# Are Calvinists good evangelists?



## Jeremy (May 23, 2005)

I had a thread up a few minutes ago, but took it down because nobody responded. Maybe this is a better way to ask the question:

Are Calvininsts good evangelists? What I mean is do we tend to sit around and wait for God to bring people to us, or do we truly "go unto all the world and preach the gospel." Too many people who call themselves Calvinists (hyper-Calvinists) won't have anything to do with anyone outside their little group. They think their job is to sit there and let God bring people to them. After all, all the elect will come to Christ. Is that Biblical?

"...how shall they hear without a preacher?" "“Romans 10:14


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> Are Calvininsts good evangelists?



Calvinism has been at the heart of the greatest revivals in history.

Think of the greatest revival of all in church history: The Reformation
Were Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, etc. good evangelists?

Now think about the Great Awakening in 18th century America.
Was Jonathan Edwards a good evangelist?

How about Charles Spurgeon in the 19th century?

Nowdays we have Calvinists like R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and many others preaching the Gospel, including D. James Kennedy, who created the "Evangelism Explosion" materials which have been used to take the Gospel into over 200 countries.

Throughout history, Calvinists have had the drive to evangelize like no other, because we have the greatest goal of all. Arminians evangelize to save souls. Calvinists also evangelize to save souls, but more importantly they evangelize because it brings glory to God. And there is no greater motivation than that!

Our Sovereign God commanded us to "go into all nations" and preach the Gospel. If we are _really_ Calvinists, then we had better be about fulfilling our Sovereign Lord's command!!!


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 23, 2005)

Jeremy,
Calvinists whom sit back and wait are what I would consider, hyper calvinists at best. They are in grave error!

Calvinists are biblical evangelists. We are monergistic in our approach. The Arminian is in error. The gospel they present is synergistic. That said, we are the one's actually fulfilling the command of Christ.

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Jeremy (May 23, 2005)

Scott,

I'm not sure what monergism and synergism is. Can you explain?

J


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The Arminian is in error. The gospel they present is synergistic. That said, we are the one's actually fulfilling the command of Christ.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> Scott,
> 
> I'm not sure what monergism and synergism is. Can you explain?
> ...



Monergism --- God alone effects my salvation.

Synergism --- God and I work together to bring about my salvation.


----------



## Jeremy (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> Monergism --- God alone effects my salvation.
> ...



Thanks. I can see how the latter is heretical. Can you give me examples of a synergistic gospel message?


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



Example:
God saw me choosing Him outside of time; that is why He elected me.

Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel writes:



> ""¦you could go to the race tracks with this kind of knowledge (foreknowledge). Imagine what you could do, having foreknowledge knowing every horse what he was going to do in that race and you would go to the race track with this kind of knowledge. Now if you could do you think you would go there and pick out a ticket of losers? I don't know what you do at racetracks. Would you pick out a bunch of losers? You would be stupid if you did. Of course you wouldn't you would pick the winners, because you know in advance who is going to win the race. What the outcome is going to be. And so you make your choices predicated on what the outcome is because you already know in advance what it is going to be. That is just using your head. Now that is what thrills me about God choosing me ... God already knows the choice you are going to make. But you are the one that makes the choice, but God in all of His wisdom, knows the choices each person is going to make. But He doesn't make the choice for you. He only knows in advance, that which you are going to choose. " http://calvarychapel.com/library/smith-chuck/studies-books/00-ALL-1979/5275.htm



[Edited on 5-24-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Robin (May 23, 2005)

Jeremy,

Other examples of synergistic-styled "sermons" is anything emphasizing a "to do" list; "ten steps to a better xxxx"; or teaching the Sermon on the Mount like it's about us striving to "do xxx" (like we actually CAN); then leaving out Christ's completed work - and any informatin about the cross, resurrection. 

This formula implies that we must "do xyz" to reach higher levels of blessing; holiness --- then God will prefer us more. 

Another example is the navel-gazing cliche's like ---- "God loved me so much that he did xyz"....

Robin

[Edited on 5-24-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Robin (May 23, 2005)

Yikes! I just read your Chuck Smith entry, Scott.

Chuck is SO wrong about "calling".....Paul does *NOT* mean vocation....Paul is talking about the "ordu salutis" -- "calling" to Paul, always means how we are saved. !!!

