Pages

Friday, October 08, 2010

Preaching the gospel

JOEY & CHRISTY SAID:


“How is the human act of evangelism related to God's act of converting a human heart?“

Regeneration creates a predisposition to believe the Gospel, while evangelism supplies the Gospel to be believed.

“God is at liberty to convert someone apart from the evangelist's efforts, right? So does it follow that evangelism isn't intrinsically necessary to conversion?”

i) You seem to be confusing conversion with regeneration. Conversion involves a combination of regeneration and faith. God regenerates the sinner directly. In that causal sense, God regenerates “apart” from evangelism.

ii) However, God doesn’t regenerate a sinner for regeneration’s sake. That’s a means to an end. He regenerates a sinner to bring him to faith. To make him a believer. So regeneration and evangelism are ordinarily coordinated in some fashion. Regeneration supplies the predisposition to exercise saving faith while evangelism supplies the object of saving faith.

“Does the evangelist's method, intelligence, eloquence, or persuasiveness play a role in whether his audience is converted? But still, it seems most evangelists try to improve their method, education, etc. Why?”

That can be a factor in conversion, but an insufficient condition.

“What is my duty as an evangelist? To only proclaim the Gospel of Jesus? Or should I also try to persuade people to believe the Gospel of Jesus, to defend the Gospel of Jesus, to answer objections?”

You should do the best you can, given your time, abilities, and opportunities.

“Can I, as an evangelist, ‘mess things up’ so that someone whom God might have saved had I presented the Gospel in a more compelling, charismatic, scholarly, or clear way, not find salvation?”

In a counterfactual sense. But God coordinates the message, messenger, and audience to achieve his goal.

“I've heard Calvinist evangelists say things like, ‘Of course you don't understand. You're a pagan unbeliever?’ This seems rude, but would such statements be considered rude by mainstream Calvinists? Would mainstream Calvinists rebuke an evangelist who said this kind of thing?”

Some of the unregenerate will never understand because they are reprobates. Some of the unregenerate will come to an understanding after God regenerates them.

“When someone doesn't believe the Gospel after it has been clearly presented, whose fault is it? The evangelist's fault for not doing a better job or the unbeliever's fault for having a hard, unrepentant heart, or God's fault for not electing him?”

It’s ultimately the fault of the unbeliever.

“I don't know or care who Fred Phelps is. Here's my question: you said that the hyper-Calvinist position believes that you don't have to try to convince people of their truth or try to convert people because converting people is God's job. Our job is to faithfully preach the Gospel. If this is the hyper-Calvinist position, what is the standard Calvinist's position?”

i) There’s nothing special that a Reformed pastor needs to do. He has the same message for everyone in the audience. Elect or reprobate. Regenerate or unregenerate. Devout believer, nominal believer, or closet apostate.

ii) He can preach through books of the Bible. Or do topical sermons on Christian doctrine and ethics. He can teach people who Jesus is, what he did, is doing, shall do, and why. He can teach people that whoever repents of his sin and trusts in Jesus to save him will be forgiven. Since the “offer” of the gospel is a conditional offer, it can be offered to every listener. Whoever accepts the terms of the offer will receive what is offered.

iii) We also have examples of inspired evangelistic preaching in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. Those can be used as models for how to preach the gospel.

iv) Preaching needn't be specifically evangelistic to be instrumental in conversion. Expository preaching through various books of the Bible can also have that effect. There’s a place for evangelistic preaching, but that’s a matter of emphasis.

6 comments:

  1. The way of salvation must start with regeneration, when God changes the heart of man so that he cane receive the things of the Holy Spirit.

    When a preacher sends out the gospel the Holy spirit then mediates thta gospel to the sinner.

    The sinner comes under conviction of sin from the H.S. which leads to repentance and faith. The sinner converts, turning away from sin and turning to God and a new walk.thiri

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://covenantalcalvinist.blogspot.com/

    If there is an interest see my blog on opposing Hyper Calvinism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks so much for answering some of my questions!

    Here are a few follow-up questions:

    In answer to my question, “I've heard Calvinist evangelists say things like, ‘Of course you don't understand. You're a pagan unbeliever?’ This seems rude, but would such statements be considered rude by mainstream Calvinists? Would mainstream Calvinists rebuke an evangelist who said this kind of thing?” You said, "Some of the unregenerate will never understand because they are reprobates. Some of the unregenerate will come to an understanding after God regenerates them."

    Well, your answer doesn't answer my question. My question has to do with how I've seen some unregenerate people rudely treated by Calvinists and if you think that's ok.

    In answer to my question, “When someone doesn't believe the Gospel after it has been clearly presented, whose fault is it? The evangelist's fault for not doing a better job or the unbeliever's fault for having a hard, unrepentant heart, or God's fault for not electing him?” you said, "It’s ultimately the fault of the unbeliever."

    I was wondering if you will give some supporting argument for this assertion.

    I have some follow-up questions about what you said in response to my question about Phelps.

    i) It sounds like you're saying you agree with Phelps when he said "you don't have to try to convince people of their truth or try to convert people because converting people is God's job." Am I understanding you right?

    ii) Does Calvinism have a category for a Reformed evangelist (as opposed to a Reformed pastor)? You said, "There’s nothing special that a Reformed pastor needs to do." Ok, a pastor is working primarily with saved people. In the case of a pastor, his work takes place in the context of a church. He needs to faithfully discharge the duties of a pastor. What about an evangelist or a missionary who's work is among the lost trying to begin churches? Do you think they have something special to do?

    iii) Imagine a preacher's audience is 100% unbelievers. Don't you think the preacher's message should be different than if he were addressing a room mostly full of believers?

