I copied this in the dim recesses of the past, only for my ever-faithful secretary to discover it. However, it reflects a sentiment I have long held and was recently reminded of at the passing of a dear friend. I offer it to you for consideration and possible use. Click to see the full-size image. Download and use as it suits you.
Some pastors and ministries major on soul-winning, which is good. Other pastors and ministries major on baptisms, which is not wrong in its place. Other pastors and ministries major on expositions and explanations, which also has its strengths. Important to remember, however, is the emphasis placed by the most well-known of the Great Commission passages, Matthew 28.18-20, on making disciples.
It is possible to reach people for Christ without making them disciples. It is possible to baptize a great many people without making them disciples. It is also plain to see that a ministry that is strong on exposition and explanation can still fall far short of bringing a significant portion of those in attendance along as disciples rather than mere spectators.
I have had the privilege of traveling to and preaching in countries in North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Throughout my 45+ years of ministry, I have not witnessed a disciple maker as well-developed, well-thought-out, and Biblical as Dr. Samuel Rai.
Now in his sixtieth year, his almost four decades of faithfulness to God's Word is demonstrable. I have preached for him numerous times since my first visit to Nepal in 2012 and three times in 2024. I say that to assure you of my recommendation of Samuel Rai as a man God has used to develop a profoundly fruitful evangelistic Church planting ministry that has seen great success in making disciples in every congregation.
I prayerfully invite you to attend his three-day, five-session introduction to discipleship ministry, which I have not seen elsewhere. Attend yourself, bring your wife, Church members, and young people. All are invited. Business casual attire will be the order of the day, and lunch will be served on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Many wear the cloak of the 21st-century clergy who form an opinion solely based on addressing a topic second hand, regardless of one’s view. That is sad but a commonly held practice throughout my faith observations for more than a half-century. One friend lost his pastor’s input into his life forever. How? He asked if they two could sit down and discuss the election issue. My experience was the refusal of my first pastor to answer any question I asked him.
Again and again, over my first year as a Christian and Church member, my pastor repeatedly responded to my questions with a pat formula: “That’s an excellent question, and the subject of my present inquiry. I will get back to you when I arrive at a well-thought-out position.” Only he never did. That was how he dealt with any Bible question a member had given him.
I recommend that Gospel ministers prepare to address challenging questions and curious inquiries and foster individual study of God’s Word. To that end, I resume my surveys of this informative book that you may or may not agree with but that will help you, nevertheless.
The chapter is divided into seven subheadings, just over sixteen pages.
History of the Debate – Five paragraphs address the three positions held by Reformed theologians. Augustine, Beza, Gottschalk, Calvin, Hoeksema, John Owen, Amyraut, and A. H. Strong are mentioned. The Canons of the Synod of Dort, the Westminster Confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, and the Heidelberg Catechism are touched on. At the end of the section, the author urges caution when studying the matter.
The Mainstream Position – Eight pages inform this section. Mentioned (with many quotations) are Ambrose, Luther, Ursinus, Zanchius, George Abbot, James Ussher, John Davenant, Richard Baxter, Edward Polhill, William Ames, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Robert Lewis Dabney, Charles and A. A. Hodge, William G. T. Shedd, William Cunningham, J. C. Ryle, W. H. Griffith Thomas, James Petigru Boyce, John Broadus, Louis Berkhof, Lorraine Boettner, D. A. Carson, Iain Murrey, John Murrey, R. C. Sproul, D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, and R. B. Kuiper. New to me was the notion of “The Lombardian formula.” They include Lutherans, Anglicans, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Baptists.
The Biblical Balance – Four paragraphs touch on numerous doctrines related to the topic of the atonement.
Substitutionary Atonement – Three paragraphs. The author’s treatment of this crucial but often ignored facet of Biblical truth is dealt with in three paragraphs, mentioning Anselm, Samuel Rutherford, John Owen, and the historic agreement Calvinists and Arminians on it (while faithfully pointing out where some disagree on this essential matter).
Infinite Value and Universal Sufficiency – Seven paragraphs. “Most Calvinists have accepted Peter Lombard’s formula: ‘Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently only for the elect.’” Also mentioned are Beza, Pescator, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Matthew Henry, Robert Murray M’Cheyne, Samuel Rutherford, and Charles Hodge, with several quotes including from the Scots Confession and the Canons of the Synod of Dort.
Universal Benefits – Five paragraphs. Hoeksema, Spurgeon, and Polhill are cited. This section includes comments on universal non-saving benefits, which it has not been my experience to see often addressed by pastors to their congregations.
The State of the Debate – “To recount, there are basically three Reformed positions. Christ died (1) only for the elect, (2) for all men but especially the elect, and (3) equally for all men. They all deny that all men will be saved in the end, for they all believe in the reformed doctrines of election and reprobation.” That begins the first of three paragraphs in this section, including brief comments about the errors of universal salvation. The author concludes the section with “The debate is not merely about the atonement’s universal aspects, infinite value, or universal sufficiency nor even primarily about the identity of those for whom Christ died. The real question is over the nature of the atonement as to the efficacy at the point at which it was made at Calvary. Did Christ merely provide for redemption, or did He guarantee it for the elect? Did he actually propitiate the Father, or did He merely provide a sacrifice that would allow the Father to grant salvation to whom He chooses? Those who believe in the strictly limited view and those who teach the both/and view differ with the ‘equally for all’view on this critical point. We hold that Christ did actually satisfy the Father’s wrath for the elect alone in such a way that guaranteed their salvation.”
Conclusion – “In the next chapter we will discuss the biblical
teaching on the particular aspect of the atonement for the elect alone. This is
a distinctive element of mainstream Calvinism that is not shared with any other
variety of evangelical theology.”
