Hell's Best Kept Secret Method method of evangelism and the Bible

[presidente]

I would say that the apostles preached Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. Then the apostles taught the disciples love and holiness.

In other words, the apostles preached the Christ and how to walk the walk.

Paul preached to the Gentile audience about the deeds of the flesh.

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these.

It's not much use quoting from the law of Moses, because modern folk would have no idea what you are talking about.

Galatians was written to the churches of Galatia.

 

[Mem]

I do not see how the verse you referred to supports the point you are making.

You won't unless you can understand the woman's sentiment. The standing explanation is nothing short of mansplaining. Jesus is not hindered by the fear of man or worry of being ridiculed for understanding women. It was not as much knowing God that was the cause of her elation but that it was realizing how much God knew, and understood, her. Any other man would have to ask a woman about her sentiments, and even then, he'd have a hard time understanding her, unless he truly loved her, as himself, of course.

 

[presidente]

You won't unless you can understand the woman's sentiment. The standing explanation is nothing short of mansplaining.

That's an interesting bit of sexist feminist terminology you use there. I didn't know you were female by your handle, and if you are not, then your comment really makes no sense.

Jesus is a man. John, the author here, is a man, so using ''mansplaining' to describe this.

in your previous post, you took 'Thou has had five husbands, and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband' apparently to try to vaguely argue against 'guilt and shame.' I don't get what point you are trying to make with that.

Guilt and shame can serve a proper purpose. Even to converted readers, Paul wrote, "What fruit had you then in those things of which you are now ashamed. And if someone is guilty, it may be good that they realize that they are guilty. Paul wrote of godly sorrow that leads to repentance.

Jesus is not hindered by the fear of man or worry of being ridiculed for understanding women. It was not as much knowing God that was the cause of her elation but that it was realizing how much God knew, and understood, her. Any other man would have to ask a woman about her sentiments, and even then, he'd have a hard time understanding her, unless he truly loved her, as himself, of course.

That lines with the point I was making the post you responded to. When God interacts with someone's life like this, one response some people have is to be amazed that God cared enough to do these things in their life. This woman may have felt like a failure in her marriage, possibly a sinner with the man she then had. Then a Prophet speaks to her, and then she finds out that He is the Messiah.... speaking with her, showing her attention.

But what Jesus pointed out to her may have been an area of shame or guilt for her. But it did not crush her. Apparently it led her to faith.

 

[Mem]

That's an interesting bit of sexist feminist terminology you use there. I didn't know you were female by your handle, and if you are not, then your comment really makes no sense.

Jesus is a man. John, the author here, is a man, so using ''mansplaining' to describe this.

in your previous post, you took 'Thou has had five husbands, and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband' apparently to try to vaguely argue against 'guilt and shame.' I don't get what point you are trying to make with that.

Guilt and shame can serve a proper purpose. Even to converted readers, Paul wrote, "What fruit had you then in those things of which you are now ashamed. And if someone is guilty, it may be good that they realize that they are guilty. Paul wrote of godly sorrow that leads to repentance.


That lines with the point I was making the post you responded to. When God interacts with someone's life like this, one response some people have is to be amazed that God cared enough to do these things in their life. This woman may have felt like a failure in her marriage, possibly a sinner with the man she then had. Then a Prophet speaks to her, and then she finds out that He is the Messiah.... speaking with her, showing her attention.

But what Jesus pointed out to her may have been an area of shame or guilt for her. But it did not crush her. Apparently it led her to faith.

I'm not picking on just men here, and champion women that is, because women too often 'mansplain' in the sense I mean it also, where the alternative would be 'spiritsplain' without regard to the flesh.
The world is sickly, malnourished of love all around. These are people that have been given flintstone vitamins in place of their meals all their lives to sustain them and so they think, "that's a good thing," but they don't know what they are missing!

 

[Inquisitor]

Galatians was written to the churches of Galatia.

Correct.

 

[Mii]

I find both of the things you mentioned (if I'm understanding correctly) cause for consternation...

I'll just say that it's not my style and I don't think it's what the Lord has called me to. It feels foreign and forced. That doesn't mean that it is of no utility to the Lord or that these men/women are in direct error but the closer I look the more the enemy seems to show up so I just tap out.

I think it's best to just do what he's laid on my heart and while I'm certainly curious and have strong feelings about both of these approaches I just think the best option is to leave it up to God.

