# Evangelism in Acts



## arapahoepark (Aug 11, 2012)

Hey I just ran across a book by scott mcknight regarding how modern day evangelism has boiled everything down to only personal salvation and how we should follow the book of acts. It seemed he was advocating the 'Jesus is Lord' gospel and sounded too much like wright. I did not know who McKnight was and still really don't, though when I typed in his name on google, a bunch of emergents came up as related topics or persons. What I know is he's not a Calvinist, far from it, so his book on this evangelism gospel is not one to look to.

However, this got me wondering about the book of Acts and how the Gospel was shared in it. I read an article that is quite interesting on the subject, not sure if it's exactly what I am looking for but at least part of it is there that remedies the above situation (McKnight's book, though in a different way):http://thecripplegate.com/evangelism-and-the-extent-of-the-atonement/ Is it something we should look to as a framework? Are there any 'other' books on the subject? What are your guys' thoughts on this?


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Aug 11, 2012)

arap said:


> What I know is he's not a Calvinist, far from it, so his book on this evangelism gospel is not one to look to.



I am not familiar with McKnight, or his book. However, I would be very careful in making the conclusion that because A is not true (he's not a Calvinist), B (his book...is not one to look to) is true. 

There have been many non-Calvinists throughout Church history who have served the Lord and the body of Christ well and whose works are well worthy of reading. Tozer comes immediately to mind in this regard. 

It is good to read any material with a discerning spirit and test it to see if it is scriptural and true.


----------



## Frosty (Aug 11, 2012)

arap said:


> It seemed he was advocating the 'Jesus is Lord' gospel



What's the problem with this? If this is true, then isn't he coming down on the correct side of the Lordship Salvation controversy? Easy-believism being shot down?


From what I have read of him, I am guessing he is coming from more of a "to be a Christian firstly means you are part of the most meaningful community on earth", emergent mumbo-jumbo.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 12, 2012)

Its more of an NTWright kind of emphasis: Jesus is Lord (not Caesar); not that much concern with personal sin, etc.

Jesus already died for the sins of the world (lock-stock-n-barrel) so sin's not the major issue. Salvation is more about "allegiance" and identifying with the winning side in the cosmic conflict.


----------



## MarieP (Aug 13, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Jesus already died for the sins of the world (lock-stock-n-barrel) so sin's not the major issue. Salvation is more about "allegiance" and identifying with the winning side in the cosmic conflict.



Do McKnight/Wright actually say this? I never read that they believe that!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 14, 2012)

NTWright says, "Justification is more about ecclesiology than soteriology."


----------



## MarieP (Aug 14, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> NTWright says, "Justification is more about ecclesiology than soteriology."



I was aware he said that, but I didn't know he said, "Jesus already died for the sins of the world (lock-stock-n-barrel)". I thought he held to some form of limited atonement or at least Amyraldianism.

Anyway, I think justice needs to be done (on their part) to a text like Psalm 143:1-3: "Hear my prayer, O Lord, give ear to my supplications! In Your faithfulness answer me, and in Your righteousness. Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for in Your sight no one living is righteous. For the enemy has persecuted my soul; He has crushed my life to the ground; He has made me dwell in darkness, like those who have long been dead."

And Hebrews 2:14-15- "Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."

God is faithful to His covenant and is the Judge of sin and unrighteousness (why else would death be feared?). As Moises Silva pointed out, we don't want to make false dichotomies.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Aug 14, 2012)

arap said:


> Hey I just ran across a book by scott mcknight regarding how modern day evangelism has boiled everything down to only personal salvation and how we should follow the book of acts. It seemed he was advocating the 'Jesus is Lord' gospel and sounded too much like wright. I did not know who McKnight was and still really don't, though when I typed in his name on google, a bunch of emergents came up as related topics or persons. What I know is he's not a Calvinist, far from it, so his book on this evangelism gospel is not one to look to.



