It is true we are a priesthood of believers and all that was in Christ has been made ours by adoption through the power of the holy spirit. Although we are all priests, the priests had different functions and this particularity of function is followed through in the NT. What this does not mean is that we are to stop teaching and studying to show ourselves approved and to be ready to give every man an answer when they ask of the hope that is in us, instant in and out of season. What it does mean is that the Church is a orchestrated effort with given structure and functions that are meant to be passed on by teaching and instruction. Out of this mixture of gifts which the Lord has placed in the body He calls some to particular funtion. And, one of those functions is to evangelize and, in doing so to teach and lead others to do the same by example.

This is a considerably different paradigm than we are used to because of the model that we have in place for the most part is that of Pastor/Elder/CEO. In Ephesians, again, I would consider Martin Lloyd-Jones to be correct when he assigns “for the work of ministry” to the “some” who are called. This perfectly fits with Acts 6: ““It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And I place here the emphasis on two complimentary ideas, “preaching…the ministry of the Word.” And, as we follow the careers of these men we see them, and not the congregation at large, evangelizing. We do have Steve, who upon opportunity, witnessed, and there are other examples where it is evident that laypersons shared their faith. Still, the order of the church is that the primary duty of evangelism belongs to those God has called out for that particular task.

And I believe this, if we were to return to the model of the “regenerate” church and the proper intra-member” relationships we would have a more effective evagelistic ministry model.

Just thoughts.

The line of thinking,

“The Spirit is saving the elect, and the rest are what they are. You can mourn the fate of the lost, but how can we “engage” the lost any more than God allows?”

is not the testimony of Jesus or the early church (especially Paul!). The errors lie on both sides: denying God’s sovereignty, the other denying human responsibility.

Paul understood this, for in the chapter where he devotes most of his time explaining unconditional election and divine sovereignty, he sandwiches them with two passionate pleas for the salvation of his kinsmen (Rom. 9:1-3; 10:1). There is no contradiction to Rom. 9 and Rom. 10. Calvinists believe in a “whosoever will” gospel. It is just that we know that the Bible reveals that God knows who that “whosoever” is, and He will make them “willing” through the regenerating work and effectual calling of the Holy Spirit. The Calvinist is actively sharing the gospel because we know that the greatest evangelist of them all is the Holy Spirit. To not share the gospel is to grieve the Spirit and live contrary to His purposes in your life, not the least of which is being witnesses of Christ in our Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the world (Acts 1:8; cf. John 15:27).

I would argue that God allows us to engage the lost more than we realize. A strong belief in the sovereignty of God allows no room for personal disobedience to God’s call to proclaim the gospel, make disciples, and labor in the harvest field. It is *his* harvest field after all, and it *he* who is sending us there. The means of preaching and prayer, the instrumentality of God’s Word along with the agency of the Holy Spirit, have always been believed by evangelical Calvinists. Any Calvinist who is content that sinners are perishing or are not broken over the damnable state of sinners is not worth his salt.

I’ve answered similar questions like this. All Christians will likely grant that God is the giver of daily bread. Yet Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike work to earn their bread. And if the fruit of their labors doesn’t buy enough bread (a certain lifestyle), then they aren’t satisfied that “God’s will” is being done. They work harder, or longer, or smarter. Evangelism is similar, in that, though God is ultimately the bearer of fruit, that gives no right for complacence on the part of his human means.

Before I was reformed, I had zero confidence that the person’s salvation rested on anything but my skill in answering their questions plus their own desire or lack of desire to submit their hearts to the Lord.

…my two cents.

none of these baptism rates or growth numbers should make any of us happy

our churches are failing to engage lostness in North America

I can accept that Calvinists would evangelize just out of obediance to the Great Commission, but for a Calvinist, why would any growth rate cause them to be unhappy? The Spirit is saving the elect, and the rest are what they are.

You can mourn the fate of the lost, but how can we “engage” the lost any more than God allows?

I’m also interested in thoughts on why Calvinists would have a higher rate of personal evangelism than non-Calvinists.