The Reformed rarely evangelize???

[KEK]

In this specific forum, the topic is "Ask A Calvinist"

Therefore my question will be directed specifically to Calvinist's. I just pray that the Lord will give me the proper use of words to use, so as not to purposely anger or offend anyone. Please understand, that as someone outside of the Reformed faith, yet looking in, I am attempting to get a look at the Reformed faith from your POV. Being outside of the Reformed faith, I often hear outsiders comments concerning those who are of the Reformed faith. One of those comments I most recently overheard was: "The Reformed rarely evangelize, yet theologize all the time."
My question to you then would be this:
Do you think there is a certain amount of truth to that comment, or is that a false perception. Is that comment completely unwarranted? Secondly, as insiders to the Reformed faith, how strong do you believe your committment is to equipping and sending missionaries to the lost? Thirdly, from your POV, how often is the seriousness of Great Commission stressed inside your walls?
Please remember. I am only an outsider trying to get an insiders POV. I am not here to disagree with your responses to this thread. I am only interested in listening to how you respond to such accussations.

 

[Phileoeklogos]

Speaking as a 5pt calvinist who is a southern baptist, I'll answer each of your points,

1. Historically inaccurate, their are far too many names associated with evangelism/missonary work, names that get tossed around all the time as examples of missionary zeal, that are the names of calvinists, look at the early SBC an organization founded for the purpose of evangelism/missions, founded by calvinists, planting churches and sending out missionaries everywhere. Calvinists are still on the mission field today.

2. My commitment and the commitment of the congregation I'm a member of, to equipping and sending out missionaries is stronger than some of the free will/arminian churches I have been a part of, we believe in doing it and we participate in doing it, some of the fw/arm. churches I've been in talked about it, thought it was a good idea, but didn't put a dime or an ounce of effort into doing anything.

3. How often is the Great Commission stressed? How often does it have to be stressed? We believe it is mandated by Christ to His church to evangelize all nations, therefore it is not an option, but something that should be carried out in season and out of season, following the pattern of the Apostles, preaching the Gospel to all and not something to be undertaken with gimmicks, marketing techniques and schemes.


As far as a certain amount of truth in the comment, well probably a certain amount of dishonesty or ignorance is present, it's a great comment to make to others that are ignorant of the facts and not likely to do any investigation to find out what the facts are, it's easy to stereotype any group.

 

[mlqurgw]

While it is true that there are some who preach and teach as though they are scared to death one of the unelect will get into Heaven they are by far the minority. I will not presume to speak for any but myself and I can tell you that the doctrines of grace inspire within me the need to preach the Gospel of salvation in Christ alone to as many as will hear me. I know that there are some folks out there who will hear the Gospel and believe.
The knowledge that I am no different than the worst of sinners causes me to have hope for the worst of sinners. If He saved me He can save anyone. I do not shut the door or seek to make it narrower than does the Scriptures. Having within me the peace that passes understanding I desire with all my heart for others to have it also. Recognizing that God sovereignly gives salvation to whom He will and passes by whom He will doesn't mean that I have that right or desire. Believing that God doesn't desire all men to be saved doesn't limit my desire for all men to be saved. I know what it is to be a sinner, I am one, and I know that God saves sinners so I seek to serve this generation by preaching the good news that God saves sinners to as many sinners as I find. I preach Christ and leave the rest to God. Every time I stand before eternity bound sinners I call upon them to believe in Christ. Though I am commanded to do it I do it out of a sincere love for the lost and a yearning for them to believe. Seeing the beauty of Christ I want to point others to Him that they may see also.

 

[GodsElect]

I don't think that even John Calvin would know what you are talking about reformed people do not evangelize. As Calvin was known by scholars and people of his day alike, as Calvin "the soul winner". Google it! I dont think he got that name by NOT evangelizing to anyone. And further, nor he, or any of his followers would have taught NOT to evangelize.

