The Evangelism of Despair
Evangelism, it really is the “buzz word” in Christian circles today. Question the concept or the methodology and you are in big trouble. Yet methinks that there has probably never been another time when the Church new so little of the true nature and essence of evangelism.
When viewing modern evangelistic programmes and listening to people apply these various philosophies, there is one aspect that I find striking. Most Christians seem to be attempting to engender hope in the lost. It seems that there is a lot of hugging, back patting, and arms around shoulders, with the accompanying words, “It will be alright!” We have “friendship” evangelism. We have “hospitality” evangelism. We have “Creative” evangelism; not to be confused with “Creation” evangelism. We have tele-evangelists, radio evangelist, internet evangelist – how long before tele-marketing-evangelists – ‘Hello sir, I am calling you tonight from “Inspired Creations”. No, we are not selling anything, I just have a question…!”
My criticism at this point is that the Christian is putting faith in his ability to woo, coax, cajole, and educate the dead sinner into the Kingdom. It is like watching “Slick Willy Inc” run a marketing seminar with all the latest and proven techniques to ‘get your foot in the door’ and ‘close out the sale’. In short, this type of methodology is nothing short of a rank Humanism that has been given a spritz of holy water and then gang-pressed into church service.
Any hope derived from man and for man, is simply no hope. As stated, its correct title is Humanism.
The truth of Biblical evangelism lies not in (false) hope, but in (true) despair. If the rebellious sinner believes that there is something that he can do, no matter how slight, then he has hope in and of himself. This is a false hope. It is a fool’s hope. It is so because it denies the truth of God’s revelation.
What must be declared to the rebellious sinner is that he has no hope. We must bring to the sinner the sense of absolute despair. I speak here of a palpable, gut-wrenching, and loathsome despair that truly makes one fearful. I speak of a fear and a terror that brings absolute dread. The picture is of a man who, faced with a truth or an object, has turned ashen, his legs will not hold his weight, his body trembles involuntarily, and he, so weak that he cannot move, can but whimper. At this point, man is robbed of all his devices.
Now, true evangelism can occur. At this point, God alone is Man’s saviour. At this point, Jesus Christ is magnified as a Man’s only possibility for salvation. Now, there is true hope. It is a lasting hope. It is not the fleeting hope of the ephemeral, but the certain hope of promise founded in the Eternal. It is the truth that God saves sinners. It is the truth that from eternity God has set His love upon His people and that He is reconciling these He loves to Himself in His Son, Jesus Christ. This is hope. This is evangelism.
(References: Acts 2:37; Acts 16:29-30; Daniel 5:6; Isaiah 13:6-7.)
Good day Chris & Murray,
Great post Murray.
We seem to be living in a time when the church is solely focused on “reaching” the lost. Evangelism is man’s chief end and we ought to drop everything – wife, children and careers – to pursue the ungodly and those who are enemies of God. Is there a place for evangelism – yes, the Bible is clear that some are evangelists. It is sickening to me to live in a time when the consciences of saints are played with to arm restless them into “full-time” ministry. This is just ungodly, unscriptural and not a reformational position to hold.
Most of the NT examples of evangelism occurred during the period of the last days of the old covenant; Israel was in the process of being judged for covenantal disobedience and the covenant curses of Deut were being brought to bear upon here. Jesus and His disciples were going out to the lost sheep of Israel – preaching that the Kingdom was at hand (prior resurrection & ascension) and that there was a new resurrected king (post resurrection). Many of the “converts” we’re simply the faithful saints transitioning from the old administration of the covenant to the new. In other words if these people had died prior to hearing of the resurrected and enthroned Messiah they would have been in covenant with God and enjoyed the resurrection of the body unto life everlasting.
The other thing is that we are dead to sin and transgressions, not merely sick. If some are seeking God of their own accord then the blood shed by Christ was in vain. If there is a whisper of free will the atoning blood of Christ avails none. For someone to be seeking God must mean that it is the Father drawing that person to the Son – aka Jn 10 and other places. I think we must distinguish, as Luther did, between the indicative and imperative language. Chris, I think that we ought to “seek first the Kingdom” and we cannot infer from this that people are able to do so without the New birth, which is the work of the Father drawing the elect to the Son through the power of the Holy Spirit. “Seek first the kingdom” and all other examples of such is in the indicative tense or mood, it is God stating the fact of what men ought to do. We cannot infer that men can perform the task or even seek to perform the task.
What really distresses me in modern churches is the lack of seeking the kingdom of God in worship. We seem to want to have any sort of liturgy EXCEPT one that is Biblically rich through: singing the Psalms (and the excellent historical church hymns), having extended law/gospel/epistle readings set to a lectionary, litanies of Psalms or passages etc. I believe our greatest problem is in worship. We believe we can come into God’s household, do anything we please and then expect a blessing in return. When we worship the gathered body ascends the mountain and comes before the throne of God, with innumerable angels, and worships the maker of the universe (eg Heb 12). When we are up the hill we ought to focus on God and order ourselves according to what He has revealed in His Word. Worship is where the world is changed. If we ascend the mountain, play Mickey Mouse games and pray “Thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven” then our areas of dominion will be a mess. There is an order of things – worship then dominion. We cannot take dominion without first worshipping God aright.
