Soul-winning vs Evangelism

[John of Japan]

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.

"Guilt themselves"??? This is a judgmental statement, ascribing motives. I have known many godly soul winners who witnessed to complete strangers out of a love for their souls and a love for Jesus Christ, not because they "guilted themselves" into it. I witness to complete strangers in the open mall downtown here in Asahikawa on Saturday nights with my co-worker. Am I "guilting myself" into it? No, it is a great time to get out, pass out tracts, witness for Christ and even start relationships hoping to witness more someday. I've been making friends with a fortune teller and a street musician.

As for witnessing to complete strangers, didn't Jesus do that with the woman at the well? Didn't Paul do that on Mars Hill, on the riverbank to Lydia and many other times? Your stance here is unbiblical.

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....

You redeemed yourself a little. Every witness for Christ should be praised, no matter how inept. Paul rejoiced for the evangelism of those who did it with the wrong motive, seeking to get him in trouble: "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice." (Phil. 1:18).

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...

But you are debating over semantics. You have condemned my term "followup" without having a clue as to what I mean by it. I have two chapters on followup in my Japanese textbook on personal evangelism, but you have set yourself up as the expert and are not interested at all in what I teach. Pr. 18:13--"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

 

[PeterM]

"Guilt themselves"??? This is a judgmental statement, ascribing motives. I have known many godly soul winners who witnessed to complete strangers out of a love for their souls and a love for Jesus Christ, not because they "guilted themselves" into it. I witness to complete strangers in the open mall downtown here in Asahikawa on Saturday nights with my co-worker. Am I "guilting myself" into it? No, it is a great time to get out, pass out tracts, witness for Christ and even start relationships hoping to witness more someday. I've been making friends with a fortune teller and a street musician.

No sir... that word "guilt" is used often in the MABTS report hour in the context of seeing someone at a gas station or the Taco Bell, walking away from that person and returning out guilt. Please do not tell me what I have heard first hand.

As for witnessing to complete strangers, didn't Jesus do that with the woman at the well? Didn't Paul do that on Mars Hill, on the riverbank to Lydia and many other times? Your stance here is unbiblical.

I guess everybody starts out as strangers on some level, and if you believe it is "natural" in the culture you live in for that to be how you do what you do... fine... great, wonderful... whatever works!!! My lone statement was that a believer's only witnessing strategy ought not be to strangers that you will have no contact with beyond the initial encounter. For instance, if I happen to share my faith with a stranger, I am fully prepared to walk with that person for however long it takes to finish what was started. I believe the phrase that Jesus used was and is "Follow Me." Paul modified that by saying "Imitate Me." That, my friend is Biblical.

You redeemed yourself a little.

The most arrogant thing I've heard yet today. Who do you think you are?

Every witness for Christ should be praised, no matter how inept. Paul rejoiced for the evangelism of those who did it with the wrong motive, seeking to get him in trouble: "What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice." (Phil. 1:18).

And I agree...

But you are debating over semantics. You have condemned my term "followup" without having a clue as to what I mean by it. I have two chapters on followup in my Japanese textbook on personal evangelism, but you have set yourself up as the expert and are not interested at all in what I teach. Pr. 18:13--"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

I condemed nothing sir... and I have a pretty good idea what you mean as you have articulated what you do... again and again. This is what I said...

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 our goal is to “multiply,” the work of evangelism will merely be a part of the process and not THE process.

That statement was not intended to get you all worked up, nor was it an attempt to imply your "methods" were unbiblical. It was simply me stating where I am in my personal pursuit of fulfilling the Great Commission, what you do is ultimately between you, the Lord, the church or mission agency (if there is any) who oversees what you do. Your posturing, sir, is unncecessary.

Have a blessed day! This will be my final post.

 

[John of Japan]

No sir... that word "guilt" is used often in the MABTS report hour in the context of seeing someone at a gas station or the Taco Bell, walking away from that person and returning out guilt. Please do not tell me what I have heard first hand.

I'm not SBC, and didn't get my grad degree at MABTS (if you are talking about the seminary with those initials), so I don't know what you are talking about with this. There are a ton of Baptists on the BB who are not SBC and didn't go to MABTS.

The most arrogant thing I've heard yet today. Who do you think you are?

Why is it arrogant? I didn't intend it to be. If I've offended you, please tell me how, and I'll honestly apologize.

I condemed nothing sir... and I have a pretty good idea what you mean as you have articulated what you do... again and again.

