# Good Person Test Reformed.



## xirtam

Ray Comfort is popular for street evangelism. I have been using his method for some time, but I do notice areas in which he is obviously Arminian. 

1) What is a better "way" for evangelism?

and/or

2) How could the "good person test" be improved so that it is biblical?


In Christ,


----------



## Andres

I'm not familiar with the "good person test". Would you explain it?


----------



## xirtam

Hey Andrew,

It is based on Proverbs 20:6, " Many a man proclaims his own loyalty (goodness), But who can find a trustworthy man?" Ray Comfort uses this as an entry point to ask the people if they believe that they are good enough to go to heaven. Most believe that they are and that is when he usually uses at least four of the ten commandments to give the "bad news" before the "good news" of the Gospel:

1) Q: How many lies have you told? A: ...a lot. Q: What do you call someone who tells a lot of lies? A: ...a liar.

2) Q: Have you ever stolen anything big or small? A: yes. Q: What do you call someone who steals? A: ...a thief.

3) Q: Have you ever hated anyone? Jesus said that hate is murder. A: yes. 

4) Q: Have you ever lusted after another person? Jesus said lust and adultery are the same. A: yes


Q: So, you are a lying, thief, murderer and adulterer at heart. You are not a good person, you are like the rest of us. If you died today, would you be guilty or innocent of breaking God's law? 

A: guilty.

Q: What do you deserve heaven or hell?

A: hell

Q: Does that concern you?

A: yes.

Q: Then wouldn't it be wise to repent and trust in Jesus Christ? 




Andrew, it goes something like that, but the idea is to show the person their wretchedness through the law of God. 


I'll link some videos. I really enjoy evangelizing, but I would like to know:

1) IF there is a better way.

and/ or 

2) If the "good person test" needs to be changed in some way.


Thank you for your question. Here are a few videos to help you get a better idea of their "method".

a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo
b) NeedGod.com
c) Living Waters University: Katie - YouTube -If you follow this link, there are 100s of examples of Ray Comfort
d) www.180movie.com has it at the end
e) http://www.geniusthemovie.com/ so does this


----------



## sevenzedek

Could you point out the Arminian aspects of Comfort's method?


----------



## sevenzedek

I started a conversation last week by asking if the person ever wondered what was wrong with people in the world—everybody upholds a standard to which they never measure up. I went into how everyone is flawed, including myself and the man to whom I was speaking. Then I asked, "Have you ever heard the gospel explained before?" Then I explained the gospel and how I believe Jesus was the answer to my sin, the world's, and his. There are many segues that can be used. I don't use a planned method. My goal is to deliver the gospel. I have used a variety of ways to get on the topic. It feels more natural to me and I hope people feel like they are in a conversation with me rather than an interrogation.


----------



## xirtam

Thank you for your question, Jon. 

This is something that I am gathering and have not put my thumb on yet, but Ray Comfort places the emphasis on man and does not seemingly support the idea of election. I mean, I say that because he never mentions such things. I am a million miles away and do not know him personally, so I can only speak from writings and videos. Although, I have some of his material and he does support the likes of Finney. Take Tony Miano for instance. They were partners. He is a Calvinist from what I gather and they approach the same method differently. 

In reality, I'd like someone to tell me this method is perfectly faithful and I'll be on my merry way, but there does seem to be something missing. Another thing that a friend of mine has noticed is that Ray does not mention his own (present) sin. He mentions that he "had" broken the commandments, but a Christian is someone who lives in holiness and does not do those types of things. Then again, I heard him say on Hell's Best Kept Secret, that a Christian hates sinning verses not sinning at all. This could be a evangelism tactic, to keep the pressure on the sinner, but it also makes me wonder about his theology.

Mr. Comfort has been talked about on the Puritan Board. I am not knocking him. I think that he does have a love for the lost and he has helped me in many ways. 

My hope is to 

1) find the best way...

and/or

2) tweak "the good person test" method, if it needs tweaking. 

In Christ,


----------



## xirtam

sevenzedek said:


> I started a conversation last week by asking if the person ever wondered what was wrong with people in the world—everybody upholds a standard to which they never measure up. I went into how everyone is flawed, including myself and the man to whom I was speaking. Then I asked, "Have you ever heard the gospel explained before?" Then I explained the gospel and how I believe Jesus was the answer to my sin, the world's, and his. There are many segues that can be used. I don't use a planned method. My goal is to deliver the gospel. I have used a variety of ways to get on the topic. It feels more natural to me and I hope people feel like they are in a conversation with me rather than an interrogation.



This is true and I agree. Thank you, again.

In Christ,


----------



## Josh Williamson

I use the WOTM but have just modified it to make it more Reformed. We need to remember that Ray has given us a basic outline for the Gospel. Build upon that outline and modify it for your situation and theology.

You are correct about Ray not being Reformed. I know him personally, and while he is a good brother he does need to tighten up his theology.


----------



## xirtam

Josh Williamson said:


> I use the WOTM but have just modified it to make it more Reformed. We need to remember that Ray has given us a basic outline for the Gospel. Build upon that outline and modify it for your situation and theology.
> 
> You are correct about Ray not being Reformed. I know him personally, and while he is a good brother he does need to tighten up his theology.




Thank you, Josh. How do you go about, "building upon the WOTM outline and modifying it for your situation and theology"?

In Christ,


----------



## sevenzedek

Fir those who don't know about WOTM, what is WOTM?


----------



## xirtam

sevenzedek said:


> Fir those who don't know about WOTM, what is WOTM?



Ray Comfort's ministry or at least one branch of their ministries name - The Way of the Master. 

The Way of the Master

Living Waters Publications - Evangelism Resources is their "main" site. 

In Christ,


----------



## jwithnell

I'm not sure the doctrine of election has much of a role in what is said in evangelism. Rather it gives the speaker great hope that if this person is one that God has called to himself, that person will have ears to hear and eyes to see. 

As for a typically "reformed" approach to evangelism, two thoughts come to mind: first, that no worldly philosophy can be internally self-consistent. (So you can ask lots of questions about what a person believes and nudge him toward seeing the emptiness of his approach and the hope of the gospel.) Secondly, start where God starts: that we are creature made to be in relation to our creator and are hopelessly fallen away from that relationship.


----------



## Josh Williamson

xirtam said:


> Josh Williamson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use the WOTM but have just modified it to make it more Reformed. We need to remember that Ray has given us a basic outline for the Gospel. Build upon that outline and modify it for your situation and theology.
> 
> You are correct about Ray not being Reformed. I know him personally, and while he is a good brother he does need to tighten up his theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Josh. How do you go about, "building upon the WOTM outline and modifying it for your situation and theology"?
> 
> In Christ,
Click to expand...


I mostly change it around the issue of the atonement. I also don't use Ray's question, "What does that make you?" But instead say something like, "What do you call someone who lied (etc)?"


----------



## ooguyx

I find the WOTM system to be woefully lacking in it's approach to evangelism. I think the Arminianism that you are feeling is exactly the major flaw in his presentation: that he elevates reason over God. Further, at almost any point the person can simply deny a premise and the WOTM system fails. All a person really has to say is: "that argument is valid if you believe it is valid", since that is the kind of argument that they present. 

