Home » Posts tagged 'evangelism' (Page 5)

Tag Archives: evangelism

Updated Seventh-Day Adventist evangelistic pamphlet

The evangelistic pamphlet for Seventh-Day Adventists, “Bible Truths for Seventh-Day Adventist Friends,” has been updated to include Ellen White’s statement: “[T]hose who claim that their faith alone will save them are trusting to a rope of sand,” Adventism’s teaching that Christ’s blood is useless for those who have committed one wilful sin, and (relatively recently) the addition of their teaching that baptism forgives sin.  If your church does not already have some good resources for members of this cult, I would like to commend this composition to you for your use.  Your Baptist church can get its church name on it by downloading a Word doc of the pamphlet at the All Content page at FaithSaves and then personalizing it.  Copies can be made through a Baptist printing ministry or by just making some on a copy machine.

 

TDR

Shabir Ally / Thomas Ross Debate over Jesus and the New Testament with Reviews now on Rumble

The videos of my debate with Shabir Ally, and the reviews of the arguments made, are now on my new channel, KJBIBLE1611, on the video sharing platform Rumble.  I created the channel on Rumble because I am concerned that YouTube might be censoring or reducing the viewership of the debate now, and if that is not taking place now that it might do so in the future.  Please feel free to subscribe to my Rumble channel, which will help other people to see the video.  It also helps if you subscribe to my YouTube channel. I intend, at this point, to keep posting content on both the KJB1611 YouTube channel and on the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel, Lord willing; Rumble because it does not censor Biblical or conservative content, the way YouTube tends to do, and also YouTube because so many more people watch YouTube at this point.  I have also added links to the Rumble videos on the Shabir Ally debate post at FaithSaves.  The evangelistic Bible studies are also going up on Rumble.

 

TDR

Atheist Debate Quotes

I believe that the following quotations, from the president of the USA’s largest atheist organization, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), Dan Barker, and from the president of PATAS, the Philippine ATheism,Agnosticism, and Skepticism (Society), are helpful in illuminating Psalm 14’s statement:

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Dan Barker [Freedom From Religion Foundation president]: “Even if Jesus did exist, even if I agreed …100%–yep, [Christ] rose from the dead; yep, there’s a God; yep, I don’t deny any of that—does not mean that He’s my Lord.  If He did exist, I will go happily to Hell.  It would be worse of a hell for me to bow down before a Lord regardless of the legend and historicity issue.  Even if I agreed 100%, I would still reject that Being as the Lord of my life because I’m better than that. …Amen. … I cannot accept Jesus as Lord.  You’re much more free to live and enjoy your life unshackled from the demands than have some Lord of your life.  To me, I think that’s more important than all this historicity stuff which you heard me admit is a matter of probabilities  I might be wrong.  That still doesn’t mean that Jesus is Lord.  He’s not the Lord of my life. (Dan Barker-Thomas Ross debate, “The Old Testament is Mainly Fiction, not Fact”. 1 hr 48 min)

Benjamin Maisonet [PATAS president]:
Mr. Maisonet: “I can give a better explanation [for the historical evidence for Christ’s resurrection than that it took place] … aliens did it. Its a better explanation … life could have come down and made it look like Christ resurrected [sic] from the grave. That’s more plausible than a supernatural, all-powerful [Being causing Christ to rise] … massively more probable.”  …
Mr. Ross: “I think you said there is no amount of historical evidence that would confirm, in your mind, that a miracle took place, no matter what, no matter what historical evidence there was?”
Mr. Maisonet: “Yes, I did say that, and I do agree with that.”
Mr. Ross: “So the historians who say that the resurrection is one of the best attested events in history–even if that’s the case, it wouldn’t matter, because it’s a miracle?” ….
Another illuminating exchange:
Dr. Ross: “So predicting the future to the year and to the day hundreds of years in advance [as Daniel did in Daniel 9, predicting Christ’s coming and His death] … we are going to say that we don’t know how it happened … [but nevertheless] no predictive prophecy, no matter how specific, would be able to show that there’s a God?”
Mr. Maisonet: “No. … [Even] assuming we grant that that’s how accurate the prophecy is.” (Thomas Ross / Benjamin Maisonet debate, “Does History Validate the New Testament Gospels? 51-55 min & 1 hr 27 min in)
TDR