This is another BIG misconception among the modern day chruch. The reason is THE NUMBERS in the congregations that seem to be the focus of the big modern day churches, however, the reason the reformed position is not the majority, while it is in most European and a lot of Eastern ,Asian, Korean, countries, is because Americans dont like too much truth up in their faces, while it is much better for them to attend an "easy believism" modern day church. They would rather remain BABES and feed on the milk of the gospel, rather than be fed the MEAT and POTATOES of the gospel. And I don't find that they want to ask the tough questions that NEED to be answered for the edification of the church body. Thier motto is "Jesus loves you, and has a great plan for your life! All ya gotta do is "C'MON DOWN" the aisle and get yerself some Jesus!" And are rarley told that true Christians will suffer afflictions in life. And they are rarely told that the wages of sin is DEATH! Oh NO, them are fightin' words, and that wouldn't bring in them CROWDS of people. It would ACTUALLY MAKE THEM FEEL GREAT SORROW for their sin and that would be JUST TERRIBLE!

This is the reason people think that reformers do not evangelize. It's because the majority, in America, do not want SOLID biblical food, but would rather be fed that sofy mushy stuff that goes down easy! And that's why the numbers are simply not even close to the mega-church and easy-believism modern day church movements. But that's fine though, because Jesus really says....

Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

then is shortly followed by His words agian.....

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

I bet that they don't tell you about THAT Jesus in them big' ol' mega churches!

...and I DO NOT see the narrow gate and difficult path in the mega-modern day easy-believism church movements. It's rather HUGE and I know it will lead to destruction.

But I know our sovereign God WILL preserve and call out His sheep BY NAME and they will hear His true voice and will come out running from these churches to find that narrow path. In His time.

So that's why you hear things like what you have mentioned in you OP.

 

[GodsElect]

Oh, and you know how I know you are in a very large church?
Because sheep know other sheep and can differenciate between a flock of sheep and a pack of wolves. And we stay away from them!

 

[KEK]

This is the reason people think that reformers do not evangelize. It's because the majority, in America, do not want SOLID biblical food, but would rather be fed that sofy mushy stuff that goes down easy!

I appreciate everyone's response to my OP, and I hope you don't mind if I ask some more questions, which are based upon your comment above.

Isn't meat for the mature? Isn't milk for new borns? Is a new born even able to chew meat? Which category would you group the lost in, those who are mature and able to chew meat, or those in need of milk? Should we use meat to attract the lost, or milk?

 

[GodsElect]

Yes, for the lost, the gospel must be procliamed (ie. christ died for sinners to save sinners.) That's not even milk. That's just the Gospel. Milk is fed to baby believers. But, what I was trying to get across is that those in the mega new age church keep feeding believers milk and more milk. Not the meat. Unblievers dont want the milk if they are not babes in Christ, let alone meat.

The point is, reformed believers DO evangelize as we are commanded to. To preach the gospel to all. However, if that person ends up becoming a believer, most of the time as the numbers would indicate, they end up going to a church that continually feeds milk to its audience to attract more babes and they like being babes and they want them to stay babes.

I have also noticed that people in the modern-day church look to numbers and figures to measure the success of their evangelistic witness. However, just because they're many in number of filled seats on sunday, does not indicate the number of TRUE CONVERTED SOULS! So, how good is your witness if you have 10,000 souls in a church that are being led by wolves in sheeps clothing. Those people don't like to be called sinners, even more, they don't like their own children to be called sinners, and they don't like to look in the mirror of scripture to see the ugly face of sin looking back at them. I have observed this many times in the modern day church movement.

You will always see the people leave that building with SMILES on their faces, when they should be feeling sorrow for their sins that hung their Savior on the tree.

So they may continue to "evangelize" as they call it but I call it sugar-coating the gospel to fill the seats to give people a false sense of hope. They will continue to preach a man centered gospel, while the reformers will continue to preach a God centered gospel. It may not attract the numbers, but it effectively shows the true nature of God and what the cross really means. And that, Lord willing, He saves the souls. Not even people running down to the alter or our best evangelistic witness can do that.

