Posts Tagged ‘The Carnal Christian Doctrine

02
Jan
19

An Examination of the Carnal Christian Doctrine

A question that often arises in response to the biblical teaching that God is sanctifying everyone he has justified is “What about the carnal Christian?” The implication is that what we are saying about sanctification invariably following justification cannot be true because we all know Christians whose lifestyle is no different from that of unbelievers. It never seems to occur to those who make this argument that such people may not be believers at all. Though this a not a direct quotation since I no longer have access to Lewis. S. Chafer’s book, He that is Spiritual, he wrote. “A “carnal” Christian is a person whose “walk” is on the same plane as that of the “natural” man” (Chafer, 1919,12). He is one who has confessed faith in Christ but whose life is no different from the life of an unconverted person. Notice that he is not merely claiming that there are times when believers act in a fleshly manner. He is describing a separate “class” of individuals that he calls “carnal” Christians. Being a “spiritual” Christian is the ideal, but it is only an option for the true believer. What Mr. Chafer failed to understand is that “spiritual” is simply the biblical designation for those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

You have no doubt seen the three circles representing the natural man, the carnal Christian and the spiritual Christian. In that drawing, the only difference between the natural [unconverted] man and the “carnal Christian” is that in the case of the “carnal Christian” the cross is on the inside of the circle instead of the outside. Ego is still on the throne, Christ is dethroned and every aspect of the person’s life is in a complete state of disorder just as it is in the case of the unconverted person.

By contrast, in the circle representing the “spiritual Christian,” ego is dethroned, Christ is enthroned, and every aspect of the person’s life is represented as in perfect order. Perhaps your circle of experience has been broader than mine, but I have never known a person whose life could be represented in that way.

This doctrine has been widely accepted by the evangelical church to the extent that anyone who dares to question its validity is considered a false teacher. It has become so pervasive that in most quarters it makes no difference how immoral and ungodly a person’s lifestyle may be, he or she will be considered a true believer since at some point they have made a profession of faith in Christ.

Unless someone is willing to assert that Paul was identifying himself as a “carnal Christian” in Romans 7:14 [I do not consider this passage as autobiographical at all but as a redemptive-historical description of the contrast between the inability of the Law and the efficacy of grace (see Rom. 7:5-6)], there is one lone passage on which one might base the carnal Christian doctrine. That passage is 1 Cor. 3:1-16. The popular view of this passage is that Paul was teaching that there are believers in Christ whose lifestyle cannot be distinguished from that of an unbeliever.

At the risk of being branded a heretic, I would like to offer what I believe is a view that is more consistent with the teaching of the rest of the New Testament Scriptures. Before I make several hermeneutical and exegetical observations, I would like you to consider a list of propositions that I either affirm or deny. I hope these will help to clarify the view I am proposing.

Affirmations and Denials

I affirm that:

1. Believing sinners are as fully justified the first moment they believe the gospel as they will ever be. The level of their sanctification can neither augment or diminish the perfection of their righteous standing before God.
2. There are areas in every believer’s life in which he or she acts in the same way an unconverted person would act. Every believer is “carnal” in some area or areas.
3. Some believers have advanced in their spiritual growth beyond others. Some continue to be more carnal and others are more in tune with the Spirit.
4. It is possible for a believer to lose ground in the conflict that we call progressive sanctification even after having made advancements in a particular area.
5. Not every believer struggles in the same areas in conflict with sin.
6. There is a difference between a believer in conflict with sin and an [unregenerate] professed believer complacent to sin [see John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied. p. 145].

I deny that:

1. The sanctification of believers is automatic and does not require exhortations to obey or effort on the part of believers.
2. There are true believers who never experience God’s sanctifying work.
3. There are true believers whose lives are completely characterized by fleshliness and act in every way like unconverted people.
4. There are true believers who continue under the dominion of sin.
5. There is a difference between becoming a believer and becoming a disciple/

Hermeneutical and Exegetical Considerations

There are several hermeneutical and exegetical considerations that we must consider if we are going to interpret correctly the lone passage from which the carnal Christian doctrine is drawn. It is clear that these have been ignored by the proponents of this doctrine. In this section, we will consider some of these principles and see how they apply to the interpretation of this passage.

