Best and worst methods of witnessing in the US

[Der Pilger]

I have always granted for young or immature believers tracts can be used to help in training one how to evangelize; however I do see a problem when people are completely dependent on them.

If they communicate the gospel thoroughly, clearly, and truthfully, then they are more than just a training tool for the immature; they are a gospel presentation. Whether people are dependent on them or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether they convey the truth well.

Maybe part of the problem is the different tracts we have seen in the past that people have used; for I have not been that impressed by them. In fact sometimes I would say that they do more then just dumb down the gospel, but communicate a partial gospel message and response.

To the extent that any message--whether written or verbal--does this, it is wrong. I have seen good tracts, bad tracts, and downright excellent ones. The misuse of tracts is not an argument against them.

I agree what is taught is extremely important, but obviously you do not get my concern for the shallow believers that it produces. How we do things are important and to ignore that fact is to ignore regulative principle that many of us reformed keep to. God has ordained certain means and those means for making disciples is to proclaim the Gospel in boldness and love and then baptize them and continue to teach them all the Lord God has commanded.

I agree.

Tracts are typically used as a lazy means to be handed out instead of the grunt work of proclaiming Christ.

I disagree--passionately and profoundly, and from personal experience. I have used tracts, and I know others who have used them extensively, who are not lazy at all but do the "grunt work" of proclaiming Christ, engaging people in conversations along with the tracts. Again, just because someone misuses a certain approach does not invalidate that approach. Because of your reasoning in this line of argumentation is very flawed.

If a person cannot proclaim Christ then their pastor or local missionary needs to teach them. How you win people to Christ will affect directly the next generation and those whom will repent and believe onto Christ. People need to be able to ask questions, they need to be able to count the cost, and they need to know what it means to repent; tracts are unable to provide such instruction thoroughly.

I disagree. That depends on the length of the tract and how well it is written. Again, there are good ones and bad ones. If you use the bad ones as arguments against using tracts, by the same kind of logic I can use the good ones as arguments for using them.

I have seen more false conversions through tracts and Crusades then I have at simple conversations with people who did not believe, but later after prayer and patience speaking to people Christ is glorified by their coming to faith. The way in which you win people will be proportional to the quality and level of faith that they will hold.

What you have observed and what I have observed really counts for very little. What matters is what God says in his word. There he says that it pleased him through the foolishness of the message preached to save those how believe. As long as the message is being conveyed well, it is a biblical method.

I do not think you got my point here. We as Americans want everything fast instead of taking the time to let people process it. We are not giving a sales pitch. Tracts are formulated to be just that a fast way to do evangelism which requires little or no interaction from the one that gives it.

I do agree that interaction is important. But the trouble is you might not always have a chance to have adequate interaction with everyone you have an opportunity to share the gospel with. Leaving them with a printed gospel message--well written, thorough and accurate--is better than leaving them with nothing at all.

The reason why I mentioned sensational or psychological means was because we take that as a short cut in our presentation instead of letting the Holy Spirit do he job.

I could just as easily argue that using tracts is allowing the Holy Spirit to do the job by working through the gospel presentation in the tract.

One common acronym I have seen in some tracts regarding how to be saved is CALL.
Call upon the name of the Lord.
Admit you are a sinner, you are the one who deserves the judgment.
Let Christ bear the penalty for your sins.
Let your faith in him be your righteousness.

I am ignoring the issue of issue of works based righteousness by one’s faith instead of coming from God for this conversation and instead focus on one item. There no mention of repentance and daily continued repentance. It is not something that implied in these tracts. Quite a few of them are designed to pray that prayer, the Sinner’s prayer.

I agree. Those are examples of bad tracts. I don't use them. Once again, you are focusing on bad examples and then using them to build your case against tracts as a whole.

You find passing out tracts helpful, why?

Because, using the right ones, they communicate the gospel thoroughly and accurately.

Why cant you just lead the conversation without them?

Why should I?

Like it or not experience over a period of time can prove to be trustworthy regarding a particular approach.

To a point, but not nearly as trustworthy as scripture, I'm sure you'll agree.

You cannot always be formulaic in your process, even in a conversational setting. Remember faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God, not seeing it halfway in print.

You need to lay your eyes on some good examples of tracts. You've made it clear that you have formed your opinion about this matter by looking at all the bad examples.

-----Added 7/3/2009 at 12:45:43 EST-----

I, too, am just trying to let the Scripture speak for itself.

It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems to me that you first had the idea of using personal testimonies to share the gospel and then looked to the text in Mark to confirm your idea. That's why I asked you in my last reply to get your interpretation out of the text. You still haven't done that.

Mark 5 has Jesus commanding the former demoniac to go spread his story around.

Yes, but for what purpose? Evangelism? to communicate the gospel? Did Jesus actually commission that man to be his witness as he commissioned the apostles with the gospel message? You need to show that from the text. You can't just leap from

Jesus commanded the former demoniac to spread his story around

to

Jesus commanded the former demoniac to spread his story around as a means of communicating the gospel.

The second statement does not follow from the first--unless, of course, Jesus intended this man to tell people the gospel. If that is true, please show it from the text. Don't just say it; get it out of the text. If you can't do that, then it is probably your idea, not God's.

Then, Paul on several occasions gives the personal testimony of his conversion, the time before King Agrippa being most noteworthy.

Wasn't Paul on trial when he did that?

The psalms also command us to tell about what the Lord has done. Testifying to the Lord's goodness is only right and natural.

I agree. I never said it was wrong. I am disagreeing with your idea that testimonies are a valid way of communicating the gospel. Now if you say that you share a testimony for a few minutes after you share the gospel, I think that's fine. But to say that it should be done first and possibly even in place of the gospel (I hope you don't believe that!) is going too far. As I said before, and as I still maintain, the gospel is a story about Christ, not about me. As wonderful as a testimony as I may have, and as much as I could share with others what the Lord has done for me, it would be foolish for me to place that on an equal footing with the gospel message or even to delay the gospel message in favor of my story.

Personal testimonies are one of the best ways to open your hearers up to a conversation about holy things.

They may be a good way to get a conversation started, but I wouldn't spend much time on them at all. People need to hear the gospel, and that is what they need most. If you truly love them, you will give them what they need. Besides, the Holy Spirit is the One who "open your hearers up to a conversation about holy things." God makes the message relevant and opens people up; you don't have to take that task upon yourself.

-----Added 7/3/2009 at 12:49:33 EST-----

Would you guys think it wrong to take it to the streets and preach (without malice) that everyone must repent or perish?

Not at all.

 

[Pergamum]

I have always granted for young or immature believers tracts can be used to help in training one how to evangelize; however I do see a problem when people are completely dependent on them.

If they communicate the gospel thoroughly, clearly, and truthfully, then they are more than just a training tool for the immature; they are a gospel presentation. Whether people are dependent on them or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether they convey the truth well.

Maybe part of the problem is the different tracts we have seen in the past that people have used; for I have not been that impressed by them. In fact sometimes I would say that they do more then just dumb down the gospel, but communicate a partial gospel message and response.

To the extent that any message--whether written or verbal--does this, it is wrong. I have seen good tracts, bad tracts, and downright excellent ones. The misuse of tracts is not an argument against them.



I agree.



