![[The Wild Boar]](wbtext.gif)
![[The Wild Boar]](calvin.gif)
Evangelism: Man's Way or God's Way?
Voices From The Past
The Doctrines of Grace Made Plain!: Total Depravity
Go to the Wildboar Mainpage
"God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life!"
So says a popular evangelistic tract. The problem is: it's not exactly true. At least
not without some serious qualifications. Evangelistic practices in our day have departed
from biblical standards. They have ceased to be God-centered and biblically grounded, and
have instead become very man-centered. That is, evangelistic techniques today tend
to be designed to appeal to the likes and tastes of unregenerate men and women, rather
than exalt Christ and call men and women to cast themselves upon the mercy of God. This
man-centered evangelism waters down both the Law and the Gospel, and allows human pride to
enter the process of salvation. This issue of The Wild Boar focuses on a critique
of this man-centered evangelism and calls for a return to God-centered evangelism.
Man-centered evangelism has several characteristics that can
easily be spotted if one looks for them. First of all, it appeals to "felt needs."
One popular strategy today is to find out what unbelievers want and then to taylor the
programs of the church and the gospel message to address that "felt need." I cannot tell
you how many times I have heard or read about churches going out into their communities
and polling their neighbors about what they want in a church. A few weeks later, fliers
are distributed advertizing a service that reflects the answers given by those polled.
But since when does the church look to unbelievers to learn what the church is
supposed to do? And since when does the church look to the unregenerate to find
out what needs the church and the Bible are supposed to address? Don't we already know
what they need? Don't they need the justifying grace provided by the Lord Jesus Christ,
without which they will perish in Hell forever?
What kind of "needs" do unbelievers feel they have, anyway?
The Bible tells us that "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked;
who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9).
And Paul makes it abundantly clear that "the natural man does not receive the things of
the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned" (1Cor. 2:14).
Whatever felt needs an unbeliever has will not provide an inroad to the gospel because
his felt needs are idolatrous! The biblical preaching of the Law and the Gospel
cannot appeal to an unbelievers felt needs, because the Law and the Gospel will, by the
very nature of the case, undermine and challenge his felt needs.
Another characteristic of man-centered evangelism is the
manipulation of emotion. Now, of course, the Law and the Gospel can have a powerful
emotional impact on the hearer. But, rather than letting the truth of God's Word
enter the mind and having its proper affect on the emotions, modern techniques go "straight
for the heart." Bypassing the mind, the emotions of the hearers are directly manipulated
to result in a, seat-of-the-pants "decision" for Christ. Through cajoling, peer-pressure,
sentimental music, the telling of emotionally-charged testimonies, or the promise of a
powerful religious experience, unbelievers are dragged down the aisle to ask Jesus to
"come into their hearts."
Man-centered evangelism inevitably produces undesireable
results. One such result has already been alluded to: the marketing of the "gospel."
The gospel message is treated like any other consumer product, advertized and
marketed to appeal to religious "consumers." It is no longer a message calling fallen
men and women to faith and repentance in Christ as the only hope of salvation (unless
"salvation" is redefined as the meeting of a "felt need").
Secondly, man-centered evangelism produces spurious
conversions, which explains the high drop-out rates in evangelical churches and the
luke-warmness of those who stay. People who aren't really saved cannot be expected to
be fervently committed to Christ. When the "product" doesn't produce what was promised
(health, wealth, happiness, etc.), they are ready to jump ship. Moreover, those who have
"come to Christ" in pursuit of an idolatrous felt need surely can't be expected to be
sacrificial in the giving of their time, money, and talents to church causes. After all,
Jesus was supposed to meet their needs, not make demands on them. Man-centered
evangelism doesn't ask people to count the cost of discipleship.
Man-centered evangelism is based on certain false assumptions.
One such assumption is that unbelievers will want Jesus if the gospel message is packaged
in the right way. But this is not the case. Romans 3:11
tells us that there are "none who seek after God," and we have already been reminded that
unbelievers think that the things of God are foolish (1Cor. 2:14).
Jesus will never be sweet to those with unregenerate hearts that desire to live in sinful
autonomy from God.
Another false assumption, related to the first, is that the
unregenerate have the spiritual ability to respond to the gospel. A pernicious error that
exists in the church is what is called decisional regeneration. This is the belief
that a person who hears the gospel can "decide" to accept Christ, and when he makes such a
decision he is "born again." Not only does such a view imply salvation by works, but it
is clearly contrary to certain Scriptural texts which teach that regeneration precedes
faith, and that this regeneration is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 1:13;
3:3, 7-8;
Eph. 2:1-3).
Given that fallen human beings "cannot receive the things of the Spirit," a faith-response
to Christ cannot come any other way. (For more on man's spiritual inability, see the
article on Total Depravity).
