls" for reasons other than "discipling the nations." Hence we must emphasise the need to disciple the nations as a priority, and the idea of "reaching souls" must be made subservient to this commission. If "nations" are to be reached for the purpose of making them disciples of Jesus Christ, there will be an emphasis on maintainig the ordinances of Christ in going out into the world. If, on the other hand, souls are a priority, then what is fitted to reach the souls of men might be considered acceptable evangelism in and of itself, without respect to the ordinances of Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I respond:
> Once again, Matthew, I just don't think you and I are on the same wave-length. When I speak of a concern for souls--like the one Paul clearly manifested (1 Cor. 9:19-22), I, like Paul, have the whole picture in view. I'm not speaking of being concerned merely with seeing someone converted, then leaving them on the street to fend for themselves. I have in view seeing men and women make a credible profession of faith, being baptized, added to the church, and taught all of Christ's commandments (Matt. 28:18-20). Moreover, when Paul said, "That I may by _all means_ save some [emphasis added]," I take it that he had _biblical means_ in view. The point is that Paul doesn't use the same language you're using. He doesn't tell the Corinthians, "I become all things to all men in order that I might maintain the ordinances of Christ." He speaks of a concern, better, a preoccupation with souls.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul's preoccupation to save sinners [and note the active voice--'that I may by all means save'--not, 'that I might simply assert the crown rights of Jesus and let Jesus do the saving'] should be reflected not merely in the heart of the ordained minister but should also reverberate in the hearts of all God's people, from the least to the greatest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You write:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it is a matter of preoccupation. The Philippians were in fellowship/partnership with Paul in the gospel, Phil. 1:5. This means, in the first place, they were supporters of His ordained ministry, or dispensation, as he sometimes called it. They prayed for him, they financially assisted him. This is first and foremost. If there is not this practical partnership in the gospel there will be no visible extension of the kingdom. Further, they were to endeavour to have a conversation as becomes the gospel, Phil. 1:27. The whole life of a Christian is to be a gospel-life, living out the great truth of reconciliation through the blood of Jesus Christ and waiting for His glorious coming. And this no doubt includes speaking about the things which are believed and practised, both within the fellowship of the church and outside of it. But this is not preaching the gospel. We might call it sharing one's faith; but evangelism, in the NT sense of the word, is the official proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ, commanding sinners to repent of their sins and believe upon Him for the salvation of their souls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I reply:
> According to Acts 8:1-3, Saul persecuted the church, which in turn resulted in the dispersion of both men and women. Then verse 4 tells us the result of the dispersion: "Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word." The term translated "preaching" is the participle of euangelizomai. Hence, I don't limit evangelism to the ordained minister. Read post #65 and interact with the exegesis of those texts.
> 
> You say:
> 
> 
> 
> Such are my Presbyterian beliefs. It is not a matter of displaying denominational snobbery, though uncharitable judgment might be inclined to see it that way. Denominations indicate that there are divisions in the body of Christ. We attach ourselves to one of those denominations in faithfulness to Jesus Christ because we believe that denomination is more consistent in its adherence to the claims of truth as revealed in the Scriptures. I am a Presbyterian because I believe the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the Westminster Standards is the most faithful exposition of the mind of Christ as revealed in Scripture amongst all the denominations calling themselves churches today. Honesty calls upon me to maintain, assert, and defend what I believe to be the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I reply:
> Matthew, I didn't accuse you of denominational snobbery. I said that your manner of arguing "comes across that way." I won't judge your heart. But I will say that any evangelical tradition, whether Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Baptist, etc., that assumes his denomination is closer to the truth of Scripture in every single aspect of faith and doctrine will never be willing to learn from God's people in other denominations. He will assume ipso facto that his tradition is always right about every detail of doctrine and practice. That's an attitude I don't share and discourage my flock from adopting. A more balanced way of stating it would be, "I think my denomination may be ahead of others in most things but not necessarily in everything." Such a disposition enables me to learn from others.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> What seperates office bearer's from non office bearer's would be degree of gift and calling, physical abilities [perhaps ie, ability to preach, necessary mental facalties, and discipline]



These, plus two other significant elements -- "the call of the congregation" and "taking up the call." Without the first, there is no sphere within which to exercise an authoritative function; and without the second, there is no charge or accountability in the use of the function. The "every believer evangelism" ideal undermines these two elements to the detriment of the official, authoritative work of the ministry.



Iconoclast said:


> You would not say that God would not use His word in these situations would you? Either for salvation , or damnation.



God not only uses His word in these situations, but blesses His people as sanctified instruments of service. But this is simply what the NT calls "gospel-conversation." Such activity does not come under the cognisance of the church and therefore cannot properly be called "evangelism." Evangelism in the NT is always conducted under the guidance of the two elements mentioned previously, which both can be reduced to the simple principle of being "sent."


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Is Judas fulfilling his chief end as defined by the Shorter Catechism while he's suffering in hell? Answer: Absolutely not. Judas' chief end was to glorify and enjoy God forever.



Most commentators of the Shorter Catechism are careful to note the difference between active and passive glorifying of God. All things passively glorify God because they fulfil His purpose, which was decreed pre-eminently "for His own glory."

The issue at this point is not one of "precept" because you were drawing attention to God's purpose in saving sinners, which by definition belongs to God's decree. God is glorified in the damnation of sinners. This fact means that the happiness of sinners is not foremost in God's plan.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> And here is where John Piper has it right: "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him."



This is a betrayal of the reformed faith. It supposes that God is not going to be most glorified for ever, because some of the human race are going to wail miserably under the punishment of their sins for all eternity. God has made all things for Himself. If one cannot grasp that fundamental point then, in my humble opinion, he is not worth listening to as a teacher of God's counsel.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> He doesn't tell the Corinthians, "I become all things to all men in order that I might maintain the ordinances of Christ." He speaks of a concern, better, a preoccupation with souls.



Read the context. Earlier he had stated his major concern was with fulfilling the "dispensation" committed to him; in other words, he was preoccupied with the ordinance of Christ.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> According to Acts 8:1-3, Saul persecuted the church, which in turn resulted in the dispersion of both men and women. Then verse 4 tells us the result of the dispersion: "Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word."



There is nothing in the text to determine *who* preached the word.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Matthew, I didn't accuse you of denominational snobbery. I said that your manner of arguing "comes across that way." I won't judge your heart. But I will say that any evangelical tradition, whether Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Baptist, etc., that assumes his denomination is closer to the truth of Scripture in every single aspect of faith and doctrine will never be willing to learn from God's people in other denominations. He will assume ipso facto that his tradition is always right about every detail of doctrine and practice. That's an attitude I don't share and discourage my flock from adopting. A more balanced way of stating it would be, "I think my denomination may be ahead of others in most things but not necessarily in everything." Such a disposition enables me to learn from others.



This is all very post-modern and tolerant, but quite inconsistent with holding faith with a good conscience. One either believes and teaches the truth or he does not. It is the duty of the ministry to renounce the hidden things of dishonesty and plainly to manifest the truth. There is to be no cult-like hiding behind denominational names. What does the church confess? The confession is either true or false. My confession is true. Judging from the above, you are not so sure about yours. Fair enough; then you need to do a little more searching; but you can't expect anyone who is of the truth to give credence to your standpoint of doubt.


----------



## Iconoclast

Matthew,
Thank you for clarifying your position although I am not sure I see it the same way. I do not think gospel conversation would be detrimental to the ministry of the word from the pulpit,unless it was unfaithful to the texts of scripture. As I posted earlier on any of these efforts would be with the goal of having the person come under the hearing of the word preached.
An explanation of why and how the church functions would explain to the friend in question what takes place in the local assembly.
Many of us who have these gospel conversations repeat the main parts to the elders in the church so that their can be some oversight.
In Acts 8 the whole church was persecuted, why would it not be the whole church that spread the word, similar to this previously cited passage from 1 Thess.


> 4Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
> 
> 5For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
> 
> 6And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> 7So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.
> 
> 8For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> What seperates office bearer's from non office bearer's would be degree of gift and calling, physical abilities [perhaps ie, ability to preach, necessary mental facalties, and discipline]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These, plus two other significant elements -- "the call of the congregation" and "taking up the call." Without the first, there is no sphere within which to exercise an authoritative function; and without the second, *there is no charge or accountability in the use of the function.* *The "every believer evangelism" ideal undermines these two elements to the detriment of the official, authoritative work of the ministry.*
> 
> 
> 
> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would not say that God would not use His word in these situations would you? Either for salvation , or damnation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God not only uses His word in these situations, but blesses His people as sanctified instruments of service. But this is simply what the NT calls *"gospel-conversation.*" Such activity does not come under the cognisance of the church and *therefore cannot properly be called "evangelism."* Evangelism in the NT is always conducted under the guidance of the two elements mentioned previously, which both can be reduced to the simple principle of being "sent."
Click to expand...


This post crystalizes a great deal of what has been swirling around my tiny brain for years. Thanks for the edification!


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> Thank you for clarifying your position although I am not sure I see it the same way. I do not think gospel conversation would be detrimental to the ministry of the word from the pulpit,unless it was unfaithful to the texts of scripture. As I posted earlier on any of these efforts would be with the goal of having the person come under the hearing of the word preached.



Please note, I have maintained gospel conversation is the duty of every believer and complimentary to the work of evangelism. It is only when this gospel conversation assumes the title and function of "evangelism" that it becomes detrimental to the ministry of the word, because it is then conducted without the official call of the congregation and subsequent accountability to discharge an official function.


----------



## Iconoclast

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for clarifying your position although I am not sure I see it the same way. I do not think gospel conversation would be detrimental to the ministry of the word from the pulpit,unless it was unfaithful to the texts of scripture. As I posted earlier on any of these efforts would be with the goal of having the person come under the hearing of the word preached.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note, I have maintained gospel conversation is the duty of every believer and complimentary to the work of evangelism. It is only when this gospel conversation assumes the title and function of "evangelism" that it becomes detrimental to the ministry of the word, because it is then conducted without the official call of the congregation and subsequent accountability to discharge an official function.
Click to expand...


*It is only when this gospel conversation assumes the title and function of "evangelism" that it becomes detrimental to the ministry of the word, *so would your concern be that if the well meaning believer presented error in the name of the local assembly it would be detrimental to the ministry of the word? Are you then saying that any proclamation of the good news is not evangelism because it does not come from the Pastor alone?
I wonder how many of the members of the Puritanboard were drawn to salvation by the Spirit using "gospel conversation" as the evangelistic method as opposed to the formal preaching from the Pulpit alone .
Who on the PB can say that they went from being dead in Adam , to providentially coming into an faithful bible church to hear the called man preach, without having had any dealings with God prior to that first sermon preached?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Judas fulfilling his chief end as defined by the Shorter Catechism while he's suffering in hell? Answer: Absolutely not. Judas' chief end was to glorify and enjoy God forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most commentators of the Shorter Catechism are careful to note the difference between active and passive glorifying of God. All things passively glorify God because they fulfil His purpose, which was decreed pre-eminently "for His own glory."
> 
> The issue at this point is not one of "precept" because you were drawing attention to God's purpose in saving sinners, which by definition belongs to God's decree. God is glorified in the damnation of sinners. This fact means that the happiness of sinners is not foremost in God's plan.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here is where John Piper has it right: "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a betrayal of the reformed faith. It supposes that God is not going to be most glorified for ever, because some of the human race are going to wail miserably under the punishment of their sins for all eternity. God has made all things for Himself. If one cannot grasp that fundamental point then, in my humble opinion, he is not worth listening to as a teacher of God's counsel.
> 
> Read the context. Earlier he had stated his major concern was with fulfilling the "dispensation" committed to him; in other words, he was preoccupied with the ordinance of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Acts 8:1-3, Saul persecuted the church, which in turn resulted in the dispersion of both men and women. Then verse 4 tells us the result of the dispersion: "Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the text to determine *who* preached the word.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, I didn't accuse you of denominational snobbery. I said that your manner of arguing "comes across that way." I won't judge your heart. But I will say that any evangelical tradition, whether Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Baptist, etc., that assumes his denomination is closer to the truth of Scripture in every single aspect of faith and doctrine will never be willing to learn from God's people in other denominations. He will assume ipso facto that his tradition is always right about every detail of doctrine and practice. That's an attitude I don't share and discourage my flock from adopting. A more balanced way of stating it would be, "I think my denomination may be ahead of others in most things but not necessarily in everything." Such a disposition enables me to learn from others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is all very post-modern and tolerant, but quite inconsistent with holding faith with a good conscience. One either believes and teaches the truth or he does not. It is the duty of the ministry to renounce the hidden things of dishonesty and plainly to manifest the truth. There is to be no cult-like hiding behind denominational names. What does the church confess? The confession is either true or false. My confession is true. Judging from the above, you are not so sure about yours. Fair enough; then you need to do a little more searching; but you can't expect anyone who is of the truth to give credence to your standpoint of doubt.
Click to expand...


First, why didn't you respond to the commentators of the Catechism I cited? The issue at this point is one of "precept" because I drew attention to the Shorter Catechism's teaching regarding the chief end of man which is discerned and governed by what the Catechism goes on to identify as Scripture, i.e., God's precept not decree.

Second, you think John Piper's statement is "a betrayal of the Reformed faith." If you've read his literature, he spends a great deal of time citing Reformed authors to demonstrate that his statement is consistent with the Reformed faith. Moreover, I'm not sure you're reading the statement carefully: "God is _most _glorified in us when we're _most_ satisfied in him [emphasis added]." God is certainly _more glorified_ by Peter than by Judas. The glory God desires from humans the most and that which glorifies him the most is that which flows from a heart of devotion and love. 

Third, the "dispensation" committed to Paul was not merely a command to preach the gospel but _a command to have a burden and love for lost souls_ that would drive him to use every biblical means possible to persuade them to turn from their sins and trust in Christ. 

Fourth, the immediate context of Acts 8:1-4 speaks of the church and identifies "men and women." Whether you're comfortable with the idea or not the saints of the NT did communicate the gospel (which is just another way of saying they evangelized) (Acts 8:4; 1 Thes. 2:8) and are in fact commanded to do so (Hebrews 5:12-14; 1 Peter 2:9; 3:15). If personal evangelism is incompatible with the Reformed faith, then I'm not Reformed--at least not the version of the Reformed faith you're advocating. 

Fifth, identifying my position as "post-modern" is a good way to sling mud and to obscure the real point of debate. Assuming a position in which I admit that I and the tradition of which I am part haven't learned everything there is to learn about the Bible and that maybe, just maybe, there might be a brother in another tradition that knows more than me is indeed living with a good conscience, one that is humble and teachable. On the other hand, were I to assume that the Holy Spirit's work of illuminating the minds of his people and all biblical learning ended in the 17th century I could not have a good conscience. Your statement, " The confession is either true or false," is, to put it mildly, mistaken. To begin with, it's a perfect example of _the fallacy of the excluded middle_. It assumes that there's only two possible conclusions: an entire confession is either true or false. That's absurd. I doubt any of the Westminster divines would have claimed that their confession embodied all the truth of the Bible in all its proportions and without error. Confessions are not infallible. I believe my confession is an excellent summary of the teaching of Scripture. I think it gets most things right. But I don't believe it's perfect. Neither do I believe the WCF is perfect. So once again, I just don't agree with the dichotomies you draw. I close with a statement of John Murray and another from your own standard (it's not in the 1689):When any generation is content to rely upon its theological heritage and refuses to explore for itself the riches of divine revelation, then declension is already under way and heterodoxy will be the lot of the succeeding generation.

All synods or councils [including the Westminster Assembly], since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore, they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice; but to be used as a help in both.​Respectfully yours,


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for clarifying your position although I am not sure I see it the same way. I do not think gospel conversation would be detrimental to the ministry of the word from the pulpit,unless it was unfaithful to the texts of scripture. As I posted earlier on any of these efforts would be with the goal of having the person come under the hearing of the word preached.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note, I have maintained gospel conversation is the duty of every believer and complimentary to the work of evangelism. It is only when this gospel conversation assumes the title and function of "evangelism" that it becomes detrimental to the ministry of the word, because it is then conducted without the official call of the congregation and subsequent accountability to discharge an official function.
Click to expand...


