Featured Tell the Truth by Will Metzger discussion

I don't have the book in front of me, and am not willing to take a "pop quiz," although I am more than willing to discuss the book. Regardless of what Metzger argues, the gospel (in full and to include grace and God's law) should be proclaimed to sinners regardless of their humility or pride.

Again, as I don't have the book with me..... I'll look when I get home about what the author says about who grants faith and repentance. From a non-Calvinistic standpoint, it is typically presented as it being God that grants faith and repentance (this is certainly true of Arminian doctrine...reference the articles if in doubt) and I am comfortable saying it is the same for the Reformed. Without the book in front of me, I'd say that Metzger, being orthodox in his beliefs, would hold that this faith and repentance is of God. That said, I do believe that some (perhaps many) present the gospel message without repentance - my point is that this is not reflective of the "soteriological camp" within which they fall.

 

Ok. I have the book now. Yes, Metzger presents the biblical position that it is the Spirit that brings people to faith and repentance. I do like Metzger’s emphasis on the “call to respond,” as he notes that “an inherent part of the biblical gospel is the call to respond” (pg 75). He does consider what he calls “method-centered evangelism” as being too active and confusing to the sinner. Here he is concerned with “signing a card, repeating a prayer, walking forward, raising a hand, etc.).

It is at this point I may disagree a bit. While Metzger does not condemn the practice of repeating a prayer, walking forward, or raising a hand as “unbiblical,” he does make a somewhat odd connection. He sees this as creating “undue psychological pressure” that betrays our reliance of the sovereignty of God. He views this as a “mistrust of the Spirit’s power.” The issue I have is that in most cases (from my limited experience) such invitations are opportunities to respond. They are not high pressure sales pitches (and I have never heard someone walking forward due to “undue psychological pressure”). Indeed, it would be more understandable to not walk forward due to psychological pressure. But I do see how some sermons (for example, Johnathan Edward’s passionate “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”) could approach the author’s definitions.

 

Ok John. Here's the appropriate place.

Show me on pages 28 and 29 where Metzer denies that we are to lives so that others may see and believe. Once you do that, then I can show you where he is critically wrong and teaching a doctrine contrary to Scripture (I just can't find it in the book).

 

Thank you, I eagerly await your reply.

I will offer this, Metzger does not deny those Scriptures. In fact, his statement "both our words and our ways are inextricably bound together in witnessing" (pg. 24-25) is the point of "The Fifth Gospel."

No thank you. I am working through "Tell the Truth" because I told you I would. It does not stand out among other evangelism "how to's," and I am tiring of all of his stories. I have always wondered why books on evangelism seem to have so many stories.

 

I have read enough books on evangelism to last a lifetime (evangelism courses in seminary). One thing that you will probably recognize is that these books are finding ways to say the same thing (how to reach the world with the gospel). Every so often one comes up that peaks my interest. David Wells has been my favorite for understanding the postmodern culture, but I have read most of the authors you list here. You and I are in the middle of discussing two books (Tell the Truth and The Fifth Gospel). That's enough for me....right now anyway.

BTW, did you confirm that Metzger and Conway were holding identical views in regards to the spoken and lived gospel yet? It's on pages 24-25 (I included a quote of his statement).

 

:thumbsup: You don't have to worry about that. He is strong about delivering the gospel (preaching the gospel) and states this plainly in his book. What he addresses is the need to also live a life where others can see Christ in you. He is highly critical of people who "share the gospel" without really communicating the gospel message (he is also critical of those who may communicate the gospel message but live like the world).

Look at Metzger's outline of appropriate "friendship evangelism." He insists that it is evangelism if and only if the gospel is communicated. His criticism is when it is not communicated (when it is only "friendship"). Dr. Conway makes the same observation.

I think the uproar is about the title of his book. He may not be a Calvinist (I don't know if he is or isn't), but like you pointed out, this is not necessary to a "good" book on evangelism. He does explain the title, and it is far from what a few seem to assume. Let me know when it comes in. I have actually been impressed with the book (I did not have high expectations, but am pleasantly surprised).

 

Also...evangelism does not draw the elect (IMHO, it is the internal work of God in the life of those being saved). I think that we are all "naturally against" things...it is sometimes difficult to set aside our predispositions and engage topics that we assume are contrary to our view. But...I guess we get over those presuppositions in order to grow.

BTW, I wish you the best in your efforts this weekend. I am praying God blesses your ministry as you remain faithful to His Word. I did not respond to the thread because I have no idea what I will be doing over the holiday (probably working) :tear:.

 

Yes...I understand the difference between regeneration and conversion. If it helps to slow down on basic questions and perhaps venture into discussion, I will volunteer that I have taken several classes on evangelism (both undergraduate and graduate level) and have at lease a rudimentary understanding of the concepts.

I am again without the book, will you be so kind as to tell me what was said about Lordship? Of the top of my head, I do not remember anything I found disagreeable but nothing that stood out as an epiphany either. Thanks.

 

I am not sure what the world thinks of Osteen. I think many believe him representative of Christianity, and probably many do not. The danger of Osteen, however, is that he is a false teacher. He presents the type of message that Conway condemns…and I’d say Metzger condemns also as it is void of the gospel (actually it is contrary to the gospel).

Here are my questions:

From a strict Reformed view point, and using Metzger’s theology, what would be the danger of Osteen’s message to evangelism? What I mean is this, if one is in the “conversion process” as Metzger describes in Ch. 4 then that person is wrestling with the gospel message (although not quite at the end of the conversion process). He or she has a gospel knowledge and the Spirit is working in his or her life. If elect, then salvation will occur. If not, then it won’t. Why even worry about false teachers? If they are saved, then false teachers cannot lead them astray, so there is no danger there either. False teachers are therefore no issue to the evangelist…although perhaps an issue to the pastor in terms of edification and discipleship. If salvation is not dependent on the man being saved, surely it is not dependent on the false teacher conquering God’s own election of another.

***** This, BTW, is not something that I believe and I trust is not something that you believe either. I am curious as to how you would answer the question. Can false teachers lead people astray, and if so what relationship does this have to the sovereign election of God?