Author Archive for Randy Seiver


Conferring “Assurance” in Evangelism?

It has been a common practice among some who call themselves “free grace” believers who teach the doctrine of OSAS [Once Saved Always Saved], to make the conferring of assurance on their evangelistic conquests a part of the evangelistic process. The purpose of this article is to examine not only that practice but also the biblical doctrine of assurance itself.

Let me say at the outset that I unequivocally believe the doctrine of OTSAS [Once truly saved, always saved]. Once a person is truly saved, that person is secure for eternity, but a person must be once saved to be always saved. The assumption among many evangelicals is that once a person confesses faith in Christ (They usually refer to this as “deciding for Christ,” “letting Jesus come into their hearts,” “praying to receive Jesus,” or some other utterly non-biblical expression), they are secure for eternity no matter what happens subsequently. The ones with whom I have corresponded have actually told me they believe once a person has made a decision to receive Christ he is eternally secure even if he does not love God or continue to trust Christ to save him. He may convert to Islam or become an Atheist and still be saved.

This is not the first time controversy has arisen over the relationship between faith and assurance. In the early part of seventeenth a controversy erupted in the Church of Scotland over a book entitled The Marrow of Modern Divinity. Those who were called the “Marrow Men” taught that assurance was of the essence of faith so that it was impossible to have faith without having assurance.

We could perhaps obviate much of the disagreement that swirls around this issue by distinguishing between the different “assurances” about which the New Testament speaks. For a more extended treatment of this question, I would refer you to an excursus I wrote on assurance in my commentary on Hebrews. For our purposes here, suffice it to say that there is an assurance or a confidence (παρρησἰα; πληροφορἰα) that accompanies faith (see–Hebrews 10:22) and belongs to every true believer, and there is an assurance that comes only through diligent perseverance in well-doing (see–Heb. 6:11). Before we can have a meaningful discussion about assurance, it will be necessary to identify to which of these types of assurance we are referring when we use the term.

Like faith, one of these types of assurance focuses on God’s revealed truth. The focus is on God’s faithfulness. The believer simply trusts God’s promises that if he is truly resting solely on the merits of his great priest, his full acceptance in God’s presence is guaranteed. His task is to be certain he is clinging to Christ and trusting only in him.

Like hope, the other type of assurance focus on the future inheritance and, because that inheritance is not yet seen, we must wait for it with patience/perseverance. The question we must ask here is not whether everyone who belongs to the household of faith will inherit the blessings God has promised. That question is settled in every believer’s mind. The question I must ask is whether I belong to the household of faith. I am convinced that if God is for me, no one can prevail against me. What I must establish is that God is indeed for me. This understanding is not necessarily mine because I have begun my journey well. The focus of the Scriptures is not on the beginning of the race but on its end. Since I have not yet finished the race, it is necessary for me to examine my walk from time to time to discern whether it is characterized by “the things that accompany salvation.” This kind of examination is especially necessary when a person’s walk is contrary to his profession. When a person is living in a way that is contrary to God’s revealed will, God uses such exhortations as a means to produce the needed correction in the believer’s life. The warning and exhortation passages of the New Testament Scriptures are not intended to settle questions about whether or not a true believer can loose his salvation. They are intended to be used as the necessary means to bring about the diligent perseverance in faith without which we will never see God’s face in peace.

It is important to notice that in Hebrews 6:11-12, the “full assurance of hope” about which the writer speaks requires diligence. Faith requires no diligence at all. Why would he suggest that his readers need to be diligent if assurance is of the essence of faith? Instead, he expresses a strong desire that they will continue to be diligent in the path they have been following so that they might obtain the full assurance of hope and he desires that they follow the path diligently to the end. If they are going to inherit the blessings God has promised they must imitate those who through faith and longsuffering inherit what God has promised.

There are several important observations we need to make here:

  1. In neither of these passages is the issue one of trusting our works, our obedience, or our perseverance as the basis of our right standing before God.
  2. In neither of these passages is there any suggestion that we should take our eyes off of Jesus as our only hope and our highest prize and begin instead to trust our evidences that we have been born of God.
  3. Nowhere in the New Testament Scriptures are we forbidden to pursue works of obedience to Christ. In fact, we are commanded to diligently pursue such a course of obedience. It is not doing good works but trusting those works to any extent that the Scriptures forbid.
  4. The bases of the assurance of faith and the assurance of hope are different. The basis of the assurance of faith is God’s faithfulness (Heb. 10:23). Our full assurance of faith and our confident confession of our hope are firmly founded in God’s work for us and have nothing to do with our obedience to him. Our full assurance of hope rests on the confidence that we belong to God’s true people because he continues to work in us to will and work for his good pleasure. That we continue to pursue diligently the manifestation of his glory in our lives is the evidence [the things that accompany salvation] that we are among that blessed company who can say, “God is for us.”
  5. One of the characteristics of the faith of God’s elect is that is continues. It is though faith and longsuffering [patience] that we are to receive what God has promised. To say that it does not matter what occurs after one has made an initial confession of faith one must deny, or ignore a mountain of biblical passages like this one.
  6. The assurance of hope is not intended for and will not be granted to those who are deliberately walking in disobedience to God.

Before we begin a discussion about assurance, it is important that we specify what kind of assurance is in view. Is the child of God assured that Jesus is able to completely save all who come to God by him? Absolutely!  May he (and should he if he acting disobediently) from time to time question whether he actually belongs to the company of those who have come to God through Jesus’ priestly work? I believe the Scripture answer with and unequivocal “yes!” John Brown wrote,

. . .though the perseverance of the saints is certain, let us recollect that it is the perseverance of the saints that is thus certain. Many who seem to others to be saints, who seem to themselves to be saints, do “fall away.” and let us recollect that the perseverance of the saints referred to, is their perseverance not only in a safe but also in a holy course of disposition and conduct; and no saint behaving like a sinner can legitimately enjoy the comfort which the doctrine of perseverance is fitted and intended to communicate to every saint acting like a saint . . . (Brown, 1970, 296).

If assurance were of the essence of faith, John would not have written to those who were believing in Jesus’ name they they might know that they have eternal life (see 1 John 5:13).  Would they not have known already? Additionally, we need to understand that “these things” refer not merely to the immediately preceding verses, but to the entire epistle. Again John Brown wrote,

It is as believers of the truth that we are secured of eternal life; and it is by holding fast this faith of the truth, and showing that we do so, that we can alone enjoy the comfort of this security. ‘The purpose of God according to election must stand,’ and all His chosen will assuredly be saved; but they cannot know their election—they cannot enjoy any absolute assurance of their salvation—independent of their continuance in the faith, love and obedience of the Gospel (Brown, 1970).

As we shall see in greater detail when we discuss the biblical doctrine of repentance, a denial that we should expect a behavioral change in those who have truly been converted betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s saving work.

Now, let us return to the question, Is the conferring of assurance part of the evangelist’s work? There are several considerations that would cause us to answer this question negatively.

  1. The most obvious reason is that there is no evidence of such a practice in early New Testament evangelism. If they did not assure those who confessed faith in Christ that they were eternally secure because they had responded positively to the gospel call, why should we?
  2. It is impossible to know infallibly that another person’s faith is genuine. The New Testaments bears sad testimony to the fact that all who began well did not finish well. We must not assume that all professed faith is genuine faith.
  3. Though God may grant an assurance of hope to true believers, he will not give us such an assurance about another person.
  4. It is the work of God’s Spirit to bear witness with our spirits that we are sons of God, and he does so in conjunction with the God pleasing works of obedience he produces in our hearts.

We have every reason to assure those who have confessed faith in Christ that if they are truly and fully resting on him and his merits, they have been declared righteous and have been granted full access to the Father’s throne, but that is altogether different from assuming that their faith is real and conferring on them an assurance that is never to be questioned no matter what happens subsequent to their confession.

Consider just a few examples of the way in which biblical writers couched their statements concerning the salvation of their readers. “. . .and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain” (1 Cor. 15:2). “And we are his house[hold] if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope” (Heb. 3:6). “For we have come to share in Christ, if we hold our original confidence firm to the end” (Heb. 3:14).

We must never forget that Jesus’ promise “. . .and I give to them eternal life, and they shall never perish,” was not made to goats. It was made to his sheep whom he describes as those who “hear his voice and follow him.” We should never think this promise belongs to those who persist in their rebellion against God and ignore his voice speaking in the Word.

Βrown, John. The Epistle to the Hebrews, (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972).


Understanding “Whosoever.”

I just read an article I found in my inbox from Faith Gateway Today. The article was an excerpt from a book by Pastor Kyle Idleman titled Not a Fan, published by Zondervan. Though I would agree with the basic premise of the article that Jesus does not merely call sinners to “believe” on him but to follow him, I found that the article illustrated much of what is wrong with modern biblical “interpretation.”

Arguing that “anyone means everyone” this young man began by stating what he perceived to be the meaning of John 3:16 and freely read into the text ideas that John never intended.  Concerning that verse he wrote, “In that one verse we read that God loves us, Jesus died for us, and that we can have eternal life through Him.” This has been assumed to be true for so long that anyone who questions it is perceived to be a heretic, but is that what John was really teaching?

One of the principles of interpretation that is regularly ignored in our day is that we must seek to understand the questions the biblical writers were answering and not assume they were concerned to answer our questions. Just yesterday, I read a passage in Acts 26 in which Paul was making his defense before King Agrippa. This is how he began his defense– “I consider myself fortunate, King Agrippa, that I am about to make my defense before you today; especially because you are an expert in all customs and questions among the Jews. . .” (Acts 26:2-3).  Paul was happy to give answers because Agrippa understood the questions. Too often we are mistaken about the meaning of biblical passages because we fail to take into account the questions they were intended to answer.

Do you think John [or Jesus, assuming his conversation with Nicodemus extended this far in the text] intended this beloved verse to teach the universality of God’s love in the sense that he loves every individual on earth equally and in the same way? Do you think he was concerned with the question of the extent of Jesus’ redemptive work? Was he really teaching us that Jesus died for every sinner whether he will believe the gospel or not?

