Those Darn Calvinists!

es

1. The assumption here is that if you are a "Calvinist" you are therefore "for Calvin." And people like Doug will say that therefore "Calvin is your God" and "you are a cult." And for good measure he also threw the Lutherans and Mennonites under the bus. Might I remind our Arminian friends (yes - that's what you are) that the term Calvinist didn't develop because John Calvin thought up a new Biblical doctrine, but because Calvin was one of a few men God led to spark the Protestant Reformation, finding again true Biblical doctrines that had been lost by man and suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church. In this sense and by this standard, one could call Apostle Paul and St. Augustine both "Calvinists." This is why Calvinists prefer the term "Reformed" so that we need not take the name of a man... but Calvinist-haters (which, like Doug, are people that have a problem with any type of theology in general) will not release us from that nomenclature.

I might add to Doug or any other Calvinist stone-thrower that I might call you an "Arminian" because you hold to the doctrines of Justin Arminius. Or would that be unfair, to assume that because you hold doctrines held by another, more famous theologian that you are therefore "in his cult?"

2. To make divisions such as "Calvinist," "Arminian," or my favorite - 'ignoramus" - then you are somehow divisive or factious. This is probably the complaint towards my Reformed brethren that I hear most..."you Calvinist guys sure are argumentative!"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it seem that soteriology would be the ONE topic in all of Scripture in which to argue about? As long as it is done in love, then it is vitally important to pound out true salvation doctrine from Scripture. If you get the Gospel wrong, you've gotten it all wrong. I believe one can trace all false models of theology, ecclesiology, conservative and liberal - to a misguided understanding of salvation. Salvation-by-works (my Pentecostal friends) or salvation-by-prayer (my Baptist friends) all stem from an immature attempt at "getting" salvation. We argue about salvation because it is essential.

3. Incredibly ignorant people, when discussing various schools of theology, will often say "no one is entirely correct." Let me translate this to mean, "I should spend more time studying and less time preaching, because I'm not really sure what correct theology is so I'm just going to say 'nobody's entirely correct.'" Well, what do you believe, then? These people would rather focus on the ABCs of Christian faith such as "God is love" and "Jesus is good" and ignore the vast richness of the writings of Paul - because it takes a little study and diligence to get a grasp on good theology. I've come to understand a long time ago that people hate Calvinists because "they think they have it all figured out," not realizing the average Calvinist has taken tens of thousands of hours toiling over the Bible in an honest pursuit of reconciling grace and free will. The average Arminian (in my opinion) has spent about ten hours thinking up pithy logical arguments about how Calvinism refutes God's character or finding "Scriptural one-liners" - like "it's God's will none perish" - that they can pull out of context so they can avoid entire chapters on the doctrine of election like Romans 9. Bonus: This guy calls theology "vanity." Really? Biblical teaching is "vanity."

I could not possibly begin to understand or grasp neither the sovereignty of God nor the Glory of God without immersing myself in Reformed theology. I had no idea the Scripture was so rich, so wonderful, so life-changing. I could not grasp the meaning of "Amazing Grace" or the wonder of my own salvation, or the goodness of God without it. I praise God daily for giving me just a glimpse into this wonderful, Biblical doctrine.

Second Amendment Shake-Down

The Associated Press is reporting today that around the nation the ATF and DEA is hunting down gun owners who lawfully purchased firearms from information gathered from the background-check system and from records acquired from gun dealers. Although American citizens were promised that such check systems wouldn't be used to target gun owners and federal law prohibits the creation of a database for gun owners, government agencies are indeed using information gathered from sales to infringe second amendment rights of citizens.

Here's how it goes: Any number of federal agencies who have a pretend jurisdiction in an area visit gun stores to acquire records of what weapons were sold to what people. This is to evade the federal law prohibiting the government from preventing a database. The agency looks for "weapons known to be popular among drug traffickers" or "gang members" and then start knocking doors to find the citizen who legally purchased the firearm. When they find the citizen, the agency asks to see the weapon, why they purchased the weapon, and how they got the money to buy the weapon.

