Why Don't More Christians Share the Gospel?

1Tonne said:

I think I agree with part of what you’re saying, especially that the cross reveals God’s love, defeats death, and that humanity is responsible for Christ’s death.

Click to expand...

When a person says "responsible", it can carry a neutral connotation like "the rains were responsible for the landslide", but the term can also connote as liable or even as blame. Jesus said forgive them they know not what they do; So, I don't use the term responsible because it's too loaded in its ambiguity and the devil (accuser/slanderer) uses semantics.

And this is why I am relieved to see that you have let me know which image you were preaching; the True Image of God, as a Character of Person Who would lay down His Life to save others in Agape, or the blasphemous image of a merciless, cruel, tyrannical prosecutor. <-This was why I posted in this thread in the first place.

1Tonne said:

But I don’t think the Parable of the Vineyard (Matt 21) is meant to redefine the atonement. It’s about Israel rejecting the prophets and ultimately the Son, not a full explanation of how the cross works.

Click to expand...

I only mentioned it to contest any notion of preaching the Father killed His son to pay for our sins. The theology of atonement was not actually in the context of my concern. But now that you mention it, the reasoning for the atonement could be linked to the temporary mediators (spiritual powers of darkness/the husbandman) being unjust.

1Tonne said:

The New Testament actually holds both truths together: Jesus was killed by sinful men (Acts 2:23), and yet He was also given over according to God’s purpose. So it’s not either human murder or divine purpose, it’s both.

Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say that anything happening in time has a divine purpose, but the impetus for murder is not from Agape. So, the Gospel is also judgement. -> 39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

1Tonne said:

And passages like Isaiah 53, Romans 3, 1 John 2:2 still clearly use substitutionary, judicial language (“the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all,” “propitiation,” etc.). That doesn’t mean God is “venting anger,” but that sin is truly dealt with in a just way at the cross.

Click to expand...

Exactly, because The Christ is God's True Character that comes into the world; he divides (either for or against HIs Image) and the term "just" as in 'justice' is framed differently by people, depending upon which side one falls. Weakness is the flesh’s inability; pride is the flesh’s denial of that inability.

Sin is a structural tragedy rooted in creaturely vulnerability, not merely moral failure; propitiation is God’s one‑directional descent into that vulnerability to heal it.

God is eternally innocent, meaning He has no experiential knowledge of sin. Therefore, when He deals with sin, He deals with it as the Innocent One, and this is precisely why the Incarnation is necessary. God’s Innocence Is Not Ignorance It Is Purity.

“Bought with His blood” means He paid the cost of our condition. The Innocent One purchased the guilty to make them innocent. The Innocent One enters the condition of the guilty so the guilty can enter the condition of the Innocent One. <-- This is the Gospel.

1Tonne said:

So, I’d see the cross as both: human rejection of Christ and God’s saving action through Christ bearing our sin.

Click to expand...

Then you would fall on the side where the only path of penitence is The Way of the Cross; remission of sin in this sense is not dissimilar to remission of a cancerous disease (corruption), rather than a bad choice.

1Tonne said:

I agree with you that we are not saved by the law, and that righteousness is revealed apart from the law in Christ.
But I don’t think that means the law has no place in evangelism. Paul says the law is a “schoolmaster” to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24), and that through the law comes the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).

Click to expand...

It's difficult to preach the law as an instructive schoolmaster and also the power of sin. One would have to reframe the schooling as a diagnostic either revealing weakness of the flesh leading to transgression, or self- righteousness that causes iniquity to abound; in summation -> subjective and ultimately hypocritical carnal reasoning. Both transgression and iniquity are shown here--> But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

"But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster [paidagōgos]." (Galatians 3:25)

To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Jesus was not under the law because he said he was the Lord of the Sabbath, yet he subjugated himself to be under the law so that he could take away sin.