How often we have heard that “whosoever” means everyone or as this young pastor has postulated “anyone means everyone.” But, is that true?  I would challenge you to do a study of the word translated “world” (κοσμος) in the New Testament Scriptures. You will find that it seldom if ever means everyone without exception.  The question the Jews of Jesus’ and John’s day were asking was not for how many people did Jesus die. The question was whether his work was for people of every nation or for the Jews only.  Were Gentiles to be admitted to the gospel assembly as Gentiles, or must they first be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses?  Did the Messiah come to save Israel and condemn the world (Gentiles)? It was to these question John was speaking when he wrote what we now know as John 3:16. In my view, it is just as wrong to say that “world” in that verse really means “the elect” as it is to say it means everyone without exception because that would also ignore the issue John/Jesus was addressing.

Please notice that words such as “whoever,” “whosoever,” “everyone,” and “anyone” are always accompanied by other words such as “believes,” “calls,” “wills or wishes” and are not used alone.  In John 3:16, John did not write “That whosoever (supposedly meaning everyone on the face of the planet) might not perish.” He  did not write “that everyone might not perish.” “Whosoever” does not mean “everyone.” He did not intend for us to understand that God gave his Son so that no one would perish. If he had intended that, he would have written that.  What he wrote literally was “in order that all the ones believing should not perish.” God gave his Son to infallibly secure the eternal redemption of everyone who believes on him whether he be a Jew or a Gentile. It was not his intent in this verse to identify those who believe as God’s chosen ones.  We must find that teaching in other verses, and it is easy to do so.

“Everyone who believes” does not equal everyone without exception. “Anyone who comes” does not mean everyone. It means anyone who comes.

As long as the “Evangelical church” continues to play fast and loose with biblical texts, it will continue to teach a watered down version of God’s gospel that is completely different from the message the biblical writers intended.


Just Published on Amazon–Looking to Jesus: A Commentary on Hebrews

Visit my “Author’s Page” at  I have added several new titles including Looking to JesusA Commentary on Hebrews.  




Just Published on Amazon Kindle



Calvinistic Evangelism–Chapter Seven–The Biblical Pattern: The Method

Now that we have examined the message the apostles preached we will move on to a consideration of their methodology in evangelism. This examination will necessarily be less extensive than our examination of their message since their methods of evangelism were very simple. There was no elaborate plan, no script to follow, no “how to” manual. There is no evidence that they organized city wide evangelistic campaigns or series of protracted meetings called “revivals.” There were no clever tactics or psychological techniques calculated to elicit decisions from their hearers. They simply proclaimed the message Jesus had given them and prayed that God would use their preaching for his glory. There are several characteristics of the New Testament method of evangelism to which we should give our attention and that we should emulate in all our evangelistic efforts. I would like first to consider this issue negatively, i.e., What did the apostles deny about their methodology? Then, I would like to move on to a consideration of the positive characteristics of their methodology.

The Issue Considered Negatively

The apostle Paul wrote a great deal about the methods he and his companions had rejected. For example, in 1 Corinthians one he made it clear that he did not even consider altering his message. He knew full well that neither the Jews nor the Greeks wanted to embrace the message he was preaching, yet he went on preaching the message of a Christ who had been crucified (see verses 22-24). He reiterated this thought in chapter two where he stated that he had refused resort to human wisdom and plausible words in an effort to make his message more palatable to his hearers (see verses 2-4). He wanted to be sure that their faith was not a spurious one produced by clever words and tactics but a genuine faith produced by the sovereign and saving power of God (see v. 5).

Along this same line he wrote in the second Corinthian Epistle, “But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God” (1 Cor. 4:2). Though it is true he could have been referring to the manner in which he has lived his life in general since his conversion, he draws the issue to a fine point by stating that he has refused to tamper with God’s word but has openly stated the truth. It should be clear his is talking about his evangelistic ministry in contrast to the deceitful practices of the false apostles. He had not used clever and underhanded tricks. He had given no thought to using psychological manipulation to evoke a response to his message. He had not sought to stir his hearers to an emotional zenith so that he might “strike while the iron was hot.” I would like to return to the phrase “open statement of truth” when I discuss the positive characteristics of biblical methodology, but here I want to draw your attention to the contrast. He was, by implication, accusing the false apostles of using subterfuge to accomplish their devious ends. We must, like the apostles, renounce all such chicanery. I will never forget the day I listened to a pastor who was soon to become quite well known speaking to a class of young theological students. He was asked whether he believed in God’s sovereignty in the sinner’s salvation. He answered, “Yes, I believe that stuff, but you can’t teach that and build a big Sunday School.” By that he meant it is impossible to achieve what he called “success” by teaching the whole counsel of God. One must conceal some of the more difficult truths God has revealed because carnal minds will not receive them very well. There was nothing of this kind of spirit among the apostles. Hugh Latimer was much more in keeping with the spirit of the apostles. When he was summoned to give an account before King Henry VIII, he began his message as follows:

Hugh Latimer, dost thou know before whom thou art this day to speak? To the high and mighty monarch, the King’s most excellent majesty, who can take away thy life if thou offendest; therefore take heed that thou speakest not a word that may displease! And then consider well, Hugh, dost thou not know from whence comest thou; upon whose message thou art sent? Even by the great and mighty God! Who is all present! and Who beholdeth all thy ways! and Who is able to cast thy soul into hell! Therefore take care that thou deliverest thy message faithfully.

It is not the preacher’s prerogative to decide what part of God’s message he will proclaim and what part he will conceal. That issue was settled when all authority was given to the Lord Christ. If we conceal any part of God’s message, we are in open rebellion against him. There is no question but that the apostles would have rejected most if not all of the innovations to which the modern evangelical church has become so enslaved. It is little wonder that today’s church is so effete and ineffective in accomplishing her God given tasks. She has forsaken the fountain of living waters and has hewn our broken cisterns that can hold no water. Commenting on 2 Corinthians 10:4, the late Philip Hughes wrote,

The armor of Saul, though splendid in the eyes of men, cannot avail to overcome the Philistine giant. Only the panoply of God will serve for this purpose (Eph. 6:11ff). Only spiritual weapons are divinely powerful for the overthrow of the fortresses of evil. This constitutes an admonition to the Church and particularly to her leaders, for the temptation is ever present to meet the challenge of the world, which is under the sway of the evil one, with the carnal weapons of this world—with human wisdom and philosophy, with the attractions of secular entertainment, with the display of massive organization. Not only do such weapons fail to make an impression on the strongholds of Satan, but a secularized Church is a Church which, having adopted the standards of the world, has ceased to fight and is herself overshadowed by the powers of darkness (Hughes, 1986, 350).

Similarly, in commenting on this verse, Charles Hodge wrote, “In the war in which Paul was engaged, his confidence was not in himself, not in human reason, not in the power of argument or eloquence, not in the resources of cunning or management, but simply and only in the supernatural power of God. ‘We war not after the flesh, for our weapons are not carnal’” (Hodge, 1997, 250).

We do not need to seek far and wide for the remedy to this problem. It is near at hand. We must examine the biblical pattern and reject any method that does not conform to it. A belief in libertarian “free will” will drive people do gimmicks, and it has. A belief in God’s sovereign grace in the salvation of sinners will drive us to our knees and to him.

The Issue Considered Positively

Now that we have considered the methods the New Testament evangelists rejected, let’s consider the methodology they employed and its characteristics. I think you will find a stark contrast between first century methodology and the methodology of the modern evangelical church. Consider the following characteristics.

It was Characterized by Simplicity

In reading the New Testament, one is struck by the simplicity of first century evangelism. It consisted in only two elements. It involved a clear presentation of God’s message either in the market place or in a home (See Acts 20:20 for example), and it involved earnest prayer that God would bless by converting those who had heard the message. There were no elaborate plans, no major campaigns, no entertainment, no “soul-winning” programs, and no planning committees. There was simply a clear presentation of the message that Jesus has risen and has been exalted to the heavenly throne. It was a call to turn from wickedness and ungodliness accompanied by God’s promise that he would forgive all who repented. The apostle Paul described it as “an open statement of truth” or a “manifestation [unveiling] of the truth.” In terms of its basic content, the message was not, nor did it need to be, embellished or altered to suit its auditors. It simply stood as the naked and unvarnished truth of God.

It was the Work of the Entire Body

The early church understood that the work of ministry, whether it be evangelism or some other aspect of that work, is not a work for the few. In one way or another, every member of the body was to be involved in the work. That is not to say that every member stood in the market place proclaiming the good news of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension. Most were likely involved in the work without ever opening their mouths. Not every member of the body is a mouth. Not everyone in the early church had the gift of teaching or proclaiming the good news, but they were no less valuable to the cause than those who proclaimed God’s truth. Perhaps they were watching and entertaining toddlers while their parents were listening to the message. It could be they were showing mercy to some poor outcast soul or extending a helping hand in Jesus’ name to someone who was in need. Perhaps they were teaching shepherds whose task it was to equip believers for the work of service. Whatever their gift may have been and whatever their task, they understood that everything was moving toward one great end. It was that God might be glorified in the proclamation of his truth. Peter wrote,

As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God [Would this not indicate that not everyone was to be involved in the speaking aspect of ministry?]; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 4:10-11).

I believe it was a grave error for anyone to have taught that if a person really loved Christ he would be out beating the bushes and cramming the “Romans Road” or some such system of canned “evangelism” down people’s throats. Everyone should be involved in some way in the war effort, but not everyone is a sharp-shooter.

It was Characterized by Extemporaneousness

It seems that much of the evangelism that occurred in the early church just happened as people were going about their business. Jesus struck up a conversation with a Samaritan woman because he was thirsty and wanted a drink. As the conversation progressed, he turned it to eternal issues. In reality, from the divine side it was not extemporaneous at all. Jesus was keeping a divine appointment, but it occurred in the most ordinary of circumstances and flowed naturally in the context of the situation. Peter and John were going into the temple when a poor, lame man asked them for a gift. They did not go there for the specific purpose of evangelizing this man, but when the opportunity arose, they were armed and ready. Evangelism is to be the natural overflow the fullness of God in our hearts. When the opportunity arises we will speak out of the overflow of his goodness and grace. Being a witness is not so much what we are called to do, as it is what we are called to be. If we are a witness, speaking a fitting word in due season will be no problem for us.