Example: The Way Of The Master : Atheism (Part 3 of 3) - YouTube from about 1:20 - 3:50 is a guy that refuses to believe God exists and that the bible is His word. The presenter is only left with the ability to tell him: "well, if you research the bible you'll see that everything I'm saying is true." Not only is that statement not true but it completely lets this guy off the hook for his beliefs. How is Christ proclaimed in this system?

Here is another video where Comfort declares that bananas are the "atheists nightmare": Banana: The Athiests Nightmare. - YouTube

Generally the more reformed approach is the presuppositional method. Here is a trailer for the instructional video "Answer the Fool" which goes into this The Fool Knows Better - YouTube

Also for comparison, here is Greg Bahnsen destroying an atheist in a debate using this method. Dr. Gordon Stein (Athiest) vs Dr Greg Bahnsen (Jesus follower) - YouTube


----------



## Rich Koster

One thing I find weak with this method, is it is low information decisionism. I've heard this kind of approach called "hit and run evangelism". It tries to compress a revelation of Christ into a two minute question and answer system, which is designed to solicit a predetermined answer. It is the "Vulcan" Finneyism that uses logic to get "a decision" from the person being questioned. It quickly defines a person as a lawbreaker, but a whole lot more needs to be added about the person of Christ and why he is our kinsman redeemer, and why we need to recognize him as THE Prophet, Priest, and King.


----------



## xirtam

These are all very helpful.


----------



## sevenzedek

jwithnell said:


> I'm not sure the doctrine of election has much of a role in what is said in evangelism.



I agree. I think the doctrine of predestination and election should not be handled with great wisdom. Concerning predestination:



> WCF 3:8, The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care...



I know someone who used to evangelize by exposing the lost to this doctrine right from the get-go. I don't know that anyone on the board uses this method, but I think it is a horrible way to speak to those without light. I would suspect many would answer something similar to Romans 9:20, "Why hast thou made me thus?"


----------



## Nebrexan

sevenzedek said:


> Could you point out the Arminian aspects of Comfort's method?



Some of his materials make me suspect his theology isn't Reformed. His training course uses Ezekiel 33:6



> But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand. (ESV)



as motivation to witness; you're held responsible for someone going to hell if you fail to witness to them. Also, his million dollar bill tract uses the words, "[Have you lied, stolen, or cursed?] ... The Bible warns that if you are guilty you will end up in Hell. That's not God's will."


----------



## xirtam

Nebrexan said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you point out the Arminian aspects of Comfort's method?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would this be another example?: page 32 of his The Way of the Master for Kids: Teaching Kids How to Share Their Faith says, "Jesus died for the whole world." and quoted "[Jesus] died for all." 2 Corinthians 5:15.
> 
> 
> Two pages later (page 34) it says, "If we turn from our sins and trust Jesus, God will forgive us." and then they quote, "Whoever believes in [Jesus] will receive [forgiveness] of sins." (Acts 10:43).
> 
> The following page says, "When we obey God's Commandments, we show that we love Him." and quote, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15).
Click to expand...


----------



## sevenzedek

Nebrexan said:


> That's not God's will.



Is there any Comfort in an uninvolved God whose hands are tied? Sounds deistic. If God is not sovereign, this whole thing is a sham and I am doomed.

I guess it is good that he is telling people about Jesus and their sin. If God uses weak vessels like me, then He can use Comfort. He even used a Pentecostal preacher to preach the gospel to me. Praise God that He uses weak vessels.


----------



## Caroline

The thing about evangelism methods is that I'm sure all of them have worked on somebody somewhere, even the really bad ones. God uses odd things to draw people to Himself sometimes. 

That being said, I don't think that method would have worked on me. I'd just be like, "Seriously, calm down, dude. Are you supposed to be on some kind of medication? You are starting to get really paranoid."

And if I were to be called upon to give a more thorough explanation than that nothing is as black-and-white as all that. Even the Bible calls people righteous--like Zechariah and Elizabeth--so there has to be some sense in which even God considers people righteous (He called them that Himself, so I don't feel like I can argue with that). Common sense says that some people are pretty decent folks at least in a community sense. The question is whether that sort of 'righteousness' can SAVE people. A person may not be as depraved as he could be, but he is still a sinner. I think everyone realizes this. The hard part is realizing the holiness of God, so that even the prophet Isaiah (undoubtedly a decent enough guy on an average day) cried out that he was a man of unclean lips.

When we are comparing ourselves to each other, we can come off looking not so bad. It's when we look at God that the difference between light and darkness jumps out at us. Personally, I'd like to see evangelism methods point more at Jesus than at ourselves. But again, I'm sure his method has worked with somebody.


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford

Sweet Gleanings: "Turn, or burn."


----------



## xirtam

sevenzedek said:


> I started a conversation last week by asking if the person ever wondered what was wrong with people in the world—everybody upholds a standard to which they never measure up. I went into how everyone is flawed, including myself and the man to whom I was speaking. Then I asked, "Have you ever heard the gospel explained before?" Then I explained the gospel and how I believe Jesus was the answer to my sin, the world's, and his. There are many segues that can be used. I don't use a planned method. My goal is to deliver the gospel. I have used a variety of ways to get on the topic. It feels more natural to me and I hope people feel like they are in a conversation with me rather than an interrogation.



This is good, Jon. Would there be a need to stress repentance as well? I ask that coming from the WOTM method. They are also very conversational too, but I totally agree with what you are implying. 

In Christ,


----------



## xirtam

jwithnell said:


> I'm not sure the doctrine of election has much of a role in what is said in evangelism. Rather it gives the speaker great hope that if this person is one that God has called to himself, that person will have ears to hear and eyes to see.
> 
> As for a typically "reformed" approach to evangelism, two thoughts come to mind: first, that no worldly philosophy can be internally self-consistent. (So you can ask lots of questions about what a person believes and nudge him toward seeing the emptiness of his approach and the hope of the gospel.) Secondly, start where God starts: that we are creature made to be in relation to our creator and are hopelessly fallen away from that relationship.



Thank you. Would there be a need to "open up the Ten Commandments" as the WOTM does and the WCF places a lot of emphasis?

In Christ,


----------



## xirtam

Josh Williamson said:


> xirtam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Josh Williamson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use the WOTM but have just modified it to make it more Reformed. We need to remember that Ray has given us a basic outline for the Gospel. Build upon that outline and modify it for your situation and theology.
> 
> You are correct about Ray not being Reformed. I know him personally, and while he is a good brother he does need to tighten up his theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Josh. How do you go about, "building upon the WOTM outline and modifying it for your situation and theology"?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mostly change it around the issue of the atonement. I also don't use Ray's question, "What does that make you?" But instead say something like, "What do you call someone who lied (etc)?"
Click to expand...


Hey Josh, could you explain what you mean or what you would say in regards to "the issue of the atonement." 

The friend that I mentioned earlier, says that he likes Tony Miano's approach because Tony always stresses his own sin, rather than the "What does that make you..." thingy. Is this what you are saying? Are you talking about easing off of them (I don't mean not being biblical), by giving them some "breathing room"? 


