Ours is a time of great emphasis on evangelism when world congresses are convened to talk about evangelization. And so we ask whether or not the Puritans were evangelistic in their preaching? If they were, how did they go about the work of persuading souls to believe in Jesus Christ? Did they have conversions? Did they address unbelievers in a personal face to face way? What did they say?
These excerpts are from Erroll Hulse's article entitled:
"Add to the Church: The Puritan Approach to Persuading Souls", on apuritansmind.com website:
Since the [17th century] Puritans believed in the spiritual inability of unbelievers to repent, did they not find themselves restricted? Did their belief in election, predestination and particular redemption, that is that Christ died to save His people only, shackle or confine them in their efforts to persuade the lost to be saved?
A short answer to these questions is that the Puritans followed the apostles. They were evangelistic in outlook and in their preaching. They were blessed with conversions. Of William Gouge, minister at Blackfriars in London, it was said that God made him 'an aged father in Christ... .for thousands have been converted and built up by his ministry'. Alexander Groshart says of Thomas Brooks that 'he was the instrument in the hand of God for the conversion of many souls', and the same can be said for many others. Belief in the spiritual impotence of sinners to turn to God by their own strength, and the sovereignty of God in election, did not inhibit the way in which they addressed unbelievers in their preaching. Like the apostles they saw preaching as God's way of adding to the church. For them all, preaching was to a greater or lesser degree evangelistic in character. Yet at the same time preaching for them involved the declaration of all God's Word, not some parts only.
The preaching of the Puritans was both doctrinal and evangelistic. Preaching the Word meant preaching the whole of revealed truth as a unity. We do not find the Gospel oversimplified, reduced to a minimum, or turned into a simple formula.
For the Puritans the Gospel could never be divorced from the revelation of God as a whole, and this whole which we call 'the Word' is evangelistic either explicitly or implicitly. By evangelistic we mean that it conveys the fact that all men everywhere should turn to God in repentance and faith. Let me cite an example. Thomas Brooks' treatise The Necessity, Excellency, Rarity and Beauty of Holiness of some 410 pages' length in the 19th century reprint is evangelistic throughout in the implicit sense. Robert Bolton put it this way, 'The Lord Jesus Christ is offered most freely, and without exception of any person, every Sabbath, every sermon'. . .
The preacher at the beginning or at suitable points during the preaching or, as is most commonly the case, at the end, may make direct and personal application of the truth to unbelievers, but even if he makes no such application this does not mean that his preaching is not evangelistic. 'To preach,' declared Sibbes, 'is to open the mystery of Christ: to break open the box that the savour may be perceived of all.' . . .
How did they offer the Gospel to the unconverted? I avoid the word 'present' the Gospel. They did not merely 'present' the Gospel, they entreated, they besought, they reasoned, they urged and they offered the Gospel. Some are disposed to contend that the word 'offer' is unsuitable as it implies creature ability or gives the impression that God is less than omnipotent to change hearts. Others say the word does not mean now what it meant in Puritan days. But Richard Sibbes uses a word indicating a condescension stooping lower than any such meaning implied by the word 'offer' which word I would contend has not changed. On II Cor. 5:20 Sibbes declares, 'This is the manner of the dispensation in the gospel, even to beg of people that they would be good to their souls. Christ, as it were, became a beggar himself, and the great God of heaven and earth begs our love, that we would so care for our souls that we would be reconciled unto him'.
The Puritans addressed men in the wholeness of their being: mind, heart, conscience, memory and will. If such preaching did not succeed to persuade, then they had nothing else to resort to and nothing to add by way of devices to induce a decision; no raising of hands, coming to the front, or signing cards. Preaching was for them supreme for they viewed it as the means by which God regenerates souls. . .
[We] must not miss the lesson that the Puritans showed great confidence in preaching. Why is it that we lack this confidence? Where is the fervor and passion to persuade souls today? The greatest need in the world today is not for more oil, or more coal, or more food. The greatest need of all is for a return of powerful preaching, preaching which is not only proficient in presenting truth as truth, but preaching which is vigorous, bold and full of Holy Ghost unction. Such preaching must address the unbelieving world. As the Scripture contains a wide variety of address: command, reason, invitation and entreaty, so ought our preaching to contain these aspects if souls are to be persuaded for these are the means which God has ordained and which He uses to His glory. . .