An Important Principle of Interpretation

There is an important hermeneutical principle that is often ignored by would be interpreters of Scripture. I say “would be interpreters” since one has only “interpreted” a passage when he has rightly understood what the Holy Spirit and the human writer had in mind when they wrote the text. If we ignore certain principles of interpretation, we will never arrive at a correct understanding of a text.

Though there are many such principles that one must consider in seeking to interpret passages such as the one we are considering, the particular principle to which I am referring is this—Theological doctrine is to be derived from didactic passages where a doctrine is being expounded and not from hortatory [tending or aiming to exhort] or narrative passages. The passage we are considering is clearly a hortatory passage.

Context

What is the context in which this passage occurs? To answer that question, one needs to go back to the first chapter where Paul began to deal with one of the problems that existed in the church at Corinth. There, he expressed his desire that they all speak as with one voice and that there be no divisions among them. He desired that they be perfectly joined in the same mind and in the same judgment (see 1:10).

It is important we understand that the issue was not theological in nature. The problem was that people in that church had divided into sects based on personalities. Some were Paul enthusiasts, other were devoted to Peter, others to Apollos etc. It was not that these men were teaching different doctrines. Paul made it clear here and in other passages that they were united in their understanding and message. Ultimately, the problem was that the Corinthians were giving glory to men, either to themselves or to their favorites teacher, and not to God alone. As one reads this Epistle, it becomes that the one sin that characterized this church, the sin from which all their other problems resulted, was the sin of pride. Paul often wrote to them, “and you are puffed up.”

Though Paul expounds a great deal of solid theological truth in dealing with this problem, this section is not in itself a theological exposition of a particular doctrine. That is to say that it was not Paul’s intention in this context to expound the doctrine of sanctification. If one wishes to develop a doctrine of sanctification, he must do so from other passages where the apostles have intended to deal with the doctrine of sanctification specifically.

A Specific Problem

Based on this one passage, the advocates of the carnal Christian doctrine have asserted that it is possible for a person to be a true believer and yet live in every respect in the same manner as an unconverted person. The question one must ask is whether there is anything in this passage that suggests that these people were failing to be obedient in every area of their lives. Is there anything here that suggests that every member of the church was continuing to live in fornication, drunkenness, idolatry, thievery, homosexuality and the like? Of course, not! In fact, in chapter six Paul makes it clear that those to whom he was writing had been delivered from such sins and stated that those who have not been delivered from such sins will not inherit the kingdom of God. He wrote,

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, not thieves, nor covetous, not drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

It should be clear that he was writing about personal righteousness and not imputed righteousness since these words follow an exhortation not to do wrong and cheat one’s brother (see v. 8).

Notice Paul’s words in our passage. He wrote, “for you are still carnal, FOR there are among you envy, strife and divisions” (v. 3). It is like saying to a group of people after a Baptist business meeting, “You acted like a bunch of unconverted people.” Such meetings seem to bring out the baser qualities in people. If you have ever attended such a meeting, you will understand what I mean. That doesn’t mean that the people who acted this way pursue a sinful lifestyle in every area of their lives. It simply means this is one of the areas in their lives in which they need to make progress in sanctification.

A Particular Time

Another issue that seems to have eluded the attention of “carnal Christian” advocates is that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 3, is addressing a situation that existed at a particular time in the life of the Corinthian church. There is not a word in the text that gives the slightest indication that the attitudes or actions he was describing would persist for a lifetime. We might think of this chapter as a snapshot or still photo of a situation that Paul was addressing. If we viewed a video recording of the lives of these people, we would see a completely different view. In fact, in his second Epistle he wrote the following words to them,

For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it. For I perceive that the same epistle made you sorry, though only for a while.  Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter (2 Corinthians 7:8-11).