In Christ,


----------



## xirtam

ooguyx said:


> I find the WOTM system to be woefully lacking in it's approach to evangelism. I think the Arminianism that you are feeling is exactly the major flaw in his presentation: that he elevates reason over God. Further, at almost any point the person can simply deny a premise and the WOTM system fails. All a person really has to say is: "that argument is valid if you believe it is valid", since that is the kind of argument that they present.
> 
> Example: The Way Of The Master : Atheism (Part 3 of 3) - YouTube from about 1:20 - 3:50 is a guy that refuses to believe God exists and that the bible is His word. The presenter is only left with the ability to tell him: "well, if you research the bible you'll see that everything I'm saying is true." Not only is that statement not true but it completely lets this guy off the hook for his beliefs. How is Christ proclaimed in this system?
> 
> Here is another video where Comfort declares that bananas are the "atheists nightmare": Banana: The Athiests Nightmare. - YouTube
> 
> Generally the more reformed approach is the presuppositional method. Here is a trailer for the instructional video "Answer the Fool" which goes into this The Fool Knows Better - YouTube
> 
> Also for comparison, here is Greg Bahnsen destroying an atheist in a debate using this method. Dr. Gordon Stein (Athiest) vs Dr Greg Bahnsen (Jesus follower) - YouTube



Hey Roy, I think that I agree with what you are saying, which is why I wrote this post. But I wonder something. Ray Comfort stresses the idea of getting to the sinners conscience where we know right from wrong. Is this the proper place where we ought to be aiming? Does he make a valid point in that the conscience is a good place to converse with the person? He does say that the Holy Spirit does the converting. Ray says he is just trying to show that they are not good in God's sight. I'm not defending per say, but just clarifying what I have heard him say. 

If not by that reasoning, what way would you suggest is better to elevate "God over reason" rather than "reason over God"(if I even know what it means)? To be honest, I do not consider myself to be all that intelligent. It took me a long time to figure out what "conscience" is and any talk of reason and logic often times has me scratching my head. 


Thank you for the links. I have watched the first one a couple of times. I am slow. And I am almost finished the debate. Very good stuff! 

In Christ,


----------



## xirtam

Rich Koster said:


> One thing I find weak with this method, is it is low information decisionism. I've heard this kind of approach called "hit and run evangelism". It tries to compress a revelation of Christ into a two minute question and answer system, which is designed to solicit a predetermined answer. It is the "Vulcan" Finneyism that uses logic to get "a decision" from the person being questioned. It quickly defines a person as a lawbreaker, but a whole lot more needs to be added about the person of Christ and why he is our kinsman redeemer, and why we need to recognize him as THE Prophet, Priest, and King.



Sir, I agree. I was listening to one of Ray's clips the other day and the guy was in a hurry to leave. Ray said something like, "Oh, just stay two minutes and get right with God."

Although, he says that he does not believe in the "Sinner's Prayer", he is often quick to get people to repent, trust, and pray. You are onto something, because I have been listening to him for a while and have listened to a lot of his teachings and when he approaches someone and they say that they understand everything within just a few minutes, I think that they must be very smart or I am really a dumb fella.


----------



## xirtam

au5t1n said:


> I think that were I an unbeliever, I would find it cheesy and patronizing for someone to try to use a copied-and-pasted "evangelism technique" on me instead of just talking with me about their faith. As has been discussed here numerous times before, evangelism _as such_ is the domain of the ministry of the gospel. That being said, inasmuch as sharing one's faith with one's family and acquaintances is a lawful and beneficial thing to do, when occasion arises, I think it should be a sincere conversation (culminating normally in an invitation to Church), not a technique learned on the Internet.



Thank you, Austin. I was always skeptical about "methods" to evangelism, but I was at the same time concerned (fearful, worried, afraid) of not sharing my faith properly. How would do you go about sharing your faith to an unbeliever? Do you share your faith to strangers? Are we even to share our faith to strangers as evangelism implies? 

In Christ,


----------



## xirtam

Nebrexan said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you point out the Arminian aspects of Comfort's method?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of his materials make me suspect his theology isn't Reformed. His training course uses Ezekiel 33:6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand. (ESV)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as motivation to witness; you're held responsible for someone going to hell if you fail to witness to them. Also, his million dollar bill tract uses the words, "[Have you lied, stolen, or cursed?] ... The Bible warns that if you are guilty you will end up in Hell. That's not God's will."
Click to expand...


Hi David, do you believe that the million dollar gospel tracts are a bad idea (false teaching, heresy even)? What about their other material? I see what you say about "That's not God's will.", but would we be able to say that "for the elect is it not God's will." I'm just asking. 

In Christ,


----------



## xirtam

sevenzedek said:


> Nebrexan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not God's will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any Comfort in an uninvolved God whose hands are tied? Sounds deistic. If God is not sovereign, this whole thing is a sham and I am doomed.
> 
> I guess it is good that he is telling people about Jesus and their sin. If God uses weak vessels like me, then He can use Comfort. He even used a Pentecostal preacher to preach the gospel to me. Praise God that He uses weak vessels.
Click to expand...


Jon, I agree with you again. But that is not the point of my post. I would like to know 1) of a better way to share my faith and/or 2) to improve the "good person test", if need be.

In Christ,


----------



## xirtam

Caroline said:


> The thing about evangelism methods is that I'm sure all of them have worked on somebody somewhere, even the really bad ones. God uses odd things to draw people to Himself sometimes.
> 
> That being said, I don't think that method would have worked on me. I'd just be like, "Seriously, calm down, dude. Are you supposed to be on some kind of medication? You are starting to get really paranoid."
> 
> And if I were to be called upon to give a more thorough explanation than that nothing is as black-and-white as all that. Even the Bible calls people righteous--like Zechariah and Elizabeth--so there has to be some sense in which even God considers people righteous (He called them that Himself, so I don't feel like I can argue with that). Common sense says that some people are pretty decent folks at least in a community sense. The question is whether that sort of 'righteousness' can SAVE people. A person may not be as depraved as he could be, but he is still a sinner. I think everyone realizes this. The hard part is realizing the holiness of God, so that even the prophet Isaiah (undoubtedly a decent enough guy on an average day) cried out that he was a man of unclean lips.
> 
> When we are comparing ourselves to each other, we can come off looking not so bad. It's when we look at God that the difference between light and darkness jumps out at us. Personally, I'd like to see evangelism methods point more at Jesus than at ourselves. But again, I'm sure his method has worked with somebody.



Hi Caroline, thank you or your comments. I'm just wondering if you have ever listened to Ray Comfort? 

In Christ,


----------



## xirtam

Matthew Willard Lankford said:


> Sweet Gleanings: "Turn, or burn."
> 
> View attachment 3565



Thank you, Matthew. There are some sweet gleanings. Do you have anything to add to my questions?

