If Calvinism Is True, Why Evangelize?
As we look at Christians who evangelize today, it is clear to see that many are ashamed of the gospel. Do we understand what it really means to evangelize? We would declare that to the degree a person is biblical, determines the sort of gospel they will preach. We have had great examples throughout history of great preachers like George Whitfield, who believed in the Doctrines of Grace. The Doctrines of Grace, declare that God is sovereign over all the affairs of man. This is where that nasty word “Calvinism” comes in. But, dear reader, watch the following video carefully and examine the biblical view of evangelism. Approximately 82% of people in our country claim to be Christians. Looking at the condition of our culture, if this is an accurate statistic, how ineffective has the church been? Ponder the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court to allow homosexual marriage against the will of the majority (Dr Morey, wrote an excellent article on the subject of laws coming from the top down to the people)! Many churches seek numbers and don’t want to lose people, as a result the offense of the cross is removed. The Lord Himself told us that the cross is foolishness and an offense to those who are perishing. Dr. George Grant, in the following video excerpt says, “how do make an offense seeker sensitive?” The answer to this question lies in what we see in today’s mega churches; a watered down gospel where the cross is removed, along with any preaching that declares the people to be sinners in need of repentance. May we be challenged to first of all, to do the work of an evangelist, and do it to the glory of God, in a biblical manner. All the glory going to the great Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ alone!
42 Comments, Comment or Ping
Mario Herrera
This is an portion of the article by Dr. Morey:
2. Reformation theology teaches that the government should be “of the people and by the people.” Thus the laws of the state should conform to and reflect the will of the people. Government officials and judges should follow the wishes of the people. This means that the legal system should move “up” from the people to the state. For example, if the majority of the people believe that something is wrong, (e.g. abortion, same sex marriage, etc.), then the laws of the state should make it illegal. In the past, they were ruled as illegal.
May 16th, 2008
Stacie
Mario, thank you for posting this video. Very thought provoking and it gave me a lot to think about.
Could someone expand on 1 Cor 9:22 “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.”
I could see this easily being used by the emerging church as a reason for following the worlds pattern and honestly I do not fully understand how this verse should be applied in how we approach evangelizing.
Thanks!
May 16th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hello,
This is a complex question and the question itself is unsound. It assumes that all Christians are required to evangelize. This is false. SOME are called to be evanglists, Some are called to be teachers, and SOME are called to be Preachers (Ephesians 4:11).
The dairy verse that is misquoted via the majority is the so called “great commision” of Matthew 28:18-20. This is NOT the “great Commision.” If it was then Paul’s verse in Ephesians 4:11 is contradictive.
Those whom are actually called to evangelize usually don’t have this question (the “why” question). The burden they have for the lost (unknown elect) that is placed upon their hearts by the Holy Spirit pushes through.
Calvin used the phrase, “the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.” So in this sense. this internal testimony drives them to do what they are called to do.
The question is also false because it assumes a presuppositional dicohtomy. This being that evangelism is only for those who are elect (fore-ordained - Acts 13:48). This is simply not true. It is also to convict the reprobate (see Acts 18:28) and to give confidence to weak Christians (Titus 1:9).
Thus, the question can’t be answered in the cliche format that it is presented.
Once one understands the purpose and process of the Biblical evangelist, the question of “why” is nothing else but arrogant vanity.
Jean Cauvin
May 17th, 2008
Johnny B
Jean,
Isn’t Acts 18:28, more of an apologetic, then evangelism? One dealing with the intellect, reasoning. The other, dealing with the conscience, leading to conversion.
May 17th, 2008
Mario Herrera
The fact that God is sovereign magnifies the accountability of man while on earth. Those who are humanistic when it comes to their thinking, think that because they “did” something to come to Christ, they must do things to please God, compulsively, not out of a love for God.
When someone that holds to the Doctrines of Grace comes along and declares the truth about God being sovereign, they are offended and will assume we are saying we don’t need to evangelize because man has no choice, we condemn man to hell and so on. In their minds, because they are not grounded in Scripture, this sounds ridiculous. They don’t take into account the doctrine of original sin and the fact that man does not go to hell because he rejects Christ, all of man is on the road to eternal damnation, that is all of man, that is not in union with Christ.
Because God is sovereign, we are motivated to holiness. We don’t fret over devotions at 4am for devotions sake, as if that were what keeps us holy. It is Christ alone that is our holiness, our righteousness, our wisdom, from God, and our sanctification! We do our works unto His glory because He is presently working in us the willing and the doing!
If there is no desire to read the word, to study the word, to pray and commune with our Great Savior, then the question to ask would be, “am I even regenerate or simply playing a religious game?
The fact that there are many, according to the Scriptures who will come to God, should motivate us to declare to the world the Truth! Paul declared, “I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation.”
To be sure, some are called to be more evangelistic that others, however, we, as believers Paul said, “for we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God said ‘light shall shine out of darkness,’ is the one who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken, struck down but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal bodies flesh. So death works in us, but life in you.”
Knowing these truths should cause doxological praise within the soul!
Knowing these truths should cause us to reach even those who call themselves Christians because now the food that is being preached lacks biblical nutrition, that as the video stated, the sheep and the goats gather together and eat the same food.