Trent,

I Googled McKnight and NT Wright and quickly scanned some of their works and a bit of commentary on their works. One thing I did notice about Scot McKnight's work is that he argues that the modern day gospel message proclaimed by most evangelicals is too focused on Christ as Savior and a "personal salvation", rather than on discipleship, i.e. becoming Christ followers and acknowledging Jesus as Lord and Savior. McKnight argues that this creates an in or out concept among professing believer's and tends to leave it at that. Instead of this, McKnight says we should focus on making Christ followers and disciples who come to Jesus as Lord first and Savior second. 

As you pointed out, there was considerable information out there linking McKnight to the Emergent church, particularly to Brian McLaren.

I didn't take the time to dig into what McKnight means by acknowledging Christ as Lord, but I have to say that on some level, this part of his argument resonates with me. I am actively involved in street evangelism and collaborate with believers from several evangelical churches in outreach, several of whom use the "Way of the Master" method exclusively. Way of the Master (WOTM) is a method of evangelism taught by Ray Comfort and widely used throughout the world. Though I have taken a couple of classes and explored some of Ray's material, I do not use this "method". However, in some of Ray's work, if I recall correctly, it may have been in his "Hell's Best Kept Secret" CD, Ray identifies some of the problems of new converts, and the issues he raises correlate with some of McKnight's conclusions.

From my limited familiarity with each of these men's work, it seems they both identified problems in that many who profess faith, perhaps at a crusade or revival, or they walk down a church aisle and sign a card - do not continue to walk with the Lord after this "experience" or profession of faith. 

McKnight says we have extracted the gospel of salvation from its context and are presenting only part of the picture. Thus one may conclude that since people presented with the gospel in this manner only see their need for a savior, and fail to grasp that Jesus is Lord over all, hence their failure to follow Christ in their lives after their profession of faith.

Ray Comfort teaches in part that they have not properly acknowledged their sin before God, likely because of a watered-down gospel presentation where they may have been told 'God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life'. Comfort argues instead that they should be made very aware of hell and that they are headed there unless they repent and come to Christ as Savior. (Of course I have greatly simplified and paraphrased what Ray teaches for brevity). Comfort likes to use the example of people in a plane with parachutes and says it won't save you (if the plane crashes) unless you put it on.

In my humble opinion, it seems both Comfort and McKnight have identified problems in professing Christians not walking the walk that goes along with their profession. I agree that this is an issue, though I'm not sure either of their assessments adequately deals with the problem. 

In Comfort's case, I can not personally get around that WHY one comes to Christ is immaterial, in that it is of the flesh and there can be no good in the flesh. So coming to avoid hell is no better than coming to partake of heaven or of 'God's wonderful plan for our lives'. It is the coming to Christ that matters and salvation is a work of God, not of man. In McKnight's case, I have not dug deeply into what he sees as coming to Christ as Lord, but suspect that given his emergent inclination, it may lack substance, yet on the surface it may be a good starting point for further thought.

McKnight's argument that the evangelical church at large focuses too much on salvation and not on following Christ may be a valid argument. I can affirm that in my experience with street evangelism, I encounter the same people repeatedly, and see that even if they may make a profession of faith, their lives often do not reflect this at the points where I encounter them. (Many of those I interact with say they are believers when we first discuss faith, though some have responded to the message of salvation when presented with the gospel). I have been repeatedly impressed with the deep need for discipleship among those in inner-city Denver who profess faith and struggle with evangelism among this group when there is not adequate follow-up available. Ultimately, we need to trust God with their salvation and to grow them in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, yet the absence of faithful teaching and discipleship almost creates the very climate that McKnight argues exists within the evangelical church today: a focus on salvation to the exclusion of a life of following Christ. In my humble opinion, this can lead to churches full of babes in Christ. My Dad used to tell the story of my Grandma's pastor who preached almost the same salvation message to the same small church filled with professing Christians, week after week. 