Sounds a bit like clericalism with a capital "C."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for clarifying your position although I am not sure I see it the same way. I do not think gospel conversation would be detrimental to the ministry of the word from the pulpit,unless it was unfaithful to the texts of scripture. As I posted earlier on any of these efforts would be with the goal of having the person come under the hearing of the word preached.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note, I have maintained gospel conversation is the duty of every believer and complimentary to the work of evangelism. It is only when this gospel conversation assumes the title and function of "evangelism" that it becomes detrimental to the ministry of the word, because it is then conducted without the official call of the congregation and subsequent accountability to discharge an official function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds a bit like clericalism with a capital "C."
Click to expand...


Sounds a lot like Presbyterianism with a capital "P" to me.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please note, I have maintained gospel conversation is the duty of every believer and complimentary to the work of evangelism. It is only when this gospel conversation assumes the title and function of "evangelism" that it becomes detrimental to the ministry of the word, because it is then conducted without the official call of the congregation and subsequent accountability to discharge an official function.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds a bit like clericalism with a capital "C."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds a lot like Presbyterianism with a capital "P" to me.
Click to expand...


Well, I guess my only response is to say that I've met plenty of Presbyterians who, thankfully, don't share this perspective.


----------



## KMK

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder whether church's approach to evangelism is really one of purpose and function? The church's purpose is to worship God, a function of which is preaching the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Brown has made an observation worth further reflection and that leads me to a text that might be relevant to our discussion regarding the church's corporate responsibility and possibly also the Christian's personal responsibility to communicate the gospel not merely in the corporate gatherings of the church but also outside those corporate gatherings to a lost and dying world. According to 1 Peter 2:9, the people of God are something _in order that_ they might do something.But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that [_hopos_ = purpose] you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.​So God has granted the church _privileged status_ in order that she might carry out a _particular function_. That function is described as "proclaiming the praises (or excellencies) of our Redeemer. The Greek verb translated "you may proclaim" is _exangello_. The basic meaning is to report, announce, declare. Calvin writes, "It behooves us to declare these excellencies not only by tongue, but also by our whole life" (_Calvin's Commentaries on the NT_, 12:266). According to John Brown, "Christians, as the called of God, are intended to show forth the excellencies of God, both passively and actively." "By your lips, by your lives ... honour Him who has called you ..." (_Expository Discourses on First Peter_, 317, 321). The addition of the preposition _ex_ may convey the idea of _declaring_ _abroad_. Edmond Hiebert argues that the verb "conveys the picture of a message being proclaimed to those outside what has taken place within. It indicates the evangelistic function of the church.... Both word and conduct are involved" (_1 Peter_, 144). The fact that Peter addresses the church both in corporate (e.g., "a spiritual house") and also in individual language (e.g., "living stones) would seem to suggest that the privileged responsibility has both a corporate and individual dimension.
> 
> It seems, from a perusal of certain other NT texts, that individual members of the church sensed this privilege and responsibility, and accordingly they engaged in evangelistic endeavor. For example, Saul's persecution of men and women in the church resulted not only in their dispersion but in their "publishing the good news [_euangelizomenoi ton logon_]" (Acts 8:4). Later, the now converted Saul praised the newly planted church in Thessalonica because "from [them] the word of the Lord has sounded forth [_exechetai_; from which we obtain the verb "to echo"] not only in Macedonia and Achaia but in every place." Indeed, the apostles boasts, "Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything" (1 Thess. 1:8). I don't believe we can limit the Thessalonian witness merely to a godly lifestyle since a godly lifestyle has no meaning apart from a propositional interpretation of that lifestyle. Paul could only say, "We do not need to say anything," because the Thessalonians apparently had sufficiently communicated the word. While Paul may be using a little hyperbole here, it does seem to me that he's acknowledged and praised an active effort of evangelism on the part of these relatively new believers.
> 
> Of course, I do recognize the potential problem to which Bill and a few others have made reference. First, there are many individual members who are afraid to share the gospel. Second, to use Bill's words, "there are just as many who don't have a mastery of the message." I agree. Consequently, we need to be patient with the fearful just as Jesus was patient with his disciples. Nevertheless, in the end we must embolden them with the same words Jesus communicated to his disciples, "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt. 10:28). Moreover, we need to do all we can to thoroughly ground our people in the faith so that each one can heed the words of Peter and "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15). Think also of the admonition Hebrew's author gives to certain members of the church:For though by this time _you ought to be teachers_ [emphasis added], you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of God's revelation. You need milk, not solid food. or everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to _those who are of full age_, that is, _those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil _[emphasis added] (Heb. 5:12-14).​The implication of this text seems to be that _individual believers ought to strive for doctrinal and practical maturity in order that they might communicate accurately the gospel to others_. Certainly, of all believers those who are members of Reformed church and are indoctrinated with Reformed theology ought to be among the most qualified to communicate the gospel to the lost.
> 
> I conclusion, these are some passages in the NT that presently seem to me to give some warrant for laying a measure of evangelistic responsibility at the feet of the saints. Of course, I think it's also vital that we make appropriate qualifications. Not everyone is called to serve Christ as an ordained pastor or missionary. Nor does every Christian have the same measure of opportunities. Nor does every child of God possess the same level of doctrinal and practical maturity to effectively and accurately communicate the gospel. So the weight of responsibility upon each individual Christian will differ. Nevertheless, it does not appear wide the mark to conclude that the Scriptures do seem to give warrant for us in our confessions to affirm not only the church's responsibility to preach the gospel in the context of corporate worship and to commission church planters and missionaries to take the gospel to the nations _but also the individual believer's responsibility to be salt and light (by life and lip) in the midst of a lost and perishing world_.
Click to expand...


Is 'proclaiming God's excellencies to the world' the same as 'evangelization'? I would agree that the former is everyone's duty (even the reprobate), but not the latter. 

My concern is not whether all have 'mastery of the message' but whether they have the 'authority' to call men to repentance and faith. Rom 10 seems to me to teach that only those who have been 'sent' have such authority. In fact, many people in churches today are living such a sinful lifestyle that they might be in danger of profaning God's Holy name by evangelizing.

Also, how is a concern for the lost measured? Does Dr. Frame give us any guidance on how to judge between a true and a false concern? It all seems very vague to me whereas the Word and Sacrements are obvious.


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> I wonder how many of the members of the Puritanboard were drawn to salvation by the Spirit using "gospel conversation" as the evangelistic method as opposed to the formal preaching from the Pulpit alone.



The answer will probably be given in terms of what the person understands of this very discussion. If they think in terms of the biblical emphasis on baptism and ministry, then they might be better prepared to give an informed answer along the lines of a connection with the visible church.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> First, why didn't you respond to the commentators of the Catechism I cited? The issue at this point is one of "precept" because I drew attention to the Shorter Catechism's teaching regarding the chief end of man which is discerned and governed by what the Catechism goes on to identify as Scripture, i.e., God's precept not decree.



The issue emerged because of your point 2 in an earlier post, where you asked, "Does God save sinners for his own glory or for their eternal happiness?" God saving sinners is a matter of His own will of decree, not of man's duty by reason of His precept. The reason why I did not interact with the commentators on the Catechism is because their statements are irrelevant to the issue being discussed. 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> The glory God desires from humans the most and that which glorifies him the most is that which flows from a heart of devotion and love.



Now you attribute unfulfilled desires in God, or passions, which is contrary to Scripture and to the basic theological presupposition that "God" is "blessed for ever."



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Third, the "dispensation" committed to Paul was not merely a command to preach the gospel but _a command to have a burden and love for lost souls_ that would drive him to use every biblical means possible to persuade them to turn from their sins and trust in Christ.



Be that as it may, it was a burden which resulted from Christ's dispensation, which shows the ordinance of Christ was foremost in his mind.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Fourth, the immediate context of Acts 8:1-4 speaks of the church and identifies "men and women."



Notwithstanding, the text nowhere says that the men and women were the ones who specifically preached the Word in every place. You are adding a determinative element which is neither expressed nor implied by the text.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Assuming a position in which I admit that I and the tradition of which I am part haven't learned everything there is to learn about the Bible and that maybe, just maybe, there might be a brother in another tradition that knows more than me is indeed living with a good conscience, one that is humble and teachable.



I agree that would be humble and conscionable, if it were what you stated. However, you proceeded on the supposition that a more balanced way of stating it would be, "I think my denomination may be ahead of others in most things but not necessarily in everything." In which case you are not making a statement about the future discovery of truth through God's blessing on the means of grace, but are casting doubt on your present position in relation to the truth confessed by your denomination. This is not humble and conscionable, but a "doubtful disputation;" in which case your surmising is not to be received.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Sounds a bit like clericalism with a capital "C."



From a leveller's perspective, I can see how it might sound like that.


----------



## Pergamum

Explain the term leveller


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Explain the term leveller



Do you mean, "*please* explain the term leveller?"


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. I think the Gospel always goes forward with an imperative that the hearer is under obligation to believe. What I think makes Reformed theology distinctive is that it recognizes that the Holy Spirit converts and not extraordinary measures.
> 
> I wrote this article about 2 years ago when the Franklin Graham festival was in full swing in Okinawa: The Franklin Graham Festival in Okinawa and the Degeneration of Protestant Ecclesiology | SoliDeoGloria.com
> 
> It is characteristic of many people today to throw caution to the wind when it comes to telling people about Jesus as if simply making sure the maximum number of people hear about Him is what the goal is. Literally, people simply did not care what the Franklin Graham reps taught from the pulpit. It didn't matter how much eisegesis was used in order to motivate people to beat the bricks so that they would get the maximum number of "unsaved" people to the Festival. Of course, my problem with the whole mess was that these "converts" were plugged into Churches that made them twice as fit for Hell but most people have an attitude that it doesn't matter how you finish but merely hearing and responding is important.
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, like you I'm opposed to propagating a truncated gospel. I'm also not in favor of counting mere decisions in order to boast of one's "converts." And I think we all agree that every sinner is under obligation to believe the gospel. My question is whether Reformed and Puritan theology sees it as the duty of every believer (in accordance with the gifts and opportunities God gives him) to entreat sinners indiscriminately to come to Christ with the promise that God desires (not necessarily decrees) their salvation. _If so, has Reformed and Puritan theology expressed the believer's duty to proactively evangelize the lost in manner and pathos described confessionally_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> I don't think every Christian is the one "...who is sent..." according to Romans 10. I think we all have responsibility to bear witness to Christ but not all are preachers of the Word.
> 
> For what it's worth, I believe my duty is to talk to others where I have opportunity and to invite them to Church where God's Word is preached and, should they be converted, they have opportunity to be discipled.
Click to expand...


I think you are making a good distinction Rich. 

Some are sent out and ALL others are supposed to bear witness where they are.

Perhaps when Matthew hears me and DR Gonzales stress the fact that ALL are to bear witness, he wants to defend that there are only SOME that are sent out. And I know when I hear Matthew stress that not all are sent out, I want to remind him that ALL are to bear witness. 

Different emphases.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain the term leveller
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean, "*please* explain the term leveller?"
Click to expand...







*Dear most revered right and esteemed Reverand Matthew Winzer:


If you would ever be so kind as to kindly extend the kindness of explaining the term "leveller" - seeing my humble estate and ignorance and all - I would humbly thank you and forever be in your service.

Your humble servant,

Pergmeister.*



Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> INquiring minds want to know.



Inquiring minds shouldn't assume the position of superiors and demand answers of equals.

A leveller, ironically, is one who would abolish social distinctions and advocates everyone should be treated as equals. As the rebellion of Korah reveals, levellers often desire equality for the purpose of exercising their own prerogative where they have no authority.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> INquiring minds want to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inquiring minds shouldn't assume the position of superiors and demand answers of equals. QUOTE]
> 
> Huh? Do you have a problem?
Click to expand...


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder whether church's approach to evangelism is really one of purpose and function? The church's purpose is to worship God, a function of which is preaching the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Brown has made an observation worth further reflection and that leads me to a text that might be relevant to our discussion regarding the church's corporate responsibility and possibly also the Christian's personal responsibility to communicate the gospel not merely in the corporate gatherings of the church but also outside those corporate gatherings to a lost and dying world. According to 1 Peter 2:9, the people of God are something _in order that_ they might do something.But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that [_hopos_ = purpose] you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.​So God has granted the church _privileged status_ in order that she might carry out a _particular function_. That function is described as "proclaiming the praises (or excellencies) of our Redeemer. The Greek verb translated "you may proclaim" is _exangello_. The basic meaning is to report, announce, declare. Calvin writes, "It behooves us to declare these excellencies not only by tongue, but also by our whole life" (_Calvin's Commentaries on the NT_, 12:266). According to John Brown, "Christians, as the called of God, are intended to show forth the excellencies of God, both passively and actively." "By your lips, by your lives ... honour Him who has called you ..." (_Expository Discourses on First Peter_, 317, 321). The addition of the preposition _ex_ may convey the idea of _declaring_ _abroad_. Edmond Hiebert argues that the verb "conveys the picture of a message being proclaimed to those outside what has taken place within. It indicates the evangelistic function of the church.... Both word and conduct are involved" (_1 Peter_, 144). The fact that Peter addresses the church both in corporate (e.g., "a spiritual house") and also in individual language (e.g., "living stones) would seem to suggest that the privileged responsibility has both a corporate and individual dimension.
> 
> It seems, from a perusal of certain other NT texts, that individual members of the church sensed this privilege and responsibility, and accordingly they engaged in evangelistic endeavor. For example, Saul's persecution of men and women in the church resulted not only in their dispersion but in their "publishing the good news [_euangelizomenoi ton logon_]" (Acts 8:4). Later, the now converted Saul praised the newly planted church in Thessalonica because "from [them] the word of the Lord has sounded forth [_exechetai_; from which we obtain the verb "to echo"] not only in Macedonia and Achaia but in every place." Indeed, the apostles boasts, "Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything" (1 Thess. 1:8). I don't believe we can limit the Thessalonian witness merely to a godly lifestyle since a godly lifestyle has no meaning apart from a propositional interpretation of that lifestyle. Paul could only say, "We do not need to say anything," because the Thessalonians apparently had sufficiently communicated the word. While Paul may be using a little hyperbole here, it does seem to me that he's acknowledged and praised an active effort of evangelism on the part of these relatively new believers.
> 
> Of course, I do recognize the potential problem to which Bill and a few others have made reference. First, there are many individual members who are afraid to share the gospel. Second, to use Bill's words, "there are just as many who don't have a mastery of the message." I agree. Consequently, we need to be patient with the fearful just as Jesus was patient with his disciples. Nevertheless, in the end we must embolden them with the same words Jesus communicated to his disciples, "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt. 10:28). Moreover, we need to do all we can to thoroughly ground our people in the faith so that each one can heed the words of Peter and "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15). Think also of the admonition Hebrew's author gives to certain members of the church:For though by this time _you ought to be teachers_ [emphasis added], you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of God's revelation. You need milk, not solid food. or everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to _those who are of full age_, that is, _those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil _[emphasis added] (Heb. 5:12-14).​The implication of this text seems to be that _individual believers ought to strive for doctrinal and practical maturity in order that they might communicate accurately the gospel to others_. Certainly, of all believers those who are members of Reformed church and are indoctrinated with Reformed theology ought to be among the most qualified to communicate the gospel to the lost.
> 
> I conclusion, these are some passages in the NT that presently seem to me to give some warrant for laying a measure of evangelistic responsibility at the feet of the saints. Of course, I think it's also vital that we make appropriate qualifications. Not everyone is called to serve Christ as an ordained pastor or missionary. Nor does every Christian have the same measure of opportunities. Nor does every child of God possess the same level of doctrinal and practical maturity to effectively and accurately communicate the gospel. So the weight of responsibility upon each individual Christian will differ. Nevertheless, it does not appear wide the mark to conclude that the Scriptures do seem to give warrant for us in our confessions to affirm not only the church's responsibility to preach the gospel in the context of corporate worship and to commission church planters and missionaries to take the gospel to the nations _but also the individual believer's responsibility to be salt and light (by life and lip) in the midst of a lost and perishing world_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is 'proclaiming God's excellencies to the world' the same as 'evangelization'? I would agree that the former is everyone's duty (even the reprobate), but not the latter.
> 
> My concern is not whether all have 'mastery of the message' but whether they have the 'authority' to call men to repentance and faith. Rom 10 seems to me to teach that only those who have been 'sent' have such authority. In fact, many people in churches today are living such a sinful lifestyle that they might be in danger of profaning God's Holy name by evangelizing.
> 
> Also, how is a concern for the lost measured? Does Dr. Frame give us any guidance on how to judge between a true and a false concern? It all seems very vague to me whereas the Word and Sacrements are obvious.
Click to expand...


