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

[MW]

Very well. Then according to Alexander and Luke the Greek term "to evangelize" may have a non-technical sense and be predicated of the verbal communication of laypeople, which is the point I've been belaboring.

You have been advocating the technical term, "evangelism," not simply the propagation of the truth.

I disagree. Jesus promised his special presence for this task "until the end of the age." No living apostles today. Ergo: commission not limited to apostles, given to entire church.

Ergo: all may baptize, contrary to reformed ecclesiology. Clearly the commission given to the apostles is carried on by those who are ordained to their ordinary function of "preaching." As already noted, the whole church has a vested interest in this commission, but it is carried out by men set apart for the function, just as the apostles were.

The argument of 1 Corinthians 9, which speaks of Paul's self-denying burden to "gain souls" by any lawful means is continued through the end of chapter 10 up to 11:1: "Just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." Like Paul, the Corinthian believers were to have a self-denying burden for lost souls. Add to that the weight of the 6th commandment, and it would be sin for a Christian to knowingly watch souls plunge into eternal hell-fire because some theologian or preacher has told him he has no right to open his mouth and share the gospel.

11:1 has brought the lesson back to not causing offence either within or without the church. I don't know any sound preacher who would tell a believer to keep quiet about his faith at the expense of another's eternal damnation.

Brother, as I've tried to reiterate more than once, I'm not a leveller, and I do recognize the distinction between an officer of the church assigned with the special task to labor in the word and doctrine and the laity who are not assigned that special task. What I've demonstrated is that the Scriptures do not limit the term kerusso or euangelizomai to that special office. These expressions may be used in a non-technical or non-official sense. That does not mean, however, that they are deprived of their basic meaning of verbal communication.

Your presentation has every believer doing evangelism, whereas the Scriptures emphasise this as an official function. Your view makes evangelism unaccountable, and leads to the mess which the modern church finds itself in today, where every one does what is right in his own eyes.

Perhaps I'm just misreading you. Perhaps you really do believe that the saints are free and even to some degree obliged according to their level of maturity and knowledge to share with perishing souls the good news of Jesus Christ. Do you affirm this? Or do you rather argue that the common believer has neither right nor obligation to tell the good news when providence grants opportunity?

I have already made my position clear. You are free to dissent from it, but you ought not to misrepresent it.

Matthew, I don't want to engage in a needless war over words. I am concerned, however, with what I perceive to be a kind of overemphasis on the distinction between the clergy and laity as well as a hyper-Calvinism.

Your concerns are no doubt an expression of your theological views. As I have no respect for your divergence from historic reformed thought, your pejorative use of terms like clericalism and hyper-calvinism bear no weight with me.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

I don't think anyone here denies the indiscriminate offer of Christ to all that hear the gospel. The only element rejected is the idea that God desires the salvation of all to whom the gospel comes. As salvation is provided in the death of Jesus Christ alone, to say that God desires the salvation of all is tantamount to declaring that God gave Jesus Christ to die the death of sinners with a desire of saving every sinner, elect and reprobate alike. Nothing more need be said in order to show the unreformed nature of this tenet.

Well, many of the Reformed authors I cited above not merely affirmed an "offer" or "invitation," which, according to your way of thinking, could have contain any wish or desire that the offer be accepted, but they also affirmed God's sincere desire to show mercy in the invitation proffered. Read Robert Lewis Dabney's, "God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy As Related to His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity" I could paste other excerpts from the citations above. Surely you're not intending to defrock from the Reformed faith a host of Reformed pastors and theologians who disagree with you. Do you?

Actually, I'll be fair and concede that there have been pastors and theologians within the Reformed tradition that share your views. I don't believe their denial of God's sincere intention beyond his offers of mercy is healthy for the Reformed church. Quite frankly, I think such a position is what gives Calvinism and Reformed theology a bad name--and rightly so!