So, in my opinion we need another ecclesiastical reformation and this will lead to the nations being discipled. It won’t occur the other way round. I think this pattern is seen through Acts:
1. go to the places of worship and declare that there is a new king – Jesus,
2. the true people of God are called out and set apart by the Spirit,
3. a new hierarchy of leadership (plurality of elders) is established,
4. God’s people are instructed in the Scriptures and lives are shaped per the Word
5. this leads to succession planning wherein local people disciple and take dominion – taking the Word to their family and communities. Murray, I do think one of the issues we have with the current evangelism at all cost model is that the family unit’s responsibility if hospitality is wiped out and discarded as a genuine ministry.
Blessings,
Trev
Greetings Trev,
Thank you for your input, comments, and insight.
Your point on worship is valid and a strong restatement of the worship of God as central to our call and the Church’s mission is very much needed. The Reformers, summarising as per the WSC, saw that man’s chief end was to glorify (worship, praise, honour, obey) God and to enjoy Him forever.
The mantra of the modern Church, sadly including many who wear the name Reformed, has become distinctly more semi-Pelagian. It has exalted man and replaced the centrality of God’s worship with the more 70’s type mantra of “we need to get got people saved!”
Thus, as you state, much time and effort is expended in placating and flirting with the enemies of God rather than in worshipping the One True and Living God and declaring His message of war to the nations. We seem to fail to see, through wanton blindness, that the war footing is God’s means of extrication. Rahab stands as an example.
If “God loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life”, even though I am estranged from Him and have hatred for Him, what motive is there for me to change? If God is okay with me in my present circumstances, then, to put it simply – God is okay with me! (It is not possible here to unpack all the threads implied in such a statement. Suffice to say that this common sentiment destroys God’s Justice, Integrity, Holiness, and Righteousness, thereby causing Him to cease as God.) I do believe we were on a much better footing when we took Edwards position of “Sinners in the hands of an angry God!”
People today openly mock the days of the “Hell Fire and Brimstone” preachers, but methinks we were in better shape in those days. It certainly needs to be pointed out that the current slothfulness and paucity within Christianity can be directly traced to the movements that have sought to bring the worship of God, as you put it, down from the mountaintop. We have reached a point in which we believe we can deliver up any old slops and place it upon the King’s table with the expectation that He should be grateful that we delivered something. Such an approach is shattered on almost every page of Scripture, yet we continue on in our group delusion.
God have mercy upon us! Make us see and obey!
I also need to add some points of clarity, so as to speak to your closing comment.
The movements referred to above also brought with them a destruction of the Biblical order. Trumpeting the “priesthood of all believers” these people began to deny the fact that God in Christ instituted a Church and that He gave to the Church both offices and officers. Hence, these people began to speak of everyone as a minister. Denominations began to go soft on the idea of eldership. The idea of leaders as rulers and those in authority gave way to leadership by those who volunteered or “felt” they had a gift to be used.
Through this trend we were introduced to an ecclesiastical orgy where everyman ‘did what was right in his own eyes’ – of course, dressed up as “feeling led” or “being guided by the Spirit”. This same environment gave us “every member evangelism”. It “liberated the laity”. In some arenas it led to the cessation of preaching – through such abominations as the Toronto Curse, Ooops, sorry, Blessing!
The upshot of these trends is that God’s order and construct for order within His Church was overthrown. Sadly, the Christians who had grown up and been state educated in the Me / I culture of individualism, interpreted these things as “good”; yet our Lord called it evil.
Thus, the centrality of my belief is that we must return to the Biblical model. It falls to those who hold office in the Church to speak / declare with authority the messages of God. These commissioned are imbued with the power of God suited to their office for use in such declarations. To them truly belongs the right and obligation to say, Thus says the Lord!
With the above happenings, the message has been stifled because the messenger has been told that he has no right to speak or he has lost confidence in his calling to speak. Consequently, we do not see pulpits being pounded and we do not hear unequivocal messages that challenge and bind our consciences to our Lord Christ.
Then we look at the laity. What is their role? It is as it has always been, namely, to glorify God by living the faithful life of obedience. We have a beautiful task of proving to the world the wonder of Christ’s salvation by living both transformed and transformational lives.
We have destroyed this witness in our day by adopting the false concepts mentioned above. As a child, gross sin was never accepted and it was rarely encountered in the Church. Nowadays there are churches that have divorce and seemingly do not care. Our families, instead of shinning in the darkness, are covered in the gloom of sin.
Once, a pagan might have asked the Christian, “What made him tick?” because his life was different – good different. His family was pleasant. They ‘had it together’, in modern parlance. What would a pagan ask us today? What answer will we give?
