They were mistakenly informed that God had a “wonderful plan for their life” and this is why they needed Jesus, not because of any specific sin or wrongdoing on their part (perhaps only sin in the abstract, impersonal sense was ever mentioned).

The “wonderful plan” link actually is the opposite of your statement. The four spiritual laws address a person’s sinful nature. Furthermore, the Way of the Master guys (oops, just noticed you mentioned them further down) use the “wonderful plan” as one method of sharing the gospel, and they are definitely not loath to tell people that they are sinful.

And yes, the Way of the Master system is solid. The video series is a bit cheesy, but the ideas behind them are really good. People must acknowledge their sin if they are to partake in the “wonderful plan.”

Colin said: “The gospel is offensive by nature”

Yeah, people get mad when you start talking about sin and repentance. That’s why it’s easier to witness to a complete stranger than to a friend or coworker.

Philip is the only person identified in the Bible as an evangelist. Acts 8 sheds some light on his ministry (Acts 21:8).

5Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.

6And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.

7For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.

First of all, we see that Philip preached Christ to the Samaritans. Secondly, he worked miracles - healing the sick and casting out devils.

I think it is definitely scriptural to say that the evangelist is to edify the body of Christ so they can do the work of the ministry, as Ephesians 4 says, but in addition he is called to preach the Gospel to the LOST IN GENERAL AND THE UNREACHED IN PARTICULAR. In doing so, he is able to rally others to do the same and therefore edify the body of Christ.

The four spiritual laws do not address a person’s sin nature in the slightest. I could do this in more detail for a later article, but in short:

1. God LOVES you and offers a wonderful PLAN for your life.

This is not true at all. Ephesians 2 declares that God is at emnity with sinners. God hates sin and will allow sinners to perish in hell. He does not love those who are not converted or are false converts.

God also doesn’t have a wonderful plan for your life. They cite John 10:10 out of context, and then proceed to say that we don’t have a great life because we’re sinful. This isn’t true at all. When we accept Christ, our life get’s much harder. We get persecuted and reviled. The modern Christian has tried to avoid this by both ignoring evangelism and setting up ad-hoc Christian communes (schools, churches, activity groups and programs).

2. Man is SINFUL and SEPARATED from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God’s love and plan for his life.

God’s love has nothing to do with this fundamentally, only indirectly. They call sin “self-will” - this is not true. Scripture says sin is breaking the law. The result of salvation is not “abundant life” but eternal security and escape from hell.

Number 3 is fine.

4. We must individually RECEIVE Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God’s love and plan for our lives.

Love and a plan for our lives should not be the motive for coming to Christ. We come to Christ because we are have broken god’s law and are going to hell. Repentance is essential (and not addressed by the four laws).

The Way of the Master loathes the idea of a “wonderful plan” and they address it in an entire episode here (third one down):

http://www.wayofthemaster.com/videolessons.shtml

I think we just have a mild disagreement:

I think it is definitely scriptural to say that the evangelist is to edify the body of Christ so they can do the work of the ministry, as Ephesians 4 says, but in addition he is called to preach the Gospel to the LOST IN GENERAL AND THE UNREACHED IN PARTICULAR. In doing so, he is able to rally others to do the same and therefore edify the body of Christ.

Philip is cited as an evangelist, but we have no way of knowing if his actions are a result of his office or of others. It is merely speculation. I think it is more reasonable to assume that he was doing his job as a Christian, as we see plenty of other people not identified as evangelists doing the exact same thing.

God’s enmity toward sinners and His love for the world is definitely an interesting paradox. Can’t He have both? He loves the world (which is supported by myriad verses) yet hates sin and the sinner because He is holy (also supported Biblically). While I agree that the “love” concept can be taken too far, I think you are taking the “enmity” concept too far while ignoring the “love” aspect. It’s not either/or, it’s both. God deeply loves His creation, but His complete Holiness makes Him hate creation at the same time.