So, is it "unreformed" to believe in the free and sincere offer of the gospel? Then so be it. I'm not afraid to take the mantle of unreformed. My primary allegiance is to Christ and the Scriptures and only secondarily to my Reformed confession and heritage. I think this makes me very much like Luther and Calvin and is actually consistent with my own Confession I, 10.

The hour is late and I must rest my weary eyes. Matthew, it's been a pleasure discussing these matters with you. I'll pray for you. You pray for me. And may the Lord be pleased to guide us into all truth.

Good night,

 

[MW]

Quite frankly, I think such a position is what gives Calvinism and Reformed theology a bad name--and rightly so!

I fully agree; it gives Calvinism a bad name in the Arminian world. Of course, if faithfulness to Christ were first and foremost, the scandal of reformed theology would not pose such a problem.

So, is it "unreformed" to believe in the free and sincere offer of the gospel? Then so be it.

No, the free and sincere offer of the gospel is that which is taught in reformed theology; see Larger Catechism, answer 32. It is the pathological and humanistic beggary of the gospel which is unreformed.

 

[MW]

Actually, I've been quite vocal about both God's sovereign decree and his sincere indiscriminate invitation to sinners. What I'm willing to be silent about is attempting to offer a perfectly satisfactory explanation of how these two biblical truths cohere. I affirm that they cohere in God's supralogical mind. But my finite logic cannot put its arms around the entirety of God's ways.

If this were the case there would be no speculation of unfulfilled desires in God, a tenet quite clearly contradicted by express scripture testimony, Ps. 115:3; Eph. 1:11, in concert with the whole flow of redemptive history and theology.

Yes, my use of analogical was purposeful. I deny a univocal identification of divine and human emotivity. But analogical does entail intelligible correspondence. We can know what God is like and what he feels by observing human actions and emotivity:

At this point you come closest to a proper use of the word analogue, where you correctly ascribe the correspondence to consist in intelligence. However, when you insist human emotivity must correspond to divine emotivity, you go beyond scriptural testimony.

The "passing knowledge" does not mean we can't no anything about it. Otherwise, Paul would be saying, "The ----- of God passes knowledge." We can understand something about God's love by looking at human love. But we can't fully sound its depths.

It is a condescension on God's part to provide dimensions whereby we may grasp what in its own nature is infinite and beyond human comprehension; but we should always acknowledge that what we comprehend is not God Himself, but God as revealed in the perfect image of Jesus Christ.

 

[Pergamum]

No, the free and sincere offer of the gospel is that which is taught in reformed theology; see Larger Catechism, answer 32. It is the pathological and humanistic beggary of the gospel which is unreformed.

Could you explan that fuller?

 

[ManleyBeasley]

I would like to see those who dissent from the "indiscriminate offer of the gospel" quotes that Dr. Gonzales posted respond to them. I'm interested to see if there is a rebuttle, even if its "I don't think John Calvin was reformed enough". Just curious.

I don't think anyone here denies the indiscriminate offer of Christ to all that hear the gospel. The only element rejected is the idea that God desires the salvation of all to whom the gospel comes. As salvation is provided in the death of Jesus Christ alone, to say that God desires the salvation of all is tantamount to declaring that God gave Jesus Christ to die the death of sinners with a desire of saving every sinner, elect and reprobate alike. Nothing more need be said in order to show the unreformed nature of this tenet.

Thats not at all what I'm saying. God gave His Son to pay for the elect with the intention of ONLY saving the elect. What I'm saying is that God desires the salvation of all in the narrow sense but desires something more in the wide sense; His glory displayed to the GREATEST degree. God may not delight in the death of the wicked as it stands alone but does delight in His glory above all things. That means He WILL do that which glorifies Him most which is damning the reprobate and saving the elect. It is His greater desire for His ultimate honor that trumps His benevolence that extends to all (even the reprobate). A world in which some are damned and some are elect to salvation gives Him the most possible glory. To sum up I will say, God loves the reprobate and doesn't want them to perish, but loves His glory more.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Dear Matthew,

I appreciate some of the things you've said in your last few posts, and I think that at least on some issues we might not be as far apart as it has seemed. I'd like to try to review some of your final comments and attempt to show where it appears that we're at least gaining greater clarity on some of the issues we've discussed. I also want to make some clarifying remarks that I hope will assure you and others of my great love for the Reformed tradition and full subscription to the 1689 Confession despite the fact that I believe that tradition and my Confession can be enlarged and enhanced.