I disagree--passionately and profoundly, and from personal experience. I have used tracts, and I know others who have used them extensively, who are not lazy at all but do the "grunt work" of proclaiming Christ, engaging people in conversations along with the tracts. Again, just because someone misuses a certain approach does not invalidate that approach. Because of your reasoning in this line of argumentation is very flawed.



I disagree. That depends on the length of the tract and how well it is written. Again, there are good ones and bad ones. If you use the bad ones as arguments against using tracts, by the same kind of logic I can use the good ones as arguments for using them.



What you have observed and what I have observed really counts for very little. What matters is what God says in his word. There he says that it pleased him through the foolishness of the message preached to save those how believe. As long as the message is being conveyed well, it is a biblical method.



I do agree that interaction is important. But the trouble is you might not always have a chance to have adequate interaction with everyone you have an opportunity to share the gospel with. Leaving them with a printed gospel message--well written, thorough and accurate--is better than leaving them with nothing at all.



I could just as easily argue that using tracts is allowing the Holy Spirit to do the job by working through the gospel presentation in the tract.



I agree. Those are examples of bad tracts. I don't use them. Once again, you are focusing on bad examples and then using them to build your case against tracts as a whole.



Because, using the right ones, they communicate the gospel thoroughly and accurately.



Why should I?



To a point, but not nearly as trustworthy as scripture, I'm sure you'll agree.



You need to lay your eyes on some good examples of tracts. You've made it clear that you have formed your opinion about this matter by looking at all the bad examples.

-----Added 7/3/2009 at 12:45:43 EST-----

It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems to me that you first had the idea of using personal testimonies to share the gospel and then looked to the text in Mark to confirm your idea. That's why I asked you in my last reply to get your interpretation out of the text. You still haven't done that.




Yes, but for what purpose? Evangelism? to communicate the gospel? Did Jesus actually commission that man to be his witness as he commissioned the apostles with the gospel message? You need to show that from the text. You can't just leap from

Jesus commanded the former demoniac to spread his story around

to

Jesus commanded the former demoniac to spread his story around as a means of communicating the gospel.

The second statement does not follow from the first--unless, of course, Jesus intended this man to tell people the gospel. If that is true, please show it from the text. Don't just say it; get it out of the text. If you can't do that, then it is probably your idea, not God's.



Wasn't Paul on trial when he did that?



I agree. I never said it was wrong. I am disagreeing with your idea that testimonies are a valid way of communicating the gospel. Now if you say that you share a testimony for a few minutes after you share the gospel, I think that's fine. But to say that it should be done first and possibly even in place of the gospel (I hope you don't believe that!) is going too far. As I said before, and as I still maintain, the gospel is a story about Christ, not about me. As wonderful as a testimony as I may have, and as much as I could share with others what the Lord has done for me, it would be foolish for me to place that on an equal footing with the gospel message or even to delay the gospel message in favor of my story.



They may be a good way to get a conversation started, but I wouldn't spend much time on them at all. People need to hear the gospel, and that is what they need most. If you truly love them, you will give them what they need. Besides, the Holy Spirit is the One who "open your hearers up to a conversation about holy things." God makes the message relevant and opens people up; you don't have to take that task upon yourself.

-----Added 7/3/2009 at 12:49:33 EST-----



Not at all.

I was well aware of Mark 5 before you made me dig up evidence.


One of the things marring "witnessing" in our day is the "cold contact" - the stranger (i.e. Soul-Winner) who takes a sermon dump on an unsuspecting victim (i.e. "hell-bound sinner, the target) who happens to be polite enough to smile or appear open to the Gospel. The preacher then tries to download as much Gospel truth in a 3-5 minute spiel before the Target flees or politely tries to cut off your spiel.

A personal testimony is a good way to start. It opens doors. It creates a bond so that the hearer is drawn in to a greater degree than they would be if they were merely being harangued by someone who seemed compelled to talk AT them, instead of WITH them.



Paul communicated the Gospel in his personal testimonies. I am sure the demoniac did too.

My advocacy of personal testimony has MORE biblical support than your defense of tracts actually. Why are so so glum on testimonies and so firm on tracts? Why are you accusing me of fishing for Bible texts to defend personal testimonies and not yourself providing us with your own Scriptural proofs for tracts?


A testimony is a bridge that takes us deeper into relationship with others so that heart issues may come to the fore. They do not have to be about ourselves, they are about what God has done. Every conversion story is a personal testimony and their is power in the telling of one's conversion story, and it can be VERY theological.

The Holy Spirit works through us so that we would be wise in our methods. Don't use God's sovereignty as an excuse for not engaging in things that glorify God and help us to connect and communicate truth to unbelievers.

 

[kalawine]

Worst: bumper stickers and church signs

"God reads knee-mail!"
"In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned!"
"God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

UGH.

Amen Brother! Back when I was a Charismatic Fundy I was going to lunch with a lost guy I worked with. We were taking my car.

As we approached the car (from behind) he saw my "In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned!" bumper sticker. He asked for my keys. I asked why. He said, "You know... in case of the rapture I want to be driving!"

 

[Grimmson]

I have always granted for young or immature believers tracts can be used to help in training one how to evangelize; however I do see a problem when people are completely dependent on them.

If they communicate the gospel thoroughly, clearly, and truthfully, then they are more than just a training tool for the immature; they are a gospel presentation. Whether people are dependent on them or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether they convey the truth well.

It does matter if someone depended on tracts. In fact it deeply grieves me if someone depended on tracts. It shows the immaturity of the believer and that their pastor is not doing his job to portray the importance of memorizing scripture for evangelizing his people. The fact you do not see it has relevant is scare. Do you think, Lord God forbid, that you be able to use a tract in prison if there ever come a day where we been in prison for the faith? We must prepare now and not be to reliant on crutches.

Maybe part of the problem is the different tracts we have seen in the past that people have used; for I have not been that impressed by them. In fact sometimes I would say that they do more then just dumb down the gospel, but communicate a partial gospel message and response.

To the extent that any message--whether written or verbal--does this, it is wrong. I have seen good tracts, bad tracts, and downright excellent ones. The misuse of tracts is not an argument against them.

I already confessed the issue maybe the fact we have seen different tracts. But you cannot deny the ones I mentioned are not the most uncommon, for they are extremely common. There are things that a human being can do that a tract cannot do and that the sum of my argument.

Tracts are typically used as a lazy means to be handed out instead of the grunt work of proclaiming Christ.

I disagree--passionately and profoundly, and from personal experience. I have used tracts, and I know others who have used them extensively, who are not lazy at all but do the "grunt work" of proclaiming Christ, engaging people in conversations along with the tracts. Again, just because someone misuses a certain approach does not invalidate that approach. Because of your reasoning in this line of argumentation is very flawed.

See there your not using tracts alone and you’re engaging in conversations. Your just using it as a tool to lead you into such, but over time you learn ways of not having to use a piece of paper of a card as a hook to begin such conversations as you mature in Christ and continue in Evangelism.

If a person cannot proclaim Christ then their pastor or local missionary needs to teach them. How you win people to Christ will affect directly the next generation and those whom will repent and believe onto Christ. People need to be able to ask questions, they need to be able to count the cost, and they need to know what it means to repent; tracts are unable to provide such instruction thoroughly.

I disagree. That depends on the length of the tract and how well it is written. Again, there are good ones and bad ones. If you use the bad ones as arguments against using tracts, by the same kind of logic I can use the good ones as arguments for using them.

