The Evangelization of the Elect

[fralo4truth]

Hi all! I have a question in regards to the evangelization of God's chosen. I believe the Reformed position is that the gospel is the means wrought by God in regenerating his children. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

If so, my question is this: Is it also the reformed position that all of the elect will hear the gospel in time? I have always wanted to see a work which dealt with this issue in some measure of detail, but have never found one. If you know of one, I beg of you to please let me know what it is. All the writers I've ever consulted never seem to address this issue. They simply make the assertion and pass on. Surely they thought of it.

John Gill, arguably a hyper-calvinist, asserted that the gospel is the ordinary means of regeneration, implying that some were regenerated without it.

John Owen claimed that it was the means in all that are adult.

If it is the means only for a portion of the elect, are we correct in saying that God regenerates both with and without means? If it is the means for all the elect, then what are we to say about peoples in lands which have never been evangelized? Are we to conclude that they are not of God's elect?
I recently confronted a reformed pastor about this question and he expressed it was their hope that God had worked in them nevertheless.

Brethren these questions are all closely connected.

I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

Your servant.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think the scenario such writers have in mind are (in the words of the WCF) is of those who are incapable of being "outwardly called" by the gospel: i.e. infants dying in infancy, mentally challenged, or similar cases; and not at all the cases of those who in the wisdom and even justice of God (aboriginal peoples, offspring of former reprobates who place their seed beyond the reach of the externally preached gospel, etc).

In the latter case, we challenge the whole cause of missions if we shrug our shoulders and "leave it to God." Not if we believe that the gospel is the ordinary means, and preaching the ordinary ordained instrument for that means to reach the elect, will we be speaking or thinking or acting thus.

God is ABLE to supernaturally impart the faith in Jesus Christ that is utterly indispensable to salvation. But he has not promised to work such miracles for us, while he HAS promised to work by the preaching of the gospel. God saves elect infants, dying in infancy; we confess it on the strength of the biblical foundation of our doctrine of election. But clearly, their exposure to the gospel in this life was not cognitive, if we can speak of it at all.

Nevertheless, they had to have been given a sight of Christ spiritually, in order to love him. Their natures had to be renovated. They had to be given saving faith. Their whole development of that faith happens exclusively in a heavenly state (whereas, our growth in grace takes place partly in this world, and mainly in the next).

As for the peoples "whom God have forgot" (to quote the Psalm), to hope in a non-gospel salvation for them is simply to pine for their salvation for the salving of our sentimentality. Since they are in darkness, and in need of the gospel, we do them no favors if we selfishly hold the truth unto ourselves. They WILL perish without it; they MAY (if they are elect) be saved by it. So testifies the Scriptures.

It is a matter of justice that God left the heathen (which once included us, or our ancestors) in rank darkness. He owed no one the gospel. He will save ALL his elect. How he does that is his business, but when he has been clear to us on how that happens ordinarily, we are not free to put our hopes in his supernatual interventions, when he ordains means as well as ends.

We are in danger of disobedience, even to the peril of our own souls (as Paul himself said, "woe is me if I preach not the gospel!"), if we do not acknowledge our responsibility. If we resist that duty, could that be evidence of our own unsaved state? Indubitably.

 

[fralo4truth]

I appreciate your thoughts Bruce. I would like to encourage others to share their thoughts. Again I will ask if anyone knows of any works available that treats of this matter, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Pergamum]

Kevin,


Nice to meet you, brother.

I see that you are a Primitive Baptist.

Do you label yourself as a Primitive Baptist due to being in a church that is called so, or do you believe all of the Primitive Baptist doctrines?


To be a Primitive Baptist in line with their history would be to reject the 1689 Baptist Confession's article on the Effectual Calling, which states that the Elect are ordinarily called to regeneration and salvation through the means of the Word.


Gill, though charged to be a hyper-calvinist, also uses this same language, that the elect are ordinarily called through the Word.

In his Body of Divinity, Gill states:"the ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men; which is done when the word comes not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; and works effectually, and is the power of God unto salvation" (Body of Divinity, Chapter XI, Book VI). Therefore, Primitive Baptists cannot claim Gill.



The Primitive Baptists started in the early 1800's (1820s -1830s) in reaction to missions efforts by Luther Rice and the baptists as they began to form mission societies, boards, tract societies (i..e. as they got energetic in the use of means).

At first, for these Antimission Baptists the objections were about mission means. The "enemy" of what later became the Hardshell /Primitive baptists were the "Means Baptists" who used means for the salvation of the heathen. Many despised Luther Rice's efforts to aid Adoniram Judson and gather funds for missions and one even called Luther Rice a "Modern Day Tetzal" I believe for raising money for missions (I can look up the source).