First, you seemed to acknowledge above that the laity may propagate the truth of the gospel. You prefer not to use the term "evangelize" to describe that activity. I agree that the Greek euangelizomai, like kerusso, normally carries a technical sense and describes the activity of specially commissioned gospel messengers. I have tried argue, on the basis of its use in Acts 8:4 that the term may also have a non-technical usage and therefore be used to predicate the activity of ordinary believers propagating the truth in keeping with Alexander's interpretation. I do believe the activity invisioned is more than just living a godly life. It also includes the communication of biblical truth. But I think you agree. It appears that you just prefer to limit the word "evangelize" to its technical usage. I don't think that's the only way the NT writers use it. But I don't want to perpetuate an argument over terminology. You have, it seems, clearly affirmed that God's people may communicate the gospel provided that they have the doctrinal and spiritual maturity and the opportunity. Of course, all believers should be under the oversight of the church and the goal of sharing the gospel is not merely to press for decisions but to call for repentance and faith, to direct such individuals into a local church, to see them baptized by the pastor, added to the church, and taught the whole counsel of God. So I think, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not too far apart here. I'm not willing to make a big deal about the terminology though I should add that when applying the term "evangelism" to the laity, I've never argued that it should be understood in the more technical sense in which it applies to the commissioned Evangelist.

Second, you first said the Great Commission was given to the apostles. I then countered by arguing that it was given to the "entire church." In your second response, you conceded, "the whole church has a vested interest in this commission," but then you added, "It is carried out by men set apart for the function." Once again, I don't think our differences are that great. I agree that the pastor-teacher has the "leading role," so to speak, in carrying out the Great Commission. It is primarily the pastor-teacher who does the official teaching and preaching in the church. Of course, the 1689 does allow for laymen to teach and preach in the church (ch. 26.11). So we do have laypeople teaching SS classes. On a few occasions we might have a young ministerial aspirant or gifted deacon preach a message. But for the most part, we limit the official function of preaching to the pastor-teachers. The same is true of baptism and the sacraments. I do think, however, that the activity of the Great Commission is larger than what takes place on the Lord's Day from the pulpit. I would also include, and I think you would too, all the prayers for the nations offered up in the family and private devotions of the church members. I would also include the work of the members inviting lost people to church as fulfilling a facet of the Great Commission. And when providence provides them with an opportunity to give an apologia for the gospel hope within them to an unbeliever, I would include that under the umbrella of the Great Commission. In any case, I want to make it perfectly clear that I affirm both official and non-official facets of Christian ministry. The pastor-teacher equips the saints (official) so that the saints can do the work of ministry (non-official or non-technical) (Eph. 4:11-12). I don't expect you to agree with the way I've worded everything, but I hope that we're closer to a mutual understanding.

Third, the initial question posed on this thread was whether the 17th century Reformed Confessions contained a sufficient articulation of the church's and Christian's role in reaching its own Jerusalem and the nations abroad with the gospel. I still think an extra paragraph in our confessions (perhaps in the section dealing with the doctrine of the church) would be useful. But as you and others have noted, the 17th century confessions do speak of "the ministry of the word," and evangelistic and missionary outreach may legitimately be inferred from that phrase. Though I think the phrase may be somewhat ambiguous to modern people today (especially outside the Reformed tradition) and it appears to limit the Great Commission to the ministry of the pastor-teacher or missionary, I do not want to disturb the peace. My purpose is not to be hyper-critical of our 17th century confessions. Nor have I in any way suggested that we discard them. I myself fully subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. I can't think of any doctrine it teaches with which I take exception (except I'm not dogmatic the the Pope of Rome is "the" antichrist though I certainly affirm he is "an" antichrist). My concern in this thread has been to suggest that we continue to reform (semper reformanda) and when appropriate expand our Confessions to address areas that, for whatever reason, may not have been adequately addressed in the 17th century. In any case, I hope you won't doubt my love for and commitment to the Reformed faith as expressed in the 17th century confessions. Moreover, I am committed to a confessional church (see my series "On the Value & Validity of Confessions of Faith," (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV).

