The definition of success in evangelism

[Revmitchell]

Nope. I'm saying that we are called to be faithful, not necessarily successful.

I would challenge you to back that up with scripture.

In fact Paul looked for success in his evangelism:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
I Corinthians 9:19-23 (ESV)

Paul did not just preach the gospel and then wash his hands of what he preached and the people he preached it to. He had genuine concern for the people to whom he preached the gospel. He worked to remove possible offenses that may interfere with the lost even giving him their time to explain the gospel. He not only understood the evangelist job to be a seed thrower but a seed cultivater. This lines up with what Jesus said about the Great Commission:

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28:18-20 (ESV)

Jesus never broke this Commission down to assign different parts to different people. He presented disciple making as an essential part of the gospel. If you leave one side out you have an incomplete gospel.

Here are the problems with the idea that one can simply stand on a street corner and preach at people:

1. There is no connection made with the lost. Paul was very concerned that there be a connection with the lost. To the Jew he became a Jew, to those under the law he also became under the law etc. He did not just preach at them he worked to remove obstacles that would make the lost obstinate to the gospel.

2. There is no obvious love for the lost. When we do something like this simply out of obedience and not with any care or concern for the people you are preaching at this becomes an obstacle to the gospel just as being a Jew did with Paul or being weak, or under the law. We are talking about something that invokes much emotion and rightly so. Presenting the gospel in a mechanical way without an concern for the people to whom you are giving it to is sin.That is not what God intended us to do and it is not the gospel.

3. Once we have delivered the gospel, once we have delivered it with passion and with genuine concern for those to whom we are presenting it to, and once we have delivered the gospel hoping and praying they will receive it with their whole heart and with every intention to help them grow in Christ should they be saved, then we can say "I have done all that God has sent me to do, it is up to Him, Lord please save them!"

4. This hit it and quit it mentality with regards to the preaching of the gospel is ungodly.

 

[JonC]

I would challenge you to back that up with scripture.

In fact Paul looked for success in his evangelism:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
I Corinthians 9:19-23 (ESV)

Paul did not just preach the gospel and then wash his hands of what he preached and the people he preached it to. He had genuine concern for the people to whom he preached the gospel. He worked to remove possible offenses that may interfere with the lost even giving him their time to explain the gospel. He not only understood the evangelist job to be a seed thrower but a seed cultivater. This lines up with what Jesus said about the Great Commission:

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28:18-20 (ESV)

Jesus never broke this Commission down to assign different parts to different people. He presented disciple making as an essential part of the gospel. If you leave one side out you have an incomplete gospel.

Here are the problems with the idea that one can simply stand on a street corner and preach at people:

1. There is no connection made with the lost. Paul was very concerned that there be a connection with the lost. To the Jew he became a Jew, to those under the law he also became under the law etc. He did not just preach at them he worked to remove obstacles that would make the lost obstinate to the gospel.

2. There is no obvious love for the lost. When we do something like this simply out of obedience and not with any care or concern for the people you are preaching at this becomes an obstacle to the gospel just as being a Jew did with Paul or being weak, or under the law. We are talking about something that invokes much emotion and rightly so. Presenting the gospel in a mechanical way without an concern for the people to whom you are giving it to is sin.That is not what God intended us to do and it is not the gospel.

3. Once we have delivered the gospel, once we have delivered it with passion and with genuine concern for those to whom we are presenting it to, and once we have delivered the gospel hoping and praying they will receive it with their whole heart and with every intention to help them grow in Christ should they be saved, then we can say "I have done all that God has sent me to do, it is up to Him, Lord please save them!"

4. This hit it and quit it mentality with regards to the preaching of the gospel is ungodly.

You're on.....I’ll take that challenge in a heartbeat.

Paul did not just preach the gospel and then wash his hands of what he preached and the people he preached it to. He indeed had a genuine concern for the people. Paul preached in such a way as to communicate the gospel. For biblical proof just look at the letters of Paul to the local churches. Consider, for example, Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome. Or his letters to the church in Corinth. Paul was about discipleship.

Jesus never broke the “Great Commission” down to assign different parts to different people. The command in the Great Commission is not “to go” but “to disciple”. If we don’t disciple people then we are not obeying the “Great Commission”.

Jesus also did not just shout a message. He invested Himself in the lives of others. This is apparent at the onset, when He told his soon to be disciples to "come and see". This is evident with the woman at the well, as Jesus took the time to deal with and address her on a personal level. This is the way of the Master (the Master being Jesus Christ). Jesus made disciples.