May 17th, 2008
Johnny B
I agree with what they are saying. The Law of God and it’s demands, are not part of the Gospel message (modern day). It’s like R C Sproul and Ray Comfort, said, the Gospel has turned into, a feel good Gospel. The Law, brings judgment and the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:19-20 “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”
I know the worry is that, using the Law can lead or will lead to legalism and moralism or antinomianism (The doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained solely through faith and the gift of divine grace. From answer.com) The back lash to this, was dispensationalism, “The actual effect dispensationalism has been to move in the direction of antinomianism, especially with development of the distinction between Christ as Saviour and Christ as Lord.”.
Here’s how the Reformers viewed the Law. “First, the law serves as a guide to society in promoting civic righteousness. Secondly, the law convicts the sinner and drives them to Christ. Thirdly, the law directs Christians in holy living.” From the, New Dictionary of Theology, which the statement on dispensationalism, came from as well.
The Gospel is the good news, the Law is the bad news. People need to hear the bad news, before they will hear the good news. Ray Comfort uses this illustration. “A doctor comes to a sick person with bad news. He has an deadly decease, he tell the patient, all the horrors of what can happen, leading to death. With the percentage of people that survive this deadly decease and it’s not good. The cure is almost impossible to get. The patient has a feeling of no hope. Then comes the good news, someone that he doesn’t even know, has sold all he owns to pay for the cure to his decease. Now the patient has great joy and feels indebted to the person that bought the cure for him. His wonder now is who is this person that bought the cure for him. He wants to know this person to show his gratitude for what he has done for him”
He uses this to show how the Law can work in evangelism. And an answer to the “Jesus loves you” Gospel. I think, saying Jesus loves you to a sinner, has as much effect on them as if one were to say, Fred loves you. Everyone remembers in school, someone would tell you that someone liked or loved you, if you didn’t know the person or have any interest in them, it just didn’t matter. But like the illustration showed, then there would be a great interest, in knowing who this person was.
Here’s the Lutheren view of the Law.
“The Formula of Concord distinguished three uses, or purposes, in the Law in Article VI. It states: “[T]he Law was given to men for three reasons. . .”
That “thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars]”
That “men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins”
That “after they are regenerate. . .they might. . .have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life”[7]
We may summarize the three uses as follows:
To restrain external evil (civil use) or (curb).
To show us our sin (pedagogical, theological, or elenchtical {convicting} use) or (mirror).
To show us God’s character and will as a rule and guide to holy living, empowered by the Gospel alone (didactic use) or (rule).”
Reformed view.
“In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, the Reformer John Calvin likewise distinguished three uses in the Law. Calvin wrote: “That the whole matter may be made clearer, let us take a succinct view of the office and use of the Moral Law. Now this office and use seems to me to consist of three parts.”
By “exhibiting the righteousness of God, — in other words, the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God, — it admonishes every one of his own unrighteousness, certiorates, convicts, and finally condemns him.”
It acts “by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice.”
“The third use of the Law. . .has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns. . . . For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge. . .”
This scheme is the same as the Formula of Concord, with the exception that the first and second uses are transposed.”
These are from Wikipedia, Law and Gospel.
May 17th, 2008
Johnny B
Mario,
I’ve said this before, but since none responded to it, I’ve try again, Looking for thoughts on this.
The Law of God is being used to conform people to act like Christians. The reason I say act like is, 1 John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.”
I believe Paul gives the same instruction in Colossians 1:23 “if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.”
I see these as perseverance verses, back to the use of the Law. It’s not being used to convert, but to conform, that’s why we have so many, so-called, backsliders. We have pagans (goats), that have learned of the Glorious doctrine of Grace. But, have interpreted it with their unregenerate minds, to mean they can do whatever they want and make Heaven their home. Then some of those people become pastors, leaders, and elders in the Church (modern) because they’ve conformed to the Law.
Here’s something I seen on youtube, the Gospel of relationship. That you need a personal relationship with God to be saved. The point being, everyone has a personal relationship with God, some wrath is the relationship, others a worship relationship. I can’t remember the exact way it went. What do you guys think of this?
May 17th, 2008
Stacie
So, I feel silly asking this again and hope I’m not so slow that I can’t figure out that someone has answered this…. but I truly am curious as I have been reading about the emerging church lately.
1 Cor 9:22 “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.”
I do not fully understand how this verse should be applied in how we approach evangelizing.
I am not offended if the answer is dumbed down =)
Thanks!
May 17th, 2008
Brad Boneville
Gretting and Blessings Brother Mario…very good post, interesting biblical perspective. It’s sad to see the watered down gospel being preached. Going beyond Calvinism, maybe we should beg the question: therefore, since Christianity is truth, do we evangalize (not for our own glory; only HIS) if compelled by the Holy Spirit to do so? This question is more or less a curiousity, based on this post and not to spark a debate. I’m approaching this from the perspective of Sola Scriptura, going beyond Calvin, Whitfield, Gill and what other great Reformers have said. What’s the bible say? Should we just bite our tongue for the sake of not being like everybody else today who drinks milk? Or, do we sound off the saving truth of the Gospel, if compelled by the Holy Spirit, with the hope that God (in the midst of His divine mystery of election) will save the person or persons?