Finally, we've debated the question of the free offer of the gospel. In your 153rd post, you alluded to the Larger Catechism Q32, which affirms that God "freely provides and offers to sinners a mediator." Am I correct to assume that they meant "indiscriminately"? I should think so in light of the many Reformed pastors and theologians I cited above. Our point of disagreement seems to reside in the question of whether God's indiscriminate invitation (in the general call) carries with it His sincere compassion for their needy condition and unfeigned wish that they would turn from their sins and be saved. I affirm God does feel compassion for all men indiscriminately and sincerely wishes them to comply with his offer. Unless I'm misreading you, you're not comfortable with that language. Nor do you apparently agree that an indiscriminate desire on God's part for the salvation of sinners is demanded by the Catechism or the Scripture.

Perhaps you are correct about the Catechism. I'm not a church historian, so I could not at this time make a case one way or the other as to the actually intent of the Larger Catechism's authors. Nevertheless, I do believe that some of the authors and theologians I cited above speak of more than a mere "free offer." They also seem to portray that offer as sincere, well-meaning, and even given with the divine wish (I'm trying to avoid the word "desire" that men will accept its terms. Again, I offer some excerpts:

Commenting on John 3:16, John Calvin asserts, "[God] nevertheless shows He is favourable to the whole world when He calls all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is indeed an entry into life.... God does not want us to be overwhelmed in everlasting destruction, for He has ordained His Son to be the Saviour of the world. According to George Swinnock, "The proposals of divine mercy and love are general and universal." Thomas Shepherd declares, "Whatever the secret purpose of Christ is, I regard not. In this evangelical dispensation of grace, he makes love to all." Thomas Chalmers avers, "No plan can be more injudicious, than to mix up the doctrine of election with the original overtures of the Gospel. The doctrine of 'goodwill to men' will light up joy in all, for all know they are men; but the doctrine of 'good will to the elect' will light up joy in none, for no man can tell at the outset whether he is elected or not. By implicating, as some theologians unwisely do, the final acceptance with the original offers of the Gospel." Horatio Bonar says, "We present to every sinner a gracious welcome to Christ, without any preliminary qualification whatsoever." William Shedd argues, "God offers Christ's sacrifice to every man, without exception, and assures him that if he will trust in it he shall be saved, and gives him common grace to help and encourage him to believe. This is a proof that God loves his soul and desires its salvation." Charles Spurgeon argues that the preacher should not merely offer the gospel freely to all but that his heart toward all needy sinners should reflect something of Christ's indiscriminate compassion: "Our souls are not stony; our bowels are not withdrawn from the compassion which we ought to feel for our fellow-men; we can hold all our views firmly, and yet can weep as Christ did over a Jerusalem which was certainly to be destroyed. Abraham Kuyper claims to speak for Reformed theology when he writes, "The Reformed theology insists that God Himself ... makes on the ground of the universally suitable and sufficient atonement a most sincere, bona fide, offer of eternal life, not only to the elect but to all men, urgently invites them to life everlasting, and expresses the ardent desire that every person to whom this offer and this invitation come and accept and comply with the invitation. Louis Berkhof describes God's disposition in the free offer when he affirms, "We believe that God "unfeignedly," that is, sincerely or in good faith, calls all those who are living under the gospel to believe, and offers them salvation in the way of faith and repentance."