 

[KEK]

Yes, for the lost, the gospel must be procliamed (ie. christ died for sinners to save sinners.) That's not even milk. That's just the Gospel. Milk is fed to baby believers. But, what I was trying to get across is that those in the mega new age church keep feeding believers milk and more milk. Not the meat. Unblievers dont want the milk if they are not babes in Christ, let alone meat.

The point is, reformed believers DO evangelize as we are commanded to. To preach the gospel to all. However, if that person ends up becoming a believer, most of the time as the numbers would indicate, they end up going to a church that continually feeds milk to its audience to attract more babes and they like being babes and they want them to stay babes.

I have also noticed that people in the modern-day church look to numbers and figures to measure the success of their evangelistic witness. However, just because they're many in number of filled seats on sunday, does not indicate the number of TRUE CONVERTED SOULS! So, how good is your witness if you have 10,000 souls in a church that are being led by wolves in sheeps clothing. Those people don't like to be called sinners, even more, they don't like their own children to be called sinners, and they don't like to look in the mirror of scripture to see the ugly face of sin looking back at them. I have observed this many times in the modern day church movement.

You will always see the people leave that building with SMILES on their faces, when they should be feeling sorrow for their sins that hung their Savior on the tree.

So they may continue to "evangelize" as they call it but I call it sugar-coating the gospel to fill the seats to give people a false sense of hope. They will continue to preach a man centered gospel, while the reformers will continue to preach a God centered gospel. It may not attract the numbers, but it effectively shows the true nature of God and what the cross really means. And that, Lord willing, He saves the souls. Not even people running down to the alter or our best evangelistic witness can do that.

Just so you know, I am not disagreeing with your reply.

What might your thoughts be on the folowing comment:
"Mat 7:16 By their fruits ye shall know them, (not by their theology)"
And one more question. Which is more important, orthodoxy or orthopraxy?

 

[JimfromOhio]

Why are people keep saying that Reformed do not evangelize?

The only difference they are seeing in evangelism is this:

1. There are Christians and Denominations who are focusing on "winning souls" (which I disagree). (Based on Merit)

2. There are Christians and Denominations who are focusing on the "Holy Spirit's" conviction in people's hearts to be saved. (This I agree). (Based on Grace).

 

[bradfordl]

"Mat 7:16 By their fruits ye shall know them, (not by their theology)"

Prove that right theology is not a fruit.

And one more question. Which is more important, orthodoxy or orthopraxy?

Since right practice (orthopraxy) is impossible without right thought (orthodoxy), the question is meaningless.

1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
1Co 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

 

[heymikey80]

One of those comments I most recently overheard was: "The Reformed rarely evangelize, yet theologize all the time."
My question to you then would be this:
Do you think there is a certain amount of truth to that comment, or is that a false perception. Is that comment completely unwarranted?

There is not a greater amount of truth to that comment than for other denominations.

"Evangelism Explosion" was created in a Reformed church.
"Sonship" was created in a Reformed church.
"SeeJesus" was created in a Reformed context.

Secondly, as insiders to the Reformed faith, how strong do you believe your committment is to equipping and sending missionaries to the lost? Thirdly, from your POV, how often is the seriousness of Great Commission stressed inside your walls?
Please remember. I am only an outsider trying to get an insiders POV. I am not here to disagree with your responses to this thread. I am only interested in listening to how you respond to such accussations.

Commitment is high. Desire is high and growing.
Count them as you'd like: http://rpcconnected.org/sermons.htm . I believe you can see some of the stress straight from the sermon titles.

I know your question, but our intent is that the church of Christ should not have walls, but be gathering "whosoever will" to His Kingdom and His Reign.

Generally I don't respond to criticism, because it's generally not useful. But I like the way Reformed churches hold to the boundaries of the church, while calling people to cross those boundaries into Christ's Kingdom. Most people don't know the process we go through in evangelism, to keep a Scriptural view of the different kinds of people -- believers, mixed families, attenders, wolves.

