The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum means of evangelism

Scenario: You have one day (8 hrs.) with a non-believer who is inquiring about the faith (Note: The entire 8 hours is committed to this person) . Your goal is to be faithful with an opportunity to witness for Christ - you're not seeking results of any or any so called profession of faith - if it happens we all know the One who brings it about...

You have the following tools at your disposal

Which will you use? single choice
	Eight Chick Tracts (one an hour)
	Any ONE of the Four Gospels-Which and Why
	Hard to Believe by John MacArthur
	Berkhoff's Systematic or Summary
	Personal Testimony
Votes accepted starting: Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:00 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

I would use the Bible (if I am to be faithful with an opportunity to witness for Christ)! Why do you wish to substitute one of these books above for the Book? Even the Gospels are not the whole counsel of God.

In addition, it depends on the person's needs and even nationality. Mark is "normally" the least offensive NT Gospel to most Jews (John being the most offensive) and Romans the best NT book to minister to them with (and what of the OT? ...). In Islam you will be jumping all over the Bible, proving the doctrine of God (as Islam says men cannot conceive what God is like because He has not revealed Himself), the doctrine of Revelation, the doctrine of salvation (as Islam denies the sacrificial death of Jesus and His resurrection), prophecies come into question (as Islam claims that the Bible was changed to eliminate the Prophecies of Mohammed), etc. Of course, I am speaking of mere "beginning" points and thus the Holy Spirit could have your lead them throughout all of Scripture, before it is all finished ... Indeed, you would have to in finality answer the question, 'What is the Gospel?" for the individual.

I would pick one of the four Gospels because I believe the Word is a means of grace. So therefore you only allowed one option that uses the Word of God. although some of the other options have scripture in them, but I believe that I would evangelize each and every time with bible in hand.

I would pick the gospel of John, if I could only use one gospel. But I'm curious why you didn't allow us to choose "the Bible" as an option? But any way, I believe that I would feel most comfortable trying to articulate the gospel from John.

Dave.

tj,

I think you could use the eight hours quite well by using the Gospel of John. In it we can find examples of Jesus' discourse with people and the miracles He performed that not only make it clear who He is but what He came to do.

John highligts the reality of sin in various ways especially by emphasizing our total dependence on God for salvation alone. Just as our physical birth was not the result of our own effort or will, so our spiritual birth is not do to us, but to God's will and the power of His Spirit (John 1:12, 13; 3:5-8).


Wes

As Wes and Dave, I am thinking of the Gospel of John.

Actually, none of the above because A Gospel Summary is missing. I believe that what is contained in that short summary there would be enough questions asked to keep me busy for whatever remained in the allotted 8 hours. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

I chose personal testimony, but in doing so I do not mean my life story. I mean that in those 8 hours I would testify (read proclaim) the gospel using the Bible, depending upon the Holy Spirit to equip me and enable me to recall what I have learned from His Word in answering the questions that the non-believer asks. I would welcome the person to my own home, and not meet in a public place. I would also prepare and serve a meal or two, allowing the person to talk freely and I would listen very carefully. Since time has been purposely set apart in order for someone to inquire about the faith, I would simply summarize the Gospel and then field questions. In other words, I would treat the person as a guest, not a project.

J,

I agree with your statement. Actually, this was a question that popped into my head during my Ethics class last week. I quickly jotted down the question and some options and that's what I posted here. Personally, I couldn't see myself not using the Word of God as a whole; when I have the opportunity to witness, and am faithful with it, I begin to recall many Scriptures (within their context) and that are relevant to the conversation. I posted one of the Gospels as an option because it seems that many, when witnessing, take this route. Even though the Gospels aren't the whole counsel of God, you would say that they are thorough and sufficient to reveal Christ right?

gt,

I think this is a great answer. This line of thinking is where my question originated. During our class discussion I thought about how much the Scriptures are twisted by the unregenerate and counted as foolishness. However, I'm just not sure many can deny the power of a life transformed by Christ (well they can but the transformation IS clearly evident); this is what we are known by isn't it - being born again. The Scriptures are absolutely necessary in witnessing,



and the Word must be lived out through us before the world. It's very eye opening to realizing that they (the world) are, for the most part, paying attention to our professions and our lifestyles. I know this is not revelation to many of you but as I examine my own heart I'm brought down by the fact that I don't always live out the Word before men or my wife or my children. My hope and prayer is that my heart and mind will continue to be renewed that God may be glorified in everything I do.

tj,

Gotribe spoke wisely and echoed what I intended in my own reply, i.e., one is to speak clearly about those things; the Gospel, found in the Scriptures and summarized by the article I wrote, it containing the minimum information we should convey. She also was very wise in stating that she would NOT relate her own personal experiences as a Christian, known so endearingly today among so many as "my testimony". Why? because it is fallacious to make what God may have done in your life as being paradigmatic. Let me illustrate it in this way:

There are two men who stand up and give their "testimony" before a group of people. The first stands and says,

Let me tell you what has happened to me since I asked Jesus into my heart. Before I made a decision for Christ, my life was in shambles. My business was going down the drain, my marriage was on the rocks, my children were disrespectful, I was involved in several sinful situations, etc. But afterward, my whole life was radically changed. My business suddenly took a turn for the better and it has been most profitable since that day. My wife and I have never been happier. My children are all now joyfully obedient and are excelling in school and I have totally cast off those sinful practices which formally dominated my life. I love Jesus!