In peace, love, blessings
Brad
-Phillipians 3:13
May 17th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Stacie,
The emerging church advocates use this text to justify their actions. Because they are criticized for becoming the world, looking like the world, talking like the world, etc., they appeal to verses such as these, out of context of course, to gain acceptance from their critics.
They will say that Paul became all things to all men for the sake of the gospel and so are we. Little do they know that they are using the principle of sola scriptura, albeit an arbitrary use. The same Paul in Romans 12 denounces the adapting of worldly living and must restrict the application of becoming all things to all people – even for the sake of the gospel. He commands Christians to not allow the world to squeeze them into it’s mold, and to rather be transformed by the renewing of the mind so that by testing they may discern what is the perfect as well as acceptable will of God.
One can’t become a stripper for the gospel. One can’t become a prostitute or a drug dealer for the gospel. One can’t murder cops in order to go to jail for the gospel. Can they (meaning, morally)? I say not based on other Scriptural principles, but some would agree that these means are justified due to the end in sight.
The verse in 1 Cor. 9 is merely saying that Paul became a servant to all for the sake of the gospel (v. 19), and gives the reason why in v. 23-27. Verse 22 used on its own is a good example of the proof-text fallacy. Like D.A. Carson says, a verse out of context becomes the pretext for a proof-text! The verse describes how Paul wasn’t aimless in his ministry (like a shadow boxer v.26), but had the preaching of the gospel and the conversion of sinners as his aim.
Ask those emergents which gospel they preach. Ask them if it is the same one Paul preached. Also ask them if they would be willing to read the rest of the Corinthian epistle from chapter 9 on to the end. Just be careful not to judge them – ooh, they hate that!
Where’s Lee???
Love you guys…
May 17th, 2008
Mario
Hey, Stacie!
I will quote the passage from verse 19.
“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win the Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now I do this for the gospel’s sake, that I may be a partaker with you.” 1 Cor. 19-23
Paul states he has made himself a servant to all, being careful of the people he is in the midst of when laboring for the gospel.
Lenski, in his commentary on Corinthians states that this thought is paradoxical. On the one hand Paul is free from all men, yet at the same time he is a slave to all.
Lenski notes a quote from Luther where he states that Luther “caught Paul’s secret:”
“A Christian man is a free lord over all things and subject to nobody. A Christian man is a ministering servant in all things and subject to everybody.”
Not that Paul was held as captive by men, but Paul freely made himself a slave. He was not taken as one by other men. Being free from “all men” means he was free of obligation to any man which may have resulted out of accepted support for preaching.
Paul did this in order to gain more men. Lenski identifies this as the purpose clause that “illumines Paul’s paradox.”
It is further noted that Paul was “moved by the motive of Jesus who made Himself lowly and poor in order to make as many as possible great and rich.”
It is good to note that although Paul does not note this, Jesus stated that slavery gives man a place among the highest nobility. This would definitely be so in the Kingdom of God because Jesus tells us the whoever desires to be the greatest must become the slave of all.
How simple but yet how difficult it is for us as Christians to remember this sort of humility which was in Christ! I remember Paul exhorts us to let this mind be in us, which was also in Christ! The way up is down.
For the verse you asked about, Steve’s answer is good.
Lenski states: “Paul condescends as if he, too, were “weak” by entering into their difficulties, avoiding offense, helping them to become strong. The term “weak” has a fixed meaning in connections such as this: weak and undeveloped in knowledge and in faith.”
As an example, if there is a brother who is struggling with an area of his life and is about to shipwreck in his faith, I would recognize that he is sensitive toward Calvinism. In my attempt strengthen him, I would not use the terms Reformed or Calvinism. I know I would lose him immediately. I would however, approach him by leading him to the Scripture to examine what the Scripture says about the Christian and his present circumstance. If the brother resists, he will resist with the understanding that it is Scripture that he must conform to, as opposed to the term “Calvinism” which is offensive to him.
Hope this helps! We do love you guys and miss you! Hope to see you tomorrow!
May 17th, 2008
Mario
Brad,
From my experience, when I evangelize, (and may I just say that I love to do it), I am tend to be aware of the fact that I have this treasure of the gospel in me, by grace, and by the power of the Spirit. Wherever, I am, be it at work, out and about, or out in active evangelism with my wife, I have learned to ask God to show me who he is working on. If I jump the gun and approach someone just for the heck of it, that person may be hard and reject me. There are many times however, where I begin a conversation with someone and it turns out they are open to hear about the Savior. At times my wife is led to someone I may not be “led” to, but as the Lord uses her to open the door, I may be the one who ends up declaring the truth of Christ, at times it is vice versa.
My wife and I will tell you that getting rejected is worth it to find that one person that receives the Word joy! I believe we should take heed to the Scriptures that tells us to be prepared in season and out, to give an answer for the hope we have. I embrace the charge Timothy received from Paul to “do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry,” with great joy!
“How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:
“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!”
