"So I've shared the gospel. Now what?"

[Herald]

I came to faith in Christ in 1979; right at the tail end of the "Jesus" movement in the United States. "Witnessing" was pushed heavily and the guilt that followed if you didn't witness (or witness correctly) was heavy. I decided to attend a fundamentalist bible college where witnessing ("personal evangelism" as it was called) was an art form. Now I'm on the Reformed side of things and have been thinking and discussing how to get a right handle on how a Christian should share their faith.

One aspect of sharing your faith in Christ, is what to do at the end? If you been part of the fundamentalist movement, as I was, you feel the suspense building to one final crescendo; where you ask the person you are witnessing to if they want to receive the Lord Jesus Christ. If they answer in the affirmative, you lead them in one of the many versions of the sinners prayer. Again, being on the Reformed side of things, I see the sinners prayer as at best, just a verbalization of what has taken place already; and worse, a false confidence in a change that has never taken place. For that reason I do not ask anyone to pray. If they are local I invite them to my church. If they are not local I ask them where they live and would they mind if I emailed or called them with a church in their area that preaches the gospel truthfully. I take it on myself to do some searching to find a church (or a few of them) in their area. I also ask them to dwell on the things we spoke about and read their bible (if they have one). That's it. But I must be honest and say that as a reformed fundamentalist, it still feels a bit unnatural not to seek that commitment.

I think Way of the Master has been good at this. They present "law and gospel" but do not seek an emotional decision or lead in a prayer of possible false assurance. I think you can call their ministry "seed planting." They simply plant the seed that God may seek to use in calling a sinner to Himself.

Thoughts?

 

[ReformedWretch]

I think WOTM does it wonderfully!

 

[KMK]

It was good for me to hear your testimony, Bill. It answers a lot of questions I have had about those who push or suffer from the guilt of improper/ineffective 'wintessing'.

I have known people and churches like you describe, but having grown up in the Methodist church and then becoming Reformed with only a brief stint in the CMA in between, I had no frame of reference. It helped me to hear you refer to the guilt involved because I have often suspected as much from hearing people talk.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Oh man, the guilt was horrible (at least for me) in the IFPDB church that I grew up in. The weight of guilt being lifted that I experienced after coming to a better understanding of the reformed faith was immense. Sharing the Gospel was so "forced", and in my opinion false [because I was doing it more to alleviate my own guilt than out of a genuine concern for the person being witnessed to, or out of genuine love a obedience to my wonderful Savior] that it was seldom, if ever, effective. And to tell the truth, I can't think of a single person that made a profession under those circumstances that is still in church today [think perhaps dozens, not 100s or 1000s - I am no D. L. Moody after all].

 

[BJClark]

North Jersey Baptist;

I believe the most any of us can do is plant or water the seed.

By that I mean, when we share our faith with others, either they have or have not heard the gospel before.

If they haven't it's planting a seed, if they have, it's watering.

The problem I believe most Christians have, is in wanting to hear them confess Christ, and anything short of that, they believe they have in some way failed.

God's word, does NOT return void, no matter who it is shared with, it either leads to the person's salvation or to their damnation, and either way it has done what GOD intended for it to do.

When Christians get upset that someone they share the gospel with does not make a confession of faith right then, it says more about them and their faith in God Himself. And the bare facts of it come down to they believe they are some how 'saving' the person.


it's much like, if someone stops and asks for directions, depends on where they are and where they want to go, you can either point them to various street names to take, or you pull out a map and show them on the map the direction they need to take.

Or another way to look at it, they are laying on the operating table with a heart that does not function, they are laying their chest cut open, with no heart beat, and God is heart surgeon in the room performing the surgery, and we are merely the assistance in the room with Him, hand me the scalpel, hand me the gauze, hand me whatever..(Scripture verses being those items)

God has the Heart transplant list, and is in control of it..not us..God knows if the patient gets a new heart or not, all we do is hand the scalpel over and God gets the heart beating or not..