Isn't meat for the mature? Isn't milk for new borns? Is a new born even able to chew meat? Which category would you group the lost in, those who are mature and able to chew meat, or those in need of milk? Should we use meat to attract the lost, or milk?

It's an interesting question. I don't find the Gospel to be above milk or below meat. What do you think Paul taught as milk? Is Athens a good example? How about Corinth? In what way should theology be on the table? Do you think Paul was talking meat to Galatia? Thessalonica? Rome?

What might your thoughts be on the following comment:
"Mat 7:16 By their fruits ye shall know them, (not by their theology)"

Fruit is from the Spirit's work in us -- it's not simply good works (though it includes that), and it's unlikely to be possible without understanding doctrine (cf. Romans 7:15-25).

And one more question. Which is more important, orthodoxy or orthopraxy?

Hm, which is more important, the chicken or the egg?

I think there's an inherent tendency to overthink things in Reformed circles, and that's a big deal. I don't think it's that orthodoxy is less important -- but that orthopraxis doesn't get the attention it deserves.

And I think people like Derek Webb wake this up.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

What do we mean by evangelism?

In "evangelical" churches, the church plays a very minor role, if at all. Everyone is made a minister and told to go out and evangelize. Programs are made to cater to the "unchurched." Denominational distinctives are hidden away, and everything is watered down and designed to cater to a niche market. Sentimentalism and appeals to personal, emotional experiences abound. The gospel is fixed up to sound nice. We're not saved from God anymore; we're saved from "brokenness," or fear, or stress. Rather than emphasizing and attending to the means of grace, the church is changed to appeal to those who hate God, and so rather than the unbeliever getting what he needs even if he doesn't want it, he gets what he wants even if it will destroy him.

In Reformed belief, the Word is essential. The gospel (evangel) is what evangelism is all about. God as appointed the ministry of the Word to create and sustain faith in those whom He has called. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Rom. 10:13-17). So in evangelism, the important thing is that we are brought to the ministry of the Word. So we as Christians are to live lives of gratitude as a redeemed people, always ready to give an answer for the hope that we have, and we are to invite those unbelievers with whom we've built relationships to church. Church planters are to go and plant churches where there is need. The emphasis is on ordinary preaching, not revivals, not crusades, not programs. It's all about the gospel.

 

[strengthinweakness]

On Reformed churches and evangelism, I am a member of a Reformed Baptist church where the sermons are quite "meaty," and the pastor and elders hold to all five points of the "TULIP"... and this church is by far the most enthusiastically pro-active evangelistic one that I have ever encountered. Reformed Christianity and evangelism are not at odds. Indeed, it is only if one believes in a sovereign God who has the power and ability to change lost sinners' hearts that one can evangelize confidently, knowing that God's word will not return void. If God is in full control of all things (and only if He is in full control), then evangelism will accomplish all of its divinely intended purpose. If He is only in "partial" control, due to man's mighty "free will," then evangelism becomes a very shaky, uncertain matter. To paraphrase the great Reformed preacher, Charles Spurgeon, God's absolute sovereignty and firm, confident evangelism are very good friends.

 

[KEK]

Prove that right theology is not a fruit.
Since right practice (orthopraxy) is impossible without right thought (orthodoxy), the question is meaningless.

I can't prove that right theology is not a fruit. I personally agree with you that it is.
I was merely asking how you might respond to a few of the various comments I have heard spoken by those outside the Reformed faith. But I don't find the question meaningless.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

And one more question. Which is more important, orthodoxy or orthopraxy?

Which is more important to an airplane...the left wing or the right wing? Which can you afford to leave on the ground and still get airborne? Which can you afford to have fall off at 30,000 feet?

 

[bradfordl]

I can't prove that right theology is not a fruit. I personally agree with you that it is.