It was Characterized by Dissimilarity

One cannot read the New Testament record carefully without noticing that the early gospel preachers were not merely reciting a previously memorized system of evangelism. Jesus did not say the same things to the Samaritan woman that he said to Nicodemus. His message to the rich young ruler was from his message to the Canaanite woman of Matthew 15. Paul did not preach the same message to the philosophers in Athens as he did to those gathered in Jewish synagogues. Different people have differing concerns, differing manifestations of their hostility toward God, differing excuses for remaining in their sins, differing fears. A cookie cutter approach to evangelism will not serve them well. Our evangelism needs to involve listening to the individual’s concerns and then applying the healing balm of the gospel to their specific needs and concerns. There is no question that the basic facts of the evangel are the same for every sinner, but we need to understand that simply eliciting a positive response to a series of general and usually meaningless questions does not constitute meaningful evangelism. A person may well agree to the proposition that Romans 3:23 is true without any comprehension whatsoever of the gravity of his situation before God or the depth of his antipathy toward God. If we are going to be involved in evangelism, we must learn to listen to the specific issues that concern the individuals we are seeking to win. Only after we have listened to their questions and come to understand their personal issues can we speak meaningfully to their concerns.

It was Educational

Modern evangelists seem to assume their hearers understand what they mean when they use words like “God,” “sin,” “faith” etc. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament record makes it clear that the early Christian evangelists spent a great deal of their time instructing their hearers. Consider just two examples. One describes Paul’s ministry to Jewish people; the other to his ministry to Gentiles in Ephesus. Notice that Paul was doing the synagogue in Thessalonica what “was his custom.” Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,–explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”–(Acts 17:3). Addressing the elders of the Ephesian Church, Paul reminded them of his ministry while he was with them and of the way in which he had executed that ministry. This is a part of what he said to them. “. . .I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, -testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:20-21). These verses help us to understand the characteristics of apostolic methodology in several ways. First, they make it plain that early evangelism was instructional in nature. He was “explaining and proving.” He was “teaching” publicly and in houses. Secondly, they teach us there was no tyranny of the immediate. They were not focused on rushing their hearers to a commitment. Instead, they focused on a clear communication of truth. They knew the work in which they were engaged was God’s work. They understood it was their duty to bring the truth to people’s ears, but only God could bring it home to their hearts. Their focus was on making the message plain and not on pressing their hearers to make a decision. When Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians one, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel. . .” He was not in any way denigrating the importance of baptism as an open profession of faith in Christ. Instead, he was emphasizing that bringing people to faith or to make an open profession of that faith was not in his position description. Thirdly, their evangelistic instruction was extensive. It was not a superficial skimming of the surface but an in-depth explanation of God’s truth. Paul said, “I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable.” By modern evangelical standards, we would have to consider Jesus and the apostles very poor evangelists since they often let people walk away without drawing the net. Many seem to believe if you fail to close the deal with every sinner you meet, you must not be a very good “soul-winner.” But, the Bible informs us that after Jesus had clarified the issues regarding eternal life for the rich, young ruler, he allowed him to go away sorrowful (See Mark 10:22). After Paul had preached the gospel to the philosophers in Athens, Luke tells us that “some mocked and some said we will hear you again about this” (see Acts 17: 32). Yet, Paul did not insist that they come immediately to faith. He knew that was not his business but God’s. That we live in an age of biblical and theological ignorance demands that we follow the apostolic practice of educational evangelism. It will serve no good purpose to talk to sinners about God if they are ignorant of his attributes and character. They will not understand what we mean when we talk about sin unless we spend time teaching them how the Bible describes it. If we would evangelize, we must be willing and able to explain God’s truth.

It Involved an Indiscriminate Proclamation

There is not the slightest indication that the first century evangelists sought to determine whether their hearers were good candidates for salvation or not. Jesus described the gospel preacher as “a sower” who scatters the gospel seed indiscriminately (Matt. 13:3). A biblical evangelist does not target one group above another. We do not seek out “key kids” or “awakened sinners” and preach the good news only to them. We are to say to the most hardened sinner we meet, “God will pardon you if you repent and trust Christ.” The gospel call is not to elect sinners but to sinners as sinners. It is a call that must be made even to sinners who feel no need for salvation. It is not to be our concern how God intends to use our gospel proclamation. That is his business, not ours. The Canons of Dort, the definitive statement of Calvinism, Second Head, Article 5 states the issue as follows:

Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.

It was Characterized by Dependence on God

There is no biblical evidence that any of the first century preachers were characterized by the cocky self-confidence of the modern evangelist. The apostle Paul confessed that when he came to Corinth he was not effervescing with self-confidence, nor was he depending on his eloquence of speech, his ironclad logic, or the depth of his philosophical understanding. Instead, he came to them in weakness and fear and in much trembling. His speech and his message were not with persuasive words of human wisdom (See 1 Cor. 2:3-4). He did not rely on his own skill either as an orator or as an apologist. All his confidence was in God’s sovereign, saving activity. His assurance that the gospel would be successful was founded on the demonstration of the Spirit and of divine power. His desire was that their faith would not rest in human wisdom but in divine power (See vv. 4-5). He understood that the work God had sent him to do was far above his ability to accomplish. Bringing sinners to saving faith in Christ requires a mighty demonstration of divine power.

In his second epistle to the Corinthians he asserts that Christ always leads him and his associates in triumph while they are faithful in proclaiming God’s message. It may be that their message would result in life for their hearers or it could result in aggravated condemnation and death for their hearers. Either way, they would be successful as long as they were faithful to the truth and not like some cheap hucksters and peddlers of the word (see 2 Cor. 2:14-17). He is careful to guard against leaving his readers with the impression that he felt any sense of self-sufficiency in the face of his mammoth task. He asks, “Who is sufficient for these things?” How different is this attitude from that of the slick charlatan evangelists whose methodology virtually guarantees “results.” Instead, Paul understood that any sufficiency he had for the task Christ had assigned to him was from God. He did not feel that he was sufficient even to think anything as of himself. All his sufficiency was from God (see 2 Cor. 3:5). Paul described the gospel he preached as a treasure he carried in a clay pot. He intended to emphasize the utter disparity between the inadequacy of the observable means employed and the supernatural effects that are produced through the use of those means. God’s purpose in employing such means is that it might be patent that the marvelous efficacy of the gospel is from him and not from us (see 2 Cor. 4:7).

Summary of Part Two—the Method

The early preachers of the gospel gave little attention to their methodology in evangelism. They were content to proclaim God’s message in the confidence that he would use it to accomplish his purpose in making his glory known.

Their methods were very simple—they proclaimed God’s truth, and then prayed that he would bless it to their hearers. They simply went about their business with hearts filled with a knowledge of God’s goodness and glory. There evangelistic activity simply resulted from the overflow of hearts filled with God.

Their methods included utilizing the gifts God has given to every member of the body of Christ. We should not expect every believer to function in the same way in the work of evangelism. Each member of the body should see to it that he/she is faithful in exercising the gift or gifts God has given them. First century evangelists were concerned to give their hearers a clear explanation of the message. It was not their concern to rush their hearers into a commitment. Even if those to whom they preached continued in their unbelief, these preachers wanted to be certain they had given them an accurate account of the issues involved.

They were sensitive to their hearers’ level of understanding. There is no evidence that they every used a “one size fits all” approach to evangelism. Instead, they assessed where their hearers were in terms of their knowledge and understanding and tailored their messages to answer those needs.

These early evangelists made no effort to determine if their hearers were among the elect or if they were awakened sinners. They proclaimed the same promise to everyone they encountered.

Finally, their methodology was characterized by a complete dependence on God. They did not resort to cheap tricks or psychological manipulation to “get decisions” from their hearers. Instead, they depended on God to accomplish his sovereign purpose through their faithful proclamation of the message.


The Power and the Danger of Presuppositions–Stuart Brogden

“The Sabbath before the command”, a sermon by Voddie Baucham
reviewed and analyzed by Stuart Brogden

This review is not intended to malign or condemn my dear brother and friend, Voddie Baucham; it is to expose the errors one can be led to if presuppositions are left unexamined, if documents other than Scripture are held too tightly. This sermon sums up much of what caused me to withdraw from Grace family Baptist Church; it violates many of the basic rules of hermeneutics that Voddie taught me, apparently having his view distorted by his “confessionally colored glasses” as Bob Gonzales put it.
To the sermon, which can be listened to here:
Early in this sermon, Voddie asserts “Israel mirrors New Covenant people.” This is fundamental to the message of this sermon, but is it true? A mirror is intended to give an accurate image of the object, as when Scripture says Jesus Christ is the visible image of the invisible God (Col 1:15) and He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature (Heb 1:3). Israel, however, is NOT a mirror image of the church which was purchased by the blood of Christ Jesus. Israel was a type, a shadow – providing a useful but imperfect image of the antitype, the church (Hebrews 8:1 – 6). They were a mixed seed of mostly unregenerate people. While the local church will have wheat and chaff growing side-by-side until the reaping (Matt 34:31; Rev 14:15), the universal church is pure and undefiled in any way (Eph 5:27). This cannot be said about Israel; it is NOT a mirror of God’s redeemed people. But it’s important for Voddie’s entire message that we agree that we are Israel (as he points out later), because the Scriptures tell us that the covenant was made with Israel and the words written on the stone tablets testify of that covenant (Ex 34:27 & 28). Moses emphasizes (Deut 5:2 & 3) this covenant was made with national Israel, not the patriarchs. And not – by implication – with Adam or the redeemed. As we will see, if Israel is not a mirror of the church, this message fails.
Still early in the sermon we are told, “Understanding the Sabbath is one of the most important junctures in our theology.” I agree with him on this. It will be apparent, however, I do not agree with his understanding of the Sabbath. Then he says, “Is it 8 of 10 or 9 of 10 who deny a Sabbath commandment?” It’s clear he simply made up this number, apparently to demonstrate the pitiable condition of the apathetic saints who disagree with him. Before getting into the substance of his argument, I am compelled to point out a subtle but glaring aspect of his repeated description of non-Sabbatarian Christians as those who deny or do not believe in a Sabbath command. Speaking for myself, I do not deny that the Bible has a Sabbath command. I believe in the Sabbath command. I simply look to the Scripture to inform me as to the subjects of this – and other commands. I deny that the Sabbath Command is binding for people in the New Covenant. I openly agree that it IS binding on those in the Mosaic Covenant, but not all men universally. By phrasing it as if we deny that the Bible commands some people to keep the Sabbath, Voddie implies though we cut objectionable parts from our Bibles. It is more likely, as we will see, that sabbatarians add parts to the Bible – reminding me of an author who describes dispensationalists as people of the invisible Scripture. Voddie taught me to tackle the best argument of those I disagreed with, as any victory over a weak argument would be meaningless. He appears to have forgotten this counsel, as this sermon engages only weak (or made up) positions.