Of course, I understand that you may take exception with the statements of these men as you have with Professor John Murray. Apparently, you affirm that the gospel should be offered indiscriminately but you do not believe we should portray God as sincerely desiring sinners to comply with its demands and to enjoy its blessings. You apparently believe this involves a logical contradiction in God's being. How can God decree anything that he doesn't desire? You also question the passages that depict God expressing his wish that sinners, who turn out to be reprobate, should turn from their sins, be forgiven, and serve him. The anthropomorphical (anthropopathical, to be more exact) language of these passages apparently prevents us from taking them too literally. We should refrain from seeing too much correspondence between God's "wishing" and our "wishing." (By the way, notice that I use the term "correspondence" not univocation. But of course, correspondence assumes a great deal of likeness.) It's just God's "manner of speaking" in human language, which is finite, and which, therefore, really cannot convey what we as humans understand by the term "wish" or "desire."

If I've misrepresented you, please forgive me. I'm not trying to caricature you position. I'm honestly trying to understand it. If I'm understanding it correctly, I don't agree with it, and I don't believe it represents the best of Reformed theology though I do acknowledge that some within the Reformed camp have entertained and propounded such views. Be that as it may, this is not a thread for debating the nature of the free offer of the gospel. I am willing to discuss that with you further in the future on a separate thread.

I do want to close on a note of concilation and ask you to tell me if you think I've been disrespectful toward you in this discussion. If I have, I want to ask your forgiveness. I do not doubt that you are attempting to be faithful to what you believe God's word teaches. I genuinely appreciate that. Thank you for all the time and effort you've put into this thread. And may the Lord help us both to grow in our love for the Savior and knowledge of His word!

Sincerely yours,

 

[Scott1]

Not to sidetrack the discussion here, but only to note a couple observations.

In order to understand the "five points" of Calvinism, one needs to understand that each doctrine is necessarily and logically related to and dependent on one another.

When someone thinks himself as, for example, a "four point" Calvinist, he is not really understanding the full implication of the other points. It’s almost like saying, “Yes, I believe God is 80% sovereign,” when in reality, God is sovereign, and that is, by definition, 100%.

Yet, there are many folks out there who, often because of not having had comprehensive explanation of this fashion themselves Calvinist or Reformed because they lean toward the sovereignty of God in salvation (something like God is 60%responsible for salvation whereas man is 40%). Yet, in reality, the limited atonement and unconditional election are as related to and dependent on the other points as much as are any of the other points.

When the term "hyper-Calvinist" is used, it is usually with the implication that either:

1) The "five points" are not (all five) correct and
2) If one does believe all five, there would be no reason to evangelize.

If one does understand and believe them, there is no basis at all to conclude #2 because God commanded that the Gospel be preached and all nations be discipled in those things He taught (cf Matthew 28:19,20).

Why do "five point" Calvinist's evangelize? Because God said to. That should be enough, end of story. God requires of His creatures obedience. We do not control the results and should not represent or believe we do as God is absolutely, 100%, in control of who He chooses to regenerate.

But our God has chosen not only the ends, who He will redeem according to the good pleasure of His will, but the means as well. He chooses to use the preaching of the Gospel as an ordinary means of bringing people to faith in Him.

In my understanding, as God has ordained not only the ends of salvation but the means, that the Westminster Confession, taken as a whole, brings this out very well by declaring "what we are to believe about God."

 

[NaphtaliPress]

For those who may have missed the link previously (I did).

Here is a link to Mr. Winzer's article about John Murray and the free offer.

 

[TheFleshProfitethNothing]

WCF Larger XV.1

Evangelism is for Approved ministers under ordination of Elders in the Presbyterian form of Church government. The key reason for this, is that Proclaiming the Gospel is a VERY serious matter, and only those trained up and matured in it are to be the presenters of it.

The reason the Westminster "Divines" put the Confessions together, was to train up the Church in the way of the Gospel, and as members grew in the grace and knowledge of Christ, they would be either ordained by elders for missionary work, or to establish another Church elsewhere; though one would have to attend a Seminary for further studies, first.