Well then I assume you see the fallacy of this remark: "Mat 7:16 By their fruits ye shall know them, (not by their theology)". That's the equivalent of saying, "By their fruits shall ye know them (not by their love of the brethren)".

I was merely asking how you might respond to a few of the various comments I have heard spoken by those outside the Reformed faith. But I don't find the question meaningless.

Well, if you want to know how I'd respond to the comment, "Which is more important, orthodoxy or orthopraxy?", I answered that. However, I would like to point out that while real right thought A (orthodoxy) will lead to right practice B (orthopraxy), the converse is not true. Right practice B does not lead to right thought A, because B can't begin without A. We should desire and pursue both, but we must possess A before we can implement B.

So one is not more important than the other, but one does precede the other, so it is important for us to pursue the first so we can properly exercise the second.

Hope that answers your questions.

SDG,

Brad

 

[KEK]

Well then I assume you see the fallacy of this remark: "Mat 7:16 By their fruits ye shall know them, (not by their theology)". That's the equivalent of saying, "By their fruits shall ye know them (not by their love of the brethren)".
Well, if you want to know how I'd respond to the comment, "Which is more important, orthodoxy or orthopraxy?", I answered that. However, I would like to point out that while real right thought A (orthodoxy) will lead to right practice B (orthopraxy), the converse is not true. Right practice B does not lead to right thought A, because B can't begin without A. We should desire and pursue both, but we must possess A before we can implement B.

So one is not more important than the other, but one does precede the other, so it is important for us to pursue the first so we can properly exercise the second.

Hope that answers your questions.

SDG,

Brad

Good answers from everyone. Thanks for the responses

 

[TigerBunny]

I don't think that even John Calvin would know what you are talking about reformed people do not evangelize. As Calvin was known by scholars and people of his day alike, as Calvin "the soul winner". Google it! I dont think he got that name by NOT evangelizing to anyone. And further, nor he, or any of his followers would have taught NOT to evangelize.

This is another BIG misconception among the modern day chruch. The reason is THE NUMBERS in the congregations that seem to be the focus of the big modern day churches, however, the reason the reformed position is not the majority, while it is in most European and a lot of Eastern ,Asian, Korean, countries, is because Americans dont like too much truth up in their faces, while it is much better for them to attend an "easy believism" modern day church. They would rather remain BABES and feed on the milk of the gospel, rather than be fed the MEAT and POTATOES of the gospel. And I don't find that they want to ask the tough questions that NEED to be answered for the edification of the church body. Thier motto is "Jesus loves you, and has a great plan for your life! All ya gotta do is "C'MON DOWN" the aisle and get yerself some Jesus!" And are rarley told that true Christians will suffer afflictions in life. And they are rarely told that the wages of sin is DEATH! Oh NO, them are fightin' words, and that wouldn't bring in them CROWDS of people. It would ACTUALLY MAKE THEM FEEL GREAT SORROW for their sin and that would be JUST TERRIBLE!

This is the reason people think that reformers do not evangelize. It's because the majority, in America, do not want SOLID biblical food, but would rather be fed that sofy mushy stuff that goes down easy! And that's why the numbers are simply not even close to the mega-church and easy-believism modern day church movements. But that's fine though, because Jesus really says....

Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

then is shortly followed by His words agian.....

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

I bet that they don't tell you about THAT Jesus in them big' ol' mega churches!

...and I DO NOT see the narrow gate and difficult path in the mega-modern day easy-believism church movements. It's rather HUGE and I know it will lead to destruction.

But I know our sovereign God WILL preserve and call out His sheep BY NAME and they will hear His true voice and will come out running from these churches to find that narrow path. In His time.

So that's why you hear things like what you have mentioned in you OP.

Familiar with Paul Washer?

 

[GodsElect]

never heard of him. who is he?

 

[TigerBunny]

never heard of him. who is he?

One of the pastors at Heartcry Ministries. Your post reminded me of this sermon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8