I like to see the good ones your using, please provide an example. But my statement still stands that your pastor or local missionary needs to train people how to do evangelize and the people need to be able to ask questions , which many of the tracts cannot answer. They cannot talk back audibly and say this is the answer to your question.

I have seen more false conversions through tracts and Crusades then I have at simple conversations with people who did not believe, but later after prayer and patience speaking to people Christ is glorified by their coming to faith. The way in which you win people will be proportional to the quality and level of faith that they will hold.

What you have observed and what I have observed really counts for very little. What matters is what God says in his word. There he says that it pleased him through the foolishness of the message preached to save those how believe. As long as the message is being conveyed well, it is a biblical method.

The problem with handing out tracts is that it is NOT preaching. And Pergamum is right there no real biblical basic for the handing out of tracts as a method nor do I know of anything in the ancient times of the use of tracts to proclaim Christ. It was done by word of mouth.

You find passing out tracts helpful, why?

Because, using the right ones, they communicate the gospel thoroughly and accurately.

How do you judge the right ones, what your clear example of a good one? The ones I used are the two most common tracts used and even Chick is well used in certain circles.

Why cant you just lead the conversation without them?

Why should I?

You should because you represent Jesus, your Lord, Savior, and God. This
”why should I” is immature and we have gone for 1900 years without TV and tracts. We can go many more years too if Christ does not come back yet. Not to say the way things have always been done is the way we should do it, but I think good evidence and reason must be given why you changed what has been done. Because to some degree such changes could lead to heterodoxy as we can see in the legacy of Finney.

You cannot always be formulaic in your process, even in a conversational setting. Remember faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God, not seeing it halfway in print.

You need to lay your eyes on some good examples of tracts. You've made it clear that you have formed your opinion about this matter by looking at all the bad examples.

I look at the majority representative and how the people respond to such. I do not want to see a bad name give to Christ or his Church. If tracts and its abused lead one towards a improper look at the Gospel and thus a improper look of Christ, then of course I would want to separate myself from the method of use. Who wouldn’t? I care about the testimony of the church as a whole

In regards to the whole debate regarding personal testimonies, I think it is misused in the church. I am not against them and can see them as being a helpful gateway segments to bridge relationships and to bring encouragement; I also agree it should not replace the gospel. Personally I think we all have the same testimony and that a sinner saved by God’s Grace through the blood of Jesus Christ. And in the end inst that who we want to glorify and worship?

 

[Wannabee]

Worst: bumper stickers and church signs

"God reads knee-mail!"
"In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned!"
"God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

UGH.

Amen Brother! Back when I was a Charismatic Fundy I was going to lunch with a lost guy I worked with. We were taking my car.

As we approached the car (from behind) he saw my "In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned!" bumper sticker. He asked for my keys. I asked why. He said, "You know... in case of the rapture I want to be driving!"

That's classic. Actually, I still have the rapture sticker on my truck. I don't think it's legible any more, but it's there. "Real Men Love Jesus" is on the side of my cap too. It's true, you know.

The first sticker is reminiscent of Spurgeon, talking of kneework. I kinda like it. But, the last one is just bad theology - classic humanism cloaked in Christianese. And the fish... well, it is what it is. Few have a clue what it signifies. We have them on our cars (which we've had for about 13 years), but I don't think I'll put one on a car again. I always thought it might be fun to try to put together a sort of aquarium of fishies on my tail gate though.

 

[Der Pilger]

It does matter if someone depended on tracts. In fact it deeply grieves me if someone depended on tracts. It shows the immaturity of the believer and that their pastor is not doing his job to portray the importance of memorizing scripture for evangelizing his people. The fact you do not see it has relevant is scare. Do you think, Lord God forbid, that you be able to use a tract in prison if there ever come a day where we been in prison for the faith? We must prepare now and not be to reliant on crutches.

I guess I misunderstood you. I'm not for relying on tracts to the exclusion of interaction. Oftentimes I use them as a means of starting a conversation. In fact, most of my evangelism in recent years has been done using a quiz that is specifically designed for conversation and interaction. But they are useful in the event that you can't start a conversation or don't have time.

I already confessed the issue maybe the fact we have seen different tracts. But you cannot deny the ones I mentioned are not the most uncommon, for they are extremely common. There are things that a human being can do that a tract cannot do and that the sum of my argument.

Then the sum of the conclusion is this: Use tracts, but use good ones and don't use them to the exclusion of personal interaction and teaching, when possible.

See there your not using tracts alone and you’re engaging in conversations. Your just using it as a tool to lead you into such, but over time you learn ways of not having to use a piece of paper of a card as a hook to begin such conversations as you mature in Christ and continue in Evangelism.

Grimmson, there is a problem with this reasoning:

You're assuming that using a tract or a card as a hook is an immature practice, but that is only your assertion. Once again you set up your own personal standard as the rule by which other things are evaluated. Since I don't measure up to your standard, you go on from there to make the bold assertion that I should move on to more mature things. You begin with a conclusion and then make your argument from there, as you have shown a pattern of doing in this thread. You need to first show that using a tract to start a conversation is immature. I find it to be quite mature, actually. It takes boldness and genuine agape love for someone to approach them when they are a complete stranger, knowing they might reject you and even mock you. Taking the easy way, on the other hand--the way of ensuring a lesser chance of being rejected and mocked--would better be classified as an immature practice as it is selfish, unloving and doesn't have the best interest of others at heart.

This is why I try to stick to a biblical criterion for evaluating evangelistic approaches: It is the only sure standard.

I like to see the good ones your using, please provide an example.

I don't have electronic copies of some of these, but:

"The Christian Message" by James White. (I don't think this is in print any longer, but I'd be happy to mail you a copy if you like.)
The two quizzes on this site, which can be made into a tract-sized document (I've done that with one of them): Morgue
Are You Good Enough? Living Waters - Are You Good Enough?

But my statement still stands that your pastor or local missionary needs to train people how to do evangelize and the people need to be able to ask questions , which many of the tracts cannot answer. They cannot talk back audibly and say this is the answer to your question.

Yes, that is a valid concern, and I can't fault you for that. However, I do wonder if you are overlooking the divine element in all of this. If the gospel message is presented thoroughly and accurately in a tract, and God saves people through the communication of the gospel message, then it stands to reason that it is something the Holy Spirit will use to convert some people.

The problem with handing out tracts is that it is NOT preaching. And Pergamum is right there no real biblical basic for the handing out of tracts as a method nor do I know of anything in the ancient times of the use of tracts to proclaim Christ. It was done by word of mouth.

Ummm...no. That just doesn't work. They didn't have printing presses or any means of mass duplication, so it's not surprising that the thought of handing out literature did not occur to them. There is a biblical basis for handing out tracts because it is the gospel message that God uses to bring someone to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. As long as a tract contains that message, handing it out is biblical.

How do you judge the right ones, what your clear example of a good one? The ones I used are the two most common tracts used and even Chick is well used in certain circles.