 

[Magenta]

It really looks like to me that when Jesus exposed peoples’ sins He was often was not very specific about
it and didn’t berate them with the scripture about it. If He mentioned their sin, He didn’t take out the 10
commandments, He didn’t go through each one until the listener realized how utterly lost they are.

Mark 10:17 As Jesus started on His way, a man ran up and knelt before Him.
“Good Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

18 “Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone.
19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not
steal, do not bear false witness, do not cheat others, honor your father and mother.’”

20 “Teacher,” he replied, “all these I have kept from my youth.”

21 Jesus looked at him, loved him, and said to him, “There is one thing you lack: Go, sell everything
you own and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.”

22 But the man was saddened by these words and went away in sorrow, because he had great wealth.

 

[Runningman]

Mark 10:17 As Jesus started on His way, a man ran up and knelt before Him.
“Good Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

18 “Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone.
19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not
steal, do not bear false witness, do not cheat others, honor your father and mother.’”

20 “Teacher,” he replied, “all these I have kept from my youth.”

21 Jesus looked at him, loved him, and said to him, “There is one thing you lack: Go, sell everything
you own and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.”

22 But the man was saddened by these words and went away in sorrow, because he had great wealth.

A good example supplementing my point that Jesus gave help when it was solicited. Thank you

 

[Magenta]

A good example supplementing my point that Jesus gave help when it was solicited. Thank you

It also made clear the fact you were wrong to say Jesus did not do something He actually did. You are welcome

 

[awelight]

We don't know exactly what He said. We do a have a few details. He told Zacchaeus that he'd be eating with Zacchaeus. They had a conversation. We don't know what was said, but Zacchaeus was willing to give back money he had cheated from people and to give half his goods to the poor. When a sinful woman was at Jesus' feet, His host thought ill of Him, thinking if He were a prophet, He would know what kind of woman this is.

I've heard or read they used to leave the door open for dinners like this, and those who weren't invited to eat could sit in the house and overhear the conversation and the guest religious teacher's teaching.

Notice that Jesus pointed out the host's flaws as a host, not greeting Him with a kiss or washing His feet.

When Jesus was with the woman at the well, He told her the man she had was not her husband. Jesus ate with sinners and said God had not called the righteous, but sinner's to repentance. So He might have been telling people what their sins were at some of these dinners, instead of just saying "God loves you." Other than maybe John 3:!6, do you know of any words of Jesus along the lines of 'God loves you' directed toward sinners?

It seems to me, that you never really got an answer to your question raised here: Other than maybe John 3:!6, do you know of any words of Jesus along the lines of 'God loves you' directed toward sinners?

In John 3:16, the past tense statement - "that God so loved (past tense) the world...", truly can't be used to prove God's love for anyone or any one thing. Additionally, since "loved" here is in the Aorist tense in the Greek, it promises no continuing results. It simply means - At some point in the past because of God's love He purposed to send His Son. I believe this ties back to Ephesians 1:4. and perhaps 1 John 4:9 & 10. Both addressed to believers.

I went through an extensive search for the word "Love, Loved and Loves", in both the OT and NT. It is used most often to speak of the need to "love" the Lord your God. This "love" is expressed in either loving the Lord your God, Loving the Father, Loving Jesus Christ or Loving the Truth. The second greatest use of the word, is the "Love" the Father and the Son have for their own. Examples:

Jer_31:3 Jehovah appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.
Rom_5:8 But God commends his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rev_3:19 As many as I love, I reprove and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

The third heaviest use of the word is expressed in the need for loving one another. As in the brethren and then, our neighbors. After this it is used in several other ways - such as: The love of one person for another or husbands and wives, etc...