For example, in Texas some agents found in a dealer's records that a citizen in nearby town purchased two handguns in the same day (which is legal in Texas). They then hunted the man down and asked him many questions concerning the purchase and asked to see the handguns (note that it would not have been illegal for the man to have immediately sold them -without record- to another citizen...because this is America, after all). Also, when the Feds do this type of thing, as they did in this instance, they do not utilize a search warrant. Brandishing their government-issue side-arms and badge while in civilian clothing, the agents intimidate the citizen and insinuate that a crime had been committed with his gun. In the instance in Texas, the gun owner turned out to be a pastor who had purchased the pistols for target shooting.

Another instance given by the AP was that a woman had purchased four handguns in the same day (again, legal in Texas). The federal agents tracked down her home and saw that it was a lower-income home in disrepair. Assuming that she must have therefore purchased the guns for trafficking, they went knocking door-to-door to her neighbors to find out where she was, what they thought of her, and why she would have wanted a handgun.

Am I wrong, or is this America? Can this be happening?

This is being done in the name of illegal immigration, gun and drug trafficking. Mexican gangsters are coming to America, after all, to purchase their guns.

Let me get this right. Instead of enforcing immigration law and shutting off the flow of illegals into the U.S., our government would rather ignore immigration law and shut off the flow of guns to U.S. citizens. Unbelievable. How about instead of harassing citizens, put up a wall and strict border security. But the Obama administration is too busy arming the EPA (for the first time) and asking for a volunteer national guard force (which they mandate be unarmed) to watch the border.

What should you do if you are approached by someone claiming to be a federal agent, asking about the whereabouts of your firearm? You could do what many good citizens would do, which would be to say "I have nothing to hide" and answer their questions, consent to their search, and cooperate. I urge you to instead ask for a warrant and if one is not produced then very politely tell them that you are not a criminal - you are a citizen, you take your second and fourth amendment rights very seriously and that your conversation is over. Then the shut the door and be prepared for some harassment. Have you local media on speed-dial to document any further illegal investigation from that agency.

Stand up for your rights, because they're not going to be here much longer.

Clarification

In my post on Baptist Nonsense, I gave a run-down of some rather childish motions given by messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention - some of which were pointedly critical of Mark Driscoll. In that post, I mentioned a motion made by Brian LeStourgeon of an Arizona church to call Driscoll to "answer his critics." I was critical myself of LeStourgeon's motion, as the description given on SBC.net seemed as though LeStourgeon was a critic of Driscoll himself.

According to LeStourgeon, however, "the motion was a gentle rebuke of those who were ready to hang a millstone around Driscoll's neck." According to the pastor:

"The thrust of it was that if you were going to act out a portion of Matthew 18, you should be ready for the entirety of Matthew 18.Being that their motions were not likely to return to the floor, I offered my motion as a way of saying, 'Not everyone here agrees with this, or with spending time on this, why are we even talking about this?...' What I did not expect is that so many in attendance agreed. As the thousands in the room realized what I was saying, the response was so loud that I couldn't hear myself reading the rest of the motion. Baptist Press has a wrap-up that excerpts a few words from the motion. The result is a case of reporting a fact but misstating the truth."

I hope this clarifies the mischaracterization of LeStourgeon's motion.

Sunday's Message: Spineless Christianity

This is Sunday's Message from the "10 Indictments of the Modern Church" sermon series, entitled "Spineless Christianity." It is full of anger, hate, and self-righteousness (just kidding - you'll get that if you listen).

Fun at the Lake

I caught these White Bass near Tobacco Gardens on Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota this morning.

