Home » Posts tagged 'evangelism' (Page 5)
Tag Archives: evangelism
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
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.
How Does Natural Law Work in and for Evangelism of the Lost?
Romans 1:18-21 read:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
I’m assuming a lot of you readers know these verses. According to them though, based on what people know, they will be judged rightly by God, because what they know means that they are without excuse. At the same time, people are not going to experience the wrath of God’s judgment because of ignoring information, but because of ignoring law. When they knew God, they didn’t glorify Him as God and were not thankful unto Him. Glorifying God as God is represented by various prescriptions, which are laws. This knowledge isn’t a mere bunch of facts. Bare acknowledgement of God’s existence isn’t sufficient to avoid the wrath of God. The judgment and wrath of God is justice for disobeying natural law.
Natural law relates to the theological terminology, general revelation. “General” is general in audience, that is, everyone knows it, so everyone is responsible for these laws. Knowing God and glorifying Him as God in Romans 1 means knowing these laws to the extent that someone is responsible for obeying them. They relate to the revelation of God, so according to His nature. No one has an excuse for not knowing these. They’re natural to know. All men are responsible for them.
In my assessment, the natural laws are those most denied, and against which men are most rebellious. On the other hand, men like what they consider to be their natural rights, like what Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence mentions at the beginning:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
He uses the language, “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” “truths to be self-evident,” and “endowed by their Creator.” Natural laws are self-evident truths.
Men know natural laws. They’re natural to them, so to deny them, they are at their most rebellious. The Apostle Paul talks about some of them later in chapter 1. They rebel against God’s natural order, because it clashes with what they want. It’s natural that the woman is the weaker vessel, and women very often don’t want to hear that. The natural order of two parents and children obeying their parents is repulsive to children.
When people think of the Declaration, they especially think, “all men are created equal.” They focus on the word, “equal.” Most often, however, I’ve noticed that they ignore the first four words, “all men are created.” It is self-evident that “all men are created.” Equal, yes, but it is self-evident that man is created by God. To Jefferson, creation of man carried with it more than sheer existence. With God as Creator, He s also Lawgiver and then Judge.
I’ve found when evangelizing lost people that they will still act like they don’t know certain things. Since Romans 1 says they really do know, I assume they do. This is presuppositionalism. I presuppose people know what is natural to know. Many of those things people say they don’t know, they rely on for enjoying their lives, which is why Jefferson uses “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.” People like those things and yet they act as though they’ve somehow received them by accident. This is the part in Romans 1:19, “who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” As many of you know, it means they suppress the truth. The way I put it is that the problem is not intellectual, but volitional.
Romans 1:18-22 assure what is already known by everyone. I’m saying, you know that everyone knows what Romans 1:18-22 say because those verses say they do. People can act like they don’t know, but you know that they do, so that you don’t believe that they don’t know. God says they do know, so they do know.
If someone is suppressing the truth, that means he knows and he is rebelling against what he knows. In evangelism, you expose the lost on his rebellion. How do you do that?
When I encounter someone who says he is a scientist, a professing atheist, too uncertain, or just not sure because he says he’s not gotten enough proof, I rely on natural law. I refer to a number of different examples. “When you look out there at the vast and intricate world, does that look like it all came about by accident?”
I haven’t found anyone who likes to be characterized as thinking or believing that everything came about by accident, but if this world isn’t an accident, then it is design. People know this is design. Scripture says, according to the way I like to put it, that they don’t want to have a boss. The Designer would be their Boss. They like having their own way, which you can read in the rest of Romans 1 and in 2 Peter. 2 Peter 3 says these scoffers are walking after their own lust.
I continue. “Everything out there is so complex. So many occurrences have to be going right at one time, that it is mathematically impossible to be an accident. It looks like design. Four or five hundred different circumstances need to be going right for us to even survive. If just one of those hundreds does not go exactly right, we couldn’t survive. This can’t be an accident. The human body itself is so complicated, the human eye, speech, the operation of the brain, the circulatory system, our heart beat, so many that have to be functioning in just a certain way at one time. And that’s just to survive.”
Romans 1:21 says, “Neither were thankful.” “So we breathe God’s air, eat the food that comes from a seed growing from the ground, enjoy all of the good things all around on this earth, use all of that, and then just ignore Him.” This is when you can turn to scripture to point rebellion out. “Romans 1 says that everyone already knows all this and rather than worship and serve the Creator, they serve the creature. It describes this as not being thankful, being unwilling to give the credit to God, because that acknowledgement would carry with it responsibility. Next chapter, Romans 2, says the goodness of God leads us to repentance.”
The statement of what people know, natural law, aligns with what is written by God in men’s hearts as a default position (Romans 2:15). Pointing out natural law strikes a cord in men’s hearts, their conscience then also bearing witness (v. 15). They feel guilty because of their ungratefulness.
Then I may say, “What we see occurring out in the world also aligns with the Bible. The history of the world reflects what we see there. There is a God, we are here because of Him, He has put us here for a particular purpose, we are responsible to Him, and we are going to meet Him someday. This is what the gospel is about. God is just, but He also loves us, and the good news is that He wants us to save us. However, we really do need to be saved.”
Since the problem is not an intellectual one, the solution is supernatural. The volition, the will of a person, must be dealt with scripture. The Bible is powerful (Hebrews 4:12) and a spiritual weapon to pull down the strongholds in people’s minds (2 Corinthians 10:4).
The approach I’m giving you is biblical. It’s what the Apostle Paul did in Acts 17. It doesn’t mean that it will result in your audience either listening or being converted, but it gives people an opportunity, which is what you want. It might be too late for most. You don’t know. More than ever, we’re living in an age in which natural law is a necessity in an evangelism approach.
Recent Comments