Good questions. I evaluate any gospel presentation on the basis of whether the following doctrines are presented: God, sin and its consequences, man, Christ, faith and repentance, and counting the cost. Within those categories, God's attributes should be presented in a well-rounded manner, i.e., not just his love and mercy but also his holiness, justice, and wrath. Judgment must also be explained, including hell. Hell should be fully described, i.e., not just a separation between God and man but also eternal, conscious punishment. Sin must be explained by using the 10 commandments to dispel any attempts at self-justification (e.g., "I'm a good person because I've never killed anybody and I'm trying my best"). Christ's person and work should be explained, and man's responsibility to repent and believe should be explained. To avoid easy-believism, people should be exhorted to count the cost, explaining to them that Christ demands that his followers deny themselves and take up their cross daily. Sinner's prayers should be avoided like the plague, as well as any assurance of salvation based on a single response.

You should because you represent Jesus, your Lord, Savior, and God. This ”why should I” is immature and we have gone for 1900 years without TV and tracts.

It's not immature. Please refrain from insults. You don't know me, so you have no idea where I am at in my Christian life. I asked, "Why should I?" because I wanted to find out your thinking on the matter, to see where you were coming from. You jump to conclusions--a pattern that is becoming all too clear in this thread.

I look at the majority representative and how the people respond to such.

Those are your mistakes: You make a final evaluation based on only select examples and on people's responses to them. Bad tracts are not an argument against using tracts, just like bad cars are not an argument against driving in general. Similarly, human responses don't constitute an argument against tracts because I know of people who have been saved through reading printed material alone. Your argument just doesn't work.

-----Added 7/3/2009 at 11:47:54 EST-----

I was well aware of Mark 5 before you made me dig up evidence.

Evidence? I never asked you for that. I asked you to exegete the passage to back up what you claimed.

One of the things marring "witnessing" in our day is the "cold contact" - the stranger (i.e. Soul-Winner) who takes a sermon dump on an unsuspecting victim (i.e. "hell-bound sinner, the target) who happens to be polite enough to smile or appear open to the Gospel.The preacher then tries to download as much Gospel truth in a 3-5 minute spiel before the Target flees or politely tries to cut off your spiel.

Sharing the gospel in public with strangers directly is not a "sermon dump on an unsuspecting victim." You are describing it in negative terms to try to establish that the approach is bad, but at the end of the day this is just your assertion. You, like Grimmson, have set up your own personal standard for witnessing--based on what you have observed and your own experiences--and then proceed to critique witnessing methods based on that. That is specious argumentation. You need to start with the Bible as your criterion, and I don't mean taking passages out of their context, either.

A personal testimony is a good way to start. It opens doors. It creates a bond so that the hearer is drawn in to a greater degree than they would be if they were merely being harangued by someone who seemed compelled to talk AT them, instead of WITH them.

Again, this is just your own personal standard. Your model is as follows:

Step one: Begin with sharing your personal testimony to "open doors" and "create a bond."
Step two: Communicate the gospel.

There is no evidence that Jesus or the apostles used personal testimonies as an integral first step in their outreach. In addition, your idea is wrong because it relies on human interaction to "open doors" and "create a bond so that the hearer is drawn to a greater degree than...if they were merely being harangued." That connection you are talking about is created by the Holy Spirit through the gospel message, through the word of God, which is living and active. What mars witnessing in our day is the fact that Christians have taken it upon themselves to accomplish what only the Holy Spirit can do--open hearts and create ears to hear.

Paul communicated the Gospel in his personal testimonies.

You have shown one example of this: and it was a very peculiar, special circumstance, hardly enough to build a case out of.

I am sure the demoniac did too.

You're sure? How? You have yet to draw that out of the passage. You're merely asserting it.

My advocacy of personal testimony has MORE biblical support than your defense of tracts actually. Why are so so glum on testimonies and so firm on tracts? Why are you accusing me of fishing for Bible texts to defend personal testimonies and not yourself providing us with your own Scriptural proofs for tracts?

You are the one who brought up the Mark passage, so naturally I asked you to show how that passage defends your point. You have yet to do so. Your reluctance to do so is very interesting.

This has all been very interesting, Pergamum, but until you draw your conclusions out of scripture this entire discussion will continue to involve nothing more than building arguments out of personal experience and personal standards, none of which are reliable, regardless of whose they are (excepting God's standards, of course).

I look forward to reading your exegesis of the Mark passage.

 

[Mushroom]

The two most common methods according to unbelievers are:

1. Stuffing the gospel down their throat, or -

2. Beating them over the head with it.

I prefer using a soft-cover for the former, and a hard-cover for the latter.

 

[Pergamum]

It does matter if someone depended on tracts. In fact it deeply grieves me if someone depended on tracts. It shows the immaturity of the believer and that their pastor is not doing his job to portray the importance of memorizing scripture for evangelizing his people. The fact you do not see it has relevant is scare. Do you think, Lord God forbid, that you be able to use a tract in prison if there ever come a day where we been in prison for the faith? We must prepare now and not be to reliant on crutches.

I guess I misunderstood you. I'm not for relying on tracts to the exclusion of interaction. Oftentimes I use them as a means of starting a conversation. In fact, most of my evangelism in recent years has been done using a quiz that is specifically designed for conversation and interaction. But they are useful in the event that you can't start a conversation or don't have time.

I already confessed the issue maybe the fact we have seen different tracts. But you cannot deny the ones I mentioned are not the most uncommon, for they are extremely common. There are things that a human being can do that a tract cannot do and that the sum of my argument.

Then the sum of the conclusion is this: Use tracts, but use good ones and don't use them to the exclusion of personal interaction and teaching, when possible.



Grimmson, there is a problem with this reasoning:

You're assuming that using a tract or a card as a hook is an immature practice, but that is only your assertion. Once again you set up your own personal standard as the rule by which other things are evaluated. Since I don't measure up to your standard, you go on from there to make the bold assertion that I should move on to more mature things. You begin with a conclusion and then make your argument from there, as you have shown a pattern of doing in this thread. You need to first show that using a tract to start a conversation is immature. I find it to be quite mature, actually. It takes boldness and genuine agape love for someone to approach them when they are a complete stranger, knowing they might reject you and even mock you. Taking the easy way, on the other hand--the way of ensuring a lesser chance of being rejected and mocked--would better be classified as an immature practice as it is selfish, unloving and doesn't have the best interest of others at heart.

This is why I try to stick to a biblical criterion for evaluating evangelistic approaches: It is the only sure standard.



I don't have electronic copies of some of these, but:

"The Christian Message" by James White. (I don't think this is in print any longer, but I'd be happy to mail you a copy if you like.)
The two quizzes on this site, which can be made into a tract-sized document (I've done that with one of them): Morgue
Are You Good Enough? Living Waters - Are You Good Enough?



Yes, that is a valid concern, and I can't fault you for that. However, I do wonder if you are overlooking the divine element in all of this. If the gospel message is presented thoroughly and accurately in a tract, and God saves people through the communication of the gospel message, then it stands to reason that it is something the Holy Spirit will use to convert some people.



Ummm...no. That just doesn't work. They didn't have printing presses or any means of mass duplication, so it's not surprising that the thought of handing out literature did not occur to them. There is a biblical basis for handing out tracts because it is the gospel message that God uses to bring someone to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. As long as a tract contains that message, handing it out is biblical.



