Royce

Yes. But there is a difference in wanting someone to admit they are wrong and wanitng someone to be healed.

I think coming clean is the first step to healing, isn’t it?

Royce

One last thought….. Only when you have leaders (elders, preachers, etc.) who are transparent and openly admit their struggles are you likely to have those in the pews comfortable sharing openly when they are in trouble. Thank God we have elders (both of our preachers are elders too) who are in every way just like us. They are different in that they have much greater responsibility and carry a heavy load.

Royce

You mention confession. In my view, if the transgression is public, many people in the congregation are aware of it, then a public confession would be in order. However, if the guy had cheated on his IRS forms a talk with his wife or a close friend who is also a brother would make more sense in my view.

One of the problems I see in churches like ours where it is so open and grace oriented is that some people tend to think their forgiveness is only possible if they confess to the congregaiton.

God has forgiven sin based on the worth and work of Jesus. As we confess to God (see our sin the way he sees it, or say about it what he says) he cleanses us from unrighteousness.Confession to others invokes their love, their prayers, and their holding accountable the one who confesses. They don’t hold out forgiveness.Only God owns that right.

Royce

I remember reading that Billy Graham’s critics had said that the music was in some way causing the great hosts of folks to come forward in his crusades. Deeply troubled by that thought he instructed that at the next nights meeting there would be only silence after his appeal. Graham ended his trademark plea with, “If you came on a bus they’ll wait for you” and pressed his hands together under his chin, closed his eyes, and prayed for God to prick the hearts of the people. All that broke the silence was the shuffle of hundreds of feet as hundreds came to declare they wanted to follow Christ.

Royce

The invitation song is a late nineteenth century innovation. James A. Harding opposed it as too emotional, for example.

Calvinists, whether Presbyterian or Congregational, divided over the use of exhortations and their emotion in the 18th century–”New Sides/New Lights” vs. “Old Sides/Old Lights.” Stone, as a Presbyterian, would have fallen in the “New Light” category.

Some conservative Reformed thinkiers, like MIchael Horton (as an example), still oppose the invitation as an Arminian/revivalist ploy.

Thanks for the reflections, Jay.

I wonder how Calvinism came to be so misunderstood and misrepresented on the American frontier? I assume ignorance ( that is, lack of education) and the way it ran contrary to the popular philosophy of the day were a couple of many contributing factors. Good thing we don’t have to worry about that anymore.

Statements like “Finney, and many others, rejected strict Calvinism because it sapped the church of its evangelistic zeal. If people were predestined to be saved without regard to free will, why preach salvation to the damned? God would save them or not regardless of the preaching.” This as known as hyper-Calvinism as it takes Calvinism to an illogical extreme. To my limited knowledge only the Primitive Baptists hold a position close to this. Calvin certainly never taught it and the Calvinists have been among the most evangelical and missionary of all the denominations.

And

“The many conversions persuaded Stone that people could accept Jesus contrary to Calvinism. His own eyes showed him that conversion was a free will decision.” FYI, Calvinists teach that man makes a decision but it is the result of the effective work of the HS in his life. I don’t know anyone that would argue that man’s will is absolutely free. They do believe that man in his “natural” state is fallen to the point that he is spiritually blind, deaf, dead and the enemy of God. So far far did man fall? Some would suggest just a little ways but he can still make it right himself. Other believe this is contrary to scripture. How about we be fair with them too.

Clearly Calvinism is still not understood by many so a straw man is presented that hardly even needs to be blown down.

It could be a good thing if we treated other biblical perspectives with the intelligence and good will that we would like to receive ourselves. After all, Thomas Campbell was a Calvinist all his life and he was rather generous to those that held to Arminian and Semi-Pelagian views.

I mean no ill will and appreciate many of the posts and comments I read here. I hope to stimulate more thought than responses.

Peace,
Randall