Soul-winning vs Evangelism

[Tom Butler]

I agree that if we are not careful this can turn into a numbers game, or praising one's self. But I don't think "I led a soul to Christ" says that. I think it says, "I was obedient to the Great Commission, and God saved a soul." Maybe it is different in the crowd you hang out with.

John, it's about the same in my crowd as yours. I essentially agree with what you wrote. Not to nitpick, but to fine tune: How about "The Lord gave me the privilege of leading a soul to Christ." My main concern is that what we say doesn't match up with what we feel. I think this is an area that we ought to pay some attention to.

In fact, I've been riding this horse for a long time--that is, that we ought to re-examine everything we do and say in presenting the gospel to make it line up with scriptural example.

 

[John of Japan]

John, it's about the same in my crowd as yours. I essentially agree with what you wrote. Not to nitpick, but to fine tune: How about "The Lord gave me the privilege of leading a soul to Christ." My main concern is that what we say doesn't match up with what we feel. I think this is an area that we ought to pay some attention to.

In fact, I've been riding this horse for a long time--that is, that we ought to re-examine everything we do and say in presenting the gospel to make it line up with scriptural example.

And I certainly agree with being Biblical! :thumbsup:

 

[John of Japan]

You know, I just had a thought that is very important...

If everyone would just do their part of evangelism, whether it be direct (soul winning) or indirect (inviting to church), and if everyone would just let the Holy Spirit lead them into what to say to people, souls would get saved..

Oh, and if everyone would quit paying attention to what others are doing, it would help too.

That is the one thing that I grew up with....the competition between people on how many souls were "won". They looked at each others weekly totals, and for me now when I hear "soul win" I think of this competition. Soul winning in the Bible is about winning them to God, like Bapmom said, (I think she was the one) not about winning a competition.

That may be why I use the term "evangelize" more than "soul win". but I mean the same thing:

Telling people about what Jesus did for them.

Bro. Tim, I too have known people in the States who compared themselves with others in the matter of soul sinning. "But they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise" (1 Cor. 2:13).

However, we don't have that problem here in Japan, a Gospel-resistent country. Much of our task is simply planting seeds in the hearts of people who have never even heard of Christ other than the name "Christianity."

 

[John of Japan]

No. I used to. but i just don't see any 'invitations' of this type in the NT.

I just like to tell them about"Jesus Christ, and him crucified".

I certainly applaud your zeal for the Lord. Praise the Lord for every time the Gospel is shared and the Great Commission obeyed.

Let me share something with you, though. Calvinist author J. I. Packer disagrees with you, and believes that Christians have a responsibility to actually convince people of Christ's salvation, not just witness of it. I think his exegesis is inescapable. (Note: to non-Calvinists I recommend the writings of John R. Rice, not J. I. Packer! :smilewinkgrin: )

"Paul's ultimate aim in evangelism was to convert his hearers to faith in Christ. (Emphasis in the original--JOJ.) The word 'convert' is a translation of the Greek epistrepho, which means--and is sometimes translated--'turn'.

“We think of conversion as a work of God, and so from one standpoint it is; but it is striking to observe that in the three New Testament passages where epistrepho is used transitively, of ’converting’ someone to God, the subject of the verb is not God, as we might have expected, but a preacher. The angel said of John the Baptist: ‘Many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.’ (Luke 1:16). James says: ‘Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner…shall save a soul from death…’ (James 5:19 f.). And Paul himself tells Agrippa how Christ had said to him: ‘I send thee (to the Gentiles) to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God,’ and how he had obeyed the heavenly vision by proclaiming to both Jews and Gentiles ‘that they should repent and turn to God’ (Acts 26:17 ff.). These passages represent the converting of others as the work of God’s people, a task which they are to perform by summoning men to turn to God in repentance and faith” (Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, J. I. Packer, pp. 49-50).

Packer actually even uses the term “win souls” a couple of pages later, speaking about Paul: “His aim and object in all his handling of the gospel, even in the heat of the polemics which contrary views evoked, was never less than to win souls, by converting those whom he saw as his neighbours to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” (ibid, p. 53).

 

[ituttut]

Actually, Billy Sunday did not conduct ecumenical crusades, but interdenominational crusades. There is a huge difference. The old time evangelists--Sunday, Moody, Torrey, Sam Jones, Bob Jones, John R. Rice, etc.--never cooperated with liberalism and Catholicism as ecumenical evangelism does. It took Billy Graham to take that road at his New York Crusade in 1957.

Thanks John of Japan. Poor choice of words on my part, but he helped to turn interdenominational into ecumenical, as we know it today. He had both fundamental and Pentecostal. Do we believe as do the Pentecostal's, of which the Catholic church happens to be? The mixing of doctrines was evident at His meetings.