In Christ,


----------



## Caroline

xirtam said:


> Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about evangelism methods is that I'm sure all of them have worked on somebody somewhere, even the really bad ones. God uses odd things to draw people to Himself sometimes.
> 
> That being said, I don't think that method would have worked on me. I'd just be like, "Seriously, calm down, dude. Are you supposed to be on some kind of medication? You are starting to get really paranoid."
> 
> And if I were to be called upon to give a more thorough explanation than that nothing is as black-and-white as all that. Even the Bible calls people righteous--like Zechariah and Elizabeth--so there has to be some sense in which even God considers people righteous (He called them that Himself, so I don't feel like I can argue with that). Common sense says that some people are pretty decent folks at least in a community sense. The question is whether that sort of 'righteousness' can SAVE people. A person may not be as depraved as he could be, but he is still a sinner. I think everyone realizes this. The hard part is realizing the holiness of God, so that even the prophet Isaiah (undoubtedly a decent enough guy on an average day) cried out that he was a man of unclean lips.
> 
> When we are comparing ourselves to each other, we can come off looking not so bad. It's when we look at God that the difference between light and darkness jumps out at us. Personally, I'd like to see evangelism methods point more at Jesus than at ourselves. But again, I'm sure his method has worked with somebody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Caroline, thank you or your comments. I'm just wondering if you have ever listened to Ray Comfort?
> 
> In Christ,
Click to expand...


Yes, briefly. Our church watched a video about his evangelism methods, as I recall. Or maybe it was a series. It was a while back. I mostly remember how intensely hyperactive the guy sounded as he was using his method. I think he meant well, though, and I'm not really judging. I'm intensely hyperactive enough for all of us. I prefer people who are more thoughtful in their presentation to chill me out as they get me to think more deeply. But like I said, I'm sure somebody somewhere has been converted by Ray Comfort.


----------



## xirtam

Caroline said:


> xirtam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about evangelism methods is that I'm sure all of them have worked on somebody somewhere, even the really bad ones. God uses odd things to draw people to Himself sometimes.
> 
> That being said, I don't think that method would have worked on me. I'd just be like, "Seriously, calm down, dude. Are you supposed to be on some kind of medication? You are starting to get really paranoid."
> 
> And if I were to be called upon to give a more thorough explanation than that nothing is as black-and-white as all that. Even the Bible calls people righteous--like Zechariah and Elizabeth--so there has to be some sense in which even God considers people righteous (He called them that Himself, so I don't feel like I can argue with that). Common sense says that some people are pretty decent folks at least in a community sense. The question is whether that sort of 'righteousness' can SAVE people. A person may not be as depraved as he could be, but he is still a sinner. I think everyone realizes this. The hard part is realizing the holiness of God, so that even the prophet Isaiah (undoubtedly a decent enough guy on an average day) cried out that he was a man of unclean lips.
> 
> When we are comparing ourselves to each other, we can come off looking not so bad. It's when we look at God that the difference between light and darkness jumps out at us. Personally, I'd like to see evangelism methods point more at Jesus than at ourselves. But again, I'm sure his method has worked with somebody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Caroline, thank you or your comments. I'm just wondering if you have ever listened to Ray Comfort?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, briefly. Our church watched a video about his evangelism methods, as I recall. Or maybe it was a series. It was a while back. I mostly remember how intensely hyperactive the guy sounded as he was using his method. I think he meant well, though, and I'm not really judging. I'm intensely hyperactive enough for all of us. I prefer people who are more thoughtful in their presentation to chill me out as they get me to think more deeply. But like I said, I'm sure somebody somewhere has been converted by Ray Comfort.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your reply.


----------



## Andres

xirtam said:


> 1) What is a better "way" for evangelism?



Is there a specific person you are wanting to share the gospel with? As some have already mentioned, the biggest problem I see with Comfort's method is that it involves trying to get complete strangers to make an immediate decision in the moment. I think the best way to share the gospel with others is by building relationships over time. Be friends with people. Genuinely care for people. Show the love of Christ to them in serving them. Allow the gospel and the things of the Lord to come up in casual conversation, not some sneak attack. Lastly, invite people to church with you. If you go to a solid church, then they will hear the gospel presented. And of course, don't forget to pray for people!


----------



## VictorBravo

Caroline said:


> God uses odd things to draw people to Himself sometimes.



Indeed. Some 20 years before God brought me to submission, I would occasionally go to an Episcopal church for the music. It was all very well done, and the preaching didn’t bother me too much.

I heard that a guest preacher from England was coming: a Scot with a Ph.D. from Oxford. He was reputed to be very erudite and I wanted to hear the clever things I expected him to say.

So I was very dismayed to hear foolishness coming from such a learned man. He opened his sermon with these words: “My friends, if you continue to refuse Lord Christ as your only hope, your only way, your only God, you shall go to Hell.”

I quit listening after that, but that learned man’s words rolled like a grindstone in my mind for years, wearing away at my pride, until the slightest breath of the Spirit toppled my resistance.


----------



## xirtam

Andres said:


> xirtam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) What is a better "way" for evangelism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a specific person you are wanting to share the gospel with? As some have already mentioned, the biggest problem I see with Comfort's method is that it involves trying to get complete strangers to make an immediate decision in the moment. I think the best way to share the gospel with others is by building relationships over time. Be friends with people. Genuinely care for people. Show the love of Christ to them in serving them. Allow the gospel and the things of the Lord to come up in casual conversation, not some sneak attack. Lastly, invite people to church with you. If you go to a solid church, then they will hear the gospel presented. And of course, don't forget to pray for people!
Click to expand...


Andres, I appreciate your response. From the WOTM perspective, of which I am only familiar, what you are talking about is "friendship evangelism" and "building relationships over time" and "asking people to church".

Well, in my particular case, I am in South Korea and I enjoy handing out gospel tracks and witnessing to strangers. Maybe I am blinded by the WOTM reasoning, but in many cases, I will not see the people again that I encounter, nor will I have time to "build a relationship". I do not go to a "solid church" and even if I did, are we just called to invite people to church?

Again, I may be blinded by the reasoning of WOTM, but friendship evangelism, waiting for people to ask what is the hope that lies within, and asking people to church seems to go against the very definition of evangelism.

Do not get me wrong, I agree with you when you say that an approach that seeks an immediate decision is wrong (even though I am not sure if they do that exactly). I also agree that building relationships, being friends with people, genuinely caring for others, showing the love of Christ in service and allowing the conversation to find its way to Christ are all important, not to mention, inviting people to church and praying for them, but I wonder if it is evangelism?

I am asking, even though it sounds like I am defending.

In Christ,


----------



## xirtam

VictorBravo said:


> Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> God uses odd things to draw people to Himself sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Some 20 years before God brought me to submission, I would occasionally go to an Episcopal church for the music. It was all very well done, and the preaching didn’t bother me too much.
> 
> I heard that a guest preacher from England was coming: a Scot with a Ph.D. from Oxford. He was reputed to be very erudite and I wanted to hear the clever things I expected him to say.
> 
> So I was very dismayed to hear foolishness coming from such a learned man. He opened his sermon with these words: “My friends, if you continue to refuse Lord Christ as your only hope, your only way, your only God, you shall go to Hell.”
> 
> I quit listening after that, but that learned man’s words rolled like a grindstone in my mind for years, wearing away at my pride, until the slightest breath of the Spirit toppled my resistance.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Sir. Point taken and it is most definitely true in my case. But I still wonder 1) the "best" or more proper way and/or 2) if the good person test needs to be reformed.