Sakakawea is the third-largest man-made lake in the nation, next to Lake Mead and Lake Powell. The lake is on average 2-3 miles wide and 14 miles wide at its widest point. It was created by daming the Missouri River at Garrison Dam. I found it to be muddier than the lakes back home in the Ozarks, and not nearly as scenic, although it was beautiful in its own right. There were plenty of deer and antelope at the water's edge, pelicans and herons of all kinds, other various types of water fowl, and the morning sunlight bouncing off the bad-land coulies looked like a painting.

Although we were fishing for Walleye, we had no luck as the rain sent us packing after a short time. Also in the lake are large and small mouth bass, northern pike, crappie, and paddlefish.

We're going to have our church-wide camping trip there in late July. It should be really fun. See - this trip was nothing but church-related "research."

Southern Baptist Nonsense

The annual Southern Baptist Convention was held in Louisville this week. Messengers from churches across the country offered motions for the convention to consider, 31 in total. Thankfully, the only motion approved was one by Albert Mohler (R-Reformed) of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to create a Great Commission Task Force. I actually thought that's what the International Mission Board was for, but who am I to second-guess Al Mohler?

A look at the other motions filed, however, speak volumes about what the Southern Baptist Convention consists of - mainly, a few wheel-turners of hustling churches but mostly a wide array of senseless, floundering, relics from another time who have all of the right answers to all of the wrong questions and who see success as failure. The typical Southern Baptist Church is a rotting corpse, stinking of fundamentalist mentality and feasting on the success of half a century past. This nonsense comes out in many of the motions proposed by messengers at the annual convention.

Let me give you some examples:

1) that "all SBC entities should monitor" funds spent in "activities related to or cooperative efforts with Mark Driscoll and/or the Acts 29 organization" and entity heads should submit a report of expenditures to appear in the 2010 Book of Reports.

This is from a messenger from Calvary Baptist Church in Republic, Missouri. After all, we had better keep our Cooperative Program dollars away from that down and dirty Mark Driscoll, right? What is this, the Inquisition? This is an attempt at something like Baptist McCarthyism. We wouldn't want to cooperate with the quickest-growing, largest church planting network in the country, would we. Is this what we have to worry about?

2) -- that SBC entities avoid "inviting event speakers" who "are known for publicly exhibiting unregenerate behavior ... such as cursing and sexual vulgarity, immorality, or who publicly state their support for the consumption or production of alcohol," submitted by Ida South, a messenger from First Baptist Church in Mathiston, Miss.

Paul can't go to the First baptist Church of Mathiston, Miss on account of the vulgarity and Jesus couldn't go on account of alcohol consumption. Awesome.

3) -- that Southern Baptists call "on the Pepsi-Cola Company to remain neutral in the cultural war by refraining from promoting the gay/lesbian lifestyle and agenda" through its advertising and that a boycott be undertaken if the company fails to "halt its current direction," submitted by Joe P. Samples, pastor, Salem Baptist Church, Sneads Ferry, N.C.

If pastors and churches would stop reading the American Family Association newsletter and look around they would see that the whole "lesbian and gay thing" is probably here to stick around for a while. Does it make sense boycotting one company in particular when the entire culture endorses it? Come on, now.

4) -- that the SBC president "appoint or work through the appropriate entity" to highlight the 400th anniversary in 2011 of the King James Version of the Bible, submitted by Rick Reeder, a messenger from Southside Baptist Church in Princeton, Ky.

And if we have time left over after celebrating the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, we can then celebrate the 400th anniversary of thousands of Baptist martyrs killed by King James for not reading his Anglican translation of the Bible. Seriously.

5) -- that author Mark Driscoll's books be removed from LifeWay Christian Bookstores because of his "reputation for abusive and ungodly language and ... promotions of sex toys on his church web site," submitted by Jim Wilson, pastor, First Baptist Church in Seneca, Mo.

The sex-toy thing has been blown way out of proportion (no pun intended). Driscoll talks frankly about (gasp!) marital relations... get the pitchforks! Get the torches!

6) -- that a "special committee be formed" to address claims by "some Bible teachers that the world will come to an end on May 21, 2011," submitted by Ben Brazal, pastor, King of Kings Christian Fellowship in Middletown, N.Y.