    Can you recommend a good theology of evangelism?

    Thanks again for taking the time to talk about this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. JOEY & CHRISTY SAID:

    “Well, your answer doesn't answer my question. My question has to do with how I've seen some unregenerate people rudely treated by Calvinists and if you think that's ok.”

    Of course, that’s a loaded question. There’s no one way to treat everyone. There’s a difference between an honest seeker and Richard Dawkins (to take one example).

    “I was wondering if you will give some supporting argument for this assertion.”

    I don’t feel the need to reinvent the wheel. The Bible teaches double predestination. At the same time it holds the unbeliever culpable. The relevant exegesis is available from Reformed scholars.

    If you’re asking a philosophical question, then that will take you to the ongoing compatibilist/incompatibilist literature.

    “It sounds like you're saying you agree with Phelps when he said ‘you don't have to try to convince people of their truth or try to convert people because converting people is God's job.’ Am I understanding you right?”

    Nothing I said justifies your misinterpretation.

    “What about an evangelist or a missionary who's work is among the lost trying to begin churches? Do you think they have something special to do?”

    It would be more rudimentary, that’s all.

    “Imagine a preacher's audience is 100% unbelievers. Don't you think the preacher's message should be different than if he were addressing a room mostly full of believers?”

    A preacher isn’t privy to that information.

    “Can you recommend a good theology of evangelism?”

    John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad (2nd ed.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. JOEY & CHRISTY SAID:
    "Well, your answer doesn't answer my question. My question has to do with how I've seen some unregenerate people rudely treated by Calvinists and if you think that's ok."

    It's never okay to be rude to anyone. The statement, " ‘Of course you don't understand. You're a pagan unbeliever?’" is factual and can be said either in a rude or matter of fact manner. Since we don't know whether anyone in front of us is elect or non-elect, and since s/he is made in God's image we should treat him/her with at least some dignity and respect and speak to him/her in the hope that s/he will be saved.


    JOEY & CHRISTY SAID:
    In answer to my question, “When someone doesn't believe the Gospel after it has been clearly presented, whose fault is it? The evangelist's fault for not doing a better job or the unbeliever's fault for having a hard, unrepentant heart, or God's fault for not electing him?”

    It's never God's "fault" for not electing anyone. God is not obligated to elect or save anyone. Mercy and Grace by definition is unobligated. Though, it is true that God is ultimately responsible for whether someone is elect or not (and so whether the person will eventually be saved or not). The unbeliever is ultimately responsible, but that doesn't mean an evangelist can slack off since salvation is ultimately in God's hands. It can't be used as an excuse since God ordains the ends AS WELL AS the means. And so, the better prepared the evangelist is in presenting the Gospel the better will be the results (all things being equal). Though, it's not uncommon for God to use a presentation/sermon that the speaker himself thought was poor (because he wasn't at his best) to dramatically convert or convict both unregenerate unbelievers and regenerate believers. God sometimes does this precisely to highlight the fact that it ultimately doesn't depend on the preacher/evangelist but on God who has mercy.

    JOEY & CHRISTY SAID:
    i) It sounds like you're saying you agree with Phelps when he said "you don't have to try to convince people of their truth or try to convert people because converting people is God's job." Am I understanding you right?

    Again, since God ordains both ends and means, we SHOULD try to convince and persuade people using honest (non-manipulative) means. Historically, there's a long line of Calvinistic preachers/theologians/evangelists who did their utmost to persuasively present and plead with sinners to be reconciled to God. For example, George Whitefield, Charles H. Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, Richard Baxter (who I think was a 4 point Calvinist holding to both Unconditional Election and Universal Atonement), Joseph Alleine et al. (to name JUST a few).

    To prove my point, here's a link to Joseph Alleine's classic An Alarm to the Unconverted:
    http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/An%20Alarm%20to%20the%20Unconverted.pdf

    If only modern evangelists were as earnest as Alleine.

    I dare anyone to claim he wasn't pleading with sinners to be reconciled to God as Paul did in 2 Cor. 5:20.
    " Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

    ReplyDelete
  6. The reason I thought you agreed with just that one portion of what Phelps said was that you never said anything that contracticted or was incompatible with his statement. You criticized him for being a hyper-Calvinist, but I can't figure out what separates your position from his (on that specific point). Can you clarify a little?

    I wasn't trying to load my question. I see what you're saying about not responding the same way to everyone, but aren't there some general guiding principles that direct the way Christians deal with outsiders? I have noticed a lot of rude treatment of nonbelievers by Calvinists and was wondering if the Calvinists felt justified in their behavior. It seems many of them do feel justified in responding rudely, even toward other Christians with whom they disagree. I'm not impressed when a Calvinist says, "I'm just responding the way I was spoken to," because a mature Spirit indwelt believer shouldn't stoop to the level of an unregenerate pagan or an Immature believer. Responding to a jerk like a jerk requires no faith or supernatural empowerment, but can easily be done in the flesh.

    It sounds like you think the likes of Richard Dawkins is a hopeless case in terms of salvation (making him worthy of scorn). Do you think there is no chance he'll be saved? I had previously thought a person still had a chance until he died, but I'm open to being persuaded.

    ReplyDelete