----------



## Andres

xirtam said:


> Well, in my particular case, I am in South Korea and I enjoy handing out gospel tracks and witnessing to strangers. Maybe I am blinded by the WOTM reasoning, but in many cases, I will not see the people again that I encounter, nor will I have time to "build a relationship". I do not go to a "solid church" and even if I did, are we just called to invite people to church?


So then what is your goal with the things you are presently doing? Are you wanting people to pray the sinner's prayer? Do you want them to start going to church? Are you simply trying to get the gospel message out to as many people as possible, regardless of results? The goal of what I shared would be to have people genuinely converted to Christ and for them to then join a confessionally reformed church where they will grow in the grace and truth of Jesus Christ, His word and sacraments. Personally, I think what I suggested is the best way to achieve my result, but I could certainly be wrong. 



xirtam said:


> Do not get me wrong, I agree with you when you say that an approach that seeks an immediate decision is wrong (even though I am not sure if they do that exactly). I also agree that building relationships, being friends with people, genuinely caring for others, showing the love of Christ in service and allowing the conversation to find its way to Christ are all important, not to mention, inviting people to church and praying for them, but I wonder if it is evangelism?



Then perhaps a new thread is in order, but I think a major issue is how you are defining "evangelism". By the way, there have in the past been several threads already devoted to this question, so perhaps a search of the archives may be beneficial. 

Lastly, why don't you attend a solid church?


----------



## xirtam

> So then what is your goal with the things you are presently doing?



I don't know exactly, especially after revisiting the ministry of WOTM.




> Are you wanting people to pray the sinner's prayer?



No, I am not. Nor, do I think that is their purpose either. Then again, maybe it is their purpose. 




> Do you want them to start going to church?



Yes, I do (at least eventually). 




> Are you simply trying to get the gospel message out to as many people as possible, regardless of results?


 Yes, I am. I mean, in the sense that I am being as faithful as I can without knowingly compromising the gospel and understanding that I am to sow and water seeds and that God causes growth. 




> The goal of what I shared would be to have people genuinely converted to Christ and for them to then join a confessionally reformed church where they will grow in the grace and truth of Jesus Christ, His word and sacraments. Personally, I think what I suggested is the best way to achieve my result, but I could certainly be wrong.



I do not believe that you are wrong. I am just wondering about how to best present the gospel to sinners, whether in general, to friends, and to family and/or if WOTM is way off in their approach.



> Then perhaps a new thread is in order, but I think a major issue is how you are defining "evangelism".



You are right and I am pretty certain that the way in which I am defining evangelism has been greatly influenced by WOTM.



> Lastly, why don't you attend a solid church?



Well, I guess that I could have been more gracious towards the church that I am presently attending, but I was a little discouraged a few weeks ago when the pastor told us to "Live every day like Friday", as per Joel Osteen and my lovely wife tells me, because the translators miss much, that he is a "typical" Korean pastor who pontificates from the pulpit down at his congregation. The jury is still out, since we have only been there for a little over a month. He does expound the text and I am hopeful. Regardless, I still invite people there.


Thank you though, Andrew. Your questions are helpful and so is your advice.

In Christ,


----------



## JimmyH

I could rattle on a bunch in this thread. I recently stopped attending the Baptist church of which I am a member. I've been going to an OPC church for a month now. I am much happier there. At my Baptist church the pastor, a really devoted man, always ends with 'altar calls.' The Billy Graham style invitation to walk up the aisle and accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. I remember hearing Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in a sermon, commenting on that method, saying something like,"A free and easy salvation is of little value." I firmly believe that and I am pleased that there is no such practice in my OPC church. I intend to send a letter of withdrawal to my Baptist church and will eventually join this OPC fellowship.

When I was in my late teens, living according to the course of this world, having been raised by atheists, I read the gospels for the first time. Frankly it was scary. There was going to be a wailing and a gnashing of teeth and I hoped it wasn't true. I was much more attuned to the concept of being reincarnated again and again until we 'get it right.' A street evangelist accosted me and began to preach the gospel. The fellow was probably, like me, 18 years old or so. I listened to his presentation until he asked me if I would pray the sinner's prayer and accept Jesus as my personal savior.

I had read enough of the gospel to know that it wasn't just believe, but repent and believe so I asked him if that wasn't so. He said yes, that is it. I told him in no uncertain terms that I was not about to repent and that I was going to happily continue to live for the lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and desires of the mind. Obviously I didn't say 'that' exactly but in so many words that was my point. I walked away leaving him somewhat discouraged. It took another 18 years for the Holy Spirit to bring me back to the Bible, enlighten the eyes of my understanding, and seal me with the Spirit. This in a room alone reading the gospels again and in the Book of Romans.

Many of those I associate with are unbelievers. I have tried to demonstrate Christ through being transformed by a renewing of my mind. Letting my conversation (KJV) be such that they will be attracted to the Word. My behavior being more the witness than my words. One friend of 20 or so years, 64 years old like me, has begun to ask me questions. You mention Ray Comfort not speaking about election. My friend and I have had some conversations where theology came up. I mentioned election which went to limited atonement. This, predictably, brought forth a very negative reaction. Brought to my mind that babes in Christ must be fed milk until they are ready for meat. 

No question that faith comes by hearing and if they do not hear how will they believe, so we must keep on doing the best we can. I commend you for your genuine concern and I hope that you find a way that is suited to you. I hope that you and your wife, being so far from home are being fed and nurtured in your church. I highly recommend that you access oneplace.com here and listen to the sermons of Reverend Martyn Lloyd-Jones and many others. You can also go to the MLJ trust website here and source sermons by topic. He preached some that were strictly evangelical.


----------



## Nebrexan

xirtam said:


> Hi David, do you believe that the million dollar gospel tracts are a bad idea (false teaching, heresy even)? What about their other material? I see what you say about "That's not God's will.", but would we be able to say that "for the elect is it not God's will." I'm just asking.
> 
> In Christ,


Hey Xirtam -- As one of God's ambassadors (2Co 5:20) I have an obligation to represent Him accurately, especially to those who don't know Him. I used to use many of Living Waters' tracts but after my "conversion" to Reformed theology, I'm more selective. Before distributing any material that describes God, we need to read it thoroughly and make sure it's scriptural. If "that's not God's will" and "He sent His Son to ... die on the cross _for you_" (Christ died only for the elect) weren't in that tract, I think it'd be a good one.

