Help me learn to share the gospel better

[Terri]

Please help me learn the most simple way to describe the gospel to someone.

I'm a little bit confused about the excitement some people experience when they "become a Calvinist." Is there a particular set of Calvinist beliefs that I have to share with people in the very beginning...

To me the joy I felt happened when I understood the doctrine of grace, which I experienced without knowing a thing about Calvinism. But, some people seem to experience this joy, as they say when they "became a Calvinist." Is the doctrine of grace all that I have to explain to people in the beginning, or is there something more that I am missing--something that I need to tell them in addition to telling them about God's grace and that we obtain that through Jesus' sacrifice.

Please, if you can, tell me the gospel in the most simple terms you can as an example of how it is done.

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

I suggest beginning at the beginning, which I describe here. A non-Christian needs to know what the reasons are why this is such a necessary condition. In the past, we have been able to assume that man understood the general basics of creation and the duty that this called them for. Those days are gone. It is like the difference from Peter preaching to the Jews and Paul preaching on Mars Hill. Paul had to lay out the groundwork to an audience who had no true understanding of the origins of man.

Once you lay out what we are here for, you can contrast that with the fact that all men have fallen short of the glory of God. With the groundwork laid out, this contrast will be much easier to see. You can let the flow of the conversation go in any direction, showing that there is no work that is sufficient to salvation... no work of man. But a work of God is. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. There is no such thing as a good enough person to receive the grace of God. If there were, grace would no longer be grace.

 

[ClementofRome]

But where do we begin if our object of evangelism is an atheist....does not believe in God or a creative event?

If I can begin on a level playing field (God exists, we are created) then there is an obvious starting place.

 

[McWilliams]

First things first! They must understand 'depravity' or they'll never see that they have a great need!
Those who have much difficulty understanding all of this usually have inadequate understanding of either or both, 'depravity' and 'sovereignty'.
1)Find out what/who God is to them. Then clarify with scripture.Is 44:6, Is 43:10,11,12,15
Rev 1:8, Jer 10:10, Is 45:5-8
2) Who is Jesus Christ? Jn1:1-3, 1Jn 4:14,15
3) What is sin? 1Jn 3:4
4) What is faith? 1Jn 5:4, Heb 11:1, Eph 2:8,9
5) What is the Bible? 2 Tim 3:16, 1 Thes 2:13, James 1:22
6)What is truth? Jn 14:6, Jn 17:17
You could also add for impact: Rom3:10-12,23, Rom5:1,2, Titus 3:5

When you use scripture you cant go wrong! The Word has a life of its own! Scripture convinces and convicts when the Holy Spirit is present.
Our job is only to tell it, not to ensure its course thereafter! That work belongs to God. We are the obedient means He uses! God bless!

 

[strengthinweakness]

But where do we begin if our object of evangelism is an atheist....does not believe in God or a creative event?

If I can begin on a level playing field (God exists, we are created) then there is an obvious starting place.

Hmm... evangelizing an atheist... now there is a challenge! Not as much as it might seem though, as we are never ultimately the ones who open the eyes of the unbelieving. That role belongs to God! In that light, as often as possible, silent prayer should precede our evangelism.

As far as a literal evangelistic starting point, with an atheist, you might start from the "presuppositional" method. Everyone's thoughts, words, and deeds are undergirded by presuppositions, and atheists are no exception. The thing is, many atheists do not realize that their lives (or, to be exact, the way that they live their lives) are often at odds with their fundamentally nihilistic worldview. From a consistent atheistic viewpoint, there is no valid reason why making love is morally better than rape. However, an atheist will quite likely enjoy the thought of making love with his/her spouse or companion-- and recoil at the thought of committing rape. What this means is that the atheist operates intellectually from a nihilistic set of presuppositions ("no God, no absolute morality") and practically, in everyday life, from another set of more "moral" presuppositions ("making love is good, rape is bad"). The point of all of this is to help the atheist to see that his/her professed lack of belief (with all of its morally relativistic implications) is unliveable. At some level (usually, the level of practical, everyday life), the average atheist lives as if there is a meaning to life-- and therefore, a God to give it meaning. Helping the atheist to see that his/her worldview is unliveable (not by simply telling him/her so, but by clearly discussing topics like making love and rape) can be a good starting point for evangelism.

 

[lmnop9876]

try reading (or giving away) 'Ultimate Questions' by John Blanchard. (although I hope the newer versions have better photos than the earlier ones. )

 

[erin74]

you might find this site helpful.

http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/2wtl/index.html

very simple outline that helps. I find it helpful as it gives me structure to how I talk to someone who is not a christian. It helps me to makes sure I've covered all my bases. I don't tend to do it verbatim, but to work through the concepts.

