How to Think Thoughtfully About Your Thinking Pt. 1

This is a adult Sunday school class that I am currently teaching at our local church.  Just wanted to share. This series is called “Tactics in Defending the Faith:  A Practical Approach to Apologetics.”  The first question we should answer is what are Tactics?  Webster's defines tactics as  “the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat.” Tactics are for war.  Make no mistake about it. In 2 Cor. 10:3-5, Paul insists on using this language. He says that we are waging war, but not according to the flesh.  He claims to have the weapons for this war.  Weapons that would destroy arguments; weapons that would tear down every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God; and weapons that would take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ.  This is the language of the Bible.  Weapons and warfare. The way that tactics relate to this is that they are  “the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in[that war]”  Tactics inform you of the methods and the strategies in order to be successful in combat.  And there is a science and art to this, as the definition suggests.  That is, there is an objective way to approach them(science), and there is a craft or skill or attractive way to use them(art).   We will see that the Scriptures themselves have a lot to say about this as we proceed.  The big idea of the series is that .“Tactics are employed to help assist others to awaken to the gospel of the glory of Christ, and to repress others who seek to overthrow the kingdom of God.”  Tactics serve to help some to taste and see that the LORD is good, and to stop others from preventing that tasting and seeing.  The ultimate end of using tactics is to help create more worshippers of Jesus Christ. Tactics are not to be used to show one’s self clever.  The minute you do that you are gutting the cross of it’s power.  James Denney once said “No man can give the impression that he himself is clever and that Christ is mighty to save.”  God will not share His glory with another.  Knowledge is not at end to itself.  The purpose of all knowledge is praise.  The Scriptures are crystal clear on this point, “...if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”  1 Cor. 13:2.  Without love for Christ being our motive in tactics, the only thing that ensues is vain pursuit.  This in part, has what informed me to entitle this series “Tactics in Defending THE Faith,” as opposed to “Tactics in Defending YOUR Faith.”  This is not yours or my private, feel-good, irrelevant-to-the-world faith.  This is “THE FAITH that was once for all delivered to the saints.”  Jude 1:3  We are ambassadors of this faith.  We are stewards of this faith.  We are slaves of this faith.  We are slaves of the gospel of the glory of Christ. It it the highest privilege of a human being to image forth this gospel in our speech and in our lives, and hopefully this class with help us to that end.  

There is a purposeful order in the way that this series is structured.  It both patterns itself after the way that people learn, and the way that Scripture teaches.  People learn in 3 stages: 1) Grammar-meaning “input”; 2) Dialectic-meaning “reconciling that input”; 3) Rhetoric-meaning “output of that input.”  The Divine word moves in the same direction, that is, from the invisible to the visible.  The invisible things are the most real things in existence, and those things inform and move our visible world.  Today’s post: “How to Think Thoughtfully About Your Thinking” is the grammar stage.  This is the logos or the objective word.  It is capital R reason, or revelation.  This is the foundation of tactics.  After part 2 of this post, we will be looking at  “How to Think God’s Thoughts After Him.”  We will be seeking to reconcile Scriptures that seem to contradict on the surface, both for our own edification, and to prepare us for the war.  After that we will largely deal with the Rhetoric stage. The posts will include “How to be Passionate in Your Pathos;”  “How to Be Excellent in Your Ethos;”  “The Socratic Method and Non-Sequiturs;”  “The Burden of Proof;” “Ad-Hominem and Straw Men;” “Red Herrings and Reduction Ad Absurdum.”  God-willing, this is the course that we will take.  Some suggested texts that might help in your own equipping would be Think by John Piper;  Tactics by Greg Koukl; Rhetoric by Aristotle; On Guard by William Lane Craig;  How to Argue Like Jesus by Joe Carter & John Coleman and Logic or the Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry After Truth by Isaac Watts.  There’s many more books that could help you, that is just the short list.  