I think mentioning "the elect" in witnessing can distract from the real issue (repentance) but some people are more adept at witnessing than I am.
[BIBLE]2 Corinthians 5:20[/BIBLE]


----------



## xirtam

JimmyH said:


> I could rattle on a bunch in this thread. I recently stopped attending the Baptist church of which I am a member. I've been going to an OPC church for a month now. I am much happier there. At my Baptist church the pastor, a really devoted man, always ends with 'altar calls.' The Billy Graham style invitation to walk up the aisle and accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. I remember hearing Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in a sermon, commenting on that method, saying something like,"A free and easy salvation is of little value." I firmly believe that and I am pleased that there is no such practice in my OPC church. I intend to send a letter of withdrawal to my Baptist church and will eventually join this OPC fellowship.
> 
> When I was in my late teens, living according to the course of this world, having been raised by atheists, I read the gospels for the first time. Frankly it was scary. There was going to be a wailing and a gnashing of teeth and I hoped it wasn't true. I was much more attuned to the concept of being reincarnated again and again until we 'get it right.' A street evangelist accosted me and began to preach the gospel. The fellow was probably, like me, 18 years old or so. I listened to his presentation until he asked me if I would pray the sinner's prayer and accept Jesus as my personal savior.
> 
> I had read enough of the gospel to know that it wasn't just believe, but repent and believe so I asked him if that wasn't so. He said yes, that is it. I told him in no uncertain terms that I was not about to repent and that I was going to happily continue to live for the lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and desires of the mind. Obviously I didn't say 'that' exactly but in so many words that was my point. I walked away leaving him somewhat discouraged. It took another 18 years for the Holy Spirit to bring me back to the Bible, enlighten the eyes of my understanding, and seal me with the Spirit. This in a room alone reading the gospels again and in the Book of Romans.
> 
> Many of those I associate with are unbelievers. I have tried to demonstrate Christ through being transformed by a renewing of my mind. Letting my conversation (KJV) be such that they will be attracted to the Word. My behavior being more the witness than my words. One friend of 20 or so years, 64 years old like me, has begun to ask me questions. You mention Ray Comfort not speaking about election. My friend and I have had some conversations where theology came up. I mentioned election which went to limited atonement. This, predictably, brought forth a very negative reaction. Brought to my mind that babes in Christ must be fed milk until they are ready for meat.
> 
> No question that faith comes by hearing and if they do not hear how will they believe, so we must keep on doing the best we can. I commend you for your genuine concern and I hope that you find a way that is suited to you. I hope that you and your wife, being so far from home are being fed and nurtured in your church. I highly recommend that you access oneplace.com here and listen to the sermons of Reverend Martyn Lloyd-Jones and many others. You can also go to the MLJ trust website here and source sermons by topic. He preached some that were strictly evangelical.



Thank you, kind Sir, for your insight. My lovely wife and I have been attending some places similar to what you have mentioned. They do not do altar calls where we are now, which is a Korean Presbyterian church. My family and I will be moving back to Canada (God willing), where I have been in touch with the pastor at a reformed church in Nova Scotia. I was connected to him by someone here on this sight. 


I thank you again for your suggestion and insight.

In Christ,


----------



## Mushroom

I had the impression that Brian was in the process of pursuing a call to the ministry from earlier posts.


----------



## xirtam

Nebrexan said:


> xirtam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi David, do you believe that the million dollar gospel tracts are a bad idea (false teaching, heresy even)? What about their other material? I see what you say about "That's not God's will.", but would we be able to say that "for the elect is it not God's will." I'm just asking.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Xirtam -- As one of God's ambassadors (2Co 5:20) I have an obligation to represent Him accurately, especially to those who don't know Him. I used to use many of Living Waters' tracts but after my "conversion" to Reformed theology, I'm more selective. Before distributing any material that describes God, we need to read it thoroughly and make sure it's scriptural. If "that's not God's will" and "He sent His Son to ... die on the cross _for you_" (Christ died only for the elect) weren't in that tract, I think it'd be a good one.
> 
> I think mentioning "the elect" in witnessing can distract from the real issue (repentance) but some people are more adept at witnessing than I am.
> [BIBLE]2 Corinthians 5:20[/BIBLE]
Click to expand...


I agree, Sir. Maybe I'll make my own tracts or at least start searching for some Biblical/Scriptural material. I appreciate your wisdom.


Thanks again.

In Christ,


----------



## xirtam

Mushroom said:


> I had the impression that Brian was in the process of pursuing a call to the ministry from earlier posts.




This is true.


----------



## sevenzedek

xirtam said:


> 2) How could the "good person test" be improved so that it is biblical?



It is very difficult, in my opinion, to evangelize to complete strangers within minutes of meeting them. I haven't much experience doing that.

However, my approach with strangers in the past has been very conversational. I have started conversations with people about whatever comes to mind. After a basic trust happens through the conversation happens, I would then lead the conversation to spiritual matters. I have learned to ask many questions. This sometimes helps people to open up. However, if they are not willing to listen, sometimes I just quit altogether or say something that gets to the point of the gospel for themselves. I often include myself in crisis the gospel presents in order to try to come along side them.

The scriptures do not give us a list of methods, but we are told that a person who wins souls is wise. Therefore, I think the approach that I have delineated above falls in line with biblical witnessing. I have found wisdom to lead me this approach. However, others will find that wisdom applies differently to their personality and special circumstances in the process of witnessing.

I think that you have already started to find wisdom for your approach. I also made my own tracts when I was a truck driver driving across the country.

People are as varied as the stars. Even though the reformed tradition often strives to find out how the bible addresses every aspect of life in the minutiae, perhaps this approach this approach is not always best. People are people. We are relational. God sends us to tell the message because we are like one another. We share and feel. I think those who are especially gifted at evangelizing are good at thinking on their toes.

In summary of what I have said, a person who wins souls is wise. Therefore, strive, not only for a biblical conscience, but for wisdom as well.


----------



## xirtam

> It is very difficult, in my opinion, to evangelize to complete strangers within minutes of meeting them. I haven't much experience doing that.



Something that I find helpful with what the WOTM emphasis is the ease in which it is "to evangelize to complete strangers". Do not get me wrong, I get nervous initially, but these encounters are always conversational and not as "cut and paste" and they may seem. 



> I often include myself in crisis the gospel presents in order to try to come along side them.




Jon, this is very helpful advice. What I notice a lot is that people are quick to say something like, "you cannot judge me, I bet you have broken the law, everyone else does the same thing...". So, I think by being as transparent as possible, breaks down some of those walls in communication. 





> The scriptures do not give us a list of methods, but we are told that a person who wins souls is wise. Therefore, I think the approach that I have delineated above falls in line with biblical witnessing. I have found wisdom to lead me this approach. However, others will find that wisdom applies differently to their personality and special circumstances in the process of witnessing.



There is wisdom here, Jon. Thank you.




> I also made my own tracts when I was a truck driver driving across the country.



That sounds like a good idea. 



> People are as varied as the stars. Even though the reformed tradition often strives to find out how the bible addresses every aspect of life in the minutiae, perhaps this approach this approach is not always best. People are people. We are relational. God sends us to tell the message because we are like one another. We share and feel. I think those who are especially gifted at evangelizing are good at thinking on their toes.



This is true. But would you say that we are to preach "law, then gospel"?