One of the main tenents of his argument is that the Decalogue, as a unit, is equal to God’s moral law. This is not explained or defended from Scripture. As his beloved Second London Baptist Confession states in chapter 19, paragraph 3 (referring to the tablets of stone mentioned in paragraph 2), “Besides this law, commonly called moral …” and not one single verse is referenced. As one author I recently ran across observed, when theologians don’t have a biblical defense for something they assert, they use phrases such as “commonly called”. This is an appeal to a false authority – a logical fallacy. This is another aspect of preaching Voddie taught me – do not fall into the use of logical fallacies to make your point. Doing so lessens the authority of the message.
Therefore, he concludes, as a moral law, the Sabbath is binding on all people. From this position, He mocks 7th day Sabbatarians, whom he describes as 1 of the 10 who don’t get “truth” as he defines it. Another 10 percent hold to the idea of a “Christian Sabbath”; the remaining 8 of 10, a huge majority of Christians, deny the “Christian Sabbath” and are unable to explain why. Voddie is well aware of scholarly works by credible Christians who provide solid biblical defense for why the Sabbath is for Israel and not the Christian. D.A. Carson’s From Sabbath to Lord’s Day and Terrence O’Hare’s The Sabbath Complete are two such books that I know he is aware of. Is it sophistry to assert that, in general, all those Christians who deny the “Christian Sabbath” cannot explain why they hold that position. I betcha 9 of 10, or maybe 10 of 10 people who believe the Decalogue equals God’s moral law cannot explain it from Scripture. This is because Scripture does not define “moral law” nor does it equate that concept to the Decalogue. That correlation is simply not found there. That’s why the Westminster and Second London Baptist Confessions say the Law given Moses is “commonly called” the moral law. This is a concept originally put down on paper by Thomas Aquinas, the same one who developed the triad view of the Mosaic Law.
Baucham makes the interesting observation that since the Sabbath command was introduced in Exodus 16, chronologically before the law was given to Moses, and because it is allegedly rooted and grounded in a creation ordinance, it transcends the Decalogue. This is a double assertion based on his confessional presuppositions, not found in Scripture. When YHWH instructs the infant Hebrew nation about the Sabbath, using manna as the object, it is clear they were not familiar with the Sabbath, it was something new to them. This is the first record of the Sabbath in Scripture. It is another argument from silence to claim the Sabbath was known, kept and enforced from creation. The mention of the 7th day in the Decalogue does not establish a creation ordinance; it is given by God as an example for Israel to help them understand His command. John Calvin, John Gill, and John Bunyan each held a high view of the Lord’s Day, but dismissed and argued against the idea of a Sabbath creation ordinance. Circumcision was part of the Mosaic Covenant given before the Decalogue – does it also transcend the Decalogue and bind all people?
Voddie asserts that the 7th day of creation sets the pattern for work and worship. He later calls this God’s rhythm for life. I completely agree that YHWH was demonstrating for us our need for rest from work in sanctifying the 7th day of creation to Himself, as a minimum. Since all creation and the gift of work were soon to be cursed by the Fall, I also see the 7th day rest pointing to the One Who will do away with the ravages of sin and provide true and eternal rest for weary souls. Scripture tells us that God gave the Sabbath to the Hebrew people through Moses:

You came down on Mount Sinai, and spoke to them from heaven. You gave them impartial ordinances, reliable instructions, and good statutes and commands. You revealed Your holy Sabbath to them, and gave them commands, statutes, and instruction through Your servant Moses. You provided bread from heaven for their hunger; You brought them water from the rock for their thirst. You told them to go in and possess the land You had sworn to give them. Nehemiah 9:13-15 (HCSB)

YHWH gave the Sabbath to Israel as part of the ordinances, instructions, statutes, and commands, through His servant Moses. When Nehemiah continues on to describe YHWH’s kind provision in the desert, giving the Sabbath command to them is not listed. But taking the command in Exodus 16 into account, we can be sure YHWH taught and revealed His Sabbath to Israel at that time – but it was not given as the sign of the Mosaic Covenant until Sinai. There was a Sabbath before the commandment. It began as a teaching of the concept to the Hebrew people, not as a continuation of something they knew for generations since Adam taught Seth. In Exodus 16, when Israel is rebuked for trying to gather manna on the Sabbath, God tells them the Sabbath is to be kept by the families staying in their homes. There is no corporate worship, nothing standing as a type for the “Christian Sabbath”.
Voddie tells us, “Whenever you see Israel messin’ up – stop and insert yourself. That is you and me before we came to God. Forget generalities – this is you and me.” Again, the notion that Israel is a mirror of New Covenant saints shows up and seems innocuous. Voddie also taught me to be careful about inserting self into a Scripture passage, often using Jeremiah 29:11 to teach this. It appears he forgot this lesson. While all Scripture, including Exodus 16, is for our edification (1 Cor 10:6; Rom 15:4), not all Scripture can be applied directly to us. Israel is typological of all sinners, but that is NOT the same as saying you and I are Israel in this passage. Being less than careful in this matter can lead to serious errors – as when people drink poison and handle snakes by inserting themselves into Mark 16:17 & 18.
He quotes Ian Campbell from Why Easter makes me a Sabbatarian. This is an interesting article, easily found on the Internet, providing a defense of the Westminster Confession’s view of the “Christian Sabbath”. Despite Campbell’s assertion to the contrary, the pre-command for Sabbath-keeping in Exodus 16 is given only to Israel, not all people; same as the Decalogue. Nothing in the context of either scene comes remotely close to including Gentiles. Voddie admits the Decalogue summarizes the Mosaic Covenant, yet declares “the Sabbath was not just for Israel.” His continued conflating God’s moral law with the Decalogue leads him to impose the Decalogue universally. “If the Decalogue is a communication of God’s righteousness, then everyone is responsible for upholding it.” If by upholding it Voddie means we are bound by it (as the 1689 says), then he will run into myriad problems throughout the Bible as God’s righteousness is revealed and communicated in ways that even Christian Sabbatarians would claim. The crime and punishment of Achan in Judges 7 comes to mind.
If everyone is required by God to keep His Sabbath, why is the only record of the Decalogue we have contained in the monologues by Moses, communicating this law (the summary of the Mosaic Covenant) to that people? If it was commonly practiced from creation, why is there no Biblical record of anyone other than Israelites being instructed about the Sabbath or punished for violating it? There is plenty of punishment meted out on people for murder, theft, idolatry, etc., before the Decalogue is published, giving warrant to the notion that there is a moral law at work in all humanity. Yet nowhere in Scripture is the Sabbath held up in this light; it is a sign of the covenant between God and Israel. The tripartite view of Mosaic Law is difficult to demonstrate, as when we try to separate moral law from ceremonial in Leviticus – they are interwoven everywhere one looks. Principals of moral law and ceremonial and civil law are there to learn from; but they are not neatly defined and set aside (sanctified) as separate records.
Voddie claims Sabbatarians are the only people who see all men responsible before God for keeping His law. Others say man must voluntarily enter into covenant with God to be held accountable. This is another logical fallacy – the Excluded Middle: assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. Are Sabbatarians the only ones who embrace God’s sovereignty and monergistic work of justification, and the Christian’s responsibility to pursue godliness? Reading from Luke 6, wherein Jesus makes the claim He is the Lord of the Sabbath, Voddie asks, “would Jesus claim to be Lord of something that was abolished?” What if the Sabbath is by design a type of the rest we find in Christ as He redeems us? We are told to rest in the Lord (Psalm 37:7) and are invited by the Lord Jesus to find rest in Him (Matthew 11:28 – 29). If He gives us spiritual rest when we come to Him in faith (which He graciously gives His elect), is He not, in this way, continuing as Lord of the Sabbath? No one enters into His rest unbidden by Him – He is Lord of the Sabbath! Jesus does not promise the pale imitation of the rest provided for by temporal respite; He gives the eternal rest that can be found nowhere else. Baucham then runs to Hebrews 4:9 to claim THAT as a Sabbath – the weekly “Christian Sabbath.” For each of the types spoken of in Hebrews 3 & 4, the Spirit recounts how the infant nation of Israel failed to enter His rest in Canaan because of unbelief (Heb 3:7 – 19), how we who do believe enter that rest (not in Canaan, but in Christ; Heb 4:3), and He speaks, again, how Creator God rested from that work on the seventh day (Greek word hebdomos, #G1442; Heb 4:4), and how the (spiritual) rest promised to those who believe is different than the (temporal) rest Joshua promised (Heb 4:8). Therefore, a Sabbath rest remains for God’s people. For the person who has entered His rest has rested from his own works, just as God did from His. (Hebrews 4:9-10 (HCSB)) This rest, sabbatismos (Greek word G4520) is used nowhere else; it is found only in verse 9. If it were to be a weekly Sabbath, we would expect to see sabbaton (Greek word G4521) which is used 68 times in the New Testament, overwhelmingly to describe the Jewish Sabbath. If the temporal rest Joshua sought was singular occurrence and the rest from creation was a singular occurrence, why would the rest believers gain when we are adopted by God be a weekly event, rather than a singular, ongoing rest in the finished redemptive work of Christ Jesus? The Jewish Sabbath was a pale ceremonial rest from work to demonstrate their trust in YHWH, not an instruction to develop corporate worship. As a command to rest from that work which provided food for themselves and their families, the Jewish Sabbath serves a wonderful type for Christians – to rest from that work which seems to earn God’s favor and find true rest in the finished work of Jesus, the antitype; not a weekly spiritual respite.
Where does the Sabbath command include worship? This question is never asked nor answered in this sermon. One might think it central to the idea that the command to rest from work had been changed not only in the day in which it is to be observed, but as to its practice. We are to assume worship is commanded; Voddie does, and then strains to accommodate the change in day: “The commandment is 1 day in 7, not the 7th day.” This is simply not true. If it were true, each tribe of Israel could have established their own day of the week to honor the Sabbath given by God as a sign of the covenant. We know they did not do so. The commandment is “the 7th day”; the example from creation is “the 7th day.” Exodus 20:9-10 (HCSB) You are to labor six days and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. You must not do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the foreigner who is within your gates. From Strong’s Hebrew dictionary: Number 7637, shebîʿâ, is found 98 times in the KJV and means “seventh” 96 times, “seventh time” once, and “seven” once. Since this word is used myriad times to describe the Jewish Sabbath (there being no other kind in Scripture), how could it mean any day in a given week? Our English translations (NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, KJV, and many others) all say “the seventh day.” I didn’t find a commentary written by men in either camp who interpret this word as “one day in seven;” they universally interpret it “the seventh day.” And as with creation, the day after the sixth day is specified as the day of rest, not worship. But Voddie says “8 out 10 Christians do not believe that there is a Sabbath command … this means that going to church is optional.”