Brad, one thing you must know for sure, is that the feet being beautiful if definitely not to be taken literal! I would say it is metaphorical, because MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, my brother, if you see my feet……well, lets just say I don’t get pedicures!
May 17th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Johnny,
I don’t blame you for being confused with apologetics and its relationship to evangelism. Francis Schaeffer also viewed apologetics as pre-evangelism or more technically as reason preceding faith. This is one of the main things that irritated Van Til about Schaeffer.
But Biblically speaking, apologetics is not pre-evangelism. Pre-evangelism is when you are sleeping or you brush your teeth prior to witnessing.
The term evangelist is (eu/en-anglia) good message (or news). But even Morey says that the gospel has bad news (this is a strange way to put it I think). However, truth be told, the consequence of those that don’t accept the good news is logically bad news.
Apollos was an evangelist. And thus convicted and possibly converted (via the means of the H.S.) the lost.
Jean Cauvin
May 17th, 2008
Mario Herrera
Jean,
Another example would be that of Stephen in Acts 7. After this Saul was converted on the road to Damascus.
May 18th, 2008
Johnny B
Jean and Mario,
Paul and the Jews, already knew, the Law of God. They understood the weight of it’s consequences, so there isn’t much of a need to rehash, the Law of God, with them. Acts chapter 2:14-36, is another good example. Acts 2:5 “And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.” They lived under the Law, once the Christ was shown to them by the Scriptures, they asked, what shall we do? The Spirit, convicted them, unto eternal life, and they responded.
Pre-evangelism or dealing with the intellect, doesn’t save people in general. I have heard of Jews, being illuminated, by reasoning from the Scripture, to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Gentiles don’t have the back round, for this type of reasoning. They need the foundation, God’s Law. So that their conscience will bare witness, that they are sinners, because they are braking God’s Law, it brings guilt and the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:19-20.
May 18th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Johnny,
Nothing we do saves anybody. What you call pre-evangelism (which is absurd) or evangelism doesnt’ save anybody. The Holy Spriit is the only agent that saves anybody. He may use us as an instrument to bring the gospel to a person but that should not be construed as the evangelist as the agent.
Paul was a Pharisee. His teacher Gamaliel whom was the third in line of a Talmudic tradition starting with Hillel. Talmudic Judaism is not and was not Mosaic Judaism to say the least. So Paul’s view was distorted and the Law was his means of salvation instead of bringing him to salvation which was later revealed to him.
He did not know the purpose of the Savior because God allowed his eyes to be blind for a time.
Though Stephen I don’t think was evangelical during his death but rather doxological which served an indirect purpose. In the case of Paul, the evangelist that witnessed to him was Jesus Christ Himself. A unique situation.
Pre-evangelism is a farse and is nothing more then gobbledegook. Either you evangelise or you don’t. There is no pre about it. Titus 1:9 is a good example of evangelism to Christians (for Christians possibly weak) and pagans.
Jean Cauvin
May 18th, 2008
Stacie
Thanks guys! I get it now =)
May 19th, 2008
Johnny B
Jean,
I only called it pre-evangelism, because you used the term, I called it dealing with the intellect or reasoning. Paul, tells us that it was that he didn’t know sin until the law showed him. Romans 7:7 “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”
In 1 Timothy 1:5-11, He tell us about the law. “Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.”
I know the Holy Spirit does the saving, we do the preaching. Which leads us back to, God’s sovereignty, man’s responsibility. John Frame, talks about this in his book, Apologetics for the Glory of God. I can’t find my copy right now, so I can’t quote him exactly. He talks about Calvinism, talks about both, God’s sovereignty, man’s responsibility, in evangelism. That’s not a direct quote, but it’s the basic idea.
Paul, heard Stephen’s Scriptural history, of their rebellion against God, and it must of started the conviction in his heart. Jesus asked him why was he kicking against the goads. Stephen’s preaching, effected Paul. Paul had the foundation of the law in his life. Jesus, used a history lesson, with the disciples, on the road to Emmaus, they were Jews. Luke 24:27 “And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” The bad news, the law finds you guilty, the good news, Jesus is the Christ, who fulfilled the law. So you can, repent toward God, place your faith in Jesus, the Holy Spirit will regenerate you, in God’s order
But back to what I was trying to say, with Peter and Stephen, their preaching was to give a Biblical reasoning for Jesus being the Messiah, to the Jews. Paul showed us in Acts 18, that he dealt with the Jews, in the same way. Showing from Scripture that Jesus was the Christ. The Jews, already had the foundation of the law in their lives. The only thing the Gentiles have is His general revelation. Psalm 19-1-6 “To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.”
What’s interesting is the rest of the Psalm, it goes to the law of the Lord, and what it does. This first part reminds me of Romans 1:19-20, the rest is the Gentiles behavior. Then Romans 2, starts looking like the rest of Psalm 19:7-14, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, Yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them Your servant is warned, And in keeping them there is great reward. Who can understand his errors? Cleanse me from secret faults. Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins; Let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless, And I shall be innocent of great transgression. Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer.” Romans 8, is the great reward.