Good questions. I evaluate any gospel presentation on the basis of whether the following doctrines are presented: God, sin and its consequences, man, Christ, faith and repentance, and counting the cost. Within those categories, God's attributes should be presented in a well-rounded manner, i.e., not just his love and mercy but also his holiness, justice, and wrath. Judgment must also be explained, including hell. Hell should be fully described, i.e., not just a separation between God and man but also eternal, conscious punishment. Sin must be explained by using the 10 commandments to dispel any attempts at self-justification (e.g., "I'm a good person because I've never killed anybody and I'm trying my best"). Christ's person and work should be explained, and man's responsibility to repent and believe should be explained. To avoid easy-believism, people should be exhorted to count the cost, explaining to them that Christ demands that his followers deny themselves and take up their cross daily. Sinner's prayers should be avoided like the plague, as well as any assurance of salvation based on a single response.



It's not immature. Please refrain from insults. You don't know me, so you have no idea where I am at in my Christian life. I asked, "Why should I?" because I wanted to find out your thinking on the matter, to see where you were coming from. You jump to conclusions--a pattern that is becoming all too clear in this thread.



Those are your mistakes: You make a final evaluation based on only select examples and on people's responses to them. Bad tracts are not an argument against using tracts, just like bad cars are not an argument against driving in general. Similarly, human responses don't constitute an argument against tracts because I know of people who have been saved through reading printed material alone. Your argument just doesn't work.

-----Added 7/3/2009 at 11:47:54 EST-----



Evidence? I never asked you for that. I asked you to exegete the passage to back up what you claimed.



Sharing the gospel in public with strangers directly is not a "sermon dump on an unsuspecting victim." You are describing it in negative terms to try to establish that the approach is bad, but at the end of the day this is just your assertion. You, like Grimmson, have set up your own personal standard for witnessing--based on what you have observed and your own experiences--and then proceed to critique witnessing methods based on that. That is specious argumentation. You need to start with the Bible as your criterion, and I don't mean taking passages out of their context, either.



Again, this is just your own personal standard. Your model is as follows:

Step one: Begin with sharing your personal testimony to "open doors" and "create a bond."
Step two: Communicate the gospel.

There is no evidence that Jesus or the apostles used personal testimonies as an integral first step in their outreach. In addition, your idea is wrong because it relies on human interaction to "open doors" and "create a bond so that the hearer is drawn to a greater degree than...if they were merely being harangued." That connection you are talking about is created by the Holy Spirit through the gospel message, through the word of God, which is living and active. What mars witnessing in our day is the fact that Christians have taken it upon themselves to accomplish what only the Holy Spirit can do--open hearts and create ears to hear.



You have shown one example of this: and it was a very peculiar, special circumstance, hardly enough to build a case out of.

I am sure the demoniac did too.

You're sure? How? You have yet to draw that out of the passage. You're merely asserting it.

My advocacy of personal testimony has MORE biblical support than your defense of tracts actually. Why are so so glum on testimonies and so firm on tracts? Why are you accusing me of fishing for Bible texts to defend personal testimonies and not yourself providing us with your own Scriptural proofs for tracts?

You are the one who brought up the Mark passage, so naturally I asked you to show how that passage defends your point. You have yet to do so. Your reluctance to do so is very interesting.

This has all been very interesting, Pergamum, but until you draw your conclusions out of scripture this entire discussion will continue to involve nothing more than building arguments out of personal experience and personal standards, none of which are reliable, regardless of whose they are (excepting God's standards, of course).

I look forward to reading your exegesis of the Mark passage.

You are demanding more evidence of me than you are for yourself.

We can all play your game and demand a detailed exegesis of every passage proving the opponent's point, but I don't have time; especially when you are throwing out the examples of Paul as non-normative and the demoniac as well.


What I see in Scripture is Paul and others using a variety of means to tell others about the Gospel. Paul testified before Agrippa, Paul spoke in public speaking forums, Paul (gasp) even tailored his presentation to his audience even while keeping the content of the Gospel intact. And, Paul and others spoke of what the Lord had done for them.

Mark 5:
18And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him.

19Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee.

20And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.

In summary, Jesus healed the man, the man wanted to follow Jesus. Jesus told him, No, instead to back home and tell what great things the Lord has done for you, and so the man departed and told everyone around what Jesus had done for him, and everyone was like, WOW.

How does this NOT strengthen the fact that personal testimonies are biblical, and were even commanded by Jesus to be done.



p.s. Let me see you produce evidence and exegete it in-depth for your own views on tracts.

 

[Pergamum]

P.s.S. Let us also add the following passage to our list of biblical examples of personal testimony: John 4:29, 39; 9:25.

 

[Spinningplates2]

Worst: bumper stickers and church signs

"God reads knee-mail!"
"In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned!"
"God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

UGH.

Real Christians at least have a fish or two on the back of their car though. Maybe one could even have a big Christian fishy swallowing a Darwin fish. That seems like the Christian thing to do.

The fish is a old and historic Christian sign. I, for one, grow weary of people who think it is "uncool" to show our faith by displaying it. Like the people who don't witness because they "just let people see me living the Life is my witness." I know many strong and great Christian who have fish on their mini vans that live the life, and witness effectivly.

Please do not respond by saying you were not mocking people who try to witness by putting fish decals on their car.

 

[chbrooking]

The two most common methods according to unbelievers are:

1. Stuffing the gospel down their throat, or -

2. Beating them over the head with it.

I prefer using a soft-cover for the former, and a hard-cover for the latter.

Why not a hard-cover for both? Sure it's more work, but it's worth it!

 

[AThornquist]

The fish is a old and historic Christian sign. I, for one, grow weary of people who think it is "uncool" to show our faith by displaying it. Like the people who don't witness because they "just let people see me living the Life is my witness." I know many strong and great Christian who have fish on their mini vans that live the life, and witness effectivly.

Please do not respond by saying you were not mocking people who try to witness by putting fish decals on their car.

Why would I say that I was not trying to mock them? I was mocking them! Actually mocking is probably not the right word. "Poking fun" would be much better suited. Some of my very good friends who are godly individuals have dem fishies. My mom even has her "Put Christ Back Into Christmas" bumper magnet. Yay!

Here's why I think bumper fish are so silly (and it has nothing to do with coolness): that stupid little fish is about the extent of "Christianity" in some people's lives. As an example there was this guy at work who was just a rank pagan and one day in the parking lot I watched him get into his little BMW with a "Christian" fishy on it. It wasn't the best so-called witness for Christianity and we both know this sort of thing is not uncommon. Really, it's about as Christian as wearing a cross necklace, which a lot of unbelievers do as well. Is it wrong to have them? No one has said such a thing. Am I entitled to my opinion that they are worthless just as you are entitled to your opinion that they may be of value is some way? Of course.

But if we need such ways to identify ourselves as Christians, why don't you deck out your wardrobe with "HI, I'M A CHRISTIAN!" shirts just to be sure that everybody knows? Is there any precedent for demonstrating our faith with fish in Scripture or was the Word alone preached and taught in power and in truth and godly living clearly shown to put haters to shame? I could just as equally say "Well you don't wear big ol' signs and walk up and down the streets screamin' and waving your Bible so you obviously you think it's uncool to demonstrate your faith." There are much more practical ways to demonstrate your faith that have a whole lot less cheese goin' on. Oh yeah, plus they have Biblical precedents.

 

[Curt]

But if we need such ways to identify ourselves as Christians, why don't you deck out your wardrobe with "HI, I'M A CHRISTIAN!" shirts just to be sure that everybody knows? Is there any precedent for demonstrating our faith with fish in Scripture or was the Word alone preached and taught in power and in truth and godly living clearly shown to put haters to shame? I could just as equally say "Well you don't wear big ol' signs and walk up and down the streets screamin' and waving your Bible so you obviously you think it's uncool to demonstrate your faith." There are much more practical ways to demonstrate your faith that have a whole lot less cheese goin' on. Oh yeah, plus they have Biblical precedents.

