Why do some Reformed/Calvinist "pastors" advocate unbiblical evangelism?

[padredurand]

• No methodology has ever saved a single person.
• No book authored by mortal man has ever saved a single person.
• No preacher - street or pulpit notwithstanding - has ever saved a single person.

This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not on account of anything at all foreseen in man. It is not made because of any power or agency in the creature who is wholly passive in the matter. Man is dead in sins and trespasses until quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit. By this he is enabled to answer the call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed by it. This enabling power is no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead. 10.2

 

[Iconoclast]

• No methodology has ever saved a single person.
• No book authored by mortal man has ever saved a single person.
• No preacher - street or pulpit notwithstanding - has ever saved a single person.

:thumbs::wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

preachinjesus

Well first of all, The Way of the Master twists Scripture to make their point. They selectively quote and apply in specious (and spurious) ways. So you're not winning this argument with "well Ray Comfort says..." Though I'm appreciative of good efforts to spread the Gospel, and though I am wary of Comfort, I happily partner with folks who use "Way of the Master" but refuse to bow to their legalism. There isn't ONE and only one BIBLICAL method of evangelism.

I'm not spending a lot of time here but I'll toss out these examples and move along:

- Just quoting from the OT isn't inherently quoting "the Law"...especially for the first century Jew. To quote "the Law" meant you would likely refer to the Pentateuch and then Mishnah and Talmud. I don't see Comfort pointing out either of those in his text.

- Secondly, the greatest sermon given (Matthew 5-8) is entirely devoid of direct OT citations. It calls people to a new ethic and new Kingdom yet doesn't quote from "the Law" at all.

- Thirdly, notice Paul's two examples of apologetic methodology (and ultimately evangelistic call) in Acts 17 and Acts 22. In Acts 17, Paul goes to a less than public place and uses their cultural signs to proclaim the Gospel. This includes quoting from a secular poem. Yet does not directly quote from OT Scripture. In Acts 22 he never quotes the OT and preaches among Jews not on a street corner. In Acts

- Fourth, Jesus' method of "evangelism" was to call others to Himself and to follow Him while casting off their worldly ideals.

- When, in Acts, it refers to Paul (or anyone else) referencing the "Law and the Prophets" that is Luke's way of saying the Old Testament. Since it was their only testament, and thus not old yet, it isn't inherently the Law.

- I don't have to work this out, but the nature of apostolic evangelization in the first century wouldn't have been on street corners and in open air proclamations like you're used to or think that is the only method. Frankly, given the persecution ongoing in the first century most evangelistic relationships were done person-to-person by inviting them into a house church or community. The exposure to the kerygma, the early preaching of Christ, was done personally more than publicly. We look to Paul's letters about this and think of 2 Corinthians 6:13; Ephesians 4:1-3; 1 Timothy 4:16; etc.

- Notice Acts 18:26, after Apollos had attempted to speak about Jesus he was taken into a home (not on a street corner) to be refined.

- Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch from Acts 8:26-40 was not public proclamation but personal connection. BTW, just to point out, given Luke's understanding of the Law and the Prophets, the texts used to present the Gospel to the Ethiopian Eunuch are from the Prophets and not the Law.

- Also, in looking at Jesus' specific way of spreading the message about His own messianic mission, the Gospels seem to be taken with the reality that he did so by performing miracles, casting out demons, and healing people. I'd point to Matthew 4:23-25 and Mark 1:21-39 specifically.

I can go on but this is a start.

[/QUOTE]
PJ

:wavey::thumbs::wavey: While i could dispute a few ideas offered here,I will not do so. That is because I agree with the overall thrust of your thread and view them as being meant to help the Op go in a more comprehensive direction.

 

[pinoybaptist]

The LAW was adovacted by Charles Spurgeon, Whitfield, Wesley and others. If you read the Bible closely you will see that it is the LAW that convicts of sin. How did Paul get convicted of sin? By the law. Refer to the verse in my signature and also Psalms 19. The Way of the Master is not about Ray Comfort its about doing things the way Jesus did and evangelizing using his principles. People get confused and they say I am following Comfort, when in reality I am following Jesus. Comfort does not load his 350 page book on evangelism with his personal stories and experiences, he loads the book with scripture and quotes from historical theologians and evangelists from the past. One such quote is this.



