Reformed Evangelism

[Notthemama1984]

What would you consider Reformed Evangelism?

I am sitting in an evangelism class right now and just heard a student mention how “the story of grace is not being accepted in the African American community and it is tough to talk grace with them. You have to approach evangelism differently.”
This concept screams non-Reformed. It is based on some concept that I can somehow convince you of salvation and you can choose to follow Christ. Unfortunately I think this type of thinking is the common view of evangelism.

In my mind reformed Evangelism is shouting the Gospel message from the rooftops and letting the proverbial chips fall where they may. This is broadly speaking of course.

Am I wrong to think this?

 

[au5t1n]

Certainly you can try to persuade the person to believe the gospel, not just announce it and leave it at that. However, you are right that much of modern evangelism goes to great lengths to convince in a manipulating manner, especially when the evangelism is focused on trying to convince the person to say the prayer.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Let me clarify. I think all these cutesy little presentations of the "gospel" are misguided at best. When I said just give the Gospel and leave it at that, i am not saying not to have an evangelistic conversation with someone just that our job is to present not persuade.

 

[au5t1n]

Well, I think I agree with you in concept, but the "not persuade" wording is keeping me from agreeing fully. On the one hand, we are supposed to try to persuade the person to believe the gospel. On the other hand (and I think this might have been your point), it is the Holy Spirit who brings people to faith and repentance, not us coercing them to say the sinner's prayer.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Yes, you may be wording things better than I am. I use the phrase "not persuade" because I do not believe that anything that I do or say can persuade anyone into salvation. Salvation is only a work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jack K]

Many "gospel" presenters seem passionate about their persuasive efforts but never convince me they're passionate about Christ himself. If the persuasion bubbles up from a person who's so taken by what Christ has done he can't help himself, it will be both attractive and, since it's centered on Christ, Reformed.

 

[SolaSaint]

Agreed Jack, if we present the gospel from a heart of love for God and the person we are witnessing to, it will be evident in our presentation that we love them and that their not just a conquest. I think if we go back to Jonathan Edwards and his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", we can see that person dangling over the pit of eternal damnation and if we are truly transformed, we will have so much compassion for their soul we will approach the situation with love Christ demonstrated for us.

 

[Der Pilger]

Since the Word of God is so central to Reformed theology, it seems to me that "Reformed evangelism" should have Scriptural content as its main focus. The Word of God should be the starting point, the middle, and the end of the Reformed presentation of the Gospel. When this emphasis is not maintained, it is a short step from there to presenting an incomplete gospel, omitting vital teachings that the lost need to know. There would also be the risk of embellishing the message with one's own thoughts. After all, if one thinks so low of Scripture as to limit its part in the gospel presentation, it would be easy to begin replacing Scripture with one's own ideas. That, in my opinion, is exactly what is happening in much of evangelism today.

On a related note, I wonder if one should approach the content of Reformed evangelism in a similar manner to that which should be taken by theologians when doing systematic theology. If we are to think God's thoughts after him accurately and faithfully when doing theology, taking great care to incorporate the entirety of what the Bible says about a given topic, shouldn't we be just as diligent to think his thoughts after him when presenting the all-important message of Christ to lost sinners? I wonder if this was what J.I. Packer had in mind when he wrote Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, particularly when he outlined the main topics of the Gospel message as God, sin, Jesus Christ, and faith and repentance. While that list does not include all the usual loci in Reformed theology, its content and order do look mighty familiar...

 

[ubermadchen]

From this Reformed Presbyterian I say Evangelism is the work of an Evangelist, I think an evangelist should be an ordained minister of the gospel, accountable to Presbytery. Since the days of Finney et al. Revivalism has done a number on this understanding. The lay-person should be always ready to give an answer for the hope they have within in them; should be salt and light; should love their neighbours and brothers. These things are all a part of our "witness," but preaching and "sharing the gospel" proper belongs to the gifted ministers God has brought up. Just my

How is "giving an answer for the hope they have within them" different from sharing the gospel?

 

[Der Pilger]

From this Reformed Presbyterian I say Evangelism is the work of an Evangelist, I think an evangelist should be an ordained minister of the gospel, accountable to Presbytery. Since the days of Finney et al. Revivalism has done a number on this understanding. The lay-person should be always ready to give an answer for the hope they have within in them; should be salt and light; should love their neighbours and brothers. These things are all a part of our "witness," but preaching and "sharing the gospel" proper belongs to the gifted ministers God has brought up. Just my

Is there any actual scriptural prohibition against laypeople presenting the gospel verbally?