Actually, I was thinking of folks wearing yellow stars with crosses in them. I expect persecution in the current atmosphere.

 

[Pergamum]

The two most common methods according to unbelievers are:

1. Stuffing the gospel down their throat, or -

2. Beating them over the head with it.

I prefer using a soft-cover for the former, and a hard-cover for the latter.

Why not a hard-cover for both? Sure it's more work, but it's worth it!

The little Gideon NTs can be used better as projectiles. King David felled the giant with a smooth stone....fell that recalcitrant sinner with a Gideons!

 

[AThornquist]

Actually, I was thinking of folks wearing yellow stars with crosses in them. I expect persecution in the current atmosphere.

Hmm I'm not quite sure what you mean by the yellow stars. I don't think I've seen it before. All of this is making me consider t-shirt evangelism though. Wear an XL with a Christian message in big font and then just walk around so people see you. One could release blood-curdling screams every now and then just so people look in your direction and are given no opportunity to avoid seeing a t-shirt evangelist in action. That Calvinist t-shirt "Hey baby, is your name Grace? 'Cause your irresistible!" would really come in handy.

 

[Curt]

Actually, I was thinking of folks wearing yellow stars with crosses in them. I expect persecution in the current atmosphere.

Hmm I'm not quite sure what you mean by the yellow stars. I don't think I've seen it before.

Actually it was a serious reference to the "Jude" stars worn by the Jews in several European countries during WWII.

 

[AThornquist]

Actually, I was thinking of folks wearing yellow stars with crosses in them. I expect persecution in the current atmosphere.

Hmm I'm not quite sure what you mean by the yellow stars. I don't think I've seen it before.

Actually it was a serious reference to the "Jude" stars worn by the Jews in several European countries during WWII.

Ahhh. Gotcha.

 

[Grimmson]

I am at times a theological nitpicker as one can observe in some of my previous writing, along side s few other issues such as a high view of the local church which Pergamum can attest to in his own personal testimony.

When I was in college I saw the quiz method being used and the various reactions. Some people depending on their demeanor and respect would take the test while others would immediately go into social or theological debate. One thing I have to say about the method, I can not name a single person that it actually worked on to my knowledge that was an unbeliever to begin with for Campus Crusade for Christ in my four years. I was actually involved in IV, but I had extremely close interacting relationship with CCC, so which were my room mates from time to time. Does this make tracts bad, no. But I think that particular reality should be looked at more closely.

The quizzes on to the go are designed for more of a high paced environment; however I saw do we need to be moving so fast. We should slow down and let people examine what being said, instead of it being thrown out there.

But they are useful in the event that you can't start a conversation or don't have time.

Just because they accept the tract does not mean that read it. In most cases am sure that just accept it out of politeness as if you were a Jehovah Witness and then throw it away. I think it’s a waste of paper if you do not sit down and go over it with them. For me the issue isn’t that its showing agape love, for if such is the case have you done the same to your fellow co-workers, your family, your neighbors down the street? If not I would suggest starting off with them, its not far and as one reaches another then those who you would pass a tract on the street would perhaps hear it from their neighbor or sister-in law or such

I personally avoid tracts because the most popular ones are extremely bad and I do not want to associate myself with them. I want to take a look at one of these tracts that you use and I am going to be slightly critical for the moment and do not take it personally.

I looked at the first one called Morgue which is a combination of two quizzes, which CCC would have called initially surveys. And I had one concern and that was the hook or focus was regarding if people were going to heaven. I think that something we need to be careful about in our Gospel presentation because the focus must be on sins now and not the upcoming reality in Christ. People of course will want to say yes there going to heaven and not want to keep to scripture because it a emotional issue. For us issue should not be going to heaven, but being with our Lord. Maybe my distinction is not making sense, but are focus needs not be on a place, so as to use God to get there, but on the one who saves. The content of the tract not to bad, but one other issue besides the titles that I have is there no mention of a need to attend Church. Another thing that grieves my heart is when I hear 50 people came to the Lord, however you have no idea where or ir their attending church.

I do wonder if you are overlooking the divine element in all of this.

I am not overlooking the divine element here. I see that God has ordained certain means for us to evangelize. I quoted it earlier that faith comes from hearing and hearing the word of God. Therefore the methods we use are important and significant. Reading tracts is not the normative means applied by scripture. People could have written down tracts, their not long and a printing press would not be needed. But no, it was through the foolish of preaching, oral communication that the word was spread and continues to be spread around the world. If you need scripture, do it with open bible in hand so that people can read the context and understand, instead of machine gun scripture quoting that the people are not familiar with. And use a translation people can understand and will be harder to take out of context.

You should because you represent Jesus, your Lord, Savior, and God. This ”why should I” is immature and we have gone for 1900 years without TV and tracts

It's not immature. Please refrain from insults. You don't know me, so you have no idea where I am at in my Christian life. I asked, "Why should I?" because I wanted to find out your thinking on the matter, to see where you were coming from. You jump to conclusions--a pattern that is becoming all too clear in this thread.

One of my concerns, whether be in here or evangelism, we should do it with the holiness of God in mind. I made it clear at the beginning that I was alright with using tracts as a training process, but as one matures in the faith the dependence of tracts should wean. What happens if the people are dependent on them and in the future we can no longer use them for some legal issue? Then we have lost the art of classical evangelism, where conversational approach falls under. My purpose was not to insult you but to show that type of answer was immature. I imagined a 14 year old kid after being told how to work on a math problem and why would then turn around and say, “Why should I?” Out of a sense of rebellion, especially in light of the following question of “Why cant you just lead the conversation without them?” Which was “Or memorize key scripture passages that you like to use?” Nor did you cover “What happens if you no longer have tracts to use anymore?” Does that mean your done evangelizing.

I may have acted inappropriately, but you yourself even admitted that you jumped the gun in thinking they I was totally against the use of tracts. I just see their use as a training exercise for those young in the faith that are still learning about the key scripture passages for providing a defense for the hope that is within you, something Christians have been doing and was commanded to do prior to the development of tracts. Further more I want to add I do not think it is a mistake to make judgment on the majority use of tracts and the shallowness of Christians that are produced after believing in these tracts. I am sure you agree that as being Christians and teacher in the faith, entrusted with souls, that the souls of whom we reach and are reaching are our responsibility and we will give account on that day regarding what we did and why. Therefore if a method produces a certain level of commitment or lack there of it should be examined closely so be can better proclaim Christ, because salvation is a miracle and work of God, but God had ordained the means to that end. And regardless of our efforts we must remember God saves despite of what we are and how poor of a technique we apply. However like I said, we will still give an account to God and I want my conscience clear, which is why based upon what I have seen I use the methods I use.

 

[Der Pilger]

To me, the best way takes a while. Let others see us living with godly attributes as we communicate the message verballywhen we are prompted.

So, according to you, this is the way to communicate the gospel:

Step 1: Don't communicate the gospel. Give others a chance to see your life.
Step 2: Communicate the gospel when prompted.

Is that what you mean?

I wouldn't separate the two into a formula.

