Evangelism the Reformed Way

What is evangelism? To many Christians evangelism is what they support through missions. Others feel it is more tangible and must be themselves preaching on a street corner. Still others believe that their lives as lived is another form of evangelism.

Which one is right? Are any right or wrong? Paul says in 2Ti 4:5, "But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry." and Peter says in 1Pe 3:15, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

So we are all required to do the work of evangelist because that is what the Bible says, right? Lifting one verse out of the Bible and using it in such a manner is called proof-texting (I think). And in this case we would be wrong to proof-text in this way. What is the context in which this verse is given?

2 Timothy 4

1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus
Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove,
rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3For the time
will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts
shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4And they
shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an
evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Paul is giving direction to Pastors not laymen, we should take note of this and then draw out the principle that we are to follow. What is the context that Peter speaks in?

1 Peter 3

8Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as
brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
9Not rendering evil for evil, or
railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto
called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
10For he that will love
life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that
they speak no guile:
11Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek
peace, and ensue it.
12For the eyes of the Lord are over the
righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is
against them that do evil.
13And who is he that will harm you, if ye
be followers of that which is good?
14But and if ye suffer for
righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be
troubled;
15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready
always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that
is in you with meekness and fear:
16Having a good conscience; that,
whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that
falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

This is addressed to all Christians. It appears to me that a cursory view here of these two passages show slight differences in the roles of differing parts of the body. Pastors are called directly, in the tradition of the Apostles, to do the work of an Evangelist and that laymen not neglect this when the opportunity arises. If that is what is being taught in Scripture, then it is wrong for the radical proponents of personal evangelism to condemn those who are not as vocal about their faith.

Here is a good analysis of the modern trend in evangelism: Highly Questionable Methods by Robert Reymond

For more information on Dr. Robert Reymond, see his wiki-bio. He currently shares a Pastoral Ministry at the OPC mission Church plant of Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church.

Calling a Cripple a Cripple

Do you? No. It is acknowledged, but your mother told you not to stare or point. So you don't do it. But what do you do when a non-cripple vies for attention claiming to be crippled and is somehow entitled to special treatment because of it? You heartily dismiss it or give in ushering in a reign of terror. Not an authoritarian night mare mind you, but a psychological and social nightmare. Why do I say that? What happens when you give a mouse a cookie?

Keep this in mind when you read this: House poised to apologize for slavery, Jim Crow

Let the accusations roll. "If you don't support this then you support slavery." I prefer the third option...There are no living freed slaves today to make reparations to, thus no one is deserving of "cash payments" to make themselves feel better about what happened to someone else.

Cash payments? What? The money I work hard for taken from me to give to someone whom I have not wronged. Does this make sense? Why (if they ever make these cash payments) would I be punished for someone else's sins? Public funds should not be spent in such a manner. It is fiscally irresponsible to do so. I am in support of an official apology but making reparations to people only possibly, indirectly affected is a stretch.

The point of the title:

"African-Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow -- long after both systems were formally abolished -- through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty, the frustration of careers and professional lives, and the long-term loss of income and opportunity," the resolution states.

This suggests that black Americans descended of slaves are incompetent so they need a crutch (even if it is only an emotional one). As an American I am offended in this being suggested of any of my fellow Americans. The black community should be offended too. I am not black or descended of any slaves that I know of...But if I was, for some reason I think that I would not let that get in the way of my ambitions.

What is Safe to Believe?

I have been reading far too much on the Federal Vision Controversy.

Who should I believe? Well, that is an easy question to answer. Of course, where I am unlearned I should rely on my authorities in the Church at which I am a member. But where my faculties are mature enough I ought to be unmovable, viz. basic Bible teachings.

If what is stated in the blog post "For Those Just Tuning In" is true, then I side against the FV. I will have to go back and re-read my Bible, but I am still convinced of the Reformation Solas. The next thing I need to do is to verify if the FV position obliterates the three covenants (pre-temporal, works, and grace) and if justification (in their understanding) includes "faithfulness." Then I'll need to study the traditional view of justification.

For more information, start here:
For Those Just Tuning in: What is the Federal Vision? (Critical)
Federal Vision (Proponent)
Disputing the Federal Vision

The Real Jesus

If you want to see skepticism in all of its irrational glory check out this forum thread. This is a good starting place for anyone interested in combating the modern revival of Gnostic "Christianity." It is a long read and provides several external links leading to a detailed study (not by me by any means, no time for that right now).

Now I know better where some people are coming from. (Truly from irrationality, but I know the basis for their questions now.)

In another part of the website Jay Rogers presents his scholastic research on The Real Jesus (someday soon I will jump in).

Disbelief of Disbelief

It won't get you there...

It is interesting to me that as we travel through life oftentimes the natural course we take turns out to be the right one. As we start to reason we end up going in the opposite direction. But after a thorough study we find ourselves back on the original course. A parlay with the oppositions of science (falsely so-called). God uses the foolish things to confound the wise (in their own eyes).

Example: Someone is raised a Christian (right course). But he accepts the religion w/o any rational basis for doing so. As he goes through Bible College he loses his faith; not implausible as it is anecdotally referenced. He uses his reason or becomes a skeptic (wrong path). Science and religion appear incompatible and so he rejects religion. But if he keeps honestly studying the issue there may be startling consequences. That genius scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, concluded that a God must exist (right course). Similarly many skeptics have come to a saving knowledge of the truth as a result of their honest study.