Only in Mark 10:21, do we see what might be a reference to God's love for others or unbelievers. However, since this is the only reference, we should be careful how we apply it. Here are a few Commentaries, that I think express the right understanding:

Jesus beholding him, loved him - What occurred afterward showed that the young man did not love the Saviour, or was not a true disciple; so that this expression denotes simply natural affection, or means that Jesus was pleased with his amiableness, his morality, and his “external” regard for the law of God. At the same time, this was entirely consistent with deep sorrow that he would not give his heart to God, and with deep abhorrence of such a love of the world as to blind the mind to the beauty of true religion, and to lead to the rejection of the Messiah and the destruction of the soul. (Albert Barnes)

Not as God, with that special love, with which he loves his people, who were given him by the Father, are redeemed by his blood, whom he calls by his grace, justifies by his righteousness, forgives their iniquities, and, at last, glorifies: but as man, he had an human affection for him; so far as there was any appearance of moral good in him, it was agreeable to him, who loves righteousness, and hates iniquity; and though the young man betrayed much vanity, pride, and conceit, he did not use him roughly, but kindly, and tenderly; he beheld him, he looked wistly upon him, when he said the above words; which look intimated, that he could not believe he had perfectly, and completely kept all the commandments; however, he did not choose to reproach him with a lie, and charge him with pride and arrogance, but gave him good words, and spoke friendly to him... (John Gill)

Finally, there is no verse that ever states that Jesus Christ said: " God loves you", to any group or crowd nor did any of the Apostles use such a declaration.

 

[Runningman]

It also made clear the fact you were wrong to say Jesus did not do something He actually did. You are welcome

Ahhh, that’s kinda what I thought. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I see what your motive is now.

The passage you provided doesn’t show Jesus going around with the 10 commandments exposing their sin.

The man said he kept all of the commandments. Jesus responded with love and informed him to go sell his possessions. No rebuking or talk of sin being exposed. In fact, Jesus affirmed what the man said, concluding he only lacks one thing.

20 “Teacher,” he replied, “all these I have kept from my youth.”

21 Jesus looked at him, loved him, and said to him, “There is one thing you lack: Go, sell everything
you own and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.”

22 But the man was saddened by these words and went away in sorrow, because he had great wealth.

 

[JohnDB]

People who claim to change quickly can (and likely will)just as quickly change back....

If the 4 gospels tell us anything it's about the resistance to change even when faced with absolute proof that we are wrong.

Everyone is right in their own mind.

 

[Evmur]

Back in the 1990's, I came across Ray Comfort's website on the relatively new world wide web. I corresponded with him a bit. He had a book "Hell's Best Kept Secret."

Nowaydays, he has quite a media ministry showing his street witnessing, and he works with former teen TV star Kirk Cameron. I appreciate their desire to share their faith on the street, and I am not opposed necessarily to how they do things.

There are some areas where I probably would not agree. I believe an evangelistic encounter where the individual is ready should ideally end with water baptism and the doctrine around it should be explained a bit. I have also heard Ray Comfort quote a verse about entering into the kingdom of heaven and conclude it has something to do with 'going to heaven.' The Biblical focus is on the resurrection. The Bible talks about a new earth, and the emphasis on 'going to heaven' when you die is loosely inferred from scripture and relies heavily on tradition.

I am not opposed to using the Ten Commandments to show people that they are sinners, and I have done a bit of that. I do not agree with those who seem to think this particular methodology is __the__ Gospel. I look at the way the Gospel was preached in Acts, I don't see the elaborate focus on convicting audiences of sin, not emphasized the same way Ray Comfort does. In Acts 2, Peter does charge his audience with crucifying the prince of life. I don't see the heavy emphasis on making the audience feel guilty about sin in Paul's evangelistic messages either. Paul does teach in his epistles that by the law comes the knowledge of sin. He lays out the case for all being sinners in Romans.

I am not against going into detail on any aspect of the Gospel, and it may be very appropriate for many listeners. But the idea that you have to really focus on convincing the audience of just how sinful they are, or use the 10-commandment method to present the Gospel is not something I agree with.

Also, the idea that Jesus' encounter with the rich young ruler was about exposing his pride in his heart and his trusting in his own righteousness, while it certainly aligns with certain streams of Protestant thought, doesn't seem to be an obvious interpretation of the passage that a first century reader would have held to. Using a template to argue for using the law to expose sin as a template for the 'way of the Master' seems a bit like exegesis.

I notice one of the ways of the Master in scripture was to heal and do miracles, then people believed. The Master also told a woman by a well in Samaria about her marital past. There are a lot of 'way of the Master' things that don't fall into this ten-commandment method.

I am not opposed to Ray Comfort, or using the ten commandments in evangelism. I don't think doing so is heretical But I have encountered people who think this is __the__ way to do things.