So where does that leave us regarding evangelism? It is only through the preaching of the cross that men and women will come to Christ. Yet, divorcing the message of salvation from its context of redemption and renewal, or presenting it in such a way that the hearers fail to comprehend the holiness, righteousness and justness of God, and our guilt before Him may result in people thinking they are saved because they subscribe to a set of beliefs, when in reality, they don't really understand the message of salvation. When I came to Christ, it was in my living room, as I read John 14:15,23. The Lord quickened my understanding and I realized that if I really believed these things, it would change my life. For many years, I had given mental ascent to the gospel of salvation, but my life did not reflect my faith. In fact, I lived for myself and with great disregard for God and His word. I was raised in an almost antinomian atmosphere, though I had heard the gospel many times over. I thought, 'yeah, I sin, but it's no big deal...we all sin and that's why Christ came.' I never before this time humbled myself before God and realized the offense MY sin before our holy, righteous and just God. In my case, I had not seen the gospel lived before me, nor had I been encouraged toward holy living or submitting and humbling myself before God, yet I knew the gospel.

Should we continue to share the gospel of salvation? Absolutely! But to divorce it from its context may prevent some hearers of the gospel from fully understanding it. Yet at the same time, the Lord is surely able to provide follow-up and discipleship for those He is wooing unto salvation. Here in Denver, I pray the Lord will raise up faithful servants for the inner city. The harvest is plentiful and the laborers indeed are few.

As an afterthought, it occurred to me that how we live our daily lives and intersect even with strangers has the potential to impact them for eternity. How do we know who God is wooing unto salvation, or who may have just heard the gospel when our paths cross? As we live our daily lives as an act of worship and present our bodies as living sacrifices before God, our lives may serve to reinforce the message of salvation and demonstrate God's redemption in our own lives. Of course, the opposite is true, should our lives not reflect Christ as Lord.


----------



## KMK (Aug 14, 2012)

arap said:


> However, this got me wondering about the book of Acts and how the Gospel was shared in it.



Acts tells about 'informal' preaching done by everyday Christians and 'formal' preaching done by those who were 'called and equipped' by the church. Those who were 'called and equipped' by the church preached in the synagogues first and when they had worn out there welcome there, they went to preach in the market.

Are you wondering more about the 'informal' or 'formal' side of preaching? Acts doesn't have a whole lot to say about the details of the former.


----------



## J. Dean (Aug 14, 2012)

Frosty said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> > It seemed he was advocating the 'Jesus is Lord' gospel
> ...


But saying "Jesus is Lord" is the gospel could turn very quickly into Pietism/Works-righteousness. 

I talked to my Sunday School class about this more than once: that Christians need to define/unpack their terminology and not assume that others understand what is meant by what we say. If you are telling people the gospel is "Jesus is Lord" without explaining what is meant, you run the real risk of misunderstanding by people hearing that and saying "Oh! That means I need to clean my act up!"

We need to be VERY careful that the Arminian/Pietistic wing of Christianity is not defining our terms for us.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Aug 14, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> But saying "Jesus is Lord" is the gospel could turn very quickly into Pietism/Works-righteousness.
> 
> I talked to my Sunday School class about this more than once: that Christians need to define/unpack their terminology and not assume that others understand what is meant by what we say. If you are telling people the gospel is "Jesus is Lord" without explaining what is meant, you run the real risk of misunderstanding by people hearing that and saying "Oh! That means I need to clean my act up!"
> 
> We need to be VERY careful that the Arminian/Pietistic wing of Christianity is not defining our terms for us.



The words we use are so very important, and need to take our audience into consideration. We can not assume that others necessarily understand our Christian-eze the same way we intend it! I personally would never incorporate "Jesus is Lord" into the gospel, yet I believe that seeing Jesus as Lord is a result of saving faith. It is so important to listen to those whom we reach out to with the message of salvation and to allow the Holy Spirit to direct our conversations with them so we can reach them where they are and unpack our terminology in a way they can understand.


----------



## arapahoepark (Aug 14, 2012)

KMK said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> > However, this got me wondering about the book of Acts and how the Gospel was shared in it.
> ...



Either I suppose is fine to look at and be dissected.