In truth, we see clearly a Sabbath command; we don’t see it given to anyone other than national Israel and we don’t see it commanding worship. There’s a HUGE difference! He continues to portray only two extremes – you believe in the “Christian Sabbath” or you believe worshiping God with His people is not important. This is another example of the Excluded Middle fallacy. There are many Christians who understand the Sabbath command to be a sign of the Mosaic Covenant and yet eagerly and willingly participate in regular corporate worship with the saints. People indwelt by the Spirit of God will increasingly desire to please Him and will not degrade into the slouches Voddie posits as the end of all who neglect his idea of Sabbath keeping. Being burdened by a law from the Mosaic Covenant will not transform them. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) was emphatic on this point:

some of the believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses!” (verse 5) … Now then, why are you testing God by putting a yoke on the disciples’ necks that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? (verse 10)

In this comparison between the Christian Sabbatarian position and those who do not agree with it, Voddie lumps all non-sabbatarians in with Ed Young’s horrible Easter Sunday extravaganza. “This command, which has been place since the creation of the world…” Again, there is no record of any Sabbath command or Sabbath keeping until Israel was instructed in Exodus 16. Law against murder is clearly in view, for example – yet NOTHING about Sabbath until the Exodus. There is no command or instruction to move the Sabbath to the 8th day. Christian gatherings on the 8th day (prayer, praise, preaching, and fellowship of the saints) have no connection to the commandment – which was to stay in your house and rest from your work. The false contrasts continues. H states that only Sabbatarians give the Lord every Sunday, and everyone else only Easter. Voddie heavily expounds, “the timeless command is observed by us on this day speaks volumes.” And “As God’s people, this is what God commands of us” – to gather twice as much manna on Friday so we won’t gather on the Sabbath. “But if you believe there is an obligation for God to be worshiped on this day, ‘but you do whatever to rid yourself of the guilt of playing sports on Sunday’ … is the day His or is it not?” “That’s the question – is the day His or is it not? We cannot embrace the blessing of the Sabbath without embracing the fact that it is a command.” He implies the “Christian Sabbath” is the only means by which saints can gather and participate in the ordinary means of grace our Lord has given us.
A long quote from B.B. Warfield’s sermon on the “Christian Sabbath”, pressing the command and obligation of the Sabbath, with no exegesis to show how this command is binding on Christians as is claimed. Voddie touts the notion that we must be commanded to worship each week because the world does not see its need to worship God – sounding just like Walter Chantry’s pragmatic plea to keep the Sabbath as a means of redeeming the culture (Call the Sabbath a Delight). Paraphrase: ‘Only if you get the “Christian Sabbath” as a command do you get the blessing God intends for you in this day.’ How ‘bout this, as an alternative: Jesus kept the law of Moses and the prophets, not just the Decalogue. He earned the right to be our lamb who takes away sin. We find the blessing of our rest in Him and His finished work.
He laments, ‘Failure to attend church regularly will cause your soul to shrivel. Failure to give God this day is to your great harm and detriment.’ Again – Christians want to gather and worship our Lord; the command does not command worship.
‘What does the Sabbath teaching in Exodus 16 tell us about Israel and us? First, it was commanded and very specific. Gather twice the bread on the 6th day … As the people of God, this is what God commands us. Again, 8 of 10 Christians do not believe the Sabbath command means they think going to church is optional.’ I agree with Voddie that we who claim Christ must trust Him to provide for us and not view work as an ends to be pursued to the detriment of our souls. This principle is taught us by the Sabbath command given the Hebrews. This is how types are interpreted, discerning the way they apply to us, rather than assuming equivalence.
“Ancient writers wrote about how extraordinary Israel was where in 1 day out of 7 everything stopped.” He doesn’t tell us the name of one of these ancient writers, but the official record of Israel’s history, the Scriptures, tell us Israel routinely profaned God’s Sabbath command and were punished many times (Ezek 20 & 22 for example). “This 1 day in 7 set them apart inwardly.” FAIL! Only the Spirit of God can do this! He presumes equivalence between “the Lord’s Day” and the “Christian Sabbath” and assigns spiritual blessings to Christians for keeping of the Law of Moses – which the Apostles declared a burden no man could bear.
“This is the day when we let everything else stop!” And yet – Voddie has repeatedly taught that it’s OK for people to enjoy sports and recreation on Sunday as long as it does not conflict with church. The Christian values the community of faith on Sunday, but meets with God every day. It’s not just the 8th day that is God’s – every day is. Our Sabbath rest is found in our Savior, not in a shadowy ceremonial type that was fulfilled in the person and work of our Lord.
FINALLY he tells us our day of rest is the rest we find in Christ (IAW Heb 4:9, perhaps?); but it’s still only a weakly (no misspelling!) rest for Voddie, rather than the ever increasing rest we enjoy as He sanctifies us. “He gives you six days – do you not believe He can multiply your bread on the 6th?” We mostly work 5 days in this country and ought to trust in our provider more than our employer – but that work is as much as ordinary means of grace as any other provided for us.
Voddie condescendingly dismisses rules for Sabbath keeping, pointing to Exodus 16:23 – they were permitted to cook the manna on the 7th day, just not permitted to gather (the text does not say they were permitted to cook manna on the 7th day). Therefore, he declares, there are no lists for what it means to keep the Sabbath! But what says the Scripture? There we find many rules for Sabbath keeping – not only those made up by the religious rulers. Exodus 31:15 (death for working); 35:1 – 3 (which forbids kindling a fire); Numbers 15:32 – 36 (death for picking up wood); Leviticus 25 (describes the Sabbath Year – why do Christian Sabbatarians not practice this?); Numbers 28:9 – 10 (burnt offerings); 1 Chron 9:32 (bread of the presence); 2 Chron 23:8 (military guard); Neh 10:31 (showing the Sabbath applying to Israel, not others); Neh 13 (God’s wrath promised to come on Israel for their profaning the Sabbath); Jer 17(prohibition of bearing burdens). No rules for Sabbath keeping, no penalties for breaking those rules? No lists for what God means to keep His Sabbath? Contrary to what Voddie says, the biblical Sabbath has rules, penalties, and lists. If the “Christian Sabbath” he holds to does not, it does not bear witness to the Sabbath in Exodus 16 he is pressing upon his flock.
Voddie claims the typological aspect of the Sabbath comes into play after the first resurrection. It’s only a weak weekly observance until you die. He declares that the work of ministry is permitted on the Sabbath and then says his Sunday ministry (preaching) is not work – it’s worship. Preparation for preaching is work. Why, then, defend the work of ministry on the Sabbath if that is not work? A day off to rest his body is fine, but he will not dare call it a Sabbath, “because the Sabbath is the Lord’s Day, not mine.” Every day we live is the Lord’s Day, not ours – just as every good thing we have is a gift of God and not our own (1 Cor 4:7).
My dear brother gives us many good reminders about the value of Christians gathering for corporate worship – yet no exegesis showing how the 8th day is defined by the 4th word. He simply gives a naked assertion that the 4th word “goes all the way back to creation.” The Scriptures are silent on this topic in that era; it violates Sola Scriptura to teach that it does. No argument from me that to work six days and rest one is a God-given rhythm for life. The Sabbath command teaches this – it does not teach nor require worship. “This is what we must learn, saints – that God will give us 7 days of provision in 6 days of work.” IS THIS THE APPLICATION OF THE 4th WORD FOR CHRISTIANS? I rather treasure the surety of my soul! Just as God rested from His work of creation to show us a pattern for life and point us to the promised seed, Christ rested from His work of redemption to provide us an eternity of rest – rest that starts as soon as He redeems us and gets better every day until He returns to bring the ultimate glory to His name by recreating the heavens and earth and putting a final end to sin for His saints. That’s my Sabbath – the God-man who is Lord of the Sabbath, He bids me find my rest in Him.
To borrow from Kim Riddlebarger’s Reply to John MacArthur (located here:, This is hard to say, but in his sermon Pastor Baucham set up and repeatedly attacked a straw man. His was a pyrrhic victory over a phantom foe.


Calvinistic Evangelism–Chapter Six–Examples of Apostolic Proclamation

It is my purpose in this chapter to examine the apostolic message in three different gospel presentations to demonstrate how the apostles themselves brought these themes together. It should be evident that though the same basic themes emerge in all their proclamations, they did not preach a “one size fits all” message. Though the most basic needs of their hearers were universal, they altered the emphases of their messages to fit the specific needs of their hearers. We will consider three gospel presentations: 1. Peter’s somewhat impromptu sermon on the occasion of the Spirit’s outpouring (Acts 2). Paul’s passionate plea to his brothers according to the flesh in which he expressed his “heart’s desire for Israel . . . that they might be saved” (Rom. 10), and 3. Paul’s address to the pagan philosophers on Mars Hill (Acts 17:31).

Peter’s Pentecost Sermon

We should keep in mind that much of what we find recorded of apostolic preaching in the New Testament Scriptures was not scripted or planned. Often their messages were unrehearsed responses to situations that had arisen. Peter did not arrive at the Feast of Pentecost with a prepared text. There is little question he had given some thought to the Old Testament prophesies about the Spirit’s outpouring in “the last days,” as a result of Jesus’ promises to send the Spirit after he “went away,” but he was not on the roster as an invited guest speaker on the day of Pentecost. Instead, he stood with the other apostles to explain the phenomena that accompanied the Spirit’s torrential effusion.


