Things Tradition Has Added to the Gospel

It seems to me that an objection to traditional evangelistic methods based on few real converts is a bit weak. The Bible is clear that the way that leads to God is narrow and sparsely populated (relative to the broad way). Given that this is so, is it likely that, of 200 people who hear and in some way respond positively to the gospel presented in the way LP suggests, more people would be genuinely saved than through the traditional method? I think LP's way of evangelism may prevent "spiritual abortions" but I am not convinced that God would bring many more souls to salvation through it. This isn't to say that traditional evangelistic methods aren't as LP describes, just that criticizing traditional methods by virtue of low numbers seems a little "thin" to me.

Maybe what I'm getting at is, is there anything that suggests that LP's evangelistic style produces greater numbers of genuine converts? Would thirteen out of two hundred responses to the preaching of the gospel the traditional way be the same number LP's way just without 187 fraudulent conversions? Or would it be more? Hmmm...

 

I always thought the phrase, 'Invite Jesus into your heart,' always simply meant, be serious about what you are committing to and 'let Jesus come into your life.' Is that evil? When someone is unsaved we know who lives in their 'heart' perhaps rather said 'in their life.'

Yes, we do agree on the basic issue of being completely, unworthy of His redemptive gift of everlasting life.

Ray

 

Is it evil? It's pushing it to say the least, when you use that phrase as a test of salvation. You previously passed over my comments of what my faith was in and used my lack of "asking Jesus in my heart" to question if I was really one of God's. Again why not use biblical terminology when speaking of salvation instead of clichés you think mean something. You even used another one in this post. What is this “let Jesus come into your life” stuff? Again it sounds religious and all but where do we find Jesus, Peter, or Paul explaining the gospel as, “Let Jesus come into your life?” What does that mean? Where I serve as a missionary that kind of phrase means a multitude of different things. If I have to explain the silly little cliché, if I’m concerned about the understanding of my listener, why not cut to the chase and say what we mean the first time?

Funny how you mentioned my alleged avoidance to the word faith or believe and yet again your post is filled with these little clichés that can mean different things to different folks. Again, why not tell others or me what God’s Word tells us about salvation instead of using clichés, hoping that they understand what we think the catchy phrase means?

 

PackerBacker,

Maybe we were too harsh on the pastor who won 1,000 souls in five years. Did not Jesus say in Matthew 13:24-30 that He alone will be the final judge as to who is saved and who will retain their sins and endless loss.

God tells us that ‘by their fruit we will know them.' I believe we can do this without being Pharisaical judges.

It is true that some saved people remain in spiritual immaturity. Another interesting verse is Matthew 12:20. ‘A bruised reed shall he not break, and a smoking flax shall He not quench . . . ' I have always heard that this means, that the Lord is merciful to those who have so little faith and growth in His ways. I sure hope that the pastor with so many hopeful conversions will be able to guide many of these people into the deeper life of faith.

‘He will not argue or cry out; no one will hear His voice in the streets. He will not break a crushed blade of grass or put out even a weak flame until He makes justice win the victory. In Him will the non-Jewish people find hope.' {New Century Version}.

Maybe we should be asking ourselves how many lost people we have pointed toward the Lord, rather than criticize a pastor who is trying his very best.

Respectfully,

Ray

 

Ray,

Please understand that I am not attempting to be Pharisaical by bringing up the action of the missionary who claims he has “won” over 1000 people even though there is little to no fruit of such. If I remember right it was the Pharisees who tended to fall back on questioning a person’s spiritual condition when they had no scriptural basis for their arguments?

Using your argument, could we not say we are too hard on the Catholics for practicing baptismal regeneration? Why criticize them or their converts that have been “won” by the action of being baptized? Perhaps many of them show no evidence of spiritual birth because, as you said, “it is true that some saved people remain in spiritual immaturity.” Are we being Pharisaical if we question their process that guarantees regeneration but is neither biblical nor worthy of showing much fruit? I don’t understand why we question the lack of spiritual fruit the “other guys” are lacking in, but some like yourself want to excuse the same lack of fruit when it is found within our own circle.