By allowing falsehood into the Church, we have actually destroyed the means by which God calls His people out of darkness. We have silenced the true Evangelist and we have silenced the pulpiteer. We have destroyed the beautiful witness of the family in all its facets as a true instrument of righteousness and a trumpet of no uncertain sound.
What we are talking about here, in essence, is roles. Just as husband and wife are one, yet different. So the various components of the Church have equally valid but differing roles. I guess that is a poor analogy. We do not even understand the roles of male and female any longer because, once again, we have imbibed the poisonous philosophy of the world.
Let us go back to the mountaintop!
Regards,
Murray.
Murray
Many thanks for your article.
I agree that true repentance is about the abandonment of all vestige of self-sufficiency. I well remember reading John Bunyan’s book “Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners”. In it he tells of his thankfulness to his pastor (a Mr Gibbins ~ I think?) who would not let him rest on false hopes.
It is a sentiment similar to that of your article and a sentiment well worth re-stating at this time.
May I offer a certain caution though. We see various conversions in the New Testament and yet relatively few of them seem to be attended with tears of repentance. Indeed if the Woman at The Well is an example, her experience seems one of recognizing that Jesus knew of all her sins, and yet her testimony was not that she was forgiven but that Jesus is Messiah. Others also seem to have come to faith in Christ via circumstance/healing rather than repentance. (viz The man healed who was blind from birth).
Indeed, as I understand it, even the great Puritan Jonathan Edwards recounts how it was a recognition of the beauties of the creation rather than the depravity of his own condition which brought him to Christ.
Without in any sense endorsing the seeker-sensitive movement, is there not a place for what the Psalmist invites . . . “Taste and see that the Lord is good” (Ps 34:8). I offer this comment because I have found myself at various times with a restricted view of how people come into the kingdom. In consequence I have tended to “witness” in an untoward manner.
Thanks for your article.
Chris
Greetings Chris! Thank you for your response and “caution”.
Okay, I must admit to being a little unsure as to how to respond without being loquacious or pleonastic, but I will give it a go because I believe it to be important.
Let me start with reference to a clip by Jerry Johnson (Against the World Tv.). He speaks of a friend of his wanting to know what this “Calvinism” thing is about. Jerry sits his friend down and explains the ground rules. He then asks his friend, “Before being saved did you actively seek God and desire to be saved?” (Some paraphrasing on my part.) His friend answers, “Yes!” Jerry then asked his friend to read Romans 3:10-18. Then Jerry asked the pertinent question, “Who are we going to believe, God’s revealed Word or our human experience?”
I once heard (sadly a number of times) a supposedly Reformed minister explain the situation of salvation as, ‘We search out God an seek salvation with all our heart. Later, we look back and see that God was working all the time.’ Again, our experience or God’s Word. Which will we believe?
The Bible says that God saves! No ‘ifs’, ‘buts’, or ‘maybes’. God saves. Why do I highlight this? Precisely because many of the modern programmes do not hold to this, either in theory or practice. Hence, we are left with men trying to win men. We are left with processes of evangelism that are ineffective precisely because they are un-Biblical. We believe man’s word and not God’s.
Then there is the issue of actually reading the Bible and appreciating its context. Dispensationalism has done a great deal to destroy any concept of Biblical unity. Consequently, when most Christians read of, say, the New Covenant, their immediate interpretation is that Genesis to Malachi is obsolete and God is giving something new to the Church in Jesus.
Thus, when we read stories of interaction in the NT, our eyes only see “conversion” is the sense of ‘a solemn declaration to Gentiles / the unChurched.’ However, what are we to make of those who were true Israelites? People of faith. God believers. Messiah seekers. They existed (Simeon is one example. Luke 2:25). Yet, once more the faulty theology brigade have taught us to believe that everyone in the OT was ungodly and trying to save themselves through a programme of good works.
So let’s put some things in context. You mention the blind man. Was this a case of Conversion / Redemption or a case of a Simeon-like experience — the OT saint meeting and understanding the reality of fulfillment in his day? Note well that the text does not state anything about this person. He is singled out by the disciples. Our gracious Lord responds. The man says nothing. The man asks for nothing.
In response to the disciples question — who sinned, this man or his parents? — Jesus replies and states that these people are sinless (Biblically defined in context). The man is blind according to the purposes of God. This is a situation created by God and for God’s glory.
What is interesting is that the man shows great courage and knowledge when he is forced to give a defence to the Pharisees. Jesus then seeks this man out in order to help him understand. The question is put, “Do you believe?” Upon being pointed to Jesus, he says he does believe.
The point here is that I do not see this as a case of “conversion” as it is typically understood today, but rather as an OT saint realising the basis of his hope. The Messiah has come. The day of prophecy is realised (John 1:41).
Again, because of the dodgy theology brigade we have taken to ourselves a single looking glass through which we interpret the Scriptures rather than allowing the Scriptures to speak to us of its multifaceted message. This is especially true of the time of Christ when there was clearly a transitional phase.