"calling and election" .... get it? (I'm sure you do.)

How sad and scary to see (in writing) such terrible exegesis by a pastor of a prominant denomination.

R. 

PS. Actually, thank you, Scott...we should take note of how dangerous misunderstanding "calling" as expressed by Paul can be.

[Edited on 5-24-2005 by Robin]


----------



## turmeric (May 23, 2005)

Most modern "crusades" are synergistic - the idea being to get the unconverted to make a decision and demonstrate that by "coming forward" or signing a card or raising their hand, you know, the "every head bowed & every eye closed, yes, I see that hand, thank you" nonsense.

This has been a recent (late 19th Century) thing, with newer & better techniques to elicit decisions all the time. It's based on false assumptions about our ability to choose God. It's not that preaching to crowds is wrong, it's the pressure to make a decision now," after all you might die on the way home tonight." If you're elect, you'll live to respond to the Gospel. It's up to God not us.

It's more important to give the message, correctly, as many times as necessary to be understood, leaving the results to God, than to push for immediate decisions.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 24, 2005)

Oh brothers and sisters, how can you resist such a love as this? God has done everything he can possibly do for you. He sent his only son to die for you. What more can he do? He has done his part now won't you do yours?

See him there on the front porch watching the horizon for you. Crying and pleading and begging, "Come home my child!".

See his son hanging on the cross, watching and waiting for you to come - bloodied and beaten, wondering "Was it all for nothing????"

He's done this all for you because he thinks your special. Will you reject this love. Come, accept his son as your personal Lord and savior by saying this simple prayer. (Insert sinners prayer here)

Now you're saved and don't let anyone ever tell you you're not.

(If this doesn't work, lock the back doors and start telling the saddest stories in the world - orphanages catching fire, puppies dying or my favorite, the switchman whose little son wandered onto the tracks and the switchman had to decide between saving his only little boy or the train full of people. That's the best to get the tears flowing. If that doesn't get em walking the aisle I don't know what!)

Or this was a great one.
The devil has cast a vote and God has cast his, now it's up to you to cast the deciding vote!

Ahhhhh, thanks for the walk down memory lane. Ugh!!!!!!!


----------



## BobVigneault (May 24, 2005)

God can accomplish evangelism through a donkey if it pleases him. The question is not what is evangelism or who can do it, the question is how can we evangelize and be true to the truth of scripture? How can we share the gospel, the true gospel, and still maintain that God is sovereign in salvation.

Wesley was a great man but he did cast some shadows over the glory of God by making man sovereign in salvation. Finney took the next step and turned evangelism into a marketing campaign. Unfortunately, Finney's method has carried the day. It's all about marketing and hawking Jesus today.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> Arminians make good evangelists as well... Wesleys, Tozer, Fletcher, Chadwick, etc...


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 24, 2005)

> It's all about marketing and hawking Jesus today.


----------



## kceaster (May 24, 2005)

Bob,

I was almost ready to make a decision. But just like Agrippa...

I hope this doesn't get too close to hyper-calvinism, but, as our Sovereign God appoints, so we must do. Eph. 2:10 says that He created work for us beforehand that we should walk in. But there are two sides to that. 1. The Bible is full of things to occupy our time, i.e. walk circumspectly, take up our cross, be transformed in the renewing of the mind, always be ready to give an answer, be at peace with everyone. Sometimes we're looking for a program when we really ought to just live. If our worldview and our lifestyle reflected the love of Christ and the grace of God, no program in the world, as dynamic and appealing as some of these are, will substitute. 2. God really does expect us to make the most of the opportunities He gives us. Just like putting Philip in the path of the eunuch, God puts us in the way of others so that we might be His witnesses.

But this is one of those classic examples of pitting God's sovereignty against man's responsibility. Those who see God as moving the pieces of the board and ordering men's lives like a scene from "Clash of the Titans," usually ignore the many things God has told us to be doing. But Calvinism does not sum up the imperatives of Scripture once our minds are illumined to the doctrines of the Bible. We aren't to bask in God's sovereignty so as to build a tabernacle there. God's sovereignty and His ordering of things, should drive us to seek out the opportunities to share the gospel so that we never miss a chance to bring glory to His name.