Earlier you wrote this,

What happened to the discomfort you had for “those who might think they will be saved, but will not be included in the eternal kingdom.” You think it is too hard now to question the fact that over 1000 people were told they were saved because they repeated a prayer after a missionary but yet over 90% of these people have zero interest in Christ, no desire to identify themselves with Christ in Baptism, and lives that pattern the works of the flesh instead of the works of the Spirit (Gal. 5:19-25). I’m being to hard for mentioning this? We should just turn our backs on these kinds of situations? A lot of these people will hear “Depart from me, I never knew you.” This is serious stuff! Yes, He did not know them but they sure thought they had done the right things in His name and knew Him. The many trusting in baptismal regeneration or 1-2-3 say a prayer ask Jesus in my heart regeneration will sadly be surprised on that day Christ spoke of.

If you want to dig away at me because I ruffed your feathers wrong about using unbiblical terminology and take the side of the “poor pastor” who’s trying his best, fine that’s your choice. I’ll take the side of the many (examples in a previous post) who have been misled (most likely unintentionally) to trust that they “will go to heaven” just because they said a prayer “asking Jesus to come into their hearts.”

“the man who adds a profession of Christ to his own morality is the most difficult to convince of his unsound profession because he is among the most deceived of all men. “ William C. Nichols

“As many go to heaven with the fear of hell in their hearts, so many go to hell with the name of Christ in their mouths.” (Matthew Mead. 17th century Puritan preacher commenting on Matt. 7:21-23).

 

It is? Says who? These must be those “carnal Christians” that make the “won souls list” but just never make it around to sanctification, having fruits of the Spirit, becoming new creatures, or being conformed to Christ. Someone please file a complaint that the Holy Spirit is not doing His job. Seriously. If it is true that some saved people remain in spiritual immaturity the only one you can blame is the Holy Spirit. Christ promised the Spirit to guide and lead His sheep into all truth and not to remain spiritually immature.

This whole idea you claim as truth has been nothing more than a cover up to excuse the majority of our “prayerism converts” that never show any fruits. As you quoted earlier, we will know them by what…….? Fruits. Some how remaining in spiritually immaturity sounds the opposite of having fruits.

 

Personally, I have never used the phrase "invite Jesus into your heart" in evangelism but,
is Revelation 3:20 a metaphorical statement RE: Inviting Jesus into your heart?

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

HankD

 

PackerBacker,

How do you witness to the lost? And how do you come away from them, assured that you have brought them into a saving relationship to Christ?

Ray

 

Since I’ve yet to see biblical support on this thread for telling people to “ask Jesus in their hearts,” etc I’d say you ask a fair question. One of the issues this thread has brought up is our tendency to follow the processes, plans, and procedures that other people use. We tend to ask others rather than base our practice on clear examples and guidelines from scripture. Ray, I’d be the first to admit I did the same for many years. I’d listen to a tape or buy a book on “soul winning” and use the catchy clichés and techniques based on what others were doing to get results. Yes, the same cliché I questioned you about is one I often used myself. While my numbers were far less that 1000 “won souls” I noticed that the vast majority of those I had gone through “the plan” had never shown any signs of spiritual life. For years I excused it. It’s always easier to blame the so-called convert and call them carnal, uncommitted, and forever spiritually immature than it is to question ourselves. In that way you could rightfully say that I was acting just like a Pharisee in the past. My tradition (way of doing things) had become the standard and unfortunately the scriptures had been set aside. Yes I know our plans use scripture. The Pharisees and scribes used scripture also and some even wore it on their forehead. The problem they had, that we often have, is that we use scripture to back up our tradition.