----------



## MarieP (Aug 14, 2012)

CuriousNdenver said:


> I personally would never incorporate "Jesus is Lord" into the gospel



Why? It's one thing to say that this is all the Gospel entails, but it's another to throw out this phraseology as if it has not part in the Gospel. The Gospel is the death and resurrection of Christ- leave out either, and it's not the Gospel!



CuriousNdenver said:


> yet I believe that seeing Jesus as Lord is a result of saving faith



I'm not sure I'd say it's a "result" as much as it's "part" of saving faith. Why trust Jesus to forgive our sins if He is not Lord?


----------



## KMK (Aug 14, 2012)

arap said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > arap said:
> ...



I agree. I was just trying to understand what your question is. 

Evangelism in Littleton, CO might look different than the book of Acts. The Greco-Roman world placed a high value on the sharing of new ideas in the public arena. Paul could preach in the market and draw a crowd. Today, a preacher could preach at Park Meadows Mall and be avoided or even asked to leave. It is difficult to find formal preaching opportunities outside of church in a society whose first reaction is to distrust anyone who speaks with authority.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 14, 2012)

MarieP said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > NTWright says, "Justification is more about ecclesiology than soteriology."
> ...



Marie, I think the issue is not false dichotomy, but an inversion of priority that fails even at the beginning to bring most such converts into living union with the Lord Christ.

There are two basic directions one can go with a *universal provision* by the atoning death of Christ if/as it relates to sin--which is essentially the stance of nearly all positions to the right of liberalism and the left of calvinism proper. (I'm excluding calvinism proper precisely because of its immediate, intentional qualification of the universal scope; everyone knows calvinism teaches an "up-front" limitation.) One direction is toward an emphasis on personal appropriation, in order to _secure_ that which has been provided; that is, the question of personal sin has the priority. However, it is true that for many people, this appropriation is also the limit of their their thinking regarding salvation.

The other direction takes as its "given" the objectivity of universal provision, and its emphasis tilts toward personal application; that is, the question of personal commitment has the priority. There ends up a spectrum of seriousness, along the lines of the kind of nationalistic attitudes of a given country. To illustrate, the vast, vast majority of people who live in the USA happily and fervently declare their allegiance to the state and its constitution, etc. The Flag becomes a major rallying point, regardless of the Party that holds power or office in Washington. So, regardless of how "divided" that allegiance is (between self and state), the issue of "belonging" is conveniently settled. Even many criminals in jail comfort themselves that, however much their felony convictions have stripped them of privilege, they have not been un-Citizened.

I think that turning evangelism's principal or initial effort into getting people to "commit" to Jesus as Lord, rather than acknowledging that they are truest rebels in the first place, death-deserving and criminal, is a fatal mispriority. The picture we're given is something like a herald coming into a distant province, and announcing a change in government, promising better days ahead. And, ala Tevye in _Fiddler on the Roof_, everyone says, "God bless the tsar... far away from here." And life goes on not much different from before: no one rebels; or resists conscription when quotas are demanded; they dutifully learn the new anthem and send taxes to the new government. As long as they are compliant, they rest assured that their Savior will defend them from the frontier to the capital.

It doesn't matter how committed they are, or their petty virtues or vices or local politics. The ultimate allegiance--which swallows up all the degrees of devotion, rewards "effort," and promises a final justification based on work (did you _at least_ cast your votes, pay your taxes, shoot off fireworks on the 4th, not aid-and-abet-the-terrorists)--this is what ensures that the universal provision will not be withdrawn. *This is what J.Dean was talking about above*: "clean up the act" is the natural response to this emphasis.


An emphasis on Lordship isn't a true corrective to an "overemphasis" on personal salvation. It is an inversion of the proper order of these things. The herald of Christ comes to the city or the village or the isolated farm, and tells everyone that they have been sentenced to death--but, that He to whom all judgment has been entrusted has offered them an amazing pardon for their wicked rebellion. If they will accept Him, it is properly as Savior _and_ Lord. It's not just that he defeated the previous overlord and tragic-cruel dictatorship and the conditions of misery and oppression, but that he subdues me to himself through his salvation.