 

[dudley]

Well, I think I agree with you in concept, but the "not persuade" wording is keeping me from agreeing fully. On the one hand, we are supposed to try to persuade the person to believe the gospel. On the other hand (and I think this might have been your point), it is the Holy Spirit who brings people to faith and repentance, not us coercing them to say the sinner's prayer.

I agree with Austin, we can giude the person who might be questioning but it is the Holy Spirit who brings the person to faith and salvation by belief in Jesus Christ alone.

 

[Theoretical]

From this Reformed Presbyterian I say Evangelism is the work of an Evangelist, I think an evangelist should be an ordained minister of the gospel, accountable to Presbytery. Since the days of Finney et al. Revivalism has done a number on this understanding. The lay-person should be always ready to give an answer for the hope they have within in them; should be salt and light; should love their neighbours and brothers. These things are all a part of our "witness," but preaching and "sharing the gospel" proper belongs to the gifted ministers God has brought up. Just my

How is "giving an answer for the hope they have within them" different from sharing the gospel?

The "sharing of the gospel" is the duty of "Ministers of the Gospel." We are not all ministers of the gospel, and it is not all of us to whom the "ministry of reconciliation" has been given. Being salt and light, being ready to give an answer for the hope that we have, giving testimony and witness to what God has done in our lives, are not " 'sharing the gospel' proper." That ministry has been given to ordained ministers. That's how I think it's different. And this is not a new view/understanding.

What I think (and Josh, please correct me if I'm wrong) Josh is getting at is not the denigration of Godly lay attempts to sow seeds, give testimony to God's work in us and answering the hope we have, but rather pointing that we often reduce the unique power assigned to the minister of the Gospel when we identify our efforts towards our neighbors as of the same characteristics (as evangelistic). As with many things, loss of proper categories means that many good and valuable efforts occur that would still be embraced under the proper system, but where other efforts are seriously deficient or veer off track.

I think this view is not incompatible with telling people what the Gospel is, urging them to embrace the Scriptures, and to come into the community of believers where we hear Christ preached every Lord's Day. Since really embracing the Reformed faith, I'm far more likely to have (and have had) natural, organic opportunities to share what I believe and why I do emerge in friendships, random encounters, and elsewhere, often with outcasts, extreme outliers, and the burned out. I answer questions; explain to them the purpose, meaning, and necessity of Christ's death as an atonement for our sinful selves, and am often able to do so quite explicitly without being dismissed. I see these events as seed-sowing opportunities and the chance to be used by God to change people's lives; but I cannot mistake my efforts for the work of my pastor or other Gospel-preaching ministers when they preach. Any of my discussions like these are always shaded with the Church prominently in the background, and that if my church is too far, that I will personally take them to a closer Christ-preaching church and introduce them to people I know in that flock, especially pastors or elders.

Because only God can save people and that my feeble abilities won't be the determinative factor in someone's salvation, I can be bold despite my stumbling, weakness, missing something, or the conversation rabbit-trailing. But I refuse to be someone's spiritual advisor and guide in the sense of embracing a private Chirstianity, as I cannot and will not replace Christ's Church. Growing the Kingdom is bringing people who have been granted repentance unto life, whether by means of my discussions or something else, into the fold, with them embracing His Church, despite whatever past scars they have.

 

[ubermadchen]

From this Reformed Presbyterian I say Evangelism is the work of an Evangelist, I think an evangelist should be an ordained minister of the gospel, accountable to Presbytery. Since the days of Finney et al. Revivalism has done a number on this understanding. The lay-person should be always ready to give an answer for the hope they have within in them; should be salt and light; should love their neighbours and brothers. These things are all a part of our "witness," but preaching and "sharing the gospel" proper belongs to the gifted ministers God has brought up. Just my

How is "giving an answer for the hope they have within them" different from sharing the gospel?

The "sharing of the gospel" is the duty of "Ministers of the Gospel." We are not all ministers of the gospel, and it is not all of us to whom the "ministry of reconciliation" has been given. Being salt and light, being ready to give an answer for the hope that we have, giving testimony and witness to what God has done in our lives, are not " 'sharing the gospel' proper." That ministry has been given to ordained ministers. That's how I think it's different. And this is not a new view/understanding.