Although it is likely Paul was speaking specifically about another issue he had addressed in his first Epistle, it is clear that God had used his exhortations to effect a genuine life change in his readers.

I suspect that if we could take a still photo of any believer’s life at a given point we could catch them acting out of character with their Christian confession. We could say to them as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “I could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to fleshly. It is also possible that a person could continue in such a state of arrested development for a time. In Chapter 17 of the Philadelphia Confession [essentially the same as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of 1689] “Of the Perseverance of the Saints,” paragraph 3, we read,

And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God’s displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.

Conclusion

There can be no question that at the point when Paul penned this letter to the Corinthians, they were in an arrested state of spiritual development and needed to be exhorted to grow up. That is not the issue. Every believer, due to remaining sin, will continue have areas of carnality their lives. No one argues that believers are not carnal in some areas of their lives. No one argues, at least no one who argues based on biblical texts considered contextually, that growth in grace is automatic and requires no conscious effort on the believer’s part. Immediately before assuring the Philippians that their sanctification would be a certain reality because it was God who was working [the word means effectively and energetically accomplish] in them both to will and to do for his good pleasure, the apostle Paul exhorted them to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling (see Phil. 2:12-13).

No one should argue that exhortations to obedience are unnecessary because the believer’s sanctification is certain to occur. God uses such exhortations to effect obedience in the lives of his people

The issue is whether true believers will continue in such a state throughout their entire lifetime so that there is no difference between them and their unconverted neighbors. Is there any evidence in this passage to support the carnal Christian doctrine as taught by C. I. Scofield and L.S. Chafer and others? As we have shown, the answer is an unequivocal, no! All Christians are carnal in the sense that we still have areas of fleshliness in our lives and we all continue to struggle with certain sins, but there are no carnal Christians in the sense that a true believer can be perpetually indistinguishable from an unconverted person.

“Saved Yet So as By Fire”

If our analysis of Paul’s teaching in this passage is accurate, what was his meaning when he spoke of every man’s work being tried by fire and some, having produced nothing but wood, hay and stubble, being saved like a man escaping a burning building with nothing but the clothes on his back? Does it not appear that he is teaching that a person may be a believer and never produce any evidence of having been converted?

That would be an easy conclusion for us to draw if we failed to consider the context in which these words were written and the issue with which Paul was dealing. Additionally, it is essential that we pay special attention to the words he employed and the metaphors he used.

The Context

Let me remind you that, in this passage, Paul was continuing to speak to a problem that he had introduced in chapter one of this Epistle. The problem was that the Corinthians had divided into splinter groups based on allegiance to their favorite preacher. His remedy for this problem has been to show that the success of his ministry or anyone else’s ministry depends not on the persuasiveness of his arguments or the eloquence of his speech but on the demonstration of God’s power in the application of redemption. At the end of chapter three he concluded that no one should glory in men. Earlier he had shown that no one should boast in their ability to unite themselves, since it is of God’s doing that believers are in Christ Jesus (see 1 Cor. 1:30-31). In this chapter he has shown that since it is God alone who can cause the planted seed to grow, Paul and Apollos are nothing but servants, instruments in God’s hand by whom they had believed (see chapter 3:5-8).

What is important for us to understand is that it was not Paul’s purpose in this chapter to talk about a believer’s works or lack of works in the process of sanctification. Instead, he was continuing to address the issue that he had begun to address in chapter one. He was writing about the ministry God had given him [his work] and the ministry God had given others. His exhortation was to those who are engaged in the work of the gospel. Each one must be careful how he builds on the foundation Paul had laid (see verse 10).

The Metaphors

Paul used two metaphors for the work of the ministry; one was agricultural the other architectural. In verse eight he had written “He who plants and he who waters are one: and everyone shall receive his reward according to his own labor.” It should be clear that he is making reference not only to himself and Apollos, but to all those who are involved in the gospel ministry.

Now in verse nine he mentions two metaphors for the gospel ministry. Ministers of the gospel are like farmers in a cultivated field and construction workers erecting a building. He wrote, “For we are laborers together with God; you are God’s cultivated field, you are God’s building.”