In what circles does this guy run?

7) A motion by a pastor from Arizona sought to have Mark Driscoll "address the concerns of his accusers" at the 2010 annual meeting.

I really don't think you want Driscoll defending himself at the 2010 meeting. He's not a school-boy you guys pastoring 35-member churches are going whip and discipline. I think it would be entertaining, however. Does "who do you think you are?" come to mind?

8) A motion by James T. Egan, pastor of First Baptist Church in Post, Texas, was referred to Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and LifeWay Christian Resources because it asked trustees of those entities to look into matters regarding several of its employees (Danny Akin, Alvin Reid, and Ed Stetzer) because of accusations against them and the "emergent church movement" made by the Missouri Baptist Laymen's Association.

This 47 page "pamphlet" was put out by the MBLA and says "In the name of missions, ministry and evangelism, the SBC is now in danger of embracing a new liberalism -- 'cultural liberalism' that claims to be theologically conservative." It goes on to say "to re-invent the image of evangelical Christianity, the emergent church often compromises Baptist beliefs such as the SBC's traditional opposition to use of beverage alcohol." Once again, "conservative" Baptists would prefer we take a "traditionally Baptist stance against alcohol" in lieu of the Biblical stance against drunkenness. How is that conservative, again? It seems that taking liberty with the Bible and inserting one's own non-Biblical dogma as transcendent over Scripture is liberal. Basically, Akin, Reid and Stetzer's offense has been to be friendly and cooperating with Acts29 and Driscoll.

Listen to me, Southern Baptists.... if you really want 29% of your Reformed Seminary grads and a growing number (and growing quickly) of disgruntled pastors that are tired of putting up with the same old song and dance to walk and take their congregations with them - just keep it up. To be fair, none of these motions were passed and we owe a debt of gratitude to the current leadership in the SBC from keeping these monkeys from running the monkey house. But if they can't continue to do so, expect to see younger pastors simply fade away from the SBC... not that we'll leave it, but that we'll cling to groups like Acts29 and like-minded churches and participate rarely or ever in SBC life.

I think I know what Augustine meant when he said "the church is a whore, but is still my mother..." I love her, and would hate to leave her, but man - she's got to quit this stuff.

Food Pantry Open

From the Sidney Herald:

Published on Friday, June 19, 2009 3:19 PM MDT

Fellowship Church announced last fall that it was preparing a food pantry that would be ready in late spring 2009. The Fellowship Food Pantry is now ready to be in operation, serving all of Richland County. The Fellowship Food Pantry can help needy families with free, confidential help and provide food for all who need it. There are no limits for how often families can utilize the pantry, and there is no in-depth inquisition for why a family (or singles) need help. The Fellowship Church does not request donations from the community and urges residents to continue contributing to the Richland County Food Bank. This is because the food provided to the pantry is given by members of Fellowship Church as a gift to the community, either bought from local grocery stores or in the case of meat, harvested by church members during deer season or given by local ranchers in the church. For help at any time, day or night, call 433-4004 and food can be either picked up or delivered.

Pictured is Janyce Hockenbary, Deacon of Food Ministry

Southern Baptists should be proud of Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee was one of the most intriguing characters within politics. An incredible underdog, the Governor from Arkansas achieved far more with far less resources than any presidential candidate on the national scene in decades. A devout and proud Christian, Huckabee managed to come in second place in the Republican primary without once compromising his Biblical principles or shying away from his faith. Huckabee can rest well and hang his head high, knowing that he fought the good fight and ran the good race.

Sitting with my wife at the Governor's Gala in Little Rock, we heard Huckabee personally announce his candidacy for the presidency in December of 2007. Looking at my wife and whispering "fat chance," I never thought this charismatic Southern Baptist preacher would lead the anti-McCain movement and finish second. I sadly believe there will never be another fierce evangelical come as close to the nomination of our party again. And that includes, unfortunately, Sarah Palin.