1Tonne said:

So it exposes our guilt and shuts down self-justification.
On the day of judgment many will appeal to their own goodness (Proverbs 20:6), but the law shows God’s true standard and reveals that none of us measure up.

Click to expand...

"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

" Paul never says "if you are saved, look at the law to guide your steps." Instead, he says: "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."

And as a final note, after listing the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness), Paul adds, "Against such there is no law."

1Tonne said:

At the same time, those who are saved do not use the law to earn salvation, but they do desire to honour God, and so the law becomes a guide for holy living, not a means of earning favour.

So, I see it like this: the law cannot save us, but it can rightly prepare the heart for the Gospel by revealing our need for Christ. We can use the law like a farmer does a plow. The law plows up the hard soil and prepares it for the seed.

Click to expand...

The law is indeed a diagnostic tool and a schoolmaster that prepares the heart by exposing its bankruptcy. So when scripture says He takes away sin, I see more than one meaning for "sin": A record of transgressions and a predisposition that is incongruent with reflecting the Character of God. -> Justification and Sanctification.

And I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezekiel 36:27)


The Holy Spirit is the guide for Holy Living because He testifies inwardly to the Character of the Father and the son. In this sense I must acknowledge that I do NOT keep the letter to honor God, He causes me to walk in His way.

"BUT", what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss... and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ...
Philippians 3:7-9

Sorry, the posts are starting to get too long for me. When they get too long, it can take ages to write up a response, and I do not have enough time.

I agree that the Father is not a merciless, cruel tyrant, and I certainly would not want to preach such an image of God. Scripture says that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 33:11), which shows His heart toward sinners. And I do not think that God took please in sending His son to die in our place for our sins. Although it did please Him as it achieved an ultimate purpose of saving us.
At the same time, I don't think we should reject biblical language simply because some people misuse it. The Bible says that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3), that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa. 53:6), and that He bore our sins in His body on the tree (1 Pet. 2:24).
So, I see the cross as the ultimate demonstration of both God's love and God's justice. The Father did not delight in the suffering of His Son, nor was the Son an unwilling victim. Rather, out of love, the Father gave the Son, and out of love, the Son gave Himself for us.
My concern is simply that we let Scripture define the cross, rather than reacting to caricatures of doctrines that none of us actually hold.
Blessings.

joechristianwarrior said:

Jesus commanded His followers to preach the Gospel to all nations, yet many Christians rarely talk about their faith with others. Fear of rejection, lack of confidence, concern about offending people, and uncertainty about what to say are often cited as reasons.


I recently made a short video examining this issue and looking at what Jesus taught about sharing the Gospel. I'm curious to hear your thoughts as well:


What do you think is the biggest obstacle preventing Christians from evangelizing today?

I'd love to hear your perspective and discuss it respectfully.

Click to expand...

Because most are not what they profess

1Tonne said:

My concern is simply that we let Scripture define the cross, rather than reacting to caricatures of doctrines that none of us actually hold.

Click to expand...

No worries, peace.

1Tonne said:

My concern is simply that we let Scripture define the cross, rather than reacting to caricatures of doctrines that none of us actually hold.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting statement. What would such a caricature sound like?

I think Christians don’t proclaim so much because they don’t have a fire inside. It is not so much belief or courage as it is inspiration.

Akita Suggagaki said:

That is an interesting statement. What would such a caricature sound like?

Click to expand...

A caricature would sound something like this:
"The Father was an angry, bloodthirsty tyrant who couldn't forgive unless He first took His rage out on an innocent victim."
I don't know any orthodox Christian who actually believes that.
The biblical picture is much richer. God loved the world and sent His Son (John 3:16). The Son willingly laid down His life (John 10:18). The Father laid our iniquity on Him (Isa. 53:6), not because He delighted in His suffering, but because He loved us while remaining just.
The cross is not God acting contrary to His love. The cross is where God's love, justice, mercy, and holiness are all displayed together.

