Confused on John The Baptist or this book

[evangelist6589]

This is one reason why its good to test every book and sermon with the one true book the Bible. Okay I am reading a book on soul winning from an Arminian IFB. Parts of the book I agree with and parts I disagree. He makes a case for confrontational evangelism and does not speak highly of those that rely solely on friendship/lifestyle evangelism and he cites a sobering stat that being more than 70% of christians. The author makes a case for HELL which sadly is a topic that Mark Dever and another Reformed author missed in their evangelism books that I have in my library. However Jesus nor the puritans missed that VITAL topic.

Anyways he says in the book that God is the great soul winner (agreed) but earlier in the book he gives himself credit for bringing souls to faith and getting decisions (false). However what confused me a little is that the last chapter I read he uses the example of John the Baptist and says that because John had a good heart for the Lord, God blessed his ministry and he saw fruit. I do not think this statement is completely accurate because its not like Jonah had a good heart, but did his soul winning not out of a passion or anything, but still God brought souls to faith (salvation is of the Lord Jonah himself says in the fish). I believe the authors rational to be not entirely true Biblically speaking. I checked out a few things the Reformed authors said in their evangelism books and they never hinted at such a thing, as God solely brings the converts to salvation being the effectual call of the Spirit.

Has anyone read the book Out of Commission by Paul Chappell? If so get a copy and lets chat about it. Its a very easy read and very inspiring despite some of the rational. I am still reading.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is one reason why its good to test every book and sermon with the one true book the Bible. Okay I am reading a book on soul winning from an Arminian IFB. Parts of the book I agree with and parts I disagree. He makes a case for confrontational evangelism and does not speak highly of those that rely solely on friendship/lifestyle evangelism and he cites a sobering stat that being more than 70% of christians. The author makes a case for HELL which sadly is a topic that Mark Dever and another Reformed author missed in their evangelism books that I have in my library. However Jesus nor the puritans missed that VITAL topic.

Anyways he says in the book that God is the great soul winner (agreed) but earlier in the book he gives himself credit for bringing souls to faith and getting decisions (false). However what confused me a little is that the last chapter I read he uses the example of John the Baptist and says that because John had a good heart for the Lord, God blessed his ministry and he saw fruit. I do not think this statement is completely accurate because its not like Jonah had a good heart, but did his soul winning not out of a passion or anything, but still God brought souls to faith (salvation is of the Lord Jonah himself says in the fish). I believe the authors rational to be not entirely true Biblically speaking. I checked out a few things the Reformed authors said in their evangelism books and they never hinted at such a thing, as God solely brings the converts to salvation being the effectual call of the Spirit.

Has anyone read the book Out of Commission by Paul Chappell? If so get a copy and lets chat about it. Its a very easy read and very inspiring despite some of the rational. I am still reading.

Did peter state to wives to confront their unsaved husbands, or to be gentle and friendly to them, to model jesus by lifestyles, not just words?

Same fathers to lead their children and guide them by relationships/examples, not just merely words?

There is a time to confront and to be bold in witnessing, but didn't Jesus model to us that usually reserved to the really hard hearted?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The author makes a case for HELL which sadly is a topic that Mark Dever and another Reformed author missed in their evangelism books that I have in my library. However Jesus nor the puritans missed that VITAL topic.

Here's the error of the "fire and brimstone" evangelist: Jesus reserved "fire and brimstone" for false self-righteous religious leaders, the Pharisees and Sadducees. When He encountered an unbeliever, He didn't threaten him with hell, though He most assuredly called for him to repent. That's primarily what John did, as well. In fact, his was a "baptism of repentance," the Jewish purification rite.

What Jesus did was:

• Overcome social barriers -- He drank and ate with sinners and tax collectors
• Set aside custom, tradition and rules -- A Jewish man would never even have deigned to look at a Samaritan woman
• He even received the "good gifts" of unbelievers -- again, think the Samaritan woman at the well as He sought water from her
• He engaged in respectful discussion -- with any number of lawyers, scribes, Pharisees (even the ones He sharply rebuked in the end)

What Jesus did not do was threaten hell to anyone who genuinely sought to know Who He was, and what He taught. Jesus even rebuked His disciples for wanting to call "fire" down upon the Samaritans who rejected Him. Though they exhibited rebellion, they did not have a basis of belief as did the Pharisees and scribes who served God through public service and in the Temple.

