# Missions, God's Sovereignty, and 2 Cor. 4



## moselle (Sep 14, 2009)

2 Cor. 4:1-2 says "Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God."

I was reading this passage last night and it occurred to me that one possible "advantage" (that's not exactly the word I'm looking for) to believing in the sovereignty of God in salvation when proclaiming the Gospel to the unsaved, is that we have less temptation to skew the message to accommodate the listener?

This came shortly after hearing about a family member who was talking with an unbeliever about divorce. He said that the reason God hated divorce was because of the horrible pain it causes everyone. I gently (and hopefully correctly) commented that perhaps the primary reason God hates divorce is because marriage was created to be an earthly representation of His relationship with the Church, and so divorce is antithetical to the gospel. Naturally, all those who are severed from God are going to experience pain of some kind, but doesn't calling human pain the main issue imply that the Gospel is primarily about people feeling good (rather than about a holy and loving God)?

The response to that was that you have to dumb it down to the unsaved.  It doesn't have to be complex, granted. But it seems there is a difference between skewed and simplified?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 14, 2009)

You are right on, Sista. 

"Dumbing it down for the unsaved" may be taken as a crass way of saying "explain in simpler terms." But it should never be a license to pervert or misrepresent the teaching of Scripture.


----------



## carlgobelman (Sep 14, 2009)

moselle said:


> 2 Cor. 4:1-2 says "Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God."
> 
> I was reading this passage last night and it occurred to me that one possible "advantage" (that's not exactly the word I'm looking for) to believing in the sovereignty of God in salvation when proclaiming the Gospel to the unsaved, is that we have less temptation to skew the message to accommodate the listener?
> 
> ...



Let me also offer a hearty  !!!

I think the thing that the sovereignty of God ensures from an evangelistic perspective is that God's message will not return void, but will accomplish the purposes of God. A lesser view of God's sovereignty in evangelism tends to increase our desire to make the message more persuasive; it places the burden on us to 'win souls' and de-emphasizes God's role in salvation.

Interestingly enough, your comment on divorce struck a chord with me. I am in the process of switching over to a PCA church, but the church my wife and I are currently members of is preparing to go through a series on a book (not the Bible) titled _Life's Healing Choices_, which is exactly the same thing you mentioned in your comment ("calling human pain the main issue imply that the Gospel is primarily about people feeling good"). This book is all about recovery from life's "hurts, hang-ups and habits," and it uses the Beatitudes as "God's principles for healthy and happy living." So I hear your frustration in that the gospel is being re-told as making my life in the here and now better.


----------



## coramdeo (Sep 14, 2009)

I agree, the gospel is often skewed in our fervor to "win" the lost.
I nearly stroked Sunday when my pastor (during a message aimed at encouraging our church to more evangelistic efforts) *said that God was frustrated* because the church did not reach out to the "unchurched"


----------



## Romans 9:16 (Sep 14, 2009)

A lot of the modern gibberish about ‘contextualization’ is another way people are trying to avoid presentation of clear biblical teaching. It is believed that the unbeliever is a total idiot and the Bible is inaccessible and esoteric book of enigmas. They claim that unless we show how a particular sub-culture’s ‘stories find their proper place in the meta-narrative of scripture’ they remain unreachable. What a load of that stuff Paul refers to in Phil 3:8! The ‘missional’ folks would do well to investigate the following doctrines (amongst others): propositional revelation, verbal inspiration, the perspicuity of scripture, and (as you rightly point out) the sovereignty of God. Post-liberalism/narrative theology/post-structuralism (which is the doctrinal framework behind the so called ‘missional’ movement’) is epistemological atheism. You remove propositional revelation and you end up with nothing. Christian theology is impossible to construct upon Wittgenstein influenced language theories. 

As I am getting on to a rant of my own, I will get back on course: you are right! Don’t ever skew the message. Who cares if the unbeliever hates the message? God obviously isn’t stressed about it. After all, he was the one who wrote the ‘offensive’ book! He didn’t water it down so his enemies can disbelieve with less discomfort. Why should we? Are we more tactful than God? To soften the message is a mark of unbelief and a manifest lack of fear of God.


----------



## moselle (Sep 14, 2009)

Romans 9:16 said:


> ...disbelieve with less discomfort.



That's a good one!

Thanks to everyone - I'm learning so much from ya'll!


----------



## Skyler (Sep 14, 2009)

Ever wonder why we call it: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFG19iMkrVs"]Arminian Witnessing[/ame]


----------



## Megan Mozart (Sep 14, 2009)

Romans 9:16 said:


> .
> 
> As I am getting on to a rant of my own, I will get back on course: you are right! Don’t ever skew the message. Who cares if the unbeliever hates the message? God obviously isn’t stressed about it. After all, he was the one who wrote the ‘offensive’ book! He didn’t water it down so his enemies can disbelieve with less discomfort. Why should we? Are we more tactful than God? To soften the message is a mark of unbelief and a manifest lack of fear of God.



That's right. We should expect unbelievers to either be hostile toward the truth, or God's living word will change them. It is God's will for us to be 'persecuted' in that way.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 4, 2009)

Romans 9:16 said:


> A lot of the modern gibberish about ‘contextualization’ is another way people are trying to avoid presentation of clear biblical teaching. It is believed that the unbeliever is a total idiot and the Bible is inaccessible and esoteric book of enigmas. They claim that unless we show how a particular sub-culture’s ‘stories find their proper place in the meta-narrative of scripture’ they remain unreachable. What a load of that stuff Paul refers to in Phil 3:8! The ‘missional’ folks would do well to investigate the following doctrines (amongst others): propositional revelation, verbal inspiration, the perspicuity of scripture, and (as you rightly point out) the sovereignty of God. Post-liberalism/narrative theology/post-structuralism (which is the doctrinal framework behind the so called ‘missional’ movement’) is epistemological atheism. You remove propositional revelation and you end up with nothing. Christian theology is impossible to construct upon Wittgenstein influenced language theories.
> 
> As I am getting on to a rant of my own, I will get back on course: you are right! Don’t ever skew the message. Who cares if the unbeliever hates the message? God obviously isn’t stressed about it. After all, he was the one who wrote the ‘offensive’ book! He didn’t water it down so his enemies can disbelieve with less discomfort. Why should we? Are we more tactful than God? To soften the message is a mark of unbelief and a manifest lack of fear of God.



While I agree with you on having a Reformed theology of mission, placing proclamation and God's sovereignty at the centre, gospel communication and contextualization is much more complicated than you're caricaturizing (perhaps we can start a new thread at some time and flesh it out).

Would you agree that to some degree, God is a contextualizing God, and the biblical authors engaged in contextualization as well? Western Christianity is contextual and so is Reformed theology. The WCF is a contextual confession. contextualization simply affirms that the situation in which theology is borne shapes its presentation, emphases, applications, etc.


----------

