Evangelism quiz. Can you pass it?

[evangelist6589]

Below is my quiz. Please answer the questions if you are willing and able to pass the quiz.

Describe an give me examples of the following.

Traditional Evangelism What is it, how do those that advocate it operate, and what do they do?


LifeStyle Evanelism


Friendship Evangelism

Describe the difference between form vs. function in evangelism. Do introverts and extroverts all witness the same?

TRUE/FALSE

1. Those that utilize a sales pitch style of evangelism that seeks to persuade one to say a prayer and uses sales tactics is an effective model of evangelism.

2. LAW TO THE PROUD and Grace for the Humble is a method, and not a principle of evangelism.

3. Open Air Preaching is an ineffective evangelism model because its dated, and most do not listen to the street preacher.

4. Using persuasive apologetic arguments with unbelievers that uses lots of evidences is a more effective way to evangelize than just preaching.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Traditional Evangelism What is it, how do those that advocate it operate, and what do they do?

Those who evangelize biblically, are proclaiming and demonstrating that the Kingdom of God is available to all through word and deed:
- John the Baptist announced it (Matthew 3:1-2)
- Jesus taught it from the very beginning (Matthew 4:17, 23)
- His teaching and actions consistently referred to it (just a few examples - Matthew 6:33, 11:11-12, 12:28, 13:1-53, 18:1-4)
- Jesus sent the 12 out with the same message of the immediacy of the Kingdom that both He and John the Baptist had preached (Matthew 10:7).
- In the Gospel of Luke, we see that Jesus sent out 70 of His followers to also proclaim the same message of the Kingdom (Luke 10:9).

LifeStyle Evangelism

It is the same thing as above in my view. "As one goes" (Matthew 28:19) through life we demonstrate and announce the availability of the Kingdom of God.

Friendship Evangelism

Again, it is basically the same thing. The term "friendship" as a descriptor is helpful in that it reminds believers that they need to invest in the lives of people around them.

Describe the difference between form vs. function in evangelism. Do introverts and extroverts all witness the same?

Everyone is different, so their "witness" will be integrated with their personality. The form that evangelism takes is also as diverse as the audience. I don't worry about the "function" since that is not my role as a witness of the Kingdom of God. The Holy Spirit is the one who makes the witness effective.

TRUE/FALSE

1. Those that utilize a sales pitch style of evangelism that seeks to persuade one to say a prayer and uses sales tactics is an effective model of evangelism.

False. It is completely foreign to scripture and theologically suspect. God manages to use it sometimes, but it is almost always a message of believing and affirming a certain view of the atonement with no necessary connection to the call of Jesus to be a disciple.

2. LAW TO THE PROUD and Grace for the Humble is a method, and not a principle of evangelism.

Not completely true or false. Grace is not merely about forgiveness, but also leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4). If you read the prophets of the Old Testament and the preaching of the New Testament in Acts, you will see that both hard truths and offers of mercy are provided. In Western culture, unless you are talking with someone who has a Jewish or Christian background, use of the Law given to Moses may not be the best way of presenting a gospel witness. Paul, in a completely pagan culture, quoted the poets of Greece on Mars Hill in his presentation recorded in Acts 17.

3. Open Air Preaching is an ineffective evangelism model because its dated, and most do not listen to the street preacher.

As a general rule, I'd say this is true unless you have a tradition in the place of public oratory as some universities have. I my experience with open air preaching, the preacher is usually nutty and preaching heresy and condemnation - not the gospel of Jesus.

4. Using persuasive apologetic arguments with unbelievers that uses lots of evidences is a more effective way to evangelize than just preaching.

False. A person comes to faith on the basis of will, not information or belief. While it is important to be able to have intelligent discussions that answer a lot of questions that unbelievers may have, the real issue is usually not lack of information, but rebellion toward God. The evil one himself has great theology and understands the reality and character of God better than any human being, but he is bound for destcruction because he is in rebellion.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Evangelism is simply proclaiming the evangel (greek for "good news"). Must be prefaced with the "bad news" that cause men to heed the "good".

Methodology differs in location, time, etc. No "sacred cow" single method.

Jesus did one-on-one evangelism to Nick at night telling a very religious Jew he was lost and needed to be regenerated. Then one-on-one to a Samaritan woman by confronting her moral sin and need for the hidden Spirit work in her life.