To me, those who take the hyper road are those who dip their toes in the pool, but wait for God to push them in. But what they fail to realize is that Calvin did cannonballs! Why? Because the Word of God is living, a two edged sword. Those who wait for God to prompt them when it is time, are missing the Scriptures that say that today is the day.

All it takes is living before God. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 24, 2005)

"...Calvin did cannonballs!"


----------



## BobVigneault (May 24, 2005)

> To me, those who take the hyper road are those who dip their toes in the pool, but wait for God to push them in. But what they fail to realize is that Calvin did cannonballs!



That is a word picture that will have me chuckling all day Kevin. That funny hat and bermuda shorts ......SPLASH!!!! 

Those were some terrific thoughts too. Thank you Kevin, blessings.


----------



## D Battjes (May 24, 2005)

The question you ask is because of the stereotype those who hold to the Doctrines of Grace have been scared with. 

Now let us stay focused because it is a good question. Let us not do this please:

Are calvinists good evangelists? Arminians are heretic scum and wrong!!

What answer is that Scott? This is the first on line board I have joined, but surfing a few for a while, I find this response predominant everywhere. 

That said, I will address the question at hand.

We do not know the secret council, decrees of God. We are to proclaim Christ as Savior of His sheep throughout the world. This has been done by many, who have been called Hyper Cals also. Gill, Crisp, Huntington, Hoeksema, Englesema, are examples of this.

The problem is the "well meant offer". Even if one denies this, they still should not deny evangelizing the Lord to people. When one becomes obsessed with saving souls, he misses the path. 

I am always teased by friends who ask me if the PRC has signs in front of their churches. Or does God just mysteriously lead them there.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D Battjes_
> The question you ask is because of the stereotype those who hold to the Doctrines of Grace have been scared with.
> 
> Now let us stay focused because it is a good question. Let us not do this please:
> ...



If you are going to quote me, please be accurate. Is Arminianism heresy? 




> This is the first on line board I have joined, but surfing a few for a while, I find this response predominant everywhere.



The reason it is predominant here is because we, like God, are assaulted at the idea of synergism. 



> That said, I will address the question at hand.
> 
> We do not know the secret council, decrees of God. We are to proclaim Christ as Savior of His sheep throughout the world. This has been done by many, who have been called Hyper Cals also. Gill, Crisp, Huntington, Hoeksema, Englesema, are examples of this.
> 
> ...



Hypers are known for not evangelizing; these are the one's I was referencing. As far as everyone else, if it is not the biblical gospel, it is worthless.


----------



## D Battjes (May 24, 2005)

> If you are going to quote me, please be accurate. Is Arminianism heresy?



The point I was making is your response was not even in the question at hand. Unless I am missing it, I can not find even a hint of the original thread asking you to comment on calvinist vs arminianist evangelists. So I will quote as I see fit.




> The reason it is predominant here is because we, like God, are assaulted at the idea of synergism.



Well and good Scott. But again, it was not in the original question 



> Hypers are known for not evangelizing; these are the one's I was referencing. As far as everyone else, if it is not the biblical gospel, it is worthless.




What hypers though? I have heard this, but find very little evidence. It is all from 3rd party calminians dressed up as calvinists.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Jeremy,
> Calvinists whom sit back and wait are what I would consider, hyper calvinists at best. They are in grave error!
> 
> Calvinists are biblical evangelists. We are monergistic in our approach. The Arminian is in error. The gospel they present is synergistic. That said, we are the one's actually fulfilling the command of Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 24, 2005)

D.M.
It was an accurate answer to the question. jeremy asked were Calvinists good evangelists. In retrospect, the other option is one whom is NOT a Calvinist, i.e. the Arminian. Based upon that, I responded in like manner. The evangelist IS the Calvinist as we are the one's whom expound a biblical gospel. Whether we are seen as lackadaisical is left to God alone. Compared with the evanjellyfishes, we look fatigued. But they are not preaching a true gospel.

[Edited on 5-24-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## D Battjes (May 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> D.M.
> It was an accurate answer to the question. jeremy asked were Calvinists good evangelists. In retrospect, the other option is one whom is NOT a Calvinist, i.e. the Arminian. Based upon that, I responded in like manner. The evangelist IS the Calvinist as we are the one's whom expound a biblical gospel. Whether we are seen as lackadaisical is left to God alone. Compared with the evanjellyfishes, we look fatigued. But they are not preaching a true gospel.
> 
> [Edited on 5-24-2005 by Scott Bushey]




And I most certainly agree Scott that those who preach the doctrines of Grace will be motivated to reach the elect. But I disagree that hypers as a rule do not evangelize at all.