I know it might show out there, but, I began to notice the similarities. So I started looking into it. The godless, know of God through nature, but need someone to bring the law to them. So they can know their sin, this is evangelism. The Holy Spirit, is the one who brings the conviction, and the grace for conversion. “He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment”, John 16:8. I’ve just started looking at the similarities of Psalms 19 and the first 8 chapters of Romans, so this is a ruff draft, if you want to call it that.
May 19th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Well said Johnny…Psalm 19 is my fav!
May 19th, 2008
Mario
Jean,
Although Jesus appeared to Paul, he did hear the gospel according to Romans 10, which says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. It is clear that Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit and his mission was to spread the word of God, as they did the number of disciples multiplied greatly. Ultimately, God used men which put the Word into the ears of Paul who has later converted on the road to Damascus.
May 19th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Johnny,
This is an issue I would differ with in regards to Schaeffer’s apologetics. Yes the law points to ones sins and thus the need for Christ. Ray Comfort has beaten this horse to death. However the problem has to do with the composition behind the concept evangelism.
Those whom break up the elements of the law (revealing ones sin) and the hope of that sinner are in error because it is a unit or a whole. In other words, to say that the law is pre-evangelism is a false dichotomy. One cannot understand the goodnews unless they realize the bad news. Thus the bad news and the good news are one unit in relationship to evangelism.
I would also agree with Van Til that faith precedes reason (opposition of Schaeffer’s position). Thus the understanding of the sin via the law which causes one to come to repentance happens AFTER their conversion. In other words, one turns to God and then repents (not the other way around). Via the Greek structure of I Thessalonians 1:9 proves this point. I can exegete it later if need be.
And regarding Mario’s statement. Paul heard the gospel indeed on the road to Damascus. He could have heard it before most likely since he hated it so much but I don’t know of a text that relays this. I could be in error on this and if so reveal a verse(s). Romans 10 to my understanding does not relay his testimony. However I don’t have my Bible before me. That chapter I believe is directed to the Jewish Christian audience within the Roman Church (i.e. the messianic Jews). Since the law was their means of manifesting their faith, Paul instructs them that it is Word itself alive in you that is the manifestation and growth of your faith. To put it in a way a New York Jew would understand, “the yoke of the commandments are thrown off you shoulders.”
Romans 10:17 is not talking about the gift of faith, but rather the fruit of faith. Obviously, regeneratng faith comes via the choice of the Father via the Son through the sealing of the Holy Spirit. Thus faith doesn’t come via reading the Bible (regenerational faith) but rather it comes via the choice of the Father in terms of who he dispenses it. However those who realize they are elect, if they are in fellowship with God via obedience and the flushing of their minds with God’s Word will have stronger and stronger faith. Thus a mature Christian verses an immature Christian will not have the same quality of faith (the fruit of). More on this later if need be because it’s a quick paraphrase of the issue.
Though you may disagree, hopefully it at least clarifies my position.
Jean Cauvin
May 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jean,
This sounds like a contradiction. Tell me what I am missing.
You said: “One cannot understand the goodnews unless they realize the bad news.”
Then said: “[T]he understanding of the sin via the law which causes one to come to repentance happens AFTER their conversion.”
If understanding of sin leads to repentance, and if repentance happens after conversion, then understanding the good news can only happen after conversion too. Is it your position that understanding the good news is not essential for conversion?
It’s late, and maybe I’m missing it. Can you show indicate fiducia, notitia, and assensus in this chronology?
Lastly, you said: “[O]ne turns to God and then repents (not the other way around).”
Doesn’t repentance include turning to God? And doesn’t turning *to* God imply turning *from* all else? My position is that repentance is one motion of turning to A and from B at the same time. And yes, let’s exegete 1 Thess. 1:9 (not tonight though).
May 19th, 2008
Johnny B
Thanks, Reformed Mama,
I thought maybe, I was out of it.
May 20th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Stephen,
I Thess 1:9 IS talking about the general means of conversion. The understanding of sin simply points out your sin and your need for repentance. It does not cause repentance.
I agree that faith precedes regeneration. I broke up a point of detail and the general process. The law for those whom are elect show their sin in which they throw themselves upon God’s mercy, repenting as a result.
According to I Thess 1:9, they turned to God first, and then they repented. One cannot turn to God without faith. That’s how the text lays out. This is all one unit.
Jean Cauvin
May 20th, 2008
Johnny B
Jean, what do you mean by, pre-evangelism?
I’m looking at, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, and I’m not seeing what you are trying to say. Here’s what it says. “The positive and negative aspects of faith: ‘Videndum est ut ruinam errorum sequatur aedificium fidei’ (Calvin). - ?????????? = ‘real’ as opposed to false in the sense of ‘counterfeit’. - ????, as opposed to dead idols impotent to help their worshipers. Elsewhere the phrase (cf. 1 Tim. iii. 15; Heb. iii. 12) ‘implies a contrast with the true God made practically a dead deity by a lifeless and rigid form of religion’. Nothing brings home the reality of God (i.e., as Father v v. 1-3) to the Christian at first so much as the experience of forgiveness.”
I don’t see what you’re trying to say, but hasn’t this been a debate for years. What come first, faith, repentance, regeneration, conviction. I’d like to see how you exegete this.