I do appreciate his pointing out some of the problems that evolved into evangelicalism where it came to the point where people equated repeating a prayer with 'getting saved', no matter whether there is repentance or faith or not. Another problem I haven't seen him emphasize which I think is bigger, is having people repeating prayers without preaching the Gospel first-- no explanation of Who God is, Who Jesus is, What Christ means, what sin is, no mention of Christ dying for their sins.... and if all that is mentioned, no mention of the resurrection. Then....repeat this prayer and you are saved.... and no water baptism. It doesn't seem to fit what I read in Acts or the epistles.

Also, the Biblical root of confession got stripped from the prayer. Originally, the 'repeat this prayer' thing in Billy Graham after-meeting evangelistic sessions was a means of getting people to confess that they were sinners, and their faith that Jesus is God's Son, the Christ, and that He died for our sins and God raised him from the dead. (I am not sure which points of the kergyma were emphasized.) But so often, the prayer is stripped of the Biblical doctrinal points of confession. The audience is told something like,

"Religion is bad. You need a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. If you believed what you have heard today, repeat this prayer.....(prayer without much kergyma content in it)....if you believed that, you are saved.

It is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict folks of sin, He does not need our help. Our job is to testify to Christ as God's [awesome, wonderful, truly magnificent] Saviour of mankind.

No problem in showing that He bore our sins away on the cross [along with alot of other bad stuff]

I really don't like Comfort's approach. I stay away from fellowships that preach sin, sin, sin.

Folks go on about the old days, and oldtime religion, if that is all the gospel people know then God has to use it.

I got a better one. One that give folks the victory over sin.

Peter had been hanging around the Lord a good while, had seen and heard alot, but when he saw the miracle of the fishes he fell down before the Lord and cried "Lord depart from me for I am a sinful man."

got it?

"My miracles" said Jesus, "would have brought Sodom and Gomorrah to repentance if they had seen them"

got it?

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Evangelism is a gift. Its also a difficult task. Most people i run into do not want to hear anything at all about Jesus, the Bible, Church, or even religion. Seems they just want to be in ignorant bliss.

 

[Gideon300]

Back in the 1990's, I came across Ray Comfort's website on the relatively new world wide web. I corresponded with him a bit. He had a book "Hell's Best Kept Secret."

Nowaydays, he has quite a media ministry showing his street witnessing, and he works with former teen TV star Kirk Cameron. I appreciate their desire to share their faith on the street, and I am not opposed necessarily to how they do things.

There are some areas where I probably would not agree. I believe an evangelistic encounter where the individual is ready should ideally end with water baptism and the doctrine around it should be explained a bit. I have also heard Ray Comfort quote a verse about entering into the kingdom of heaven and conclude it has something to do with 'going to heaven.' The Biblical focus is on the resurrection. The Bible talks about a new earth, and the emphasis on 'going to heaven' when you die is loosely inferred from scripture and relies heavily on tradition.

I am not opposed to using the Ten Commandments to show people that they are sinners, and I have done a bit of that. I do not agree with those who seem to think this particular methodology is __the__ Gospel. I look at the way the Gospel was preached in Acts, I don't see the elaborate focus on convicting audiences of sin, not emphasized the same way Ray Comfort does. In Acts 2, Peter does charge his audience with crucifying the prince of life. I don't see the heavy emphasis on making the audience feel guilty about sin in Paul's evangelistic messages either. Paul does teach in his epistles that by the law comes the knowledge of sin. He lays out the case for all being sinners in Romans.

I am not against going into detail on any aspect of the Gospel, and it may be very appropriate for many listeners. But the idea that you have to really focus on convincing the audience of just how sinful they are, or use the 10-commandment method to present the Gospel is not something I agree with.

Also, the idea that Jesus' encounter with the rich young ruler was about exposing his pride in his heart and his trusting in his own righteousness, while it certainly aligns with certain streams of Protestant thought, doesn't seem to be an obvious interpretation of the passage that a first century reader would have held to. Using a template to argue for using the law to expose sin as a template for the 'way of the Master' seems a bit like exegesis.

I notice one of the ways of the Master in scripture was to heal and do miracles, then people believed. The Master also told a woman by a well in Samaria about her marital past. There are a lot of 'way of the Master' things that don't fall into this ten-commandment method.

I am not opposed to Ray Comfort, or using the ten commandments in evangelism. I don't think doing so is heretical But I have encountered people who think this is __the__ way to do things.