Alright so back to the meat of this post, Paul said in 2 Corinthians 10:3-5“For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,”  Starting in verse 3, what does Paul mean when he says we walk in the flesh?  I don’t think he is necessarily talking about the sinful nature here, although he could be.  I think he means to say that we are flesh, bone and blood; BUT we are not trying to destroy flesh, bone and blood.  This would fall right in line with Ephesians 6:12 “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”   Now, our sinful nature can influence us here, by trying to convince us of the contrary, namely that we ARE fighting against flesh and blood in this cosmic battle.  Is there a time for that?  Yes, but Paul is not addressing this here.  He’s speaking of the most foundational things.  

He goes on in v. 4 “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.”   There are some who war ONLY according to the flesh, BUT NOT true ministers of Christ.  Paul already said just a few chapters earlier  “...we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.”     2 Corinthians 4:7  This surpassing power are the weapons that God furnishes us with.  Us having weapons is God’s idea!  These weapons are necessary for battle with the dark forces.  Calvin says this “...whoever gives himself to the service of God will have not truce from Satan at any time, but will be harassed with incessant [turmoil]”

  Our chief weapons in this warfare are spiritual weapons, and the author of those weapons is none less than the Holy Spirit Himself.  Now if we take this passage and overlay with Ephesians 6 where we see this same type of warfare, we will be greatly assisted in discovering our weapons. The very first weapon that Paul lays out in Ephesians 6 is the “belt of truth.” (v.14) All the other weapons come after this.  Everything flow from this foundational thing, the divine logos.  THis is where we have to start.  We can’t even get to v.5 in our text today where Paul says “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,” until we deal with the truth, with the logos, with logic.  It is the invincible laws of logic that will guide all of us on “How to Think Thoughtfully About Your Thinking.”

The Christian skeptic at this point might say, ‘why don’t we just start with Scripture?  Why are we going to start with logic?’  Good question.  Let’s throw a Scripture verse up  to see if that is our starting point.  One of my favorite verses showing that rationality is in fact an attribute of God is 1 Corinthians 14:33 “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.”  I want to show you something that all of us perhaps take for granted.  This sentence is a short sentence and fairly straightforward.  But how do we interpret this sentence?  First of all, what is a sentence?  A sentence is a combination of words that includes a subject, which is what the sentence is about; and a predicate, which is what the subject is or what the subject is doing.  Ok, but what is a word?  A combination of letters that signify a thing.  Ok, but what is a thing?  That’s what logic answers.  You see none of us can just start with Scripture, because the Scripture is full of sentences, which is full of words, which are things.  If we don’t know what those things are, then we can’t know what those words mean.  If we don’t know what those words mean, then we can’t know what those sentences mean.  Any sentence, Scriptural or otherwise, must first be logical before it can be anything else.  In other words, a statement must first be reasonable before it it revelatory.   That means that a thing must first be logical before it can be.  It must be possible before it can be actual.  

Alright, so what is logic?  Webster’s defines logic as “The art of thinking and reasoning justly.”

  The art of thinking.  Think about that. The art of thinking and reasoning justly, or better yet, reasoning rightly.   Logic is the art of right thinking.  Now I want to change this slightly to highlight a meaning that is already there, but perhaps you might not see it.  Let’s change art to beauty.   Logic is beauty of right thinking.  I think that you probably already think like this, perhaps you just haven’t reflected on it yet.  When you tell somebody “that was thoughtful,” what are you saying to them? You’re ultimately telling them that “you are being beautiful in the way that you are thinking.”  Your thoughts are participating in beauty.  Aquinas once said “...the beautiful is called that which participates in beauty...

  Beautiful thinking means that one’s thoughts are congruent, or symmetrical with reality.  Beautiful thinking is participating in Divine thinking, which is the only thinking that is real, or true, or even possible.  So the  THE BIG IDEA. of this first post is that logic is the beauty of right thinking. 

How Did the First Christians Preach?