In short, the faithful Israelite needed to know that Messiah had come. They needed to know that He of Whom the prophecy had spoken was here. They needed to know and see Him in Whom they had believed and trusted. This was as necessary as the message to the hard hearted to repent and believe.
This then adds some understanding to the episode of the Woman at the Well. As for myself, the jury is out on this episode as a conversion experience (Mainly to do with the language she uses upon returning to the village). However, the point made about disarming and brining “despair” is clearly seen in this encounter.
Please note that at every point Jesus takes away a crutch and brings her to the point of seeing that she is devoid of hope. She has some “religious” understanding, but it is not based in faith and it is certainly not imminently expectant.
To explain. Jesus takes her from well water to living water. From a temporal need in life to the essence of eternal life. He then asks her for her husband. She replies that she has none. Jesus commends her for her truth, but exposes her deception. She is the Elizabeth Taylor of Samaria. She has had five husbands and now, seemingly, simply lives with a man.
Covenantally, she has no covering. She is shown to be self-indulgent and rebellious. According to the law she is worthy of death. So Jesus does not just expose her as a little immoral or as a free-thinker. She is exposed as the poisonous adulteress condemned so readily in Proverbs (5:1-6). She is death and she deserves death. Once more, Jesus places her temporal situation in stark contrast to her eternal one. She comes for water in order to live, but as a corpse, this well water will avail her naught. She needs a covenantal covering that will stand the “fiery trial”. She needs living water that will assuage and quench the flames of God’s eternal wrath.
That she begins to grasp the point is shown by the fact that the conversation quickly turns to the topic of the correct place to worship. Jesus again asserts that she is without. “Salvation comes from the Jews” is Jesus’ reply. Messiah must arise from the Jews, the covenantal people of God. His salvation must flow from Zion.
The woman seems to accept this as a proposition, but she has not picked up on the subtlety of Jesus’ words, “a time is coming and now is.”
This then leads to Jesus final assertion that robs her of any other excuses — I am He! She can no longer hide behind any excuse. The One that she has just admitted will explain all things (v 25) stands before her. There are simply no more excuses.
Lastly, I guess I need to apologise for not better clarifying what I meant by the term “despair” and those to whom it more rightly applies. In short a person can be desperate on the inside without having an emotional response outwardly. I know a man who speaks of his conversion as “emotionless” for about a week. Then, as he was driving, he had to pull over as he wept inconsolably. It was as though it took this long for him to truly understand the magnitude of all that Christ had done.
I would also add that your witness can never be “untoward” or wrong if it be Biblical. The problem today is that we are guilted into false views of evangelism and very few ever stop to ask what the Bible really has to say on the topic. As an example, my friend, to whom is Psalm 34:8 addressed?
This topic is bigger than that to which this conversation alludes. It involves presuppositions and convictions that simply cannot be discussed here.
I hope I have, in some way, demonstrated what I mean and have clarified the unclear.
Thank you for taking the time to reply and adding your comment.
Sincerely,
Murray
Murray
If none seek after God as Paul says, then why does Jesus urge us “Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Luke 12:31 & Matt 6:33)? Additionally why does Hebrews say that God is a rewarder of them that seek Him (Heb 11:6)?
I do not pretend that everyone who imagines themself as seeking after God is doing exactly that. I recognize that many such “seekers” are actually trying to frame God according to their own expectations. Many such seekers find themselves contented with a god short of Christ because their goal is inner peace or intellectual fulfillment. Thus the revealing of God to a seeker is dependent on God and not on the seeker’s efforts.
Even so, is it not true to say that there are seekers to whom God reveals Himself in the same way as there are non-seekers to whom God reveals Himself?
Chris
Greetings Dear Chris,
I must admit to be taken aback by the substance of your reply. Your opening gambit seems to be an explicit denial of the Apostle’s words as authoritative Scripture. More so, there seems to be evidence of pitting the Apostle against Christ.
My friend, such should never be!
As Paul says in Romans 3:4, “Let God be true and every man a liar.” We may not understand all, but we should own that deficiency and not place it upon the revelation of God.
I believe, Chris, that there is evidenced in your statement the common malady of our day which is essentially that of Dispensationalism. Now, let me clarify. There is Dispensationalism as a movement, but there are also various thoughts that have flowed from that movement which have been picked up as trends within broader Christianity.
As examples of these thoughts, we can look at the concept of discontinuity. In other words, The Bible is not one, it is many. Its message changes. The God behind the Bible changes. Thus, the NT is filled with new concepts. We can look at the destruction of “covenant” as both a concept and a reality. We can also look at exegesis, wherein it has been ousted for eisegesis, that is, reading into the text. The concomitant of this is that we simply do not read the text as we should.
In your first reply you made reference to Psalm 34:8. In response, the question was asked, “To whom was Psalm 34:8 addressed?” No answer. Rather, I am given the challenge of three more texts, namely, Luke 12:31, Matthew 5:33, and Hebrews 11:6.
