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

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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.

 

[Herald]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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.

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

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]

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.

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]

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:

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]

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]

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.

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.")

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]

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."

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]

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.