But I'm still not understanding the difference. What is different from the "reason" for our hope and "sharing the Gospel?" All you've said is that it's different but no explanation as to what is so different. So what is a person saying when they are giving a reason that is lacking when a preacher presents the gospel? I don't believe you need a seminary degree to present the simple Gospel to someone, do you? And I'm aware that "sharing a testimony" is not equivalent to sharing the gospel as the rhetoric used tends to describe "how God changed my life" but little information about Christ living, dying, and being raised again on behalf of sinners for God's glory. Similarly "salt and light" should not be confused with evangelism as that tends to describe living in light of the gospel but words may not be required of the believer unless asked. That's why I'm confused about the difference between reason. I've understood giving a reason as an opportunity to share the gospel. If someone asks me, I'm not going to just say "God" and leave it at that. Unless, you're saying that as a believer, I have to so my pastor doesn't miss out on reaping what I've, through the power of the Holy Spirit, possibly sowed.

 

[Der Pilger]

What I think (and Josh, please correct me if I'm wrong) Josh is getting at is not the denigration of Godly lay attempts to sow seeds, give testimony to God's work in us and answering the hope we have, but rather pointing that we often reduce the unique power assigned to the minister of the Gospel when we identify our efforts towards our neighbors as of the same characteristics (as evangelistic). As with many things, loss of proper categories means that many good and valuable efforts occur that would still be embraced under the proper system, but where other efforts are seriously deficient or veer off track.

I think this view is not incompatible with telling people what the Gospel is, urging them to embrace the Scriptures, and to come into the community of believers where we hear Christ preached every Lord's Day. Since really embracing the Reformed faith, I'm far more likely to have (and have had) natural, organic opportunities to share what I believe and why I do emerge in friendships, random encounters, and elsewhere, often with outcasts, extreme outliers, and the burned out. I answer questions; explain to them the purpose, meaning, and necessity of Christ's death as an atonement for our sinful selves, and am often able to do so quite explicitly without being dismissed. I see these events as seed-sowing opportunities and the chance to be used by God to change people's lives;

It seems you are talking about a more or less passive approach to the lay communication of the gospel. If so, what do you think of laypeople who go beyond providential encounters and relationships by proactively bringing the gospel to the public? Would you say that they are overstepping their bounds, which seems to be Joshua's position (unless I've misunderstood him)?

but I cannot mistake my efforts for the work of my pastor or other Gospel-preaching ministers when they preach.

I think you're right in emphasizing that distinction. I've done evangelism with lots of lay people in the past, and I have often heard and seen the gospel presented in ways that are less than biblical, both with respect to content and presentation. So there is definitely a need for men who are trained and knowledgeable in theology to teach the gospel effectively, completely and clearly to the lost. There are too many people out there who, though their intentions are probably good, are doing poor jobs of communicating the gospel simply because of the very fact that they have not been steeped in the theology and doctrine of that gospel. This could be the result of the overall tendency in evangelical Christendom to eschew doctrine and theology. The reality, though, is that to teach something, you have to know it, and know it well. The lack of such knowledge can, and does, lead to glaring deficiencies in, or distortions of, the gospel message.

Having said that, however, I should also point out that I have known laypeople who have done a better, more biblical job of communicating the gospel than some trained ministers. Many "ministers of the gospel" out there are, sadly, a disgrace to the gospel. Falling prey to a fear of man and an obsession with numerical growth, they often resort to manipulation and worldly tactics to create "converts," who end up proving to be no converts at all. This is not an argument against trained ministers in general. The abuses of some do not necessitate that they all should be regarded negatively.

Any of my discussions like these are always shaded with the Church prominently in the background, and that if my church is too far, that I will personally take them to a closer Christ-preaching church and introduce them to people I know in that flock, especially pastors or elders.

I agree. Any outreach ministry should be done in the context of the local church. That fact, however, does not militate against proactive, initiative lay evangelism. I see no biblical prohibition against laypeople being trained and sent out by their church, and under supervision of that church, to bring the gospel to the lost. I do not see a strict dichotomy between lay evangelism and pastoral evangelism in the New Testament. By that I mean that the Bible does not seem to present the topic in an either/or manner, prohibiting lay evangelism.

 

[Herald]

Many "gospel" presenters seem passionate about their persuasive efforts but never convince me they're passionate about Christ himself. If the persuasion bubbles up from a person who's so taken by what Christ has done he can't help himself, it will be both attractive and, since it's centered on Christ, Reformed.

Certainly the presenter of the Gospel should be utterly convinced of it's efficacy, and display godly passion in delivering the message. But the Gospel is made no more or less attractive by the presenter, unless we're saying that the manner in which the Gospel is proclaimed influences it's outcome. I'm not prepared to say that (Rom. 1:16).

There is no Arminian Gospel. There is no Reformed Gospel. There is only THE Gospel. And as Paul said, "Whether in pretense or truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in this I rejoice."