Huckabee, ordained Baptist minister and former president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, spoke today at the annual Southern Baptist Convention in Louisville. I've included just a few of his thoughts that were enlightening.

1. "We are creating an entire nation in which people are increasingly turning to a new god -- the god of government -- to do for us what we ought to be doing for ourselves, starting with raising our kids, taking care of our families and protecting and preserving life and the institutions of this great nation."

How true that is. I was practically accosted on the Sidney Herald blog yesterday for advocating a little-known thing called "personal responsibility" when discussing the validity or possibility of socialized medicine. Believing that a family should perhaps (call me crazy) cut back on the toys, cellphones, and cable tv if need be and purchase health insurance instead of begging the government have our neighbors pay for it, I was sarcastically told that I was "a great pastor." Which means, apparently, that a Christian should steal from those who work hard to give to those who don't.

I understand some of the statements left for me on the paper's blog, including one of a single mother who stated she made 10 dollars an hour and couldn't afford insurance. A typical sob story, let me state that I "feel for" single moms. But a few questions should be asked before our hearts start to bleed, including (1) when your car is paid off, do you jump into another payment (2) do you pay for modern "necessities" like cellphone, Internet, and cable? (3) Whose fault is it you make 10 dollars an hour? Were you not allowed to go to college or develop a marketable skill? Are you prevented from developing an entrepreneurial business? Or did bad decisions earlier in life or lack of ambition relegate you to a life working at the local mini-mart? and (4) -this one is going to sting a little... whose fault is it you're a single mom? Were any of these kids born out of wedlock, and if so, should you be surprised you don't have a husband to provide for you, considering you gave it away without a commitment? Were you incapable of keeping a relationship together? Or if you're going for the whole "battered woman" thing, why were you so inept at picking a spouse? If you're a widow, the chances are your children have social security and it's a mute point. Any way I see it, there are probably some bad decisions in there somewhere that your neighbors shouldn't have to pay for.

2. "It is not wise for pastors to believe that all of the power should rest solely in them. The purpose of the pastor is not to retain power but to embolden and empower those to whom he is equipping, so that they will in fact do the work of the ministry.We today need to recognize that real leadership is not about bringing power to ourselves, but it is about bringing power to those that we are to serve."

Amen. A pastor's job is to "equip the Saints." I hope that when I'm dead and gone, or just gone, that there will be a group of strong men to stand up and say "he equipped us and empowered us...let's roll."

3. "The toughest politics I ever faced was not running for president or running for governor or lieutenant governor, it was being a pastor in a Southern Baptist church. Folks, them are some tough politics out there if you've never experienced it. A pastor may believe he is leading a warship into battle, only to discover that the expectation of church members is for him to captain the love boat and make sure everyone is having a good time."

How right Huckabee is. I'm glad to be at Fellowship Church, where we don't play that. It's certainly true that the mission is often derailed because of the comfort level involved in it. But don't get me preaching on consumerism again.

4. "The Bible makes it very clear that the outcome is a good one -- maybe not as we see it here, but in the end, Jesus wins. And I'm willing to say that for those of us who will, standing with Him is never a mistake. Standing for what He stands for will never lead us wrong, and being who He calls us to be will never leave us embarrassed or ashamed."

And that's why we do it. That's why we stand up for the unborn, and traditional marriage, and issues that we must not compromise upon. We're right. Jesus will win. And if we go down - like Huckabee - we go down fighting.

Sunday's Message

This is Sunday's message from the "10 Indictments of the Modern Church" sermon series, entitled "Religious Consumerism."

Soul Winning: Misguided Soteriology

Above is a clip from my favorite pastor, an independent, fundamental, KJV-only, soul-winning Baptist. Is there any other kind of Baptist? Just kidding.