I’ll go one further. There is a sense whereby we are not “called” to witness except that witness be a part of a local church. When we witness to others, we may do so individually but we are functioning as a member of the Body of Christ and both accountable and representative of a local assembly. This is a part of discipleship as well (a “lone wolf” evangelist is unbiblical).

Of course, my comment was not supporting individualist and independent street preachers. My comment was that success as a Christian is found in our faithfulness and our faithful obedience, not necessarily in the number of souls God brings into the kingdom at the time of that obedience.

To illustrate – Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Ed McCully, Pete Fleming and Roger Youderian were killed for their mission efforts to the Huaorani. I do not think that they were failures for not seeing the fruit of their labors. I think that they were faithful. And God used their faithfulness. I also think that it very well may have been God’s plan for those men, not only to sow the seed of a future successful evangelistic effort but also to inspire others. Those men did not die as failures, but their lives were successes because they were faithful in obedience to God.

 

[Revmitchell]

You're on.....I’ll take that challenge in a heartbeat.

Paul did not just preach the gospel and then wash his hands of what he preached and the people he preached it to. He indeed had a genuine concern for the people. Paul preached in such a way as to communicate the gospel. For biblical proof just look at the letters of Paul to the local churches. Consider, for example, Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome. Or his letters to the church in Corinth. Paul was about discipleship.

Jesus never broke the “Great Commission” down to assign different parts to different people. The command in the Great Commission is not “to go” but “to disciple”. If we don’t disciple people then we are not obeying the “Great Commission”.

Jesus also did not just shout a message. He invested Himself in the lives of others. This is apparent at the onset, when He told his soon to be disciples to "come and see". This is evident with the woman at the well, as Jesus took the time to deal with and address her on a personal level. This is the way of the Master (the Master being Jesus Christ). Jesus made disciples.

I’ll go one further. There is a sense whereby we are not “called” to witness except that witness be a part of a local church. When we witness to others, we may do so individually but we are functioning as a member of the Body of Christ and both accountable and representative of a local assembly. This is a part of discipleship as well (a “lone wolf” evangelist is unbiblical).

Of course, my comment was not supporting individualist and independent street preachers. My comment was that success as a Christian is found in our faithfulness and our faithful obedience, not necessarily in the number of souls God brings into the kingdom at the time of that obedience.

To illustrate – Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Ed McCully, Pete Fleming and Roger Youderian were killed for their mission efforts to the Huaorani. I do not think that they were failures for not seeing the fruit of their labors. I think that they were faithful. And God used their faithfulness. I also think that it very well may have been God’s plan for those men, not only to sow the seed of a future successful evangelistic effort but also to inspire others. Those men did not die as failures, but their lives were successes because they were faithful in obedience to God.

The context of this discussion is in street preaching. Our faithfulness is the measure of success but the question remains faithfulness in what? Certainly not hit it and quit it evangelism.

 

[evangelist6589]

Evan
You keep saying that only God can draw someone to Him and then only will your evangelism be effective.

Here is the situation - IF hyper Calvinism is the truth - we dont know who God is calling.
We must go out and seek the lost

John 3:16 says - WHOSOEVER, MAY COME

Mediated on this song:


According to City-Data for Denver:

Catholic:.....................26.6
Evangelical Prot...........8.7
Other............................6.8
Mainline Protestant......6.3
Black Prosteant............1.4
Orhordox......................1.0

NONE.........................49.2

Link for City Data
Scroll down a little more than half way
(just past Neighborhoods - which is very long)

I disagree with these findings because it is considering progressive Christians as protestants as well as the New Agers when we both know they are not.

 

[JonC]

The context of this discussion is in street preaching. Our faithfulness is the measure of success but the question remains faithfulness in what? Certainly not hit it and quit it evangelism.

I can't determine the "what". If God calls me to stand on a street corner and preach then I need to stand on a street corner and preach. God did not call me to do that.

God did call me to preach, and I resisted that call for years. I didn't feel adequate and really still don't (I'm not an outgoing person). But God made my discomfort speaking far less an issue than the discomfort that accompanied disobedience. Now I enjoy preaching (I still get nervous, but I always look forward to the opportunity). I don't know how God will use my time in the pulpit. But my part is to obey and that God is glorified in what I am doing.

 

[Revmitchell]

I can't determine the "what". If God calls me to stand on a street corner and preach then I need to stand on a street corner and preach. God did not call me to do that.

If by this you means the hit it and quit it evangelism then we can know God does not call anyone to do that.