In Christ,


----------



## sevenzedek

xirtam said:


> People are as varied as the stars. Even though the reformed tradition often strives to find out how the bible addresses every aspect of life in the minutiae, perhaps this approach this approach is not always best. People are people. We are relational. God sends us to tell the message because we are like one another. We share and feel. I think those who are especially gifted at evangelizing are good at thinking on their toes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true. But would you say that we are to preach "law, then gospel"?
Click to expand...


I would. One must know the bad news before the good news will make any sense.

I should have clarified more, but I do believe our theology ought to deeply inform our approach to evangelism. Of course, one of the ways we do this is by presenting the law before we present the gospel.

The aim of my post, besides commending wisdom, was to also commend variety in our approach. Comfort seems to have a strict method for his approach and it appears to work for him, but I think a message that is tailored to the individual has more impact. Mine is highly conversational and relational (I'm still working on that).

There are more ways of presenting the law to someone and proving they are a sinner than stating the last six commandments. My experience has been that most people already agree they are not perfect and do not even measure up to their own standards. I just think the gospel has more impact on a person if it is presented to them in the context of their own lives. That is why I try to get to know the people I talk to about the gospel. Granted, there have been times when I have not had the luxury of getting to know the person before speaking to them. Maybe that is why Comfort's method seems to work for you and him.

Admittedly, I certainly do not have as much experience evangelizing as Comfort does; even you for that matter. You appear to be more purposeful and diligent in your approach than myself. What I have said just comes from my own observations and experiences.

On another note, I would like to add that I have made many, many mistakes while learning to share Christ with others. It is kind of like riding a bike. Before I learned to ride well, I often fell down. Riding a bike is something that can only be learned by doing it. So, while our theology ought to deeply inform our approach to evangelism, head knowledge does not always help in the way that is needed when you have a person in front of you who needs you to begin relating personally with them in order to share the good news. While the bible should inform our approach to evangelism, learning to evangelize does not happen by reading our bibles. Of course, reading our bibles can improve our ability to evangelize well, but we learn it by doing it, and a person is going make many mistakes along the way.

Part of the good news of the gospel is that God uses weak people to do great things.


----------



## xirtam

> On another note, I would like to add that I have made many, many mistakes while learning to share Christ with others. It is kind of like riding a bike. Before I learned to ride well, I often fell down. Riding a bike is something that can only be learned by doing it. So, while our theology ought to deeply inform our approach to evangelism, head knowledge does not always help in the way that is needed when you have a person in front of you who needs you to begin relating personally with them in order to share the good news. While the bible should inform our approach to evangelism, learning to evangelize does not happen by reading our bibles. Of course, reading our bibles can improve our ability to evangelize well, but we learn it by doing it, and a person is going make many mistakes along the way.
> 
> Part of the good news of the gospel is that God uses weak people to do great things.



Thank you, Jon, for your words of wisdom and your concern.

In Christ,


----------



## xirtam

So, to answer my original post, based on the advice of everyone, the Good Person test can be reformed. Witnessing the good news of Jesus Christ is not done in a cookie cutter, but we surely are to have the right ingredients. 

For those of us that find it difficult to witness, go find a sinner and give it a try!


In Christ,


----------



## psycheives

Dear Brian,

I didn't have a chance to read through all the great responses but I was also taught the WOTM and I also felt it greatly lacking. It is very much focused on Finneyism/Decisionism. But decisionism doesn't save! Yet this seems to be Comfort's main goal. Also, I completely do not believe in giving anyone FALSE ASSURANCE that once they make their decision, that they are saved. It would be preferable to let them think they are unsaved and go home in fear and let the Holy Spirit do His work. So copying the "you are a sinner" part of the scheme might be useful but I would toss the rest of it. The whole goal of the scheme is off.

Also, I read half his book and wanted to throw it! It is SOO full of man-focused Arminian theology. I highly recommend Will Metzger's Tell The Truth for a complete evaluation of what is wrong with Arminian evangelism and the differences between the two methods and how to do it the Calvinist way.


----------



## GoodTreeMinistries.com

I think when we are witnessing to people it should be a conversation. WOTM has a good approach of the law being a school master to bring us to Christ. I have found it very helpful to see what kind of church background they have if any and why they would think they are saved. The most important parts of reformed evangelism is the topic of Total Depravity. We must show the person they are lost and have a need for such a great savior as ours. God only saves bad people! The 10 commandment is a good way to show a person they are one of these bad people. I never lead a person in a prayer but just tell them how to be saved. I do not have a problem with the way of the master approach as a format to start from. When I first started witnessing I found out the great plans I had all went out the door and I became nervous. I pray now God will guide me on what to say. I like to leave a person with some way to get into contact with me. Also will give them a good sound tract, sometimes a good sermon or a book. We are just here to point people to the savior! We trust God will give the increase! Here is my evangelism page on my website. Evangelism Page - Good Tree Ministries (Bearing Good Fruit) it has some great free sermons you can download and give out or just email to people that are reformed. Also has some links where you can make your own tracts. I do not pass out any tracts that have the sinners prayer. More on sinners prayer: Sinners Prayer Does not Save - Good Tree Ministries (Bearing Good Fruit) God Bless! Hope this helps some.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth

Funny I just ordered 300 of those "million dollar tracts." I will be using a sharpie to black out the "that's not God's will" part of it. 

While I do like what Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are doing with WOTM here are a couple ways to make God more of the focus when using this method of street evangelism. 

-Explain the holiness of God.
-Use the first table of the law to show that we are all sinners. 
-Is God first and foremost in your life? 
-Do you glorify God in all that you do? 
-We are all created as creatures that worship; the question is, what do you worship most in your life? 
-Our hearts are a factory of idols, we set up idols in our lives that we worship above the Creator who is worthy of all worship and praise.
-God is a jealous God and we were created to glorify and live for Him.

You get the picture of what I mean. I do think that using the second table of the law is a good way to show that we are sinners but I think that using the first is even more damning if you make the holiness of God known first and foremost.

In short explain:
The holiness of God
The depravity of man
The demands of God's justice
The good news of the eternal Son of God's propitiation for all the sins of all His people by His perfect active obedience and His perfect passive obedience on the cross as He took upon Himself the full wrath of God that was due unto His elect.
Then tell them that God commands ALL men everywhere to repent and believe in the work of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
To read the Bible daily and obey what you read, find a good local (Reformed Baptist...j/k) church to join in fellowship with and give them your number for any additional questions they may have.
Make sure you have a burden to share, with love and compassion and pray for the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I can send you a tract that I wrote up which is more in-depth but still concise. Just shoot me an email if you would like to check it out and use it.
[email protected]


----------



## sevenzedek

5-Point Baptist said:


> I will be using a sharpie to black out the "that's not God's will" part of it.