My friend, the same question needs to be asked of all these texts if we are to find the Biblical teaching and the solution to a good many current problems. You see, the problem with much of the Church is the same as is evidenced in your response; we simply pick and choose what we will believe based on our thought system. This was the point of Jerry Johnson’s opening with Romans 3 when he was instructing his friend: As fallen men our experience is not a reliable standard!! We must have Revelation or we will stray.
A second relevant point is that autonomous man likes to be in control and to think that he is able to contribute to any and every situation, not least of all, his salvation. This has always been the appeal of the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian position; man can and must work for salvation. Consequently, this view does not want anything to do with those Bible verses that state, unequivocally, that Salvation is from God alone and in His power alone.
So let us answer the question: To whom do these verses speak?
The simple answer is that all of them speak to the saints. They are not texts to salvation but texts to the fullest enjoyment of the Kingdom! These are not appeals to the pagans. They are appeals to the saints to lose themselves in the awe and wonder that is Jesus Christ their Redeemer-King.
I guess the burden of proof rests with me, so please consider the following:
Psalm 34:8 – When placed in its context, it is clear that this Psalm speaks to God’s saints. Verse 7 speaks of the Angel of the Lord camping about and recuing those who fear Him. These are not words that apply to pagans.
In this context David exhorts, yea commands, his listeners / readers to “taste and see that the Lord is good!” In verse 9, the concept of “fearing the Lord” is picked up on again. What this clearly shows is that the same audience and concept has been in mind the whole time.
Staying with verse 9, it is important to see that the concluding statement about “no want” clearly parallels the opening statement of verse 8 – Taste! Moving on to verse 10, we see the same message stated in a slightly different metaphor.
David Dickson has this to say: “In the next place, are set down general doctrines concerning God’s care of believers, to protect and feed them, and the uses thereof, to trust and fear God.” (The Psalms; Geneva Series Commentary. 1959)
Luke 12:31 – Here, too, the Christian is addressed. Verse 22 starts with, “And He said to His disciples.” Jesus then continues to give instruction in an unbroken pericope which includes verse 31.
Of import is the direct correlation drawn between the Gentiles and the Believer. As God’s people, we are to live differently. Glendenhuys adds: “With regard to the material needs of the faithful, too, God will give them what they require—in a way most beneficial to them. But then they must love Him, or trust in Him and seek, above all, the kingdom of heaven, to endeavour to serve God and to be guided and ruled by Him so that they may share in the benefits of His Kingdom, in the blessings accomplished by His kingly sovereignty.” (Norval Glendenhuys, NICNT, Luke.)
Matthew 6:33 – Like its counterpart in Luke, Matthew is clearly written to the faithful. We note the command in 5:48 to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The term Father is repeated another 12 times in chapter 6. (In fact, between 5:3 – 7:27 there are only 17 uses by Jesus in this discourse.)
Mounce says, “Instead of nervous anxiety about those basic physical necessities that God in his providence is perfectly able to supply, the disciple is to seek God’s kingdom and that righteousness of life that demonstrates obedience to the divine will.” (Robert H. Mounce, NIBC; Matthew. See also Carson, EBC and Hendriksen, NTC)
Hebrews 11:6 – This text should need no explanation. If most Christians are asked to give the alternate title for Hebrews 11, they will say, “It is the heroes of faith.”
When understood in its context, Hebrews 11:6 is not an “altar call” type scenario. Rather it is a commentary upon the preceding verse that speaks of Enoch. When faith is to be considered, Enoch shines as an example. So faithful was he that the Lord took him from the earth that he might not see death. We have commentary that says Enoch was well pleasing to God. Thus, when verse 6 moves on to speak about faith, it is referring to the example of Enoch.
So, in verse 5, Enoch is pleasing to God. In verse 6 it is impossible to please God without faith. The conclusion? Enoch was a man of faith and as such He pleased God. Again, verse 6 says that one must believe that God is a reward giver. Look back to verse 5. Enoch walked with God and was no more. He was spared the ugly consequences of sin–death!–and was ushered into the immediate presence of God. That sounds like a reward for faithfulness. (See the various commentators Hughes, Kistemaker, and A. Murray)
If we choose to get hung up on the word “seek” then we must simply look back to the verses mentioned previously. Biblically, seeking does not belong to the dead, but to the living. It is the disciple of Christ who, longing for the fulfillment and consummation of the Kingdom, seeks for greater things or it is the Christ who seeks the lost (John 10:44 – understanding the Biblical significance of the term “draw”; John 10:26).
Consequently, I cannot give assent to your propositions regarding “seekers”. I must stand with the Scriptures as they are revealed. To adopt your system is to pull the rug out from under the Apostle Paul. It is to destroy not only his quotation from the Psalms, but it is to destroy and bring to naught the substance of his argument in the first three chapters of Romans. Further, it is to set oneself against the clear declaration made throughout the totality of Scripture.