I do appreciate his pointing out some of the problems that evolved into evangelicalism where it came to the point where people equated repeating a prayer with 'getting saved', no matter whether there is repentance or faith or not. Another problem I haven't seen him emphasize which I think is bigger, is having people repeating prayers without preaching the Gospel first-- no explanation of Who God is, Who Jesus is, What Christ means, what sin is, no mention of Christ dying for their sins.... and if all that is mentioned, no mention of the resurrection. Then....repeat this prayer and you are saved.... and no water baptism. It doesn't seem to fit what I read in Acts or the epistles.

Also, the Biblical root of confession got stripped from the prayer. Originally, the 'repeat this prayer' thing in Billy Graham after-meeting evangelistic sessions was a means of getting people to confess that they were sinners, and their faith that Jesus is God's Son, the Christ, and that He died for our sins and God raised him from the dead. (I am not sure which points of the kergyma were emphasized.) But so often, the prayer is stripped of the Biblical doctrinal points of confession. The audience is told something like,

"Religion is bad. You need a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. If you believed what you have heard today, repeat this prayer.....(prayer without much kergyma content in it)....if you believed that, you are saved.

There is no formula to get saved. "Jesus save me" is as valid as the "sinner's prayer", if the person means it. 40 years ago, I led two friends to the Lord. The first one was genuine. I spoke to him a couple of weeks ago and he is still in the Lord. The other person heard the same message and said the same words. I knew that it was not real to him. They ceased to be friends and I have no idea where he is today.

The idea of using the Law of God to convict and lead people to Christ is biblical.

1 Timothy 1:9-11

"We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching that agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."

No one is saved unless they confess that they are sinners and see their need of a saviour. The Holy Spirit brings conviction of sin and reveals Jesus as saviour.

 

[Underwhosewings]

Evangelism is a gift. Its also a difficult task. Most people i run into do not want to hear anything at all about Jesus, the Bible, Church, or even religion. Seems they just want to be in ignorant bliss.

Nevertheless…..
1 Corinthians 9:16 KJV
…..woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

 

[notonmywatch]

Aside from a little infighting, this thread was a good read. Personally, I'd like to see more threads about evangelism.

As far as Comfort's method is concerned, personally, I have no problem with it, but it's definitely not the only method.

Jesus basically said that it's the sick who need a physician.

If someone knows that they're a sinner or that they're "sick", then offer them grace and mercy through Christ.

If someone is self-righteous, and proud, and thinks that they're "well" when they're not, then use the law to bring the knowledge of sin. According to Paul, the law was given that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God (Romans 3:19). If we can help people to see their guilt, and that they're literally under a death sentence, then God's offer of grace and mercy makes much more sense to them.

Psalm 19

7The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

 

[awelight]

It is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict folks of sin, He does not need our help. Our job is to testify to Christ as God's [awesome, wonderful, truly magnificent] Saviour of mankind.

No problem in showing that He bore our sins away on the cross [along with alot of other bad stuff]

I really don't like Comfort's approach. I stay away from fellowships that preach sin, sin, sin.

Folks go on about the old days, and oldtime religion, if that is all the gospel people know then God has to use it.

I got a better one. One that give folks the victory over sin.

Peter had been hanging around the Lord a good while, had seen and heard alot, but when he saw the miracle of the fishes he fell down before the Lord and cried "Lord depart from me for I am a sinful man."

got it?

"My miracles" said Jesus, "would have brought Sodom and Gomorrah to repentance if they had seen them"

got it?

Exactly where did Jesus ever say what you have quoted here?

"My miracles" said Jesus, "would have brought Sodom and Gomorrah to repentance if they had seen them"

 

[awelight]

Evangelism is a gift. Its also a difficult task. Most people i run into do not want to hear anything at all about Jesus, the Bible, Church, or even religion. Seems they just want to be in ignorant bliss.

When it comes down to a believers witness to another, all you need to know is whether there is interest or not. If a person does not wish to hear about the Gospel - God's Truth revealed - then you know what you need to know. There is no work of Grace in this person's heart.

 

[presidente]

Exactly where did Jesus ever say what you have quoted here?

"My miracles" said Jesus, "would have brought Sodom and Gomorrah to repentance if they had seen them"

It says this,


Matthew 10:15
Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!
(NKJV)