Bible Study #6: Eternal Security and Assurance of Salvation

I am pleased to let What is Truth? readers know that the video for evangelistic Bible study #6, “The Christian: Security in Christ and Assurance of Salvation,” is now available. The videos teach that once one is truly converted, he is always saved.  Assurance is explained Biblically–it is based on the marks given by God in 1 John of a new nature–rather than being based on ideas made by man, such as that those repeating a “sinner’s prayer” should have assurance, or everyone who ever thinks he made a salvation decision should have assurance.

So now we have available video teaching of Bible studies #1-6:

Bible Study #1: What is the Bible?

Bible Study #2: Who is God?

Bible Study #3: What Does God Want From Me?

Bible Study #4: How Can God Save Sinners?

Bible Study #5: How Do I Receive the Gospel?

Bible Study #6: The Christian: Security in Christ and Assurance of Salvation

Only study #7, on the Church of Christ, does not yet have its video available.

I would encourage you and your church to consider doing these Bible studies one-on-one with people who are open to God’s Word, and if someone is unwilling to do a Bible study in person to share the videos.  Those who are seeking an example of how to teach them to others will likely find the video helpful.

Click here to watch Bible Study #6: “The Christian: Security in Christ and Assurance of Salvation.”

The actual Bible studies can be downloaded as PDF files on the Bible study page here. On the All Content page at FaithSaves you can also download a Word document that you can put your church’s contact information into.

You can also help the content of this evangelistic Bible study get out by “liking” and commenting on the video on YouTube and subscribing to the KJB1611 YouTube channel.

TDR

PATAS debate video updated and improved

The PATAS (Philippine ATheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism [Society]) debate video about which I wrote a post recently has been improved–the audio is now substantially better and some other improvements have been introduced. If some of the sound issues kept you from watching or sharing the debate before, perhaps you can do it now.  Feel free also to “like” the video on YouTube, post a comment, and share it with others. I would be very happy if people in the Philippines, and elsewhere, find this debate if they are considering atheism or agnosticism.

 

Click here to watch the improved Ross-Maisonet debate, “Does History Validate the Accuracy of the New Testament Gospels?”

 

Also, the older and lower quality video has been taken down, so if you linked to or embedded the older version on social media, other websites, etc., please update your links to the newest version.

 

TDR

Improved Evangelistic Bible Study #3 Is Now Available!

I am happy to report that a version of evangelistic Bible study #3, “What Does God Want From Me?” which covers God’s law and the penalty of sin to awaken or convict a lost sinner, is now available in an improved version.  It is now nicely in color with good looking pictures and other features that make it more physically appealing than it was previously.  Studies #1 and #2 in this “prettified” format are also available.  Studies #4-7 are being worked on and, Lord willing, will become available in the not-to-distant future.

 

Please note as well that video files of the studies being taught are also being made available–#1-5 are currently live, and the videos for #6-7 are in the list of things to get done.  We would appreciate prayer for helpers with the video projects.

 

You can watch Bible studies #1-5 or download the “prettified” studies #1-3, as well as the older versions of #4-7, at the page here:

 

Foundational Bible Studies

as well as viewing them on YouTube here.  Feel free to “like” them, post a comment on the YouTube channel, or share them on social media (if you are on social media, I am not on it) as these things help other people find and watch the studies.

If you wish to personalize these resources by adding your church address to them, you can also do that by accessing MS Word files of the evangelistic Bible studies at the All Content page here.

