Open Air Preaching

Are we allowed to say that Jesus died for them while open air preaching?

Because we know that Jesus did not die for every listener that happens to be passing by, thus I would be proclaiming that which is untrue.

Or am I over analyzing the whole thing?

For example...

"Your sins caused the slaughter of Jesus Christ under the wrath of His Father."

:-?

If you look at the sermons in Acts, I don't think you'll find the Apostles telling the crowds that Jesus "died for them". Their message seems more often to be a call to repentance and faith in Christ, and those who respond in faith can be assured that Christ died for them.

With care on Christ...

IWantAnguish wrote:

Because we know that Jesus did not die for every listener that happens to be passing by,

Jesus died for everyone to have a relationship with the Father.
However, not all choose that.

I guess it comes down to Calvinism / Arminianism.

lol thanks guys.

/thread

It seems to me the most biblically consistent (and faultless) thing to tell people,

"Christ has obeyed the Law and borne the penalty of sin on behalf of all who ever repent and believe on Him by faith alone for salvation. He has also told me to proclaim this news to every creature."

So many things we could preach but we always wish to preach that which we are not entirely sure of. I say this of myself primarily before any other of course.

I remember days when the Gospel seemed so clear...what happened. I used to tell everyone come and drink if you are thirsty, taste and see that the Lord is good, but now I find myself wrapped up in theological connundrums like this often too.

For this particular one, a French man named Moses Amyraut (1596-1664)) had the same question. He wished to preach that Christ died for you but was himself a Calvanist (as I presume you are). He decided to reject 1 of the 5 points (limited atonement) in order to satisfy his dilemma.

He claimed that God motivated by His love, had appointed all human beings to salvation provided they repent and believe. He sent Christ to die for the sins of all mankind to implement this purpose. However since human beings would not repent and believe of their own initiative, God then chose to bestow a special merit of His grace to some (ie the elect). God's grace is universal therefore in the provision and particular in the application.

Peter Lombard in his sentences offered the same view essentially, saying Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect alone.

You could preach, "Jesus died for sinners."

I'll often preach this and say, "Jesus died for sinners. If you are not a sinner, Jesus did not die for you. You must be humbled enough to know that you are a sinner. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. Repent and trust Christ alone."

This is the "cliff notes" version, but I think you get the idea.

Blessings,

Jon

Even should you believe in a limited atonement, I believe you would do well to still preach "Jesus died for YOU." Why? Because you don't know who God might be drawing to Himself, and, whoever does believe needs to know Jesus died for THEM. They need to have faith in that. Wesley (I know, an Arminian, but valid just the same), when talking to people one on one would ask, "But do you believe Jesus died for YOUR sins?" We preach so as to give people faith.

Preaching, "MAYBE Jesus died for YOUR sins" can't ever give anybody saving faith, no matter if Calvin or Arminians are right or wrong. People need to have assurance that Jesus died for THEIR sins. And that assurance can only come by faith, "Yes, Jesus died for MY sins!"

Even if you believe in a limited atonement (I do not), in my opinion, such shows you don't really understand the doctrine of limited atonement if you are afraid to preach to all the world that Jesus died for their sins.

And given the nature of open-air preaching, if your doctrine of limited atonement is going to limit who you tell the full gospel to, then why even preach open-air? Why not just stick to one-on-one evangelism, and pray God lets you witness only to those who are predestined to believe? Though I'm Arminian in my theology, I believe even if you are a Calvinist you should be able to preach in the aforementioned manner. I know many great brothers who are Calvinists and open-air preachers. I've never heard them get hung up on limited atonement keeping them from telling everybody that Jesus died for them.

If I may humbly submit:

Study the tearful exhortations to the lost in the preaching of George Whitefield. I haven't found a more genuine brokeness and ardent love for the unsaved than in the preaching and sermons of Whitefield. I think both Calvinists [i]and[/i] Arminians pretty much agree with this...and for good reason. John Wesley himself (though different in theology than Whitefield) was in awe of how God used this brother in winning the lost for Jesus Christ. So study Whitefield. Curiously, all traces of Arminianism and Calvinism would vanish in his open-air preaching - and instead of these, tears would begin to well up in his eyes and fall down his cheeks.

If you don't have this, it makes no difference what your doctrinal stance is on the atonement. The chains will remain.

I agree, Whitefield is great. And contrary to some like Spurgeon who don't believe you are preaching the gospel unless you preach hardcore Calvinism, I believe if you are truly preaching the gospel, being able to tell if the preacher is Arminian or Calvinistic should be a very difficult thing to do.

Excerpt from a letter from Whitefield to Wesley on the issue of Election.

First, you say that if this be so (i.e., if there be an election) then is all preaching vain: it is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. Therefore, the end of preaching to save souls is void with regard to them. And it is useless to them that are not elected, for they cannot possibly be saved. They, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be damned. The end of preaching is therefore void with regard to them likewise. So that in either case our preaching is vain, and your hearing also vain. Page 10, paragraph 9.

O dear Sir, what kind of reasoning—or rather sophistry—is this! Hath not God, who hath appointed salvation for a certain number, appointed also the preaching of the Word as a means to bring them to it? Does anyone hold election in any other sense? And if so, how is preaching needless to them that are elected, when the gospel is designated by God himself to be the power of God unto their eternal salvation? And since we know not who are elect and who reprobate, we are to preach promiscuously to all. For the Word may be useful, even to the non-elect, in restraining them from much wickedness and sin. However, it is enough to excite to the utmost diligence in preaching and hearing, when we consider that by these means, some, even as many as the Lord hath ordained to eternal life, shall certainly be quickened and enabled to believe. And who that attends, especially with reverence and care, can tell but he may be found of that happy number?

I found my answer. Thanks brother Paul.

amen

theopenlife wrote:

"Christ has obeyed the Law and borne the penalty of sin on behalf of all who ever repent and believe on Him by faith alone for salvation.

There is a theological theory that the law regards Christ's obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us.

This doctrine of an imputed obedience for righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a false assumption. Christ's obedience could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us. It is naturally impossible for him to obey on our behalf as a proxy.

This doctrine intends that Christ owed no obedience to the law, and therefore his obedience to the law was superfluous. He was born under the law just as every other person. (Galatians 4:4-5).
Christ would have sinned had he not been perfectly obedient, if not, he would have sinned. It follows that He owed obedience to the law, just as any other man.

Furthermore, if Jesus obeyed the law as our substitute, our own return to personal obedience would not be insisted upon us as an essential part of our salvation.

Uh oh. Lets end this thread here, and start another to deal with the imputed righteousness debate if you so desire. After all, IWantAnguish found the answer to his question from moderator Paul to be sufficient. Case closed.
Joe

Logic,

I was sad over every word I read of yours. How horrible.

God does not have to insist that I obey the law.

He has granted me the grace through the Holy Spirit to love Him, and stay away from things that put my beloved Savior on that tree.

Christianity is a relationship...

In love-

The one thing important is that we must be lead by the Holy Spirit, that He gives us the message to preach without considering to the area where we preach. I remembered the history of one Pastor who one day walked in the street and suddenly the Holy Spirit guided him to shout three times “Jesus loves You”. It was the word of salvation for a feel unloved man. So we do have not to limit the work of the Holy Spirit . If He asks us to say “Christ died for You” ,wherever we are, why do we not say it ?

But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD. Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. (Jeremiah 1:7-8)

For humor only...

Calvinist Witnessing:
http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DR1ckoCBtXvU

Arminian Witnessing:
http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DuFG19iMkrVs