As we have seen, fulfillment is a strong theme in apostolic preaching. Peter began his message by saying, “This is what the prophet Joel was writing about” (v. 16). He was announcing that “the last days” have come. That age which all other ages were anticipating has dawned (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:1; 9:26). “This is that. . . .” The accomplishment of that work without which the inheritance could not be granted has been accomplished and the “first-fruit” of that inheritance has been granted. Peter continued to expound the prophetic Scripture to show that this one whom they had crucified must have been the Messiah and that God has exalted this very Jesus whom they crucified to the throne of glory. He shows that David could not have been referring to himself in Psalm sixteen, since his body has been buried and has decomposed. He must ultimately have been referring to God’s Anointed One. He reasoned that the Messiah was to have been resurrected. This Jesus whom you crucified has been resurrected; therefore, Jesus must be God’s Anointed One (see vv. 29-32). Finally, he shows that Psalm two has been fulfilled in Jesus’ exaltation to the throne. Peter must have remembered the words Jesus had spoken on the last day, the great day of the Feast of Tabernacles. Additionally, he must have shared John’s understanding of those words. Jesus had stood up and cried out saying, “If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink. He that believes on me, as the Scriptures have said, out of his inner-most being shall flow rivers of living water” (John 7:37-38). John’s editorial comment in verse thirty-nine is quite instructive. He wrote, “Now this he spoke about the Spirit, whom those who believed on him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” Peter, understanding this truth, reasoned that since the Spirit had been given, Jesus must have been glorified (see verse 33). It should not escape our notice that when the Spirit was given, Peter did not preach about the Spirit but about Jesus. Jesus had told his disciples that when the Spirit of truth came, he would glorify him (see John 16: 14). If our preaching is guided by the Spirit, we will also seek to glorify Jesus.

Preaching Jesus’ Death

As we have observed, instead of proclaiming to sinners that God loved them so much he sent Jesus to save them, they spoke about Jesus’ death in an entirely different way.* They spoke of his death in terms of the sinner’s culpability in rejecting and crucifying him. Consider, for example, Acts 2:22-23: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” See also Acts 3:13-15; 4:10-12; 5:30-31; 10:36-43; 13:27-32. Of course, we must keep in mind that Luke did not necessarily record everything the apostles proclaimed in their messages. For example, he informs us in Acts 2:40, “. . . and with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them. . . .” Still, Luke has more than likely recorded for us the more salient features of Peter’s message in an abbreviated form. What is clear from all these examples is that the apostles began by charging their hearers with high treason against the God of heaven in crucifying the Lord of glory. The emphasis of their proclamation was on the resurrection and enthronement of Christ that resulted from his finished redemptive work rather than on the death of Christ’s itself. These verses also clearly imply that this one who was lately in their wicked hands to treat as they wished had now been exalted to the throne to be their judge. They were now in his hands and at his mercy. We must never forget that those wicked men who crucified Jesus acted no differently than we would have acted, apart from God’s restraining grace, had we stood in their place. We must be ever mindful that we are of such a nature that, if we could, we would drag God from his throne and trample him under our feet. When the psalmist penned the second Psalm, he was describing all of us. He wrote, “Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying, ‘Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.’” (Psalms 2:1-3). We would have cried out, “Crucify him, Crucify him. We will not have this man to rule over us.” We must be ever mindful that, as sinners, we are not neutral toward God. We were not waiting eagerly and with open hearts to hear our gospel. By nature, we are not lovers of God but hostile toward him (see–Rom. 8:7). Apart from God’s restraining grace, we would have been among those who nailed him to the cross. Bethany Dillon and Matt Hammitt wrote, Behold the Man upon a cross, My sin upon his shoulders Ashamed I hear my mocking voice, Call out among the scoffers.

The Spirit’s Reproving Ministry and Peter’s Preaching

There are few biblical doctrines that have been misunderstood so badly as the doctrine of the Spirit’s work of “conviction.” Usually, when people talk about “being under conviction by the Spirit” they are referring to a feeling of guilt that is produced by the Holy Spirit. In reality, this work does not refer to a feeling at all. It is an objective work of the Holy Spirit in which he presses the evidence of a sinner’s guilt against him. Jesus used the word translated “convict” or “reprove” in John 8:46. He said, “Which one of you convicts me of sin?” He clearly did not mean, “Which one of you makes me feel guilty for sin?” Instead, he meant, “Which of you can produce sufficient evidence to prove me guilty of sin.” A sociopath or a psychopath may sit in a courtroom as the accused. He may sit quietly as he listens to the damning evidence against him and yet feel not the slightest pang of conscience. The work of the prosecutor is not to make the defendant feel guilty but to prove him guilty by a cogent presentation of the facts of the case. This is the work of the Spirit in conjunction with the proclamation of the gospel. It should not escape our attention that the proclamation of the New Testament evangelists followed the pattern Jesus set forth in describing the Holy Spirit’s ministry in John 16: 8-11. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. Consider how these three aspects of the Holy Spirit’s work are reflected in Peter’s preaching on the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2.

“He will reprove the world of sin, because they do not believe on me” (John 16:9).

God Approved Jesus—You Crucified Him (Acts 2:22-23).

Peter’s message began with a denunciation of sin. His message is not a condemnation of sins in general but of the crowning sin from which all other sin flows and of which every other sin gives evidence. The Spirit presses on sinners the evidence of their guilt for the greatest possible sin. If the greatest commandment in the Law is “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:37), the greatest sin must be our failure to love God. These words in John 16:8-11 about the Holy Spirit’s ministry occur immediately following Jesus’ prophecy to his disciples about the world’s hatred for them and their message (John 15:18). He has told them the world’s hatred for them is not a personal matter. The world hates them because it hated him first. If the world rejects our message, it is because it has rejected him and his message and this in the face of clear revelation. Jesus said, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. . .If I had not done among them the words that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father” (vv. 22-24). He does not mean they would not have been sinners in the absolute sense had they not seen and heard him. It was because they were sinners that they reacted to him as they did. What he intends to say is that their reaction to him and to his message and miracles gives evidence that they hate God. He said, “Whoever hates me, hates my Father also” (v. 23). This concept of sinning with full knowledge against clear revelation is another theme we see repeated in the proclamation of Jesus and the Apostles. Consider a few examples: “If you are the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep” (John 10:24-26). “Jesus answered them, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me’” (John 10:32). “When Jesus said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. Though he had done so many signs before them, they still not believe in him” (John 12: 36-37). “. . .Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22).” “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For the invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God. . . .” (Romans 1:19-21). I would like to examine this in greater detail in the next chapter in relation to the sinner’s reaction to the universal benevolence and common grace of God.

“. . .concerning righteousness, because I go to my Father and you see me no more” (John 16:10). You Crucified Him–God Raised Him ( see-Acts 2:23-24).

D. A. Carson has suggested that these words refer to the Spirit’s continuation of Jesus’ earthly ministry in which he exposed the true character and expounded the true nature of righteousness. (see–Carson, 1991, p. 538). Since Jesus was going to the Father and they would see him no more, the Spirit would continue this ministry that Jesus had begun. Peter, under the guidance of the Spirit, makes it clear that whatever their views of righteousness may be, they did not possess it. Thus, he continues Jesus’ ministry of correcting false views about righteousness.

This is without a doubt true, but I believe there is more in the text than that. The Spirit bears witness to Jesus’ righteousness as evidenced by the resurrection. We should not in any way depreciate the importance of the cross in obtaining our redemption, but the cross would be absolutely meaningless apart from the resurrection. If Jesus is still in the tomb, ours is an empty message that is void of reality and ours is a groundless faith that will leave us hopeless (see—1 Cor. 15:14). Peter said, “God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it” (Acts 2:24). It is in statements like this that the Holy Spirit presses the evidence of Christ’s righteousness. Implicit in this statement is the idea that Jesus’ redemptive work has satisfied all the righteous demands of God’s law so that death could not hold him. In 1 Corinthians 15:56, the apostle Paul wrote, “The sting of death is sin and the strength of sin is the law.” Death has no sting (pains or pangs) apart from sin and sin has no strength apart from law. If law has been satisfied, sin loses its power; if sin has been conquered death loses its sting. Jesus’ resurrection is his vindication. It declares that he has fully satisfied the demands of that Law under which he was born. In full identification with his chosen people, Jesus had come under the power of sin, not in the sense that he ever succumbed to its temptation, but in the sense that he who knew no sin was made sin for them (see Rom. 6:8-10; 2 Cor. 5:21). He has exhausted God’s penal demands for sin. In union with him, the believer stands vindicated before the law. Our future hope is secure because he has risen. It is not simply that his resurrection guarantees ours, but that he and his people are all part of the same resurrection. He is the first-fruits, we are the full harvest.

“of judgment because the prince of this world is judged” (John 16:11).

God Has Made Him Both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36)

Jesus had promised his disciples that the Spirit, as part of his ministry of reproof, would press the evidence of coming judgment on sinners and this “because the ruler of this world is judged.” It is interesting that in the Fourth Gospel, the crushing of the prince of darkness is associated with Jesus’ being “lifted up.” Jesus said, “Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:31-32). Jesus employs deliberate ambiguity in regard to this term “lifted up.” He uses it to mean not only to be lifted up on the cross but also, by means of cross, to be lifted up to glory. In this sermon, Peter has argued that David could not have been speaking of himself as the ultimate fulfillment of his words in Psalm sixteen. God had promised to raise up one his descendants to sit on his throne (see 2 Sam. 7:12-16; 1 Chron. 17:11-14). He, along with those of his regal line, were “anointed ones,” but his prophesy looked forward to one who would be the fulfillment of what these kings were as shadows or types of the Anointed One. This Messiah was to be recognized by his resurrection from the dead. He now completes his argument by identifying this “Anointed One” [Messiah/Christ] as “this Jesus whom you crucified.” He was lately in their wicked hands to do with as they wished; they are now in his hands to dispose of as he pleases. God has exalted to the throne as sovereign Lord and Christ this Jesus you crucified. The gospel is a proclamation that Jesus is King. He has sovereign authority to bring his foes into judgment. Peter clearly seemed to see a connection between Jesus’ exaltation as a result of his humiliation (also see this teaching in Phil. 2:5-11), and the certainty of coming judgment. It seems clear that his hearers understood this connection as well since when they heard these words they cried out, “Brothers, what shall the law. What a terrifying prospect it must have been when it came home to them with force that they had crucified their Messiah.