Jesus did small group evangelism to His disciples. He did street preaching and large mass meetings on cities and hills of Galilee. He even evangelized as He was being crucified.

So personal, group, friendship, preaching, teaching, house-to-house, by the riverside, up a hill (over the river and thru the woods) all work. WE are to be "witnesses" and verify the authenticity of what happened.

"This one thing I know. I was blind. Now I see."

 

[evangelist6589]

Very very good score my friend, you aced them all and gave scripture. I do not fully agree with you on open air preaching and the use of the LAW in evangelism objections, however I see your point, and have read books from others whom disagree with the Way of the Master approach. Very good score. You know your stuff!

On a side note I do believe that sometimes we need to witness to others in non confrontational styles. At BJU they had lots of different ways to witness and one needed to find their groove. Some extension ministries were not for me nor the way I was gifted, but others such as Street evangelism hit me right on the head.

A good book on these details that I have been reading is called Evangelism for the Rest of Us. The author does not bash WOTM, but says its appropriate for some people which is a truth statement. But it is true that God does not call everyone to street evangelism.

Those who evangelize biblically, are proclaiming and demonstrating that the Kingdom of God is available to all through word and deed:
- John the Baptist announced it (Matthew 3:1-2)
- Jesus taught it from the very beginning (Matthew 4:17, 23)
- His teaching and actions consistently referred to it (just a few examples - Matthew 6:33, 11:11-12, 12:28, 13:1-53, 18:1-4)
- Jesus sent the 12 out with the same message of the immediacy of the Kingdom that both He and John the Baptist had preached (Matthew 10:7).
- In the Gospel of Luke, we see that Jesus sent out 70 of His followers to also proclaim the same message of the Kingdom (Luke 10:9).


It is the same thing as above in my view. "As one goes" (Matthew 28:19) through life we demonstrate and announce the availability of the Kingdom of God.


Again, it is basically the same thing. The term "friendship" as a descriptor is helpful in that it reminds believers that they need to invest in the lives of people around them.


Everyone is different, so their "witness" will be integrated with their personality. The form that evangelism takes is also as diverse as the audience. I don't worry about the "function" since that is not my role as a witness of the Kingdom of God. The Holy Spirit is the one who makes the witness effective.


False. It is completely foreign to scripture and theologically suspect. God manages to use it sometimes, but it is almost always a message of believing and affirming a certain view of the atonement with no necessary connection to the call of Jesus to be a disciple.


Not completely true or false. Grace is not merely about forgiveness, but also leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4). If you read the prophets of the Old Testament and the preaching of the New Testament in Acts, you will see that both hard truths and offers of mercy are provided. In Western culture, unless you are talking with someone who has a Jewish or Christian background, use of the Law given to Moses may not be the best way of presenting a gospel witness. Paul, in a completely pagan culture, quoted the poets of Greece on Mars Hill in his presentation recorded in Acts 17.


As a general rule, I'd say this is true unless you have a tradition in the place of public oratory as some universities have. I my experience with open air preaching, the preacher is usually nutty and preaching heresy and condemnation - not the gospel of Jesus.


False. A person comes to faith on the basis of will, not information or belief. While it is important to be able to have intelligent discussions that answer a lot of questions that unbelievers may have, the real issue is usually not lack of information, but rebellion toward God. The evil one himself has great theology and understands the reality and character of God better than any human being, but he is bound for destcruction because he is in rebellion.

 

[evangelist6589]

Evangelism is simply proclaiming the evangel (greek for "good news"). Must be prefaced with the "bad news" that cause men to heed the "good".

Methodology differs in location, time, etc. No "sacred cow" single method.

Jesus did one-on-one evangelism to Nick at night telling a very religious Jew he was lost and needed to be regenerated. Then one-on-one to a Samaritan woman by confronting her moral sin and need for the hidden Spirit work in her life.

Jesus did small group evangelism to His disciples. He did street preaching and large mass meetings on cities and hills of Galilee. He even evangelized as He was being crucified.

So personal, group, friendship, preaching, teaching, house-to-house, by the riverside, up a hill (over the river and thru the woods) all work. WE are to be "witnesses" and verify the authenticity of what happened.

"This one thing I know. I was blind. Now I see."