... "He who winneth souls is wise." Proverbs 11:30

Did you read that verse? This is the one place in the Scripture that tells us something about so-called "Soul-Winning." And it's just half of the verse. Note that this verse doesn't tell us to win souls necessarily, but that one who does it is wise. I would also note that this word in Hebrew is laquaqh, which basically means "to take a hold of." I'm not sure if either one of those notes are important or relevant, but there you have it.

Fundamentalists are very fond of the term and their idea of "soul-winning." Soul-winning Christians despise what they call "Lordship Salvation" because it, in their eyes, perverts the Gospel by adding repentance to what is necessary for salvation. Salvation, they would argue, is brought out of belief alone. To add baptism, repentance, or following Christ a requirement for salvation (which Calvinists don't do, by the way), they would argue is "methodism" or applying methods to salvation when it is a one step process.

What do they do with places like Acts 2:38 that says "Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I'm confused. I thought only belief was necessary for salvation, right?

So, when you think that belief alone causing salvation, it would seem like a good idea to run around get people to admit they believe in Jesus. If you can do that successfully, then every person who you can get to repeat some prayer confessing belief (as opposed to sins) then they'll have eternal life and you'll have won a soul.

If this is the case (which it is), then it would only be logical that winning souls is a lot like bowling. It's all about technique. Soul winners argue against Total Depravity, which asserts that humanity is utterly hopeless and will never seek Christ of their own will. If this were the case, then it means that people can accept Christ because they are smart enough to see the merit and good enough to follow through. They need not be brought by the Spirit that "comes and goes as it pleases," but are brought by their own volition. This means, the soul winner would argue, that we simply need to go around, knocking doors, and convincing people to believe in Jesus, say a prayer, and get your get-into-Heaven ticket.

And that's where technique comes in. Knock on a door. Look pleasant. Where a tie, because Jesus would. Don't ask their name, that is just unnecessary information. You're winning souls, not friends after all. Start with asking "if you died today, do you know..." bla bla bla. Then automatically assume that they believe the Bible and assume that for them it is authoritative. And if you're really skilled, you have them read the verses of the Roman Road out loud instead of you reading them. And what it comes down to is how good a job you do in the process. Have your verses highlighted. Counter their arguments. And most importantly, out-wit them. This is going to come down to you convincing them the Bible is right and they are wrong. You're going to have to use logic and reason to convince them they're sinners. If they don't believe the Bible, then talk longer until they do. Then, get them to say a prayer. Afterwards, tell them that God is not a liar and if they ever doubt their salvation then it's the devil trying to mess with them. So you write the date they said that prayer in the Bible so they can be assured they're saved. Finally, let them know that they're saved forever regardless of how much they mess up. The last ingredient in Soul Winning methodology is to pat yourself on the back for saving the guy from hell and then go to church and brag that a soul was won. When they never show up at church, change their lifestyle, or repent of their sin, remind yourself that God works in mysterious ways.

Such is the soteriology of fundamental soul-winners. And what hog-wash it is.

There is no example - none - of someone being "saved" in the Bible by saving a prayer. To reduce salvation to saying a few words in the right order is nothing but a superstition at best and witchcraft at worst. Salvation is begun by God in a process called regeneration. It's none of man, and all of God.

For example, consider the account of Nicodemus:

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Jesus doesn't really answer Nicodemus' question, because he really didn't ask one. Jesus jumped the gun and told Nicodemus that if he wants to see the Kingdom, he must be born again. Notice that Jesus doesn't say "Hey, buddy...do these things, say this prayer, repeat it after me, believe these facts, and then if satan every bothers you about it then tell him to go to hell." Jesus simply says "you must be born again," not "get born again" as if Nicodemus had anything to do with it. Then Jesus clarifies that the Spirit goes around saving whoever He wants for no reason discernible by man. Such is the Reformed - and the Biblical - take on John 3.