 

TDR

PATAS, Philippine Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism (Society) Debate live: Does History Validate the Accuracy of the New Testament Gospels? Ross / Maisonet

I am pleased to inform What is Truth? readers that the Thomas Ross – Benjamin Maisonet debate, “Does History Validate the Accuracy of the New Testament Gospels?” is now live and can be watched on YouTube.

 

Click here to watch the Ross-Maisonet debate, “Does History Validate the Accuracy of the New Testament Gospels?”

 

The debate took place in Manila, Philippines, in 2019, where I was teaching a class on the preservation of Scripture and preaching for Bro Billy Hardecker of Mt. Zion Baptist Mission in Manila, but issues with the audio and video lining up kept the debate from going live until now. The quality is still not absolutely amazing, but considering the non-first-world setting and the equipment used, I am thankful for the quality that is present. Mr. Maisonet was (and I assume still is) the president of the Philippine Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism (Society), or PATAS.  He told me that he replaced the previous president because that person had been stealing money from the organization.  Atheism and agnosticism are much less common in the Philippines than they are in the United States, which may be one reason that the president of PATAS was born in the United States and moved to the Philippines.  In any case, Mr. Maisonet, as the president of PATAS, was a good representative of atheism in the Philippines.  He made the sort of popular-level arguments that one will run across in personal evangelism, rather than the more scholarly type of arguments against the accuracy of the New Testament made by Islamic apologists such as Shabir Ally.  I confess that I did not find his argumentation particularly convincing, but he seems to have thought he made a good case, and I will allow those who watch the debate to evaluate what was said based on facts and logic in God’s world.

 

PATAS Philippine Atheist Agnostic Society

 

The PATAS debate was set up at short notice, so I employed a lot of the material from my debate with Dr. Ally on “The New Testament Picture of Jesus: Is It Accurate?” which is also in my study on evidence for the New Testament from archaeology, prophecy, and history.  In my view, which is admittedly biased in favor of God and His Word, the arguments made for the historicity of the New Testament have now stood up well against both Muslim and atheist apologists.

 

Feel free to subscribe to my KJB1611 YouTube channel,”like” and comment on the debate, and share it with others, if you believe it deserves it. Also, if you would be interested in sponsoring a debate with a non-Christian philosophy or a pseudo-Christian cult, please contact my church.

 

TDR

The Beginning of a New Church and the Place of Discipleship In That

When you arrive into a town or city as a missionary, let’s assume it’s just you. You don’t have anyone else. You start with evangelism. You start with preaching the gospel. You really don’t know that anyone will be saved, but that’s how you start if you are a missionary.

A church is built on the gospel, which is seen in part when Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” The grammar of Matthew 16:18 refers “this rock” to the confession of Peter, which could be described as his faith in Christ. The church is built on the gospel, belief in Christ. A church is built with saved people by their hearing the gospel and receiving it. The goal in an area is to get the gospel to everyone who is willing to hear it.

Something else you can do is let saved people know that you are in town. If you are there with a goal of a church starting, then you think there needs to be a church there. That is in part because you don’t think you could say, “Just go to that church.” Depending on the size of the area, there are probably believers there that need your work and you want them to know about it. They could join you. However, no missionary should think that he’s coming somewhere to take people from other churches. He’s there to evangelize first.

If the gospel is going to be preached to everyone, that could be done by the missionary doing it himself. He never stops preaching the gospel until everyone hears it. Is that the way intended by God for everyone in an area to preach the gospel? It isn’t. The command of the Great Commission is “teach all nations” in Matthew 28:19. The word “teach” comes from a Greek word, which means, “make disciples.” The priority in evangelism is making disciples.

The first amount of time, let’s say, year, emphasizes evangelism especially. The goal is to evangelize as much as possible and to disciple those believing the gospel. As soon as someone is converted, you start with discipleship. A main goal of discipleship is to train an evangelist. Your disciple at least by year two himself starts evangelizing. What you’ve done then is multiply the number of evangelists. For that reason, discipleship is the priority. If you had a choice to go evangelizing or spending time in discipleship, you disciple someone. Get in as many discipleships as possible, really disciple everybody.

