The Problem With Evangelism

[Saint Steven]

The Gospel in Chairs

Brad Jersak's 2015 version of the Gospel in Chairs, originally composed by Fr. Anthony Carbo and borrowed by others like Steve Robinson and Brian Zahnd (who retitled it 'The Beautiful Gospel').

 

[JAL]

The Gospel in Chairs

Brad Jersak's 2015 version of the Gospel in Chairs, originally composed by Fr. Anthony Carbo and borrowed by others like Steve Robinson and Brian Zahnd (who retitled it 'The Beautiful Gospel').

You're probably tired of hearing from me. Nonetheless - for the sake of others who view this thread - one point bears repeating.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" (Jn 6:44). What the church needs is stronger unction (more drawing power), and this happens in revival. Compared to time spent waiting on the Lord for power from on high (see Pentecost), any time spent on that video's man-made techniques is about 99% wasted time. This was the whole point of Galatians. Andrew Murray said it well. In the following statement, he insists that the ENTIRE CHURCH has failed to understand the Galatian epistle - which is pretty radical statement coming from a writer who aimed to be considerably ecumenical.

"The mistake of the Galatian church is repeated to this day even in the churches that are most confidently assured that they are free from the Galatian error. Just notice how often the doctrine of justification by faith is spoken of as if it were the chief teaching of the Galatian epistle. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit‟s indwelling as received by faith and our walking by the Spirit is hardly mentioned…[Unfortunately today] human effort and human arrangement [i.e. man-made techniques] take a much larger place than in the waiting on the power that comes from on high." (Andrew Murray, The Spirit of Christ (Springdale: Whitaker House, 1984), italics mine, pp. 192-93).

Elsewhere Murray affirmed that the whole point of the Galatian epistle was to reinstate the Pentecost-paradigm among them.

Thanks for the video - it's an excellent example of what the church should NOT be emphasizing, except as a crutch (in the sense explained in my other posts).

 

[Saint Steven]

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" (Jn 6:44). What the church needs is stronger unction (more drawing power), and this happens in revival.

You are too late. It's already a done deal.
When was Jesus lifted up? What was the result?

John 12:32
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

 

[topher694]

You're probably tired of hearing from me. Nonetheless - for the sake of others who view this thread - one point bears repeating.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" (Jn 6:44). What the church needs is stronger unction (more drawing power), and this happens in revival. Compared to time spent waiting on the Lord for power from on high (see Pentecost), any time spent on that video's man-made techniques is about 99% wasted time. This was the whole point of Galatians. Andrew Murray said it well. In the following statement, he insists that the ENTIRE CHURCH has failed to understand the Galatian epistle - which is pretty radical statement coming from a writer who aimed to be considerably ecumenical.

"The mistake of the Galatian church is repeated to this day even in the churches that are most confidently assured that they are free from the Galatian error. Just notice how often the doctrine of justification by faith is spoken of as if it were the chief teaching of the Galatian epistle. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit‟s indwelling as received by faith and our walking by the Spirit is hardly mentioned…[Unfortunately today] human effort and human arrangement [i.e. man-made techniques] take a much larger place than in the waiting on the power that comes from on high." (Andrew Murray, The Spirit of Christ (Springdale: Whitaker House, 1984), italics mine, pp. 192-93).

Elsewhere Murray affirmed that the whole point of the Galatian epistle was to reinstate the Pentecost-paradigm among them.

Thanks for the video - it's an excellent example of what the church should NOT be emphasizing, except as a crutch (in the sense explained in my other posts).

For the sake of others who view this thread. Do not listen to a word this person says. He is effectively criticizing the entire church, regardless of denomination, for not following his personal views. He clings to a doctrine of one, himself, his opinion above all. Which, ironically, he admittedly does not practice himself. If you disagree in any way, you are accused of not caring about or understanding scripture.

He claims 100 billion souls are at stake, but advocates doing absolutely nothing about it unless his self-created ideal of 100% certainty is met. So what happens to those 100 billion souls if we follow his advice and wait? How many of those 100 billion die everyday while we wait? What about them? The only thing that is 100% certain is they will not see heaven if no one tells them about Jesus.

This is dangerous doctrine which should be ignored. The shaming techniques should ignored. If are the only one advocating an idea - an idea that is 100% theoretical and is not being practiced today by anyone - if there is zero proven fruit, then there comes a time to do some self examination and admit that perhaps it's not everyone else that is wrong, but you yourself.

The only crutch here is the junk that he is continually proposing. It allows him to criticize what everyone else is doing while releasing himself from any personal responsibility. In reality the only fruit these ideas produce is the kind that harms the Body of Christ.

If I could emphasize this even more strongly I would.

 

[JAL]

For the sake of others who view this thread. Do not listen to a word this person says. He is effectively criticizing the entire church, regardless of denomination, for not following his personal views. He clings to a doctrine of one, himself, his opinion above all. Which, ironically, he admittedly does not practice himself. If you disagree in any way, you are accused of not caring about or understanding scripture.