The Church is Like a Weed in My Lawn?

I have been weeding my lawn for the last few days and have had some very interesting thoughts because of it. Weeds are resilient, replicative, adaptive, and tenacious amongst other things.

This enumerative list sounds a lot like a description of the Church: In Christ we can do all things (resilient), Make disciples of all nations (replicative), Be all things to all mean that we may win some (adaptive), and Not carried about by every wind of doctrine but holding fast (tenacious).

I have also noticed how that this one particular kind of weed takes on many slightly different appearances, depending on the environment and the stage of its growth. In times of excess watering the weed grows abundantly and yet survives the dry times. When it grows large it begins to divide making it very difficult to uproot. Instead of one weed to pull, in a small area there are more like five weeds to pull.

This got thinking about division in the Church. We are called to have unity but there is something to be said for "precision through division." The Christian faith has been able to aptly compromise within any setting and spread its message through the established order. We may say that this contributes to a "watered-down" Gospel, but God in His perfect understanding has allowed division in the Church. Can we not see how God has even used this to His glory?

The World as [t]he Church

God is the father of us all. He created all men. The world is His footstool. His dominion is overall, but this has yet to be played out in history. And when all kingdoms submit to Him then will the end be.

In a very obtuse way I am going to say that the whole world is [t]he Church. By this I mean that God created all men and that He has called all men unto Himself. This calling all men unto Himself is not some weak desire for all to be saved nor does God feel a consternation that His will shall not be done. On the contrary, His will is already established and declared end to beginning.

I do not deny that there are two different kingdoms at war. But for the sake of discussion I am going to say rather that there is one Church with two different factions. In the one group we have the covenant-keepers and in the other the covenant-breakers.

The covenant-keepers strive always to retain the relationship with God as it was once for all delivered and revealed. The covenant-breakers want nothing to do with God and want to replace Him with another god or even with themselves. They deny Him and by some even His existence. They observe the lives of the covenant-keepers and are convicted (they know that the covenant-keepers follow the way of truth).

In response to having to confront the truth, the covenant-breaking faction fights against the covenant-keepers. They may preach the message of "tolerance" to the covenant-keeper, "don't force your religion down my throat;"but they seek nothing more than the conversion of all covenant-keepers to the covenant-breaking faction's point of view. They do not want to see division in the "Church" any more than we do. Fundamentally the struggle is one of dominion (it is a comforting thing to know that we can rely on His promises).

Conclusion: The preaching of toleration is a tactic. Their strategy is to replace God at every point possible. The goal is dominion. Christian, you now know your enemy. Love thy enemy. And convert him, because he is trying to convert you. Our goal is dominion. Our strategy is to infuse God into every area of life. Our tactic is to preach the whole counsel of God.

Check out a good article by Schlissel.

Thoughts on Liberty

What is freedom? Is there anyone truly free? It is a question of perspective really. I am not talking about determinism and human free will; I am referring instead to ascription of sovereignty.

Sovereignty is an inescapable concept. It is not a question of "sovereignty or no sovereignty?" but of "who is sovereign?". To the religious, God (or a god) is sovereign. To the atheist, man is sovereign. And in turn, in the modern state, the state is sovereign.

So according to this, there is no freedom. Choices may be made however. You may choose to serve God, man, the state or anything else vying for control over you. I prefer to serve a benevolent dictator. Man and the state rarely prove themselves as such therefore I find myself in service to God. Man and the state will not show benevolence. They are extreme, intolerant, and have the insatiable craving to run other men's lives.

Check out the this article. Great Britain will destroy itself due to destroying freedoms...That is, unless heavy intervention takes place to prevent the natural course of society, tampering with men's freedoms to serve God will remove incentive to build a lasting civilization.

Read 1984 and Brave New World. These books show two very different (though not unlike) conceptions of where the ruthlessness of man will lead him when ascribes all sovereignty to himself (or the state by extension).

Conclusion: If you want to be free to serve God you must resist evil in all its forms. Evil in personal piety, evil in public society, evil in the church (the fabric of society) and evil in office over society all must equally be dealt with.

The Role of Family in Society

The church is the institution of positive sanctions while the state beareth the sword. In a child's youth the parents do both. The family functions as a type of church and state until such a time as the child has matured spiritually/religiously and civically.

The church is not a family of families and the state is not either. But to both family is necessary and integral. But this does not make family as such preeminent. That is like saying elementary education is more important than a college education. Both have their place.

Family precedes these two other institutions but there will come a day when a child is liberated, becomes an individual and joins the church and state representing himself. A family represents him when he is young and also administers the sanctions to him. The church nor the state are required by God to raise and train the children He has put here.

Families need to regain the proper role of the family and to not overstep its bounds. Everything written here are simply thoughts not dogma, but these thoughts do merit a place in your contemplations.

Authority

Christ is head of the church.

A man has been instituted by God as head of the household.

Hierarchy is inescapable.

As such superiority is inescapable. Superiority refers not to quality but to hierarchy. As humans we do not like God's hierarchy. We rebel against Him. We do not like human hierarchy either. We rebel against our earthly authorities as well. But God has given to everyone differing roles.

How do we react to superiority?

When an individual acts and thinks himself superior, we call him an egoist. When someone transfers superiority to a corporate entity such as an ethnicity or a political state, we call him a racist or nationalist, respectively. On the other hand, rarely do we experience truly superior people. That is, a truly superior person would not boast in himself but would present himself as meek and unassuming; oftentimes we call this kind of person weak. Little do we know...