DM


----------



## Jeremy (May 24, 2005)

I tend to stereotype. The only real hypers I know are my neighbors. I'm not sure if it would offend anyone for me to single them out, but I'm not using names.

For example, the father is the pastor of their church, and the congregation is his wife & kids and their wives/children...period. A total of about 13 people. I have spoken with him before about reaching out to people and he said they just wouldn't be interested in his type of theology(reformed). "People today are looking for entertainment, they don't want the truth." he says. So he uses that as an excuse to not evangelize. He told me they have no fellowship with unbelievers, the "liberal" church or anyone else that is outside their denomination (ARP). Is there anything I can do to get through to him?

p.s. I don't "fellowship" with unbelievers or liberals either, but in context he was basically telling me he doesn't even want to have anything to do with them in any way shape or form. Is this extreme?


----------



## D Battjes (May 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> I tend to stereotype. The only real hypers I know are my neighbors. I'm not sure if it would offend anyone for me to single them out, but I'm not using names.
> 
> For example, the father is the pastor of their church, and the congregation is his wife & kids and their wives/children...period. A total of about 13 people. I have spoken with him before about reaching out to people and he said they just wouldn't be interested in his type of theology(reformed). "People today are looking for entertainment, they don't want the truth." he says. So he uses that as an excuse to not evangelize. He told me they have no fellowship with unbelievers, the "liberal" church or anyone else that is outside their denomination (ARP). Is there anything I can do to get through to him?
> ...



May I ask why you consider them hypers? The fellowshipping issue is not a reason to label them that. The term has been perverted to mean what it never inteded to mean. JW's are not to fellowship with those outside of bethel. And they are not calvinists.

I myself am a High Grace believer. Could I be labeled a hyper? I have been by a few. Though it matters little to me. I will repeat, there are more Calminians today that Calvinists. Even the Doctrines of grace have been polluted with the muck of modern day churchianity.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 24, 2005)

DM,
A good example of a hyper is: 
http://www.outsidethecamp.org

Can you tell me what is a "high grace believer"?

:bigsmile:

[Edited on 5-24-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Jeremy (May 24, 2005)

Scott,

That website was interesting.

"We will not fellowship with anyone who we know opposes at least one of the doctrines contained in this Confession. We will not endorse, promote, or be a part of any church, religious group, missionary work, or denomination that we know (1) opposes at least one of the doctrines contained in this Confession or (2) has at least one member who opposes at least one of the doctrines contained in this Confession."

Gimme a break.

So I guess their way of evangelizing is to sit in their cave and let God do the work He's called us to do. We would just get in the way. There's no need to go into all the world and preach the gospel as Jesus commanded I guess.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 24, 2005)

I guess we can safely qualify these lunatics as _hypers_, no?


----------



## Jeremy (May 24, 2005)

Scott,

I should say so.

DM,

They are hyper-Calvinistic in that they are so seperatistic. They think that they should just sit on the side-lines and let God do the evangelism without a preacher. The only problem with that is that we are called to spread the message. We plant and water, and God gives the increase. God is sovereign, but we are called to be prudent.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Jenson,
The bible is clear; we will know them by their fruits.........have you perused the site? Please look it over. The Christian community at large knows that 'Bain and Carpenter" are on the fringe. Ther hall of heteroorthodoxy is ridiculous:

They consider these men anathema:

Louis Berkhof

Loraine Boettner

Horatius Bonar

Thomas Boston

John Calvin

Thomas Chalmers

Gordon Clark

David Gay

A.A. Hodge

Charles Hodge

Richard Mouw

John Murray & Ned Stonehouse

J. I. Packer

A.W. Pink

John Reisinger

Robert Schuller & Billy Graham

Charles H. Spurgeon 

~In fact, if you personally _talk_ to any Arminians, you can add yourself to this list (as far as they are concerned).

If they are bought w/ the blood of Christ, they will in turn repent and abandon their false belief sysytem.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> Actually I DID look at their site... quite sad, to consider the wrath and anger of God and very little (if any) about the love of God for sinners. The more alarming note is their view of salvation where the sinner is NOT encouraged to close in with Christ.
> 
> "lunatics"? I would not use that term to describe the group....