More quotes are contained in the book by JC Ryle, Martin Lyold Jones and others.

While it is true that Comfort may exaggerate in his book a little, he does make a point about the many professing believers whom are false converts. Why don't you try reading the book and looking up the verses he cites instead of just dismissing the principles? Its 350 pages but its an easy read with not many deep words.

I thought you were of the 'Reformed' persuasion. Shouldn't you know that one can rub an unregenerate sinner's face in the law 24x7x365 and the best it would do is 'reform' (no pun intended, or should there be ? :laugh him, while OTOH, a cannibal would never have heard of the gospel or of the Name of Christ, and yet, could suddenly be ostracized by his tribe for refusing to murder human beings for food anymore because "something" in his inner being (a.k.a. the Holy Spirit) convicts him of the evil of the practice?

 

[padredurand]

Adding a specific methodology of presenting the Gospel as a condition of salvation is unbiblical.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Adding a specific methodology of presenting the Gospel as a condition of salvation is unbiblical.

Jeeze.....just how long have we "Old School Baptists" been saying that?!?:laugh:

 

[padredurand]

Jeeze.....just how long have we "Old School Baptists" been saying that?!?:laugh:

Forever. I was just feeling needy today and wanted your affirmation. :tongue3:


Now I'm going to go read the best selling religious book ever printed: 66 books written by 40 authors over 1600 years with one crimson thread wound from the first to the last....

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Forever. I was just feeling needy today and wanted your affirmation. :tongue3:


Now I'm going to go read the best selling religious book ever printed: 66 books written by 40 authors over 1600 years with one crimson thread wound from the first to the last....

Kiss kiss:smilewinkgrin:

Thank God for being Welshmen blood:thumbs: been Baptists forever almost...right Yoda!

 

[padredurand]

Kiss kiss:smilewinkgrin:

Thank God for being Welshmen blood:thumbs: been Baptists forever almost

My ancestor Roger Williams (The Rhode Island guy not the piano player) must have been a miserable failure. He didn't have many books to tell him how to "do the work of the evangelist and fulfill (his) ministry." (2 Tim 4:5)

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I did. PiJ did.

No, you posted verses you claim are about "friendship evangelism".

People who criticize it don't know what it is.

No, people who post unrelated verses don't know what it is.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

No, you posted verses you claim are about "friendship evangelism".

If you can prove to me John 4:28-30, 41, 42 don't illustrate friendship evangelism, I'll apologize. Let's see what you got. Denying they are indicative of friendship evangelism isn't proof, it's rhetoric. Bad rhetoric, at that.

No, people who post unrelated verses don't know what it is.

Like I said ...

 

[evangelist6589]

Can you provide some specific examples of Reformed pastors that support "unbiblical evangelism"?

Erwin Lutzer in his book Life Changing Bible Verses You Should Know pp. 167

Quote:
True Friendship is still the best means of evangelism
The rest of the chapter he goes on to explain his view, but not once does he mention using the LAW to convict, but he makes a good case for friendship evangelism.

Kent Hughes Disciplines of a Godly Man, pp. 207

Quote:
Statistics indicate that ordinary Andrew relational evangelism is the most effective way to go.
He goes on to explain why he thinks this and the chapter seems to be all about Andrew friendship evangelism and he makes no reference to using the LAW to convict of sin, nor to address the conscience of the sinner.
__________________

 

[JonC]

Erwin Lutzer in his book Life Changing Bible Verses You Should Know pp. 167

Quote:
True Friendship is still the best means of evangelism
The rest of the chapter he goes on to explain his view, but not once does he mention using the LAW to convict, but he makes a good case for friendship evangelism.