Ken, a careful reading of 1 Peter 2:9 puts the emphasis on who we are, not what we proclaim. We are actually proclaiming His excellencies by being, "A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION." The very fact that we are these things proclaims the excellencies of God. There is no positive command in this passage to preach.

The lifestyle of a believer does not change the truthfulness of the message. I'm not sure I would use that positively or negatively in my argument. 

I won't speak for Dr. Frame, but a concern for the lost springs forth from our human emotion and an appeal from scripture. Humanly speaking, our hearts yearn for those we love to join us in God's family. Our parents, siblings, aunts uncles and friends are examples of those we do not want to see perish. To the extent that we display a deeper compassion, our hearts may grieve for Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus that are perishing. Does this feeling equate to each and every believer preaching the gospel in accordance with our compassion? No. I tried to draw the distinction earlier in this thread that preaching is a function of those specifically called for that purpose. 

But what of sharing or witnessing? Does scripture preclude a believer from talking to an unbeliever about Christ? While not preaching, may a believer share or discuss scripture? That is a question that I do not believe has been adequately addressed in this thread. We seem to be agreed that preaching is the function of ordained men called for that purpose. I'll ask it plainly. What may a non-ordained believer do or not do when it comes to discussing the gospel?


----------



## Pergamum

NEW JERSEY BAPTIST:


Exactly:


_But what of sharing or witnessing? Does scripture preclude a believer from talking to an unbeliever about Christ? While not preaching, may a believer share or discuss scripture? That is a question that I do not believe has been adequately addressed in this thread. We seem to be agreed that preaching is the function of ordained men called for that purpose. I'll ask it plainly. What may a non-ordained believer do or not do when it comes to discussing the gospel? _


Perhaps one side is afraid of degrading the office so much that they immobilize the laity, and the other side wants to see every Christian bear good witness so much that they do not often stress enough that some are specifically called to be sent out.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Huh? Do you have a problem?



No. I don't think the sacrasm was called for when I asked you politely if you meant to include "please" in your demand. I can't imagine you ordinarily go about demanding answers of people.


----------



## Pergamum

I thought _pleases _were assumed on the PB when asking for answers. If not, plenty of others and you, too, need to go back and add a lot of pleases. 

It is entirely customary to ask things without prefacing it with a please on here.

On this post you have accused John Piper of betraying the Reformed faith and have called Dr Gonzales Postmodern, and now you want to teach me lessons in politeness?

Let's get back to the discussion...


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> On this post you have accused John Piper of betraying the Reformed faith and have called Dr Gonzales Postmodern, and now you want to teach me lessons in politeness?



You should not misrepresent what I wrote. I simply drew attention to the statements as made; I did not say anything about the men who made the statements. Speaking the truth in love does not entail covering over errors. It does, however, call upon us to act courteously towards one another.


----------



## Pergamum

fair enough, let's get back to the discussion at hand....it gives us meat enough to chew without these bones...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Pergamum said:


> NEW JERSEY BAPTIST:
> 
> Exactly:
> 
> _But what of sharing or witnessing? Does scripture preclude a believer from talking to an unbeliever about Christ? While not preaching, may a believer share or discuss scripture? That is a question that I do not believe has been adequately addressed in this thread. We seem to be agreed that preaching is the function of ordained men called for that purpose. I'll ask it plainly. What may a non-ordained believer do or not do when it comes to discussing the gospel? _
> 
> Perhaps one side is afraid of degrading the office so much that they immobilize the laity, and the other side wants to see every Christian bear good witness so much that they do not often stress enough that some are specifically called to be sent out.



Brother, thanks for the clarifying statement. I want to make it clear, as I tried to do above, that I am not a "leveller" and do affirm a distinction between an officially ordained servant of Christ officially sent to preach the gospel whether at home (pastor-teacher) or abroad (missionary/church planter) in keeping with Ephesians 4:11. That's why I'm not a member of a Brethren church. I should add, nevertheless, that the 1689 Baptist Confession does not limit the preaching the the gospel to the ordained minister:
Although it be incumbant on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the Word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the Word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it (Of the church, XXVI, 11; proof texts = Acts 8:5, 11, 19-21; 1 Pet. 4:10-11).​I do, however, believe the pastor-teacher is charged with the responsibility of equipping the saints so that the saints can do the work of ministry so that Christ's body may be edified (Eph. 4:12). So I do not believe the saint's ministry and witness is to be merely _passive_. They are, in keeping with 1 Thessalonians 1:8, to "sound forth" the word of truth. This is more than merely a moral lifestyle. Paul assumes that some verbal interpretation of that lifestyle had been given when he says at the end of the verse: "so that we do not need _to say anything_ [emphasis added]." 

Matthew does not believe it's possible that those scattered abroad "evangelizing" may have included non-ordained persons simply because it doesn't explicitly identify who they were. But the immediate context speaks of "the church in Jerusalem, except the apostles" (v. 1) and mentions "men and women" being committed to prison (v. 3). I don't think it's a stretch to assume that those scattered aboard also included both "men and women" and that not all of them had been officially ordained to preach. Philip, who's later depicted as one of those preaching the gospel was no more than a deacon at this time. He's not explicitly identified as an evangelist till Acts 21:8. (Of course, this assumes that these passages are referring to the same Philip.) Matthew accuses me of "adding a determinative element which is neither expressed nor implied by the text." I do think the implication is likely. But I'm willing to concede it's not certain. But neither is it certain that those doing the "evangelizing" were all ordained pastors. 

I don't believe the writer to the Hebrews was focusing his rebuke upon ministerial aspirants when he said, "For though by this time you ought to be teachers" (Heb. 5:12a). The opposite assumption, viz, they were laypeople, is supported by the fact that he tells this same group to submit to their elders (13:17). So according to his text, laypeople are to strive after doctrinal and ethical maturity _so that they might be in a position where they're able to expound the same gospel truth the writer is expounding_. And I see no reason to limit the sphere of their teaching to their own family members. If a father or mother may disciple and "evangelize" his or her own children effectively, then what prohibits them from communicating the gospel to a lost neighbor or relative or workmate and calling that individual to repent and believe on the authority of Christ's own word?

Bill argues that "a careful reading of 1 Peter 2:9 puts the emphasis on who we are, not what we proclaim.... The very fact that we are these things proclaims the excellencies of God. There is no positive command in this passage to preach." So this text would apparently argue for a "passive" witness. With all due respect to Bill, I have my doubts. First, the term translated "proclaim" (_exangello_) normally refers to a verbal communication of propositional truth or information. Second, one's lifestyle needs an interpretation. When I was converted, many of my family members and friends interpreted the change as "turning over a new leaf" or "getting my life in order." They could not infer from simply watching my lifestyle that I had been "called out of darkness into God's marvelous light." _I had to explain to them the gospel for them to properly understand the change_. So if God tells me, "You are _this_ in order that you may do _that_," the "that" becomes my purpose or role or function in a lost world. I see no impropriety in inferring an active duty or responsibility from this text. Again, I would qualify it, as does Peter, 
_As each one has received a gift_, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it _as with the ability which God supplies_, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen [emphasis added] (1 Peter 4:10-11).​I certainly hope we're all agreed that 1 Peter 3:15 is referring to the duty of every believer. Not just the theologians and pastors but the laypeople must "sanctify the Lord God in [their] hearts, and _always be ready to give a defense_ to everyone who asks [them] a reason for the hope that is in [them], with meekness and fear." Note, the "defense" or "apologia" should not be limited to the general kind of apologetic that seeks to prove theism or the historicity of the Bible. They are to provide a rational defense of "the hope that is in them," i.e., the gospel hope. Note secondly, the fact that the lost are asking these people not merely "why do you live an upright life?" or "why are you different from other people?" or "why do you go to church?" but rather "why do you have a future expectation of blessing?" presupposes that these believers have already been, to some degree, vocal about their gospel hope. I've worked in the secular world around many professing Christians whose outward deportment was kind, upright, and pleasant. But those whose witness was most effective did not merely communicate by lifestyle _but by lip_. The "shared the gospel." I myself was led to a gospel preaching church not merely by a plumber's changed life but by his verbal declaration, explanation, communication of the good news. 

I'm not sure why we can't call that "evangelism" with a little 'e,' distinguishing it from the evangelistic efforts of an ordained Evangelist with a big 'E.' Don't we do the same when we distinguish different kinds of apostles? There are the inspired Apostles with a large 'A' and the non-inspired apostles (or missionaries to use the Latin equivalent) with a little 'a' (2 Cor. 8:23). Personally, I don't agree with highjacking a Greek term and limiting its usage exclusively to the pastoral office when in fact the Bible does not so limit its usage. For example, the verb "to preach" (_kerusso_) is used of non-ordained individuals proclaiming an important message (Mark 1:45; 5:20; Luke 8:39). Particularly notable is the example of the demon-possessed man whom Jesus had restored and ordered,
Return to your own house, and tell what great things God has done for you. And he went his way and proclaimed [_kerusson_] throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him.​The fact Jesus commanded him to do this does not necessitate an official ordination to an office. What Jesus commands this man to do, he, by way of implication, commands all those who have been rescued from the kingdom of darkness to do. So the term _kerusso_ does have a non-technical or non-official usage. The term "evangelize" (_euangelizomai_) also appears to have a non-official usage. In Psalm 68:11, "the great host" who are proclaiming the good news is in the feminine and the verse may be translated, "The Lord speaks;many, many women spread the good news (NET)." The text may be referring to Miriam and company _declaring the Lord's deliverance_ with timbrels and song (Exo. 15:20-21). When Timothy brings a positive report to Paul regarding the faith of the Thessalonians, it turns out he's "evangelizing" [_euangelisamenou_] (1 Thes. 3:6). So these special terms, which normally are used for an official proclamation of the gospel by someone commissioned, also have less, non-technical meanings and may be applied to those who are not apostles or pastor-teachers (Acts 8:4). 

In closing, allow me to affirm the following: (1) I'm not a "leveller." I believe Christ has ordained officers for the church and they are especially commissioned to proclaim the gospel. (2) I believe in a holistic evangelistic and missionary outreach. We're not just concerned with the happiness of man but with God's glory that will result as men and women find their highest enjoyment in God alone. Furthermore, God's methodology for evangelism includes proclaiming the good news so that sinners might be saved, baptized, gathered into local assemblies, and grounded in the whole counsel of God. (3) Though I believe a large responsibility for proclaming the gospel resides at the feet of those specially trained and commissioned for the task, I do not, in keeping with the passages I've cited and expounded above, believe proclaiming the gospel is _the sole province _of officially ordained men. Nor do I believe that all true evangelism must take place within the church. As one man has recently stated it, "Trying to reach the lost in one's community primarily or exclusively through the public services of the church is like bass fishing in one's bathtub. The fish just ain't there." Of course, he didn't intend that statement in an absolute sense. There are often unsaved young people and visitors that come among us. But for the most part, we have to _reach out _if we are to draw the lost into the church. And to suppose that the reaching out must be limited to the ordained preacher is, in my opinion, subbiblical, wrongheaded, and contrary to the experience of most.


----------



## Pergamum

In unreached areas evangelism must happen before there is a church. 
Evangelism occurs prior to the church.

Once a local church is established we can bring people into the church. But where there is no church we are the ones who go (Matthew 28). 

As God adds to the church, this need not mean that he adds to already established churches; the Lord can add to the church daily by multiplying churches and creating new churches were churches did not exist before.

There is no need to look inward - we should always be reaching out.

Let's have an outward looking view of why God has blessed us. He has blessed us so that we may bless others (psalm 67) and that salvation should come to all nations.

And this reaching out, praying and loving the world is done by all members of the body of Christ, in their respective stations in life.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Pergamum said:


> In unreached areas evangelism must happen before there is a church.
> Evangelism occurs prior to the church.
> 
> Once a local church is established we can bring people into the church. But where there is no church we are the ones who go (Matthew 28).
> 
> As God adds to the church, this need not mean that he adds to already established churches; the Lord can add to the church daily by multiplying churches and creating new churches were churches did not exist before.
> 
> There is no need to look inward - we should always be reaching out.
> 
> Let's have an outward looking view of why God has blessed us. He has blessed us so that we may bless others (psalm 67) and that salvation should come to all nations.
> 
> And this reaching out, praying and loving the world is done by all members of the body of Christ, in their respective stations in life.



Preach it, brother!


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, why didn't you respond to the commentators of the Catechism I cited? The issue at this point is one of "precept" because I drew attention to the Shorter Catechism's teaching regarding the chief end of man which is discerned and governed by what the Catechism goes on to identify as Scripture, i.e., God's precept not decree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue emerged because of your point 2 in an earlier post, where you asked, "Does God save sinners for his own glory or for their eternal happiness?" God saving sinners is a matter of His own will of decree, not of man's duty by reason of His precept. The reason why I did not interact with the commentators on the Catechism is because their statements are irrelevant to the issue being discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> The glory God desires from humans the most and that which glorifies him the most is that which flows from a heart of devotion and love.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you attribute unfulfilled desires in God, or passions, which is contrary to Scripture and to the basic theological presupposition that "God" is "blessed for ever."
Click to expand...


Matthew, with all due respect, you seem to be uncomfortable with the paradox of God's will of purpose and his will of desire or precept. Do you deny that God sincerely offers and desires the salvation of all men? If so, what do you do with Jesus' statement in John 5:34 where he tells the Jews, many of whom were reprobate, "I say these things so that you may be saved." When God tells the wicked, many of whom did perish in their sins, "As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?" (Ezek. 33:11). Or what about Jesus' lament, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often _I wanted_ to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but _you were not willing_! [emphasis added]" (Matt. 23:37). 

I do affirm that God is blessed forever more. Indeed, I affirm that God is completely self-sufficient and doesn't need humankind. But I'm also constrained by Scripture to affirm that God desires certain things (e.g., that humans stop sinning), which desires are unfulfilled. If you think this is contrary to Scripture, then I'd like to know how God could *want* sinners to be saved whom in the end he does not regenerate. From all the reading I've done in Reformed theology, I've gotten the impression that most Reformed divines have properly distinguished between God's will of purpose and his will of precept and have been content to live with this mystery.

I cite T. J. Crawford, Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh, who in his Baird Lecture (1874) summarized it well:

"It may be alleged, however, that the invitations of the Gospel, besides being expressive of the undisputed fact that whosoever complies with them shall obtain the offered blessings, are also indicative of _a desire on the part of God that all sinners to whom they are held out should comply with them_; and how, it may be asked, can such a _desire_ be sincere, if it be the _purpose of God to confer only on some sinners_ that grace by which their compliance will be secured? Now, without pretending that we are able to give a satisfactory answer to this question, we are not prepared to admit, what the question evidently assumes, that God can have no sincere desire with reference to the conduct of all His creatures, if it be His purpose to secure on the part of some, and not on the part of all of them, the fulfillment of this desire. For how does the case stand in this respect with His commandments? These, no less than His invitations, are addressed to all. Both alike to be considered as indications of what He desires and requires to be done by all. Nor are there wanting, with reference to his commandments, testimonies quite as significant as any which are to be found with reference to His invitations, of the earnestness and intensity of His desire that the course which they prescribe should be adopted by all who hear them [he cites several texts].... Doubtless it is an inscrutable mystery that things should thus be done under the government of the Almighty which are in the highest degree displeasing and offensive to Him. It is just the old mystery of moral evil, which no one has ever been able to explain.... Therefore, convinced though we be, on the authority of Scripture, that it is God's purpose to bring an elect people to a willing and hearty reception of the great salvation, we cannot, and never will, thence deduce any conclusions tending to obscure the brightness of the manifestation which God has made of His love to a sinful world in the mediatorial work and sufferings of His beloved Son, or to cast a shadow of doubt on the earnestness of His desire, as indicated in the calls and offers of the Gospel, that all sinners should come ot the Saviour that they may have life."