May 20th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jean,
You said: “I agree that faith precedes regeneration.”
I apologize if I implied that faith precedes regeneration. I do not believe that. My position is that regeneration precedes faith. My linear ordo salutis is something like (skipping election and predestination): regeneration - faith/conversion and justification (simultaneously) - sanctification-perfection-glorification.
From a previous comment of yours, you have implied that understanding the good news happens after conversion. This seems incorrect since conversion denotes that moment in time when an unbeliever becomes a believer. I don’t see how you can have a converted unbeliever, which is what you would need to have in order for your scheme to be true.
You said: “[O]ne turns to God and then repents (not the other way around). Via the Greek structure of I Thessalonians 1:9 proves this point. I can exegete it later if need be.”
I think need be’s! I am interested to see how your exegesis produces the chronological details you have appealed to.
May 20th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Stephen,
Does Morey also adhere to regeneration preceding faith? I’m not sure how you can be a Calvinist and adhere to regeneration preceding faith.
I thought you were a Calvinist. Since faith is the only instrument that pleases God, and regeneration is the process of conversion, then it seems strange to convey a person regenerated without faith.
What is Morey’s position? ARe you not a Calvinist?
One cannot understand the goodnews before conversion because the they are natural (and not yet spiritual). I wouldn’t think this would be under dispute (I Cor 2:14-16).
I did not list chronological order but compared the general verses the specific. The turning to God and then repentance is the timing laid out in Scripture.
Before we continue, does Stephen and Johnny believe that repentance happens first and then one turns to God? Verses What I believe Paul says in I Thess 1:9 that you turn to God and then repent.
The Expositer’s Greek New Testament is garbage. I use it sometimes because the text is big. If you don’t know Greek, then get a linear Greek/English and look at how the syntax is laid out. I will exegete it after I get some sleep. If this blog had the means of diagraming it would be a better demonstration but i’ll do my best.
Jean Cauvin
May 20th, 2008
Travis
I just wanted to through this out, a struggle I have.
I know I am able to be ashamed of the gospel at anytime, but but the grace of God I will not back down when the opportunity arrises. In saying that I have a desire to evangelize many people, but the courage of mind doesnt happen all the time and I reason my way out. But if I see an opportunity even a little one where I can start out by getting to know the person, or just randomly asking a question to eventially get tot he gospel. There are many avenues that can be used to get the gospel out.
I just make this comment to say I am ashamed sometimes, because of fear of, I dont even know what. But other times im explaining the gospel asking preuppositional questions, answering question that people have.
So ultimatly what is this refering to being ashamed? I repent after my unbelief, but it always leaves me with a question, wht now, how do I speak to randum people? At work is easy, but its just the random people that I find hard to go up to.
AND I find myself trying to explain predestination, does election and predestination need to be preache when speaking the gospel?
May 20th, 2008
Travis
Another thing is, evangelizing “christians” I know what people would say to this, that I can not evangelize “christians” but there seems to be many, as we have seen through out this Blog that say I am “christian” and are not. This seems to be the people that I run into more than unbelievers. Just recently I was able to question a witch that doesnt happen to often. How do we go about that, I have been first checking there understanding of the gospel and who Christ is.
May 20th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
“Does Morey also adhere to regeneration preceding faith?”
I believe so.
“What is Morey’s position? ARe you not a Calvinist?”
Most certainly, Jean. We are both Calvinists. We would both say that faith follows regeneration (and not the other way around), and that this is the dividing line between Arminian and Reformed Theology.
“I did not list chronological order but compared the general verses the specific.”
I am referring to the chronology of turning to God first, *and then* repenting as a step-two – but this awaits your exegesis of 1 Thess. 1:9. If you want to give an ordo, go ahead. That may be helpful at this point.
“Before we continue, does Stephen and Johnny believe that repentance happens first and then one turns to God? Verses What I believe Paul says in I Thess 1:9 that you turn to God and then repent.”
I can’t answer for Johnny since I’ve never met him besides here, but I would include both turning to God and turning from idols, sin, etc., - as repentance. It is one motion of turning to something which includes turning away from something else. In this case, repentance is turning from sinful wicked ways and to the living God to serve Him. All one motion with a purpose. I think that is what Paul and company are saying that they heard in the report about the Thessalonians.
Ken Wuest translates it: “…and how you turned around to God from your idols for the purpose of serving a living and genuine God as His bondslaves, and to be expectantly waiting for His Son from heaven, whom He raised out from among the dead, Jesus, the One who delivers us from the wrath which is coming.”
Based on Greek grammar and syntax, he has seen fit to translate it too as one motion with purpose and conversion that gives hope as part of a new worldview.
As for the diagram, I have one for this text. Don’t worry too much about that right now.
May 20th, 2008
Johnny B
I always thought repenting, was turning to God, in salvation. As far as order goes, Just in the year or so, realized that my beliefs were Reformed. I still struggle with the five points of Calvinism. It seems every time I read, the five points, in a book or on a website, they seem to differ at points. I will say that, I agree with the order, Stephen, posted.
Jean, your comment on, “The Expositer’s Greek New Testament is garbage. I use it sometimes because the text is big.” I don’t understand your reasoning here. Why would you use it (being garbage), because the text is big?