Very good comments. I am reading a book called Evangelism for the Rest of us which is explaining these facts. Author does not attack WOTM, but says its appropriate for some. However it is true that not everyone is called to witness on the streets. But I am saddened by the apathy towards it by many in the church. In my church for example me and my fiancé are the only ones that hit the streets.

One just needs to find how God gifted them and evangelize in this manor. Some churches and ministries would fire me as I am not a good fit, yet others I would be right at home because its how I was gifted. One just needs to obey God and go out and witness, even if one is all alone.

 

[The Archangel]

There have been some really good comments already. As Dr. Bob has said, one thing that must be included in a Gospel presentation is the "bad news." In other words, people need to know what is wrong before they know how it is made right.

There are two things I'd like to add:

1. It is important to have different approaches.

It is almost never the case that "one size fits all." Even bathrobes in JC Penney say "one size fits most." That said, it would be rather unhelpful if a person could only share the Gospel in one way. That person would have to wait for the conflux of all circumstances to be proper rather than taking the opportunity to build bridges to the Gospel from various opportunities.

I remember doing the SBC's "F.A.I.T.H." evangelism thing....at one point, I had to go to Evangelism Explosion's main diagnostic question: "If you were to die tonight and God were to ask you why He should let you into His heaven, what would you say?"

F.A.I.T.H. has its glaring flaws, but it can be used effectively. EE has its flaws, but it can be used effectively.

The approach I prefer and the approach we teach at our church is Two Ways To Live. I find this "strategy" to be much more sound and well-rounded and, once you learn it, you can use almost any of the areas as a bridge to the Gospel.

2. It is important to always be personal.

It is true what is said: "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care."

One thing that I cannot stand is what I call "drive-by evangelism." It is much more effective to build relationships with people in order to share the Gospel with them. Non-believers see right through our "drive-by" attempts and see us as only interested in ourselves (putting notches on our belts, so to speak) and not genuinely interested in them, their souls, or their relationship with God.

One thing the "easy believism" crowd has done is to pollute the evangelism pool with thoughts of "soul winning" and "making converts." We do not win souls and we do not make converts--it is the Holy Spirit's job and His alone. We do, however, take the message to the masses, and we are commanded to do so. Yet, we're never commanded to make converts or win souls. Instead, the command of The Great Commission is "Make Disciples." There are so many things wrapped up in that that our modern churches miss. We've tried to convince people that Christianity is a one-on-one, Lone-Ranger type of thing. Yet, in the Bible, discipleship has the one-on-one aspect and also the community aspect. To "sell" Christianity as one or the other is to do violence to almost the entirety of Scripture (but I digress).

Evangelism should be taking place primarily (which does not rule-out chance encounters, knocking on doors, confrontational street evangelism, etc.) through personal, investing relationships.

Most churches and most Christians (who are conservative in theology) are so horrifically terrified that any need-meeting for those outside the church will be seen or understood as "Social Gospel" that many churches and many Christians refuse to meet any needs at all, except their own. We through the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bath water. What a wasted opportunity!

So...now that I've rambled on...an evangelist must be equipped knowing how to use different approaches, and an evangelist must be about personal, investing relationships with non-believers. Also, though we may not realize it, every believer is to be a disciple and every disciple is to be an evangelist.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Amy.G]

People who believe in "God" or a deity or creator can be evangelized, but I have never known how to get through to someone who is adamant that there is NO God, the Bible is nothing but fairy tales..ect. I've actually had people tell me that. Many get outright angry and there is nothing to do at that point except let it drop.

All I know to do for these people is to pray for them. Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

 

[The Biblicist]

People who believe in "God" or a deity or creator can be evangelized, but I have never known how to get through to someone who is adamant that there is NO God, the Bible is nothing but fairy tales..ect. I've actually had people tell me that. Many get outright angry and there is nothing to do at that point except let it drop.

All I know to do for these people is to pray for them. Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

The truth is that YOU cannot get to anyone by anything. The problem is the heart and only God can get to them. He uses the preaching of the truth of the gospel - the bad news (repent) and the good news (Christ sufficient and completed provision). The power is in God, not you, your rational arguments or the gospel - He simply EMPOWERS the gospel and breaks down the barriars.

Bottom line is that YOU ARE ALWAYS VICTORIOUS when you share the gospel whether they receive or reject it:

14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Again this text proves the power is not in the gospel but in God who uses the Gospel to save some and condemn others.

So when given the opportunity share the gospel prayerfully. After you have done that sometime the best follow up is a sweet and godly life avoiding the subject out of respect for their desires.

 

[Amy.G]

Bottom line is that YOU ARE ALWAYS VICTORIOUS when you share the gospel whether they receive or reject it:


So when given the opportunity share the gospel prayerfully. After you have done that sometime the best follow up is a sweet and godly life avoiding the subject out of respect for their desires.

Thanks. I agree. :wavey:

 

[Tom Bryant]

Personally, I think the only quiz that really counts concerning evangelism is do you tell people about Jesus?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Personally, I think the only quiz that really counts concerning evangelism is do you tell people about Jesus?

That's an excellent point.

We can talk about methodology and the exact things to say, but the salvation of the lost depends upon the work of the Spirit. If we make ourselves available to God for evangelism, just about any method will be effectual since God can use our simple and meager gifts/efforts to His glory.

 

[AresMan]

People who believe in "God" or a deity or creator can be evangelized, but I have never known how to get through to someone who is adamant that there is NO God, the Bible is nothing but fairy tales..ect. I've actually had people tell me that. Many get outright angry and there is nothing to do at that point except let it drop.

All I know to do for these people is to pray for them. Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

With these people, we have to use presuppositional arguments.

What is your basis for morality?
How do you account for laws of logic?
Why can't I eat my grandma?

 

[saturneptune]

Thanks. I agree. :wavey:

The only group I have found more difficult than those believe that there is no God (atheist)are those who do not care if there is a God one way or the other. (agnostic)

 

[John of Japan]

Below is my quiz. Please answer the questions if you are willing and able to pass the quiz.

I'll take your quiz, but I don't think you'll "pass" me. Our perspective on evangelism is quite different. And I'm sure you wouldn't pass one of my "Personal Evangelism" tests--they're in Japanese. :smilewinkgrin:

Having said that, I commend you for the evangelism you do, and for an interesting way to start the debate. :thumbsup:

Describe an give me examples of the following.

Traditional Evangelism What is it, how do those that advocate it operate, and what do they do?

I don't know that there is such a thing. And the question arises, are you talking about a traditional method in personal evangelism, mass evangelism, or literature evangelism? All of these have existed for 100s, even 1000s of years.

LifeStyle Evanelism

As it is usually presented, lifestyle evangelism teaches that one should get to know the prospect before presenting the Gospel. I believe this idea minimizes the power of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit. I prefer the term relationship evangelism, in which you can present the Gospel at any time in the relationship. The believer doesn't have to "earn the right" to give the Gospel, as McPhee says it (see below). The believer is an ambassador for Christ. Relationship evangelism is important in Confucianist or Islamic cultures. I suggest that cross-cultural evangelism needs to be discussed more by American "experts" on evangelism.

Friendship Evangelism

Many would say this is the same the same thing as lifestyle evangelism. The only book I know about this specifically is Friendship Evangelism by Arthur McPhee, and it was not a good book--antagonistic towards other methods.

Describe the difference between form vs. function in evangelism. Do introverts and extroverts all witness the same?

I've never heard evangelism described this way. In my view, a much more important subject is the sources of power for evangelism, whether one is an introvert or an extrovert: the power of the Gospel, the power of the Word of God, the power of the Holy Spirit.

TRUE/FALSE

1. Those that utilize a sales pitch style of evangelism that seeks to persuade one to say a prayer and uses sales tactics is an effective model of evangelism.

"Salesmanship" aside, I would ask these questions. (1) Is the pure Gospel presented? If so, the method can be effective. (2) Is the soul-winner filled with the Spirit? (3) Does the soul-winner use the Word of God? I have known many who used something like this, but had genuine compassion for sinners and dependence on the Lord.

2. LAW TO THE PROUD and Grace for the Humble is a method, and not a principle of evangelism.

I've never found it in the Bible to be either one. The far more important question is, is the Gospel being presented the pure Gospel?

3. Open Air Preaching is an ineffective evangelism model because its dated, and most do not listen to the street preacher.

Open air preaching does appear in the Bible, so I certainly don't discount it. But again, the effectiveness is not in the method but in (1) the pure Gospel, (2) the power of the Word of God, (3) the power of the Holy Spirit, and (4) the compassion of the preacher. John R. Rice used to say that if a preacher can preach about Hell without tears, he is backslidden.

4. Using persuasive apologetic arguments with unbelievers that uses lots of evidences is a more effective way to evangelize than just preaching.

Apologetics is a tool of evangelism, rather than a rival method to preaching. It can be used in mass evangelism, personal evangelism, relationship evangelism, literature evangelism or any other kind.

 

[John of Japan]

People who believe in "God" or a deity or creator can be evangelized, but I have never known how to get through to someone who is adamant that there is NO God, the Bible is nothing but fairy tales..ect. I've actually had people tell me that. Many get outright angry and there is nothing to do at that point except let it drop.

All I know to do for these people is to pray for them. Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

If you can get How to Work for Christ or various other books by R. A. Torrey, he describes how he often dealt with atheists. The essence of his method was to get the atheist to honestly pray something like, "God, if there is a God, please reveal Yourself to me." He saw many saved this way. Also, remember how powerful the Word of God is. It doesn't matter if the listener believes in the Bible, it is still the sword of the Spirit, and a sword cuts.

 

[evangelist6589]

I'll take your quiz, but I don't think you'll "pass" me. Our perspective on evangelism is quite different. And I'm sure you wouldn't pass one of my "Personal Evangelism" tests--they're in Japanese. :smilewinkgrin:

Having said that, I commend you for the evangelism you do, and for an interesting way to start the debate. :thumbsup:
I don't know that there is such a thing. And the question arises, are you talking about a traditional method in personal evangelism, mass evangelism, or literature evangelism? All of these have existed for 100s, even 1000s of years.
As it is usually presented, lifestyle evangelism teaches that one should get to know the prospect before presenting the Gospel. I believe this idea minimizes the power of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit. I prefer the term relationship evangelism, in which you can present the Gospel at any time in the relationship. The believer doesn't have to "earn the right" to give the Gospel, as McPhee says it (see below). The believer is an ambassador for Christ. Relationship evangelism is important in Confucianist or Islamic cultures. I suggest that cross-cultural evangelism needs to be discussed more by American "experts" on evangelism.

Many would say this is the same the same thing as lifestyle evangelism. The only book I know about this specifically is Friendship Evangelism by Arthur McPhee, and it was not a good book--antagonistic towards other methods.
I've never heard evangelism described this way. In my view, a much more important subject is the sources of power for evangelism, whether one is an introvert or an extrovert: the power of the Gospel, the power of the Word of God, the power of the Holy Spirit.
"Salesmanship" aside, I would ask these questions. (1) Is the pure Gospel presented? If so, the method can be effective. (2) Is the soul-winner filled with the Spirit? (3) Does the soul-winner use the Word of God? I have known many who used something like this, but had genuine compassion for sinners and dependence on the Lord.
I've never found it in the Bible to be either one. The far more important question is, is the Gospel being presented the pure Gospel?
Open air preaching does appear in the Bible, so I certainly don't discount it. But again, the effectiveness is not in the method but in (1) the pure Gospel, (2) the power of the Word of God, (3) the power of the Holy Spirit, and (4) the compassion of the preacher. John R. Rice used to say that if a preacher can preach about Hell without tears, he is backslidden.

Apologetics is a tool of evangelism, rather than a rival method to preaching. It can be used in mass evangelism, personal evangelism, relationship evangelism, literature evangelism or any other kind.

You are correct we do disagree. I do not agree with the term "backslidden" as its a term Arminian use to preach their Fall from Grace doctrine. Perhaps a better term would be "not walking with the Lord" or "falling into the flesh." Also I do not understand why you do not auto condemn sales pitch style evangelism. Are you wanting to lead people into a prayer without their knowledge of sin? If so you are producing false converts.

Also Law for the proud and Grace for the humble is all over the Bible! I suggest you listen to this sermon.

http://www.livingwaters.com/learn/hellsbestkeptsecret.htm

 

[John of Japan]

You are correct we do disagree. I do not agree with the term "backslidden" as its a term Arminian use to preach their Fall from Grace doctrine. Perhaps a better term would be "not walking with the Lord" or "falling into the flesh."

The word "backslidden" is not important in the quote. (And my grandfather was not an Arminian.) What is important is that compassion for those headed for Hell is vital in evangelism.

Also I do not understand why you do not auto condemn sales pitch style evangelism. Are you wanting to lead people into a prayer without their knowledge of sin? If so you are producing false converts.

I did not condemn "sales pitch type evangelism" because I did not think it was important in the discussion. What is far more important is the work of the Holy Spirit in evangelism. Why did you not mention that?

But I would be happy to openly condemn "sales pitch type evangelism" for you. I oppose using sales techniques in evangelism, and do not do so myself. I do not teach it, and I do not advocate it in my writings. I always pray and look for the Holy Spirit's working in evangelism.

Also Law for the proud and Grace for the humble is all over the Bible!

If so, then please show me. Give me Scripture and exegete it please.

By the way, your life's verse is Mark 16:15. Please tell me how that passage teaches using Law in evangelism?

I suggest you listen to this sermon.

http://www.livingwaters.com/learn/hellsbestkeptsecret.htm

Not interested in hearing the whole sermon. I'm debating you, not Comfort. But I did search the PDF of the sermon in vain for anything about the power of the Holy Spirit for the soul-winner. He mentioned Luke 4:18 but did not discuss it. He mentioned 1 Cor. 2:14 but did not discuss it. He mentioned John 16:18 but then applied it to the Law, when the word "Law" occurs nowhere in the chapter!

Consider the book of Acts, which is the history of the evangelism of the early church. The word “law” occurs in the KJV in Acts 21 times. Of those,
1. 19 times are nomoV, the usual word for "law."
2. One time (5:34) is nomodidaskaloV, which is "doctor of the law."
3. One time is agoraioV (19:38), which referred to the secular Roman court.

Only one time did the word in Acts refer to evangelism. In Peter’s sermon in ch. 2 he gave the Gospel clearly, and he did talk about the Holy Spirit’s power and how he had been filled with the Spirit, but he did not discuss the Law. In Peter’s sermon at Solomon’s porch in Acts 3, he clearly gave the Gospel, called for repentance, and even mentioned the Prophets, but not the Law. (He did quote Moses, but not the moral law.) In Acts 4, when Peter preached to the Jewish leaders, he clearly gave the Gospel but did not discuss the Law. However, the passage starts by pointing out that Peter was filled with the Spirit (v. 8).

I could go on, but do I need to? There is only one place among the 19 mentions of nomoV (law) in the book of Acts where someone is said to have proclaimed Christ from the Law (if you have studied the Word of God on this and not just Ray Comfort, you will know where), and in that case the person proclaimed Christ from the Law, not moral failure.

The desperate need of evangelism in the 21st century is not technique, it is not methodology, it is the mighty power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Luke2427]

A person comes to faith on the basis of will, not information or belief.

The opposite is true.

You do not CHOOSE to believe things. You are persuded by information that enters your sphere of observation to believe in things.

Take gravity for example. Do you anchor yourself to the earth everyday in fears that gravity will give way and the centripetal force of earth';s spinning will hurl you out into space?
No.
You have put your faith in gravity and your life shows it.

When did you CHOOSE to put your faith in gravity?

Never.

You have no CHOICE BUT to believe in it. The information you have received CAUSES you to believe in it.

Try as you may, you cannot now choose to STOP believing in it.

Faith is not a choice. It is something that happens to us caused by information that enters our minds and persuades us.

That's one of the many reasons Calvinism presents a much better soteriology than other theologies.

It is consistent with the the invincible fact that faith is NOT a choice.

The problem with non-cal soteriology is that it teaches that we are saved by grace through choice.

But the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace through FAITH.

These are two very different things.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally Posted by Baptist Believer

A person comes to faith on the basis of will, not information or belief.

The opposite is true.

You do not CHOOSE to believe things. You are persuaded by information that enters your sphere of observation to believe in things.

That sounds exactly like the arguments my atheist friends try to make. The presupposition is that humankind is not corrupt and readily accepts any truth that is provided, regardless of the implications or obligations that truth might impose. They try to shift the issue to information, as if information cannot be ignored or denied, instead of personal responsibility.

Take gravity for example. Do you anchor yourself to the earth everyday in fears that gravity will give way and the centripetal force of earth's spinning will hurl you out into space?
No.
You have put your faith in gravity and your life shows it.

When did you CHOOSE to put your faith in gravity?

Never.

You have no CHOICE BUT to believe in it. The information you have received CAUSES you to believe in it.

Try as you may, you cannot now choose to STOP believing in it.

