David,
Truly the holy spirit saves.
Blech. This whole approach to things would be pretty close to anathema to quite the swath of Calvinists too.
OK. This is just bizarre. Gerstnerism is a very small subset of Calvinism, last time I checked.
Garver,
That depends on which "Calvinists" you are talking about. It is indeed anathema to some who call themselves Calvinist, such as John MacArthur, etc. And also other semi-Pelagian trends in Calvinism.
Evan,
I don't know how to respond-- agreeing with Gerstner on this makes me a member of a cult? Is that all you have to say?
In either case, I cannot reply further, I am on my way out the door to a youth group weekend retreat. We Gerstnerites are zealous evangelists.
Odd conclusion to an entry that began with the great commission. Say a prayer? What's wrong with "Repent and be baptized" ?
Oh well, you won't see this for a few days, but I would emphasize what John posted. I am curious to hear your take on the role of the Holy Spirit for "Inquirers". I believe a better response to the Inquirer's last question: It's not fault but choice, and it is in His hands whom He chooses.
God tells us that He will never leave nor forsake us (Heb 13:5) and not wanting anyone to perish (2 Pet 3:9), so in a sense there is a debt or acknowledgement of wanting to do something for us. We have a covenant relationship with the Creator, something that we don't deserve yet He freely gives us.
While leading someone in the sinner's prayer may seem to be "presumptuous easy-beliefism" to you, I hope you can be optimistic in that someone may just be drawing closer to God and that He gets all the glory in that situation. We are creatures of habit and ceremony, and while that practice may seem trite, it can serve a greater purpose.
I'm with David on this one. Clearly, Jesus' emphasis in the "great commission" passage is on the making of disciples and NOT the preaching of the gospel. And, of course, preaching the gospel is the easier task --- which is why we sinfully choose the easier task over the much more daunting task of making disciples. Once again --- as it occurs over and over and over again in the Bible --- we fall short of the mark. Thank God for the unmerited grace that He gives us!
Evangelism is intended only for the regenerate
I have no idea who this Gerstner is, but if this is a sample of his teachings, then let him be anathema. If you believe this, you may have read the Bible, but you have completely missed its message. You are preaching another Gospel.
God offers eternal salvation through Christ to all, and He commands that the Gospel be preached to every creature. Calvinists (or hyper-Calvinists, if you like) have a real problem with evangelism, because they don't understand that God loves all, that He offers salvation to all, that He sent His Son to die for all. There is no one to whom we are not to preach the Gospel, because there is no one whom God does not love; there is no one whom He does not desire to save; there is no sinner for whom Christ did not die. This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Anything else is to be accursed.
Christopher, I'm pretty sure you missed the point. Dave wrote, "Of course, there is no way to tell if a person has been made alive. So the bottom line is still to preach the gospel (not push for a recital of the sinner's prayer) to everyone and anyone."
Rich,
I don't think so. I think we should let David be the judge of that. If I have "missed the point," then let David confess the Gospel in the terms I used, and let him anathematize the false teaching that I anathematized. If he will not, then I have not missed the point.
Ah, David. It would appear that the "headline" of this particular blogged comment ("Preach Only to the Elect?") has overshadowed the words that you wrote below it. A provocative headline, but . . . . not a very good summary of what you wrote.
Is there a way to make disciples other than preaching the Gospel? Or did I miss it?
Josh asks, "Is there a way to make disciples other than preaching the Gospel? Or did I miss it?"
In the words of that noted theologian, Homer Simpson, "D'oh!"
Based on Matthew 28:18-20, this was the plan: to use Jesus' all-encompassing power and authority to make disciples. The Christian church of the first century resulted from this strategy of church growth–results that are hard to improve upon.
The best way to change the world is to make disciples. The best way to make disciples is to provide for discipleship experiences.
Discipleship is the incredible journey of people discovering who Jesus was through the Bible and who Jesus is as He transforms our lives through the Holy Spirit. God's Objective is for us to be transformed into the image of Christ. The heart of discipleship is that every adult can become a believer and a disciple, growing in the obedience to Christ that results in ethical behavior and Christian ministry. Discipleship leads to evangelism and changed lives, to righteous and abundant living, to joyful and meaningful service for all who desire it.
Discipleship is a lifelong process based on people's needs. The church has both the opportunity and the responsibility to help adults take their next steps of growth in discipleship. Each church must assess the needs of its adults and focus its efforts to meet those needs. Discipleship must always be intentional (having a clear sense of purpose and working to achieve it) and responsive (identifying and meeting people's needs).