A Message of Repentance and Pardon

It should not escape our attention that Peter’s first mention of pardon came in conjunction with God’s demand for their repentance. He could well have said, “There is no hope for you. Since you have sinned against clear light and acted wickedly in crucifying Jesus, you are doomed.” Instead, he proclaimed to them God’s promise of pardon upon their repentance [change of mind] and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. His proclamation does not attach any saving efficacy to the rite of baptism; it was simply to be an outward profession of their inward change of mind and their reliance on God’s promise. It was to be in Jesus’ name. J. A. Alexander explained the phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ” as follows, “i.e., by his authority, acknowledging his claims, subscribing to his doctrines, engaging in his service, and relying on his merits” (Alexander, 1857, p. 85).

A Universal Proclamation and Promise

Peter closed his message by reminding his hearers that God’s promise was universal in the true, biblical sense of that term. God’s promise had been that he would pour out his Spirit “on all flesh” (v. 17). By this we should not understand that every human being would receive the Spirit, but that people from every nation would receive the promised Spirit. Peter now reminds them that the promise is to all whom the Lord our God shall call, even extending to “those who are far off,” namely, the Gentiles (v. 39). Both Peter and Paul followed this same general outline in all their proclamations (see Acts 3:17-26; 4:10-12; 5:30-32; 10:36-43; 13:26-39). * In noting the absence of any statement in apostolic preaching that Jesus died for you or even that he died for sinners, I am not suggesting that we should not proclaim the good news that Jesus died as a substitute for sinners who will believe the gospel. In the doctrinal expositions of the great truth of justification, the apostles made it clear that the believer’s acceptance before God’s throne is based on Jesus’ substitutionary work. It is God’s good news that we are “justified freely by God’s grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24). But, the message of the gospel we preach to sinners indiscriminately is not that Jesus died for them, but that God has promised to forgive repenting sinners. The message that Jesus died as a satisfaction of God’s wrath toward sinners is not intended to be among the first items of information we give to sinners in evangelism. Instead it is the good news we are to proclaim to believers to explain how God can be just and at the same time justify sinners who trust in Jesus (see–Rom. 3:25-26). As an aside, the question of whether Jesus redemptive work was universal or limited should never have become an issue relative to evangelism. If those who have proclaimed God’s message had simply followed the apostolic pattern, no one would have ever felt the need to tell sinners indiscriminately “Jesus died for you.” Many could not imagine being able to proclaim their gospel unless they could tell every sinner “Jesus died for you.” Yet, there is not a single apostolic message in which the preacher offered sinners this assurance. Every passage that states that Jesus died for our sins or that Christ died for us is addressed to believers. Robert Haldane wisely remarked, “It is the gospel, that Jesus died for the most guilty sinner who will believe, not that he died for every sinner whether he will believe or not.” The gospel is not an appeal to sinners to make the work of Christ effectual for them by letting Jesus come into their hearts. It is a proclamation that his work was effectual and has been accepted as a satisfaction of divine wrath for every sinner who will repent and believe. We do not proclaim the possibility of salvation; we proclaim an accomplished work. In the gospel, God summons sinners to bow before his sovereign throne and promises to pardon them when they repent.

If we have adequately explained to sinners God’s truth about his own character and about their guilt and depravity, their question will be, “How can such a God forgive such a sinner and remain just himself?” C. H. Spurgeon wrote,

When I was in the hands of the Holy Spirit, under conviction of sin, I had a clear and sharp sense of the justice of God. Sin, whatever it might be to other people, became to me an intolerable burden. It was not so much that I feared hell as that I feared sin; and all the while I had upon my mind a deep concern for the honour of God’s name and the integrity of His moral government. I felt that it would not satisfy my conscience if I could be forgiven unjustly (Spurgeon, All of Grace).

It is to explain how God can be just and at the same time the one who justifies the ungodly that we must proclaim that believers are “. . . justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24).

Paul’s Passionate Plea Concerning His Jewish Brothers (Romans 10: 1-13)

The Context

Romans 10:1-13 is helpful in that it provides some insight into the theological foundation that undergirded Paul’s gospel appeal. This passage occurs in a larger context in which the apostle is dealing with the issue of God’s promises to his blood relatives according to the flesh. He has begun by showing that God’s ultimate design in making promises to Abraham and his offspring did not concern Abraham’s natural offspring but his spiritual offspring. Not everyone who is Jacob’s [of Israel] offspring is of Israel—“For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, . . .” (Rom. 9:6-7). His argument then turns to the prerogative of the sovereign potter to condemn whom he wills and save whom he wills. God chose We must never forget that God is not unjust in granting to some and withholding from others what no one deserves. In chapter ten, he turns from his emphasis on God’s sovereign design in the sinner’s salvation to the sinner’s responsibility to respond rightly to the gospel’s demands. It should not escape our attention that he has placed these two emphases side by side. We should never think of divine sovereignty and human responsibility as contradictory doctrines. Additionally, it should be clear that Paul’s strong predestinarian understanding of God’s ways with men did nothing to deter him from an unfettered proclamation of God’s good news to recalcitrant sinners. In verse one, he has stated his heart’s desire that his brothers according to the flesh be saved. It seems only reasonable that this expressed desire reflected the desire of the God who had sent him and the Spirit who had inspired him to write these words. Interestingly, this chapter closes with the reminder that God has, throughout Israel’s long history, persisted in stretching out his arms to a disobedient and rebellious people. If they perish, it is not his fault but theirs. God had every right to demand that sinner’s go somewhere and do something to atone for their guilt. He could have demanded that we endure years [indeed an eternity] of pain and suffering to satisfy his righteous wrath. In reality, sinners would be more prone to embark on such a course of agonizing obedience than to submit to the terms of the gospel. The Jewish people were quite zealous in their attempts to assuage God’s anger and merit his favor, but all such attempts fall short of obtaining his saving approbation. Paul wrote, “I bear them witness that they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (Rom. 10: 2-3).

The Message Itself

These efforts on the part of Paul’s Hebrew brethren gave evidence that they had misunderstood God’s design in giving them his law. His intention was not to secure their obedience to a long list of rules. I am not suggesting there was anything wrong with a godly Hebrew endeavoring to be obedient to the God he or she loved. The evidence of their God-given love was to be obedience to his covenant. What I am suggesting is that seeking to obtain God’s favor through legal obedience indicates a total misunderstanding of the Old Testament Scriptures. Law-keeping was not the goal of the law for righteousness; Christ was the goal of the law for righteousness. This verse does not merely inform us that Jesus has brought the law, the old covenant, to an end but that he has done so by fulfilling all its types and promises. During his earthly ministry he often reminded his hearers that the Scriptures are about him (See e.g., Luke 24:25-27, 44-45; John 5:39). Our evangelistic message must not only call sinners away from their ungodly path; it must also call them away from all their vain efforts to justify themselves by their own works of obedience. The apostolic message did not call sinners to obey the law that they might live before God. Its principle was not “do this and live.” Instead, its message was embodied in Jesus words on the cross when he cried out, “it is finished [stands accomplished].” The gospel never requires sinners to go somewhere and do something. One does not need to ascend into the heavens to bring the Christ down from above or descend into Hades to bring him up from the abyss. The gospel simply calls on sinners to account God faithful to fulfill his promises and acknowledge that he has finished the work of salvation for all who will believe. The message Paul articulated in these verses is particularly aimed at the objections raised by his Hebrew brothers. They had denied and continued to deny two basic truths. They had denied that their Messiah had become incarnate in this man named Jesus and that this Jesus had been raised from the dead. He tells them these are the two basic truths they must believe if they wish for God to accept them as righteous in his sight. You do not need to ascend into heaven to bring the Messiah down from above. God has already sent him. The emphasis of this confession is not that “Jesus is Lord” but that “Jesus is Lord.” This one whom you denied and crucified is the sovereign Messiah. One does not need to descend into Hades to resurrect him. God has resurrected him already. One must but trust God’s declaration of truth.

The True Universality of God’s Purpose

There is a true universality to the gospel message. The message is not that God loves everyone equally and in the same way but that he has chosen to show his saving mercy to people of every nation. This was a recurring theme in apostolic preaching. Though the principle theme of this passage concerns the issue of God’s saving purpose regarding Israel, the apostle reminds his readers that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (v. 11). Everyone who calls on the Lord’s name will be saved (v. 13). This message that we seem to take for granted was revolutionary during the first century. Even Peter needed to be convinced that Gentiles, as Gentile, were to be admitted to the assembly of God´s people (see Acts 10). This idea has been obscured by the Arminian insistence that the words “all” and “world” are primarily intended to refer to every individual on the face of the earth. The true force of these terms was intended to emphasize the true universality of God’s purpose. There is now no distinction between Jew and Gentile. God has concluded all in unbelief that he might have mercy on all, i.e., on both Jews and Gentiles who trust his promise.

God’s Sincere Offer of Grace

As we have seen, the emphasis of this chapter is on the sinner’s responsibility to respond rightly to the gospel call. It is not necessary for us to go anywhere or do anything to be justified before God. We only need to call on the Lord’s name. If anyone is saved, it will be owing to the free grace of God; if anyone is lost it will be due to his sinful rebellion against God. Paul makes this clear in the final verse of this chapter when he quotes Isaiah and reminds us that God has continually held out his hands to a disobedient and contrary people. The problem of sinners remaining unpardoned is not God’s unwillingness to save but our unwillingness to repent. In Acts thirteen, forty-eight, Luke does not shy away from stating that those who believed had been disposed to do so by God’s sovereign grace. They had not disposed themselves to do so by the power of autonomous sinful nature. Nevertheless, he is quite bold in recording the words of Paul and Barnabas words in regard to the sinner’s culpability in unbelief. “And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, ‘It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. . .(Acts 13:46). If sinners are lost, it is though their own fault; if they are saved, to God be the glory.