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming a position in which I admit that I and the tradition of which I am part haven't learned everything there is to learn about the Bible and that maybe, just maybe, there might be a brother in another tradition that knows more than me is indeed living with a good conscience, one that is humble and teachable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that would be humble and conscionable, if it were what you stated. However, you proceeded on the supposition that a more balanced way of stating it would be, "I think my denomination may be ahead of others in most things but not necessarily in everything." In which case you are not making a statement about the future discovery of truth through God's blessing on the means of grace, but are casting doubt on your present position in relation to the truth confessed by your denomination. This is not humble and conscionable, but a "doubtful disputation;" in which case your surmising is not to be received.
Click to expand...


Yes, if you'll take the time to read my post, you'll find that I don't think the 1689 is perfect. I should think that would make you happy since you think your confession is better. Indeed, one flaw I call to attention is the Savoy's and 1689's omission of the paragraphs related to the grounds of divorce and remarriage, which were included in the WCF. Why the congregationalists and baptists left this out I do not know. But I think it was a mistake. And on this point, I think the WCF is superior. By admitting that fact, I'm trying to be humble and keep a good conscience with respect to God's word. I'm trying to encourage my fellow Baptist pastors to consider reinserting the original statement found in the WCF into our confession. But, as I'm learning on this board and elsewhere, it's mighty difficult to persuade Reformed pastors that their confessions are not perfect and could be improved. My impression has been that though _in principle_ men confess them to be fallible and subject to emendation _in practice_ it's usually another story. BTW, Paul's warning against "doubtful disputations" (Rom. 14:1) has reference to quarrels over matters indifferent. It does not preclude a man assuming the posture that his tradition is not perfect.


----------



## Scott1

I know there is a lot of passion in this. Thanks again for the contributors here especially Dr Gonzales and Mr Winzer. There are some profound issues being discussed, and one won't hear them discussed hardly anyplace else.

Early on, I sensed we were swerving into soteriological issues and that has happened.

One of the hardest things for us as human beings to accept is that God is glorified by both his mercy on sinners and His justice on sinners. Both display the glory of a God who is, at once merciful and just.

While Arminian-influenced theology says God wants everyone to be saved but man makes the final decision, Reformed theology says God chooses to save some and to pass others by- to the praise of His Glory.

When I first heard this, I thought it was outrageous that God does not want to save everyone. However, over time after reflecting on God's Word, I came to understand that God is good and He defines what good is- I do not define it for God. 

It is as "outrageous" that God chooses to save anyone because justice demands punishment but we look at it the other way as we are self-centered and self-seeking beings.

These are difficult things to understand, far less accept, so we really need to be charitable with another... and marvel that God choose to save sinners such as us.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, the immediate context of Acts 8:1-4 speaks of the church and identifies "men and women."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notwithstanding, the text nowhere says that the men and women were the ones who specifically preached the Word in every place. You are adding a determinative element which is neither expressed nor implied by the text.
Click to expand...


Matthew et al, consider the opinions of the following commentators on the implications of Acts 8:1-4:

John Calvin:
"Luke also recounts here that it happened by the incredible providence of God that *the dispersion of believers* led many into the unity of the faith. This is God's normal way of bringing light out of darkness, and life out of death. For the sound of the Gospel, which was being heard only in one place, is now resounding everywhere" [emphasis added] (NT Commentaries, 6:228).​J. A. Alexander:
"The inspired writer, having paused to tell us what became of Stephen and Saul, now resumes his narrative of the dispersion, not by repeating what he said in v. 1, but by advancing a step further. As he there said that all (except the twelve) were scattered, he now says that all who were thus scattered preached the word. Some would infer from this, that none but preachers were expelled; but it is far more natural to understand the verse as referring, not to preaching in the technical or formal sense, but to that joyful and spontaneous diffusion of the truth,* which is permitted and required of all believers, whether lay or clerical, ordained or unordained* [emphasis added] (_A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles_ [1857; reprint, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1984], 319).​ Dennis Johnson:
"As the Lord in Isaiah summoned *the people* to be his witnesses, so now *all believers*, empowered by the Spirit, can speak the word of God boldly (Acts 4:31). In fact, the first step in the gospel's spread to the earth's ends are taken not by apostles, but by *other Christians*, who are scattered by persecution as the apostles remain in Jerusalem (8:1). *These scattered believers* 'announce the word as good news' as they travel through Judea and Samaria (8:4). Their announcement of good news is centered on Jesus Christ (8:5, 12), and is therefore firmly rooted in the apostles' testimony that Jesus is alive from the dead" [emphasis added] (_The Message of Acts in the History of Redemption_ [P & R, 1997], 45).​


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

*R. B. Kuiper on "God and the Agent of Evangelism"*

"Beyond dispute, the Christian Church is the God-ordained agent of evangelism. However, when making that statement one does well to define the term _church_. In this context, it has two references, which, although inseparable, are properly distinguished from each other. Both the church as an organization, operating through its special offices, *and the church as an organism of believers, each of which holds a general or universal office, are God-ordained agents of evangelism*" [emphasis added] (_God Centered Evangelism_ [Banner of Truth Trust, 1966], 118).

"God has instituted special offices in His church. But Scripture also teaches a universal office in which all believers participate. *Every believer holds the office of prophet, priest, and king*. That truth is stated succinctly in 1 Peter 2:9, 'Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you into his marvelous light.' The church is a royalty of priests, a priesthood of kings. *And it is the duty of every priest and king to proclaim the excellencies of his Saviour.* That is his function as prophet" [emphasis added] (Ibid., 124).


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Scott1 said:


> I know there is a lot of passion in this. Thanks again for the contributors here especially Dr Gonzales and Mr Winzer. There are some profound issues being discussed, and one won't hear them discussed hardly anyplace else.
> 
> Early on, I sensed we were swerving into soteriological issues and that has happened.
> 
> One of the hardest things for us as human beings to accept is that God is glorified by both his mercy on sinners and His justice on sinners. Both display the glory of a God who is, at once merciful and just.
> 
> While Arminian-influenced theology says God wants everyone to be saved but man makes the final decision, Reformed theology says God chooses to save some and to pass others by- to the praise of His Glory.
> 
> When I first heard this, I thought it was outrageous that God does not want to save everyone. However, over time after reflecting on God's Word, I came to understand that God is good and He defines what good is- I do not define it for God.
> 
> It is as "outrageous" that God chooses to save anyone because justice demands punishment but we look at it the other way as we are self-centered and self-seeking beings.
> 
> These are difficult things to understand, far less accept, so we really need to be charitable with another... and marvel that God choose to save sinners such as us.



This debate seems (though not forthrightly stated) to be about supralapsarianism verses infralapsarianism. In defence of those of us who are infra (including Edwards, Spurgeon, Augustine and most believe Calvin) the statement "God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him" is a statement of individual, not grand total. He is more glorified in me as an individual when I am most satisfied in Him, though for Him to have this glorification in me (my treasuring of Him) the contrast of the glorification of His justice must be displayed on the unelect. Piper very clearly states (in numerous sermons and writings) that God created the universe as a whole to bring him the most possible glory. Some individuals may bring God less glory individually (though still glorifying Him by His justice) but enable the most possible glory overall. Jonathan Edwards dealt with this in speaking of a wide and narrow angle lens in which God sees sin. He hates all sins in the narrow angle but is ultimately glorified by the existence of sin in the wide angle. I believe Romans 9:22-24 shows what I'm saying.

22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

ManleyBeasley said:


> This debate seems (though not forthrightly stated) to be about supralapsanarianism verses infralapsanarianism. In defence of those of us who are infra (including Edwards, Spurgeon, Augustine and most believe Calvin) the statement "God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him" is a statement of individual, not grand total. He is more glorified in me as an individual when I am most satisfied in Him, though for Him to have this glorification in me (my treasuring of Him) the contrast of the glorification of His justice must be displayed on the unelect. Piper very clearly states (in numerous sermons and writings) that God created the universe as a whole to bring him the most possible glory. Some individuals may bring God less glory individually (though still glorifying Him by His justice) but enable the most possible glory overall. Jonathan Edwards dealt with this in speaking of a wide and narrow angle lens in which God sees sin. He hates all sins in the narrow angle but is ultimately glorified by the existence of sin in the wide angle. I believe Romans 9:22-24 shows what I'm saying.
> 
> 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manley, thanks for the very helpful clarification. I believe the Shorter Catechism's chief end of man had in view what Piper has in view: _how we as individuals were designed to bring God the most glory._ Keeping these distinctions in mind will help to keep our discussion on track.
Click to expand...


----------



## dannyhyde

After wading through all the posts, I did not see this article referenced, which explains the missio Dei in the Canons of Dort:

*Anthony A. Hoekema, "The Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort." Calvin Theological Journal 7:2 (November 1972).*


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

dannyhyde said:


> After wading through all the posts, I did not see this article referenced, which explains the missio Dei in the Canons of Dort:
> 
> *Anthony A. Hoekema, "The Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort." Calvin Theological Journal 7:2 (November 1972).*



Danny, can you give us a synopsis of this article?


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This debate seems (though not forthrightly stated) to be about supralapsanarianism verses infralapsanarianism. In defence of those of us who are infra (including Edwards, Spurgeon, Augustine and most believe Calvin) the statement "God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him" is a statement of individual, not grand total. He is more glorified in me as an individual when I am most satisfied in Him, though for Him to have this glorification in me (my treasuring of Him) the contrast of the glorification of His justice must be displayed on the unelect. Piper very clearly states (in numerous sermons and writings) that God created the universe as a whole to bring him the most possible glory. Some individuals may bring God less glory individually (though still glorifying Him by His justice) but enable the most possible glory overall. Jonathan Edwards dealt with this in speaking of a wide and narrow angle lens in which God sees sin. He hates all sins in the narrow angle but is ultimately glorified by the existence of sin in the wide angle. I believe Romans 9:22-24 shows what I'm saying.
> 
> 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manley, thanks for the very helpful clarification. I believe the Shorter Catechism's chief end of man had in view what Piper has in view: _how we as individuals were designed to bring God the most glory._ Keeping these distinctions in mind will help to keep our discussion on track.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Piper quoted it repeatedly in "Desiring God". The Canons of Dordt also take a clearly infra position. Article 7 says-
> 
> "Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, he chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery."
Click to expand...


----------



## dannyhyde

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> After wading through all the posts, I did not see this article referenced, which explains the missio Dei in the Canons of Dort:
> 
> *Anthony A. Hoekema, "The Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort." Calvin Theological Journal 7:2 (November 1972).*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danny, can you give us a synopsis of this article?
Click to expand...


Sorry, no time to do so. If you are a prof at a seminary then you should have CTJ or at least are able to get it via inter-library loan.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

dannyhyde said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> After wading through all the posts, I did not see this article referenced, which explains the missio Dei in the Canons of Dort:
> 
> *Anthony A. Hoekema, "The Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort." Calvin Theological Journal 7:2 (November 1972).*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danny, can you give us a synopsis of this article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, no time to do so. If you are a prof at a seminary then you should have CTJ or at least are able to get it via inter-library loan.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Dan. I'll definitely look it up.


----------



## Scott1

> 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?



Romans 9:22-24
This is one of many Scriptures that support the notion that God shows His Glory by both choosing to show unmerited favor to redeem some and choosing to pass by and allow justice for others. Both his mercy and justice, at once, show His uncomprehensible glory.



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter III
> 
> V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, *has chosen, in Christ*, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and *all to the praise of His glorious grace.[*11]
> 
> VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16]
> 
> VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, *to pass by*; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, *to the praise of His glorious justice*.[17]
> 
> VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]



The Westminster Confession clearly articulates this as the doctrine contained in Scripture. It's not the majority view out there, it's not what most people believe, but it is what the Confession teaches.

What's amazing is to look at the Scripture proof texts for these sections of the Confession- they are overwhelming!

I don't understand this to ultimately hinge on "infra" or "supra" but rather on soteriology, and especially one's perspective on the sovereignty of God. I could be wrong on this, but it seems most of the Westminster Divines and Reformed today lean "infra." The Confession was written very carefully and explains God's glory as being both in his choice to redeem and to "pass by." When he did it within His eternal attributes, makes for some interesting temporal theological views, but I don't sense that one's viewpoint on God's glory ultimately hinges on it.

I'm not at all minimizing that input, it's very insightful, it is just that I don't sense that one's viewpoint on God's glory hinges on it.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Scott1 said:


> I don't understand this to ultimately hinge on "infra" or "supra" but rather on soteriology, and especially one's perspective on the sovereignty of God. I could be wrong on this, but it seems most of the Westminster Divines and Reformed today lean "infra." The Confession was written very carefully and explains God's glory as being both in his choice to redeem and to "pass by." When he did it within His eternal attributes, makes for some interesting temporal theological views, but I don't sense that one's viewpoint on God's glory ultimately hinges on it.
> 
> I'm not at all minimizing that input, it's very insightful, it is just that I don't sense that one's viewpoint on God's glory hinges on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, I wholeheartedly embrace the teaching of the WCF chapter 3 on God's decree. It's also reflected in my own 1689 Baptist Confession. My concern is not whether the Puritans sufficiently articulated the biblical teaching on God's decree. My question, rather, is whether the Westminster divines adequately articulated in their Confession of Faith God's sincere desire that all men embrace the gospel and whether they articulated the church's and the Christian's duty to reach out to the lost with that same Pauline burden for gaining souls concerning which he exhorts the Corinthians believers, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1).
> 
> I should make clear again that I'm not implying any defect in the Reformed and Puritan theology. I'm a thorough-going Calvinist. And I believe some of the most zealous and ardent missionaries have been Calvinists. My simple concern, which was mainly directed towards my own 1689 Confession and only secondarily toward the WCF, is whether a paragraph could be inserted that more clearly articulates to other evangelical churches and to the world abroad that as Reformed Christians we affirm the church's and Christian's God-given mandate to disciple the nations via preaching the gospel, baptizing converts, forming churches, and indoctrinating the saints. Such an addition to an already wonderful theological tradition would, in my mind, not detract but only enhance the Reformed faith.
Click to expand...


----------



## tdowns

*It's time for this*

Super Hero Surfer to weigh in with a post of profound theological insight...

I'm having fun  and 



Thanks


----------



## Scott1

> *Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales *
> The glory God desires from humans the most and that which glorifies him the most is that which flows from a heart of devotion and love.



It seems the concept of how God receives glory was swerved into partly by the above post.

The Confessional idea perhaps that Mr Winzer is reacting to is that God's Glory is self-existing in himself. The idea being that God needs absolutely nothing outside of Himself. God does not "seek" glory from his creation (man) and yet the Confession summarizes Scripture to say that "Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever."


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Scott1 said:


> 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 9:22-24
> This is one of many Scriptures that support the notion that God shows His Glory by both choosing to show unmerited favor to redeem some and choosing to pass by and allow justice for others. Both his mercy and justice, at once, show His uncomprehensible glory.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I completely agree. I made the point that God is glorified by both. What this scripture does is show that 1 glory is contingant on another. His mercy being shown is only possible IF there are sinners who deserve judgment. Again, the point that Edwards makes is that the total sum of the glory is more, not that both individual glories are equally desired by God on an individual basis. Meaning the greatest glory one individual can give God is by enjoying Him for ever, but the greatest glory possible is by some being judged for their sin while others are elected to enjoying him.

Also, he is absolutely glorified by righteous judgment, but when he saves the elect BOTH his righteous judgment and mercy have been glorified in the cross. Its not as though God chooses one over the other. Christ satisfied God's justice and wrath for us.

This is an issue of Supra and Infralapsarianism though only through the logical outworking of the two views. The WCF was written by mostly infralapsarians and I believe it is why they said "The CHIEF end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." I believe what the puritans believed also! I am attempting to defend this WCF statement.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Matthew, with all due respect, you seem to be uncomfortable with the paradox of God's will of purpose and his will of desire or precept. Do you deny that God sincerely offers and desires the salvation of all men?



Yes; I have written a paper on it, reviewing John Murray's Free Offer of the Gospel, wherein it is shown that this view is inconsistent with reformed theology.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> But, as I'm learning on this board and elsewhere, it's mighty difficult to persuade Reformed pastors that their confessions are not perfect and could be improved.



It is not that we think the Confession is perfect, but it is an ideal formulation of scripture truth, so far as those who adopt the confession are concerned. Of course every merely human confession can be improved, just as every human criticism of human confessions can be improved. The problem is that those who make the criticism are not always as quick to acknowledge their own fallibility as they are to own the fallibility of the confession. The remembrance of and adherence to a faithful tradition of biblical exposition is clearly taught in Hebrews 13:7, 8. One's acceptance of sola scriptura should manifest a desire to maintain ALL that scripture says, including its provisions for the orderly transmission of the truth through the ages.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Matthew et al, consider the opinions of the following commentators on the implications of Acts 8:1-4:
> 
> John Calvin:
> "Luke also recounts here that it happened by the incredible providence of God that *the dispersion of believers* led many into the unity of the faith. This is God's normal way of bringing light out of darkness, and life out of death. For the sound of the Gospel, which was being heard only in one place, is now resounding everywhere" [emphasis added] (NT Commentaries, 6:228).​



When Dr. Calvin examines Acts 11:19-21, where the narrative of this dispersion is resumed, he specifically comments on the statement, "the hand of the Lord was with them," and refers it to the *ministers*: "Therefore, as often as we are to intreat of faith, let us always remember this speech, that God wrought *by his ministers*, and that he made their doctrine effectual by his hand, that is, by the secret inspiration of the Spirit."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak

Here is a link to Mr. Winzer's article about John Murray and the free offer.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, as I'm learning on this board and elsewhere, it's mighty difficult to persuade Reformed pastors that their confessions are not perfect and could be improved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that we think the Confession is perfect, but it is an ideal formulation of scripture truth, so far as those who adopt the confession are concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, Matthew. I can agree with the way you're stating it here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course every merely human confession can be improved, just as every human criticism of human confessions can be improved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, I agree. And I want to assure you that (1) I love the Reformed confessions, and (2) whatever I might see lacking (which is relatively minor), I concede that my criticisms may need improvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that those who make the criticism are not always as quick to acknowledge their own fallibility as they are to own the fallibility of the confession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I admit my fallibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The remembrance of and adherence to a faithful tradition of biblical exposition is clearly taught in Hebrews 13:7, 8. One's acceptance of sola scriptura should manifest a desire to maintain ALL that scripture says, including its provisions for the orderly transmission of the truth through the ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew et al, consider the opinions of the following commentators on the implications of Acts 8:1-4:
> 
> John Calvin:"Luke also recounts here that it happened by the incredible providence of God that *the dispersion of believers* led many into the unity of the faith. This is God's normal way of bringing light out of darkness, and life out of death. For the sound of the Gospel, which was being heard only in one place, is now resounding everywhere" [emphasis added] (NT Commentaries, 6:228).​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Dr. Calvin examines Acts 11:19-21, where the narrative of this dispersion is resumed, he specifically comments on the statement, "the hand of the Lord was with them," and refers it to the *ministers*: "Therefore, as often as we are to intreat of faith, let us always remember this speech, that God wrought *by his ministers*, and that he made their doctrine effectual by his hand, that is, by the secret inspiration of the Spirit."
Click to expand...


Very well, so Calvin in one places says it was believers who scattered and evangelized, but in another place he says it was "ministers." So I take it you disagree with J. A. Alexander and Dennis Johnson. Is that true? And what about the quote from R. B. Kuiper? Moreover, what about the several other passages I cited above. I'm eager to see how you exegete them.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew et al, consider the opinions of the following commentators on the implications of Acts 8:1-4:
> 
> John Calvin:"Luke also recounts here that it happened by the incredible providence of God that *the dispersion of believers* led many into the unity of the faith. This is God's normal way of bringing light out of darkness, and life out of death. For the sound of the Gospel, which was being heard only in one place, is now resounding everywhere" [emphasis added] (NT Commentaries, 6:228).​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Dr. Calvin examines Acts 11:19-21, where the narrative of this dispersion is resumed, he specifically comments on the statement, "the hand of the Lord was with them," and refers it to the *ministers*: "Therefore, as often as we are to intreat of faith, let us always remember this speech, that God wrought *by his ministers*, and that he made their doctrine effectual by his hand, that is, by the secret inspiration of the Spirit."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very well, so Calvin in one places says it was believers who scattered and evangelized, but in another place he says it was "ministers." So I take it you disagree with J. A. Alexander and Dennis Johnson. Is that true? And what about the quote from R. B. Kuiper? Moreover, what about the several other passages I cited above. I'm eager to see how you exegete them.
Click to expand...


We may need to check into what context Calvin was using *ministers* here. It certainly may be true that he meant ordained Pastors/Elders but he may have been calling them ministers in the sense that they were serving God in what they did. From the quote above it doesn't seem so obvious to me that he was speaking of ordained Pastor/Elders. Just a thought.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, with all due respect, you seem to be uncomfortable with the paradox of God's will of purpose and his will of desire or precept. Do you deny that God sincerely offers and desires the salvation of all men?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; I have written a paper on it, reviewing John Murray's Free Offer of the Gospel, wherein it is shown that this view is inconsistent with reformed theology.
Click to expand...


Matthew, I'm very disappointed to hear this. Of course, I don't agree with every point of exegesis Murray makes in his essay. Nevertheless, I believe the Scriptural data teaches (1) that the gospel should be preached to all men indiscriminately, (2) that all men everyone should be commanded to repent and believe, (3) that God sincerely desires the salvation of all men (just as he sincerely desires that all men desist sinning), (4) that we are to be imitators of God and sincerely desire the salvation of all men, and (5) that a denial of the free and sincere offer of the gospel is a serious aberration of the faith that, in my opinion, calls into question a man's fitness for the office of the pastor-teacher. 

My last point is not said out of spite or any personal animosity towards you. I respect you as a man made in the image of God. I also accept that you may be holding your theological positions in a sincere attempt to be true to Scripture. Nevertheless, I believe a denial of the free and sincere offer of the gospel is plainly contrary to the Scripture, misrepresents the character of God, and is a terrible blight on the Reformed faith. I've looked over your review of Murray's booklet. I believe that your reasoning resembles that of Job's friends (in the sense that it tries to squeeze God's incomprehensible character and ways into the box of finite human logic), and that your rejection of anthropopathic language is outdated, inconsistent, and untenable. 

I can now see why you're in no hurry to see more said at a confessional level regarding evangelism and missions. Your position, tolerated as it appears to be among the PB (I sincerely hope it's not the majority view), suggests to me another area in which the WCF could be improved. Instead of this:_The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice (WCF 3.7)._​I believe the following to be more a more comprehensive and accurate summary of the Scriptural data (a proposed 1988 revision):_God determined, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby he extends or withholds mercy as he pleases, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by the rest of mankind, to leave and harden them in their sin to their just condemnation and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin; nevertheless, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, so that even reprobate men, through his kindness and forbearance, are sincerely called to faith in Christ through the indiscriminate offer of salvation in the gospel. (1988 revision)_​Thank you for the interaction and deepening of my own conviction that our Reformed churches need to be _semper reformanda_. My prayer is that Reformed pastors and theologians will be humble enough to recognize that not everything that needs to be said was said in the 17th century and that they will have the courage to call for a confessional-level affirmation of important truths that are either unaddressed or insufficiently addressed in the 17th century creeds. 

Respectfully yours,


----------



## Scott1

As a note of encouragement, Dr Gonzales and Mr Winzer,

This is thread is very helpful to many of us and will be referred back to because of its high quality.

Your thread has been rated a 5 (of 5)!

Soli Deo Gloria, 

remember that.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

I realize this thread is addressing the question of whether the Reformed Confessions adequately affirm the church's and Christian's duty of evangelistic and missionary outreach. But since the issue of the free indiscriminate offer of the gospel has been raised and since that question would, I believe, certainly have a bearing on whether the Reformed Confessions of the 17th century say enough about evangelistic and missionary outreach, I thought it might be helpful to offer some gleaned citations from the Reformed tradition related to this subject:

JOHN CALVIN

God commands [the gospel] to be offered indiscriminately to all. (Genesis 1:503)

The gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to the elect and to the reprobate: but the elect alone come to Christ, because they have been taught of God." (Isaiah 4:146)

God ...shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to faith in Christ ...For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. (John 1:125)

God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few. (Synoptic Gospels 1:116)

Christ...was offered as our Saviour...Christ brought life because the heavenly Father does not wish the human race that He loves to perish...But we should remember...that the secret love in which our heavenly Father embraced us to Himself is, since it flows from His eternal good pleasure, precedent to all other causes; but the grace which He wants to be testified to us and by which we are stirred to the hope of salvation, begins with the reconciliation provided through Christ...Thus before we can have any feeling of His Fatherly kindness, the blood of Christ must intercede to reconcile God to us...And He has used a general term [whosoever], both to invite indiscriminately all to share in life and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the significance of the term 'world' which He had used before. For although there is nothing in the world deserving of God's favour, He nevertheless shows He is favourable to the whole world when He calls all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is indeed an entry into life. Moreover, let us remember that although life is promised generally to all who believe in Christ, faith is not common to all. Christ is open to all and displayed to all, but God opens the eyes only of the elect that they may seek Him by faith...And whenever our sins press hard on us, whenever Satan would drive us to despair, we must hold up this shield, that God does not want us to be overwhelmed in everlasting destruction, for He has ordained His Son to be the Saviour of the world. (Comment on John 3:16)

GEORGE SWINNOCK

Ponder how universal his offers of grace are. Jesus Christ, with all his merits, are tendered to all. The proposals of divine mercy and love are general and universal.... It is a great encouragement that, in the offers of pardon and life, none are excluded: why then dost thou exclude thyself. 'Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden,' Matthew 11:28. Mark, poor sinner, 'all ye' Art thou not one of that all? Is not thy wickedness thy weight and thy corruption thy burden? Then thou art called particularly as well as generally. Jesus Christ taketh thee aside from the crowd, and whispereth thee in the ear, O poor sinner, that art weary of the work and heavy laden with thy weight of sin, be entreated to come to me; I will give thee rest. Why doth thy heart suggest that that he doth not intend thee in that call? Doth he nor, by that qualification, as good as name thee? Ah, it is an unworthy, a base jealousy, to mistrust a loving Christ without the least cause (Heaven and Hell Epitomised. Works of Swinnock BOT Vol 3 p.352-353)

BENJAMIN KEACH

It shows also that every man and woman, that rejects the offers of grace (though not such that were elected) shall be left without excuse at the day of judgment, they shall all be speechless; and it shall be manifested unto their own consciences, that it was for their own horrid wickedness, and refusing to accept of Christ, that they shall be cast and condemned at that day…But ministers are to do what they can. They are to invite them, press them, intreat and persuade them to come…Another shall say, Lord, I was not elected, as these were, let me be excused. No, this will be no plea or excuse in the great day? Then will they see and know that the cause of their damnation will be just and righteous, it being the only procurement of their own evil doings, and for making light of the gospel and offers of grace." (Comments on Parable of the Great Supper Kregal p.100/102/104)

THOMAS SHEPHERD

Consider he makes love to thee. Not one soul that hears me this day but the Lord Jesus is a suitor unto, that now ye would be espoused to him; "He came unto his own, and they received him not." Whatever the secret purpose of Christ is, I regard not. In this evangelical dispensation of grace, he makes love to all. John 1:12. For if the challenge of love from men be founded on his actual love to some, having died for some, then the offer would be particular. But it is grounded, 1. On his own worth and glory, and hence he challengeth love. 2. On this, for aught I know, he has loved me. So that thou art not so vile but the Lord Jesus' heart is toward thee, and his eye is upon thee for love." (Parable of the Ten Virgins Soli De Gloria Reprint p.44)

JONATHAN EDWARDS

Pardon is as much offered and promised to the greatest sinners as any, if they will come aright to God for mercy. The invitations of the gospel are always in universal terms: as, Ho, every one that thirsteth; Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden; and, Whosoever will, let him come. And the voice of Wisdom is to men in general: Proverbs 8:4. 'Unto you, O men, I call, and my voice is to the sons of men.' Not to moral men or religious men, but to you O men. So Christ promises, John 6:37 'Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out.' This is the direction of Christ to his apostles, after his resurrection, Mark 16:15. 'Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved.' Which is agreeable to what the apostle saith, that 'the gospel was preached to every creature under Heaven.' Colossians 1:23" (Sermon on Pardon for the Greatest Sinners. BOT Book "Jonathan Edwards on Knowing Christ" p271-272)

JOHN BROWN OF EDINBURGH

The free unlimited extent of the invitation-" If any man…" The free and unrestricted nature of the invitation, now deserves notice. Not only is the descriptive character of those invited, "those who thirst," common to all human beings, but the invitation is so fashioned, that no human being can find the shadow of a reason for thinking himself excluded. 'If any man thirst - any human being, however mean, guilty, depraved, and wretched, wish to he happy - let him, in the belief of the truth about me, exercise the affections which that truth believed naturally produces, and he shall be happy.' It is not, 'If any man be deeply sensible of his guilt, depravity, and wretchedness, let him come to me and drink.' Such are invited;. but if that were all, as some have taught, thus, however unintentionally, clogging with conditions the unhampered offer of a free salvation, men might think that till they had brought themselves, or were in some way or other brought, into a state. of deep contrition, and earnest seeking after pardon, and holiness, and salvation, it would be presumption in them to come to Christ, or even look towards the Saviour for salvation. But the invitation is, 'Whosoever wishes to be happy, let him come to me, sinful and miserable as he is, and in me he shall find salvation. If thou art not a brute, if thou art not a devil-however like the one in sensuality, or the other in malignity-thou art invited. If thou art on earth, not in bell, thou art invited.' " (Comments on John 7:37 Discourses and sayings of our Lord. BOT Vol 2. p.9-10)

THOMAS CHALMERS

No plan can be more injudicious, than to mix up the doctrine of election with the original overtures of the Gospel. The doctrine of 'goodwill to men' will light up joy in all, for all know they are men; but the doctrine of 'good will to the elect' will light up joy in none, for no man can tell at the outset whether he is elected or not. By implicating, as some theologians unwisely do, the final acceptance with the original offers of the Gospel. Instead of pointing it with a surer aim to any, they may virtually be said to deny it to all. In no part of the Gospel is pardoned offered to man on the ground of his being one of the elect but everywhere on the ground of his being on of the species. In the Gospel the flag of invitation waves in the sight of all. It is not written upon it, 'Whosoever of the elect will, let him come and take of the water of life freely;' it is not said, 'Whosoever of a select and favoured few shall call upon me, shall be saved;' but 'Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth." (Comments on Luke 2:13-14)

HORATIO BONAR

Yet we honestly subscribe the Westminster Confession. We believe in Christ's redemption of His chosen Church; in the efficacy of His blood and the perfection of His righteousness. We believe in human impotence, in the bondage of the human will, in the enmity of the human heart to God. We believe in the sovereignty of Jehovah, and His eternal purpose. We believe in the absolute necessity of the Holy Spirit's work, alike before and after conversion. At the same time we preach a free and world wide gospel; we proclaim a free and world-wide invitation to sinners; we present to every sinner a gracious welcome to Christ, without any preliminary qualification whatsoever. We bid no man wait till he has ascertained his own election, or can produce evidence of regeneration, or sufficient repentance, or deep conviction. We tell every man, as he is, to go to the Saviour this moment, assured that he will not be cast out or sent away." (The Old Gospel booklet, reproduced in: Evangelism: A Reformed Debate reprinted by the James Begg Society p.56)

WILLIAM PATTON

Remember that Christ's atonement is for sinners. Whatever else may not be for sinners, Christ's death is for none but sinners, and it is offered freely to you as freely as to any other person in the world. No person in the world ever had any better offer of Christ than you have. There is nothing freer to you upon the earth than the death of Christ. It is as free to you as the rain from heaven. You have no right in yourself to Christ's death, but he offers it to you, beseeching you to accept it, and to give Him the credit and pleasure of saving you. If He did not offer it to you, you would have no right to take it; but when He offers it, it is no presumption to take it. Nay, it is the height of presumption not to take it - a great sin, and as a great folly as well." (Pardon and Assurance. Chapter Entitled: Christ's work finished and free to all. p.142)

CHARLES HODGE

According to the Calvinistic scheme the non-elect have all the advantages and opportunities of securing their salvation, that, according to any other scheme, are granted to mankind indiscriminately. Calvinism teaches that a plan of salvation adapted to all men and adequate for the salvation of all, is freely offered to the acceptance of all, although in the secret purpose of God He intended that it should have precisely the effect which in experience it is found to have. He deigned in its adoption to save His own people, but consistently offers its benefits to all who are willing to receive them. More than this no anti-Calvinist can demand. (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 644)

W.G.T. SHEDD

God offers Christ's sacrifice to every man, without exception, and assures him that if he will trust in it he shall be saved, and gives him common grace to help and encourage him to believe. This is a proof that God loves his soul and desires its salvation. But God does not, in addition to this universal offer of mercy, promise to overcome every man's aversion to believe and repent and his resistance of common grace. Election and preterition have no reference to the offer of salvation or common grace. They relate only to special grace and the effectual application of Christ's sacrifice. The universal offer of mercy taught in this section evinces the universality of God's compassion towards sinners. (Calvinism: Pure and Unmixed. BOT p.27)

BISHOP J.C. RYLE

For another thing, the doctrine of Election was never meant to prevent the fullest, freest offer of salvation to every sinner. In preaching and trying to do good we are warranted and commanded to set an open door before every man, woman, and child, and to invite every one to come in. We know not who are God's Elect, and whom He means to call and convert. Our duty is to invite all. To every unconverted soul without exception we ought to say, "God loves you, and Christ has died for you." To everyone we ought to say, "Awake,-repent,--believe,- come to Christ,-be converted,-turn -call upon God,- strive to enter in,---come, for all things are ready." To tell us that none will hear and be saved except God's Elect, is quite needless. We know it very well. But to tell us that on that account it is useless to offer salvation to any at all, is simply absurd. Who are we that we should pretend to know who will be found God's Elect at last? No! indeed. Those who now seem first may prove last, and those who seem last may prove first in the judgment day. We will invite all, in the firm belief that the invitation will do good to some. We will prophesy to the dry bones, if God commands us. We will offer life to all, though many reject the offer. In so doing, we believe that we walk in the steps of our Master and His Apostles. (Old Paths. Election: James Clarke edition p468-469)

CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON

A yet further charge against us is, that we dare not preach the gospel to the unregenerate, that, in fact, our theology is so narrow and cramped that we cannot preach to sinners. Gentlemen, if you dare to say this, I would take you to any library in the world where the old Puritan fathers are stored up, and I would let you take down any one volume and tell me if you ever rend more telling exhortations and addresses to sinners in any of your own books. Did not Bunyan plead with sinners, and whoever classed him with any but the Calvinists? Did not Charnock, Goodwin, and how we agonise for souls, and what were they but Calvinists? Did not Jonathan Edwards preach to sinners, and who more clear and explicit on these doctrinal matters. The works of our innumerable divines teem with passionate appeals to the unconverted. Oh, sirs, if I should begin the list, time should fail me. It is an indisputable fact that we have laboured more than they all for the winning of souls. Was George Whitfield any the less seraphic? Did his eyes weep the fewer tears or his bowels move with the less compassion because he believed in God’s electing love and preached the sovereignty of the Most High? It is an unfounded calumny. Our souls are not stony; our bowels are not withdrawn from the compassion which we ought to feel for our fellow-men; we can hold all our views firmly, and yet can weep as Christ did over a Jerusalem which was certainly to be destroyed. Again, I must say, I am not defending certain brethren who have exaggerated Calvinism. I speak of Calvinism proper, not that which has run to seed, and outgrown its beauty and verdure. I speak of it as I find it in Calvin’s Institutes, and especially in his Expositions. I have read them carefully. I take not my views of Calvinism from common repute but from his books. Nor do I, in thus speaking, even vindicate Calvinism as if I cared for the name, but I mean that glorious system which teaches that salvation is of grace from first to last. And again, then, I say it is an utterly unfounded charge that we dare not preach to sinners. (Opening of the Metropolitan Tabernacle - a series of sermons on the doctrines of grace)

ABRAHAM KUIPER

The Reformed theology insists that God Himself, who has determined from eternity who are to be saved and who are not, and therefore, distinguishes infallibly between the elect whom he designed to save by the death of Christ and the reprobate whom he did not design to save, makes on the ground of the universally suitable and sufficient atonement a most sincere, bona fide, offer of eternal life, not only to the elect but to all men, urgently invites them to life everlasting, and expresses the ardent desire that every person to whom this offer and this invitation come and accept and comply with the invitation. (Quoted by David Pointer "In defence of Common Grace")

LOUIS BERKHOF

We believe that God "unfeignedly," that is, sincerely or in good faith, calls all those who are living under the gospel to believe, and offers them salvation in the way of faith and repentance…The offer of salvation in the way of faith and repentance does not pretend to be a revelation of the secret counsel of God, more specifically, of His design in giving Christ as an atonement for sin. It is simply the promise of salvation of all those who accept Christ by faith. This offer, in so far as it is universal, is always conditioned by faith and conversion.... It is not the duty of the preacher to harmonise the secret counsel of God respecting the redemption of sinners with His declarative will as expressed in the universal offer of salvation. He is simply an official ambassador, whose duty it is to carry out the will of the Lord in preaching the gospel to all men indiscriminately (Systematic Theology BOT p.397-398)

DAVID GAY

It is my contention that often we are not preaching the gospel to sinners properly. I fear that we are failing in this great matter with disastrous consequences.... I see a practical, or incipient, hyper-Calvinism and a paralysis creeping upon us. ... Inevitably, this must tend to reduce conversions. ... I contend that often we are failing to preach the gospel in a soul-saving way. ... And our failure lies both in the content of our sermons and in their style and delivery. ... It is clear that God delights in the salvation of sinners. It is proper to say that God takes pleasure in their salvation. But to say that does not go far enough; it falls short of the scriptural teaching on the free offer. The point is: Does God actually desire the salvation of sinners? Does he want sinners to be saved? And further, Does God desire the salvation even of those who are reprobate? ... I assert that this is the heart of the matter. Does God desire the salvation of all men? The answer is, yes! Therefore we must, in our preaching, declare indiscriminately to all our hearers that God desires to see them saved. Further, we are preaching the gospel to sinners properly, only when we are convinced of the truth of such a desire in God and say so very clearly. We can only persuade sinners to be reconciled to God when we are persuaded that God not only delights in their salvation, but he actually desires it. ("Preaching the Gospel To Sinners" (1 & 2), The Banner of Truth, Jul. & Aug-Sept. 1994 (emphasis in original).)

These are just a sampling of quotes one can glean from Reformed and Calvinistic authors who affirm the free indiscriminate offer of the gospel. One might also consult Robert Lewis Dabney's, "God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy As Related to His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity" and, of course, John Murray's _The Free Offer of the Gospel.
_ 
In my mind, these authors represent Reformed theology at its best. I am still not convinced that their sentiments find sufficient emphasis in the 17th century Puritans confessions.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Great set of quotes. I appreciate them!


----------



## py3ak

> But, as I'm learning on this board and elsewhere, it's mighty difficult to persuade Reformed pastors that their confessions are not perfect and could be improved.



Dr. Gonzalez, do you really want it to be easy to persuade men that the confession they have adopted is incorrect? That wouldn't speak very well of those easily-persuadable men. It could mean that they are immature and carried about by every wind of doctrine. Or it could mean that they hadn't done their due diligence in studying out Scripture truth before subscribing to a Confession. But when you have engaged in (hopefully) extensive study, and you see a summary statement that appears to be faithful to Scripture in its scope and in its details, and you sign it with sincerity, I should think it ought to be a work of superlative difficulty to persuade people that it is incorrect.

Of course, I recognize that you speak here of imperfection, or of being susceptible to supplementation, and not so much of error. But one can recognize that the Confession doesn't teach everything, without therefore thinking that every true doctrine ought to have confessional status.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Of course, I recognize that you speak here of imperfection, or of being susceptible to supplementation, and not so much of error. But one can recognize that the Confession doesn't teach everything, without therefore thinking that every true doctrine ought to have confessional status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ruben, I'm grateful that you recognize I am not asking men to scrap their confessions. I've simply asked the men who adhere to the Reformed/Puritan creeds whether they believe their symbols have adequately articulated their commitment to the church's and the Christian's responsibility to carry out the Great Commission. So far, I've learned that the Canons of Dort make a general reference to the church's role. I've also learned that the Westminster Directory and Catechism encourage prayer for the spread of the gospel. I haven't been persuaded, though, that the WCF, Savoy, or 1689 make an adequately clear and sufficiently full statement on the matter. That's my opinion, of course, and I'm not the magisterium demanding that all on this board agree. I only ask that men honestly engage me in brotherly discussion, which many have and I'm very grateful. I've also tried to provide some exegesis and arguments with the hope that some would address those specific passages and arguments. Some have. For the most part, however, I confess that the general impression I have from at least a number of responses is that the Reformed community remains content with the status quo.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Very well, so Calvin in one places says it was believers who scattered and evangelized, but in another place he says it was "ministers." So I take it you disagree with J. A. Alexander and Dennis Johnson. Is that true? And what about the quote from R. B. Kuiper? Moreover, what about the several other passages I cited above. I'm eager to see how you exegete them.



John Calvin: "that the dispersion of believers led many into the unity of the faith." He did not attribute a direct agency to the preaching of believers.

J. A. Alexander: "it is far more natural to understand the verse as referring, not to preaching in the technical or formal sense, but to that joyful and spontaneous diffusion of the truth, which is permitted and required of all believers, whether lay or clerical, ordained or unordained." He ascribes the direct agency to all who were scattered, but limits the activity to a simple "diffusion of the truth," which falls under the category of gospel conversation I mentioned earlier.

Dennis Johnson's statements, in comparison, fail to differentiate things that differ and can therefore only create confusion.

R. B. Kuiper: "Both the church as an organization, operating through its special offices, and the church as an organism of believers, each of which holds a general or universal office, are God-ordained agents of evangelism."

I do not agree with the modern distinction between organism and organisation. If it is restrained to the inward and outward working of the church then it is sound. But the external form of every organism is by definition its organisation; so to speak of the organism's acency is to predicate something of its external organisation, and to contrast this with the agency of the organisation is to create two organisations.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I've looked over your review of Murray's booklet. I believe that your reasoning resembles that of Job's friends (in the sense that it tries to squeeze God's incomprehensible character and ways into the box of finite human logic), and that your rejection of anthropopathic language is outdated, inconsistent, and untenable.



I pass by the comment about Job's friends as it lacks any cogency. To say that I reject anthropopathic language is to misread what I have written. The language means something in human terms, and is therefore significant so far as the way God relates to man covenantally. But one has no warrant to draw something about God _in se_ from the fact that He speaks after the manner of men. Otherwise you would have to conclude that God actually changes His will and purpose, which is rejected by all reformed theologians.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> J. A. Alexander: "it is far more natural to understand the verse as referring, not to preaching in the technical or formal sense, but to that joyful and spontaneous diffusion of the truth, which is permitted and required of all believers, whether lay or clerical, ordained or unordained." He ascribes the direct agency to all who were scattered, but limits the activity to a simple "diffusion of the truth," which falls under the category of gospel conversation I mentioned earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Matthew, but I don't follow your logic. You claim that Alexander is limiting the activity of the "all believers" here to "a simple 'diffusion of the truth,'" which you assign the "the category of gospel conversion." Your earlier reference asserts, God not only uses His word in these situations, but blesses His people as sanctified instruments of service. But this is simply what the NT calls "gospel-conversation." Such activity does not come under the cognisance of the church and therefore cannot properly be called "evangelism." Evangelism in the NT is always conducted under the guidance of the two elements mentioned previously, which both can be reduced to the simple principle of being "sent."​So you distinguish "gospel conversation," which you elsewhere reference as a godly lifestyle giving Phil. 1:27 as your text, and you distinguish it from "evangelism." However, the text Alexander is commenting on describes the activity of the "all believers" as *euangelizomenoi ton logon*, i.e., proclaiming the good news. So apparently, *neither Alexander nor Luke are so careful so as to limit the term "evangelism" to the ordained preacher.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R. B. Kuiper: "Both the church as an organization, operating through its special offices, and the church as an organism of believers, each of which holds a general or universal office, are God-ordained agents of evangelism." I do not agree with the modern distinction between organism and organisation. If it is restrained to the inward and outward working of the church then it is sound. But the external form of every organism is by definition its organisation; so to speak of the organism's acency is to predicate something of its external organisation, and to contrast this with the agency of the organisation is to create two organisations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with Kuiper's distinction either. What I do agree with, however, is that the NT identifies both ordained and non-ordained believers as "agents of evangelism" (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 8:4; 1 Cor. 9:19-22; 11:1; 1 Thes. 1:8; 1 Pet. 2:9; 3:15).
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've looked over your review of Murray's booklet. I believe that your reasoning resembles that of Job's friends (in the sense that it tries to squeeze God's incomprehensible character and ways into the box of finite human logic), and that your rejection of anthropopathic language is outdated, inconsistent, and untenable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pass by the comment about Job's friends as it lacks any cogency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Job's friends had a wooden view of God's retribution that left no room for mystery. I believe your argument against the free and sincere offer of the gospel is tainted by the same tendencies. However, it's unfair of me to make a judgment about the position you're espousing without citing examples. So I apologize. If time permits, I may write a critique of your views and forward it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say that I reject anthropopathic language is to misread what I have written. The language means something in human terms, and is therefore significant so far as the way God relates to man covenantally. But one has no warrant to draw something about God _in se_ from the fact that He speaks after the manner of men. Otherwise you would have to conclude that God actually changes His will and purpose, which is rejected by all reformed theologians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've read plenty of writers on anthropomorphic language, both Reformed and non-Reformed. I disagree with a number of their conclusions particularly when it comes to anthropopathisms. Since man was created to be the visible replica of his Maker, human emotivity was made to analogue divine emotivity. Thus, human emotions (inasmuch as they are not tainted with sin) are _theopathic analogues_ of divine emotivity. Human anger is analogous to divine anger. Human love, compassion, and pity are analogous to divine love, compassion, and pity. So when the Scriptures predicate divine love, compassion, and pity towards sinners indiscriminately, they mean what they say--God's feelings of love, compassion, and pity correspond to our own. Otherwise we are not images of God, and "God-talk" becomes gibberish. Donald Carson offers a fitting rebuttal to this interpretive approach: It is no answer to espouse a form of impassibility that denies that God has an emotional life and that insists that all of the biblical evidence to the contrary is nothing more than anthropopathism. The price is too heavy. You may then rest in God’s sovereignty, but you can no longer rejoice in his love. You may rejoice only in a linguistic expression that is an accommodation of some reality of which we cannot conceive, couched in the anthropopathism of love. Give me a break. Paul did not pray that his readers might be able to grasp the height and depth and length and breadth of an anthropopathism and know this anthropopathism that surpasses knowledge (Eph. 3:14-21).” _The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God_ (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000), 58-59​
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Otherwise you would have to conclude that God actually changes His will and purpose, which is rejected by all reformed theologians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To expand further on my previous post and make more specific reference to your final comment. I agree with Jonathan Edwards that there is a vital connection between the will and the affections. In other words, "will" is not merely an "indifferent and unfeeling choice" but includes the dispositions of "like" and "dislike," "pleasure" and "displeasure," "attraction" and "aversion." With respect to the divine affections, there is indeed movement, change, and transition. When a sinner transitions from a "child of wrath" to a "child of God," there is a corresponding movement in the divine affection.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> So you distinguish "gospel conversation," which you elsewhere reference as a godly lifestyle giving Phil. 1:27 as your text, and you distinguish it from "evangelism." However, the text Alexander is commenting on describes the activity of the "all believers" as *euangelizomenoi ton logon*, i.e., proclaiming the good news. So apparently, *neither Alexander nor Luke are so careful so as to limit the term "evangelism" to the ordained preacher.*



Alexander specifically says, "not to preaching in the technical or formal sense." Your authority does not say what you want him to.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I'm not sure I agree with Kuiper's distinction either. What I do agree with, however, is that the NT identifies both ordained and non-ordained believers as "agents of evangelism" (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 8:4; 1 Cor. 9:19-22; 11:1; 1 Thes. 1:8; 1 Pet. 2:9; 3:15).



Matt. 28 was spoken to apostles. Acts 8:4 is the text under discussion. 1 Cor. 9, the apostle specifically speaks of a "dispensation," and so distinguishes his "unwilling" service from ordinary service. 1 Thess 1:8 is as indeterminative as Acts 8:4. 1 Pet. 2:9, our esteemed brother Bill Brown has already shown the indicative force of this text, and that it is a matter of fact that the "holy nation" shows forth the praises of God by its bare existence as a special people. 1 Pet. 3:15 is the only text to your purpose, but it says nothing about evangelism, but is concerned with Christians being upright people so that the "answers" they give for the hope that they have might not be questioned on moral grounds.

In contrast to this specious evidence, we have the explicit testimony of Rom. 10, that one cannot preach except they be "sent." As we read in Ps. 62:

God hath it spoken once to me,
yea this I heard again,
that power to Almighty God
alone doth appertain.

To this might be added numerous other Scriptures as supporting testimony, which all draw attention to the fact that preachers of the gospel are a distinct company within the church, who are to be supported by the prayers and financial assistance of the body of the church.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Job's friends had a wooden view of God's retribution that left no room for mystery. I believe your argument against the free and sincere offer of the gospel is tainted by the same tendencies. However, it's unfair of me to make a judgment about the position you're espousing without citing examples. So I apologize. If time permits, I may write a critique of your views and forward it to you.



As said, your statement lacks cogency. If, as you believe, this is a matter of mystery, there is no place for making express assertions concerning the essential nature of God. You have no explicit scriptual testimony for the opinion you advance, you claim it is a matter of mystery, and yet you make inferences from scriptural statements which were not intended to address this issue. Mystery demands silence, not presumptive assertions.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> human emotivity was made to analogue divine emotivity. Thus, human emotions (inasmuch as they are not tainted with sin) are _theopathic analogues_ of divine emotivity.



Your error lies in not accounting for the *analogical* relationship between Creator and creature, notwithstanding the fact that you use the term. If one accurately considers what an analogue is, it will be seen that there is no basis for making an univocal deduction concerning God on the basis of human emotivity. There is an ontological disconnect between Creator and creature, so that one can appeal to being men of like passions with his fellows as a reason why he should not be worshipped as God, Acts 14:15.

I pass by Don Carson's statement because he fails to account for this love passing knowledge, and therefore ignores the important reformed distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

I would like to see those who dissent from the "indiscriminate offer of the gospel" quotes that Dr. Gonzales posted respond to them. I'm interested to see if there is a rebuttle, even if its "I don't think John Calvin was reformed enough". Just curious.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Alexander specifically says, "not to preaching in the technical or formal sense." Your authority does not say what you want him to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very well. Then according to Alexander and Luke the Greek term "to evangelize" may have a non-technical sense and be predicated of the verbal communication of laypeople, which is the point I've been belaboring.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with Kuiper's distinction either. What I do agree with, however, is that the NT identifies both ordained and non-ordained believers as "agents of evangelism" (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 8:4; 1 Cor. 9:19-22; 11:1; 1 Thes. 1:8; 1 Pet. 2:9; 3:15).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matt. 28 was spoken to apostles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. Jesus promised his special presence for this task "until the end of the age." No living apostles today. Ergo: commission not limited to apostles, given to entire church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 8:4 is the text under discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. See my comments above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Cor. 9, the apostle specifically speaks of a "dispensation," and so distinguishes his "unwilling" service from ordinary service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument of 1 Corinthians 9, which speaks of Paul's self-denying burden to "gain souls" by any lawful means is continued through the end of chapter 10 up to 11:1: "Just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." Like Paul, the Corinthian believers were to have a self-denying burden for lost souls. Add to that the weight of the 6th commandment, and it would be sin for a Christian to knowingly watch souls plunge into eternal hell-fire because some theologian or preacher has told him he has no right to open his mouth and share the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Thess 1:8 is as undeterminative as Acts 8:4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a convenient way of dismissing the issue without addressing the exegesis I provided above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Pet. 2:9, our esteemed brother Bill Brown has already shown the indicative force of this text, and that it is a matter of fact that the "holy nation" shows forth the praises of God by its bare existence as a special people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agreed with Bill that the first part of the verse has indicative force: "you are ...." The second half, however, begins with a purpose marker (hopos) followed by the subjunctive verb, yielding the sense, "in order that you might proclaim the excellencies of God's redemptive grace." So God has redeemed these "living stones" for a purpose. That purpose is their God-assigned function or duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Pet. 3:15 is the only text to your purpose, but it says nothing about evangelism, but is concerned with Christians being upright people so that the "answers" they give for the hope that they have might not be questioned on moral grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The passage does enjoin Christians to be "upright people," aka, "In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord." But it says more. The are also commanded to be "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." So Christians are enjoined to "speak," not just "live out" the faith. Moreover, what kind of answer are they to provide the questioning unbeliever? As I've noted earlier, Peter's not enjoining them to provide a general apologetic for some kind of theistic worldview. The "hope that is in you" is a reference to their gospel hope. Therefore, Christian laypeople should be equipped by pastor-teachers (Eph. 4:11) to do the work of ministry (Eph. 4:12), which includes testifying of their gospel hope to unbelievers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In contrast to this specious evidence, we have the explicit testimony of Rom. 10, that one cannot preach except they be "sent." As we read in Ps. 62.... To this might be added numerous other Scriptures as supporting testimony, which all draw attention to the fact that preachers of the gospel are a distinct company within the church, who are to be supported by the prayers and financial assistance of the body of the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brother, as I've tried to reiterate more than once, I'm not a leveller, and I do recognize the distinction between an officer of the church assigned with the special task to labor in the word and doctrine and the laity who are not assigned that special task. What I've demonstrated is that the Scriptures do not limit the term _kerusso_ or _euangelizomai_ to that special office. These expressions may be used in a non-technical or non-official sense. That does not mean, however, that they are deprived of their basic meaning of verbal communication.
> 
> Perhaps I'm just misreading you. Perhaps you really do believe that the saints are free and even to some degree obliged according to their level of maturity and knowledge to share with perishing souls the good news of Jesus Christ. Do you affirm this? Or do you rather argue that the common believer has neither right nor obligation to tell the good news when providence grants opportunity?
> 
> Matthew, I don't want to engage in a needless war over words. I am concerned, however, with what I perceive to be a kind of overemphasis on the distinction between the clergy and laity as well as a hyper-Calvinism. Calvinist are often accused of lacking compassion for the lost and evangelistic fervor. Reformed congregations have sometimes been depicted with such epithets as "the frozen chosen." I don't believe the God I serve has a frozen heart toward the lost. I don't want to have one either, nor do I desire to inculcate an ungodly apathy in my people. I hope that you, as an ordained minister of the gospel are doing "the work of an evangelist." And I hope you, like Paul, encourage your people to imitate you--at least in ways that are suited to their respective gifts and callings as laypeople.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

ManleyBeasley said:


> I would like to see those who dissent from the "indiscriminate offer of the gospel" quotes that Dr. Gonzales posted respond to them. I'm interested to see if there is a rebuttle, even if its "I don't think John Calvin was reformed enough". Just curious.



I don't think anyone here denies the indiscriminate offer of Christ to all that hear the gospel. The only element rejected is the idea that God desires the salvation of all to whom the gospel comes. As salvation is provided in the death of Jesus Christ alone, to say that God desires the salvation of all is tantamount to declaring that God gave Jesus Christ to die the death of sinners with a desire of saving every sinner, elect and reprobate alike. Nothing more need be said in order to show the unreformed nature of this tenet.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> As said, your statement lacks cogency. If, as you believe, this is a matter of mystery, there is no place for making express assertions concerning the essential nature of God. You have no explicit scriptual testimony for the opinion you advance, you claim it is a matter of mystery, and yet you make inferences from scriptural statements which were not intended to address this issue. Mystery demands silence, not presumptive assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I've been quite vocal about both God's sovereign decree and his sincere indiscriminate invitation to sinners. What I'm willing to be silent about is attempting to offer a perfectly satisfactory explanation of how these two biblical truths cohere. I affirm that they cohere in God's supralogical mind. But my finite logic cannot put its arms around the entirety of God's ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> human emotivity was made to analogue divine emotivity. Thus, human emotions (inasmuch as they are not tainted with sin) are _theopathic analogues_ of divine emotivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your error lies in not accounting for the *analogical* relationship between Creator and creature, notwithstanding the fact that you use the term. If one accurately considers what an analogue is, it will be seen that there is no basis for making an univocal deduction concerning God on the basis of human emotivity. There is an ontological disconnect between Creator and creature, so that one can appeal to being men of like passions with his fellows as a reason why he should not be worshipped as God, Acts 14:15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, my use of analogical was purposeful. I deny a univocal identification of divine and human emotivity. But analogical does entail intelligible correspondence. We can know what God is like and what he feels by observing human actions and emotivity:
> Can a woman forget her nursing child, And not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely they may forget, Yet I will not forget you. (Isaiah 49:15)​ In case you're tempted to say that God is actually contrasting himself with human mothers, let me point out that the contrast assumes a point of continuity--mothers normally have compassion on their children. God's compassion is analogous in kind but exceeds in its unchanging commitment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pass by Don Carson's statement because he fails to account for this love passing knowledge, and therefore ignores the important reformed distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "passing knowledge" does not mean we can't no anything about it. Otherwise, Paul would be saying, "The ----- of God passes knowledge." We can understand something about God's love by looking at human love. But we can't fully sound its depths.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Very well. Then according to Alexander and Luke the Greek term "to evangelize" may have a non-technical sense and be predicated of the verbal communication of laypeople, which is the point I've been belaboring.



You have been advocating the technical term, "evangelism," not simply the propagation of the truth.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I disagree. Jesus promised his special presence for this task "until the end of the age." No living apostles today. Ergo: commission not limited to apostles, given to entire church.



Ergo: all may baptize, contrary to reformed ecclesiology. Clearly the commission given to the apostles is carried on by those who are ordained to their ordinary function of "preaching." As already noted, the whole church has a vested interest in this commission, but it is carried out by men set apart for the function, just as the apostles were.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> The argument of 1 Corinthians 9, which speaks of Paul's self-denying burden to "gain souls" by any lawful means is continued through the end of chapter 10 up to 11:1: "Just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." Like Paul, the Corinthian believers were to have a self-denying burden for lost souls. Add to that the weight of the 6th commandment, and it would be sin for a Christian to knowingly watch souls plunge into eternal hell-fire because some theologian or preacher has told him he has no right to open his mouth and share the gospel.



11:1 has brought the lesson back to not causing offence either within or without the church. I don't know any sound preacher who would tell a believer to keep quiet about his faith at the expense of another's eternal damnation.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Brother, as I've tried to reiterate more than once, I'm not a leveller, and I do recognize the distinction between an officer of the church assigned with the special task to labor in the word and doctrine and the laity who are not assigned that special task. What I've demonstrated is that the Scriptures do not limit the term _kerusso_ or _euangelizomai_ to that special office. These expressions may be used in a non-technical or non-official sense. That does not mean, however, that they are deprived of their basic meaning of verbal communication.



Your presentation has every believer doing evangelism, whereas the Scriptures emphasise this as an official function. Your view makes evangelism unaccountable, and leads to the mess which the modern church finds itself in today, where every one does what is right in his own eyes.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Perhaps I'm just misreading you. Perhaps you really do believe that the saints are free and even to some degree obliged according to their level of maturity and knowledge to share with perishing souls the good news of Jesus Christ. Do you affirm this? Or do you rather argue that the common believer has neither right nor obligation to tell the good news when providence grants opportunity?



I have already made my position clear. You are free to dissent from it, but you ought not to misrepresent it.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Matthew, I don't want to engage in a needless war over words. I am concerned, however, with what I perceive to be a kind of overemphasis on the distinction between the clergy and laity as well as a hyper-Calvinism.



Your concerns are no doubt an expression of your theological views. As I have no respect for your divergence from historic reformed thought, your pejorative use of terms like clericalism and hyper-calvinism bear no weight with me.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> I don't think anyone here denies the indiscriminate offer of Christ to all that hear the gospel. The only element rejected is the idea that God desires the salvation of all to whom the gospel comes. As salvation is provided in the death of Jesus Christ alone, to say that God desires the salvation of all is tantamount to declaring that God gave Jesus Christ to die the death of sinners with a desire of saving every sinner, elect and reprobate alike. Nothing more need be said in order to show the unreformed nature of this tenet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, many of the Reformed authors I cited above not merely affirmed an "offer" or "invitation," which, according to your way of thinking, could have contain any wish or desire that the offer be accepted, but they also affirmed God's sincere desire to show mercy in the invitation proffered. Read Robert Lewis Dabney's, "God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy As Related to His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity" I could paste other excerpts from the citations above. Surely you're not intending to defrock from the Reformed faith a host of Reformed pastors and theologians who disagree with you. Do you?
> 
> Actually, I'll be fair and concede that there have been pastors and theologians within the Reformed tradition that share your views. I don't believe their denial of God's sincere intention beyond his offers of mercy is healthy for the Reformed church. Quite frankly, I think such a position is what gives Calvinism and Reformed theology a bad name--and rightly so!
> 
> So, is it "unreformed" to believe in the free and sincere offer of the gospel? Then so be it. I'm not afraid to take the mantle of unreformed. My primary allegiance is to Christ and the Scriptures and only secondarily to my Reformed confession and heritage. I think this makes me very much like Luther and Calvin and is actually consistent with my own Confession I, 10.
> 
> The hour is late and I must rest my weary eyes. Matthew, it's been a pleasure discussing these matters with you. I'll pray for you. You pray for me. And may the Lord be pleased to guide us into all truth.
> 
> Good night,
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Quite frankly, I think such a position is what gives Calvinism and Reformed theology a bad name--and rightly so!



I fully agree; it gives Calvinism a bad name in the Arminian world. Of course, if faithfulness to Christ were first and foremost, the scandal of reformed theology would not pose such a problem.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> So, is it "unreformed" to believe in the free and sincere offer of the gospel? Then so be it.



No, the free and sincere offer of the gospel is that which is taught in reformed theology; see Larger Catechism, answer 32. It is the pathological and humanistic beggary of the gospel which is unreformed.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Actually, I've been quite vocal about both God's sovereign decree and his sincere indiscriminate invitation to sinners. What I'm willing to be silent about is attempting to offer a perfectly satisfactory explanation of how these two biblical truths cohere. I affirm that they cohere in God's supralogical mind. But my finite logic cannot put its arms around the entirety of God's ways.



If this were the case there would be no speculation of unfulfilled desires in God, a tenet quite clearly contradicted by express scripture testimony, Ps. 115:3; Eph. 1:11, in concert with the whole flow of redemptive history and theology.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Yes, my use of analogical was purposeful. I deny a univocal identification of divine and human emotivity. But analogical does entail intelligible correspondence. We can know what God is like and what he feels by observing human actions and emotivity:



At this point you come closest to a proper use of the word analogue, where you correctly ascribe the correspondence to consist in intelligence. However, when you insist human emotivity must correspond to divine emotivity, you go beyond scriptural testimony.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> The "passing knowledge" does not mean we can't no anything about it. Otherwise, Paul would be saying, "The ----- of God passes knowledge." We can understand something about God's love by looking at human love. But we can't fully sound its depths.



It is a condescension on God's part to provide dimensions whereby we may grasp what in its own nature is infinite and beyond human comprehension; but we should always acknowledge that what we comprehend is not God Himself, but God as revealed in the perfect image of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> No, the free and sincere offer of the gospel is that which is taught in reformed theology; see Larger Catechism, answer 32. It is the pathological and humanistic beggary of the gospel which is unreformed.




Could you explan that fuller?


----------



## ManleyBeasley

armourbearer said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see those who dissent from the "indiscriminate offer of the gospel" quotes that Dr. Gonzales posted respond to them. I'm interested to see if there is a rebuttle, even if its "I don't think John Calvin was reformed enough". Just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone here denies the indiscriminate offer of Christ to all that hear the gospel. The only element rejected is the idea that God desires the salvation of all to whom the gospel comes. As salvation is provided in the death of Jesus Christ alone, to say that God desires the salvation of all is tantamount to declaring that God gave Jesus Christ to die the death of sinners with a desire of saving every sinner, elect and reprobate alike. Nothing more need be said in order to show the unreformed nature of this tenet.
Click to expand...


Thats not at all what I'm saying. God gave His Son to pay for the elect with the intention of *ONLY* saving the elect. What I'm saying is that God desires the salvation of all in the narrow sense but desires something more in the wide sense; His glory displayed to the *GREATEST* degree. God may not delight in the death of the wicked as it stands alone but does delight in His glory above all things. That means He WILL do that which glorifies Him most which is damning the reprobate and saving the elect. It is His greater desire for His ultimate honor that trumps His benevolence that extends to all (even the reprobate). A world in which some are damned and some are elect to salvation gives Him the most possible glory. To sum up I will say, God loves the reprobate and doesn't want them to perish, *but loves His glory more*.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Dear Matthew,

I appreciate some of the things you've said in your last few posts, and I think that at least on some issues we might not be as far apart as it has seemed. I'd like to try to review some of your final comments and attempt to show where it appears that we're at least gaining greater clarity on some of the issues we've discussed. I also want to make some clarifying remarks that I hope will assure you and others of my great love for the Reformed tradition and full subscription to the 1689 Confession despite the fact that I believe that tradition and my Confession can be enlarged and enhanced. 

First, you seemed to acknowledge above that the laity may _propagate the truth of the gospel_. You prefer not to use the term "evangelize" to describe that activity. I agree that the Greek _euangelizomai_, like _kerusso_, normally carries a technical sense and describes the activity of specially commissioned gospel messengers. I have tried argue, on the basis of its use in Acts 8:4 that the term may also have a non-technical usage and therefore be used to predicate the activity of _ordinary believers propagating the truth_ in keeping with Alexander's interpretation. I do believe the activity invisioned is more than just _living a godly life_. It also includes the _communication of biblical truth_. But I think you agree. It appears that you just prefer to limit the word "evangelize" to its technical usage. I don't think that's the only way the NT writers use it. But I don't want to perpetuate an argument over terminology. You have, it seems, clearly affirmed that God's people may communicate the gospel provided that they have the doctrinal and spiritual maturity and the opportunity. Of course, all believers should be under the oversight of the church and the goal of sharing the gospel is not merely to press for decisions but to call for repentance and faith, to direct such individuals into a local church, to see them baptized by the pastor, added to the church, and taught the whole counsel of God. So I think, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not too far apart here. I'm not willing to make a big deal about the terminology though I should add that when applying the term "evangelism" to the laity, _I've never argued that it should be understood in the more technical sense in which it applies to the commissioned Evangelist_. 

Second, you first said the Great Commission was given to the apostles. I then countered by arguing that it was given to the "entire church." In your second response, you conceded, "the whole church has a vested interest in this commission," but then you added, "It is carried out by men set apart for the function." Once again, I don't think our differences are that great. I agree that the pastor-teacher has the "leading role," so to speak, in carrying out the Great Commission. It is primarily the pastor-teacher who does the official teaching and preaching in the church. Of course, the 1689 does allow for laymen to teach and preach in the church (ch. 26.11). So we do have laypeople teaching SS classes. On a few occasions we might have a young ministerial aspirant or gifted deacon preach a message. But for the most part, we limit the official function of preaching to the pastor-teachers. The same is true of baptism and the sacraments. I do think, however, that the activity of the Great Commission is larger than what takes place on the Lord's Day from the pulpit. I would also include, and I think you would too, all the prayers for the nations offered up in the family and private devotions of the church members. I would also include the work of the members inviting lost people to church as fulfilling a facet of the Great Commission. And when providence provides them with an opportunity to give an _apologia_ for the gospel hope within them to an unbeliever, I would include that under the umbrella of the Great Commission. In any case, I want to make it perfectly clear that I affirm both official and non-official facets of Christian ministry. The pastor-teacher equips the saints (official) so that the saints can do the work of ministry (non-official or non-technical) (Eph. 4:11-12). I don't expect you to agree with the way I've worded everything, but I hope that we're closer to a mutual understanding. 

Third, the initial question posed on this thread was whether the 17th century Reformed Confessions contained a sufficient articulation of the church's and Christian's role in reaching its own Jerusalem and the nations abroad with the gospel. I still think an extra paragraph in our confessions (perhaps in the section dealing with the doctrine of the church) would be useful. But as you and others have noted, the 17th century confessions do speak of "the ministry of the word," and evangelistic and missionary outreach may legitimately be inferred from that phrase. Though I think the phrase may be somewhat ambiguous to modern people today (especially outside the Reformed tradition) and it appears to limit the Great Commission to the ministry of the pastor-teacher or missionary, I do not want to disturb the peace. My purpose is not to be hyper-critical of our 17th century confessions. Nor have I in any way suggested that we discard them. _I myself fully subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith._ I can't think of any doctrine it teaches with which I take exception (except I'm not dogmatic the the Pope of Rome is "the" antichrist though I certainly affirm he is "an" antichrist). My concern in this thread has been to suggest that we continue to reform (_semper reformanda_) and when appropriate expand our Confessions to address areas that, for whatever reason, may not have been adequately addressed in the 17th century. In any case, I hope you won't doubt my love for and commitment to the Reformed faith as expressed in the 17th century confessions. Moreover, I am committed to _a confessional church_ (see my series "On the Value & Validity of Confessions of Faith," (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV). 

Finally, we've debated the question of the free offer of the gospel. In your 153rd post, you alluded to the Larger Catechism Q32, which affirms that God "freely provides and offers to sinners a mediator." Am I correct to assume that they meant "indiscriminately"? I should think so in light of the many Reformed pastors and theologians I cited above. Our point of disagreement seems to reside in the question of whether God's indiscriminate invitation (in the general call) carries with it *His sincere compassion for their needy condition* and _*unfeigned wish that they would turn from their sins and be saved*_. I affirm God does feel compassion for all men indiscriminately and sincerely wishes them to comply with his offer. Unless I'm misreading you, you're not comfortable with that language. Nor do you apparently agree that an indiscriminate desire on God's part for the salvation of sinners is demanded by the Catechism or the Scripture. 

Perhaps you are correct about the Catechism. I'm not a church historian, so I could not at this time make a case one way or the other as to the actually intent of the Larger Catechism's authors. Nevertheless, I do believe that some of the authors and theologians I cited above speak of more than a mere "free offer." They also seem to portray that offer as sincere, well-meaning, and even given with the divine wish (I'm trying to avoid the word "desire" that men will accept its terms. Again, I offer some excerpts:

Commenting on John 3:16, John Calvin asserts, "[God] nevertheless shows *He is favourable to the whole world* when He calls all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is indeed an entry into life.... *God does not want us to be overwhelmed in everlasting destruction*, for He has ordained His Son to be the Saviour of the world. According to George Swinnock, "The proposals of *divine mercy and love *are general and universal." Thomas Shepherd declares, "Whatever the secret purpose of Christ is, I regard not. In this evangelical dispensation of grace, *he makes love to all*." Thomas Chalmers avers, "No plan can be more injudicious, than to mix up the doctrine of election with the original overtures of the Gospel. *The doctrine of 'goodwill to men' will light up joy in all*, for all know they are men; but the doctrine of 'good will to the elect' will light up joy in none, for no man can tell at the outset whether he is elected or not. By implicating, as some theologians unwisely do, the final acceptance with the original offers of the Gospel." Horatio Bonar says, "We present to every sinner *a gracious welcome* to Christ, without any preliminary qualification whatsoever." William Shedd argues, "God offers Christ's sacrifice to every man, without exception, and assures him that if he will trust in it he shall be saved, and gives him common grace to help and encourage him to believe. *This is a proof that God loves his soul and desires its salvation*." Charles Spurgeon argues that the preacher should not merely offer the gospel freely to all but that his heart toward all needy sinners should reflect something of Christ's indiscriminate compassion: "Our souls are not stony; our bowels are not withdrawn from *the compassion which we ought to feel for our fellow-men*; we can hold all our views firmly, *and yet can weep as Christ did over a Jerusalem which was certainly to be destroyed*. Abraham Kuyper claims to speak for Reformed theology when he writes, "The Reformed theology insists that God Himself ... makes on the ground of the universally suitable and sufficient atonement *a most sincere, bona fide, offer of eternal life, not only to the elect but to all men, urgently invites them to life everlasting, and expresses the ardent desire that every person to whom this offer and this invitation come and accept and comply with the invitation*. Louis Berkhof describes God's disposition in the free offer when he affirms, "We believe that God *"unfeignedly,"* that is, *sincerely or in good faith*, calls all those who are living under the gospel to believe, and offers them salvation in the way of faith and repentance." 

Of course, I understand that you may take exception with the statements of these men as you have with Professor John Murray. Apparently, you affirm that the gospel should be offered indiscriminately but you do not believe we should portray God as sincerely desiring sinners to comply with its demands and to enjoy its blessings. You apparently believe this involves a logical contradiction in God's being. How can God decree anything that he doesn't desire? You also question the passages that depict God expressing his wish that sinners, who turn out to be reprobate, should turn from their sins, be forgiven, and serve him. The anthropomorphical (anthropopathical, to be more exact) language of these passages apparently prevents us from taking them too literally. We should refrain from seeing too much _correspondence_ between God's "wishing" and our "wishing." (By the way, notice that I use the term "correspondence" not univocation. But of course, correspondence assumes a great deal of likeness.) It's just God's "manner of speaking" in human language, which is finite, and which, therefore, really cannot convey what we as humans understand by the term "wish" or "desire." 

If I've misrepresented you, please forgive me. I'm not trying to caricature you position. I'm honestly trying to understand it. If I'm understanding it correctly, I don't agree with it, and I don't believe it represents the best of Reformed theology though I do acknowledge that some within the Reformed camp have entertained and propounded such views. Be that as it may, this is not a thread for debating the nature of the free offer of the gospel. I am willing to discuss that with you further in the future on a separate thread. 

I do want to close on a note of concilation and ask you to tell me if you think I've been disrespectful toward you in this discussion. If I have, I want to ask your forgiveness. I do not doubt that you are attempting to be faithful to what you believe God's word teaches. I genuinely appreciate that. Thank you for all the time and effort you've put into this thread. And may the Lord help us both to grow in our love for the Savior and knowledge of His word!

Sincerely yours,


----------



## Scott1

Not to sidetrack the discussion here, but only to note a couple observations. 

In order to understand the "five points" of Calvinism, one needs to understand that each doctrine is necessarily and logically related to and dependent on one another. 

When someone thinks himself as, for example, a "four point" Calvinist, he is not really understanding the full implication of the other points. It’s almost like saying, “Yes, I believe God is 80% sovereign,” when in reality, God is sovereign, and that is, by definition, 100%. 

Yet, there are many folks out there who, often because of not having had comprehensive explanation of this fashion themselves Calvinist or Reformed because they lean toward the sovereignty of God in salvation (something like God is 60%responsible for salvation whereas man is 40%). Yet, in reality, the limited atonement and unconditional election are as related to and dependent on the other points as much as are any of the other points. 

When the term "hyper-Calvinist" is used, it is usually with the implication that either:

1) The "five points" are not (all five) correct and 
2) If one does believe all five, there would be no reason to evangelize.

If one does understand and believe them, there is no basis at all to conclude #2 because God commanded that the Gospel be preached and all nations be discipled in those things He taught (cf Matthew 28:19,20). 

Why do "five point" Calvinist's evangelize? Because God said to. That should be enough, end of story. God requires of His creatures obedience. We do not control the results and should not represent or believe we do as God is absolutely, 100%, in control of who He chooses to regenerate.

But our God has chosen not only the ends, who He will redeem according to the good pleasure of His will, but the _means_ as well. He chooses to use the preaching of the Gospel as an ordinary means of bringing people to faith in Him. 

In my understanding, as God has ordained not only the ends of salvation but the means, that the Westminster Confession, taken as a whole, brings this out very well by declaring "what we are to believe about God."


----------



## NaphtaliPress

For those who may have missed the link previously (I did).


py3ak said:


> Here is a link to Mr. Winzer's article about John Murray and the free offer.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

*WCF Larger XV.1*

Evangelism is for Approved ministers under ordination of Elders in the Presbyterian form of Church government. The key reason for this, is that Proclaiming the Gospel is a VERY serious matter, and only those trained up and matured in it are to be the presenters of it.

The reason the Westminster "Divines" put the Confessions together, was to train up the Church in the way of the Gospel, and as members grew in the grace and knowledge of Christ, they would be either ordained by elders for missionary work, or to establish another Church elsewhere; though one would have to attend a Seminary for further studies, first.

Most of the time, the lost, would see the life of a believer, and question the believer, and the believer would answer cautiously as conscience allowed to the best of their knowledge and abilities (as we do today). The way of evangelism, the next step, would be to invite the unconverted to attend Church at the next meeting, so that, a trained and ordained minister could proplerly proclaim the truth. In other words, those trained in the WCF can and do proclaim the gospel, in life, words, and deeds; but the main focus of a Church Member is to get the unsaved to Church, where those most cabable could do the real work, of evangelisation, for public Scripture reading is delegated to those who are ordained by the Elders to present it (according to the WCF also).

All that just to say, it is taught by Scripture to preach the gospel, but, remember that one must KNOW what the gospel is, and how to present it...else one is preaching an incomplete (even a) false gospel. The WCF, especially the Larger Catechism is LONG and includes all that is sufficient for the life of those in the Church, and of course thouroughly outlines and explains what the Gospel is. In this way it is useful for evangelising also, and generally through the teachings of the ordained minister of the presbytery.

Hope I explained that all well enough...By the way, WCF XV.1 mentions presenting Repentance in the proclaimation of the Gospel, "by the minsiters", which in other places, especially about the use of Scripture, are those ordained to do so.


----------



## Herald

This thread has reached the end of its life expectancy.


----------



## MW

Although the thread has been closed I would like to make a final reply, not to add to what has already been said, but to express thankfulness to Dr. Bob Gonzales for his attempt to clarify where we agree.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> _I've never argued that it should be understood in the more technical sense in which it applies to the commissioned Evangelist_.



Thankyou, brother, for this clarification. Whether "evangelism" as a term should be applied to non-ordained activity, I think it is important to note that we agree (1.) all believers are called upon to confess/share their faith to others, and (2.) the preaching of the Word is an official function requiring accountability to church guides and overseers. Agreement on these twin truths means there is no place for the use of the words "clericalism" or "leveller."



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> The pastor-teacher equips the saints (official) so that the saints can do the work of ministry (non-official or non-technical) (Eph. 4:11-12). I don't expect you to agree with the way I've worded everything, but I hope that we're closer to a mutual understanding.



While I maintain this text teaches the pastor-teacher does the work of the ministry, nevertheless we agree that there are a variety of functions within the body of Christ, Rom. 12, and that all are to be motivated to minister according to their gift that the body might grow up into Christ the Head.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> _I myself fully subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith._



This is heart-warming to hear; and I encourage you to major on these majors which are outlined in the Confession, and to leave minor additions to a broader council when the Holy Spirit is pleased to bring us all to a greater unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I affirm God does feel compassion for all men indiscriminately and sincerely wishes them to comply with his offer. Unless I'm misreading you, you're not comfortable with that language.



That is correct. This would be a fundamental point of difference between us, but I also acknowledge it is a point of tension within modern "reformed" churches as a whole. Having absorbed much of the older Presbyterian literature it is my considered opinion that the "well-meant" offer is a small minority view in my tradition. Not even the Marrowmen employed the concept or terminology. The Presbyterian tradition by and large has been fully committed to the gospel of particular grace. Christ died with a desire to save His elect alone, and has charged His ministers to preach His death and offer Him indiscriminately to all men as the only way of salvation.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I do want to close on a note of concilation and ask you to tell me if you think I've been disrespectful toward you in this discussion.



I try to distinguish forceful rhetoric from intended disrespect, and I think we are both guilty of the former but not of the latter. As confessional Christians we should grant to each other the freedom to express our convictions with all the knowledge and utterance the Holy Spirit has given to us. The fact is, there are differences in the church today. I see no point in covering them over. We need to bring them out into the open and manfully though charitably discuss them because that is the only way, with God's blessing, that we will be able to resolve these differences. So I don't think you have anything which needs forgiving; and just in case I may have overstepped the lines of acceptable behaviour, please forgive me if I have wronged you in any way.

Blessings!


----------