So should we feel guilty if God (the surgeon) has determined they are not ready for a heart transplant? Or that they don't get a Heart Transplant? By no means, He is the one who has determined who gets a new heart and who doesn't..but God being the creator, of the person to begin with gets to decide what 'parts' go in to His creation.

 

[Herald]

Ken, sharing your faith out of guilt is a de facto admission that you (the person sharing) are indispensable in the process of God calling someone to faith. To be fair, not every fundamentalist can be painted with the same brush. Some may share their faith or preach the gospel out of sheer joy; a desire to see sinners come to faith. The joy is real. I've known it. But so is the guilt. I've come to understand that Calvinism liberates the gospel! I can still share in the joy of proclaiming Christ, but I now do so without being under guilt or compulsion. God is the one who saves, and it is He who ordains the means.

 

[Herald]

Oh, there's a few more "thanks" that I wanted to give in this thread but my "thanks" button has vanished. It's been raptured!

 

[CharlieJ]

You asked what do at the end? I've thought a lot about this, since I grew up evangelism-heavy IFB, too. I even directed an evangelism class for a church while I was in college shortly after becoming Reformed. Talk about dealing with incongruencies!

Biblically, I think we should give the whole gospel. Then, we should explain baptism. I don't mind urging people to accept the gospel and to demonstrate it through baptism.

Here's the big difference between baptism and the sinner's prayer. A person might get annoyed with me on their doorstep and pray a prayer just to make me go away. Nobody is going to get baptized just to make someone stop talking. Besides, it gives the church another chance to examine the person.

And, it's very New Testament. You often see the close correlation between the gospel and baptism in the apostolic witness. It's so much better to use a God-ordained "closing" method than trying to invent one. Even though we know that not even 100% of baptized people are truly saved, I think tightening our conception of faith and baptism would help cut down on false professions. It would also raise the number of true professions who actually make it into a church to grow with the body.

 

[Herald]

Charlie,

I was about to pounce on your post until you said, "It gives the church another chance to examine the person." This discussion has been had before, but mostly in baptism threads. How long do you wait before you baptize a convert? I don't think it should be long. It should follow a credible profession of faith; satisfactory to the pastor and elders. But I don't know whether I would talk first about baptism or invite them to church to hear the gospel.

 

[Quickened]

I think Way of the Master has been good at this. They present "law and gospel" but do not seek an emotional decision or lead in a prayer of possible false assurance. I think you can call their ministry "seed planting." They simply plant the seed that God may seek to use in calling a sinner to Himself.

Thoughts?

Have they changed the way they do things now? I used to watch WOTM on TV years ago and there were highlights of the positive side of witnessing. They went through the positives and negitives as to what to expect and showed both sides from what had happened. On the positive note it had ended up with a girl crying and someone leading asking her if she wanted to pray and then led her in a "sinners prayer" of sorts.

Anyway this is a great question you bring up. Growing up in my Christian faith i was exposesd to alot of what you addressed in your opening post. This was on my mind a bit ago and it just so happens that you made a thread concerning this very thing! Thanks

 

[Dearly Bought]

A full-time world lecturer/evangelizist who attends my church feels it is a sin to present the gospel or even witness unless the Holy Spirit is prompting him to do so. He also observed that the "PTL" "Halleluyah" and "WWJD" types of exuberant, higlhly emotive believers do not typically wait on the leading of the Holy Spirit.

This conception of a "leading" from the Holy Spirit apart from illumination of the Scriptures is unbiblical. The Scriptures are sufficient in themselves to guide us.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17, ESV)

To quote O. Palmer Robertson's The Final Word (p. 84):

Responsible decision-making never will be learned by God's people so long as they think they must wait for God somehow to 'reveal' his will to them before they can act.

 

[CharlieJ]

Charlie,

I was about to pounce on your post until you said, "It gives the church another chance to examine the person." This discussion has been had before, but mostly in baptism threads. How long do you wait before you baptize a convert? I don't think it should be long. It should follow a credible profession of faith; satisfactory to the pastor and elders. But I don't know whether I would talk first about baptism or invite them to church to hear the gospel.