Of note, the term liberalism as used in theology did not come into existence until around the 1950, or early 60's.

Ecumenical: Concerned with promoting unity among churches or religions (Doctrines)

Interdenominational: Occurring between or among or common to different churches or denominations (Doctrines)

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks John of Japan. Poor choice of words on my part, but he helped to turn interdenominational into ecumenical, as we know it today. He had both fundamental and Pentecostal. Do we believe as do the Pentecostal's, of which the Catholic church happens to be? The mixing of doctrines was evident at His meetings.

Actually, you can go way back to Jonathan Edwards if you want to talk about interdenominational evangelistic meetings. But Billy Sunday was a committed fundamentalist, and hated liberalism.

Virtually all of the old time evangelists were interdenominational. I heard John R. Rice say that he would have meetings including Pentecostals to see revival and see souls saved if they would promise not to mention tongues but stick to the main theme. This was before the Charismatic movement started in the early 1960's, the Charismatic movement being ecumenical in the worst way. The old time Pentecostals were actually very fundamental.

Of note, the term liberalism as used in theology did not come into existence until around the 1950, or early 60's.

Sorry, but you are wrong here. Have you not heard of the great battles of liberalism vs. fundamentalism in the major denominations beginning in the 1920's? In fact, the original series of booklets called "The Fundamentals," published from 1910-1915, from which the term fundamentalism was coined, were written specifically to counter theological liberalism. To give another example, J. Gresham Machen had a famous lecture, "Liberalism or Christianity?" in the early 1920's and put out a book, Christianity and Liberalism, in 1923.

In point of fact, liberal theology goes back to German theology in the first half of the 18th century, coming from men like Schliermacher and Baur and Ritschl, who based their theology on the philosophies of Kant and Hegel.:type:

 

[ituttut]

No. I used to. but i just don't see any 'invitations' of this type in the NT.

I just like to tell them about"Jesus Christ, and him crucified".

Yes. The Word is progressive, and we see the evidence of that. God stopped talking to Man about Salvation when He stopped talking to Paul. He stopped talking to all when giving He that was allowed to "tarry" His last Words. But man wishes to keep adding, believing they are talking for God.

 

[ituttut]

I certainly applaud your zeal for the Lord. Praise the Lord for every time the Gospel is shared and the Great Commission obeyed.

You can't really mean this, Obey the "great commission"?

 

[ituttut]

Originally Posted by ituttut
Thanks John of Japan. Poor choice of words on my part, but he helped to turn interdenominational into ecumenical, as we know it today. He had both fundamental and Pentecostal. Do we believe as do the Pentecostal's, of which the Catholic church happens to be? The mixing of doctrines was evident at His meetings.

Actually, you can go way back to Jonathan Edwards if you want to talk about interdenominational evangelistic meetings. But Billy Sunday was a committed fundamentalist, and hated liberalism.

But to me it looks as Bill Sunday was "batting the air". The liberals didn't want to play for "theologically" liberalism seems not to have taken a stand until later.

Virtually all of the old time evangelists were interdenominational. I heard John R. Rice say that he would have meetings including Pentecostals to see revival and see souls saved if they would promise not to mention tongues but stick to the main theme. This was before the Charismatic movement started in the early 1960's, the Charismatic movement being ecumenical in the worst way. The old time Pentecostals were actually very fundamental.

Aren't Catholic's fundamental also; Church of Christ? Pentecostal is not only those that speak in tongues, but also those that believe in the "great commission", so are they not acceptable; and are they the church having authority as did Peter of the Jewish Pentecostal church? They are fundamental in their belief that they are saved as was the nation Israel. Your right, Pentecostals are very, very fundamental.

Quote:

Of note, the term liberalism as used in theology did not come into existence until around the 1950, or early 60's.

Sorry, but you are wrong here. Have you not heard of the great battles of liberalism vs. fundamentalism in the major denominations beginning in the 1920's? In fact, the original series of booklets called "The Fundamentals," published from 1910-1915, from which the term fundamentalism was coined, were written specifically to counter theological liberalism. To give another example, J. Gresham Machen had a famous lecture, "Liberalism or Christianity?" in the early 1920's and put out a book, Christianity and Liberalism, in 1923.

In point of fact, liberal theology goes back to German theology in the first half of the 18th century, coming from men like Schliermacher and Baur and Ritschl, who based their theology on the philosophies of Kant and Hegel.

I know what you say is true, and will not deny that liberalism started long ago. But I made an observation I believe is correct. In one of my dictionaries (Thorndike-Barnhart 1962) the word "liberalism" carries this notice in a separate definition of this word- "Theology: A recent movement in Protestantism stressing the ethical nature of religion rather than its authoritarian and formal aspects. It emphasizes the freedom of the mind to satisfy its own spiritual needs." Webster's, 1990 seems to agree with the additional wording "a movement in modern Protestantism empathizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity.