You see, "soul-winners" get angry when we talk about repentance, baptism, and discipleship as a part of salvation. They say that we're bringing methodism into soteriology. When in truth, it's the opposite. We don't believe that salvation is a result of anything except God's sovereign will. It's not a result of repentance, baptism, or discipleship and it's sure as heck not a result of a superstitious, extra-Biblical prayer more similar to a pagan conjure of ancestral spirits than a heart-felt communication with God via the Holy Spirit. This is what religion does: it reduces divine nature (salvation, for example) to a method or to a system. "Say this prayer" is not any different than "do this dance" or "join this church." And although repentance and discipleship (baptism is a part of discipleship) do not cause salvation, but are an affect of salvation.

What is quite amazing is that soul-winners harp on the Great Commission as their anthem. The Great Commission in Matthew 28 reads:

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Are we told in this great command to go win souls or make Christians? Of course not. It is not we, but the Spirit that convicts the sinner to repentance because of regeneration, and it's the irresistible grace of God the Father made possible by the propitiation of sin through the death of Jesus that makes one saved. We simply preach the Word faithfully (through which regeneration begins in the hearing) so that we can be blessed in being a part of God's redemptive plan for the people He chose before the world began.

What we do is make disciples, first baptizing them and then teaching them. A soul winner would believe in the concept of the "carnal Christian"... that it is possible that someone believes in Christ and is therefore saved, who continues in sin, does not repent, is not baptized, and refuses discipleship. I'm not sure there is a more warrantless theological doctrine than that of carnal Christian theology. As if it were possible (or assumed in the Bible) that one could come in contact with God, be owned by Christ and filled with the Spirit and not be changed! But alas, the soul-winner must believe in carnal Christianity to explain why the vast majority of of the souls they have "won" do not exhibit any signs of transformation.

There is an inherent problem with this. Romans 8:29 says:

29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

The reason God saves some is to transform them to the image of Jesus. Because if he predestines you he will then eventually justify and then glorify you. You will be discipled if you are truly saved. Period. The sinner's prayer, therefore, does not result in salvation. The sinner's prayer results from a salvation that was begun by God long before the sinner was even aware.

In fact, no where are we told to win souls in the New Testament, nor to win or bring converts. We are go into the world making disciples...not from those we have saved, but those that God has saved due to His sovereign will.

There is an abject self-righteousness and arrogance in soul winning theology that is almost laughable (if it didn't make such a mockery of grace). To believe that the soul of an individual for whom Christ died somehow hangs in the balance, dependent upon how you or I go about winning Him is audacious. If we are not faithful to tell him, and He is elect, God will send someone else. Jesus died for that person. That person's fate is dependent upon God's grace and Jesus' sacrifice, not my obedience.

On a side note, I used to sell vacuums for a living. I made a living at it, and a darn good one (if you judge a living by the amount of money made). I made a living selling $2500 vacuum cleaners on a three year note at 21% interest to little old ladies who couldn't put $5 dollars down and who had wood floors. I can sell. I convinced people that this vacuum would bring them good health and change their lives. Literally. I once convinced a lady that she would be able to go on a vacation to Bermuda, get a job, and lose weight if only she would buy my contraption. And as long as these people didn't figure out they got taken advantage of or manipulated for three days, the bring-back day was up and they were stuck with making 80 dollar payments for three years. I'm not bragging, that was horrible of me. Horrible. But the point is, I can manipulate anybody to do or believe anything. If it was all about technique, then I should go around my little town and just use my manipulation techniques to convince people to buy into Jesus. But Jesus hasn't bought them. They're so-called salvation is invalid and nonexistent. But they've gotten that date written in their Bible, so by the time they're really introduced to the Bible, they think they're saved because after all, "God's not a liar" they were told.

Then why does a Reformed Baptist like myself evangelize? Why do we go to great lengths to tell people about Jesus? There are two reasons. 1) We must be obedient to proclaim the good news and 2) because the chief end of man is to glorify God, and when we make God known He is glorified. Perhaps it is correctly understanding the reasons for evangelism that Reformed churches are one of the few segments in American Christianity that are growing while "soul-winning" independent fundamentalist churches are shrinking into obscurity.