Isn't that actually what you did, though? You mentioned letting others see us living godly lives and attributes, and then you mentioned sharing verbally "when prompted." This last phrase pretty strongly implies that the verbal sharing is put on hold, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

I just refuse to be like the open air evangelists who make an overbearing first impression.

I don't know about "overbearing," as that really depends on the individual who does it. I find it interesting that you are against open air when this is actually what Jesus and the apostles did. I'm sure there were times when they had quiet conversations with people, but there were also times when they spoke openly to large groups of people.

Let your life and your message be consistent and speak when those God sent moments are set up for you.

I wonder about this. Does God really expect us to wait for him to "send" us moments that are "set up" for us? Hasn't he told us to go forth with the gospel? And if he has, doesn't that indicate pretty clearly that we are to take the initiative? I don't mean using manipulation or trying to buttonhole people into talking with us, but I do mean seeking to create opportunities ourselves.

-----Added 7/4/2009 at 12:02:31 EST-----

What I see in Scripture is Paul and others using a variety of means to tell others about the Gospel. Paul testified before Agrippa, Paul spoke in public speaking forums, Paul (gasp) even tailored his presentation to his audience even while keeping the content of the Gospel intact. And, Paul and others spoke of what the Lord had done for them.

I can agree with most of this, but none of it says that he used his personal testimony to share the gospel. The only instance of this is when he stood before Agrippa, but I've already pointed out that he was on trial, which makes it a special circumstance. And besides, did Luke intend that account as a lesson on a way to share the gospel?

Mark 5:
18And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him.

19Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee.

20And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.

In summary, Jesus healed the man, the man wanted to follow Jesus. Jesus told him, No, instead to back home and tell what great things the Lord has done for you, and so the man departed and told everyone around what Jesus had done for him, and everyone was like, WOW.

How does this NOT strengthen the fact that personal testimonies are biblical, and were even commanded by Jesus to be done.

Pergamum, you persist in reframing the issue. From the beginning of our exchange, the question has not been, "Did Jesus command personal testimonies?" but rather "Did Jesus command personal testimonies as a means of communicating the content of the gospel message?" You persist in answering the former question while ignoring the latter. Now the former demoniac was not told to communicate the gospel.The text does not even come close to saying that or even hinting at it. Jesus simply told him to share with others what good things God had done for him. Telling others what God has done for me is most assuredly not the gospel message; therefore, this passage cannot be used to affirm the use of personal testimonies as a tool to communicate the gospel. The only way anyone could interpret it in such a way would be if he made up his mind about it prior to reading the text and then imposed his view on the passage.

 

[Gloria]

Tracts are for the person you're talking to, not necessarily the person sharing the gospel. It gives the person, who is more than likely unfamiliar with scripture, something to look at once the encounter is over. You can also leave contact information with the person on the tract if they want to have further discussion about God...

 

[charliejunfan]

I think one of the worst evangelism tactics is to tell people to write their date and time of "conversion" in the back of their brand new, free bible so that they never fight for assurance.

 

[Rich Koster]

So, according to you, this is the way to communicate the gospel:

Step 1: Don't communicate the gospel. Give others a chance to see your life.
Step 2: Communicate the gospel when prompted.

Is that what you mean?

I wouldn't separate the two into a formula.

Isn't that actually what you did, though? You mentioned letting others see us living godly lives and attributes, and then you mentioned sharing verbally "when prompted." This last phrase pretty strongly implies that the verbal sharing is put on hold, unless I'm misunderstanding you.


No. I did not set a time requirement or minimum. Paul walked into synagogues, he had a general idea where these people were at and addressed them accordingly. I like to know something about a person's viewpoints before I engage them. If I saw someone kneeling in front of their house praying, I now have my springboard to launch a conversation.

I don't know about "overbearing," as that really depends on the individual who does it. I find it interesting that you are against open air when this is actually what Jesus and the apostles did. I'm sure there were times when they had quiet conversations with people, but there were also times when they spoke openly to large groups of people.

I am against obnoxious, overbearing OAEs that denigrate the reputation of Christ, that does not include ALL OAEs Certain loudmouths that point fingers at crowds may contain an element of truth, but their condemning spirit is evidence that they do not fully grasp the truth.

I wonder about this. Does God really expect us to wait for him to "send" us moments that are "set up" for us? Hasn't he told us to go forth with the gospel? And if he has, doesn't that indicate pretty clearly that we are to take the initiative? I don't mean using manipulation or trying to buttonhole people into talking with us, but I do mean seeking to create opportunities ourselves.


How about recognizing opportunities???????????????






-----Added 7/4/2009 at 12:02:31 EST-----

I can agree with most of this, but none of it says that he used his personal testimony to share the gospel. The only instance of this is when he stood before Agrippa, but I've already pointed out that he was on trial, which makes it a special circumstance. And besides, did Luke intend that account as a lesson on a way to share the gospel?

Mark 5:
18And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him.

19Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee.

20And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.

In summary, Jesus healed the man, the man wanted to follow Jesus. Jesus told him, No, instead to back home and tell what great things the Lord has done for you, and so the man departed and told everyone around what Jesus had done for him, and everyone was like, WOW.

How does this NOT strengthen the fact that personal testimonies are biblical, and were even commanded by Jesus to be done.

Pergamum, you persist in reframing the issue. From the beginning of our exchange, the question has not been, "Did Jesus command personal testimonies?" but rather "Did Jesus command personal testimonies as a means of communicating the content of the gospel message?" You persist in answering the former question while ignoring the latter. Now the former demoniac was not told to communicate the gospel.The text does not even come close to saying that or even hinting at it. Jesus simply told him to share with others what good things God had done for him. Telling others what God has done for me is most assuredly not the gospel message; therefore, this passage cannot be used to affirm the use of personal testimonies as a tool to communicate the gospel. The only way anyone could interpret it in such a way would be if he made up his mind about it prior to reading the text and then imposed his view on the passage.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Hmmm...

Best method of evangelism:
John 6:1-65 which is Jesus talking of himself, which is followed by:

As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

The best method of evangelism is the one that clearly points to Jesus in such a way as the reprobate turn away, and the elect are drawn near. Evangelism is a double-edged sword. One edge is the scalpel that God uses to transplant a heart of flesh into the sinner with a heart of stone, the other edge cuts to the root those that are being cut down to be cast into the fire. We have no way to tell which way God will use the gospel when we obey his commands. We only know we are to do as he commands and leave the results to his providence.

The worst presentation of the gospel is one in which the reprobate do not see Jesus as the holy Son of God and are not offended by his holiness, repelled by those that present it (if they hate him, they should hate us all the more) and which makes those that are not in Christ comfortable. No man outside of Christ should be comfortable with a presentation of the Gospel, but should surely be either angry at both the person presenting it, and the God of creation. No man in Christ should be comfortable, but they should be comforted by the gospel as it convicts the elect of sin, causes them to repent and confess their sin, and in clinging to Christ be given the assurance of pardon through the justifying work of Christ.

 

[Pergamum]

Hmmm...

Best method of evangelism:
John 6:1-65 which is Jesus talking of himself, which is followed by:

As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

The best method of evangelism is the one that clearly points to Jesus in such a way as the reprobate turn away, and the elect are drawn near. Evangelism is a double-edged sword. One edge is the scalpel that God uses to transplant a heart of flesh into the sinner with a heart of stone, the other edge cuts to the root those that are being cut down to be cast into the fire. We have no way to tell which way God will use the gospel when we obey his commands. We only know we are to do as he commands and leave the results to his providence.