Paul’s Message on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-31)

There are several lessons we can learn from reading Luke’s account of Paul’s preaching in Athens. Though there are several elements this proclamation of the gospel shares with other examples we have examined, there are some aspects of this gospel presentation that are absent in most of those examples. I would like to examine those elements of Paul’s message to the philosophers in the Areopagus and suggest why they are not a part of his gospel presentation to other groups of people. Additionally, I would like to consider how our understanding of this passage should impact our proclamation of the gospel. Before we consider the aspects of this message that we have not found in many of the other gospel presentations in the book of Acts, I would like to make what I think is an extremely important observation relative to our gospel preaching. This observation can be drawn not only from this passage but also from several others. There is probably no single factor that has inhibited evangelism as much as the modern idea of toleration. I am not suggesting that we consider intolerance a virtue, but that we be careful how we define “toleration” and how our understanding of it works out in our lives. If by “toleration” we mean that we grant to every individual the right to hold his own views and express his own opinions and we have no right to try to “convert” him at the point of a sword, we clearly believe in toleration. If by this term we mean that everyone has his or her own “truth” and that even if “your truth” is completely contradictory to “my truth,” both may be equally valid. If we should grant such a proposition that flies in the face of clearly established and widely accepted canons of logic, all efforts at evangelism must be considered unloving and indeed futile. If the apostle Paul had been infected with this erroneous idea, Luke’s account of his early missionary activities would have read quite differently. Imagine reading the following in Acts seventeen, “And while Paul waited in Athens he saw all the idols the pagans were worshiping and was happy that at least these were religious people. He understood that they had just as much right to their religious views as he had to his. For this reason, he decided to remain quiet and keep his views to himself.” If he had thought this way, he would never have preached the good news to anyone. Instead of this, he was deeply disturbed and irritated when he saw the city completely given over to the worship of idols (Acts 17:16). We will never become biblical evangelists until we are so convinced of Christian truth that we are deeply disturbed by any contradictory teaching or practice.

Truths in Common with Other Gospel Presentations

There are several truths in this gospel presentation that we have found in other such proclamations. For example, Paul was preaching “Jesus and the resurrection” (vv. 18, 31-32). He proclaimed God’s common grace in making himself known to people of every nation. We do not need to go anywhere to seek after God. He has revealed himself so clearly that only the willingly blind and ignorant could fail to see him and know him (vv. 26-28). What Paul preached to these philosophers is parallel to what he wrote in Romans one. The reason sinners are under God’s wrath is not that God has hidden himself from them; it is because they have willfully rejected his clear revelation of himself wherever that revelation may be found. Additionally, as in other gospel presentations, repentance and judgment are central themes in this passage (vv. 30-31).

The Unknown God

There is one aspect of Paul’s message in Athens that we do not find in most of his other messages. We find Barnabas and Paul preaching a similar message in Lystra (Acts 14:15). In that passage as well, their declaration about the living God is made in contrast to what these people knew about the pagan gods they worshiped. We could cite such a contrast as the reason we find this teaching in these gospel presentations and not in others in the book of Acts. It seems to me, a more compelling reason is that, unlike the Jewish audiences to which Paul and others preached, these people had little if any understanding of God’s attributes and of his true nature. For them, Jehovah was “an unknown God.” I have been exposed to many “soul-winning” courses over the years, but I have yet to find one that suggests we should begin our gospel presentations with careful instruction about the nature and character of God. We must not assume that our hearers know anything about God. We are living in a day in which even the average Evangelical “Christian” is woefully ignorant of God’s nature and character. This is true to such an extent that if they are introduced to the God who has revealed himself in the Scriptures, they do not like him very much. If this is true of the average church member, what would we have to say about the raw pagan? When we speak to him about God, we may as well be speaking a foreign language. I believe this passage teaches us how we should begin our gospel presentations to those who are ignorant of God’s attributes. We need to begin by teaching them about “the unknown God.” Consider the basic truths Paul sets before them.

God is the Creator of All Things

Contrary to the doctrine of the Epicureans that matter is eternal and that all things are controlled by blind fate, the apostle presents to them a God who is the creator of all things and the controller of all things. He is the God who made the world and everything in it. We owe our very existence to him. Additionally, as Paul has shown so clearly in Romans one,, “the things that are made” bear eloquent testimony to his power and deity. He is not one of many but the one and only God.

God is Lord of Heaven and Earth—He is Sovereign

Jehovah is King. Having wisely decreed everything that will occur in human history, he now governs all his creatures and all our actions according to his wise decree. “He does according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth and none can hold back his hand or say to him, ‘what have you done’” (Dan. 4:35). The psalmist has instructed us to declare among the heathen that Jehovah reigns (Psalms 96:10). The Bible nowhere even hints at the popular idea that in his sovereignty, God has relinquished his control to the libertarian free will of the sinner. If God has relinquished his control to anyone, he has ceased to be God. The apostle continues to press this thought in verse twenty-six. He tells his hearers that it is this sovereign God who has fixed the appointed seasons and has set the bounds of their habitation. It is God who raises nations and kings to fulfill his purposes, and it is he who brings them down. Men and nations are not self-determining. In verse twenty-eight he presses on us the basic truth that we are completely dependent on God. Commenting on this verse, H. B. Hackett wrote, “We derive our existence solely from God; we depend on him every instant for life, activity, being itself. Without him we should neither continue to live, nor be such as we are, nor have been at all”(Hackett, p. 208, 1882).

God is Immense

Paul tells his hearers that God does not dwell in hand-made temples. When Stephen made a similar statement (see-Acts 7:48), he cited Isaiah 66:1 as support for it. Isaiah wrote, “Thus says the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?” Having built the Jewish temple, Solomon said, “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built” (1 Kings 8:27).

God is Self-sufficient

Additionally, Paul told these philosophers that God is not needy. He does not dwell in hand-made temples nor is he worshiped or served with men’s hands as though he needed anything. Contrary to the pagan notion that their gods were to be nourished by their worshipers, our God is in need of nothing. A. W. Pink wrote,

There was a time, if ‘time’ it could be called, when God, in the unity of this nature (though subsisting in three Divine Persons), dwelt all alone. ‘In the beginning, God.’ There was no heaven where His glory is not particularly manifested; There was no earth to engage His attention. There were no angels to hymn His praises; no universe to be upheld by the word of His power. There was nothing, no one but God; and that, not for a day, a year, or an age, but ‘from everlasting.’ During a past eternity, God was alone, self-contained, self-sufficient, self-satisfied; in need of nothing. Had a universe, had angels, had human beings been necessary to him in any way, they also had been called into existence from all eternity. The creating of them when he did, added nothing to God essentially. He changes not (Mal. 3:6), therefore his essential glory can be neither augmented nor diminished (Pink, no date, p.1-2).

In Psalms 50:9-12, God says to his people, “I will not accept a bull from your house or goats from your folds. For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine. ‘If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and its fullness are mine.’” We can only offer to God what he has first given to us. In Romans 11:35-36. Paul, echoing Job 41:11, asks, “’Who has first given him a gift, that he might be repaid?’ For from him, and through him, and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”

God is a Self-disclosing God

As the apostle made clear in Acts 14, “God has not left himself without a witness.” He has revealed himself in the creation around us. His fingerprints are on everything we see. His goal in thus making himself known is that people might seek after him (see verse 27). His purpose is that sinners should seek after him and find him. The goodness of God in making himself known is intended to lead sinners to repentance.

God is Omnipresent

God is not far from any one of us. Wherever we are, God is. It is not that part of God is everywhere at once but that all of God is everywhere at once. C.H. Spurgeon stated the teaching well when he wrote, “God’s center is everywhere; his circumference is nowhere.” God is the Ever-living Source of All Life and All Good It is based on this revelation of God’s character that Paul calls on his hearers to repent of their wicked idolatry. This conclusion is introduced by the words, “Forasmuch then” (verse 29). If all that Paul has been saying is true, it is ludicrous for sinners to bow down to lifeless, helpless, motionless images of silver and gold. If we are his offspring and we are beings that live and move and have intelligent and responsible being, it would be incongruous to reason that God is inanimate, non-rational, and powerless to save. The implications of this gospel presentation should be patent to us. It is less than useless to converse with people about God and the gospel if they are ignorant of the God about whom we are speaking to them. Our evangelistic task has been made exponentially more difficult by the silence of the church regarding the attributes of God. Spooked by the specter of being “non-relevant” or “non-practical,” the false shepherds of the church have bartered the biblical message for one that was more calculated to tickle the ears of their hearers, than to pierce their hearts. Summary of Part Two Our investigation of the apostolic pattern of evangelism has led us to (or at least should have led us to) several important conclusions. It should be fairly obvious to any honest observer that most of what the evangelical church has considered sounds biblical gospel preaching and methodology cannot be found in the apostolic record. We have already considered several common evangelistic utterances that would never have passed the lips of the New Testament evangelists. Instead of focusing merely on what modern evangelists are doing wrong, I would like to conclude this section by contrasting modern evangelism with the apostolic pattern. The following are the contrasts we have observed:

1. Instead of beginning their message with the assurance of God’s universal, redeeming love for sinners, they began with the news that sinners remain under God’s wrath as long as they continue in their rebellion.

2. Instead of telling sinners that Jesus died to save them, they preached the cross as the crowning evidence of the sinner’s hostility toward God. You killed the Lord of glory because you hate the Father who sent him.

3. Instead of inviting sinners to kneel at the cross, they commanded them to bow at Christ’s throne. It is to the Anointed one who has been crucified but has now been vested with sovereign authority as Lord and Messiah that we invite sinners in the gospel.

4. Instead of preaching God’s universal, redeeming love, the apostles proclaimed the universality of his self-revelation and his common benevolence that is intended to lead people to repentance.

5. Instead of telling sinners that Jesus died for all their sins but God cannot forgive them unless they believe, they proclaimed God’s promise to pardon all who repent and believe his promise to save them for Jesus’ sake.

6. They did not proclaim a Savior who is helpless to save sinners unless they “decide for him.” They never described him as a forlorn beggar knocking at the heart’s door and “waiting to see if sinners will open the door.” They proclaimed a sovereign Lord who will dash rebels in pieces like a potter’s vessel when his wrath is kindled but a little, unless they kiss the Son in faith and repentance.

7. They did not proclaim a Savior who would pardon our guilt but leave us in our sins. They proclaimed a Savior who came to turn his people from ungodliness.

The time has come for those who call themselves servants of Christ to conform our message to the biblical pattern. It is to the Lord of the Church that we must give an account. God pity us if we trifle with his message.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 62 other followers