I have said nothing in this thread about what I do in followup. In fact, I don't believe there has ever been a thread on followup on the BB since I've been with it. And I don't discuss it on my website. So how could you have any idea what I do in followup?

Do you know what I teach as two stages in followup? What do you think I believe to be the most important element of followup? What is my view about how long followup should take? What is my view as to the main goal of followup?

That statement was not intended to get you all worked up, nor was it an attempt to imply your "methods" were unbiblical. It was simply me stating where I am in my personal pursuit of fulfilling the Great Commission, what you do is ultimately between you, the Lord, the church or mission agency (if there is any) who oversees what you do. Your posturing, sir, is unncecessary.

Posturing? How am I posturing?

As for my sending agency, I am fully accountable to my home church, my supporting churches and my mission agency, Baptist World Mission--but above all to the Lord.

Have a blessed day! This will be my final post.

Don't give up so soon. I believe we could have a profitable exchange if you will stick around and get a slightly thicker skin....:smilewinkgrin:

 

[ituttut]

Originally Posted by ituttut
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.

Is this proving my point, viz. " 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". However I see I did mistype in my off-hand observation of 20 or so years. Should have been 10 years.

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!

And also at his peak was Scopes, ACLU is still around as is Darwinism. I could say what has this to do with the price of apples? However in this part we are working with Billy Sunday and the "Monkey Trial". The three mentioned above know next to nothing about God.
This "secular trial" in which, to me, shows a believer stepping (W. J. Bryan) into the world that really has no knowledge of God, and got clobbered. I believe he was outside of theosophy as I do not hold "monkey's" to have the souls of man.

My remark "liberalism" to your "never cooperated with liberalism and Catholicism ….", was intended not for "evolution", but the "ethics" acceleration in liberalism, as in my reference "A recent movement in Protestantism stressing the ethical nature of religion". I believe liberalism progresses, and we need to keep up to date. We can see this in such men that can sway opinion as Reinhold Niebuhr. Even though others may not believe as we, they carry influence for change also, even though they do not make claim to be a liberal.

Quote:

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!

I know about and understand what the "original Fundamentalists" preached. We must have this essential component, the basic facts leading to Christianity. Tell me where I am wrong…." These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:" Do we stop at this knowledge, and believe this gospel? I say NO! But it is "fundamental".

We progress in His Word and arrive at "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". Do you consider this fundamental? How about adding to that "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.". I contend the Catholic's and the Church of Christ are of "basic understanding. This is the "great commission" we are looking at. I can't help but see this to be "fundamental".

Quote:

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.

They, those I mention, are Pentecostal for they believe the basic fundamentals of "repent and be baptized for the remission of their sin." But I also see it in Pentecostal's today that have one foot on Peter's foundation, and one on Paul's also. Just about all do when we take a close look.

Quote:

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?

Do you believe the Scopes trial to be actual church history that you gave me?

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.

I am aware of the German roots, but changes do occur as time marches on. The 19th Century gave way to the 20th Century, and the 20th will give way to the 21st. Doesn't my dictionary sound appropriate as to "ethics" mentioned.

Quote:
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?"

You're not up to date. I made reference previously forward from 1925. Check out Fosdick again in the year 1935.

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.

I really don't like to get into theology such as this for the targets move, causing misunderstandings. John you and I are batting the wind on "liberalism". It will never stop progressing as you agree in your above paragraph. I don't believe you can fight Interdenominational crusades gradually grew to ecumenical crusades.

I do respect those that preach the Word of God, and still Praise God for you John and your work. There are just points that we do not agree on which we believe to be vital in His Word, and to me the theological battle ground such as "libs, or "Fundes", are side issues. I believe there is room in Him for both.

Saw another post, but gott'a get to bed.

 

[John of Japan]

I do respect those that preach the Word of God, and still Praise God for you John and your work. There are just points that we do not agree on which we believe to be vital in His Word, and to me the theological battle ground such as "libs, or "Fundes", are side issues. I believe there is room in Him for both.

Saw another post, but gott'a get to bed.

Thanks for the interaction. I'm afraid we're just too far apart here to go any further in this area, or we will certainly hijack the thread, for I cannot agree that liberals (who I define as those who deny the cardinal doctrines of Christ), especially those who even deny the deity of Christ, are ever "in Christ." I base this on the following passage:

2 John 9-11--"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

 

[John of Japan]

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 .)

Glad to hear you are "agin the practice." Oh, no, we agree again, Rippon!