The second man stands and says,

Let me tell you what has happened to me since God took pity upon me and by His grace brought me to the Lord Christ. For years I was skimming money from the very profitable business of my employer, my marriage relationship was way beyond average, my children were great and everything seemed to be going marvelously well. But after the Spirit of God convicted me of my sin and I sought forgiveness in Christ through repentance and faith in His name things radically changed. One of the things I had to do was confess my stealing money from my employer's business. Consequently, charges were laid and I was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. While I was in prison my wife began seeing another man and although she hasn't divorced me, our relationship is the pits. My children began flirting with drugs and one was expelled from school for assaulting a teacher. And the day I was released from prison, as I was praising God while walking across the street, I was hit by a car and was paralyzed from the waist down due to the injuries I sustained from the accident. Praise the Lord... Jesus Christ is my heart's desire!

Now, the question is, which of these two testimonies would you choose to speak before a group of unconverted friends? Would you choose man #1 or man #2? If #1, why would you choose him? Is it because you think it would be far more effective in persuading your friends to become Christians because his testimony better represents what becoming a Christian is all about? In other words, does God promise those who turn to Christ in repentance and faith a life of immeasurable earthly joy and what happened to man #2 is is not representative of the grace of God toward His children? Of course, even a cursory read of Hebrews 11 should put such a notion to flight.

The point of all this is that what we should be testifying to is NOT the "gospel of the changed life", but rather "the Gospel that changes life"! We are not to speak necessarily about what has happened in our life but rather of the objective truths of what was accomplished in the life, death, burial and resurrection of Christ's life which made possible reconciliation with God. And being justified by His blood, we can have peace with God and be delivered from the presence, power and penalty of sin.

In His Grace,

Even the words "Jesus wept" when applied by the Holy Spirit are sufficient.

None of the above. I'd use Romans, if I really only could choose one book.

But I would much rather use the whole of Scripture!

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> Right on

Could to explain that more?

Are you saying that the words "Jesus wept" could be used by the Holy Spirit to bring someone to faith, even if the person knows of no other Scriptures? Or are you saying that a person who has heard the Gospel before, upon hearing that verse later, could be convicted of sin and repent and believe?

Yes, a person hearing those words and "understanding them" is sufficient to bring them to faith. Of course, just the name of Jesus is enough to make the knee bend. When we speak of "application" by the Holy Spirit, we are speaking of sufficient revelation to understand the Gospel. In that simple text even someone who had never heard the Bible before could gain information sufficient to regeneration. The Holy Spirit could apply such questions and answers from this text, as: Who is Jesus? Jesus is. Why did Jesus weep? Jesus is God, does God weep? etc. etc. etc. There is a lot of information in the shortest verse of the Scripture. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />

The answer is none, if I don't have the whole Word of God why would I want to use something limited such as those books you listed. When I evangelize thredj I mainly use Romans but I also use parts of Isaiah, Exodus, ect... I don't use the gospels although I usually disciple someone with John first. So I guess I'm beyond your poll.

PS CHICK TRACTS??!?!?!?! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Obviously you didn't notice the sarcasm...eight chick tracks-one an hour. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

You're not beyond the poll, I don't think anyway. Hopefully everyone realizes that these aren't the ONLY options I see available. Again, out of the choices what would you use? Surely those of you who say the choices aren't sufficient aren't saying that if you only had one one of them you couldn't effectively communicate the gospel...surely that's not the case.

All of Scripture would of course be brilliant!

Although... from personal experience with my unbelieving friends, starting with a broad overview sometimes causes them to throw in an endless supply of red herrings! I read up about Ray Comfort (anyone know of him?), and liked his analogy of aiming the bullet at the heart. The "bullet" being God's moral law - the Ten Commandments.

After endless debate with my one Catholic friend (him going off about having to interpret Revelation and so on..) - I presented him with the following, which, as Scripture puts it penetrated him, dividing soul and spirit and judging the thoughts and attitudes of his heart. For the first time, he was speechless. Please pray for him - his name is Kevin.

I think it was also Ray Comfort who said that using the Ten Commandments as a starting block is great because all of humanity can relate to it - not just specific religions. What do you think?