This particular topic I believe can really instruct not only the modern pastor, but also the modern layperson as to what sermons should look like. Sitting in Starbucks the other day, there were some BBC students sitting next to me and they were doing research for their classes.  One of them was googling “the best places to find sermon illustrations.”  Not an illegitimate venture.  I’ve used many a search engine to find illustrations.  However it struck me as I was sitting there thinking about it, that I was witnessing a real life illustration of how many sermons are constructed today.  All illustration.  All story.  All entertainment.  Very little content.   To be clear, I’m a fan of illustration.  Charles Spurgeon called illustrations windows through which the light comes in.  In fact, Jesus used illustrations, stories, and parables.  He, who was God incarnate, approved of these invaluable literary devices.  But let’s be honest, that’s what they are, devices or tools that serve as lights, illuminating the precious truths of Christ.  They are not the truths themselves.      

Having said that, the book of Acts contains the historically oldest sermons that followed the ascension of Jesus Christ.  These sermons were soaked in Holy Spirit empowerment and loaded with the richest content straight from the source.   These sermons were preached at great risk, not only to preacher’s lives, but also to the lives of their listeners.  It is from these sermons that a type arrises for which all other sermons ought to be modeled.  

THE BIG IDEA is that the first sermons were covenantal in nature, kā-rü's-sō  in manner, and Christological in content.

I. Covenantal in Nature.

II.  Kā-rü's-sō  in Manner.

III.  Christological in Content. 

DOCTRINE

I.  Covenantal in Nature

What do I mean that these sermons are covenantal in nature?  Last semester we completed our covenant theology class which is not a disconnected idea from what we see here.  A covenant is a binding contract or an agreement between two or more persons.  A divine covenant is a “...bond in blood sovereignly administered.”

John Frame says something helpful here when examining the Biblical account “...the whole Bible, diverse in content as it may appear at first sight, can be seen as a story of God making covenants and man responding to them.  The books of law show what God expects of his covenant people.  The books of history indicate man’s actual response.  The psalms contain the praise, the laments, the questionings, the blessings and cursing that should be on the lips of a covenant people.  The wisdom books contain applications of the covenant law to human problems.  The Prophets bring God’s covenant lawsuit against the covenant-breakers while at the same time promising covenant renewal.”  (John Frame pg. 146-147 The Doctrine of the Word of God P & R Publishing 2010)  

      In the Gospels we see Jesus Christ, the Son of God, breaking into time, putting on flesh so that he can establish the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 with his own blood.  In fact, we find Him using that language at the last supper when He said  “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”  Matthew 26:26-28  When He rose from the dead, His followers were commissioned to go out and to declare to the world the terms of that covenant.  I use “followers” instead of apostles because we find new disciples being spiritually raised from the dead who also carry these covenant stipulations to the world, and not just apostles.  That same idea is undeniable true today as well.

Regarding the ingredients of a covenant, we see that both Biblically, as well as historical accounts apart from the Bible, that the elements of a covenant are the following:  

1.  Name of the great king  

2.  Historical prologue  

3.  Stipulations (laws) 

     a. Exclusive loyalty (=love)  

     b. Specific requirements]  

4.  Sanctions (blessings and curses)  

5.  Administration

  

These elements, more or less, are the DNA of the sermons found in the book of Acts.  Lets look at some specific examples.