I do have a question now, truly not from wanting to argue or annoy. How does or should evangelization take place at work? I know these verses are not in passages with a context of evangelism, but they come to mind relating to work (and please excuse me for not having the chance to look up all the references):

“As far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.”

“He who does not provide for his own household is worse than an unbeliever.”

“Make it your ambition to live a quiet and peaceable life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands…”
(I Thessalonians 4)

“If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” (II Thessalonians 3)

Now, let’s imagine I have several young children, my husband has passed away and I have to work to provide for my family. If I have a good idea that any sharing of the gospel - even in the ‘relationship’ style - will make me lose my job, which command is then more important, the command to evangelize or the command to provide for my family? Of course I believe and trust that God would always provide for my (our) needs if I obeyed Him — still, it is a question in my mind.

I am not taking the emnity message to far - these people are. You have to realize that the church has been so polluted by politically correct thinking that what is perceived as “middle ground” is actually considerably liberal (something like the four laws, for example). I am merely stating the gospel, as applied by both Jesus and Paul in scripture (like I said, Romans 2 as followed by 3 is a detailed progression of this).

I do have a question now, truly not from wanting to argue or annoy. How does or should evangelization take place at work? I know these verses are not in passages with a context of evangelism, but they come to mind relating to work (and please excuse me for not having the chance to look up all the references):

“As far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.”

“He who does not provide for his own household is worse than an unbeliever.”

“Make it your ambition to live a quiet and peaceable life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands…”
(I Thessalonians 4)

“If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” (II Thessalonians 3)

We have to view everything: our lives, jobs, families and friends as loss and Christ as gain. So we have to be willing to let the gospel win in a conflict between work and evangelism. Easier said then done. This doesn’t mean we have to evangelize everyone within minutes of knowing them. But we have to be willing to share the gospel with the people we encounter - work is no exception. I have found that with people I know and interact with regularly, there is always an opportunity presented to share the gospel. Two nights ago after the superbowl, we were talking about the election with a friend who began talking about Mormonism. It was a natural transition to ask at that point “well, do you have any spiritual beliefs?” We worked through the principles I mentioned and shared the gospel. And we did not lose a friend at all - she stayed for another hour and a half and just hung out.

I think you are correct that the passages don’t really relate to evangelism, but there are some principles there with regard to holding a job. However, what about holding a job where the sacrifices are God’s commands and a Christian lifestyle. This is not acceptable. At the risk of making too much out of a Psalm, scripture tells us that the “Righteous shall not be forsaken, nor his seed begging bread” (Psalm 37:25). We need to trust God for our sustenance.

Now, let’s imagine I have several young children, my husband has passed away and I have to work to provide for my family. If I have a good idea that any sharing of the gospel - even in the ‘relationship’ style - will make me lose my job, which command is then more important, the command to evangelize or the command to provide for my family? Of course I believe and trust that God would always provide for my (our) needs if I obeyed Him — still, it is a question in my mind.

Actually, you are misapplying scripture here (obviously not on purpose). It is not your job, as a widow to provide for your living - it is your family, and then the church. The church is specifically commanded to care for widows and orphans. I am not trying to be too forward, but this is one way feminism has infiltrated the church - in saying that single Christian women need to work. They can, but it is not required or commanded. However, it is not acceptable for anyone to work a job (women or men) that leads them to disobey God. So it is a false choice between working and evangelism.

I hope that is helpful. Please let me know if I can clarify or if something sounds off.

Colin wrote:
Actually, you are misapplying scripture here (obviously not on purpose). It is not your job, as a widow to provide for your living - it is your family, and then the church. The church is specifically commanded to care for widows and orphans.

Colin, I firmly believe that the church is failing in its responsibilities to the needy in its midst, though I am unsure whether the blame can appropriately be leveled at the feminist movement. I have heard people give praise in church for having received government funds that will allow them to pay rent, and in the next breath refuse any help from the congregation because they “trust God to meet their needs”. The problem is that as a body, we have forgotten that we are expected to act as a family. Worse, as a nation we no longer act properly toward family, allowing family members to become dependent on government handouts rather than family assistance.