I am not a fan of long examination periods, but when the person comes to the church for baptism, they should be interviewed.

After a full explanation of the gospel and a full explanation of baptism, the ball is essentially in his/her court. I usually give the person my phone number and a tract from my church (with address) as well. If he calls me and say, "Hey, I want to come to your church and be baptized," there's a good chance God has really done something in him.

I don't know why we invite people to church to hear the Gospel for the first time. I don't think it's bad, but it doesn't seem to be very NT.

 

[Herald]

I don't know why we invite people to church to hear the Gospel for the first time. I don't think it's bad, but it doesn't seem to be very NT.

The bible simply says, "believe and be baptized." If an individual is going to submit to baptism, I don't think it would be unusual for them to come to the church. But you bring up a valid point. Is it possible for a person to come to faith in Christ outside the four walls of the church? Yes! We need to be careful not to add more to the gospel than what it contains.

 

[MW]

Is it possible for a person to come to faith in Christ outside the four walls of the church? Yes! We need to be careful not to add more to the gospel than what it contains.

I don't define church in terms of a building but of a people. Idenitification of this people requires an identification marker. The ordained marker is baptism. Therefore, while it is true that a person can be saved without baptism, the church cannot identify the person as saved without baptism. We need to be careful not to detract essential elements from the gospel, including the call to repent and be baptised.

 

[Herald]

Is it possible for a person to come to faith in Christ outside the four walls of the church? Yes! We need to be careful not to add more to the gospel than what it contains.

I don't define church in terms of a building but of a people. Idenitification of this people requires an identification marker. The ordained marker is baptism. Therefore, while it is true that a person can be saved without baptism, the church cannot identify the person as saved without baptism. We need to be careful not to detract essential elements from the gospel, including the call to repent and be baptised.

Matthew, of course, and thank you for the reminder.

 

[KMK]

Is it possible for a person to come to faith in Christ outside the four walls of the church? Yes! We need to be careful not to add more to the gospel than what it contains.

I don't define church in terms of a building but of a people. Idenitification of this people requires an identification marker. The ordained marker is baptism. Therefore, while it is true that a person can be saved without baptism, the church cannot identify the person as saved without baptism. We need to be careful not to detract essential elements from the gospel, including the call to repent and be baptised.

Thank you for that awesome post, Rev Winzer! It reminds me to get back to the book I am writing entitled, "Winzer's Wisdom".

 

[Dearly Bought]

The world evangelist I spoke of does not work "apart from illumination of the Scriptures." He also cautions, "If whatever plan we have is not consistent with the Word of God, or not allowable in light of the Word, then we should drop it." And he seeks the Helper's/the Holy Spirit's leading before witnessing and assistance while witnessing. His experience is that this makes the greatest difference. I hope this better clarifies the evangelist's position.

Have you ever sensed a particular leading of the Holy Spirit to speak about Christ to an individual you might otherwise not speak to? Also, I suspect I am not alone in experiencing what could only be called most unexpected, extraordinary invitations/opportunities to witness. Anybody else experienced either of these?

Lauren,
There have been times in the past when I might have shared an experience or two where I thought I had sensed a leading from the Holy Spirit in evangelism. However, I now am firmly convinced that experiences such as those depicted in the two passages from Acts that you cite are no longer part of the church's life today. The Spirit's instruction to Phillip to approach the eunuch's chariot was a revelatory act, not merely the illumination of revelation already given. With the canon and the apostolic era completed, God's revelatory work has concluded, finished in the person of His Son (Heb. 1:2).

The Holy Spirit makes us to understand the Scriptures, but does not give new revelation today. A leading from the Holy Spirit would be considered new revelation.

 

[cih1355]

One aspect of sharing your faith in Christ, is what to do at the end?

Ask if they have any questions. Tell them that they need to rely on Christ alone for their salvation and if they say that they would like to believe in Jesus, then tell them to start having faith in Christ. Invite them to church. Talk about the importance of baptism.