Akita Suggagaki said:

I think Christians don’t proclaim so much because they don’t have a fire inside. It is not so much belief or courage as it is inspiration.

Click to expand...

I would agree. The Holy Spirit was given so that we would speak. (Acts 1:8). It seems many who say that they have the Spirit either do not have it, or they suppress it.

One thing that has really stood out to me as I have read through the New Testament is how often the giving or filling of the Holy Spirit is connected with speaking.
-Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke (Luke 1:41–45).
-Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied (Luke 1:67–79).
-At Pentecost, the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in other languages (Acts 2:1–11).
-Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, boldly proclaimed Christ (Acts 4:8–12).
-After the believers prayed, they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness (Acts 4:31).
-Saul received the Holy Spirit and immediately began preaching Christ (Acts 9:17–22).
-Cornelius' household received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues, magnifying God (Acts 10:44–48).
-The disciples at Ephesus received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues and prophesied (Acts 19:1–7).
Notice the pattern. The Holy Spirit is repeatedly connected with declaring God's truth.

Even the gift of tongues at Pentecost was not random speech. God enabled people from many different nations to hear "the wonderful works of God" in their own languages (Acts 2:6–11). The miracle served the proclamation of the Gospel. It was not random babble.

Likewise, prophecy in the New Testament was not merely about predicting the future. It was Spirit-inspired speech that declared God's message of Jesus sacrifice. Revelation 19:10 says that when we give a testimony of Jesus, so evangelising, that we are walking in the spirit of prophecy. Philip's four daughters are described as prophesying (Acts 21:9), and Philip himself is called "the evangelist." Throughout Acts, prophecy and Spirit-empowered proclamation go hand in hand.

Jesus Himself said that when the Holy Spirit came upon His disciples, they would be His witnesses (Acts 1:8). He also promised that the Holy Spirit would give believers the words to speak when they stood before others (Matt. 10:19–20; Luke 12:11–12).

This makes me wonder whether we sometimes overlook one of the Spirit's primary purposes. The Holy Spirit was not given simply to give us an experience, but to give us the boldness, wisdom, and ability to proclaim Christ. Again and again in the New Testament, the Spirit empowers God's people to speak so that others might hear the Gospel and believe.

I just listened to a video and the person being interviewed said an amazing thing.
"Reaching the lost. The motivation, the fuel that motivates me is the high-octane fuel of gratitude. I cannot express to you how grateful I am that God saved me from death and from hell. Like Paul, I cannot even put into words how grateful I am. So, what I can't put into words, I put into works. I just want to please God with all my heart. I want to reach the lost and with any way I can." Ray Comfort.

Gratitude. What a great motivator.
How grateful was we?

I think street preaching is wildly presumptuous to the point of being insulting, and it’s also kind of lazy.

I consider myself a thoughtful, intelligent person. I’m not going to upend my entire religious worldview because of a plea from some random guy in a Walmart parking lot. That sort of decision is going come from a fair amount of thought and study and conversation with people I trust. But building that sort of trust requires a lot more difficult work than just handing out pamphlets like you would coupons to a new pizza joint. Approaching me like that about a subject so weighty communicates to me that you don’t respect the gravity of what you’re suggesting and that you don’t respect me enough to try to understand what my needs actually are.

1Tonne said:

A caricature would sound something like this:
"The Father was an angry, bloodthirsty tyrant who couldn't forgive unless He first took His rage out on an innocent victim."
I don't know any orthodox Christian who actually believes that.

Click to expand...

Historically it was the subtle implicature of a late-century interpretation of penal substitution mostly active in evangelical circles and revivalist movements. Some say it started in the reformists linked to Calvinist legalistic doctrines, but I have seen no evidence of that myself. There are people I have debated on several Christian forums who still hold to that belief citing Isaiah 53 and Acts 2:23; also, atheists who criticize it as a reason to discount Christianity. The most common way it was used to evangelize was with this line -> “Every time you sin, you put a nail in Jesus’ hand”.

iluvatar5150 said:

I think street preaching is wildly presumptuous to the point of being insulting, and it’s also kind of lazy.