With all that said, let me answer your question with a question? How did men like Peter, Stephen, and Paul witness to the lost? How were they assured when a person had believed the message of the gospel? Read through Acts again and see what you find. You’d benefit greatly from unbiasedly asking those questions from the NT rather than ask another person like me. This post was not meant to be smug or insulting. What I wrote in this post is to encourage you to search the scriptures and answer the questions from there.

In His service, which is only reasonable,

PackerBacker

 

Yep, Hank that’s the verse many cling to, similar to how the baptismal regeneration folks cling to the water in John 3:5. Often this verse is used in telling someone to “ask Jesus in their heart” or in justification of using such a concept. The problems are many with this. For one, the concepts of asking Jesus into ones heart for salvation is totally lacking from this verse. The biggest problem however is how the context of that verse is ignored. Who is being addressed, the church of Laodiceans who was being rebuked or the lost people of the world who need to open up the door of their heart and let Jesus come in and save them? Hope this helps.

 

Dear PB,

Regarding your response...

"if any man hear my voice"

I believe Jesus here is making a blanket offer to whoever will receive Him into whatever the metaphorical door represents regardless of the individual's spiritual status since He does say "any man". Probably because the then local church of Laodicea was a mixed multitude.

If unsaved then let Him in. If "backslidden" then let Him back in.

The key (I believe) is in what He wants when we let Him in. To have a shared meal. Another metaphor : fellowship.

And we can only have fellowship as we walk in the light as He is in the light. (1 John).

I believe Revelation 3:20 expresses His desire to enter in and have dominion over our entire being (heart, mind, soul, body).

The amazing thing then is that these whom Christ says are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked: are saved believers (or some are) as you have pointed out.

HankD

[ March 15, 2002, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

What vehicle do we use to get a person from sinner to one given everlasting life from God? I think the vehicle is genuine believing in Jesus as the only possibility of removing sins. Present active tense by way of believing . . .

Ray

 

For one thing, can we “get a person from sinner to one given everlasting life from God?” In a sense we can point the person in the right direction by preaching the gospel but there is not a method or vehicle we can use to get the person there. The vehicle as I understand it is faith in the finished work of Christ Jesus. “For by grace are ye saved through faith…” You seem to understand this also, per what you said you think the vehicle is.

We cannot produce faith for another person. Perhaps we agree and it’s just a matter of semantics. What I fear is that some think we can “get” the person from sinner to saint by completing a process we give them to follow, agreeing with the points we bring before them, or by saying a prayer asking Jesus to come into their hearts. It is after completing the prescribed process that many of us declare that sinner now a person with eternal life. Example. “Friend did you really mean that prayer? Well then you are now a child of God.” Then some of us turn around and say, I won Joe to the Lord, I got Joe saved, etc.” Oh really? How can we get someone else saved when we can’t even provide your own salvation?

What if I filled in the last sentence of yours by adding, “present active tense by way of believing.... you are saved because you asked Jesus to come into your heart. Hopefully you’d disagree. If faith is the vehicle by which sinners obtain God’s grace, let’s point them to that vehicle instead of an unbiblical process of asking Jesus in their hearts. Jesus, Paul, Peter, Stephen, etc explained man’s perishing and helpless condition and informed sinners the only way out was through faith in Christ Jesus Alone. They left it at that and the sinners either believed it or not. No sinner’s prayer asking Jesus in your heart, just simply, believe it or not.

I’m just encouraging us all to not unintentionally complicate and distort the message by adding our man made vehicles to eternal life.

 

PackerBacker,

I back you PackerBacker in all that you said.

We are only witness to His glorious plan of redemption. Are we not simply one person telling another where to find His bread? The application of His so great salvation is totally the operation of the Triune Godhead. To Almighty God be all the glory now and in eternity!

Ray

 

Hello, Ray:
Can you show me scritures (not implying, but plainly written) that Christ told His apostles and
His church to tell sinners to receive Him, and only if they receive Him will He save them ?
Thank you.