We and You (One Must Know the Difference)

Notice that Paul is not discussing the works of the cultivated field or of the building. He is discussing the work; the ministry God has given. Charles Hodge wrote of this passage, “Paul is here speaking of ministers and of their doctrines, and not of believers in general” (Hodge, 78, 1997). To arrive at this conclusion, one must merely know the difference between “We” and “You.” “We are laborers. . .You are God’s building” (verse 9).
When he wrote, “Let every man take heed how he builds on the foundation” his reference was not every person without exception, or even every believer, but everyone who is engaged in the gospel ministry, i.e., everyone who is involved in cultivating the field or erecting the building.
Since this is clear from a careful reading of the chapter, it should be obvious that Paul’s reference was not to the works of believers being judged (v. 13) but to the work, i.e., ministry of those who are building on the foundation Paul had laid (see verses 14-15).

Conclusion

One can only conclude that Paul did not intend to teach in this passage that there will be believers who will stand before God in judgement with nothing but wood, hay and stubble to offer as evidence that their faith was genuine. There will be no believers who stand before God who are saved by the skin of their teeth. Instead, it was his purpose to admonish those who are cultivating the field and building the building to take care how they carry on the work God has given them.

Summary

The issue in this discussion is not whether true believers continue to have unsanctified areas in their lives. No one who understands the clear teaching of Scripture would deny that they do. This issue is whether there are true believers who continue throughout their entire life-times in a state that is indistinguishable from their unconverted neighbors.

As we have seen, there is absolutely no evidence in this lone passage that forms the basis for the carnal Christian teaching that these Corinthian believers were characterized by fleshliness in every area of their lives or that they continued in a state of carnality throughout the duration of their lives. In fact, we have the word of the apostle Paul writing under divine inspiration that when confronted with their sins, they were sorrowful and repented of these sins. Upon careful examination, any honest observer will have to conclude that this passage simply does not support the “carnal Christian” view.

21
Nov
14

Calvinistic Evangelism–Chapter Two:Rubbish Removal

“In Judah it was said, “The strength of those who bear the burdens is failing. There is too much rubble. By ourselves we will not be able to rebuild the wall” (Nehemiah 4:10).

The Priority of Rubbish Removal

It is impossible to build or rebuild on a foundation that is faulty and covered with rubble. When Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem for the purpose of rebuilding the wall, his first order of business was to inspect the foundation of the wall (see Nehemiah 2:11-16). Once he had learned what needed to be done, he encouraged the people to rebuild the wall by reminding them the good hand of God would be with them and give them success (see Nehemiah 2:20).

After the work had begun and was progressing well, God’s people encountered opposition and began to become discouraged. One of the reasons for their discouragement was the large quantity of rubble that needed to be carted away.

I would invite you to consider Jeremiah’s call and commission as a prophet of Jehovah. The LORD said to him, “Behold I have put my words in your mouth. See, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.” (Jeremiah 1:10). Notice that before God instructed him to build and to plant, he told him to tear down and pluck up.

It has become quite difficult to engage in biblical evangelism because the landscape of evangelical Christianity has become cluttered with so much non-biblical rubbish. I am not only or even primarily referring to the non-biblical and often anti-biblical practices and message that are in vogue. Instead, I am referring to the mindset that has characterized the evangelical church for decades. That mindset has resulted from a set of theological [or in many cases anti-theological or a-theological] presuppositions that have prevailed in the evangelical church for more than a century.