I consider myself a thoughtful, intelligent person. I’m not going to upend my entire religious worldview because of a plea from some random guy in a Walmart parking lot. That sort of decision is going come from a fair amount of thought and study and conversation with people I trust. But building that sort of trust requires a lot more difficult work than just handing out pamphlets like you would coupons to a new pizza joint. Approaching me like that about a subject so weighty communicates to me that you don’t respect the gravity of what you’re suggesting and that you don’t respect me enough to try to understand what my needs actually are.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. Cold Turkey evangelism is very limited. Rather we should build relationships with people and witness to them at an appropriate time as we feel led by the Spirit. It is not a matter of how many notches I can get on my Bible but being sensitive to people and the where the Holy Spirit is working in the heart of that person. Decisions are easily come by, disciples are another thing.

iluvatar5150 said:

I think street preaching is wildly presumptuous to the point of being insulting, and it’s also kind of lazy.

I consider myself a thoughtful, intelligent person. I’m not going to upend my entire religious worldview because of a plea from some random guy in a Walmart parking lot. That sort of decision is going come from a fair amount of thought and study and conversation with people I trust. But building that sort of trust requires a lot more difficult work than just handing out pamphlets like you would coupons to a new pizza joint. Approaching me like that about a subject so weighty communicates to me that you don’t respect the gravity of what you’re suggesting and that you don’t respect me enough to try to understand what my needs actually are.

Click to expand...

Philippians 1:15-18​

15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:​

16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

childeye 2 said:

Philippians 1:15-18​

15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:​

16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Click to expand...

I don't think Paul meant these verses to be used as you are.

Aussie52 said:

I don't think Paul meant these verses to be used as you are.

Click to expand...

That sounds like an honest, forthright, and interesting statement. How exactly do you think I mean to use them?

childeye 2 said:

That sounds like an honest, forthright, and interesting statement. How exactly do you think I mean to use them?

Click to expand...

How about just stating your intended meaning outright, because I have no idea how to interpret it?

iluvatar5150 said:

How about just stating your intended meaning outright, because I have no idea how to interpret it?

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not saying I'm correct, but the way I used Paul's expressed sentiment; in my own words -> "Even when fools preach the Gospel, at least it gets preached".

childeye 2 said:

Well, I'm not saying I'm correct, but the way I interpret Paul; in my words -> "Even when fools preach the Gospel at least it gets preached".

Click to expand...

Yeah, but thats assuming the gospel that is given is correct. There are a lot of false gospels out there.

childeye 2 said:

Well, I'm not saying I'm correct, but the way I interpret Paul; in my words -> "Even when fools preach the Gospel at least it gets preached".

Click to expand...

Makes sense.

I get his point, but I think Paul is wrong. Or at least not always correct.

Delvianna said:

Yeah, but thats assuming the gospel that is given is correct. There are a lot of false gospels out there.

Click to expand...

You're right about that. And even though I can't be sure what you're referencing I do see a lot of misdirection on YouTube; it seems like the atheist channels find the ineptest Christian apologists to be on their shows.

childeye 2 said:

You're right about that. and even though I can't be sure what you're referencing I do see a lot of misdirection on YouTube; it seems like the atheist channels find the ineptest Christian apologists to be on their shows.

Click to expand...

Im not allowed to expand my answer, its against the site rules, so im afraid I have to keep it generic. But evangelism is definitely a lot harder today than I think it was during biblical times. At least there wasnt 5,000 different denominations for Judaism.

iluvatar5150 said:

Makes sense.

I get his point, but I think Paul is wrong. Or at least not always correct.

Click to expand...

A lot of people didn't agree with Paul back then and even now. It's not like it's in anyone's hands to be able to say; but we know The Holy Spirit searches the hearts. Look at 1 Corinthians 1, the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of men.