Stephen in Acts 7  spoke in terms of a covenant in the longest sermon recorded in the book of Acts.  His sermon might be the most complete picture of all of those elements.  He refers to the name of the great king is in v. 2  “Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran,”  This mention of the great king of the covenant is the ground for his entire discourse.  Next we see the second element of a covenant being the historical prologue.  Stephen makes mention of the birth of the nation of Israel, through the Exodus, through the kingdom, and makes mention of all the major players of the covenants being Abraham, Moses, and David.  He then reminds his listeners of the third element being the  stipulations of the covenants.  To Abraham in v. 3, God says  “Go out from your land and from your kindred and go into the land that I will show you.”  God then gives him the covenant of circumcision in v. 8.  Stephen goes on to preach that those stipulations were expanded in the Mosaic covenant in v. 30ff.  These stipulations demanded exclusive loyalty..., and specific requirements, in the form of the law, were laid out for God’s covenant people.  Connecting to those stipulations, Stephen reminded his listeners of the sanctions, or the blessings and cursing, following obedience or disobedience respectively.  First, God promises to bless and protect His covenant people in v. 6-7 “And God spoke to this effect—that his offspring would be sojourners in a land belonging to others, who would enslave them and afflict them four hundred years. ‘But I will judge the nation that they serve,’ said God, ‘and after that they shall come out and worship me in this place.”  Likewise, we also see the cursing that follows his people because of their disobedience in v. 39 “Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt.”  Stephen tells of God’s response in v. 42  “But God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven,”  Of course the ultimate cursing came when Israel was completely cast out of their land by God.  This demonstrates the administration of the covenant from first to last.  Not only did God create it in the beginning, but He made sure that this binding covenant was carried out to the end.  This covenantal nature was what made up Stephen’s sermon.  We see these same elements scattered throughout the other sermons in acts, although not with the same comprehensiveness.  

If we look at Peter’s sermon at the Temple in Acts 3, se see in v. 13 that he makes reference to the great king  at the beginning of his address:   “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers.”  A covenant is of course between two parties so he addresses them as being the lesser party in the covenant, v. 25 “You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’”  His sermon is basically a retelling of the binding covenantal relationship that Israel has with her God. 

Likewise we see Paul in Acts 13 preaching in Antioch starting off his sermon by making mention of God as the Sovereign administrator in v. 17  “The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with uplifted arm he led them out of it.”  You can also hear the historical prologue and the sanctions that God bestowed on his people (back to the verse) “He made the people great” and “with an uplifted arm he led them out.”  Paul preaches on in v. 32-33  “...we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus,”  Here he points to the end in God’s administration of the covenant, in that God fulfilled his promise to the fathers by raising Jesus.

       We see this same covenantal nature in the rest of the sermons, although not as explicitly laid out.  However, they all do bear at least some of the elements of covenant in them.  

So an objection could be made in regards to the “Gentile” sermons in the book of Acts.  One could say that these “Jewish” covenants weren’t made with non-Jews.  A couple answers immediately present themselves.   1)  That the covenant made at creation is binding on all of God’s creatures, including Gentiles.  This is why Paul in Acts 17 on Mars Hill tells the Athenians in v. 26-27  that God  “...made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him,”  The word “that” introduces the ground for God doing His actions.  God did all these things so that mankind should seek him.  That word “should” speaks of “oughtness.”  All mankind ought to seek God, because God created them.  That is the creational covenant that all mankind are bound under.  This is exactly the argument we see Paul making in his letter to the Gentile Romans.  God created at the beginning, and He is angry because mankind has refused to honor Him or give thanks to Him as God.  In fact all mankind suppresses that truth and therefore break that covenant that they are bound under.

     One more thing regarding this before we move on to the next section.  The medium for the covenant was the written word of God found in the Scriptures.  Over and over again throughout these sermons, you find the preachers constantly appealing to the Scriptures as the basis of authority.  They would say things like “...this is what is spoken of through the prophet” Acts 2:16, or “Moses said” Acts 3:22, or “...I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass:”  Acts 26:22  etc.  It’s clear that these 1st century preachers were appealing to the covenant agreement that the Lord God gave to them.  

II.  Kā-rü's-sō in Manner.

     What do I mean by Kā-rü's-sō in manner?  This is the Greek word for preaching.  When these 1st century preachers preached, they did so in a Kā-rü's-sō manner.  Biblically defined, this means to “...to be a herald; to proclaim after the manner of a herald;  to publish, proclaim openly: something which has been done;  always with the suggestion of formality, gravity and an authority which must be listened to and obeyed.”