I don’t really blame the government, making people depend on the government gives government more power, and no government in history has long fought off the temptation to become more powerful. The fault here lies purely with the church, which has neglected its mandated responsibility toward orphans and widows (the needy). One huge accusation Jesus leveled against the Pharisees was that they carefully tithed of all their property, but neglected to properly support their elderly parents and the needy. The church properly meeting the needs of those around us would go a long way toward earning us the “right to be heard” in sharing the gospel.

(That said, I agree with everything else you said about the focus on the gospel being on saving souls from sin rather than God having a “great plan”. Such teaching is not evangelism, it is a feel good movement that distorts Christianity.)

Well, your point is valid in that practically everyone mentioned in the book of Acts was involved in evangelism. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say identifying the actions of Philip as those of an evangelist is mere “speculation”. The meaning of the word evangelist is “one who brings good news”. When we see Philip preaching Christ to the Samaritans, he was doing just that - preaching good news. The miracles naturally followed because Christ worked with him, confirming what was preached. I think it is reasonable to say that when Paul admonished Timothy to do the work of an evangelist, he was telling him to branch outside of the four walls of the church and reach the lost with the Gospel (2 Timothy 4:5).

This is not true at all. Ephesians 2 declares that God is at emnity with sinners. God hates sin and will allow sinners to perish in hell. He does not love those who are not converted or are false converts.”

I’ve heard this before, and I understand the reasoning behind it. But I believe there are a number of reasons why this cannot be true. First of all, God is love (1 John 4:8). And God so loved who? The whole world (John 3:16). Besides, if God doesn’t love sinners, it would make him a hypocrite to tell us to love our enemies when he hates his. Yes, the wrath of God abides on those outside his covenant. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t love them. If that was the case, Jesus would not have come. The point is that, in his love, he has provided a means whereby we may escape his wrath.

The meaning of the word evangelist is “one who brings good news”. When we see Philip preaching Christ to the Samaritans, he was doing just that - preaching good news. The miracles naturally followed because Christ worked with him, confirming what was preached. I think it is reasonable to say that when Paul admonished Timothy to do the work of an evangelist, he was telling him to branch outside of the four walls of the church and reach the lost with the Gospel (2 Timothy 4:5).

Chris, actually it seems clear from the context that Paul was commanding timothy to preach to the church - not to those outside, when he asked him to do the work of an evangelist. This is clear from the preceding verses (3-4):

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

Currently, they are enduring sound doctrine. But Christian will, over time, put in teachers who preach a more tolerant, liberal message. The work of an evangelist, especially combined with the Ephesians passage - is clearly to keep the church involved in it’s primary functions.

You may be right about this.

I agree to some extent, Colin. At the same time, how did Jesus evangelize the woman at the well? “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” Later, He does (lovingly) confront her with her sin (adultery). But again, it wasn’t an either/or. He first mentions the benefits (spiritual sustenance and eternal life) and then refers to the sin.

Darius, I think we agree in the broad sense. Ironically, it is actually the woman at the well passage which Kirk and Ray use to justify their method. Their argument for the verses you cited is that Jesus was merely transitioning from the physical (water) to the spiritual (eternal life). When we spoke with this woman a few nights ago, we went from a conversation about mormonism, to “what kind of beliefs do you have?” and after that “what do you think happens when you die?”

The woman at the well had no concept of what Jesus said (we can see this because she denied her sin) until he used the law to bring conviction. In the same way, an unrepentant sinner cannot comprehend grace until they understand sin.

Besides, if God doesn’t love sinners, it would make him a hypocrite to tell us to love our enemies when he hates his. Yes, the wrath of God abides on those outside his covenant. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t love them. If that was the case, Jesus would not have come. The point is that, in his love, he has provided a means whereby we may escape his wrath.