Kent Hughes Disciplines of a Godly Man, pp. 207

Quote:
Statistics indicate that ordinary Andrew relational evangelism is the most effective way to go.
He goes on to explain why he thinks this and the chapter seems to be all about Andrew friendship evangelism and he makes no reference to using the LAW to convict of sin, nor to address the conscience of the sinner.
__________________

How is this “unbiblical evangelism”? Instances in the bible where the evangelist did not use the Law to convict of sin or address the conscience of the sinner have already been mentioned in this thread. (I believe you that some Reformed authors do not incorporate "the Law method," but I don’t understand how this is “unbiblical”).

 

[padredurand]

Erwin Lutzer in his book Life Changing Bible Verses You Should Know pp. 167

Quote:
True Friendship is still the best means of evangelism
The rest of the chapter he goes on to explain his view, but not once does he mention using the LAW to convict, but he makes a good case for friendship evangelism.

Kent Hughes Disciplines of a Godly Man, pp. 207

Quote:
Statistics indicate that ordinary Andrew relational evangelism is the most effective way to go.
He goes on to explain why he thinks this and the chapter seems to be all about Andrew friendship evangelism and he makes no reference to using the LAW to convict of sin, nor to address the conscience of the sinner.
__________________

The Law convicts no one.

John 16:7-11 NAS77
7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment;
9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me;
11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

 

[evangelist6589]

How is this “unbiblical evangelism”? Instances in the bible where the evangelist did not use the Law to convict of sin or address the conscience of the sinner have already been mentioned in this thread. (I believe you that some Reformed authors do not incorporate "the Law method," but I don’t understand how this is “unbiblical”).

Unless WOTM is not entirely correct which may be the case. In that event Lutzer is not wrong about his views on evangelism. Hmm....

 

[JonC]

Unless WOTM is not entirely correct which may be the case. In that event Lutzer is not wrong about his views on evangelism. Hmm....

I have not read WOTM’s evangelistic method but have watched several of the “Kirk and Ray” videos. It’s a method towards evangelism. But it is not “the” biblical method. I am not sure if it is even “a” biblical method for reaching the non-Jewish lost who did not identify with the Law. I say it’s not “the” biblical method because there are instances where other approaches were used (for example, those previously mentioned of Jesus and Paul). Does WOTM say that convicting sinners under the Law is the only biblical method of evangelism?

 

[evangelist6589]

I have not read WOTM’s evangelistic method but have watched several of the “Kirk and Ray” videos. It’s a method towards evangelism. But it is not “the” biblical method. I am not sure if it is even “a” biblical method for reaching the non-Jewish lost who did not identify with the Law. I say it’s not “the” biblical method because there are instances where other approaches were used (for example, those previously mentioned of Jesus and Paul). Does WOTM say that convicting sinners under the Law is the only biblical method of evangelism?

http://thecripplegate.com/concerns-with-the-way-of-the-master/

 

[padredurand]

Unless WOTM is not entirely correct which may be the case. In that event Lutzer is not wrong about his views on evangelism. Hmm....

Think of God’s Laws as an extension cord that is plugged into the power of Heaven. The gospel is a light bulb. Without the Law, the gospel is powerless; it leaves the lost in the dark about their sin and its deadly consequences…The message of the cross is therefore foolishness to a world that is perishing. However once the gospel is connected to the Law, it becomes the power of God to salvation. The Law gives the gospel its light. (Comfort, What Did Jesus Do, 20).

Jesus says the Holy Spirit convicts. Comfort says it is the law that does it.

A powerless gospel?

For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
1 Thessalonians 1:5 KJV

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

My ancestor Roger Williams (The Rhode Island guy not the piano player) must have been a miserable failure. He didn't have many books to tell him how to "do the work of the evangelist and fulfill (his) ministry." (2 Tim 4:5)

Been to Providence lately?

 

[JonC]

http://thecripplegate.com/concerns-with-the-way-of-the-master/

I have to say that I agree with the criticisms the article offers…if this is the intent of WOTM. I think that the 10 Commandments are a good starting place to illustrate our sinfulness, but this presupposes the person to whom you are speaking accepts at least somewhat of a Christian foundation. Otherwise you end up “selling” what is a debatable theological issue of Gentiles being “under the Law” to someone who isn’t even saved (and this before you can even get to the gospel of Christ).