More reshaped, opps silly me, I mean reformed propaganda?
James this article that YOU posted is un-Biblical, (oh I'm so surprised!).
This statement is particularly absurd : "Christ, as it were, became a beggar himself, and the great God of heaven and earth begs our love, that we would so care for our souls that we would be reconciled unto him'."
Not only is this statement heretical but offensive.
Jesus was and is no begger of our love. Jesus came to show the love of God. Jesus came to offer Love not beg for Love!
This is typical of this doctrine; announcing "It's all about God and His sovereignty" then in the next breath God needs something from us...Good grief does the madness ever end??
OK James, please show us ignorant non-Calvinists where JESUS BEGS for our love. No explanation necessary, just a New Testament Scripture reference will be sufficient.
This statement is particularly absurd : "Christ, as it were, became a beggar himself, and the great God of heaven and earth begs our love, that we would so care for our souls that we would be reconciled unto him'."
Not only is this statement heretical but offensive.
Jesus was and is no begger of our love. Jesus came to show the love of God. Jesus came to offer Love not beg for Love!
This is typical of this doctrine; announcing "It's all about God and His sovereignty" then in the next breath God needs something from us...Good grief does the madness ever end??
OK James, please show us ignorant non-Calvinists where JESUS BEGS for our love. No explanation necessary, just a New Testament Scripture reference will be sufficient.
James replies:
Hello Twosparrows,
I hope I can shed some light on this for you.
2 Corinthians 5:20 NKJV
20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were PLEADING through us: we implore you on Christ�s behalf, be reconciled to God.
That was the verse the author was talking about,
You say "Jesus came to offer love, not beg for love!"
Well, Jesus was emotional about this and I think He did have a deep desire to save His people, and well, what do think of this verse here:
Matt. 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
He is at the very least lamenting the Fact that they would not love Him, and I think the Hen gathering her chicks is implying love don't you?
James wrote in reply to twosparrows - "20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were PLEADING through us: we implore you on Christ�s behalf, be reconciled to God."
I just can't figure out your belief. You say that God gives irresistible grace to those He has created for salvation and then say that God pleads with those He created for salvation through other believers to be reconciled to Himself???
James wrote - "You say "Jesus came to offer love, not beg for love!" Well, Jesus was emotional about this and I think He did have a deep desire to save His people, and well, what do think of this verse here:
Matt. 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
He is at the very least lamenting the Fact that they would not love Him, and I think the Hen gathering her chicks is implying love don't you?"
Why is Christ lamenting those who would not love Him when, according to your belief, those who love not God were destined to not love Him, created not to love Him, so how can they? And this fact that they would not love/accept Him.. is this their choice not to? Or is it because they were created not to? Which brings me back to my first question... how can they? Your belief gives them no choice.
James wrote - "The preacher at the beginning or at suitable points during the preaching or, as is most commonly the case, at the end, may make direct and personal application of the truth to unbelievers, but even if he makes no such application this does not mean that his preaching is not evangelistic. 'To preach,' declared Sibbes, 'is to open the mystery of Christ: to break open the box that the savour may be perceived of all.' . . ."
What a crock... Your "direct and personal application of truth to unbelievers" is not for all unbelievers. Your belief states that. And because your "offer" of Christ is not for all, when you "offer" Christ to the unbeliever who, unknown to you, was created for Hell before he was ever born, before he ever sinned, who is completely without hope, that "offer" means absolutely nothing and you are full of lies by even offering him Christ to begin with because he will never see Christ outside of judgment.
Sorry, James, close but no prize, if this is how you interpret Scripture, no wonder your doctrine is all twisted. The first Scripture is not Jesus begging, read it for Pete's sake, : Ambassadors (not Jesus) and "AS THOUGH" God were pleading through us.
And your second Scripture: Again don't see Jesus begging, in fact the opposite in stating God' Love for His people.
Saved has a good point as she usually does, can't wait to hear some reinterpretation of Scripture to explain it!
How [ Did ] [ The Puritans ] [ Persuade ] [ Souls?]
*** How [ DO ] [ The Christains ] [ Lead Souls to Jesus* the Christ ?]...First its Calvins Way...Now its the Puritans Way ???....What About Jesus*s WAY ???...:rolleyes:...xo
How [ Did ] [ The Puritans ] [ Persuade ] [ Souls?]