      There is another word for preaching, but it has less to do with the manner, and more to do with the content.  It is the word yü-än-ge-lē'-zō, and it’s where we get the word evangelize from.  This word speaks to the good news of God’s kindness being brought to the nations.   It is the literal spreading of the gospel.  It is a proclaiming of glad tidings.   It is a verb with content. Kā-rü's-sō  speaks to the manner in which this preaching is done.  Now the 1st century preachers certainly evangelized, but more than that, there was an urgency in their preaching.  A sense of gravity and authority that must be listened to and obeyed.  

I’ll give a few examples of this urgency in their preaching, but first we need to ask: where did they get this authority from?  Jesus, in the great commission, said that “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”(28:18) On the basis of that authority He tells them in Mark 16:15 “Go into all the world and proclaim [Kā-rü's-sō] the gospel to the whole creation.”  That’s just His first followers did.   So listen to the urgency in their manner here.  Peter in Acts 2:14 said  “...let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.”   Paul in Acts 13:16 said “Men of Israel and you who fear God, listen.”   Paul in Acts 20 when he preached to the Ephesian elders  “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock...be alert.”(v. 28, 31)  The very last sentences in the book of Acts includes this Kā-rü's-sō again from the lips of Paul.  In Acts 28:25-28, we find him in Rome.  After trying to convince a Jewish crowd of the Lordship of Christ to no avail, he says this  “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet:  “‘Go to this people, and say, “You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.”  For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’ Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.”  That quote from Isaiah was Isaiah’s direct commission from God to go preach with authority to the people of Israel in his day.  Paul preaches here with Kā-rü's-sō applying it directly to his listeners.   He was heralding these words and they bore the same gravity and authority that Isaiah rendered in his day.  

This is how the 1st century disciples preached, in a manner of urgency, with gravity.  There was no flippancy or a sense of being cavalier in their speech.  It was ‘listen to these words as if your life depended on it, because in fact it does.’  Sin was not compared to chocolate cake in their preaching, like I’ve heard a modern “preacher” claim.  That’s not Kā-rü's-sō, that is Ccrraappo.

So what about modern preachers?  Where do we get our authority from? 1) I would point back to the great commission to where Jesus said that he would be with us always, even to the end of the age.  The disciples who actually heard those words died long ago and their mission ended.  Therefore, Jesus was commissioning all his disciples even unto the end of the age.  2)  I would point out Paul’s instruction to Timothy in 2 Tim. 4:2 “...preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.”  That charge is to all of those who would take up the mantle of pastor especially. We are to preach the word.  Again Kā-rü's-sō.  We are to Kā-rü's-sō the word with all gravity and authority because it it in fact God’s own word. 

III.  Christological in Content

What do I mean by Christological in content?  I mean that the center of the 1st century preacher’s universe was Christ.  Their content was throughly Christ saturated and Christ centered.  They preached in such a way that pointed away from themselves, and solely pointed to Christ. Amazingly this was even done when Paul gave his personal testimony.  The part that he personally played in that story was a collateral effect of Christ breaking in as the main actor, the main player, the main mover and shaker in all of history. 

A few examples of this: 

1) In regards to the exclusivity of Christ,  Peter at Pentecost says that “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”  Acts 2:21  Implication:  only those who actually do call will be saved, all others will be lost.  Acts 3:23 records Peter saying “And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.”  That prophet is Jesus Christ as prophesied in Deut 18:15  Next Peter preaches in Acts 4:12 saying “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”  The only hope that was given in these 1st century sermons was that of Jesus Christ and His sole ability to save.  

2) The Christological content of these sermons showed the suffering of Christ.  Peter preaches in Acts 2:23 “...this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”  At the temple he says in Acts 3:18 “But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.”  In Acts 5:30 he preaches “The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.”  Later, in Acts 13:28-29, Paul preaches in Antioch and tells of the part that the authorities played in the suffering of Christ “And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed. And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.”  