He claims 100 billion souls are at stake, but advocates doing absolutely nothing about it unless his self-created ideal of 100% certainty is met. So what happens to those 100 billion souls if we follow his advice and wait? How many of those 100 billion die everyday while we wait? What about them? The only thing that is 100% certain is they will not see heaven if no one tells them about Jesus.

This is dangerous doctrine which should be ignored. The shaming techniques should ignored. If are the only one advocating an idea - an idea that is 100% theoretical and is not being practiced today by anyone - if there is zero proven fruit, then there comes a time to do some self examination and admit that perhaps it's not everyone else that is wrong, but you yourself.

The only crutch here is the junk that he is continually proposing. It allows him to criticize what everyone else is doing while releasing himself from any personal responsibility. In reality the only fruit these ideas produce is the kind that harms the Body of Christ.

If I could emphasize this even more strongly I would.

To summarize your view: Waiting upon the Lord in prayer and praise is tantamount to doing nothing, it is useless, it accomplishes nothing, it is displeasing to God, and should be condemned and anathematized as vehemently as possible.

Question: Have you read even one chapter of the Bible? Ever?

 

[JAL]

....his self-created ideal of 100% certainty...

Self-created? A bit of an overstatement isn't it? The word Trinity isn't in scripture - does that mean it's a self-created ideal? The real question is whether there is a substantive biblical basis for it. You haven't rebutted mine. Let's review, shall we?

Hebrews 11 enumerates and celebrates exemplary embodiments of faith - where faith is defined how? 100% certainty born of direct revelation. How do I know that?
(1) It says that the prophet Abraham attempted to murder his son as an act of faith.
(2) It recounts other prophets having "conquered kingdoms" - literally slaughtering nations - as an act of faith.

Thus 100% certainty is set forth in Hebrews 11 as the kind of faith for us all to attain to. Tell me, how do we get there? Aside from waiting upon the Lord. Will exegesis take you there? Nope. Too fallible.

Back to 1 and 2: Would you do such things on anything less than 100% certainty? If so, you are a monster. Earlier when I mentioned Abraham, you replied that his faith is celebrated in Hebrews 11 precisely because he acted WITHOUT 100% certainty. Sorry but that behavior describes a monster. Visualize: "I killed my son because I heard a voice, even though I was somewhat uncertain about the voice." Is that cause for celebration? Ridiculous.

 

[topher694]

To summarize your view: Waiting upon the Lord in prayer and praise is tantamount to doing nothing, it is useless, it accomplishes nothing, it is displeasing to God, and should be condemned and anathematized as vehemently as possible.

Question: Have you read even one chapter of the Bible? Ever?

That was extremely uncalled for. If personal attacks make you feel better about yourself and your theories I'd suggest a little more waiting on the Lord and a little less forums.

You are just doing exactly what I outlined. This is a cop out. A bait and switch. No one here has EVER said that praise and prayer are doing nothing except you. We can praise and pray AND go out and evangelize. It's not one or the other.

 

[JAL]

That was extremely uncalled for. If personal attacks make you feel better about yourself and your theories I'd suggest a little more waiting on the Lord and a little less forums.

You are just doing exactly what I outlined. This is a cop out. A bait and switch. No one here has EVER said that praise and prayer are doing nothing except you. We can praise and pray AND go out and evangelize. It's not one or the other.

My assessment of your statement was correct - and it stands until you publicly retract it.

 

[JAL]

Let's be clear, topher694:

You condemned my advice of waiting upon the Lord in prayer and praise. You insinuated that it accomplishes nothing for the 100 billion souls. Either recant your condemnation, or accept my assessment of it. You can't have it both ways.

 

[topher694]

Let's be clear, topher694:

You condemned my advice of waiting upon the Lord in prayer and praise. You insinuated that it accomplishes nothing for the 100 billion souls. Either recant your condemnation, or accept my assessment of it. You can't have it both ways.

No I did not. I condemned your advice of waiting for 100% certainty, which is in no way biblical.

This twisting of words in an attempt to make me look bad and you look like a victim is one more example of horrible behavior and poor fruit.

 

[JAL]

No I did not. I condemned your advice of waiting for 100% certainty, which is in no way biblical.

This twisting of words in an attempt to make me look bad and you look like a victim is one more example of horrible behavior and poor fruit.

Um...yes you did. Because the 100% certainty only specifies the signal indicating the end of the process. The process is to pray and praise God in the usual way. You condemned such project vehemently. Hence my assessment was accurate.

 

[topher694]

Um...yes you did. Because the 100% certainty only specifies the signal indicating the end of the process. The process is to pray and praise God in the usual way. You condemned such project vehemently. Hence my assessment was accurate.

And THAT is your opinion, and your opinion alone. No one else agrees with that. None. You are once again doing exactly what I said. Hence my assessment was accurate and your assessment was an assessment of one misguided person and nothing more.

 

[JAL]

And THAT is your opinion, and your opinion alone. No one else agrees with that. None. You are once again doing exactly what I said. Hence my assessment was accurate and your assessment was an assessment of one misguided person and nothing more.

Backpedal all you want - the facts remain.

 

[JAL]

his self-created ideal of 100% certainty...