It would seem Billy Sunday and others were picking a fight, and the liberals were turning the other cheek until 20 or so years later. Just an observation.

 

[John of Japan]

You can't really mean this, Obey the "great commission"?

I absolutely do mean it. After all, I am a missionary. Furthermore, I want to obey with all of my heart every single command of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[PeterM]

The singular work of "soul-winning" or whatever it is we are calling it today (evangelism), without the ongoing work of discipleship is really nothing more than making an illegitamate child, and the churches are absolutely full of them. I know we are all going to have a few of those, but the goal should be to fulfill the GC... MAKE WORLD IMPACTING, REPRDUCING DISCIPLES!!!

 

[gb93433]

The singular work of "soul-winning" or whatever it is we are calling it today (evangelism), without the ongoing work of discipleship is really nothing more than making an illegitamate child, and the churches are absolutely full of them. I know we are all going to have a few of those, but the goal should be to fulfill the GC... MAKE WORLD IMPACTING, REPRDUCING DISCIPLES!!!

It is the disobedient Christians who are not making disciples and expecting new believers to act like mature Christians when the disobedient are not mature.

 

[John of Japan]

The singular work of "soul-winning" or whatever it is we are calling it today (evangelism), without the ongoing work of discipleship is really nothing more than making an illegitamate child, and the churches are absolutely full of them. I know we are all going to have a few of those, but the goal should be to fulfill the GC... MAKE WORLD IMPACTING, REPRDUCING DISCIPLES!!!

I agree with what you are saying, and believe very strongly in followup (a word I prefer to "discipling" for reasons given earlier in this thread), but I always cringe when I hear this "illegitimate baby" comparison.

(1) When a soul is born again through the Holy Spirit, it is by no means illegitimate, even if followup is not done. I shudder to hear this term applied to the actions of the Holy Spirit.
(2) If a person is saved, but no one follows up on them, they are still saved and will go to Heaven.
(3) The Holy Spirit is our partner in followup, and He never fails to follow up the newly born believer, even if we do.

 

[ituttut]

I absolutely do mean it. After all, I am a missionary. Furthermore, I want to obey with all of my heart every single command of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Praise God for you John and your work. But I just cannot hop aboard that earthly train promised to the nation Israel by faith. I am of the Body Church, and not of the gospel as contained in Acts 2, which gospel is contained in the " second great commission".

I understand Christ from heaven appointed one to advise us we are now Ambassadors spreading the gospel of believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for our salvation, being justified through faith. I find this to be His "third great commission", better called His "grace commission", for since Damascus Road all things are New. His Word speaks to me that I am to confess His Name, finding remission of sins in Him, circumcised and baptized without hands.

 

[John of Japan]

But to me it looks as Bill Sunday was "batting the air". The liberals didn't want to play for "theologically" liberalism seems not to have taken a stand until later.

In one sermon, "On the Bible" (Billy Sunday Speaks, pp. 17-24), Sunday blisters anyone who did not believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible, including noted early liberal Schliermacher.

Actually, by the time of Billy Sunday liberals had taken a strong public stand against Bible truth. Aren't you familiar with the Scopes trial in 1925? That was when Sunday was at his peak!

Aren't Catholic's fundamental also; Church of Christ?

Catholics and the Church of Christ are not fundamental by any stretch of the imagination, unless you ask the secular media--who are so ignorant as to call Muslims "fundamentalist." Are you sure you actually know what the original Fundamentalists were and what they believed? I'm very sorry, but I have to doubt that you have any historical knowledge at all in this area if you call the Catholics and the Church of Christ fundamental!

Pentecostal is not only those that speak in tongues, but also those that believe in the "great commission", so are they not acceptable; and are they the church having authority as did Peter of the Jewish Pentecostal church? They are fundamental in their belief that they are saved as was the nation Israel. Your right, Pentecostals are very, very fundamental.

No, Pentecostals are not fundamental any more, though most of them once were.

I know what you say is true, and will not deny that liberalism started long ago. But I made an observation I believe is correct. In one of my dictionaries (Thorndike-Barnhart 1962) the word "liberalism" carries this notice in a separate definition of this word- "Theology: A recent movement in Protestantism stressing the ethical nature of religion rather than its authoritarian and formal aspects. It emphasizes the freedom of the mind to satisfy its own spiritual needs." Webster's, 1990 seems to agree with the additional wording "a movement in modern Protestantism empathizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity.

Interesting. Do you prefer a secular dictionary to the actual facts of church history which I gave you?