You disciple even the people you meet, who are already believers. When someone claims to be saved already, he also is discipled. This way everyone is prepared to be an evangelist. You want to take everyone as far as they can spiritually.

Yes, everyone needs to start assembling for church. A church is starting. You start to get everyone you are discipling into every meeting. You will be preaching on all the things from the Word of God these new believers and new members need.

As you move along the first year, you will be baptizing new believers. That is part of discipleship, teaching them on baptism and then baptizing them. Each of them will be baptized into the church. Baptizing is part of discipleship even as seen in Matthew 28:19.

I try to evangelize every day and do most days. I will do less evangelism as more people are saved, because I have to disciple these people. Also part of what I do is to take new converts to evangelize, part of discipleship. Maybe you think that spending less time in evangelizing will mean less evangelism. Over a longer span far more evangelism will occur if new converts are baptized.

New converts need to be made disciples. This will result in more evangelism. When it comes to the church planting phase of the history of a church, discipleship must occur for a church even to start. You aren’t going to have a church without discipleship, so no new church will occur. Even more so, not related to a new church even starting is the glory to God that will go through the increased obedience of a discipled saint. God wants to be followed and new converts don’t know what to do. They need to be taught. They have to be taught so they will live like God wants people to live.

Evangelical Psalms of David

Part One

In an earlier post, I pointed to psalms that served the cause of evangelism from the Old Testament.  Even as I wrote that piece, I knew there were more.  Two circumstances coincide in my life:  one, my reading through the Bible twice this year, so that I’m in the psalms now, and two, we sing through the psalms from our psalter in church and we’ve been singing in the last few months on Sunday in Psalms 32, 33, and 34.  It’s been obvious that David writes about salvation in these.

The Apostle Paul refers to Psalm 32 in his argument for salvation by faith in Romans 4:6-8:

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

This quotes Psalm 32:1-2:

1 Blessed is he whose transgression is] forgiven, whose sin is covered. 2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

The New Testament teaching of salvation does not contradict the Old Testament teaching of salvation.  One could and should argue that the gospel of the New Testament proceeds from the Old Testament.  “New Testament” doesn’t mean “new” as in, never seen before, of very recent origination.When Jesus describes salvation in His Sermon on the Mount, He describes the ultimate fulfillment as “blessed” in what we call the beatitudes.  These correspond to the blessings promised in the Old Testament, including in the psalms, and David starts Psalms 32 with “Blessed.”  For man to be saved, which is to be blessed, he needs atonement for or removal of his sin.  He might try to do good and David already wrote in Psalm 14, that is hopeless.Later Paul argues in Romans 4 from Psalm 32 that David was trusting the Lord for his salvation, not in his own works.  I always like to say, works can’t get rid of your sin, even if you did them.  If you really determined to be good from now on, to be saved, you still need the cleansing of the past sins.  While you’re attempting to do good works, you are still failing, so you also need those sins taken away.  Salvation by necessity requires what David describes in Psalm 32.Psalm 32 is most known as David’s confession of his sin, adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah.  The first two verses though are not a confession.  They are, however, a prerequisite for confession.  First comes conversion, then comes confession.  In 1 John 1 and 2, the Apostle John communicates that we don’t hide our sin because we do have cleansing and propitiation.  The sins aren’t forgiven because of confession. They are forgiven because of the salvation that is the basis of the confession.The experience of blessing doesn’t come from confessing sin.  It comes from a believer confessing sin.  An unbeliever could confess sin, but he will not receive forgiveness, covering, or imputation of righteousness for mere confession.  Confession is a lifestyle or a habit of a believer, because he receives forgiveness of sin by grace through faith as a prerequisite for confession.Three terms designate the dimensions of human evil:  transgression—acts reflecting rebellion against God, sin—the most general term, designating an offense, or turning away from the true path, and iniquity—indicating distortion, criminality, or the absence of respect for the divine will.  In the context, the three terms should not be viewed per se as pointing out just three specific kind of sins, but taking all three as a whole to specify the full dimensions of human evil from which someone requires deliverance.  It’s too overwhelming to dig himself out of it through confession.The person’s spirit has no guile, because he is truly repentant.  This is not a game that he’s playing, showing up to his confessional booth week after week.  He can’t confess as a means of experiencing the blessing and forgiveness without a spirit that has already been changed.  He doesn’t like his sin.  He doesn’t mean to keep sinning.When one arrives at the end of the psalm in verse 10-11, David writes:

10 Many sorrows shall be to the wicked: but he that trusteth in the LORD, mercy shall compass him about. 11 Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, ye righteous: and shout for joy, all ye that are upright in heart.

David contrasts the wicked with “he that trusteth in the LORD.”  Mercy compasses him.  From this mercy proceeds gladness, rejoicing, and shouts of joy, not because of what he has done, but because of what God has.Psalm 33 begins like Paul in Philippians 3, when he describes his own salvation:  “Rejoice in the Lord.”  Paul may have been quoting Psalm 33.  Habbakuk later writes (3:18):  “Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation.”  He relates joy to the salvation of God.  With the Apostle Paul, rejoicing in the Lord meant not boasting in himself and putting confidence in his flesh, counting as dung and loss all things that he might win Christ.The psalm ends with these verses:

16 There is no king saved by the multitude of an host: a mighty man is not delivered by much strength. 17 An horse is a vain thing for safety: neither shall he deliver any by his great strength. 18 Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy; 19 To deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine. 20 Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield. 21 For our heart shall rejoice in him, because we have trusted in his holy name. 22 Let thy mercy, O LORD, be upon us, according as we hope in thee.

The king is not saved by his own strength of that of a horse, but through the fear of the LORD and hope in his mercy.  He waits on the LORD for his help, rejoices in Him, trusting in His holy name.Similar to Psalm 32:1-2, David writes in Psalm 34:8, “blessed is the man that trusteth in [the LORD].”  In the end of that psalm, he says in vv. 18 and 22:

18 The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.  22 The LORD redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate.

Here are the components of a salvific response to God.  God does the saving, and He saves those of a broken heart, a contrite spirit.  He redeems their souls and when they trust in Him, they will not be desolate.Trusting God means not trusting one’s own self.  The Lord redeeming means his not redeeming himself.  The offering that God accepts is not his own works, but as David writes in Psalm 51:17:

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

This is the soul that God will redeem, the one offered to Him, broken and contrite.  He can though depend on God for salvation.  “O taste and see that the LORD is good” (Psalm 34:8).

What Is Illegal in Door-to-Door Evangelism in the United States?

Contrary to a typical criticism of door-to-door evangelism, I don’t believe that it’s the only way to evangelize.  There are many scriptural ways to preach the gospel besides door-to-door, and I would teach all of them.  However, I don’t believe a church can be obedient to the Bible without going door-to-door, because that’s the only way to preach the gospel to everyone, which God wants from us.  It is also seen in the example of Jesus and the Apostles.  Why would someone argue against that?

By my experience, which is a lot at this point, door-to-door specifically doesn’t see the most conversions.  That doesn’t mean don’t do it.  I can relate that many people can be saved through the contacts of a person who is saved through door-to-door, the contacts from one person being saved.  Those are still related to door-to-door.  But I digress from the point of my post.

The area of Oregon where we’re starting our church has many, many more “no soliciting” signs than the San Francisco Bay Area, where I started a church and then pastored it for thirty-three years.  I’m estimating at least five times more no soliciting signs here than there.  They are everywhere and they are also very inventive, long lists of things the person doesn’t want.

I’ve seen this sign at least five times:  “No Soliciting:  Seriously.  Don’t ring the bell.  Don’t make it awkward.”