I most definately see it as _lunacy_ when you say Calvin is not a Christian!

my 2 cents


----------



## turmeric (May 25, 2005)

They want you to close with the 5 points!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 25, 2005)

On the free offer see the Murray essay at: http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Offer.html

There is also a contemporary consideration of some of these issues in David VanDrunen, ed. Pattern of Sound Words (Phllipsburg: P&R, 2004).

See also Westm. Shorter Cat. 88 and Heidelberg Catechism 65. The way God has ordained to call elect sinners to saving faith in Christ is the preaching of the gospel (Rom 10). 

According to the Synod of Dort, in Gospel preaching God makes a "serious" offer (yes, they taught an OFFER, not just a command) to all. Only the elect will believe, however. 

Our business and divine vocation is to preach the law in all its terror (first use) and then preach the gospel sweetly, offering salvation to all who believe; calling, inviting all who will, to trust (see Heidelberg Catechism 21) in Christ alone and in his finished work for righteousness and life (HC 60). We can and must do this in confidence because God sovereignly calls his elect to faith through the "foolishness of preaching" (1 Cor 2).

This is what historic Reformed preaching has always done. We do evangelism every Sabbath, when we preach the good news, from all across the history of redemption, that Christ died for sinners and was raised for the justification of all his people. 

God prepares, as it were, his elect for the gospel by reading the law in the liturgy and we do evangelism when we announce the declaration of pardon (absolution) to the congregation, that all who have true faith are right with God sola gratia, sola fide, solo Christo. There are presumably unbelievers in every congregation (all of them being mixed) who need to hear the gospel. 

Should Reformed folk be trained and encouraged to give *private*, unofficial, witness to their trust in and confession of Christ? Absolutely! 

Is that the *primary* mode of evangelism? Contrary to popular, egalitarian, evangelical opinion, no. 

The public, official, ordained proclamation of the gospel is the means of grace ordained by God to call his elect to faith.

General officers (as distinct from those who hold special office) are to be ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within them. They fall under the pattern of John 9. Remember the man born blind and his parents. They, the parents, refused to give witness, and come under the evangelist's scorn. This story was almost certainly intended as instruction and warning to the early church, and to us, that we who were born blind (Eph 2) ought to be able at least to say, "I was blind, but now I see." 

Are the Reformed noted for their evangelism? No, but is it a bum rap? Yes. We are often criticized, in effect, for not preaching like Arminians and acting like egalitarian evangelicals. Well, we are not either of those.

Remember that there are about 500,000 confessional Reformed folk in North America. If we all started knocking on 500,000 doors simultaneously in the USA, no one would notice. As an EE trainer (I now regard it as individualized revivalism) I've knocked on lots of doors, made lots of phone calls, handed out lots of flyers. 

I do know, however, that there are legions of faithful in Reformed conjugations in North American and across the world who give witness to their faith as they have opportunity and who pray faithfully for the spread of the gospel through its official, faithful, proclamation from pulpits. 

rsc


----------



## Myshkin (May 25, 2005)

I think Arminian evangelism is more about making converts, than it is about making disciples of Christ. And for the most part, not even converts to Christ, but converts to their local ministry, denomination, political/cultural work or something else. In this respect I have trouble considering this arminianism, but rather pelagianism or unbelief carried out by social clubs that use biblical language. The relationship of Whitefiied and Wesley keep me from throwing the arminian name around on those who evangelize like this. Some are unbelievers doing "work for God', but I also think some if not many are true genuine believers who are being brainwashed by those ministers who flood them with guilt and duty, something a newborn does not have the ability to discern yet and so demands our patience with them. I know this was my case, and the Lord brought me out, not by my stronger intellectual ability or own desire, but by the gift of His Spirit illuminating me through the work of a reformed believer who took time to teach and disciple me. If he had not broken the stereotype of "reformed do not evangelize", I would not be here today.

It is a shame when you pray the prayer, sign the card, walk the line, etc., most are never followed up with again. They are just left to themselves to figure out the rest. This was my experience, and it has been a painful, drawn out recovery, even 9 years later. I think this gospel "hit-and-run" tactic is analogous to abandoning a newborn in an alley or a dumpster. "Welcome to new life, but I am sorry, you are on your own now." Thankfully, God used a radio ministry to show me the reformed faith through RC Sproul. If it weren't for that, I would have been lost, because as a new believer I had no idea who or where to turn. I think there is a tendency in arminian and reformed circles, in different forms, to assume that regeneration = perfect knowledge. "Once youre saved, you'll figure it all out on your own; if you don't its probably because you aren't regenerate you intellectually inferior idiot." It is through this that I have learned that sin is a moral issue of the heart/will, not one of academic inability. Gnosticism has reared its ugly head in our day, and it has left no denomination untouched.

All this to me says more about the reasons arminians evangelize than it does their theology: 
1. number of conversions = "success" denominationally and in personal signs for assurance of salvation, 
2. guilt that if someone goes to hell it is their fault for not sharing the gospel with them. 
3. evangelism is THE mark of a christian

I am tempted to say that those who practice this aren't arminians even, but people who want to belong to something and make a difference in the culture and peoples' live by getting them to join their social club. I disagree with arminianism for sure, but I think Wesley would even have criticisms of what goes on in his name today. Finney he was not. 

That being said, I have been in a hyper-calvinistic independent group relatively recently, and I ended up there unknowingly as a refuge from the "verbally share the gospel with everyone you come in contact with at all times or else you are unfaithful" mentality. Thankfully the Lord kept a heart for the lost within me, and so over I time I realized that the group I was in had no concern for evangelism at all, and they considered calvinists who do and believe the free offer of the gospel (as Dr. Clark above made mention to), as either non-reformed, arminian, or "hypo"-calvinists.

I am thankful for people like Dr. Clark who take the time to clarify what the reformed postion REALLY is HISTORICALLY, so that I may evangelize for the right reasons: 1. God commands it, 2. it glorifies God, 3. I know the grace I have received, so now I want that for others 4. the previous three are tempered by the fact that we cannot know the elect of God, so success is not up to us 5. none of us deserve mercy, so expecting ourselves to save everyone is a false assumption from the get go, unless we're closet pelagian universalists 6. because we are to love people as people created in the image of God, not just projects for salvation that give us tallies on our "how well do I evangelize?" checksheet. 7. Because I love the Lord in gratitude, not guilt 8. not one of the elect will be lost, all will come home.

I have personally fallen on both extremes, and am thankful the Lord has brought me more and more to himself Sovereignly through the responsible work of his gifted teachers.

We need fewer lay evangelists, more educated lay persons, and more church officers who are educated, educate us, and share the gospel faithfully in word and character.


----------



## Robin (May 25, 2005)

Allan!



Robin


----------



## JeremyConrad (Jul 1, 2005)

*HOW do the Reformed evangelize?*

I'm new to the Puritan board. In fact this is my first post, so go easy on me!

I've read a lot about Calvinist vs. Arminian evangelists. And debating this is all well and good. But I have yet to read about HOW a reformed Christian evangelizes.

I understand that the "Sinner's Prayer" is not the way to get someone saved (although I think this is a good prayer of thankfulness once a person IS regenerated). I also understand that there is no list of "have to's" (ie: you have to believe that you're a sinner, you have to believe that Christ died for your sins, you have to confess and believe) that gets you saved. I believe those "have to's" turn into automatic responses only after a heart is regenerated.

My problem, however, is this. Having been raised Arminian and recently converting to Calvinism, I have the "Billy Graham" mentality of evangelism - even though I believe it to be wrong. So how do I change that? How do then go out and evangelize effectively to my lost friends and family?

Not bringing about a conclusion (confession of faith) to preaching the gospel to someone is, to me, kind of like an incomplete sneeze. Plenty of "Ahhh...Ahhh...Ahhh..." but no "Chooo!!" I believe that God has promised to complete the good work started in one who is elect, but do I just tell them and then stop and stare at them? Tell them and then walk away? Tell them and wait? What?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> I'm new to the Puritan board. In fact this is my first post, so go easy on me!






Welcome to the Puritanboard, cousin!


Everybody give a warm welcome to my cousin, Jeremy!


----------



## JeremyConrad (Jul 1, 2005)

Hallelujah!

Hi Joe. Thanks for the welcome!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> I'm new to the Puritan board. In fact this is my first post, so go easy on me!



Welcome to the Puritan Board!


----------