It would not be so bad for the lost the read that part of the tract that says, "that's not God's will." While it is God's will that some must perish, it is also God's will that ALL believe the gospel, and to this God directs them. So, according to this sense, it really is not God's will that they fail to believe the gospel and then perish because God commands otherwise. The reason it is God's will that people perish is due to the fact that they do not turn to Christ. The lost do not need to be concerned so much about how God moves them to look to Christ. The emphasis should rather fall on whether they will or will not turn to him. The question is, do they want to come to God through Christ. The sinful mind of man is prone to blame God for their unbelief and involving the unbeliever in such a discussion may prove to inflame such a wrong conclusion. How disheartening would it be for an unbeliever to hear that there is a way of salvation offered only to hear the uncertainty of God's will concerning them? "Does he want me to be saved or not? Is it possible for me to be saved? What if it is not God's will for me to be saved when I really do want to have a relationship with him?" These and other questions are likely to form in the minds of the lost. On these premises, it is not God's will that they perish.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth

sevenzedek said:


> 5-Point Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will be using a sharpie to black out the "that's not God's will" part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would not be so bad for the lost the read that part of the tract that says, "that's not God's will." While it is God's will that some must perish, it is also God's will that ALL believe the gospel, and to this God directs them. So, according to this sense, it really is not God's will that they fail to believe the gospel and then perish because God commands otherwise. The reason it is God's will that people perish is due to the fact that they do not turn to Christ. The lost do not need to be concerned so much about how God moves them to look to Christ. The emphasis should rather fall on whether they will or will not turn to him. The question is, do they want to come to God through Christ. The sinful mind of man is prone to blame God for their unbelief and involving the unbeliever in such a discussion may prove to inflame such a wrong conclusion. How disheartening would it be for an unbeliever to hear that there is a way of salvation offered only to hear the uncertainty of God's will concerning them? "Does he want me to be saved or not? Is it possible for me to be saved? What if it is not God's will for me to be saved when I really do want to have a relationship with him?" These and other questions are likely to form in the minds of the lost. On these premises, it is not God's will that they perish.
Click to expand...


Great point brother. Although I dont think that by omitting those words the person would even think about God's will concerning each individual person unless they have read the tract before or ask why is this blacked out (which is more probable and could open the discussion towards election which is not an emphasis on which proclaiming of the gospel should have.) 
I like what J.I. Packer and others have stated in more words than these " election is a family secret" (paraphrased).


----------



## sevenzedek

Jason,

I don't believe a person is harmed by omitting the words you intend to delete and I also like what Packer has said. I think one of the reasons the doctrine of election should be regarded as a family secret, so to speak, is because of the tendency of the sinful mind to make wrong conclusions because of it. Even those within the family of God wrestle with these things concerning God's will. I am one who has, even as I have often been perplexed with my own willingness to sin since becoming a christian. The whole reason why I decided to emphasize the point I made was to underscore the great care that should be taken when dealing with this topic when relating to the unconverted.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth

sevenzedek said:


> Jason,
> 
> I don't believe a person is harmed by omitting the words you intend to delete and I also like what Packer has said. I think one of the reasons the doctrine of election should be regarded as a family secret, so to speak, is because of the tendency of the sinful mind to make wrong conclusions because of it. Even those within the family of God wrestle with these things concerning God's will. I am one who has, even as I have often been perplexed with my own willingness to sin since becoming a christian. The whole reason why I decided to emphasize the point I made was to underscore the great care that should be taken when dealing with this topic when relating to the unconverted.



Jon,
I agree with you 100%. In my early cage stage of becoming "Reformed" and after reading "Absolute Predestination" by Jerome Zanchius (excellent book btw),I would use election and predestination as my zealous launching point to share the gospel. Where as now I wont even bring it up unless the person steers the conversation in that direction. If that happens then I do not sugar coat it one bit. In fact I will do my best to show God's absolute sovereignty in ALL things. 
The apostles did not make it a point of emphasis in their proclaiming the gospel throughout the book of Acts and neither should we.


----------



## sevenzedek

5-Point Baptist said:


> If that happens then I do not sugar coat it one bit. In fact I will do my best to show God's absolute sovereignty in ALL things.



I am trying to clarify what you mean.

On the note concerning sugar coating, both the LBC and the WCF makes a useful comment that emphasizes what I was trying guard against:

LBC 3:7. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care...

That is why I would argue that it should be sugar-coated (if that would even be a good way to state it); of course, not to the point of distorting the truth. In other words, the unbeliever will most likely need help interpreting the doctrine of election correctly in order to protect them from sinful conclusions. Perhaps this is what you intend when you approach unbelievers with this weighty doctrine. However, it wasn't coming through in your statement.

Did you mean that you speak of this doctrine without shame when you said "I do not sugar coat it one bit"? With that conclusion I would agree.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth

sevenzedek said:


> 5-Point Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that happens then I do not sugar coat it one bit. In fact I will do my best to show God's absolute sovereignty in ALL things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am trying to clarify what you mean.
> 
> On the note concerning sugar coating, both the LBC and the WCF makes a useful comment that emphasizes what I was trying guard against:
> 
> LBC 3:7. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care...
> 
> That is why I would argue that it should be sugar-coated (if that would even be a good way to state it); of course, not to the point of distorting the truth. In other words, the unbeliever will most likely need help interpreting the doctrine of election correctly in order to protect them from sinful conclusions. Perhaps this is what you intend when you approach unbelievers with this weighty doctrine. However, it wasn't coming through in your statement.
> 
> Did you mean that you speak of this doctrine without shame when you said "I do not sugar coat it one bit"? With that conclusion I would agree.
Click to expand...


Yes brother as feeding an infant going from milk to solid foods. Gentle.... because the digestive system of that child needs to adjust to the new food (information). In other words, if the conversation goes that way it must be told humbly, completely, but with no apology. If the proclaiming of God's holiness and our total depravity is made clear before hand, then God's total sovereignty will be able to be digested. Maybe easily or maybe with some difficulty but digested none the less. Or they may just vomit it out and keep on truckin' in the broad way.


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

5-Point Baptist said:


> Funny I just ordered 300 of those "million dollar tracts." I will be using a sharpie to black out the "that's not God's will" part of it.
> 
> While I do like what Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are doing with WOTM here are a couple ways to make God more of the focus when using this method of street evangelism.
> 
> -Explain the holiness of God.
> -Use the first table of the law to show that we are all sinners.
> -Is God first and foremost in your life?
> -Do you glorify God in all that you do?
> -We are all created as creatures that worship; the question is, what do you worship most in your life?
> -Our hearts are a factory of idols, we set up idols in our lives that we worship above the Creator who is worthy of all worship and praise.
> -God is a jealous God and we were created to glorify and live for Him.
> 
> You get the picture of what I mean. I do think that using the second table of the law is a good way to show that we are sinners but I think that using the first is even more damning if you make the holiness of God known first and foremost.
> 
> In short explain:
> The holiness of God
> The depravity of man
> The demands of God's justice
> The good news of the eternal Son of God's propitiation for all the sins of all His people by His perfect active obedience and His perfect passive obedience on the cross as He took upon Himself the full wrath of God that was due unto His elect.
> Then tell them that God commands ALL men everywhere to repent and believe in the work of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
> To read the Bible daily and obey what you read, find a good local (Reformed Baptist...j/k) church to join in fellowship with and give them your number for any additional questions they may have.
> Make sure you have a burden to share, with love and compassion and pray for the leading of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> I can send you a tract that I wrote up which is more in-depth but still concise. Just shoot me an email if you would like to check it out and use it.
> [email protected]


----------