May 21st, 2008
Brad B
Hi Travis, I think I have something for you. I could write way more than I’m going to but you’ll get my point I think. Right off the bat, I appreciate your sharing a truth about yourself, and by revealing this makes it easy to connect with you and be a co-struggler with you in the path we are on in redemption.
Take a little pressure off of yourself as it pertains to approaching strangers, you have enough “appointments” without going out of your way. In other words, by God’s providence your everyday relationships will bring you plenty of opportunities to share the gospel by your actions which is your witness. Then, be prepared to give an answer of the hope within you–which implies a question. You dont have to be the initiator.
Sure the preaching of the gospel is the means God gave for bringing men to salvation and it is foolishness to them who are perishing so the possibility of being ashamed is there because sometimes whe are fools for Christ, We determine to know nothing but Jesus and Him crucified, being faithful to deliver the message, not attempting to convince by reason and look smart. Be a Christian, dont just “do”, let those you have relationships with you see you “being” which is loving.
As to your last question, to reveal the truth of who God is, you’ll be hard pressed to leave out His sovereignty over His creation. Election and predestination are logically necessary understandings to know God in truth.
Brad B
May 21st, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Stephen,
When I wrote about faith preceding regeneration I hadn’t slept for 72 hours. I mis -spoke a basic concept (Calvinism 101).
Though it is true that the laws revealing a person’s sin nature is part of the unit of evanelizism.
And the fact that we come to God first and then repent and spelled out in I Thess 1:9 is also true.
Sorry for the confusion over regeneration/faith. I need a vacation.
Jean Cauvin
May 21st, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jean,
Just an FYI, from the pulpit this morning, Morey reaffirmed that repentance and faith are one motion of turning from sin and toward God - at the same time. He was preaching from Ac. 20 and exegeted “repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” from 20:21 as a single motion. He emphasized some dispensational errors in splitting the two (faith and repentance), and said that you cannot have faith without repentance.
May 25th, 2008
Johnny B
Jean,
Here’s something about the Law.
“The law seeks to awaken in the heart of man contrition on account of sin, while the gospel aims at the awakening of saving faith in Jesus Christ. The work of the law is in a sense preparatory to that of the gospel. It deepens the consciousness of sin and thus makes the sinner aware of the need of redemption…….. The condemning aspect of the law has sometimes been stressed at the expense of its character as a part of the means of grace.” Louis Berkhof in, Systematic Theology, p. 612.
I hear what you are saying about Ray Comfort, but, to get the point across to people that don’t understand, the use of The Law. They need to hear it more then once to get it, if they ever will. Church history, shows this example. When ever a doctrine is over emphasize in one area, you have to over emphasize, the other side, then it will get balanced back to it’s original purpose. The Law, is part of grace, it’s the bad news side, but, none the less, a side. Which as we can see, is the side of grace that is being left out, in the modern Gospel. I like what Ray says, “people become inoculated, to the true Gospel, once they’re, believed the modern Gospel.(I hope I quoted him right, but you get the idea)”
Go out evangelizing, use the Law, and, see how many so-called Christians, will oppose you. Telling you, God is love, that you’re judgmental. I’ve been called all kinds of names, a Pharisee, been told, I have, a religious demon, the list goes on. The humanistic Gospel, has indoctrinated people to stay away from, the Gospel of sovereignty, or anything else, that is Reformed.
May 26th, 2008
Johnny B
Jean,
Here’s another quote, “This use of the law for Christian ethics has come to be referred to as the “third use of the law,” the other two uses being, first, its moral standards which are to serve as the rule of all true civil righteousness, and second, its “tutorial” work of convicting sinners, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, of their sins and thus driving them to Christ that they may be justified by faith (Gal. 3:24).” From, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, by Robert Reymond, p. 771
One more, “The fact that all people know something of God’s moral laws is a great blessing ………………. The knowledge of God’s existence and character also provides a basis of information that enables the gospel to make sense to a non-Christian’s heart and mind: unbelievers know that God exists and that they have broken his standards, so the news that Christ died to pay for their sins should truly come as good news to them.” Systematic Theology, by Wayne Grudem, p. 123.
May 26th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Stephen,
Morey is wrong. While of course regeneration precedes faith, again via I Thessalonians 1:9 they turned to God and then repented. The turning to God first is not about regeneration/faith per se (though it is somewhat) but rather how one does the repenting.
One does not “get right” with God via the means of repenting, rather one turning to God causes the repentance.
Correct him if you wish. After all, nobody’s perfect.
Jean Chauvin
May 26th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hello Johnny,
I understand your dillema. But that is because you view evangalism as only an instrument of conversion. This is not the case.
So the law in convicting a person is also evangelism in the sense of giving mindful reason to the good news.
If there is no bad news, there is no good news, and the relating of the both is part of evangelism.
Wayne Grudem is foolish.
Jean Chauvin
May 26th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jean,
I’ve personally done the exegetical work on this and I find that Morey is correct. Besides, just to be safe, I asked him if he had slept the night before and he said “yes, every night that week.” So he can’t be wrong - he slept.