So, missions methodology began as the impetus for the Missions/Anti-missions Controversy among the baptists in the first half of the 1800's. Later, the Primitive Baptists/ Hardshells began to form a soteriology that was deficient in the use of means by denying that the elect were saved ordinarily through the Word. Instead, the elect are to be saved without any means (even the means of the Word).


Hardshells are against any "means" regarding the New Birth. They teach that regeneration is an act of the Holy Spirit wholly apart from the use of "means" such as the Gospel, or the Word of God. This caused their anti-missionism in the 1820-1830's and they split from the Baptist denomination in 1832 and formed the "Primitive Baptists" or "Old School Baptists."


Ordinarily (infants being a hard case) there are not people walking around regenerated but who are not converted and who have not yet heard the Word.


Primitive Baptists exist because (sorry) they took the wrong side of a historical debate and then let their soteriology drift further in an effort to buttress their arguments.

Primitive Baptists are not to be called "primitive" in the sense that they hold to the older and more original beliefs that predated the rise of arminianism among the baptists, but those who came to be known as Primitive Baptists were those who were offended at the rise of tract and missionary societies and seminaries and who were dismayed by the formation of baptist associations in support of missions, and thus they are not "primitive" at all, but strayed from the 1689 in regards to how ordinarily people are regenerated, i.e., through means (The Word preached).




Kevin, do you believe that the 1689 is right or wrong regarding the normal pattern of regeneration and salvation for an Elect soul?




Thanks for this interaction. One helpful author to read might be Bob Ross, who I think published many of Spurgeon's sermons (not sure of how doctrinally correct he is, but he is useful for the history of the controversy and he cites many helpful quotes). Spurgeon too is very helpful in this matter, I can look up direct quotes if this would bless you, brother.

I would recommend Spurgeon's wonderful little book, The Soul Winner".

It seems that Primitive Baptists are not just another kind of Calvinistic Baptists, but that they have erred in their soteriology and differ on a major doctrine from the 1689.

 

[Herald]

I don't know of any works I can cite. I do know that the gospel is to be proclaimed to all who will listen. We need to remember that God does not reveal to us who is elect and who isn't.

btw I concur completely with Bruce. The ordinary means has to do with those who are able to understand the gospel. For those that are incapable (elect infants dying in infancy, intellectual incapacity), the Lord can save independent of the gospel being preached, but that is not normative.

 

[fralo4truth]

Kevin,


Nice to meet you, brother.

I see that you are a Primitive Baptist.

Do you label yourself as a Primitive Baptist due to being in a church that is called so, or do you believe all of the Primitive Baptist doctrines?


To be a Primitive Baptist in line with their history would be to reject the 1689 Baptist Confession's article on the Effectual Calling, which states that the Elect are ordinarily called to regeneration and salvation through the means of the Word.


Gill, though charged to be a hyper-calvinist, also uses this same language, that the elect are ordinarily called through the Word.

In his Body of Divinity, Gill states:"the ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men; which is done when the word comes not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; and works effectually, and is the power of God unto salvation" (Body of Divinity, Chapter XI, Book VI). Therefore, Primitive Baptists cannot claim Gill.



The Primitive Baptists started in the early 1800's (1820s -1830s) in reaction to missions efforts by Luther Rice and the baptists as they began to form mission societies, boards, tract societies (i..e. as they got energetic in the use of means).

At first, for these Antimission Baptists the objections were about mission means. The "enemy" of what later became the Hardshell /Primitive baptists were the "Means Baptists" who used means for the salvation of the heathen. Many despised Luther Rice's efforts to aid Adoniram Judson and gather funds for missions and one even called Luther Rice a "Modern Day Tetzal" I believe for raising money for missions (I can look up the source).

So, missions methodology began as the impetus for the Missions/Anti-missions Controversy among the baptists in the first half of the 1800's. Later, the Primitive Baptists/ Hardshells began to form a soteriology that was deficient in the use of means by denying that the elect were saved ordinarily through the Word. Instead, the elect are to be saved without any means (even the means of the Word).


Hardshells are against any "means" regarding the New Birth. They teach that regeneration is an act of the Holy Spirit wholly apart from the use of "means" such as the Gospel, or the Word of God. This caused their anti-missionism in the 1820-1830's and they split from the Baptist denomination in 1832 and formed the "Primitive Baptists" or "Old School Baptists."


Ordinarily (infants being a hard case) there are not people walking around regenerated but who are not converted and who have not yet heard the Word.