3)  The Christological content of these sermons demonstrated the exaltation of Christ.  This would not only include his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension, but His current ruling and reigning at the right hand of God as well.  Peter at Pentecost speaks about David and connects his prophecies to Christ.  Acts 2:30-32  “Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ...[v. 32] This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.”  Resurrection.  Ascension.  Ruling and reigning at the right hand of God.  Acts 4:11 says of “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.”  The chief cornerstone, that is the most important, the most prominent, the most exalted.  Stephen before he was stoned to death was filled with the Holy Spirit and he “...gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”  Acts 7:55-56  His exaltation of Christ were the last words that he spoke in his sermon before he perished.  

4) The Christological content of these sermons demonstrated the grace of Christ.  Although all of the listeners, and the preachers themselves were covenant breaking, God-haters, just like us, grace was offered in the preaching of the gospel.  In Acts 5:31 Peter preaches that because Christ was exalted, grace will be granted. “God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.”   Paul at Antioch tells his listeners “Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.”  Acts 13:38-39  In fact Paul before heading off to Rome basically tells the the Ephesian elders that He has not failed in preaching the whole counsel of God and that he “...testified both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.”  Acts 20:21  

5) The Christological content of these sermons demonstrated the treasure of Christ.  Peter preaches in Acts 3:20 that the  “...times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus.”  A couple verses later he says that Christ is said to be the one in whom “all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”(v. 25)   Paul in his sermon/defense before Agrippa in Acts 26 records the words that Christ spoke to him when he commissioned him.  He said  “I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.”  Acts 26:17-18  NASB uses the word “inheritance” there instead of place.  It means the same thing, that those whose eyes have been opened will receive an inheritance.  That inheritance is nothing less than God himself.  

In conclusion we see that the first sermons in the Book of Acts were covenantal in nature, kā-rü's-sō  in manner, and Christological in content.

Being Winsome in our Evangelism

I received this email tonight, and thought that it was too excellent to not respond to and then repost here.  Hope it's helpful: 

1. It is true that some people, through winsomeness and tactics, are more effective at evangelism than others.

2. It is true that the person being saved has absolutely nothing to do with the process; It is 100% God "flipping the switch" so to speak.

How do you resolve the contradiction between these two beliefs? If becoming a Christian has nothing to do with the person being saved and how much they appreciate the evangelists' tactics and winsomeness then how can those same attributes make the evangelist more effective?

Those attributes should only be effective when you are trying to convince someone of something that they themselves have some role in when it comes to the decision process. A winsome car salesman with finely tuned tactics will be more effective at getting the consumer to make a certain decision but that's because it's a decision that that consumer is involved in. If the consumer had absolutely no say in the matter then the salesman's winsomeness and tactics would be irrelevant; A poor salesman would be just as effective.

Very good questions.  Obviously some deep thought went into them.  

2 things have to be in view when solving this conflict.

1)  The Glory of God is the reason we do everything that we do AND the reason that God does everything He does.

2)  There is a multiplicity of causes to everything that happens in the universe. 

So in addressing the first proposition:

1. It is true that some people, through winsomeness and tactics, are more effective at evangelism than others.

Proverbs and the New Testament are very clear that this is absolutely true.  "The wise in heart will be called understanding, and sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness." Proverbs 16:20 (Notice that this proverb is in one of the most God sovereign chapters in all of Proverbs. Specifically vs. 1, 4, 9, 33 )  "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity.  Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person." Colossians 4:5-6 (This one is key especially for addressing the next question.  Notice that there is a way you should respond to each person.  Paul is saying there is a response that "ought" to be offered.)

So regarding proposition #1, I absolutely agree that some people are more effective at evangelism than others, because they are taking these Scriptures (and many others) and synthesizing them into their evangelism and are being obedient in that process.  (Perhaps a different question could be asked:  What makes the difference between some people's evangelism and others?)

Addressing the second proposition:

2. It is true that the person being saved has absolutely nothing to do with the process; It is 100% God "flipping the switch" so to speak.