Doctrinal Rubbish

One such assumption is that faith is a decision that locks a sinner into an eternally secure salvation even if he should later deny the faith and return to a life of unbridled sin and wicked unbelief. According to this understanding of faith, if ever we can get a person to come to a point of decision at which he acknowledges the facts of the gospel, he will be saved for eternity. Some have traded biblical teaching that true believers will persevere in faith to the end for the doctrine of “once saved, always saved.” Please do not misunderstand me. I believe that once God has truly declared a person to be righteous in his sight he will never alter that verdict, but that is different from the teaching that all who profess faith in Christ are saved for eternity no matter what occurs subsequently. This presupposition of “once saved, always saved” grows out of the free will doctrine. The belief is that once the scale of the sinner’s libertarian free will is tipped toward Christ so that he “decides for Christ” [as if Jesus is running for office] he gets his ticket punched for the gospel train that takes him to heaven. Nothing that occurs after that can cause him to be kicked off the train.

I know that for anyone who has carefully read and studied the Scriptures the idea that anyone could believe such a doctrine sounds too bizarre to be true, but I will not ask you to merely take my word for it. You can read it for yourself at such web-sites as http://www.expreacherman.com. The following represent a small sample of the statements that confirm their doctrine.

“It is possible for a believer to lose confidence in eternal security, or any other part of the gospel message. In such cases, he still has eternal life. (Luke 8:13).”

“One does not have to love God to receive the free gift of salvation. He needs to believe on Jesus as his Savior.”

“Demas is an eternally secure believer who turned his back on God. He is in heaven.”

From these brief quotations it is easy to see that in their view, faith need not involve anything more than an intellectual nod to certain propositions. It clearly has nothing to do with guilty rebels being reconciled to God and need not be ongoing. It appear that according to this view, once a sinner gets his ticket punched by making the right choice, he is home-free for eternity whether he continues to believe the gospel or not. Admittedly, this appears to be an extreme view even among those who practice free will evangelism, but it is in line with the widely held view called the “carnal Christian doctrine.” The idea is that once a person has made an open profession of faith, he is eternally secure no matter what occurs subsequently.

Several false doctrines as well as many non-biblical practices have grown out of this presupposition. I intend to discuss the faulty theological foundation of modern evangelism in detail in a subsequent chapter. For now, I want to focus more on the evangelistic rubbish that has cluttered the landscape of the Christian church.

The “Invitation” and the Sinner´s Prayer

In the first half of the nineteenth century, Charles Finney introduced a number of innovations into the practice of evangelism. One such innovation was what he called “the anxious seat.” At the end of an evangelistic meeting he would invite those who “were willing to be on the side of Christ” to come forward and sit on the anxious seat. In his view, if a person had been able to overcome his pride and natural timidity and had come to the anxious seat, he had given evidence of saving faith. In his Lectures on Revival he made it clear that the anxious seat was intended to be a replacement for baptism. He wrote,

The church has always felt it necessary to have something of this kind to answer this very purpose. In the days of the apostles, baptism answered this purpose. The gospel was preached to the people, and then all those who were willing to be on the side of Christ were called to be baptized. It held the place that the anxious seat does now as a public manifestation of their determination to be Christians.

Since he had assumed that all who came to the anxious seat were truly converted, he later found himself in a quandary when they gave no evidence of genuine faith. For that reason, he introduced the idea of a second work of grace that would accomplish what he had expected from the first work of grace.

The “anxious seat” was the precursor of the modern “invitation system” or the “altar call.” Many modern pastors and evangelists make the same assumption that Finney had made. They assume that if a person walks the aisle of a church building or coliseum and makes a public profession of faith, he or she has been saved for eternity. If such people give no evidence of love for Christ or a desire to obey him, they are referred to as “carnal Christians.” They are encouraged to make another decision and become a “spiritual Christian.”

The question is, “How can we know these people are truly Christians”? The stock answer is that we know they are saved because we saw them “get saved.” By that they mean they saw them walk the aisle to make a profession, and they assume that means they became genuine believers. Now if they are right, they are completely justified in using every psychological technique and emotional tactic possible to induce people to make that all important decision. Additionally, we are remiss if we do not use every scheme possible to get such decisions out of people.