Let me educate you as to what a liberal really is. "Liberalism: Religious Liberalism has varied somewhat from country to country. In America it is inseparably identified with the social gospel, which addresses itself to the social needs rather than the heart needs of men. It is derived from the German rationalists and Higher Criticism. It rejected miracles and the inspiration of the Bible. It sought to harmonize the Scriptures with science. Those who, at the turn of the century, actively contended fo these ideas may be designated as Modernists, though in belief they would be classified as Liberals" (A History of Fundamentalism in America, by George Dollar, 1973 ed., p. 382.

It would seem Billy Sunday and others were picking a fight, and the liberals were turning the other cheek until 20 or so years later. Just an observation.

Liberals turning the other cheek during the time of Billy Sunday? Not very likely. I've already reminded you of the Scopes trial of 1925. I see I also have to educate you about one of the first shots fired in the Fundamentalist vs. Modernist wars in the "mainline denominations" in the 1920's. It was a sermon in 1922 by a noted liberal, Harry Emerson Fosdick, entitled, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?"

The liberals took over the mainline denominations gradually, by sneaking in higher criticism and German rationalism, ruining the faith of many young preachers. In order to do so, they had to lie every time they signed the doctrinal statement of a Christian college or seminary. It would take far too long in this thread to document the treachery, and would derail the thread. In truth, though, the liberals, usually called "modernists" at that time, were openly seeking to rule the major denominations by 1900.

 

[John of Japan]

Praise God for you John and your work. But I just cannot hop aboard that earthly train promised to the nation Israel by faith. I am of the Body Church, and not of the gospel as contained in Acts 2, which gospel is contained in the " second great commission".

I understand Christ from heaven appointed one to advise us we are now Ambassadors spreading the gospel of believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for our salvation, being justified through faith. I find this to be His "third great commission", better called His "grace commission", for since Damascus Road all things are New. His Word speaks to me that I am to confess His Name, finding remission of sins in Him, circumcised and baptized without hands.

What you are saying is like nothing I've heard or read, unless it be what is often called the hyper-dispensationalism of Cornelius Stam--no offense.

I hope this doesn't mean that you don't believe in witnessing for Christ. Remember that there is a Great Commission of sorts in the last book of the Bible, also written last of all the books in 96 A. D.: "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17).

 

[mima]

John of Japan: after reading your post on this thread this morning I would like to say, I continue to be impressed with your knowledge, sensitivity and sincerity.

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan: after reading your post on this thread this morning I would like to say, I continue to be impressed with your knowledge, sensitivity and sincerity.

Thank you for your kind words, mima. May we all walk with Jesus daily.

 

[PeterM]

I agree with what you are saying, and believe very strongly in followup (a word I prefer to "discipling" for reasons given earlier in this thread), but I always cringe when I hear this "illegitimate baby" comparison.

(1) When a soul is born again through the Holy Spirit, it is by no means illegitimate, even if followup is not done. I shudder to hear this term applied to the actions of the Holy Spirit.
(2) If a person is saved, but no one follows up on them, they are still saved and will go to Heaven.
(3) The Holy Spirit is our partner in followup, and He never fails to follow up the newly born believer, even if we do.

I certainly understand the sentiment that causes your distaste in the illustration. I am more disturbed by the current state of the typical evangelical church than by a means of describing it. In the context of my life, I am confronted daily by other ministers who literally guilt themselves at gas stations, restaurants, and shopping malls into “witnessing” to complete strangers and yet have no consideration for what will become of these precious souls beyond the initial encounter and decision. I am more than grateful for every person who can express that salvation is a reality in their lives and believe that each one should be celebrated, but in no way is the work done and for any believer to walk away from a newly born child of God is abandonment, pure and simple and in no way has the believer fulfilled the Great Commission. That is not the model of the first century apostles and should not be ours. “Hit and Run” evangelism should almost never be the reality. Simply put, if we are not ready to invest our lives for the weeks, months, or years it takes to complete the work, we ought to seriously consider if we are doing evangelism for our benefit or the Kingdom’s.

While I do not intend to debate over semantics, I believe that by rendering the work of disciple-making as simply “follow up” appears to me to elevate evangelism to be the more important effort, making the rest of the process less important and if we don’t do it, it may not be the best situation but we can live with it. That strategy has brought us to the reality we live in today. If our goal is to evangelize, then that is all we will accomplish, but if my goal is to “multiply,” the work of evangelism will merely be a part of the process and not THE process.

 

[Rippon]

A little clarification . Billy Graham has had Roman Catholics on his platform for decades . But he was not the first to do this . Dwight L. Moody did the same thing in the 19th century . ( I am agin the practice .)