Primitive Baptists exist because (sorry) they took the wrong side of a historical debate and then let their soteriology drift further in an effort to buttress their arguments.

Primitive Baptists are not to be called "primitive" in the sense that they hold to the older and more original beliefs that predated the rise of arminianism among the baptists, but those who came to be known as Primitive Baptists were those who were offended at the rise of tract and missionary societies and seminaries and who were dismayed by the formation of baptist associations in support of missions, and thus they are not "primitive" at all, but strayed from the 1689 in regards to how ordinarily people are regenerated, i.e., through means (The Word preached).




Kevin, do you believe that the 1689 is right or wrong regarding the normal pattern of regeneration and salvation for an Elect soul?




Thanks for this interaction. One helpful author to read might be Bob Ross, who I think published many of Spurgeon's sermons (not sure of how doctrinally correct he is, but he is useful for the history of the controversy and he cites many helpful quotes). Spurgeon too is very helpful in this matter, I can look up direct quotes if this would bless you, brother.

I would recommend Spurgeon's wonderful little book, The Soul Winner".

It seems that Primitive Baptists are not just another kind of Calvinistic Baptists, but that they have erred in their soteriology and differ on a major doctrine from the 1689.

Hi David, and thanks so much for your response. I'm well aware of the history of the Primitive Baptists, but thank you for sharing.

If you would like to know a little more about me please read my post in the 'Introduce Yourself' forum. Now in reference to your question as to why I call myself a Primitive Baptist....

Up until a few years ago I agreed with practically everything contained in their doctrine. I can remember seeing the TULIP doctrine so clearly laid out in the scripture. I saw that the Primitive Baptists held to those, even though they may have, and still do, explain them a little differently than historic Calvinism. For a little while though, I have began to seriously challenge the 'no means' form of regeneration they traditionally teach. My examinations of such texts as 1 Peter 1:23, Romans 1:16, and Eph. 1:13 are mostly responsible for this.

Prior to this time I would look at Rom. 1:16 and notice that it states that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. I would reply "Exactly. It is the power of God to those that believe, not to those that don't believe! Those that believe CURRENTLY HAVE eternal life (John 6:47). They HAVE ALREADY BEEN regenerated (1 John 5:1). So how could the gospel be the means of regeneration when the believer is currently regenerate?"

Recently, however, I have begun to consider that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation antecedent to believing. I read a sermon of John Owen in which he made that remark. The addition "to every one that believeth" is inserted to simply show that this is so for the family of believers, the elect.

In regards to the 1689 Confession I would have generally agreed with its assertion of Effectual Calling but denied the use of the word as the means. I would not have allowed for exceptions to the rule such as infants and/or the mentally incapable, but stood strong for an absolutely single method of regeneration. It is either with means or without for all the elect.

But now I'm beginning to think otherwise.

Thanks again, David, for your response. If I have failed to explain everything you desired of me, please let me know. I look forward to your response if you choose to do so.

 

[Pergamum]

Thanks. It sounds like you have been on quite a journey.

Sorry for rehashing Primitive Baptist history to a Primitive Baptist who already knows his own history.

Again, Spurgeon's Soulwinner might be a good little booklet that speaks of the means that God uses in regeneration.

Spurgeon's sermon, The Warrant of Faith also says this:

Spurgeon:

"If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate" (The Warrant of Faith, #531, page 532).



Here is another helpful Spurgeon quote on the relationship between faith and the New Birth:

“How can I make myself a new creature in Christ?” Of course, you can do nothing of the kind. This is a miracle; it is as much a work of God to make us children of light as it was to make light at the first. Only God can work this miracle; but mark you this, there never was a soul yet that truly believed in Christ, but at the same time it underwent the change called the new birth or regeneration.

Christians have often been asked about which is first, faith or regeneration, belief in Christ or being born again. I will tell you when you will answer me this question, -- When a wheel moves, which spoke moves first?

“Oh, they all start together!" say you.

So these other things all start together, whether it be the hub of the wheel, which is regeneration, or the spokes of the wheel, which are faith, and repentance, and hope, and love, and so on; when the wheel moves, it all moves at once. If thou believest in Jesus Christ and him crucified, in the moment that thou believest, this great change of nature is effected in thee; for faith has in itself a singularly transforming power.

It is a fact in everyday experience that, when a man comes to believe in his master, he becomes at once a better servant. A person whom I disliked, because I suspected him, becomes at once pleasing to me as soon as I trust him. So, faith towards God in itself produces a total change of mind in the man who has it. But, beside that, there goes with faith a divine energy which changes the heart of man.

(Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 41, page 235, Despised Light Withdrawn).