What we need to discuss is not whether such practices as the “invitation” and the “sinner’s prayer” are justified, but whether the underlying presuppositions on which they are based can be supported biblically. There is nothing inherently wrong with a person walking to the front of a church building or coliseum to confess that he or she has trusted in Christ for salvation. The assumptions we need to question are those that have been taken for granted by modern evangelists and those who follow them. If you do not believe these folks actually assume these ideas, simply listen to them talk. The following are a few of their assumptions:

1. The use of such methods is necessary for the sinner’s salvation. I have often been asked, “If you don’t give an invitation, how can anyone “get saved?” This clearly implies that a walk to the front of a building or repeating a prayer is necessary for salvation. It seems that, according to their view, if we do not use their methods there will be people who will be lost who would otherwise have been saved.

2. A proper response to an invitation to come forward is an evidence of saving faith. I have often heard people make statements like “There were five people saved in the meeting last night.” By this they mean five people walked the aisle and made a profession of faith. At times they will say something like, “I know she is a Christian because I saw her “get saved.” Or “I saw him ‘get saved,’ and now he has backslidden. It must be possible for a person to lose his salvation.” Again, the inference is that if a person walks the aisle, he must be a true believer.

3. There is a limited time in which a person can be converted. One often hears them say, “If no one comes while we sing this verse, we are going to close the invitation.” Who do these people think they are? Are they going to open the gates of heaven to sinners and then close them because they didn’t respond at the proper time? God’s invitation to sinners is open as long as they live.

4. It would be wrong to conclude that a person’s profession may not have been genuine if he shows no evidence of love for Christ or a desire to obey him. These people must be Christians because they responded properly to a gospel invitation. They simply need to take a second step of faith and become “spiritual Christians.”

5. If a person doesn’t give “an invitation” at the end of a gospel message, he must not care about souls.

The Proper Venue for Evangelism

Another area in which the evangelical church needs to experience a radical paradigm shift is in its thinking about the proper venue for evangelism. For decades, evangelicals have been conditioned to think that the purpose of the church meeting is to provide a venue for the propagation of the gospel. This mentality has manifested itself most blatantly in the “seeker sensitive/friendly movement” and in the “emergent church movement.” The idea that seems to underlie the methodology of these movements is that the church should be a place where sinners will feel comfortable to “hang out.” As a result, everything that might be offensive to an unconverted person has been eliminated from the program. The entire idea of a hymnology in which God’s people were instructed in the great truths of the faith and inspired to worship him intelligently has vanished. The great hymns of the faith have been replaced with vapid ditties and theologically vacuous mood music designed to prepare the sinner to hear the message.

The message itself has been carefully crafted to produce the desired response from the unconverted. Everything that might be distasteful or offensive to the unconverted person has been omitted. We should remember here that a portion of the truth when presented as the whole truth becomes a whole lie. God forbid that any preacher should actually proclaim sound biblical doctrine in such a gathering. Preachers are often urged to “put the cookies on the bottom shelf so that everyone can reach them.” The result of following this advice has been an epidemic of spiritual malnutrition that is plaguing the church.

Just yesterday I listened to a portion of a “sermon” in which a Southern Baptist pastor was excoriating people in the so-called church he claims to pastor. He referred to these people who wanted to be taught more doctrine as “big fat spiritual babies,” and suggested that they are the excrement of the body of Christ. He said to these people, “I don’t have time to feed you; I’ve got work to do.” This man has been set over one of the larger churches [and I use the term “churches” very loosely] in the Southern Baptist Convention. He described the church as having a “big front door” through which unchurched, unbelieving people enter and “choose Christ.” To me, this speaks volumes about this man’s doctrine of the church. He clearly believes his work is not to feed the flock over which God has made him overseer, but preach to these people who are entering “the big front door” so that they will be converted, or to use his non-biblical phrase, “choose Christ.” The church is advertised as “A safe place for non-believers.” Is it any wonder that God’s people are malnourished when charlatans like this guy are allowed to stand in the pulpit and spew their putrescent garbage?
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not opposed to having unconverted people attend the gathering of God’s people to observe how we worship our God and hear what the Bible teaches. I am delighted when such a person is so overwhelmed by God’s truth that he or she becomes a true believer, but the evangelization of the unbeliever is not the purpose of the gathered church. Additionally, unbelievers should never feel “safe” from the possibility that they might hear something that will make them feel guilty before God.
There is not a single verse in the Bible in which believers are instructed to invite their unbelieving friends and loved ones to church. Christ’s command is not “bring people to church,” but “Go and make disciples.” The purpose of the assembly and of the teaching pastor is to equip believers to do the work of ministry. There is only one passage in the New Testament Scriptures that mentions an unconverted person coming into the assembly and in that passage (1 Cor. 14:23-24) it is stated as a possibility—“What if an unconverted person should happen to come into the assembly?” The apostle does not instruct them to bring such a person in for the purpose of evangelizing them.