Preaching the Gospel, Josh, is merely one starting place . . . . .
I think Christopher has missed the point in that David is not saying we don't preach the Gospel.
But I think David misses the point in that semantic "fudging" can be helpful in evangelism. I wouldn't ever "push" someone to pray the sinner's prayer, but I think the prayer itself as well as telling a crowd "Jesus died for you" are fine and dandy. It would be an exercise in futility to always be checking our words as we speak them to make sure we don't make them too personal.
It is perhaps more theologically correct to say "Jesus died" and proclaim the Gospel from there. But I don't think God is hurt by adding "for you" to that claim.
And just to refer back to another Christopher claim:
Calvinists (or hyper-Calvinists, if you like) have a real problem with evangelism, because they don't understand that God loves all, that He offers salvation to all, that He sent His Son to die for all.
Since becoming a Calvinist, I have heard this charge many times. Yet I have never met a Calvinist who had a real problem with evangelism. In fact, most of the best evangelists I know are Calvinists. I myself am a 5-Pointer and attend a seeker-targeted church.
The comment of Christopher's that contained this remark is rife with straw men, false stereotypes, and misunderstandings.
Last time I checked, believing salvation is not based on anything we do (works) was not heresy, but actually kinda biblical. 
Amen, brother Jared.
Jared,
Talk about straw men! I don't have any problem with believing salvation is not based on anything we do (works) - I'm a Lutheran. I do have a problem with the statement that evangelism is intended only for the regenerate, those already saved, and I have a big problem with the Calvinist doctrines on which that statement is based: unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace.
There's nothing wrong with my understanding of Calvinism. I understand it just fine, and I believe that it is a damnable heresy - by which I mean (not to put too fine a point on it) a false religion masquerading as Christianity. I challenge you to state specifically where I have misunderstood Calvinism, and to point out the straw men and false stereotypes.
BTW I think David's response to my anathema in his latest post indicates pretty clearly that I did not miss his point. I understood him perfectly and stoutly disagree.
Dunno why I'm entering the fray, but... isn't the point of the 'make disciples' bit of the Great Commission that one should continue to disciple converts, so that the result is (by the work of the Spirit) a group of mature Christians?
Calvinists (or hyper-Calvinists, if you like) have a real problem with evangelism, because they don't understand that God loves all, that He offers salvation to all, that He sent His Son to die for all.
The first statement is a false stereotype and the rest are examples of poor logic. I may as well say you have a problem with soteriology because you don't understand God doesn't love everyone the same way and that He hasn't sent His Son to die for all.
You are claiming Calvinism is wrong because you don't agree with it. Why not cite some Scripture?
There is no one to whom we are not to preach the Gospel
This is a misunderstanding, because I don't think David was arguing otherwise. (His point, I think, was largely a semantic one, and I took issue with it myself.) But this is certainly not what Calvinists believe. The whole point is that we don't know who is elect or who is not, which is why we preach the Gospel to all men. In that sense, through us, God offers salvation to all.
But the sovereign choices of God's electing purposes are mysteries to us because they are the secrets of an infinite mind, secrets our finite minds can't and shouldn't know.
Your straw man is that we somehow think we can know this and so only preach the Gospel to regenerate folks or don't preach it at all. Both are untrue: the former because we don't know who is regenerate, the latter because it is disobedient.
As for claiming you believe salvation is by works, I apologize. In my haste, I may have mistaken something someone else said for a statement of your own.
But, really, if God is not the author and finisher of our faith, if our regeneration is not based wholly on Christ's work on the cross and imparted based on God's foreknowledge -- in short, the mysterious grace of God -- what is it based on? Even if it is barely contingent on the slim act of "acceptance," that in itself is still a work.
I also notice you are big on the "H" word, anathematizing Calvinists and their doctrines. Honestly, I find this pretty arrogant. All we say is that God is God and can do whatever He wants; indeed, we refer to large and frequent passages from Scripture to support this view. My personal Calvinism is primarily supported by Paul's words in Romans 8-11. Was Paul a heretic for preaching God does what He pleases, loves who He wants, saves who He wants, and that sinners have no justification for arguing the unfairness of it all?
Were Augustine, Luther(the reformer behind your own tradition), Calvin -- and more recently -- Spurgeon, Mueller, Schaeffer, and Sproul all heretics?
Heresy is a serious charge. It seems sort of disingenuous to be bandying it about so cavalierly, aiming it at folks clearly interpreting lots of (apparently) clear Scripture with the aid of solid, orthodox tradition and their own biblical conscience.