The worst presentation of the gospel is one in which the reprobate do not see Jesus as the holy Son of God and are not offended by his holiness, repelled by those that present it (if they hate him, they should hate us all the more) and which makes those that are not in Christ comfortable. No man outside of Christ should be comfortable with a presentation of the Gospel, but should surely be either angry at both the person presenting it, and the God of creation. No man in Christ should be comfortable, but they should be comforted by the gospel as it convicts the elect of sin, causes them to repent and confess their sin, and in clinging to Christ be given the assurance of pardon through the justifying work of Christ.

Wasn't King Agrippa "almost persuaded" to become a Christian? I guess Paul failed in his presentation during his personal testimony.

Although, I admit, there is some evidence to think that Agrippa was sneering and mocking Paul, "In just this little short time, you would think I would become a Christian after your short spiel..." "Okay, Dude, I'm convicned!....Whatever" So, this might have been said in jest. I would love to discuss that further.

 

[Der Pilger]

No. I did not set a time requirement or minimum. Paul walked into synagogues, he had a general idea where these people were at and addressed them accordingly. I like to know something about a person's viewpoints before I engage them. If I saw someone kneeling in front of their house praying, I now have my springboard to launch a conversation.

I can see where this makes sense, but what about making the springboard?

I am against obnoxious, overbearing OAEs that denigrate the reputation of Christ, that does not include ALL OAEs Certain loudmouths that point fingers at crowds may contain an element of truth, but their condemning spirit is evidence that they do not fully grasp the truth.

I tend to agree. I've seen these kinds of open-air preachers, and I'm sure there are some who are obnoxious and offensive. Not only that, but I've seen some who actually don't instruct others well but simply get out on a sidewalk and do a tongue-in-cheek presentation.

How about recognizing opportunities???????????????

That's fine as long as you don't limit yourself to that. We are to go forth with the gospel. That involves an attitude of proactively taking the gospel to places. I know you're not speaking against this, but I do feel somewhat cautious about your apparent tendency to lean in the direction of being passive--recognizing opportunities, trying to see where someone is at spiritually so as to have a springboard, etc. Again, these things aren't wrong, but I think we shouldn't limit ourselves to such.

-----Added 7/5/2009 at 01:19:34 EST-----

Hmmm...

Best method of evangelism:
John 6:1-65 which is Jesus talking of himself, which is followed by:

As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

The best method of evangelism is the one that clearly points to Jesus in such a way as the reprobate turn away, and the elect are drawn near. Evangelism is a double-edged sword. One edge is the scalpel that God uses to transplant a heart of flesh into the sinner with a heart of stone, the other edge cuts to the root those that are being cut down to be cast into the fire. We have no way to tell which way God will use the gospel when we obey his commands. We only know we are to do as he commands and leave the results to his providence.

The worst presentation of the gospel is one in which the reprobate do not see Jesus as the holy Son of God and are not offended by his holiness, repelled by those that present it (if they hate him, they should hate us all the more) and which makes those that are not in Christ comfortable. No man outside of Christ should be comfortable with a presentation of the Gospel, but should surely be either angry at both the person presenting it, and the God of creation. No man in Christ should be comfortable, but they should be comforted by the gospel as it convicts the elect of sin, causes them to repent and confess their sin, and in clinging to Christ be given the assurance of pardon through the justifying work of Christ.

Well said. Paul was very conscious of this when he wrote, "Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ" (Gal. 1:10). Our chief aim in our communication of the gospel should be to win God's approval, not to please men. Pleasing men and preaching the gospel are incompatible. Paul did not try to accomplish both; for him it was an either/or proposition when it came to the gospel. Either you please men, or you seek God's approval.

-----Added 7/5/2009 at 01:28:19 EST-----

Tracts are for the person you're talking to, not necessarily the person sharing the gospel. It gives the person, who is more than likely unfamiliar with scripture, something to look at once the encounter is over. You can also leave contact information with the person on the tract if they want to have further discussion about God...

Good point. Tracts are not a crutch for those who don't know how to share the gospel; they are a means of communicating the gospel message in print and leaving that message with someone after the encounter is over.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Wasn't King Agrippa "almost persuaded" to become a Christian? I guess Paul failed in his presentation during his personal testimony.

Although, I admit, there is some evidence to think that Agrippa was sneering and mocking Paul, "In just this little short time, you would think I would become a Christian after your short spiel..." "Okay, Dude, I'm convicned!....Whatever" So, this might have been said in jest. I would love to discuss that further.

I would say that Paul absolutely was successful. King Agrippa understood, and while we do not know with certitude his ultimate faith, it seems clear that Paul did in fact have the effect on Festus of having him hate Paul (calling someone crazy is at the least insulting).

I'm convinced that Paul did succeed. If Agrippa was "in a short while convinced" then Paul at least sowed the seeds that would later bloom into saving faith. And unless Festus later repented of the attitude he displayed, he certainly did trample underfoot the Son of God and entered into a more complete condemnation. The gospel goes forth to accomplish what it will. I do not know if Agrippa was of faith. Schaff in his "History of the Christian Church" states that Agrippa gave asylum to the Christians fleeing the destruction of Jerusalem. We don't know why (other than the providence of God) but we might think that perhaps Paul did plant seeds that eventually bore fruit; at least we can hope so. So I would say Paul succeeded. Success in presenting the gospel is not having people converted, but having people exposed to the purifying flame of the gospel.

 

[cih1355]

What do you think of the following approaches?

Approach people the way that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron do. They ask people, "Do you think that you are a good person?" Most likely people will say that they are good people. Show people from the Bible that they are not really good. Talk about God's plan of salvation.

Start a conversation with a total stranger and then ask him, "What kind of belief system do you have?"

 

[Grimmson]

What do you think of the following approaches?

Approach people the way that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron do. They ask people, "Do you think that you are a good person?" Most likely people will say that they are good people. Show people from the Bible that they are not really good. Talk about God's plan of salvation.

Start a conversation with a total stranger and then ask him, "What kind of belief system do you have?"

I personally use a more flexible approach and depends on the flow or movement of the conversation and where the conversation is taking place. I do not take a formulaic approach. But I think the approach that Ray Comfort used is interesting, especially in light of the fact that I just ran across a tract, thanks to Der Pilger, that uses the exact same approach.

Sometimes however I think we need to switch gears from the self to God and what he has done through the cross. Foreven most "good people" recongize that have sined and that makes them sinners. The problem with their( Comfort and Cameron) method is that it does not show the gravity of their sin against God. In fact many people just try to laugh it off. There needs to be more of the conversation then just talking about the decalouge in our approach, but also on the character and attributes of God. Many times this is missing in our approah, but it is not missing in Paul address at Mars Hill.

 

[cih1355]

Suppose you were in a conversation with someone and that conversation has nothing to do with Christ. How would you direct that conversation so that you are talking about Christ?

 

[Pergamum]

Suppose you were in a conversation with someone and that conversation has nothing to do with Christ. How would you direct that conversation so that you are talking about Christ?

I think it would have to be natural or else you would just appear to be phony. It is OKAY to have a conversation with someone that is not about Christ. We want to value people as people, not as evangelistic targets, lest we make people believeus to be using them to gain "conversion points."