Sincerely in Him,
Dave

Here are a couple of articles which I am sure you will find helpful in regard to the law and the Gospel:

1) The Law Established by the Gospel, by John Colquhoun

2) The Law and the Gospel, by John Colquhoun

And, just one comment about the presentation you linked to here: Are you Good?. I was immediately put off from the very first question, "Are you good enough to go to heaven?". I believe it is fallacious to hold out "heaven" as a carrot in order to lure people into a discussion about God. Man's immediate need is not a future heaven, but rather reconciliation with God here and now. Men need a new nature; a radical change of their very core being, forgiveness of sins and the ability to overcome sin. Secondly, heaven is not man's end. Heaven is a "way station" where the souls of the saints reside until the consummation and their ultimate glorification. We look forward to a New Earth whereupon the children of God shall live for eternity in the presence of God.

I believe if one is to use a "packaged" presentation, something like John Blanchard's, Ultimate Questions is far better. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Okay tj I'll take your silly little poll just so I can see how it turns out. But I stand by my answer I use the whole book or nothing.

And to misquote Steve Martin in Roxanne "Oh, ho, ho, sarcasm! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so sarcasm's not really a high priority. We haven't had any sarcasm here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was getting tired of being stared at."

Thank you and good night. Remember folks the seven o'clock show is nothing like the ten o'clock show.

Boan,


We suffer from the same disease only I never stopped. So what if they don't have the faintest idea of what your talking about? I just go ahead and then walk away knowing that only the good Angels, "get it".

We're from the same state and not only do they dope up and ski topless, but then they get completely undressed and jump into hot tubs with 50 dollar bottles of chardonnay.

Enlightened minds, such as these, will never "get it".

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

Ultimate Questions is EXCELLENT! I've given it to all my friends. John Blanchard is actually an excellent evangelist. He came to South Africa in Feb - he preaches really well.

My Dad has been telling me recently to avoid the rut of "evangelism-in-a-can" type approach - so starting off with presenting my friends with the Law has been really great. It has certainly given our discussions more direction!

Pilgrim, I agree completely will all you said. I agree with it from our perspective though. From an unbeliever's perspective, they don't care in the least what their relationship with God is. They don't care about anything like that, at least until the Holy Spirit works within them! My friends have scoffed at me when I tell them they need "a new nature; a radical change of their very core being, forgiveness of sins and the ability to overcome sin," because they already think they are "good people".

Maybe the flash presentation should have started with "Are you saved? If you die tonight, will you go to Heaven?". But nevertheless, it seems to be a nice and simple online tract to share with people.

Yours in Him,
Dave

And how else would you expect an unbeliever to react to the truth; particularly in regard to their depraved nature and the fact that they are guilty before God? If the saying, "The truth hurts!" was ever applicable, it is here. But although unbelievers naturally hate the truth. (Jh 3:3-6, 19; 8:43; 10:26; Acts 7; Rom 8:5-8; 1Cor 2:14) Yet, it was the design of God to call the elect through the truth of the Gospel. (Rom 1:16; 1Cor 1:18, 21, 23; Rom 10:14-17) It is impossible to make the Gospel more palatable to an unregenerate man. Yet, this is exactly what the majority are trying to do today, but fail miserably. What they are doing is offering an admixture of the "gospel" and the "world"... sorta like adding a bit of sugar to sweeten something which is too sour; at least so they think. But to do so is dishonoring to God and a perversion of the truth and which most often produces results which do not accomplish the original intent; to see men saved.

Here is an incredible article by J.I. Packer which I am sure will find most enlightening and helpful: The Old Gospel and the New.

In His Grace,

I couldn't agree more!!

I didn't quite express myself fully. Due to the arbitrary nature of all my discussions with my friends, I've been struggling to find a good "starting block". In my discussions, if I don't show them the exceeding sinfulness within them, and the seriousness of it BEFORE telling them about the need to be saved -- THEN they scoff - because they just don't see a problem. My evangelism is still weak <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Don't get me wrong... I'm not giving them that "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" nonsense. On the contrary, I'm aiming the bullet at the heart! And its most certainly not going down too well with them.

Thanks for the link! I'll read it tomorrow. Time for bed!

Yours in Him,
Dave

Don't forget to tip your waiters and waitresses. <insert Tonight Show theme>

I would tend to use Matthew, it provides a good historical basis and a fine synopsis of the life and teachings of Jesus the Christ.

I chose the answer about using one of the gospels. I would use Mark because it is shorter than the others and would afford the opportunity to share all of Christ with the individual and still probably have time to discuss what was read if need be.

I wouldn't use any of the above options but instead give the unbeliever a copy of Joel Osteen's book Your Best Life Now.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> I was thinking along the same line as you but noticed that others didn't like that approach.
In my case, I find if I focus on one book such as John, I am less likely to go on bunny trails, especially with the fact that John covers so much in his book.


Tom