According to our Confession, we have _always_ preached a complete Christ, the Mediator in all his offices: Prophet, Priest, _and King_. If our evangelism is true to our Confession it isn't defective, as is the vast majority of Evangelicalism.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## MarieP (Aug 14, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> An emphasis on Lordship isn't a true corrective to an "overemphasis" on personal salvation. It is an inversion of the proper order of these things. The herald of Christ comes to the city or the village or the isolated farm, and tells everyone that they have been sentenced to death--but, that He to whom all judgment has been entrusted has offered them an amazing pardon for their wicked rebellion. If they will accept Him, it is properly as Savior and Lord. It's not just that he defeated the previous overlord and tragic-cruel dictatorship and the conditions of misery and oppression, but that he subdues me to himself through his salvation.



Amen! I agree wholeheartedly!


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Aug 14, 2012)

MarieP said:


> Originally Posted by CuriousNdenver
> I personally would never incorporate "Jesus is Lord" into the gospel
> Why? It's one thing to say that this is all the Gospel entails, but it's another to throw out this phraseology as if it has not part in the Gospel. The Gospel is the death and resurrection of Christ- leave out either, and it's not the Gospel!
> 
> ...



Marie, I think I did not choose my words very wisely here. I didn't mean to imply that I would not try to help unbeliever's see that Jesus is Lord, but that I would not simply present that as the gospel, in lieu of the message that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and that through his perfect sacrificial death, burial and resurrection we can have peace with God and forgiveness of sins. 

Again, it seems my words did not clearly convey my thoughts about honoring Jesus as Lord as a result of saving faith. Yes, I agree, we should see Him as Lord as we come to the cross in repentance unto salvation. Perhaps I could have better said that our living our lives honoring Him as Lord is a result of salvation. 

It seems that Rev. Buchanan has expressed this far better than I could hope to when he said this:



Contra_Mundum said:


> An emphasis on Lordship isn't a true corrective to an "overemphasis" on personal salvation. It is an inversion of the proper order of these things. The herald of Christ comes to the city or the village or the isolated farm, and tells everyone that they have been sentenced to death--but, that He to whom all judgment has been entrusted has offered them an amazing pardon for their wicked rebellion. If they will accept Him, it is properly as Savior and Lord. It's not just that he defeated the previous overlord and tragic-cruel dictatorship and the conditions of misery and oppression, but that he subdues me to himself through his salvation.



Since I am actively involved in street evangelism, I pray that the Lord will guide my words. This is one reason that I like to incorporate lots of scripture when I share the gospel with unbelievers. God has promised that His word will not return void and my thoughts are, the more of His word I share, the less likely I am to cloud the gospel message by my choice of words.

I appreciate the opportunity this forum gives us (and the precious brothers and sisters who contribute), to learn from each other!


----------



## MarieP (Aug 14, 2012)

CuriousNdenver said:


> Marie, I think I did not choose my words very wisely here. I didn't mean to imply that I would not try to help unbeliever's see that Jesus is Lord, but that I would not simply present that as the gospel, in lieu of the message that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and that through his perfect sacrificial death, burial and resurrection we can have peace with God and forgiveness of sins.



Amen! Thanks for the clarification. I also appreciated Rev. Buchanan's post!


----------



## JennyG (Aug 14, 2012)

CuriousNdenver said:


> I appreciate the opportunity this forum gives us (and the precious brothers and sisters who contribute), to learn from each other!


me too! It's the best


----------



## J. Dean (Aug 14, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> MarieP said:
> 
> 
> > Contra_Mundum said:
> ...


The Reverend said it well. I'd expect nothing less from another Michigander


----------



## MarieP (Aug 14, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Made both Lord and Christ--Jesus, the Destroyer
> Acts 2:36 - 1 Cor. 10:9-10 & 15:22-26 - Hebrews 2:9-15 - 1 John 3:8 - James 4:12



What else do you expect from a man with such a great signature!


----------