This is also absolutely true.  "What shall we say then?  There is no injustice of God, is there?  May it never be!  For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."  So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth."  So then He has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires.  You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault?  For who resists His will"  On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?  The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?  Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump on vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"  Romans 9:14-21

There's more that could be said about this.  The Scripture witness is overwhelming that God is the one who sovereignly decrees how everything falls out.  (Eph. 1:3-6, 11-12, Isaiah 45:6-7, 46:10, 48:9-11, etc.) 

How do you resolve the contradiction between these two beliefs? If becoming a Christian has nothing to do with the person being saved and how much they appreciate the evangelists' tactics and winsomeness then how can those same attributes make the evangelist more effective?

This is the conflict between human responsibility and the Sovereignty of God.  Understanding this conflict is key to understanding much of the Scripture.  For every effect in the universe, there is a multiplicity of causes that bring that effect into being.  For instance, when a house is built, it takes the people who want to build the house; it takes $ from the people who want to build the house, it takes blueprints, it takes construction workers and their tools, and it takes building material.  All of these are causes in the building of the house, but they are all not causes in the same way.  The efficient cause is the chief causer, and the end cause is the motive for him doing what he does.  So to chart it out below:

The efficient cause:  The $ from the "homeowners"

The formal cause:  The blueprints

The material cause:  Construction materials

The instrumental cause:  The workers and their tools

The end cause:  The DESIRE from the "homeowners: to have a house built. (Closely related to the efficient cause)

In salvation, God desires to save some for the motive of His own glory.  God's own fame is His chief concern in all of the Scriptures.  Do a word search on "my name's sake," "my glory" "for the sake of my name," and you will find that this is the reason why God does everything that He does AND the reason that should inform every action that we do. God wanted to save some in order to show them how merciful He is which highlights His glory.  "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?  And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory," Romans 9:22-23

So that's God's job.  He is the efficient cause and the end cause.

Our job is to be winsome because it says something great about God.  We do what we do because it says something about God and not about us.  In other words, we should evangelize excellently, because to do otherwise would lie about God's character.  We are the instrumental causes in His hand, which is an effect of His efficient and end causes.  When we evangelize excellently, which tells the truth about God, God often sees fit to bless that work and make the evangelist effective.  When we evangelize horribly, which lies about God, God often does not bless that work and thus the evangelist is not effective.    (BTW, even this "excellent evangelism" is a result of God working in us-cf. Phil 2:13)  In either case, it is still God who is ultimately the deciding factor.  However our obedience to Him is just that, it is a command from Him to us to conform to His holy character. 

Those attributes should only be effective when you are trying to convince someone of something that they themselves have some role in when it comes to the decision process. A winsome car salesman with finely tuned tactics will be more effective at getting the consumer to make a certain decision but that's because it's a decision that that consumer is involved in. If the consumer had absolutely no say in the matter then the salesman's winsomeness and tactics would be irrelevant; A poor salesman would be just as effective.

Regarding the first sentence here.  Why does think this have to be the case?  What's the governing authority that says this is so?

God's word says that our role in the decision making process always has us saying NO to God when the Holy Spirit is not present.  "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." 1 Cor. 2:14 (cf. Romans 8:7-8)  "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing;...For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father." John 6:63, 65. "There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God;  All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, there is not even one." Romans 3:10-12.

We always say no to God in our flesh.  Without the Holy Spirit acting first (Ezekiel 36:26-27, Jer. 31:31-35), there is no hope for a man.  God must work first.  

The analogy of the car salesman is good but it's comparing apples with oranges.  The person can't buy the car because he's dead and is in need of a resurrection.  The "tactics" that the car salesman engages in is preaching the word of God that is in accord with how it should be preached.  So he's preaching the Word of God, which God says is necessary for a person to hear and believe, and he's doing it in a way that honors God and is therefore being obedient.  The dead man will respond if God makes him alive to hear.  

Bottom line:  We should be winsome because it honors God.  God will save whom he will in the process.