Evangilism in light of Tulip? And J.I. Packer's book.

[SoldierOfTheRock]

I was asked a question today that made me wonder. Suppose you are teching a VBS class and want to tell the kids about Jesus and what he did. I really can't say Christ died for all of you sins and is waiiting for you to let him into your heart, or that God wants everyone in heaven and all you have to do is pray this prayer, read this card...etc.

So I ask, what does one say? I do not know how any other churches do things except for the southern baptist church that I go to which was arminian up till about 2 weeks ago - fun story there. I guess I could just go with what Paul said to Timothy "The saying is trustworthy and deserveing of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am foremost." 1 Tim. 1:15 ESV

I guess when I think about it Paul never made blanket statements about Christ dying for every individual and all of their sins. So why should we preach that way? Surely there is some way that the gospel can be given in a biblical manner, I just do not know how.

Sorry for my confusion, but this i kinda bothering me. I suppose this would not be that hard if I knew what the plain, simple, and pure gospel was. Seems as though alter calls and singing one last stanza is something that the apostles forgot to do. Sadly I find myself thinking that those are the only ways of doing things. I need help!

I also wanted to ask about J.I. Packers book 'Evangilism and the Sovreignty of God' has anyone read it? It seems as though it would help me out.

Thank you all for you exist (the board itself) and for any replies and or thoughts.

 

[Ianterrell]

I'm doing a bit of studying on this topic right now. This is a big problem among the reformed. There have been to many instances of men who are other wise solidly Calvinistic wafting into using either Arminian or Amyraldian language. These are men of good reputation: Thomas Boston, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, John Murray. When it comes to many issues these men can be excellent guides, but when it comes to the effectual call they are inconsistent with their understanding of Limited Atonement. It's really unfortunate.

More precise and articulate guides would be men like Calvin, Owen, Witsius, and Gordon Clark.

The Gospel in the scriptures is essentially a call to repent of ones sins and to believe on Jesus Christ. Whoseover believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. The benefits and comforts of the gospel belong to the elect only. The comfort of assurance does not belong to those hearing the general call, because they were only purchased and stored up as a gift for the elect in Christ.

So rather then turn the gospel into an instruction on assurance we are to preach Christ and his redemption as it has been savingly wrought out on the cross. We are to preach the necessity of repentence and faith. Christ is presented as Lord and Savior of those who repent and believe. God does not intend to save all, therefore we should not preach that God intends to save all. This may sound repetetive and juvenile to some. But I'm working against the idea present in what I've been reading about the Marrow Controversy. The "marrow men" sometimes called the twelve apostles were doctrinally inconsistent by proclaiming that Christ didn't die for all men, but saying that we should tell sinners that Christ died for them. This error is I would say quite widespread. I've yet to hear a popular Calvninst preacher that handles this properly.

Anyway enough of my drifting thoughts...

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[turmeric]

Let me look for my copy of The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, by John Owen...there, in J.I.Packer's intro, brief synopsis;
1) All are sinners and cannot do anything to save themselves.

2) Jesus Christ is a perfect Savior for sinners, even the worst.

3) The Father and the Son have promised that all who know themselves to be sinners, and put their faith in Christ as Savior shall be received into favor, and none cast out.

4) God has made repentance and faith a duty, requiring it of everyone who hears the Gospel.

 

[Bryan]

I own a copy of Packer's E&SofG. I read it a little under a year back I think...It was a fairly basic book, if you understand the Soverignity of God it seems natural to me that you MUST evangalize. Anyways, there was the idea of an antinomy Paker persented in the book to which Piper wrote a responce here: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/packer.html

Bryan
SDG

 

[Learner]

Hi Soldier

I do not have Packer's book with me.However he said something to the effect that we are not warranted to make such statements as:";;He loves all of you and died for all of you.";;Spurgeon was adamant on that also.Go to my Spurgeon quotes thread and find him speaking to this issue.We are surrounded by Arminianism and have to free ourselves of its grip.We want ,desire for people to turn to Christ.But He does the turning.Biblical preaching and teaching,communicating the Gospel needs to be as faithful to the Word as possible.And to mainstream Evangelicals it sounds like heresy.I e-mailed a Fundamentalist American Pastor in Korea more than a week ago on these issues.So far no response.He said I have a monster for a God.There is only one God.If one is true to the Word, abandon the ";;monster talk";;,and get biblical.