I’ve been kicked out of two apartment complexes going door to door, and as I was leaving another neighborhood, someone told me I couldn’t do that and she would be taking it to the board.  Last week someone called me about a door-hanger, very insulting.  He said something like this:  “You obviously don’t read the Bible, so at least read my no-soliciting sign.”  And then he threatened me with physical harm if I came again.  I know it wasn’t me, but someone else in our new church, who had put the hanger on his door.

It’s a little worse in the coronavirus era, because people have the virus card that they carry very easily.  You’re there to preach the gospel, and they’re there to preach the dangers of the virus and the foolishness of not wearing the mask.  I don’t argue with them.  I let them spew forth their doctrine of physical safety, as I stand over ten feet away outdoors.  It is a message of self-righteousness, as they are preaching a message of physical salvation.

So I’ve had questions about the legality of door-to-door.  What is protected by the United Constitution?  People already don’t want to go door-to-door, so if there is the further layer of illegality, people will feel justified in not doing this thing that they don’t want to do.

In no necessary order, first, someone can legally kick us out of an apartment complex if it has a sign saying that they don’t allow evangelism or the like on their property.  That doesn’t mean you can’t evangelize there.  What it does mean is that the complex has the right to tell you to leave.  As long as they don’t tell you, you can keep doing it until they tell you.  When they tell you, understand that they have the right to kick you out.  It then becomes a trespassing situation.  Usually how it happens is that someone angrily calls management, complaining.  I’ve been told that it’s fine to visit someone who lives there, that you already know, but you can’t keep going cold turkey, once they tell you to stop.

Why go to an apartment complex when it might result in getting kicked out?  You already know the answer.  They need the gospel there, so keep trying until you get kicked out.  If you get kicked out, then you tried.  I would suggest put door hangers in apartment complexes where you’ve been kicked out.

Second, door hangers are not legally solicitation.  They are not.  If you see a no-solicitation sign on a door, put on a door hanger.  A door hanger has an official, legal title.  It is canvassing, and canvassing is protected by the Constitution.  It doesn’t say it in the Constitution, but rulings have been made by the Supreme Court that allow for canvassing.

For canvassing, there is a limitation.  If someone posts a “no trespassing” sign, then you could be charged with trespassing.  That’s also a ruling by the Supreme Court.  I never saw a no trespassing sign in town or the city in the San Francisco Bay Area.  I’ve seen again about five of those at least in Oregon.  I don’t go to a door with a no trespassing sign.

Three, is door-to-door evangelism solicitation?  Legally, it isn’t.  This statement was made in the decision, United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990):

Solicitation requires action by those who would respond: The individual solicited must decide whether or not to contribute (which itself might involve reading the solicitor’s literature or hearing his pitch), and then, having decided to do so, reach for a wallet, search it for money, write a check, or produce a credit card.  As residents of metropolitan areas know from daily experience, confrontation by a person asking for money disrupts passage and is more intrusive and intimidating than an encounter with a person giving out information. One need not ponder the contents of a leaflet or pamphlet in order mechanically to take it out of someone’s hand, but one must listen, comprehend, decide and act in order to respond to a solicitation.

Solicitation relates to a “contribution” legally.  The Supreme Court differentiated between the two in this recent decision.  In so doing, the Supreme Court is saying this is protected speech.

You could stand and argue with someone about the meaning of solicitation, but it’s going to be fruitless.  You would win in court.  It’s not you.  They probably mean you though, when they put up the sign.  For that reason, I honor the “no soliciting” sign to mean “no evangelism,” if it’s on an individual door.  I leave a tract or door hanger on the door and move on.  At the same time, I’ve expressed that I don’t care if you go ahead and knock on that door or ring that doorbell for evangelism.  I’ve done it many times.

What I’ve written here leaves plenty of opportunity for door to door evangelism. It’s saying that you can canvass everywhere, which means leaving the gospel on someone’s door.  The man who threatened me for a door hanger, I take him with a grain of salt.  He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  Evangelism is not solicitation, so for sure canvassing isn’t solicitation.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives