-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Roman Road to Salvation
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
That was my point.
I have already shared my view on Romans Road, although this part of your post deserves a thoughtful response.
You said something important about the way Romans Road is presented. If the purpose of using Romans Road - or any evangelism process - is to elicit a decision, it errs. This type of approach is classic Finneyism. I was trained in this method of evangelism and I grieve over the number of false converts who acquiesced to the process but were never genuinely converted. The New Testament never gives a command to make converts, although it does give the command to make disciples. Obviously, a disciple has to be a convert, but a disciple is someone who grows in their Christian faith. That does not mean we do not share the Gospel with passion. Of course, we do! It does not mean we do not make an appeal to the person we are sharing with to repent of their sins and place their faith in Christ. Of course, we do! While we can do all those things, our true hope is to see a person commit their life to Christ and become a disciple. Of course, we may never see the end result. Sometimes our gospel witness is just a moment in time with someone we may never meet again. That is why I am thankful that converting sinners is not my job. It is the work of the Holy Spirit.
If Christians do not believe Genesis but believe the evolutionary corollary of deep time, then the Roman Road cannot start in Genesis because Christians have to agree that Genesis is false. And if Genesis is false because of Darwin and the corollary of deep time, then the entire concept is nonsense on stilts. And it is the universal acid of Darwinian deep time that is driving the young people out of the churches because they see the hypocrisy of the compromise even if Norman Geisler does not.
Danthemailman
Active Member
Praise the Lord! Back in 1998, I came across a website that explained the Roman Road to Salvation which helped lead me to accept Christ!
I don't think anyone will disagree with these verses presenting salvation by grace, the death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What I disagree with, and have seen first hand, is the superficial presentation of these verses of someone on a beeline to get to the profession of faith. Makes me think a bit of a preacher who has something he wants to say and then goes looking for a verse to use as his "text".
37818
Well-Known Member
Yeah. Those verses need explaination step by step, so the lost person understands and can actually believe the gospel there.
In short, Romans 3:10, Romans 3:23, we are sinners in need of a Savior.
Romans 5:12, we are sinners on account of Adam disobeying God. And we die on account of our own sin.
Romans 6:23 has two parts. We deserve death because of sin. And it needs to be pointed out there is no amount of good works which will satistfy death earned. And if God did not pay us what we earned, that would not be just or holy on the part of God. And then salvation is a gift. And while a gift is free to the recipiant, it is paid for by the giver. How did God pay for this?
Romans 5:8, God paid for this on our behalf with the death of His Son.
Now Romans 10:9 tells us that we can be saved if we acknowledge Jesus became our Lord having bought us from from our death, and we need to acknowledge that God raised up Jesus from the dead as evidence that His Son paid this for us.
Romans 10:13, makes it clear if we ask God and Jesus as our LORD, the promise is to save us.
When Peter preached to the Jews, they had a background so they could understand the message; however, when Paul preached at Mars Hill, the Greeks were totally heathen and required a different approach. Now Americans are heathen and require Paul's approach.
Secondly, Americans believe scientifically that evolution and deep time are true from high school so they do not believe Christianity because Genesis seems like a fairy tale and not a history book. If Genesis is a lie and science is true, then Christianity was built on a lie and the Roman Road is a dead-end street.
37818
Well-Known Member
@church mouse guy
I believe Genesis is historicaly true. That the universe being actually 13.7 billion years old, and the material solar system being 4.5 billion years before the six earth days of Genesis 1, would not change that.
I believe Genesis is historicaly true. That the universe being actually 13.7 billion years old, and the material solar system being 4.5 billion years before the six earth days of Genesis 1, would not change that.
That's contradictory and the young people are keenly aware of it. The scientific reason for the deep time theory of the Enlightenment 200 years ago was in part to contradict Christianity and Judaism and in part to allow time for evolution.
God made the stars, etc. the 4th day. That's out of order for deep time. Also, we know Noah's Flood was 4300 years ago and that all of the fossils are from the billions of animals killed by the flood.
37818
Well-Known Member
So are you arguing that God making stars on the fourth day, that it is impossible for God to have actually also made actual time so they would actually to have a real prior existence too? John 1:3.
BTW the Hebrew text in Genesis 1:16 only says made lights and at that made two lights. The night and stars are prior to the lesser light.
Well, I don't know Hebrew so I could not get into a translation dispute with you as I only know what the English says. Let's skip to another example then. God made the plants on the third day but He did not make the lights on the fourth day. That would not conform to either deep time or evolution.
As to you question about things existing before God said that they were made, I have to go with Scripture that they were made on the day that God said they were made on.
37818
Well-Known Member
The interpretation of Genesis 1 is not a matter of salvation nor the Roman Road, except for God making man.
One's understanding of Romans 5:12 with Genesis 1, Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 in regards to God making man and the mankind's fall into sin because of Adam is relevant.
Genesis 1 is a matter of salvation. In fact when I was pastoring on the Navajo Rez the story of creation was the place to start the gospel since those who are in the NAC believe in a creator. Sharing the gospel with them could never be done with the Romans road. You have to take quite a bit more time with them. Of course I do not believe a 5 minute Romans road presentation is appropriate or best. If you only have 5 minutes it could be a place to start.
I think there is a lot of truth in that. When I started preaching you could talk about biblical things and most people had a general understanding of what you were talking about, even if they didn't believe it. Now many people don't have a clue.
37818
Well-Known Member
Yes. Genesis 1 we find the teaching God made man.
So are you arguing OEC verses YEC or any other variation of interpration is a matter of salvation?
Who said that it was a matter of salvation? I myself am trying to say that young people are trained in evolution and deep time and reject Christianity because they believe that Genesis is not history but a fairy tale overthrown by the science of evolution and deep time.
37818
Well-Known Member
I favor giving an answer which allows for an old universe and a literal 6 days. The fossil record is evidence of the flood and order of burial. Whether it be 4300 years ago or 300 million.
I didn't say that nor did I imply that. I said what I said and meant nothing more than what I said. However, since you ask it would be inconsistent to to hold to an OEC and a literal creation event with a literal Adam and Eve.
We know from science that the flood was only 4300 years ago.