 

[CCWoody]

As far as a literal evangelistic starting point, with an atheist, you might start from the "presuppositional" method. Everyone's thoughts, words, and deeds are undergirded by presuppositions, and atheists are no exception. The thing is, many atheists do not realize that their lives (or, to be exact, the way that they live their lives) are often at odds with their fundamentally nihilistic worldview. From a consistent atheistic viewpoint, there is no valid reason why making love is morally better than rape. However, an atheist will quite likely enjoy the thought of making love with his/her spouse or companion-- and recoil at the thought of committing rape. What this means is that the atheist operates intellectually from a nihilistic set of presuppositions ("no God, no absolute morality") and practically, in everyday life, from another set of more "moral" presuppositions ("making love is good, rape is bad"). The point of all of this is to help the atheist to see that his/her professed lack of belief (with all of its morally relativistic implications) is unliveable. At some level (usually, the level of practical, everyday life), the average atheist lives as if there is a meaning to life-- and therefore, a God to give it meaning. Helping the atheist to see that his/her worldview is unliveable (not by simply telling him/her so, but by clearly discussing topics like making love and rape) can be a good starting point for evangelism.

Ah, the moral argument, the argument of Immanuel Kant. a posteriori

 

[pinkieposies]

Please help me learn the most simple way to describe the gospel to someone.

I'm a little bit confused about the excitement some people experience when they "become a Calvinist." Is there a particular set of Calvinist beliefs that I have to share with people in the very beginning...

To me the joy I felt happened when I understood the doctrine of grace, which I experienced without knowing a thing about Calvinism. But, some people seem to experience this joy, as they say when they "became a Calvinist." Is the doctrine of grace all that I have to explain to people in the beginning, or is there something more that I am missing--something that I need to tell them in addition to telling them about God's grace and that we obtain that through Jesus' sacrifice.

Please, if you can, tell me the gospel in the most simple terms you can as an example of how it is done.

When I first became curious about Calvanism, all I had was a Bible and the Heidleberg Catachism {I wasn't going to a church at the time}. I found the Heidleberg Catechism was very easy for me to read, and I found it very helpful in that I could go over the basic doctrines of the Reformed Church, and with any questions or objections I had, go straight to the Bible. There are many Scriptural references for each answer in there, so I found it very easy to locate what I was looking for right there in God's word.


The Heidleberg Catechism:

Lord's Day 1.

Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?
Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.


Question 2. How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily?
Answer: Three; the first, how great my sins and miseries are; the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries; the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance.


I believe the best tools for evangelizing are prayer and setting an example by living and practicing what we preach. But I think these two first answers are great starting points for when you are asked about what it is that you believe.


If someone was curious and asked you for some reading material, I would recommend a Bible and a Heidleberg Catechism {I heard there is a short version that is more readable than the original}, but that may be just an opinion. I don't know how many other churches hold to it {Presbyterian, Etc.}; It may be just a Reformed thing.


God Bless,
Erin

 

[strengthinweakness]

Ah, the moral argument, the argument of Immanuel Kant. a posteriori

CCWoody, I studied a bit about Kant in college, but I'm not absolutely sure that I know the argument to which you are referring. Do you mean his argument that an action is only truly "moral" when it is done without an ulterior motive-- for no other reason than that it is the right thing to do? I just want to be sure that I understand your reference, because this particular argument of Kant's is definitely not what I was commending to be used in evangelizing atheists! To my knowledge, Kant doesn't explicitly include the true God of the Bible in his argumentation. He simply assumes the rightness or wrongness of certain actions-- or am I wrong? I may well be, because as I said, I haven't done an in-depth study of Kant. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The method of presuppositional apologetics that I was commending is largely about helping to see atheists to see the inconsistencies between their worldview (which assumes moral relativism, leading logically to absolute meaninglessness) and the way that they (or at least most atheists) practically live their lives (which assumes an inherent meaning to actions). The difference between what Kant espouses (I think) and presuppostional apologetics is that the latter posits that actions only have inherent meaning (good or bad) in the context of a transcendant God to give them meaning. God defines which actions are good because He is goodness itself. Most atheists are inconsistent, though, because they claim to believe that there are no absolute moral values, while in their everyday lives, they live as if there actually are such values. Presuppostional apologetics helps to expose this inconsistency. Francis Schaeffer called it "taking the roof off" of a false worldview.

 

[CCWoody]

There is the possibility of my going out of town to Amarillo today to work outside (oh, joy, high of 18 with high winds and some snow expected). Remind me by bumping this thread so I remember to post the formal moral argument for the edification of all.

 

[CCWoody]

The Anthropological (Moral) Argument​

a posteriori - All men possess a moral impulse or categorical imperative. Since this morality is not always rewarded in this life, there must be some basis or reason for moral behavior that is beyond this life. This implies the existence of immortality, untimate judgment, and a God who establishes and supports morality by rewarding good and punishing evil. ~ the argument of Immanuel Kant