Forgive me. I used “love” relative to the context literature - I thought that was evident. Of course God “loves” them, but not in the way that the “four laws” present. You have already defined this in your response.

Exactly, Chris. Pushing only enmity ignores significant portions of Scripture.

Darius, why do you do this? Everything was fine until you brought up this straw man. No one is pushing “only emnity”

I expect this stuff from googlebot, but not you.

“This is not true at all. Ephesians 2 declares that God is at emnity with sinners. God hates sin and will allow sinners to perish in hell. He does not love those who are not converted or are false converts.”

How is that NOT pushing ONLY enmity? I agree that enmity should be part of the equation, but it’s not the whole part. God does NOT equal enemy of sinners. God does NOT equal lover of all people. God equals enemy of sinners lover of all people.

I am not going to play games with you if you aren’t honest in your arguments.

Dr. Darius and Mr. Googlebot.

The fact is that, because of a sinners sin, God is at enmity with them. When they stand before God to judge, he will see their sin and cast them into the lake of fire. God desires that all will be saved, of course, but when it comes down to judgment God will allow that enmity to come to fruition. It is disingenuous to tell a sinner that God loves them because it promotes a false hope that they will still be alright on judgment day. This is not effective or biblical evangelism.

Colin said, “He does not love those who are not converted ”

John 3:16??

Or, to use your chapter, read Ephesians 2:4-5:

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions–it is by grace you have been saved.

God’s love for unrepentant sinners is so strong, and his mercy so great, that he still provides a way to bring us to life while we are dead in sin and disobedience. And a good thing, too, since none of us is capable of being good enough to merit his love.

Which isn’t to say that he won’t send a sinner to hell, though it breaks his heart to do so.

And there is nothing wrong with telling a sinner that God loves him. Many lost people are filled with despair and self-loathing, to say nothing of all the humans around them who hate them. They need to know that in spite of their many sins, God still loves them and offers forgiveness.

Sure. Law to the proud, grace to the humble. The four spiritual laws work if the person already understands the seriousness and consequences of sin.

Thainamu said: “And there is nothing wrong with telling a sinner that God loves him. Many lost people are filled with despair and self-loathing, to say nothing of all the humans around them who hate them. They need to know that in spite of their many sins, God still loves them and offers forgiveness.”

I agree, but with a caveat. You said “in spite of their many sins.” Most people don’t recognize that they are sinners, or if they do, they don’t recognize the seriousness of sin. They think it’s no big deal because everyone does it. If you say “God loves you” to someone who doesn’t understand that he’s a wretched sinner, he’ll thank you and go on his way, confident that a loving God will accept him in his sin. He won’t see a need for repentance. Yes, it’s true that God loves him. But God’s love doesn’t mean God saves unrepentant sinners.

Practically speaking, I think both methods (enmity or love) are valid to begin evangelism. If you discern a person knows that they are a wretch but doesn’t know that God cares for them or has provided a way out, then start with His love. If the person is a pompous punk who thinks he’s a great guy and can do no wrong and God, whomever that may be, will ultimately send everyone to heaven, then confront them with their sin.

Darius, I don’t disagree with your last two responses. I am not talking about a person who is humble, I am talking about a person who believes they are good enough to merit heaven - this is clear from the most basic context of my article and posts. I don’t think you make these strawmen deliberately - I suspect you see a word or phrase which you already have a categorized response to, and basically stop reading or ignore contextual evidence. I’ll try and take this into account, but you do need to work on this.

But let there be no mistake - EVERYONE must confront their sin - not just your “punk.” Someone may be balling their eyes out in humility, but might merely be sorry for their sin, not repentant. This is why the law needs to be spelled out to all people (in varying amounts as led by the spirit and wisdom). Through the law comes the knowledge of sin - this is an essential precursor to repentance and grace.

The rest of what you have said, I have addressed earlier. I wanted, to look at this piece in some detail:

And there is nothing wrong with telling a sinner that God loves him. Many lost people are filled with despair and self-loathing, to say nothing of all the humans around them who hate them. They need to know that in spite of their many sins, God still loves them and offers forgiveness.

Even such a person must have their sins qualified. Abstract feelings of guilt or shame is not “knowledge of sin.” This is why I completely reject using “for all have sinned” in evangelism - it is meaningless to an individual - and that is where God meets people. If we truly are selling a personal relationship, then it needs to be personal, not abstract.

In the example you site, I don’t think I would change much. We have no idea why this person is emotionally distressed, and quite frankly, it doesn’t matter. Saying “God loves you” might make them happy for a time, or their whole life. But they are still guilty and they will still go to hell. They must repent, no exceptions. I we love such a person, we must be willing to sacrifice their opinion of us, and our fear of rejection, and share the gospel boldly.

Well, YEAH, if all you tell them is God loves them. BUT, if you actually move beyond that first step and into sin, then it’s just fine.

I wanted to go back and address this, in hindsight. This is why your idea doesn’t work. When you say “God loves you” to someone who has no comprehension of what God’s love is, it is totally meaningless. It’s a waste of time at best and a misleading error at worst. A sinner has no mechanism to understand God’s love until they are presented with the gospel. They will interpret “God loves you” to mean “God loves you like another human” or “God loves you like in the movies.” This is totally false and a great detriment and counterfeit of God’s love.

A person cannot understand God’s love without understanding forgiveness and grace. A person cannot understand forgiveness and grace without understanding sin. A person cannot see their sin unless their conscience is made aware of it and the law shows them it’s effects.

Well, I don’t know if you or I can say “most people” think any given thing. But on the other hand, I agree with you that it is very common for people to not recognize how serious sin is. In fact, I think it is a basic human thought that “I get what I deserve” and therefore I won’t get hell because I’m better than [__fill in the blank__]. We humans have a great capacity for self deception.

On the other hand, my admittedly limited experience with direct evangelism has been with people who are desperately hopeless people. They don’t have any trouble at all knowing they are sinners. They have trouble knowing there is a way out of their sin or that anybody cares.

Exactly. After all, God has written the law on our hearts. While many deceive themselves, plenty of people know deep down that they are sinning.

Romans 2:14 “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.”

The gospel is NOT that people are sinful (though many times you have to get people to be honest about that), but that God has provided a way out of that sin nature and back into relationship with Him.

12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Paul is saying that those who do not have Christ will be judged by the law. Gentiles do not have the law, but they do the things in the law because they have a conscience - this is the law of god on their hearts - not that they understand that they have sinned against God. All men have a conscience, which is “a law unto itself” embedded in them.

But the conscience can only bring a broad sense of guilt or shame. We know from 1 Timothy that the world “sears” the conscience. Even people that feel sinful need to understand the nature of their sin - they have no concept of this. Telling them about God’s love does not fix this problem and only leads to false conversion.

I think we’re arguing semantics here and actually probably in practice wouldn’t approach evangelism any differently, so let’s give this debate a rest.

I would argue that starting with the wrath of God is not acceptable, but I have not proposed this. I have proposed starting out that man is sinful and depraved, and because of this God is at enmity with man. God is not just simply on a mortal-toasting streak for no just cause.

Moreover, “the context of a loving God” as you put it, is only first understood through sin. We cannot understand the magnitude of God’s supernatural and grace-filled love without comprehending forgiveness and sin. I have addressed this earlier.

That’s why I was skeptical of Ray Comfort and Way of the Master for so long. There is a distinction between preaching fire and brimstone, and using the Law to bring conviction of sin. That line isn’t always clear. If you preach the former, you’ll produce bitter converts who believe God is cosmically unfair.

The method that Way of the Master uses talks about the Law first, then explains God’s goodness and his justice, to demonstrate why it is fair and right and necessary for God to punish sin.