Seriously, I realize that this about Moody is being bandied about on the Internet, but I can't find any proof for it. In Cooperative Evangelism, the 1958 book by Robert O. Ferm defending Graham's ecumenicalism, Ferm points out that Moody was criticized in his 1893 Chicago crusade for having evangelical evolutionist Henry Drummond on the platform. (As well as his book on evolution, Natural Law in the Spiritual World, Drummond wrote a wonderful little book on 1 Cor. 13, The Greatest Thing in the World.) However, Ferm says nothing about Moody having Catholics in that meeting, and Ferm would no doubt have jumped on that if it were true.

Again, I found nothing about the Catholic story in Chapter 34 of The Life of D. L. Moody, by his son, which is the chapter on the 1993 World's Fair effort of Moody. Actually, there were 125 separate smaller meetings throughout the fair rather than one large one.

P. S. Drummond's little book about 1 Cor. can be found at:
http://henrydrummond.wwwhubs.com/greatest.htm

 

[ituttut]

Thanks for the interaction. I'm afraid we're just too far apart here to go any further in this area, or we will certainly hijack the thread, for I cannot agree that liberals (who I define as those who deny the cardinal doctrines of Christ), especially those who even deny the deity of Christ, are ever "in Christ." I base this on the following passage:

2 John 9-11--"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

Agreed. Paul puts it another way, in face-to-face conversation with our Lord Jesus Christ in heaven. I endeavor to base my replies within the framework of Galatians 1:11-12, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ".

God speed to you of Holy Trinity belief.

 

[ituttut]

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.

Dedicated Pastor John, no offense taken for the reason I am not too high on the teachings and sayings in theological circles as the Bible has much more to say to me. Positions do need to be described, but many use descriptive language such as this in a negative way, which turns into the same as cursing. I know you are not using that description here in that tone or meaning. But perhaps it is a good description of we in the Body Church, for the "dispensational gospel" Chirst gave to Paul is High Voltage. It just blew away that Old gospel of justification by faith.

Yes I am Berean to the core. It took God around 30 years to get my attention for He wished to move me in His Body. I agree with the gospel of Paul, as I come to understand it. The understanding of His Word becomes so much clearer up here from where Christ gives His last word to His only heavenly appointed Apostle to the Gentle, and yes also to the Jew.

I am a mid Acts "dispensationalist", supporting The Berean Bible Society as with Baptist, along with other Christian entities, i.e. those that say they believe they are saved when they "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation". Pastor Stam has gone home now, and the Christ filled Pastor Sadler has now filled His shoes.

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).

I am doing that very thing at this moment while you read. We must leave behind the Old man, for the New man is alive - "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7. For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9. Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord", Romans 6:6-11; even stronger II Corinthians 5:15-21.

In an intimate way we represent Christ. He goes where I go as we are to be in the Body Church on the foundation laid down on Christ Jesus. There is another foundation laid on the foundation of Jesus Christ. The Catholic church has chosen this one as they believe the "great commission" as shown in Acts 2 of "repentance and water baptism will lead to remission of sins".

Is this what is taught in Seminary, or specilized schooling? Well, we just need to continue preaching "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved", and people will be saved, and it is up to them to work out their own salvation. Of course, we try to help, as we spread His Word from Heaven.

Leaving in the morning to see Son and family in Virginia. Will not be back until latter part of next week, and talk further if you desire.

 

[ituttut]

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.

Agree, this man is doing a good work. We are not all in the same part of His Kingdom.

 

[Rippon]

In the 1893 campaign in Chicago Moody invited R.C. prelates , priests and bishops to share his platform . They accepted . DL also raised money to build an RC church in his hometown .

I am in the midst of packing . I don't have the source readily at-hand for this info . I got it from one of my books . It's a matter of tracking it down one of these days .

Moody was a quasi-Fundamentalist . He was about as Fundamentalistic as L.S.C. was a Calvinist -- that means -- not much .

 

[John of Japan]

Agree, this man is doing a good work. We are not all in the same part of His Kingdom.

Shucks guys, cut it out--I'm starting to get embarrassed. All glory to God, amen? :godisgood:

 

[John of Japan]

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.

I want to say publicaly that I misunderstood PeterM's statement here. He prefaces his term "guilt themselves" (underlined by me above), at which I took umbrage, by the phrase "In the context of my life...." So I understand that he was not attacking direct evangelism in general or criticizing witnessing to strangers per se.


Sorry Peter! God bless.

John R. Himes
"John of Japan"