This is a strange argument. One can chose to stop believing in gravity or believe that gravity may suddenly end. That certainly doesn’t change the reality of the effects of gravity. Faith is not required to believe in gravity since we are tangibly involved with it at all times which we are in this material body.

I’m not sure you understand what I’m talking about when I talked about a person coming to faith in God. Initial faith is a belief in the sufficiency of someone/something where you have no previous experience with that person or object. Information is involved, but there is a moment of commitment/choice/trust that one has to make. Our first experience with gravity is from the earliest moments in the womb – before our minds are formed.

Gravity (whatever it is – science doesn’t know why it happens) is imposed upon the physical world and we do not have a choice about it. Faith in God is something that happens as a matter of the will, bringing upon the one who believes certain obligations to act in different ways. Even Calvinists believe this! In the Calvinist tradition, a person is given faith by God as a gift of grace and then exercises that faith on the basis of will.

Faith is not a choice. It is something that happens to us caused by information that enters our minds and persuades us

Strange that you are leaving out the work of God in your description of this process.

That's one of the many reasons Calvinism presents a much better soteriology than other theologies.

I wonder how many other soteriologies you have studied carefully. The various forms of Calvinism do indeed make a convincing theological system. Unfortunately, they also tend to ignore biblical information that doesn’t fit the system. One of the problems with arguing soteriology is that I don’t think the Bible gives us every bit of information about the process by which God saves us. There is an element of mystery there. God is indeed sovereign, but it seems that He self-limits in order to create the opportunity for humankind to exercise our will in order for us to make choices and create both good and evil.

It is consistent with the the invincible fact that faith is NOT a choice.

You have not even come close to demonstrating that faith is not a choice.

The problem with non-cal soteriology is that it teaches that we are saved by grace through choice.

But the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace through FAITH.

Faith involves choice. Even Calvinists believe this.

These are two very different things.

Nope.

 

[Luke2427]

That sounds exactly like the arguments my atheist friends try to make. The presupposition is that humankind is not corrupt and readily accepts any truth that is provided, regardless of the implications or obligations that truth might impose. They try to shift the issue to information, as if information cannot be ignored or denied, instead of personal responsibility.

No, that is not the same at all. Calvinists beleive that sinners are naturally DEAD to the facts of the Gospel.

It is like trying to convince a corpse that the earth is round.

But if you believe the earth is round, you did not CHOOSE to believe it. You were persuaded to beleive it.

This is a strange argument. One can chose to stop believing in gravity or believe that gravity may suddenly end.

No, he can't. You cannot CHOOSE to stop believing in gravity. Try it. You can't do it.

You can SAY you don't believe in gravity, but you can't ACTUALLY not believe in gravity.

Gravity's overwhelming evidences have persuaded you. You didn't choose to believe in it and you cannot choose to stop believing in it.

That certainly doesn’t change the reality of the effects of gravity. Faith is not required to believe in gravity since we are tangibly involved with it at all times which we are in this material body.

Faith is not defined by that which we have in intangible things.

Where do you get that?

I’m not sure you understand what I’m talking about when I talked about a person coming to faith in God. Initial faith is a belief in the sufficiency of someone/something where you have no previous experience with that person or object.

That is NOT what faith is. Not at all.

Information is involved, but there is a moment of commitment/choice/trust that one has to make. Our first experience with gravity is from the earliest moments in the womb – before our minds are formed.

Then apply the same principles to your belief that the earth is round.

Gravity (whatever it is – science doesn’t know why it happens) is imposed upon the physical world and we do not have a choice about it. Faith in God is something that happens as a matter of the will, bringing upon the one who believes certain obligations to act in different ways.

That's nothing more than begging the question.

You are stating point in contention as fact without supporting it.

I wonder how many other soteriologies you have studied carefully.

All of the reputable soteriologies. I have taken about two hundred hours of classes in a reputable Bible college and seminary. Aside from that, outside my seminary education, I have studied the issues vociferously.

I'm not bragging, but letting you know that if you think you are speaking to an uneducated man, you are mistaken.

You have not even come close to demonstrating that faith is not a choice.

You're simply not objective. If you were, you might disagree with my conclusions but you would say that my thoughts, though not conclusive, are compelling.

Faith involves choice. Even Calvinists believe this.

No, it doesn't.