*** How [ DO ] [ The Christains ] [ Lead Souls to Jesus* the Christ ?]...First its Calvins Way...Now its the Puritans Way ???....What About Jesus*s WAY ???......xo
James replies:
Well, I suppose smart aleck one liners are allowed on the group, but I don't see that method as being helpful.
"First it's Calvins way".
Ahem.....NOT ONCE have I EVER mentioned any method of sharing the gospel that John Calvin taught.
NOT ONCE, and YOU KNOW IT.
And your attitude is BAD!
Your are just saying "Hey let's ignore all our Christian brothers and sisters for the past two thousand years, and just rely on our own private religious hunches when we read the Bible."
That is a bad attitude, you need to repent of.
The bible says in Proverbs three times that there is wisdom in many counselors.
What is wrong with posting an article about how the puritans shared the gospel????
If your pastor at your church says, "we are starting a new class on how to share the gospel......"
Do you immediately tell him, "Hey who cares what you think, what about Jesus' way???"
I think the problem you are having is with the word "begging".
You see that as something bad, and pleading as not as bad.
If you read that part of the article again, you see the writer even brings up the fact that the definition of words can change over time.
I think you are reading the article and you believe the author is saying that the puritans believed that God is like a destitute cripple begging for food.
Where it is more like the scripture verse I gave where it uses
James wrote - "The preacher at the beginning or at suitable points during the preaching or, as is most commonly the case, at the end, may make direct and personal application of the truth to unbelievers, but even if he makes no such application this does not mean that his preaching is not evangelistic. 'To preach,' declared Sibbes, 'is to open the mystery of Christ: to break open the box that the savour may be perceived of all.' . . ."
71 said:
What a crock... Your "direct and personal application of truth to unbelievers" is not for all unbelievers.
James replies:
YES, IT IS. We are to preach to gospel to everyone, correct?
71 said
Your belief states that. And because your "offer" of Christ is not for all, when you "offer" Christ to the unbeliever who, unknown to you, was created for Hell before he was ever born, before he ever sinned, who is completely without hope, that "offer" means absolutely nothing and you are full of lies by even offering him Christ to begin with because he will never see Christ outside of judgment.
James replies:
"full of lies"? Wow.
Since 1. I am told in Scripture to preach the gospel to ALL creatures, and
2. there is no way of knowing who will accept Jesus and who won't...
Then HOW EXACTLY am I "full of lies"???
We are told to preach the gospel to everyone so we do....
71, if you are talking about election, predestination, etc, you are talking about the ENDS of all things.
God has not only ordained the ENDS of all things, but He
also has ordained the MEANS of all things.
God has chosen the "foolishness of preaching", and so we use the MEANS that God has chosen.
I mean think about, God COULD have if He had so decided to regenerate everyone He was going to save on their 21st Birthday at high noon.
We would wait around until noon that day, and it either happened or it didn't.
But God has not chosen to do things that way.
So we invite the neighbor kids to vacation Bible school, and share the gospel with a co worker, or leave a Bible tract on a park bench, etc.
YOU don't know if a person will accept Jesus when YOU share the gospel with them, and I don't know either.
But that does not make anyone "full of lies", because they don't know who will accept Jesus.
Shared ~ NOT ONCE have I EVER mentioned any method of sharing the gospel that John Calvin taught. NOT ONCE, and YOU KNOW IT.
*** Is that the Truth ? Not in this Post�but others ???
Shared ~ And your attitude is BAD!
*** Is that the Truth ? Lets look at what I shared then�
How [ Did ] [ The Puritans ] [ Persuade ] [ Souls?]
*** How [ DO ] [ The Christains ] [ Lead Souls to Jesus* the Christ ?]...First its Calvins Way...Now its the Puritans Way ???....What About Jesus*s WAY ???...
*** I bracketed words, ask a question, make a statement... and I have a Bad Attitude ? There is no Attitude here James�guess you just took it to personal�
Shared ~ Your are just saying "Hey let's ignore all our Christian brothers and sisters for the past two thousand years, and just rely on our own private religious hunches when we read the Bible."
*** James�I do not Give you Permission to Speak for me�Don�t A$$ume what I am saying nor even try to put words in my mouth I did not speak or write or share�
Shared ~ That is a bad attitude, you need to repent of.
*** Trust me�I�ll be Repenting for what ima Thinking right now�but not for what I shared here�xo
