Prayer_Warrior83 said:
Please bear with me as I'm still trying to make up my mind regarding the whole armenian/calvinism debate.
My question is this: What does reformed theology say regarding evangelism and sharing our faith?
Is it to seek and save the lost? Or to call forth the elect?
I know, it's hard to understand. Finally I realized I was looking at the direction upside down, Calvinistically. I'm not certain I have the whole picture "righted" in my mind, either. Right now I'm looking at it from two pictures that seem to "fit".
Can I jar the picture of evangelism just a bit? Instead of centering evangelism on a human invitation, what if we made it a declaration to the entire old creation? It seems to be a declaration to the entire world, the principalities and powers of this age
as well as a summons to all believers to relying on God for rescue at this time. It's both. That shows its purpose in being preached to everyone.
So first, the Resurrection is an announcement that this Old Creation's time is up, and that God is calling all men everywhere to repentance, if they may find favor in His eyes. Check out Paul in Areopagus to see how this works out in practice.
Second, there's a Spirit model. It seems the way evangelism works, we are called by the Spirit of God to go where the Spirit wants (Jn 3:8). We're following the Spirit to His chosen places and times. We see Paul in Acts not being swayed by people into different parts of the world -- but by the Spirit. We don't always know why the Spirit is there (Jn 3:5-8). But we know what our role is, every time: preach the Gospel of Christ's Resurrection, the ultimate end and judgement of the world, and the rescue of those who repent in faith. (Rom 10, e.g.)
Prayer_Warrior83 said:
If (and this is actually something I've gotten into some very fiery debates about) the doctrine of Total Deprivation is correct, then does it therefore mean that no one can truly have a priori knowledge of sin outside of knowing the word of God, hence denying the possibility of an innate understanding of transgression?
You can have both a priori knowledge of sin in general and confirmation of that sin in particular by Scriptural Revelation. Conscience exists naturally; but conscience can also be seared. So there's both natural and supernatural revelation to men so that they are without excuse (Rom 3:9-20, 1:18-eoc).
The problem always seems to be that you can't have a priori knowledge of God's action in history, making the Way of the Cross. But that's true of all Christianity, not just Calvinism.
Prayer_Warrior83 said:
What about methodology?How do you approach a non-christian and share the gospel in such a way that measures their election?
Reformed thought has different views on the subject. I simply declare the Gospel and look for eyes to fix :o or glaze over
:>).
Seriously, I point out everyone seems to know the good, and not do it. So the response: How is anyone saved? And that's the question the Gospel of Christ's Atonement explains and the Resurrection shows has Power behind it.
Different groups regard different outward indications as defining the church. Puritans held to a strong (and probably accurate for their time) view of outward indications, which was gradually diluted in the States 'til the Great Awakening. The Great Awakening put serious stock in emotional response, which was deprecated by the Enlightenment, which put little stock in emotions at all.
Presbyterianism today has a mix, but generally it operates with the idea that we should be following the explicit, direct statements of Scripture regarding membership and excommunication, to decide who belongs in the Church of Christ. They belong in the Presbyterian Church, it being under Christ's authority and none other as regarding faith and worship. (See Westminster
"On Liberty of Conscience")
Thornwell generally splits the visible and invisible churches from one another a little more than Hodge and more northern heritage, I think.
Prayer_Warrior83 said:
Any advice and helpful directions towards resources would be appreciated (though personally I'm a huge fan of Todd Friel and his radio show, "Way of The Master Radio" which he co-hosts with Ray Comfort)
This has a huge impact on the practice of sacraments on infants. L.B. Schenck's "The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant" is a very cerebral argument along these lines. Not to be read uncritically, I think its references and footnotes lead you into many of the issues.
OK, these are
heavily embedded questions on the nature of the church and the elect. I think the best exposition of Calvinism in debate with Arminianism is still Loraine Boettner's "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination."
Another book, "The Potter's Freedom", I've read excerpts and it's quite good as well. It tends to show this inversion of the Calvinist approach versus the Arminian seeker empowerment. "We love because He first loved us" seems to be the driving approach to evangelism.
