Reformed Evangelism

the-Highway.com ^ | Morton Smith

[ksen]

REFERENCES

1. "Minutes of the Faculty of Reformed Theological Seminary," January 6, l972, p. 251, par. 6-174.
2. Packer, James I., Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1961, pp. 27-29.
3. Packer, James I., "Introductory Essay to John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ," pamphlet, no publisher listed, pp. 1-5.
4. Warfield, Benjamin B., The Saviour of the World, Cherry Hill, New Jersey: Mack Publishing Company, 1972, pp. 8 1-82. Also found in Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1952.
5. Kuiper, R. B., "Professor Dekker on God's Universal Love," Torch and Trumpet, Vol. 13, p. 5.
6. Murray, John and Stonehouse, Ned B., The Free Offer of the Gospels Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1948, p. 6.
7. Bavinck, Herman, Gereformeerde Dogmatick, Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1928, Vol. III, p. 530.
8. Kuiper, Op. cit., p. 8.
9. Murray, John, "The Free Offer of the Gospel and the Extent of the Atonement," Torch and Trumpet, Vol. 15, p. 20. Also in Banner of Truth, No. 58, 59,60
10. Ibid., p. 22.
11. Op. cit., Vol. IV, p. 5.
12. Cunningham, William, Historical Theology, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870, Vol. II, p. 344.
13. Op. cit., p. 8-9.
14. Murray, lain, "The Presentation of the Gospel and the Doctrines of Grace," Banner of Truth, Fourth Issue, p. 26.
15. Ibid. pp. 27-28
16. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, Op. Cit., p. 57.
17. Ibid., p. 58.
18. Ibid., pp. 68-69.
19. Murray, Iain, Banner of Truth, Issue 11.
20. Calvin, John, Tracts, Vol. 3, pp. 25 3-4.
21. Boston, Thomas, Works, Vol. 10, p. 95.
22. Erskine, Ebenezer, Gospel Truth, p. 355.
23. Erskine, Op. cit., p. 365.
24. Boston, Op. cit., Vol. 6, pp. 288-9.
25. Boston, Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 651.
26. Murray, Iain, Banner of Truth, Issue 11, p. 12.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid., p. 13.
29. Cunningham, Op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 347-8.
30. Murray, Iain, Banner of Truth, Issue 11, p. 13.
31. Op. cit.

[ksen]

There has been talk about the Reformed position and its killing affect on evangelism.

Here's a rather lengthy article that refutes that notion.

[Kenny Bunkport]

Tiptoeing through the TULIP.

[wideawake]

Are you familiar with the author? Comments?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Interesting. I want to look at this in detail later.

[wideawake]

There is no doubt that Evangelicalism today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement... . Without realizing it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel (the biblical Gospel) for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic Gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church. Why? We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character in content. It fails to make men God-centered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do. One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be helpful to man—to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction—and too little concerned to glorify God. The old Gospel was helpful too, more so, indeed, than is the new—but (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was always and essentially a proclamation of divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its center of reference was unambiguously God. But in the new Gospel the center of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach men to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was. God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.

From this change of interest has sprung a change of content, for the new gospel has in effect reformulated the biblical message in supposed interest of helpfulness. Accordingly, the themes of mans natural inability to believe, of God's free election being the ultimate cause of salvation, and of Christ's dying specifically for His sheep, are not preached. These doctrines, it would be said, are not "helpful"; they would drive sinners to despair, by suggesting to them that it is not in their power to be saved through Christ. . . . The result of these omissions is that part of the biblical gospel is now preached as if it were the whole of that gospel; and a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth. Thus, we appeal to men as if they all had the ability to receive Christ at any time; we speak of His redeeming work as if He had done no more by dying than making it possible for us to save ourselves by believing: we speak of God's love as if it were no more than the general willingness to receive any who will turn and trust: and we depict the Father and the Son, not as sovereignly acting and drawing sinners to themselves, but as waiting in quiet impotence "at the door of our hearts" for us to let them in. It is undeniable that this is how we preach; perhaps this is what we really believe. But it needs to be said with emphasis that this set of twisted half-truths is something other than the biblical gospel. The Bible is against us when we preach in this way; and the fact that such preaching has become almost standard practice among us only shows how urgent it is that we should review this matter. To recover the old, authentic, biblical gospel, and to bring our preaching and practice back into line with it, is perhaps our most pressing present need.

This Packer quote is fascinating. Thanks.

Of course, Packer is wrong because he doesn't own as many luxury cars as Rick Warren, so obviously God doesn't agree with him.

[wideawake]

BTW, while we're on the topic, what's your opinion of the Sproul/Packer Reformed Study Bible?

[AZhardliner]

Dr. Morton Smith was the first Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). He is presently Professor of Systematic Theology at Greenville (SC) Seminary.

[wideawake]

Thanks. Good to know.

Interestingly, my church recently established a new congregation in Greenville, SC - and it's one of our most conservative nationwide.

[Alex Murphy]

BTW, while we're on the topic, what's your opinion of the Sproul/Packer Reformed Study Bible?

I own the NKJV edition (2001), and plan on getting another copy in the just-published ESV edition also. It is, quite simply, the best study Bible I have ever owned. The format is excellent, there is ample margin space to make notes in, and the study helps are incredible. You can get the ESV in hardback, shipped, for under $30 (the NKJV was $60 in HB, and even more in leather).

[Alex Murphy]

There has been talk about the Reformed position and its killing effect on evangelism.

The only "killing effect" I see comes from non-Reformed people who want us to stop evangelising.

[Corin Stormhands]

Here's a rather lengthy article that refutes that notion.

It may not kill it, but the length of the article throws some cold water in the face of evangelism. ;-)

(I'll ~try~ to read it tonite)

[Corin Stormhands]

Of course, Packer is wrong because he doesn't own as many luxury cars as Rick Warren, so obviously God doesn't agree with him.

With all due respect, y'all really do need to just get over Rick Warren.

[wideawake]

I own the hardcover ESV.

It seems to me to be the most concise and direct Reformed Bible+commentary available.

Dr. Eckleburg is a seriosu scholar and I was wondering what his take was.

Apparently you find the study material to be highly effective in your reading.

I understand that Packer was the primary author of the longer notes.

[ksen]

It may not kill it, but the length of the article throws some cold water in the face of evangelism. ;-)

Why, it wouldn't be a truly Reformed article if it wasn't at LEAST 25,000 words long. ;^)

[ksen]

Ok, each side got in their poke and defense of Rick Warren. Let's please stay on the topic of THIS article (which I don't believe mentions Rick at all).

Thanks!

[Corin Stormhands]

Let's please stay on the topic of THIS article (which I don't believe mentions Rick at all).

Precisely my point.

[Gamecock]

***Precisely my point.***



Does that mean we can't bring up Joel Osteen? ;-)

[ksen]

Doh!!

[Corin Stormhands]

I thought Friday's were Jan and Paul.