Jared,
I find it curious that you accuse me of being arrogant and disingenuous, when I think I have been guilty only of being honest and forthright. "Arrogant," if it means anything at all, means that you do not believe that I have the right to condemn what I believe to be false doctrine. It is as if I would have to be Pope, or a famous theologian like Calvin or RC Sproul or something, before I would be allowed to state an opinion. But in my view, every Christian has the duty to "guard the deposit," to be faithful to and to hand on the apostolic tradition, neither adding anything nor taking anything away. We do not delegate to the clergy or to the professional theologians the responsibility to reject false doctrine. I have a responsibility that my views should be intellectually honest and reasonably well-informed; but it is not arrogant in any way to call a spade a spade.
The accusation of being disingenuous I find even more puzzling. Do you think that I am being less than honest in my condemnation of Calvinism? That I don't really believe that it is heresy, but am exaggerating for some rhetorical effect? Believe me, I know that heresy is a serious charge, and I do not make it lightly. I make the charge because I have examined the essential teachings of Calvinism; I believe that I understand them and the Scriptural and philosphical considerations they are based on; and I have examined the Scriptures and the manner in which the Church has historically interpreted them, focusing especially on the teachings of the early Fathers; and I have concluded that the teachings of Calvinism are so far at variance from the teachings of Scripture, the Fathers, and the tradition of the Church as to merit the charge of heresy.
I've written a fair amount on the specifics of why I reject and condemn Calvinism. If you're curious you can read some of it on my weblog, in the following posts (and their comment threads):
Augustine, Translations, and Original Sin
Creation, Divine Condescension, and Free Will
Romans 8.28-29
Paradoxical Orthodoxy
Elect Through Foreknowledge
[continued in next comment]
[continued from previous comment]
As to some of your specific comments and questions:
Your straw man is that we somehow think we can know [who the elect are] and so only preach the Gospel to regenerate folks and we don't know who is elect or who is not, which is why we preach the Gospel to all men
That's not a straw man, it's the heart of the matter. My objections have nothing to do with whether or not we know who the elect are. We are to preach the Gospel to all men not out of our ignorance of who has been elected, but because God offers salvation to all. I haven't misunderstood Calvinism; I understand it and I condemn it.
All we say is that God is God and can do whatever He wants. No, that is not all that Calvinism says. Calvinism says that God can do whatever He wants, and then it goes on to say a great deal about what He actually has done and is doing. The doctrines of unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace are not just about what God can do or might do, they are about what He has done. If you reduce Calvinism to "God can do whatever He wants" you have robbed it of everything distinctive about it, and I have no further quarrel with it.
Was Paul a heretic for preaching God does what He pleases, loves who He wants, saves who He wants, and that sinners have no justification for arguing the unfairness of it all?
No, of course not. But that's not Calvinism. St Paul did not teach unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace.
Were Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Mueller, Schaeffer, and Sproul all heretics?
St Augustine and Luther were no Calvinists. Some of Augustine's writings tend in a Calvinist direction, but taken as a whole, and interpreted in the context of the rest of the Fathers and the Church's tradition, Augustine's thought is not Calvinist. (This is certainly the manner in which St Augustine himself would have intended his writings to be read.) As for Luther, he and his followers refused to be in fellowship with the Reformed on account of their false doctrine - a stance which my own denomination (the LCMS) continues to this day.
As for the others, I don't know Mueller and have only the slightest familiarity with Spurgeon or Schaeffer; but yes, Calvin and Sproul are heretics in my opinion.
You are welcome to take your stand with Calvin, Spurgeon, Schaeffer, Sproul, Gerstner, John MacArthur and the like. I prefer to stand with St John Chrysostom, St John of Damascus, St John Climacus, St Maximus the Confessor, and all of the Fathers of the Church.
Except for Christopher, many of you are sounding like clinicians or technicians. But God is looking for lovers of men and women and children. Cannot we simply agree that the Gospel needs to be preached (not the easy Gospel but the true Gospel) and that disciples need to be made? Does God really give a darn about our puny little arguments, most based on torturous proof-texting, that end up setting us against each other? Why do we still attach someone's name to our precious belief systems when it is clearly forbidden? Why do we continue to tear apart the Scriptures resulting in a mess of minutiae, which is unrecognizable from the whole? Maybe we all need to go to the poorest country we can find and find the poorest people in that country and preach the Gospel to them and make disciples of them. Much of this endless, unresolveable arguing would end.
Commenting by HaloScan