Man is dead in trespass and sin and it is only God who can save (Ephesians 2:1-10). Man rebels against God. Man suppresses the truth regarding God. Consequently, man is judged by God (Romans 1:18ff). The logical consequence of this Biblical teaching is that dead men do not desire, long for, or seek after the things of God, let alone yearn for an intimate relationship with Him. If dead men sought out God, found Him, and was reconciled through his seeking, then the dead man would have every reason to boast. This possibility is plainly denied in the above quote from Ephesians 2 (1 Corinthians 1:26ff).
Peace be with you Chris. However, I simply cannot share your position.
Regards,
Murray.
Murray
If I may extend our discussion with three further comments:
What constitutes a Seeker?
What was the intention of Paul’s jailer at Philippi when he asked: “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30)? Was he seeking salvation? If yes, then is it legitimate to assume that the hymn singing by Paul & Silas, the earthquake and the continued detention of the other prisoners were providential acts which lead the jailer to ask that question?
If so, is it incorrect to think that the jailer was a seeker urged forward to Christ by God’s guiding means? In which case, if so, how is the jailer whose seeking was providentially lead and resolved in a brief span of time any different to a person whose seeking is providentially lead but resolved after a long period of time?
I pose this comparison because when I read your criticism of the “supposedly” Reformed minister I was given to think that for an unbeliever to seek God would be a waste of time.
Why does God urge us to seek Him?
If none can seek God why does Isaiah urge “Seek the Lord while He may be found” (Is 55:6)? Is this exhortation only to those who are in the covenant? If so why does Chapter 55 commence: “Ho everyone who thirsts, come ye to the waters . . . “? Does Isaiah mean by this “Every covenant believer come who thirsts . . . “. In which case, given that Isaiah is only to be understood by those in the covenant, how are we to tell whether Isaiah’s prophecy that Cyrus would declare the rebuilding of the temple, was for the benefit of Jews only or for Cyrus as well (Is 44:28). Given that Cyrus knew that scripture had charged him with re-building the temple (2Chron 36:22) was he, as a non-covenant reader outside God’s ordained purposes by familiarizing himself with the scriptures?
Does a “covenant” reading of the Old Testament legitimize Paul’s argument?
You tell me that by permitting non-covenant readers to think that there is a promise of favour by tasting of God, that I have failed to read the scripture in context and as a continuum. It seems from your response that such joyous tastings are expressions of the fullnesses of The Kingdom open to those who are in The Kingdom. That being the case how does Paul’s rebuke that “none seek after God” apply to the Jews in Rome? This the more so when one considers that the verse is taken from a Psalm which is addressed to the atheist (Ps 14:1-3 & Ps 53:1-3)?
In this third point I am trying to suggest that you are not allowing the scriptures to be perspicuous (as the Reformers would say). You may be setting down too narrow criteria for their handling.
By this I have probably raised more additional matters than I have resolved. I just wanted to take the time to suggest that your article and responses have left me with the perception that you consider that for an unregenerate man to seek God is impossible and an unprofitable. I am not thus persuaded.
I look forward to your remaining articles on evangelism.
Chris
Hello Chris,
Thank you for your reply and the points raised.
As this discussion has progressed to a deeper level, it is important to halt proceedings momentarily in order to look at and establish some basic principles which will guide us through the process.
You speak of “context and continuum”, but I am forced to question this – not necessarily on your part, but as a collective approach. You see, it has become popular, even de rigueur, to speak of and accept certain concepts in our day. As my opening blog stated, question the concept of or methods used in evangelism and you are in big trouble. For example, the words “evangelism” and “seeker/s” never occur in our translations. So why is it that these terms have become or been made so popular?
Again, this is not impertinence or arrogance. It is a genuine question. Why has it become so popular to use terms which do not occur in Scripture? You see, once we begin to adopt terminology from outside of the Scriptures, we no longer have any guide as to what those words or terms should mean. In short, we are left without a Biblical definition. When this happens, man conveniently provides one. Men, even Christian men, are only too willing to fill the term with their preconceived notions and biases. This is dangerous ground.
Consequently, one of my great concerns in discussions of this nature is that we stay true to what is revealed in Scripture and not the latest article produced by a modern Church Growth guru. This means producing interpretations that are Biblically consistent.
You question my “narrowed” perspective, particularly in regard to the “perspicuity” of Scripture. However, the doctrine of the “Perspicuity of Scripture” assumes, at its heart, three things; 1. The Bible is a plain book; 2. The Holy Spirit is needed; and 3. It requires diligent study. Perspicuity has never meant the legitimising of “proof texting”, casual reading, or “stabs in the dark”. Hodge Snr states: “The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, … It is not denied that the Scriptures contain many things hard to be understood; that they require diligent study; that all men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to right knowledge and true faith … it is not to be denied that the people, learned and unlearned, in order to the proper understanding of the Scriptures, should not only compare Scripture with Scripture, and avail themselves of all the means in their power to aid them in their search after the truth, but they should also pay the greatest deference to the faith of Church.” The true crux of perspicuity is that salvation can be found there, even by the simple; and this because, Salvation belongs to the Lord.