Both of the above assumptions are part and parcel of
Arminianism. Though much more needs to be said in describing Arminianism, the
basic idea behind this view is simply this: God makes salvation possible through Christ,
but it is up to us to accept it or reject it. The problems with this view are numerous
and serious. But, since our topic in this issue is evangelism I will limit my discussion
to two. First, as we have already seen, Arminianism falsely assumes the spiritual ability
of the unregenerate to respond to the gospel on their own. Secondly, Arminianism cannot
help but lead to the man-centered style of evangelism we have discussed above. Since man
has the ability to come to Christ, he can be persuaded by the evangelist to do so. So, if
the unbeliever resists, there must be something wrong with our presentation of the gospel.
Perhaps we haven't made it as clear to him as we could. Or perhaps we haven't "packaged"
the gospel just right so that he can see its "relevance." Once such conclusions are
reached, the manipulation of emotion and the appeal to felt needs is not far behind.
Biblical evangelism---evangelism God's way---is never tempted
to water down the message, or make it relevant to felt needs, or manipulate emotions.
Biblical evangelism assumes man's spiritual inability, and sees the task of the
evangelist as simply setting forth the Law (which condemns and shows the
need of a savior, calling into question the relevance of all of the unbeliever's felt
needs) and the Gospel (which for the regenerate is "the power of God unto salvation"
[Rom. 1:16],
and their only real need).V
[In his Introduction to John Owens' The Death of Death
in the Death of Christ, J.I. Packer states, "One of the most urgent tasks facing
evangelical Christendom today is the recovery of the Gospel." We agree. Easy believism
and the invitation system may make for large numbers of so-called Decisions, but how many
of them are true conversions? In light of this, voices from the past may help us find
our way home---Editors.]
The Doctrines of Grace Made PlainThe best place to begin a discussion of what are called the
"Doctrines of Grace" is with a discussion of total depravity. It is because man is
totally depraved that grace is essential for salvation. Indeed, the evidence of man's
total depravity is what led C. H. Spurgeon
to preach the sermon titled "Sovereign Grace Hated by Modern Religionist." The two
subjects are so entwined that the truth of one demands the other.
Two common misconceptions surround the notion of total
depravity. First, total depravity does not mean absolute depravity. Man is not
always as evil as he possibly could be. Man is not the epitome of Satan himself. While
Satan is "intensely evil," natural man is "extensively evil." To be extensively evil
means that man can do no thing perfectly.
Second, total depravity does not mean a complete
absence of relative good! At this point the distinction between relative goodness and
perfect, or true, goodness should be emphasized. The Heidelberg Catechism well describes
this scriptural distinction in the question: What are good works? Only those which are
done from true faith, according to the law of God, and to His glory. Jesus described the
difference in Luke 6:33,
"And if you do good to them that do good to you, what reward do
you have? For even sinners do the same." The nonelect may happen to do what is according
to the law of God, but not because it is the law of God, and certainly not from
true faith and to His glory. They do relative good because of God's common grace and due
to the remnant of the image in which they were created.
What total depravity does mean is that even though "natural"
(unregenerate) man can do relative good, his actions are NEVER perfectly good from the
eternal perspective, "having a form of godliness but denying its power" (II Tim. 3:5).
Even the seemingly good choice of "coming" to Jesus is not good enough to save
(consider Matthew 7:21-23).
It is also important to remember that even though a regenerate
heart is capable of doing what is truly good (a rare occurrence indeed!), it is
still affected by the sinful nature. It is often that a Christian is amazed and repulsed
at how selfish, hypocritical, and dreadfully evil his own heart is. This is evidenced by
the words of the apostle Paul, "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful
nature" (Rom. 7:18).
What total depravity also means is that there is an inability
of natural man to do, understand, or even desire the good. The Belgic Confession is
biblical when it says natural man has an "incapacity to perform what is truly good."
Also, the Canons of Dort
statement, "all men are. . . incapable of saving good." Jesus stated this Himself in
John 15:5-6
(see also I Cor. 1:18,
and 2:14).
Not only does natural man not desire good, he desires evil, hates God, and is not able to
desire good (Rom. 8:7).
The doctrine of total depravity humbles the human heart to
its proper place of total submission to the Sovereign God upon which our salvation rests.
If we arrogantly attempt to elevate our moral nature, then we inevitably begin to diminish
our dependence upon God. Only those regenerated by God may truly choose Christ, and even
then the Christian struggles with his depraved nature to do that which is truly good.
Reconsider Matthew 7:21
and ask yourself this question: How
many of those people who walk an aisle and "choose" God, do so (1) from true faith, and
(2) for His glory because God first "made them a new creation"? How many do so because
of their own selfish motives for "fire insurance" or emotional discomfort created by a
skilled orator? Consider your heart. Do you need to fully submit to the "author and
perfector" of your salvation (Heb. 12:2)?V
The Wild Boar is published at:
Immanuel Baptist Church
201 South Duncan Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Send E-mail to ScubaMark@AOL.COM