Atanamis said: We are told that God desires for an intimate relationship with humanity.

OK, sure. But do we have to use the word intimate? It conjures up images of a romantic relationship, which is not an accurate picture of an individual believer’s relationship with God.

But if you’d prefer, maybe we could say that God desires a close fellowship with humanity.

Colin wrote:
Moreover, “the context of a loving God” as you put it, is only first understood through sin. We cannot understand the magnitude of God’s supernatural and grace-filled love without comprehending forgiveness and sin. I have addressed this earlier.

Obviously, we disagree. To my mind, God’s love is first known by understanding His purpose for creating man and the known universe. That purpose as depicted in Genesis is to have a “affectionate, cherished, close, devoted, faithful, loving, near, warm” relationship with us. Only then does our SIN have context. Disobeying and declaring war against a harsh and uncaring creator is in some ways understandable. Declaring war against a God who wanted nothing more than to be worshiped as He poured out love onto us is inexcusable. The Gospel must start with an understanding of who GOD is, including his LOVE for man (and what Godly love means). It should then follow with an understanding of how MAN chose to reject God by choosing SIN. The choice of God to send CHRIST is then obvious, and is the need for man to REPENT. The Gospel is then:
GOD=>LOVE=>MAN=>SIN=>CHRIST=>REPENT

Jew said:
OK, sure. But do we have to use the word intimate? It conjures up images of a romantic relationship, which is not an accurate picture of an individual believer’s relationship with God.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intimate
in·ti·mate1 /ˈɪntəmɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-tuh-mit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. associated in close personal relations: an intimate friend.
2. characterized by or involving warm friendship or a personally close or familiar association or feeling: an intimate greeting.
3. very private; closely personal: one’s intimate affairs.
4. characterized by or suggesting privacy or intimacy; warmly cozy: an intimate little café.
5. (of an association, knowledge, understanding, etc.) arising from close personal connection or familiar experience.
6. engaged in or characterized by sexual relations.
7. (of clothing) worn next to the skin, under street or outer garments: intimate apparel.
8. detailed; deep: a more intimate analysis.
9. showing a close union or combination of particles or elements: an intimate mixture.
10. inmost; deep within.
11. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the inmost or essential nature; intrinsic: the intimate structure of an organism.
12. of, pertaining to, or existing in the inmost depths of the mind: intimate beliefs.
–noun
13. an intimate friend or associate, esp. a confidant.

I used a thesaurus, and none of the synonyms seemed adequate. I’ll try if the work causes you distraction though…

Obviously, we disagree. To my mind, God’s love is first known by understanding His purpose for creating man and the known universe. That purpose as depicted in Genesis is to have a “affectionate, cherished, close, devoted, faithful, loving, near, warm” relationship with us. Only then does our SIN have context. Disobeying and declaring war against a harsh and uncaring creator is in some ways understandable. Declaring war against a God who wanted nothing more than to be worshiped as He poured out love onto us is inexcusable. The Gospel must start with an understanding of who GOD is, including his LOVE for man (and what Godly love means). It should then follow with an understanding of how MAN chose to reject God by choosing SIN. The choice of God to send CHRIST is then obvious, and is the need for man to REPENT. The Gospel is then:
GOD=>LOVE=>MAN=>SIN=>CHRIST=>REPENT

I think we do disagree, and have likely reached an impasse. However, I don’t think your view is incompatible with mine, especially in principle - I just find it to be sort of unnecessary - like trailers before a movie or something. I also maintain that in your “first defining what Godly love means” idea, you will have to mention sin and rebellion - which just restates my view, only with your language. I think if you take a moment to consider how you would first explain God’s love to someone (without the erroneous generalities of “wonderful plan for your life” etc… you will see what I mean.

But I don’t mind starting out with a discussion of God’s nature, but his nature (loving, gracious, just, righteous, etc..) is only qualified by the intracity of the main message. Basically an executive summary before diving into the meat.