Posted on 02/15/2004 9:04:48 PM PST by xzins
How do you know, or why do you believe, this is a true statement?
In part because I believe and trust God and His bible teaches there is a hell.
In part, because other statements in the bible which have been specifically testable (to date) have been found to be correct. This includes having personally experienced some of the greater biblical truths such as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit upon my becoming obedient to, and a servent and follower of, Jesus Christ, as well as the transformation of my life from within, and seeing God's answers to prayer or provision when He doesn't.
Having studied (and to a far lesser extent, lived) the bible, I find it entirely authoritative and self-consistent and questions I've had about inconsistencies have, over time, been getting answered to my satisfaction. So I have every reason to believe all of the bible and no reason to doubt any of it.
I increasingly, day by day, directly and personally experience more of the bible's truth.
And so biblical teachings which I can't test (the existance of hell) I believe to likewise be truthful.
I think many on this thread would say this indicates, or is a requirement for, salvation. So, if avoiding hell - that you thus believe exists - is the motivation for being saved ("What must I do to be saved?"), you already met the requirement you are asking the requirement for. And, therefore, we are not answering the question for those who do not already "believe and trust God…"
I hope this part of my response is worded clearly.
…other statements in the bible which have been specifically testable (to date) have been found to be correct. This includes having personally experienced some of the greater biblical truths such as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit upon my becoming obedient to, and a servent and follower of, Jesus Christ,…
If we limit your experience to just this list, then we have the same quandry as before.
How then do we appeal to those today, unlike perhaps most of those in the 19th century whom this preacher was addressing, who do not have the underlying assumption, belief or acceptance of the truth of the Bible and Jesus's teachings?
And if we don't have an answer to this, I think we are preaching to the choir. Not that the choir doesn't need preaching to, but I think we are not accurate if we think this is an effective way of evangelizing those who are not already believers.
And, I think this is the greater, a critical, challenge to all Christians who wish to effectively spread the Gospel.
No 'doctrinal' nonsense. Just a clear forthright presentation of Christ -- with tremendous immediacy and common sense. The Ark. The brass serpent. The runaway slave. Who could not have his heart beating fast thinking of being there?
It happens that here in (normally) beautiful Northern California, it pelting rain today. I couldn't help but appreciate the Ark. Would any of us hesitate? Would any of us have any doubt about what saved us?
O Lord, give us more Moody's today. We need this simple, yet overwhelmingly forceful presentation of the Gospel which takes our breath away. Thank you, Lord, for being our Ark.
It is. But more specifically trusting Jesus sacrifice on my behalf. This is more than intellectual knowledge. One can "know" the bible perfectly and still not be saved if one either does not believe it, or if one believes it and yet rejects Jesus.
So, if avoiding hell - that you thus believe exists - is the motivation for being saved ("What must I do to be saved?"), you already met the requirement you are asking the requirement for.
Speaking for myself, my motivation was not so much avoidance of hell as it was desire to obey and serve Him who served, suffered, and died for me. I was won over by His love (the carrot) not fear of hell (the stick).
And, therefore, we are not answering the question for those who do not already "believe and trust God?"
Consider this:
Imagine yourself to be poor, destitute, enslaved, despised, diseased and condemned. Imagine further, unbidden but out of pure love for you and a desire to lift you from your miserable state and seat you in royalty beside himself, a wonderful prince asks your hand in marriage and simply says to trust and wait for him to return for you. Sort of like the Prince who sought Cinderella. You (the betrothed) learn how he valiantly fought, sacrificed and overcame against all odds to keep his promise to return for you.
If you are a woman, would you not shout His name to the rooftops about what he has done for you, He who wishes to return and marry you?
If you are a man, is that not the kind of love and loyalty and trust you would want in your bride to be? Have you not imagined at some point how you might sacrifice all to protect and deliver your loved ones?
Consider the love that has done that for you, and offered you a place beside Him in royalty for all eternity.
Are you not intrigued by that love? Do you not want to understand it better? Pick up your bible and read about it. Start with the book of John. Go see "The Passion of Christ".
I don't think that is our job. We, as ambassadors for Christ, don't need to prove anything to anybody. The Holy Spirit will convict them if they are ready. All we need to do is to say "The Bible says...." and if they say they don't believe the Bible, then I don't think it will do any good to stand around and try to prove it. They know in their hearts that it is true, even if they convince their own minds that it is a bunch of baloney. If the words of the Bible don't sting their hearts, then they are probably not ready to hear it.
