Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?