Most of the time, the lost, would see the life of a believer, and question the believer, and the believer would answer cautiously as conscience allowed to the best of their knowledge and abilities (as we do today). The way of evangelism, the next step, would be to invite the unconverted to attend Church at the next meeting, so that, a trained and ordained minister could proplerly proclaim the truth. In other words, those trained in the WCF can and do proclaim the gospel, in life, words, and deeds; but the main focus of a Church Member is to get the unsaved to Church, where those most cabable could do the real work, of evangelisation, for public Scripture reading is delegated to those who are ordained by the Elders to present it (according to the WCF also).

All that just to say, it is taught by Scripture to preach the gospel, but, remember that one must KNOW what the gospel is, and how to present it...else one is preaching an incomplete (even a) false gospel. The WCF, especially the Larger Catechism is LONG and includes all that is sufficient for the life of those in the Church, and of course thouroughly outlines and explains what the Gospel is. In this way it is useful for evangelising also, and generally through the teachings of the ordained minister of the presbytery.

Hope I explained that all well enough...By the way, WCF XV.1 mentions presenting Repentance in the proclaimation of the Gospel, "by the minsiters", which in other places, especially about the use of Scripture, are those ordained to do so.

 

[Herald]

This thread has reached the end of its life expectancy.

 

[MW]

Although the thread has been closed I would like to make a final reply, not to add to what has already been said, but to express thankfulness to Dr. Bob Gonzales for his attempt to clarify where we agree.

I've never argued that it should be understood in the more technical sense in which it applies to the commissioned Evangelist.

Thankyou, brother, for this clarification. Whether "evangelism" as a term should be applied to non-ordained activity, I think it is important to note that we agree (1.) all believers are called upon to confess/share their faith to others, and (2.) the preaching of the Word is an official function requiring accountability to church guides and overseers. Agreement on these twin truths means there is no place for the use of the words "clericalism" or "leveller."

The pastor-teacher equips the saints (official) so that the saints can do the work of ministry (non-official or non-technical) (Eph. 4:11-12). I don't expect you to agree with the way I've worded everything, but I hope that we're closer to a mutual understanding.

While I maintain this text teaches the pastor-teacher does the work of the ministry, nevertheless we agree that there are a variety of functions within the body of Christ, Rom. 12, and that all are to be motivated to minister according to their gift that the body might grow up into Christ the Head.

I myself fully subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

This is heart-warming to hear; and I encourage you to major on these majors which are outlined in the Confession, and to leave minor additions to a broader council when the Holy Spirit is pleased to bring us all to a greater unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God.

I affirm God does feel compassion for all men indiscriminately and sincerely wishes them to comply with his offer. Unless I'm misreading you, you're not comfortable with that language.

That is correct. This would be a fundamental point of difference between us, but I also acknowledge it is a point of tension within modern "reformed" churches as a whole. Having absorbed much of the older Presbyterian literature it is my considered opinion that the "well-meant" offer is a small minority view in my tradition. Not even the Marrowmen employed the concept or terminology. The Presbyterian tradition by and large has been fully committed to the gospel of particular grace. Christ died with a desire to save His elect alone, and has charged His ministers to preach His death and offer Him indiscriminately to all men as the only way of salvation.

I do want to close on a note of concilation and ask you to tell me if you think I've been disrespectful toward you in this discussion.

I try to distinguish forceful rhetoric from intended disrespect, and I think we are both guilty of the former but not of the latter. As confessional Christians we should grant to each other the freedom to express our convictions with all the knowledge and utterance the Holy Spirit has given to us. The fact is, there are differences in the church today. I see no point in covering them over. We need to bring them out into the open and manfully though charitably discuss them because that is the only way, with God's blessing, that we will be able to resolve these differences. So I don't think you have anything which needs forgiving; and just in case I may have overstepped the lines of acceptable behaviour, please forgive me if I have wronged you in any way.

Blessings!