While I agree with Starwind that the Bible can be proven intellectually, I don't think God really wants an intellectual response from us, he wants a spiritual response.
How then do we appeal to those today, unlike perhaps most of those in the 19th century whom this preacher was addressing, who do not have the underlying assumption, belief or acceptance of the truth of the Bible and Jesus's teachings?
And if we don't have an answer to this, I think we are preaching to the choir. Not that the choir doesn't need preaching to, but I think we are not accurate if we think this is an effective way of evangelizing those who are not already believers.
And, I think this is the greater, a critical, challenge to all Christians who wish to effectively spread the Gospel.
I believe that all that we can really do ... is to present the testimony of those (including the patriarchs, the prophets, the Apostles, and ourselves) who have experienced God in our lives.
For the heart that is seeking to fill the God-shaped void in their lives with what God has to offer ... this will be enough.
For those who are not seeking to fill such a void with what God offers ... nothing will be enough.
An informed-consent spiritual response, yes absolutely.
It is literally about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not merely knowing who He is - demons know Him and tremble - but wanting to be with Him, spend time with Him, share that 1st glass of wine again with Him, to be found pleasing and acceptable to Him.
I think you can and do do more. Even without words.
That would sure make our job easier wouldn't it?
But:
1) Are those who already believe the Bible the only ones who should possibly be changed by the Word? That would leave out quite a bit of this country and the world, wouldn't it?
2) Is "stand around and try to prove it" the only other option we have?
But then all the evidence in the world is not going to convince someone whose mind is already made up, is it? Did the DNA evidence convince the OJ Jury? No. They had made up their minds to acquit before they ever were exposed to any evidence.
People don't need to believe the Bible to be affected by the word of God. When Jesus said "I AM" the people he was talking to all fell back wards. That is the power of his word. That is all the power we need.
I think the most effective way to evangelize is just to use the words "The Bible says..." and then quote the Bible. Let the power of His word do the work.
Consider this:
Imagine yourself… Consider the love…Are you not intrigued by that love?…Pick up your bible and read about it. Start with the book of John. Go see "The Passion of Christ".
Very good. Personally, I think this is a communications approach that would be very effective in opening the mind and heart of many.
I still think there is something we're missing though in using all the tools we have available to us in spreading Jesus's message.
I think Moody's Last Sermon above was likely very effective for his audience, just as Paul's approach to the Greeks was effective. Two very different approaches for very different times and audiences. And today, Christians are faced with another quite different challenge.
Thanks very much for your post.
What is "most" effective varies depending on whom we are trying to reach. And, today, a great many of those we most need to reach would be tune out with your introduction.
I think you can be more effective than this, and I believe if you examine closely, you will find that you communicate the message effectively in many other ways.
All we have to do is to proclaim the Gospel. The Holy Spirit's job is to convict people of their sin.
All is in God's hands of course, all is grace; however, the Holy Spirit works through us, we do have judgement and, hopefully, developing wisdom. We have the responsibility for our words and actions and how we present and communicate the Word.
So, I disagree on this point. It is up to us to use all our faculties and gifts and not rely solely on repeating verses. The words are not magic, and they come through us. It is meaning that we offer, in words and actions that have the best chance of eliciting a proper response from our audience.
Thanks again, very much, for your posts.
For the rest of us, myself included, agreed that:
I think the most effective way to evangelize is just to use the words "The Bible says..." and then quote the Bible. Let the power of His word do the work.
That way, one is less likely to inadvertently state a falsehood, presume what the listener is thinking or needing, or otherwise set the listener up for false expectations. Helping the listener to grasp meaning is often necessary, but one should not resort to extrabiblical evidence.
For example, citing scripture that Christ was crucified for us and the significance of "The Cross" is appropriate. But offering as "proof" the Shroud of Turin should not be done; as intriging as it is, it is not satisfactorily proven.
We are to have a ready defense of our faith and hope, but only the Holy Spirit knows the condition of the listeners heart and how to lead the witness as well as quicken the listener.
God's word is a Living Word and it will achieve the purpose for which He sent it and not return to Him void. Our job is to point the listener at scripture and then get out of the way.
That said, a Christian 'walk' can be as effective (or deleterious) to what one says. Sluring the truth while falling off ones barstool does not make a persuasive case, but silently persevering under egregious persecution as unbelievers look on, can.
I dunno. I thought your post #65 was quite good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.