Preach repentance. Preach forgiveness. Preach love. Even preach the consequences of sin being hell, but it shouldn't be the focus of preaching. It wasn't for Jesus, unless He was talking to people who already knew about it.

 

[evangelist6589]

Here's the error of the "fire and brimstone" evangelist: Jesus reserved "fire and brimstone" for false self-righteous religious leaders, the Pharisees and Sadducees. When He encountered an unbeliever, He didn't threaten him with hell, though He most assuredly called for him to repent. That's primarily what John did, as well. In fact, his was a "baptism of repentance," the Jewish purification rite.

What Jesus did was:

• Overcome social barriers -- He drank and ate with sinners and tax collectors
• Set aside custom, tradition and rules -- A Jewish man would never even have deigned to look at a Samaritan woman
• He even received the "good gifts" of unbelievers -- again, think the Samaritan woman at the well as He sought water from her
• He engaged in respectful discussion -- with any number of lawyers, scribes, Pharisees (even the ones He sharply rebuked in the end)

What Jesus did not do was threaten hell to anyone who genuinely sought to know Who He was, and what He taught. Jesus even rebuked His disciples for wanting to call "fire" down upon the Samaritans who rejected Him. Though they exhibited rebellion, they did not have a basis of belief as did the Pharisees and scribes who served God through public service and in the Temple.

Preach repentance. Preach forgiveness. Preach love. Even preach the consequences of sin being hell, but it shouldn't be the focus of preaching. It wasn't for Jesus, unless He was talking to people who already knew about it.

Of coarse I won't not do that. Those That are humble I give grace. I don't think that Chapel says we need to preach hell to humble people however one Puritan book I have he hits hard on hellfire.

 

[evangelist6589]

Did peter state to wives to confront their unsaved husbands, or to be gentle and friendly to them, to model jesus by lifestyles, not just words?



Same fathers to lead their children and guide them by relationships/examples, not just merely words?



There is a time to confront and to be bold in witnessing, but didn't Jesus model to us that usually reserved to the really hard hearted?

Out of context. In a marriage relationship yes that approach would be best but do not apply that approach to a street/fair/Park context. Apply the book of Acts and see what the apostles did and you will see it aligns with confrontational evangelism.

 

[Yeshua1]

Out of context. In a marriage relationship yes that approach would be best but do not apply that approach to a street/fair/Park context. Apply the book of Acts and see what the apostles did and you will see it aligns with confrontational evangelism.

except that those addressed in Acts originally were Jews, who had crucified the Lord Jesus, and when the Spirit convicted them of that , those saved by the Grace of God repented and came to Yeshua, the one they had denied!

Think we need to go to how paul addressed the gentiles, as those ignorant of the Lord jesus and OT, and you will see the model more like reasoning with them!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

... see it aligns with confrontational evangelism.

I don't see the apostles confronting anyone in Acts. I see relational, conversational evangelism. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

 

[evangelist6589]

I don't see the apostles confronting anyone in Acts. I see relational, conversational evangelism. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

Just a start.

Acts 2:38,40, 3:12, 4:1, 7:51.

Acts 7:51 (NIV) “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

What a wonderful thing to say to an unbeliever. What a strong endorsement of friendship evangelism!

Acts 4:1 (NIV)
The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people.

Acts 2:38 (NIV)
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Looks allot like open air preaching to me. Peter had a crowd and told them to REPENT. He did not have a relationship with any of them but called for REPENTANCE from sin. He CONFRONTED them!

 

[Yeshua1]

Just a start.

Acts 2:38,40, 3:12, 4:1, 7:51.

Acts 7:51 (NIV) “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

What a wonderful thing to say to an unbeliever. What a strong endorsement of friendship evangelism!

Acts 4:1 (NIV)
The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people.

Acts 2:38 (NIV)
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Looks allot like open air preaching to me. Peter had a crowd and told them to REPENT. He did not have a relationship with any of them but called for REPENTANCE from sin. He CONFRONTED them!

Again, important to note the context, as peter was adressing at that time the Jewish peoples, the very ones who had denied Jesus as the Christ, and who knew the OT prophecies of Him!

When we get to the Gentiles, paul seems to be taking more of a tactful/reasoning approach with them, as most of them did not know about a Messiah, nor the OT prophecies as the Jews did!