Charles Finney was the most effective revival preacher in American history. Even my history textbook at a (secular) liberal arts university stated that he literally changed the course of American history. Some speculate that as many as 50,000 people got saved per week in some of his revivals.

Finney claimed that the key to his success was waiting upon the Lord in prayer and praise for
(1) Power from on high (he actually wrote a book by this name)
(2) An assurance of victory in each town where he preached.

He applied this practice not only to entire towns, but even specific individuals. (Pastor Yonggi Cho did the same thing). Here's an example from Finney's autobiography, where he was praying for the salvation of a specific woman:

"[As] I pled for her God said to me, 'Yes! yes!'…and I felt a complete certainty that her salvation was secure" (Charles Finney, Autobiography, (1876), from the chapter, 'Beginning of His Work', italics mine).

I don't know how to read this other than 100% certainty. And I mentioned both Finney and Cho earlier in this thread. So when you claim that I am the only one who has believed in 100% certainty, is it because you didn't read what I wrote? Or is it an outright lie?

 

[topher694]

Charles Finney was the most effective revival preacher in American history. Even my history textbook at a (secular) liberal arts university stated that he literally changed the course of American history. Some speculate that as many as 50,000 people got saved per week in some of his revivals.

Finney claimed that the key to his success was waiting upon the Lord in prayer and praise for
(1) Power from on high (he actually wrote a book by this name)
(2) An assurance of victory in each town where he preached.

He applied this practice not only to entire towns, but even specific individuals. (Pastor Yonggi Cho did the same thing). Here's an example from Finney's autobiography, where he was praying for the salvation of a specific woman:

"[As] I pled for her God said to me, 'Yes! yes!'…and I felt a complete certainty that her salvation was secure" (Charles Finney, Autobiography, (1876), from the chapter, 'Beginning of His Work', italics mine).

I don't know how to read this other than 100% certainty. And I mentioned both Finney and Cho earlier in this thread. So when you claim that I am the only one who has believed in 100% certainty, is it because you didn't read what I wrote? Or is it an outright lie?

It is because you are the only one who sees it that way. You twist their words to fit your theology of one, just like you twist our words to defend it. Horrible behavior, poor fruit.

 

[JAL]

It is because you are the only one who sees it that way. You twist their words to fit your theology of one, just like you twist our words to defend it. Horrible behavior, poor fruit.

You're very intent on attacking me personally. However, I don't see any strong theological argumentation coming from your end.

 

[topher694]

You're very intent on attacking me personally. However, I don't see any strong theological argumentation coming from your end.

I have pointed out your actual behavior on this thread. You are the one who attacks people personally. You question their understanding, their convictions, their commitment, their intentions. And I have yet to see you acknowledge it or apologize.

No one has much of a chance to put forth any sort of argument because you constantly hijack threads by spamming your theology and insulting those who say anything different.

 

[JAL]

I have pointed out your actual behavior on this thread. You are the one who attacks people personally. You question their understanding, their convictions, their commitment, their intentions. And I have yet to see you acknowledge it or apologize.

No one has much of a chance to put forth any sort of argument because you constantly hijack threads by spamming your theology and insulting those who say anything different.

On the contrary, everyone has an opportunity to rebut my arguments.

 

[topher694]

On the contrary, everyone has an opportunity to rebut my arguments.

Exactly. Too much time spent on YOUR arguments.

 

[JAL]

his self-created ideal of 100% certainty...

Are you implying that 100% certainty is impossible? I think not, right? I mean when Paul finished Romans, did he release it with the disclaimer, "Not really sure all this stuff is true, but I sure hope it is!"

Next question. Is God a respecter of persons? Paul was probably 100% sure of his salvation - and I'm consigned to, say, 99% certainty? Wow. That stinks. Maybe I can rephrase the problem here. When we evangelize, we are counseling people on their eternal destiny. You see the problem, don't you? Why would God want His ambassadors - His supposedly professional evangelists - to advise an unsaved person on his eternal destiny if they themselves are uncertain about eternal destiny? Doesn't make sense. Right? I mean, let's be honest, meaning, let's be honest with the unsaved person. That is to say, since you believe the evangelist is only supposed to walk in, say, 99% certainty, then you should evangelize like this:

"Hi my unsaved friend. Here's some advice about Jesus. But take it with a grain of salt, because I'm not completely sure it will get you saved. I'm not even completely sure that I am in the correct religion."

In fact, that's how I currently speak to unbelievers, if they ask me about my religion. I'm totally honest with them - honest about the fact that I am not 100% certain.

Now here's the problem. When I read the book of Acts, I see no evidence of such honesty - no such disclaimers. Rather the apostles talked like this (to paraphrase).

"Repent, and accept Jesus as savior. Otherwise you are doomed to hell."

I see two options here:
(1) Perhaps I am more honest than they were. I am willing to hedge my words with disclaimers, whereas they were too dishonest to admit their uncertainty.
(2) OR, perhaps they preached with 100% certainty.

Now, as I've demonstrated earlier, NT evangelism is defined as prophetic utterance. Given the very gravity of prophecy, I think #2 is a safer bet.

See what I did? I argued my position. I didn't just assert it, fronting the assertion with a series of personal attacks.