 

Hello, Joy:

They think they were saved when they responded to the altar call, but if they were truly regenerated souls, in due time, or shall I say, in God's own time, He will reveal to them that they really had no part at all in their salvation, and surrender to God what is truly His: honor, glory, sovereignty.
For grace to be grace, it is absolutely that of the giver, none of the recipient. If the recipient will claim any action on his/her part, passive or active, resulted in his salvation, then it is no longer grace, but works.
Election is a flashpoint for many in so-called
Christendom because they think it demeans God's
merciful character.
But along with His mercy, we need to remember He is Ruler, King, Lord, and Sovereign, which is why He told Moses,

It is told how a woman whose son was condemned to death after having been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt during Napoleon Bonaparte's monarchy approached the Emperor and begged him to show mercy to her son.
The emperor exclaimed :"Woman, your son deserves no mercy." To which the woman replied: Which is why we call it mercy, Emperor. For if he deserved mercy, then it is no longer mercy."
The emperor chewed on that a while, and then said,
"all right, I will be merciful. Your son will not be put to death. He will be released to you."

Napoleon was a Monarch, an Emperor, answerable to no one, and reserved for himself the right to be merciful to whom he will, not obligating him to be merciful to all if he exercised mercy on that one prisoner.

The same with God.
He created heaven, He created the angels, He created the entire universe, He created man. To whom then is He liable if He shows mercy on some ?

 

pinoybaptist

And had this woman's son refused to accept release to his mother? Mercy would have been offered, but not accepted.

Same with salvation; it's OFFERED to everyone, but few accept it.

I think sometimes we get too hung up on this "WORKS" deal to the point of becoming pharisaic; if one insists on calling the mental/spiritual ascent to believing and accepting Christ as his redeemer "WORKS", then in that sense, "WORKS" are required.

Bear in mind though that this "WORK" is nothing that you have done, or can do to merit/earn/deserve your salvation, but just that "WORK" that is necessary (yes, necessary) for Christ to become your personal Saviour; without this "WORK" He will not force you to become His!

Just like a newborn babe has to "WORK" to get it's milk. The mother may offer her breast, but if the infant does not "WORK" to suckle, there will be no nourishment! But we would never say that the infant "WORKED" for his keep; he just accepts what is given freely!

Let's not become pharisees and label such things "WORKS"! They even tried to label Jesus' speech "WORKS" when it resulted in healings. Interesting that He could talk on the Sabbath all he wanted, but as soon as those words commanded healing, He became "a sinner"! Let's not go to that extreme.

[ March 17, 2002, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: just-want-peace ]

 

Pinoybaptist,

I guess I should agree with you that verses like John 1:12 and John 3:16 are just ‘filler Scriptures' that really have no relevance to the lives of sinners or representatives of the Christian community. Does it not appear to you as a directive spoken by God that human beings should believe in order to receive grace? What is the importance of the mandate to ‘receive Christ' if not to enter into relationship with Almighty God.

Another mandate of the Gospel is to preach to every ‘creature.' [Mark 16:16] This leaves every person without excuse when they stand before God. The only way to escape Hell is found in verse 16. To believe in Christ is to be saved.

According to John 3:18 if a person does not believe in Christ, that person has absolutely no possibility of entering Heaven with the Triune Godhead.

Respectfully,

Ray

 

Thanks,LP, for the post. In the short time Keith Green was living he had a lot to say.

Way too many Christians in our American churches are so worldly you can't recognize a difference between them and unbelievers.

So much could be accomplished if we relied and WAITED on the Holy Spirit to convict a person instead of pushing them along on our schedule.

So much could be accomplished is each new convert was DISCIPLED by a mature Christian. Don't you see, by simple multiplication, how quickly the body of Christ would grow...and not just with wimpy, when I feel like it Christians, but with solid, sold out followers.

In America we don't like to wait...we want instant gratification.

In America we don't like to commit too much time or give up too much to nurture someone in the Lord. It's easier to hand out a pamphlet and direct them to a program.

suzanne