 

[Pergamum]

From this Reformed Presbyterian I say Evangelism is the work of an Evangelist, I think an evangelist should be an ordained minister of the gospel, accountable to Presbytery. Since the days of Finney et al. Revivalism has done a number on this understanding. The lay-person should be always ready to give an answer for the hope they have within in them; should be salt and light; should love their neighbours and brothers. These things are all a part of our "witness," but preaching and "sharing the gospel" proper belongs to the gifted ministers God has brought up. Just my

How is "giving an answer for the hope they have within them" different from sharing the gospel?

The "sharing of the gospel" is the duty of "Ministers of the Gospel." We are not all ministers of the gospel, and it is not all of us to whom the "ministry of reconciliation" has been given. Being salt and light, being ready to give an answer for the hope that we have, giving testimony and witness to what God has done in our lives, are not " 'sharing the gospel' proper." That ministry has been given to ordained ministers. That's how I think it's different. And this is not a new view/understanding.

Josh, are you a layman? Do you share the Gospel?

 

[puritanhope]

I think Piper was spot on in his work Let the Nations Be Glad. It may be a book you consider reading. You can purchase the book here, however, please keep in mind that Desiring God has a whatever you can afford policy. If you cannot afford the asking price, contact them and they will send it to you for whatever you can afford.

 

[Scott1]

A good thing about reformed theology is that it understands salvation is of God.

We cannot save anybody. Our methods or approach cannot save anyone. It is not "up to us" to save anyone.

God will save those whom He has appointed for pardon regardless of the sin, context or imperfections of the means. He can and does use offense to bring people to Himself.

Our calling is to be faithful with the circumstances and people He appoints, to beseech His mercy for us and those we share the gospel with, and those we engage with biblical doctrine for all of life.

No one, no group of people, is outside of that.

 

[Michael Doyle]

As one who has engaged in much 'street preaching' and witnessing, I have humbly come into agreement with the position of Joshua. And while I have struggled with not doing the activities I once thrived to do, I am also taking the necessary steps of discerning the call within the context of the church.

Now, as I have come to understand this to be the scriptures position, I have not stopped from witnessing to those who come seeking, neighbors who question and the likes. I am also adamant about inviting them to my church and too discipling where it pleases God for me to do so.

 

[Theoretical]

Josh, are you a layman?

Yes.

Do you share the Gospel?

That's the whole question, right? What does it mean to "share the Gospel" proper? I will tell you what I don't/do do.

Don'ts:

I don't take it upon myself to be the man who does the "work of reconciliation" (yet). I do not proclaim the gospel in the sense of preaching. I do not press people for instantaneous positions and ask them to pray a prayer with me.

Dos:

I let my light shine (albeit it is really dim at times because I'm a fallen sinner). I strive to be salt & light. I try to be the best at what I do in my place and station, as I consider it my calling (whether it be temporarily or permanent). I invited friends to church. I am prepared and do give answers to those who ask me for the reason of the hope that I have within me. I defend the doctrines of faith when pressed or when in a conversation concerning theology, etc. I pray for my elders and pastor. I give to the church for its ministry. I happily discuss Scripture with folks when given opportunity to do so, so long as it is not infringing upon my employer's time. I invite seekers and those who are hurting/searching to have dinner with me and my pastor or elders, etc. I have expressed my interest in pursuing the gospel ministry and, as time permits, will begin working toward that end and, Lord willing, come under care of the local session and the greater presbytery, to be vetted and examined for said ministry aspirations.

I'm sure I'm missing a few other things, but that is the gist of my "position."

This is an excellent summary of my position and practice as well.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

First off. You seem to be the judge of men's hearts when you speak like this.

Many "gospel" presenters seem passionate about their persuasive efforts but never convince me they're passionate about Christ himself. If the persuasion bubbles up from a person who's so taken by what Christ has done he can't help himself, it will be both attractive and, since it's centered on Christ, Reformed.

Your next point isn't very true either in my experience. I understand about being constrained but I am not so sure about how you would define attractive. That is subjective also.

If the persuasion bubbles up from a person who's so taken by what Christ has done he can't help himself, it will be both attractive and, since it's centered on Christ, Reformed.

You are sounding like a modern day Preacher I have heard within the last fifteen years. Let me guess where you got this one liner from.

Most people are not attracted to a self abasing religion. Especially a religion which depends upon a Saviour that utterly saves. Most humans want to be Conan the Barbarian or the woman next to his side. Sorry but it isn't attractive to to the world. You are wrong. Just my humble opinion.