 

[JonC]

If by this you means the hit it and quit it evangelism then we can know God does not call anyone to do that.

That's not what I mean.

I have not personally witnessed street evangelism that would constitute biblical evangelism. It think that Ray Comfort's examples on college campuses could be biblical as he is reasoning with them, showing concern and engaging them as people and actually communicating the gospel clearly (even though he doesn't understand the role of the Law ). But just yelling out scripture is not evangelism. I'd agree with that (and I agree that it is very doubtful God would call anyone to do that).

 

[John of Japan]

How many did Jeremiah have? How many did Noah have outside his family?

What we have that Jeremiah and Noah did not have, allowing us to actually see "fruit that remains" when they did not:

1. The Commission commanding us to make disciples, and promising that Jesus will be with us.
2. The indwelling Holy Spirit to lead, help and empower us.
3. The fullness of the Holy Spirit to give us boldness (Acts 4:31).
4. The complete Gospel in all its power (Rom. 1:16). This includes the cross of Jesus which draws "all men" to Himself, and the resurrection, an event unique in history.
5. The New Testament in all of its fullness and power, "the sword of the Spirit" which pierces the soul (Heb. 4:12).

When my Dad preached in a suburb of Denver for 5 years and saw at least 81 come to Christ, he did not use Jeremiah or Jonah one single time as an excuse. (And don't you dare say my Dad was doing "easy believism.") When I preached in a Gospel resistant country for 33 years, I never one time mentioned those prophets as an excuse in my prayer letters for lack of God's power.

 

[Revmitchell]

Comparing the ministry of Jeremiah and the current ministry of the Great Commission is comparing apples and refrigerators. Not even close to the same thing and not comparable. Two completely different contexts.

 

[Baptistkjv1611]

Many on this board have a flawed definition of success. They call me a failure because I have not saved anyone nor disciples anyone when in fact I am just the one to plant the seeds and someone else will water it in discipleship. When I run into other evangelists and even Calvinist churches involved in street evangelism they all tell me not to listen to advice like what I get on this board. So there I am not listening!!!!!!

NOah preached for 120 without a convert

 

[evangelist6589]

NOah preached for 120 without a convert

I could not agree with you more.

 

[TCassidy]

NOah preached for 120 without a convert

He's not Noah. This is not the Antediluvian world. God is not going to destroy everyone except the preacher, his wife, his three sons and their three wives.

 

[Yeshua1]

What we have that Jeremiah and Noah did not have, allowing us to actually see "fruit that remains" when they did not:

1. The Commission commanding us to make disciples, and promising that Jesus will be with us.
2. The indwelling Holy Spirit to lead, help and empower us.
3. The fullness of the Holy Spirit to give us boldness (Acts 4:31).
4. The complete Gospel in all its power (Rom. 1:16). This includes the cross of Jesus which draws "all men" to Himself, and the resurrection, an event unique in history.
5. The New Testament in all of its fullness and power, "the sword of the Spirit" which pierces the soul (Heb. 4:12).

When my Dad preached in a suburb of Denver for 5 years and saw at least 81 come to Christ, he did not use Jeremiah or Jonah one single time as an excuse. (And don't you dare say my Dad was doing "easy believism.") When I preached in a Gospel resistant country for 33 years, I never one time mentioned those prophets as an excuse in my prayer letters for lack of God's power.

Now the Holy Spirit is hre to do His work to bring in the Harvest for Jesus, and He just demands us to be willing vessals to be used...

 

[Revmitchell]

He's not Noah. This is not the Antediluvian world. God is not going to destroy everyone except the preacher, his wife, his three sons and their three wives.

Not sure why that has to be explained.

 

[TCassidy]

Not sure why that has to be explained.

I don't either but apparently they overlooked that little fact.

 

[John of Japan]

NOah preached for 120 without a convert

That's pure speculation. The Bible doesn't say that. If you speculate that he had no converts, I can speculate that he had many, but they were all martyred by the wicked people in the world then.

At a minimum he had six: his three sons and their wives.

 

[John of Japan]

The idea that Jeremiah had no converts is also speculation. He may have had many. One possibility is Baruch, a member of the nobility who became Jeremiah's scribe and assistant (Jer. 32, 36, 43, 45).

 

[Revmitchell]

The idea that Jeremiah had no converts is also speculation. He may have had many. One possibility is Baruch, a member of the nobility who became Jeremiah's scribe and assistant (Jer. 32, 36, 43, 45).

It matters not it is not an even comparison.