How about that exegesis of yours? Still interested in how you can decipher chronology from 1 Thess. 1:9. If you may, please tell me what you base your idea on that the text of 1:9 is respective to time.
The text says that they “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.” (1:9-10 ESV)
Nowhere do we find your idea that they turned to God first (stpe one completed) and then after turning to God at some point later repented (step two completed). The turning to God includes a turning from idols. Idol worship is sin. Forsaking sin is repentance. Therefore, turning to God is repentance.
Maybe your interpretation is being guided by tradition. It is common for one to reject the plain meaning of Scripture in order to maintain tradition. In your case, maybe some greater overarching dispensational needs protection. Morey said it was a form of ultra-dispensationalism. Are you an ultra-dispensationalist?
May 26th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi Stephen,
You’re cute. If I were you MaMa I’d squeeze your cheeks. Morey falls asleep to Star-Gate repeats. I have no show that I like as much.
Stay away from ESV, that’s your first problem. The Reformation Bible isn’t that great.
A few quick concepts if you’d like to discuss this. I’m sure we’d disagree with a lot of them.
-The Term Regeneration:
I don’t believe Paul ever uses this word “regeneration.” This has different meanings depending on who you talk to. I would replace this word with “choosen,” or “elect.” This is done via in eternity. Yo
-Faith
Now faith obviously procedes election/being chosen. We read in Romans 10:17, faith ….from hearing and hearing the Word of God.
The word kaleo is not in there. This is an elipsis. I provide the english word “activated.” This is because faith is also existent in the elect person via all eternity (I Corinthians 1:30). This faith is not “activated” one could say until they hear (akoua - understand) the Word of God.
thus the repentance would come after the activation of the faith. How can they understand and repent at the same time.
In reference to the Thessalonians, Paul is talking to people who are already “saved ” (rescued). They were following Idols though (sozoed) in disobedience.
So the reason why they turned to the Living and True God is because their gods/idols were dead. Thus upon recognizing or learning or remembering that their God was ALIVE and TRUE (in contrast to their dead/false gods), they turned to God. Upon turning to God or upon realizing that God is living or true (thus the turning to God), via sorrow they would repent via the motivation of the Holy Spirit.
Though a different mode of spiritual timing, the same means thereof.
Is this not obvious? Or do we have a langauge barrier.
Now I don’t recall you giving me the verse Morey spoke on in Acts 20, but I’m assuming Acts 20:21:
“solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.”
The issue of faith was not of discussion per sa. Paul is not speaking of chronology but Luke is describing a general view of his testimony. Thessalonians is an actual report of what happened and is similar/the same before the activation of faith.
Though you disagree, my arguments are valid.
I thnk the black guy on star gate with the weird sign on his fore head dies in the end.
Jean Cauvin
May 27th, 2008
Johnny B
Jean, I never said that evangelism is for converting people. What I said was, that it is for dealing with the conscience, which the Law does. The convection and converting, is the work of the Holy Spirit. That apologetics, deals with the intellect. All I can do is present to Gospel, and those that are called will, believe, that doesn’t mean, it’ll happen right there or it could, that’s up to God, not me.
I’m new to Refomed doctrine, I just realized, that what I’ve believed for a few years, turns out to be Reformed. It came about, because of the Law, in relationship to sin.
May 27th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jean,
Although the ESV Reformation Bible isn’t that great, I use it sometimes because of the small print.
Regeneration – your definition is guilty of linguistic relativism. If you take Paul’s “made us alive (Eph. 2:5)” and inserted the terms “chose” or “elect,” you would see that it would destroy the context and result in erroneous interpretations. You would do well to accept biblically defined theological terms rather than creating your own. Not only would you be rightly handling God’s Word (2 Tim. 2:15) as a workman without shame, but you would also avoid fallacious theological conclusions such as “regeneration takes place in eternity.” Bad theology always leads to bad Christianity. Just looking out for you and your spiritual health, Jean!
Faith – since you have a faulty foundational error (equating regeneration and election), it is of no surprise that further errors continuously emerge resulting in your unorthodox theology. In addition to grave hermeneutical errors, there exists quite an immense logical inconsistency within your scheme. Until you are willing to submit to Scripture as the Origin of your theology, Jean (or whoever), you will be treated as an outside rebel of the faith. We will continue to teach you until the fruit of God’s regeneration is apparent.
I disagree with your cavalier interpretations. If we allow your invented terms/definitions to be presented unchallenged, then we might as well allow anything. Scripture is the final judge in whose sentence we must rest. Therefore your definitions are rejected on the basis that they are unbiblical.
This should not be of any surprise to you since you began with, “I’m sure we’d disagree with a lot of them.” I can appreciate variance in theology from one man to another. But the variance is generally of a slight degree; all within the general framework of Reformed Theology. What we have here with you, Jean, are completely different definitions of such a radical degree that they fall outside the pale of orthodoxy – something that should make you tremble! The regenerate man would tremble! Regenerate as defined biblically.
Lastly, I request that you discontinue associating yourself with the Calvinists. Based on your theology you are not a Calvinist.
May 27th, 2008
Reply to “If Calvinism Is True, Why Evangelize?”