Evangelism according to the Book of Acts:
- Proclaim the judgment of God on all mankind.
- Proclaim the Gospel truth, which is that Christ has fulfilled the Scriptures.
- Baptize the many who, convicted of their sin and of the truth of the Gospel, cry out in belief, throwing themselves upon God’s mercy in Christ.
Todd Pedlar suggests the above pattern [adapted from Michael Horton's Gospel-Driven Life
Why can’t we do it that simply? If the Word of God is the power of God unto salvation to those who believe, why can’t its simple proclamation (in the whole counsel thereof) be sufficient for us? God cannot be marketed. The Truth simply must be proclaimed, and the results left to God.
I totally agree and look forward to hearing Todd (and Bill) interview Michael Horton later this week on Covenant Radio on the subject of Gospel-Driven Life
Possibly Related Posts:
- Win 1 of 3 Michael Horton Book Packs
- Christianity = “A Personal Relationship with God”
- Are We Called To “Live The Gospel”?
- What’s The Gospel-Driven Life?
- Final Opportunity to Win 1 of 3 Michael Horton Book Packs
Tagged as // Book of Acts, Evangelism, Gospel, Michael Horton
Filed in // General
Comments [5]
Nathan,Excellent post, with which I also heartily agree – and need to be more obedient to.On a side note – how do you reconcile your solid agreement with point #3 with your strong belief in paedo-baptism? Not trying to pick a fight, merely wanting to know how one reconciles a person who was baptized as a baby, grows up to recognize himself as wretched sinner, hears the Gospel and is called to new life in Christ and – then what? He should be baptized – after salvation. What, then, was the infant baptism for? Is it only “a sign of the covenant”, and not the post-confessional act of obedience called for in Scripture?Blessings from one brother with only some of the answers to another
As the poster of the original message to which Nathan pointed, and as another fully convinced paedobaptist (as is Horton) the point was not to deal with ALL baptisms here – but how one goes about evangelizing. If you want me to include all baptisms, then I’d say “and baptize all those – and their households – who cry out to God in belief,” since this is the New Testament pattern.
Todd – to say baptizing whole households is the New Testament pattern is a stretch. It’s much more accurate to say it’s an inference one makes from a passage.
It is seen in more than one case, and in particular – four household baptisms are mentioned. There aren’t that many more baptisms mentioned where households aren’t explicitly mentioned. (I think actually there are only four other mentions of individuals being baptized – apart from the mass baptisms at Pentecost). I think, therefore, this sets MORE than just an example “by inference”. There is a positive example set. (and this is far outweighed by the clear corellation between baptism and circumcision)Baptisms by profession of a convert will be, of course, the majority that you see in the Bible given that it was all written within a few decades of Christ’s death – so we can’t go hog wild and assume that every baptism today has to look like an individual professing believer being baptized on his profession. We can’t deny the “household baptisms” given their far from insignificant number in the Scriptures.
@Manfred: Good question. Firstly, I agree with Todd. The post does not deal with all baptisms. Secondly, the same could be said back to Abraham as to what was the point of circumcising his children. I guess one could say Genesis 17 represents a kind of “Book of Acts” of the really early church.
Thirdly, Acts is largely a descriptive book and not a prescriptive book. If it’s purpose was prescriptive then it becomes more difficult not to hold to such doctrines as the Pentecostal doctrine of “separate and subsequent” for example. That said, as it is descriptive, there is nothing described (recorded) that is contrary to the paedobaptistic view. In fact, what we see in Acts is exactly what we would expect to have seen in a book recording the first generation of the early church. Thirdly, out of the two views, I firmly believe the paedobaptistic view most fully accounts for the continued covenantal language and Luke’s use of oikos. If Luke was recording a radical break in God’s covenantal dealings then he really muddied the waters (which is unusual for Luke who is very clear) and failed to record what would have been a very vocal response / challenge by the Jews of the time.All that to say, if one understand the paedobaptistic view properly then there is nothing unexpected in the Book of Acts.