Pre-evangelism is it Arminian at heart?

[Eoghan]

As a creationist I occassionally ponder what it means. One of the things I have come across is the concept of pre-evangelism. You can read more at Creation Science Rebuttals, Creation Magazine (Ex Nihilo), Creation Science Methodology

Basically pre-evangelism gets people over the "problem" of evolution as a preparatory step to evangelism.

I can't help feeling this is arminian in outlook. Having just meditated on Romans 1 and 2 I can't help notice Paul uses the supression of the knowledge of divinity from general revelation to convict the Gentiles of sin. This is the pathology of the disease not by a surgeon about to operate but by a pathologist dissecting a dead corpse!

Pre-evangelism seems to stray into the area of the work of the Holy Spirit, taking credit for His work - no? It makes me think of the Arminian doctrine that somehow we can make an autonomous decision.

 

[ewenlin]

I've never thought that creation/evolution had anything to do with sinners repenting of their sins and coming to trust in Christ.

 

[Pergamum]

God uses means. These means include smart people combatting mental objections to the Gospel.

 

[Skyler]

I'd call that evangelism.

 

[Pergamum]

I've never thought that creation/evolution had anything to do with sinners repenting of their sins and coming to trust in Christ.

I think it is all part of the process. For instance, even in tribal evangelism we use chronological bible storying such that a firm foundation of teaching creation and the fall is laid before we even get to Christ. The books that many people use are even called "Firm Foundations."

In non-tribal situations, similarly, a firm foundation must be laid and the mind readied and soil prepared for the person to really meaningfully understand the Gospel without an overwhelming burden of objections.

Of course, our actions do not negate the actions of the Holy Spirit. God works through His People, no?


At Mars Hill, Paul met his audience where they were and talked about God from the general to the more specific before focusing closely upon Jesus.

Sometimes we sow, sometimes we reap, and sometimes we simply have to clear the soil first and deal with wrong starting points.

 

[Romans 9:16]

If ‘pre-evangelism’ implies wrestling with ideas prior to engagement with the biblical text, I have a problem with it. Pre-evangelism, if such a thing were legitimate, would go on for infinity. Because people’s real reason for objecting to the faith is their total depravity, removing objections actually removes nothing. They will quickly find another objection to hide behind. Only regeneration cures this disease and only the word of God imparts regeneration (instrumentally speaking). Thus, we must begin with the word of God. It is not the main event after a series of opening acts. Rather, it is the Alpha and Omega of thought renewal and regeneration.

I don’t object to clearing objections as they come up. Rather, I would rather see the work of apologetics (‘taking thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ’) as operating within the paradigm of presupposition to and engagement with the word of God. Just dealing in the abstract with evolution, for example, does not soften the heart for the word. People hate God as much as God loves his only begotten Son. I think much of what passes for ‘pre-evangelism’ is an implicit denial of total depravity. People don’t deny Christianity because they have objections. Rather, the grab hold of any old objection because they have a-priori denied Christianity. This they have done because they are evil (Romans 1:18-3:20). Make the tree good and its fruit will be good. Regeneration is dawn of conversion. The word of God must be introduced at once in engagement with God’s enemies (1 Peter 1:23).

 

[Der Pilger]

If ‘pre-evangelism’ implies wrestling with ideas prior to engagement with the biblical text, I have a problem with it. Pre-evangelism, if such a thing were legitimate, would go on for infinity. Because people’s real reason for objecting to the faith is their total depravity, removing objections actually removes nothing. They will quickly find another objection to hide behind. Only regeneration cures this disease and only the word of God imparts regeneration (instrumentally speaking). Thus, we must begin with the word of God. It is not the main event after a series of opening acts. Rather, it is the Alpha and Omega of thought renewal and regeneration.

I don’t object to clearing objections as they come up. Rather, I would rather see the work of apologetics (‘taking thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ’) as operating within the paradigm of presupposition to and engagement with the word of God. Just dealing in the abstract with evolution, for example, does not soften the heart for the word. People hate God as much as God loves his only begotten Son. I think much of what passes for ‘pre-evangelism’ is an implicit denial of total depravity. People don’t deny Christianity because they have objections. Rather, the grab hold of any old objection because they have a-priori denied Christianity. This they have done because they are evil (Romans 1:18-3:20). Make the tree good and its fruit will be good. Regeneration is dawn of regeneration and conversion. The word of God must be introduced at once in engagement with God’s enemies (1 Peter 1:23).

This. Entirely. I was going to respond with similar thoughts, but this says it better than I would have done. I would only add (by way of confirmation): Man's problem is not intellectual but spiritual. Therefore, targeting the intellect brings the person no closer to Christ. The Holy Spirit does this through the gospel. The biblical approach is: The word is preached, the Father draws the elect to Christ, and the elect are regenerated and converted.

Anything other than this, if used as a means of bringing someone to Christ, is simply trusting in our carnal efforts to make converts. Such converts, however, will be our own, not God's.