It is time for shepherds to return to the task for which God has equipped them. If they are unable to nourish the flock with healthful teaching, it is time for them to find a new profession. Perhaps selling vacuum cleaners would suit them better.

In a later chapter, I want to offer suggestions about the proper venue for evangelism based on the biblical pattern. For now, suffice it to say that it is not the purpose of the gathered church to provide this venue.

The Use of Unbiblical Jargon

There are certain phrases one will never find in biblical proclamations of the gospel, yet many would think it impossible to evangelize without using them. I invite you to read the New Testament gospel presentations and see if you can find any of the following phrases that have become so commonplace in modern evangelism:

Let Jesus come into your heart.

Give Jesus your heart.

Open your heart, and let Jesus come in.

You need to “pray to receive Jesus.”

You need to “decide for Jesus.”

Jesus died for you.

God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.

Smile, God loves you.

God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.

God can’t save you unless you let him.

Perhaps you are thinking that though these exact phrases do not occur in the New Testament Scriptures, we can certainly find verses that express the truth that lies behind them. After all, doesn’t the New Testament tell us that God loved the world in such a way that he gave his only Son (John 3:16) and that he demonstrated his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8-9)?

Regarding the first of these verses, I would invite you to read “Arminian Presupposition #2 Refuted” at http://www.truthunchanging.wordpress.com. The reality is that the word “world” was almost never used to designate every person on the globe without exception. John used it to indicate the condescension of God’s love. The holy one loved fallen rebels who were hostile toward him. John’s emphasis was not on the number of the people loved but on the nature of the people loved. Additionally, he used the word to indicate the true universality of God’s love. He did not merely love people from the nation of Israel but from every nation on earth. This is probably the predominant sense of the word translated “world” the New Testament Scriptures.

But what about verses like Romans5:8 that state that God loved “us” and Jesus died for “us?” Any reasonable person would simply need to read these verses in context to understand that “us” does not refer to every human being on earth. First of all, we should consider to whom Paul addressed the letter. He wrote, “To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints” (Rom. 1:7). Additionally, the immediate context makes it clear that “us” refers to Paul and to the believers in Rome. Consider his description of those to whom he addressed this epistle. He refers to them and to himself as follows:

We have been justified through faith (v.1).

We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (v. 1).

By faith we have obtained access into this grace in which we stand (v. 2).

We rejoice in hope of the glory of God (v. 2).

We rejoice in sufferings also (v. 3).

God’s love has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit who has been given to us (v. 5).

We have now been justified by his blood (v. 9).

We shall be saved by him from the wrath of God (v. 9).

Certainly, no one would be so theologically inept as to suggest that “we,” “our,” and “us” in these verses refers to every sinner without exception. Yet, incredibly, there are those who contend that “us” in Romans 5:8 refers to every sinner without exception.

It is time for evangelicals to bring our phraseology into conformity with the biblical pattern. I urge you to read the sermons on record in the New Testament Scriptures and to begin to incorporate more biblical language in your gospel presentations. In the following chapter, I intend to examine those sermons and suggest a more biblical expression of the gospel of our great God.

If ever we are to be effective in making disciples, we must dispose of the rubbish that has so greatly damaged the cause of God and truth. I implore you to examine your message and methods in the light of Scripture. “Put all things to the test; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).