Thus it is that “Perspicuity” is neither narrow nor wide, it is Biblical. Similarly, the concept requires that the interpreter make study of the whole in order to gauge and understand the consistent themes of Scripture. In the argument before us this point is essentially denied. This is so, as pointed out previously, because for most of Christendom today the Bible starts at Matthew 1:1. There are denials of great, sound, Biblical doctrines precisely because the a priori position of most is that the Old Testament is not authoritative Scripture with anything to teach us. If credence is given to the OT, it is quickly apparent that it is no more than a book of ‘examples to follow and sins to avoid’. In short, it has no logical, ethical, or pedagogical impact upon the New Testament.
Consequently, it has become popular to invent terms that can be molded to our strategy and our perception of what we think the Bible is saying. It has become popular to pass over contexts and the themes taught in the OT / Bible. Biblical order has been turned on its head, and, once more, everyman does what is right in his own eyes – especially in evangelism – rather than operating within the confines of Biblical direction.
With this said, let us ask some pertinent questions.
Who saves? Throughout Scripture, who is said to save? There is only one answer and it is clarion. God saves! Always and only. God called Terah. From Terah’s family, God called Abram. Out of Abram came the Patriarchal covenants and salvation by promise. God did this. God did it all.
Why is this? Why is man never said to make himself right with God? It is because man is always seen as unable to render to God the necessary standard of obedience to re-establish fellowship and render satisfaction for sin (Genesis 49:18; 2 Samuel 22:47; Psalm 3:8; Habakkuk 3:18; Genesis 3:22-24; Psalm 143:2; 1 Kings 8:46; Job 4:17-18; Ecclesiastes 7:20).
Why is man in such a situation? Man is unable to reconcile himself to God as a consequence of the fall. The Westminster Divines summed it up in this manner: “They [our first parents] being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; (Gen. 1:27–28, Gen. 2:16–17, Acts 17:26, Rom. 5:12,15–19, 1 Cor. 15:21–22,45,49) and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. (Ps. 51:5, Gen. 5:3, Job 14:4, Job 15:14) … From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, (Rom. 5:6, Rom. 8:7, Rom. 7:18, Col. 1:21) and wholly inclined to all evil, (Gen. 6:5, Gen. 8:21, Rom. 3:10–12) do proceed all actual transgressions. (James 1:14–15, Eph. 2:2–3, Matt. 15:19)” (WCF 6:3, 4). In short, it is because Adam, as federal head of man, rebelled against God. Therefore, the consequences of his failure, the imposition of negative covenant sanctions, passed to his posterity (It is this federal representation that is picked up upon by Paul in Romans 5 where he juxtaposes Adam and Christ).
This then brings us to the question posed in the third post on evangelism: Is man sick or dead? In other words, as a consequence of sin, ‘Does man have any ability left within himself to right himself with God?’ (Please see that post for a fuller discussion.) This is the watershed for this argument. Either man has an ability, no matter how infinitesimal, to procure the medicine necessary for his salvation and reconciliation with God, or he needs a Saviour to provide and apply said remedy.
If man is simply sick, a position not supported by the discussion above, then it may be correct to speak of “seekers” – those who apply themselves of themselves to reconciliation with God. However, if man is dead, then how do we rightly speak of seekers?
Here we encounter the problem of definition. In your citation of the Philippian jailer, you use a “drawn” one as an example of a “seeker”. This is where I believe that the non-Biblical language becomes a problem. You infuse into the one being “drawn” the notion that he is “seeking”. Whilst I dislike the language, I can live with this because we are speaking of one in whom there is clearly an operation by the Holy Spirit.
However, I do not think that your example sits with the common usage of the term “seeker”. Most use this of a person’s own innate ability to pursue the One True and Living God for the purposes of salvation and reconciliation. Our hybrid term “seeker service” is not used of a group of people moved by the Holy Spirit. Rather, it is a service based on the coaxing and cajoling principle of luring people by making something seem attractive. As stated above, it is used of those who apply themselves of themselves. It is at this point that we encounter the problem and the argument.
As God alone saves and man has no ability of himself in this matter, given that he is dead in trespass and sin, it seems to be somewhat absurd to speak of such people as “seekers”. It is for this reason that I believe the Bible avoids the term.
On the flip side, if we are going to use the Philippian jailer’s example, why are we so reticent to speak of the “drawn ones”? This is a question to which I would truly love an answer. Is it not interesting that this discussion takes place concerning words that do not occur in Scripture, yet we are loathe to call people by the Biblical terms! What is wrong with the “drawn ones”? It is Biblical. It perfectly reflects John 10:44. However, it is not as flashy, is it? It does not quite have the same ring as “Seeker!”
Of course, the most notable aspect is that “drawn one” sounds like a typically dull theological term that has no appeal to it at all – do not let truth get in the way of a good story! Then, we must consider the fact that “drawn one” does not sit very well with the “sick man” concept or the person who would like to think that he had some part in their salvation.
For these reasons, I believe it is erroneous to speak of “seekers”, particularly when that term is used in its modern sense. If we are speaking of those wrought by the Holy Spirit, then it would be much better to use a term that reflects the Biblical position and which acknowledges God in Christ as the author, perfecter, completer, and initiator of our salvation. The Bible is full of these terms. One might consider The Elect; the Chosen; the Called; the Saints; the Congregation; and the people of God, as examples.
If we believe in Election and Predestination; if we believe that salvation is all of God; if we believe that man has utterly no ability in salvation, if we believe man as a sinner is dead, then why would we adopt a term such as “seeker” and fill it with a meaning that denies these Biblical truths? Why would we interpret certain verses in a manner that runs contrary to the weight of Biblical evidence?
Unpersuaded you may remain, Chris, but the conclusion you draw is correct, based on the above beliefs. With the term “seeker” understood in the modern way, it is “impossible” for the unregenerate man to seek God. This brings us back to Paul’s argument – There are none who seeks after God!
You have asked regarding Paul’s statement in Romans and the quoting of the “atheistic” Psalms. The answer is very simple indeed. The whole thrust of Paul’s argument is leading to the fact that salvation is by God alone through faith in Jesus Christ.
Paul begins by establishing that salvation is of God’s free grace. This is the Gospel of God promised through the prophets and Scriptures (1:1-2). He mentions the means of this salvation – His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord! (1:3-5). Paul also mentions the instrument used – Apostleship, the authoritative declaration that Jesus is the Christ. Then he speaks of the “called”.
To establish the answer to, “Why do I need to be saved by Jesus Christ and not some other means?”, Paul sets out to show that man is a sinner, a rebel. He shows that unregenerate man is depraved to his core. Paul shows that man rejected the knowledge of God completely and utterly. Paul shows that men have reaped further and deeper judgement because of their continued rebellion.
For our conversation, the crux of the matter is this simple – not only do men not seek after God to be saved or have any relationship with Him whatsoever, but they actually go to great lengths to bury any and all knowledge of God. Thus it is the “fool” who has said in his heart, “there is no God”. Combining these texts we are left with one unassailable conclusion – all unregenerate men are ‘fools’.
Man’s fallback position, as a depraved sinner, is not to “seek” God out in order to have a ‘parley’ and see what can be negotiated, or to seek God’s full and unmerited favour. Not at all! Man’s state of mind, post fall, is, “God! What God? There is no God!”
Two final comments need to be made to address your response fully.
Cyrus is an interesting character. In this context, I am not exactly sure what you are implying. First there is no evidence that Cyrus was seeking the Lord. The text actually states twice that Cyrus did not know Yahweh. Thus, the best answer I can give is to view this situation as what John Frame labels Historical Election. In other words, this is God’s sovereign appointment in history to a task. Cyrus was raised to be king and appointed to let Israel return. This is no different to Paul being appointed as an Apostle or Jesus as the Messiah. We could think of Pharaoh, the man born blind, as well as Lazarus’ death. All were appointed for the manifest glory of God.
A purpose in God’s plan, even an epistemologically self conscious one, does not infer or require a salvific interaction.
Then there is the case of Isaiah 55. I admit that my position is in the minority. However, it is a position consistent with the flow of Scripture and with the context. I wrote the following recently for another purpose, but it is as relevant here: “The last comment is, ‘Frustration, Frustration, Frustration; how nice it would be if people could put Scripture into its context!!! Isaiah 53 – Messiah suffers for many (not all) transgressors; Isaiah 54 – is ascribed to Zion or Jerusalem. As we have seen, this is the city of salvation. The city of eternal peace for God’s people. Verse 17 concludes chapter 54 saying: “This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, And their vindication is from Me,” declares the Lord.” How is it then, when moving into Isaiah 55, that we abandon all contexts and throw the doors wide open? Is it because we do not believe in continuity? Is it because we do not believe that the OT taught predestination or particularism?”
The import of 54:17 is really seen if we were to translate it as, “This is the inheritance of the worshippers of Yahweh, and their justification (justness) is from Me, declares Yahweh. This is not language relevant to the unbelievers / unregenerate. It is language rightly associated with the covenant community.
Then there is a pertinent question regarding Chapter 56. Does this return to speak of and to the covenant community after this detour into Gentile territory? If there is a return to the covenant community, why is it so hard to conceive of chapter 55 as being also addressed to the covenant community?
In conclusion, I would add that when I speak of covenant, I refer to the covenant community. You would agree that the covenant community has to maintain a right relationship with Yahweh to receive blessing. You would also agree that Scripture paints Israel as being stubborn and stiff-necked. So why is it so difficult to see that Yahweh appeals to this community to give up their false ways and step into the fullness of the covenant blessing rather than flirt with and court curse and death?
Thanks again, Chris, for your input.
Regards,
Murray