Is This Effective Evangelism???

[Steven84]

So I just got sent this short video clip on evangelism that was so encouraging and thought that I just had to share it... http://www.youtube.com/rationalresponde ... 8Mvu5wzP-U

Do any of you think that this is an effective way to evangelize? At least for the folks that want to share their faith but are too afraid to have any kind of a face to face encounter?

I was super encouraged by this clip and I want to try it out tomorrow

Let me know what you guys think

Blessings!!!!

In Christ,

Steven

 

[Tissue]

I'm not a fan of tract evangelism. I don't think it's very meaningful. Christianity cannot be boiled down to '4 spiritual laws' or 'a saving prayer'.

 

[Steven84]

Did you hear what the man said in the beginning of the video? How many missionaries have re-accounted their conversion starting with a tract that they had read.

The question really is if it does more good than harm...if any harm at all.

What kind of evangelism do you do? Do you do street witnessing instead?

 

[Tissue]

I try to live in a way such that my life itself is a witness.

At any rate, I do not have the gift of Evangelism, like some of my brothers and sisters do.

 

[Steven84]

Oh...I see...

Well, I definitely like the way that the guy does it better than the way you don't.

Evangelism is not one of the gifts of the spirit mentioned in the bible...it is a commission that we are all commanded to fulfill. We are never promised tomorrow and though leading a good example in life may be honorable it simple is too idle considering we have perishing souls all around us....

What you just said is like me saying "I don't try to share with my alcoholic friend that it is a terrible idea to continue on in the path he is taking...instead I just show him how healthy and happy I am." Its even worse because one is a finite life and in reality we are talking about souls. As you said you don't really share your faith much...yet you critique those who do and discourage anyone who may be encouraged by the post. Why do that? Ask yourself if you did more good than harm?

This is all sent to you in love,

Steven

p.s. The people that love you the most are the ones that will share the most truth with you...even when it hurts a bit to say and hear.

 

[Tissue]

Oh...I see...

Well, I definitely like the way that the guy does it better than the way you don't.

Living one's life as a witness is a perfectly valid form of evangelism. One need not shove him or herself in front of people in order to evangelize.

Evangelism is not one of the gifts of the spirit mentioned in the bible...it is a commission that we are all commanded to fulfill. We are never promised tomorrow and though leading a good example in life may be honorable it simple is too idle considering we have perishing souls all around us....

'And He gave some to be apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.' (Eph. 4:11-13; NASB, emphasis mine)

What you just said is like me saying "I don't try to share with my alcoholic friend that it is a terrible idea to continue on in the path he is taking...instead I just show him how healthy and happy I am." Its even worse because one is a finite life and in reality we are talking about souls. As you said you don't really share your faith much...yet you critique those who do and discourage anyone who may be encouraged by the post. Why do that? Ask yourself if you did more good than harm?

Actually, it's nothing like failing to tell your friend about his alcoholism. A proper analogy would be 'Failing to tell every person you see drunk that it is a terrible idea to continue on the path he/she is taking.' In living my life as a witness, my friends are the ones who primarily see the difference. Practically all of my non-Christian friends have, at one time or another, told me that they recognize something different about me. That has opened the door to a number of meaningful conversations about God. That is my evangelism. I do not have the gift of evangelizing to strangers. On the other hand, I have been called into pastoral ministry.

 

[sheshisown]

Hi fellow witnesses of Christ!

The greek word, evangelise( euaggelist?s )means to proclaim the good news and the "good news" is that Jesus died for all the sins of the world, was buried, and rose again to life on the 3rd day. Evangelism is not a non-verbal message... evangelists tell others the gospel, in hopes that they will know (and believe in) the power of God to conquer sin and death. :yes

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things! Romans 10:14-15

Actually it is true that all believers are commanded to evangelize...

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19

This command is given to those who are already the disciples of Christ, a disciple is a follower~ or learner of Christ. One who is becoming "like Jesus". Without a life which is obediant and openly "different from the world" the preached gospel may fall on doubtful hearers as well. So OF COURSE a living witnessis also necessary in most cases. However the gospel of WHAT Jesus did~ is what saves! :D

And yes, only some are specially gifted with this ability by the Spirit. An evangelist has a particular gift in telling others the good news about Jesus Christ. So you are both partly correct.

sheshisown~ :shades

 

[Steven84]

Fair enough

 

[Lance_Iguana]

I dont' really care for this brand of Evangelism.

I watched a few videos and noticed the same trends I've seen over and over again in street preachers of this sort.

They lead the conversation away from questions instead of giveing a straight answere, or they will take words or speaches out of contexts to meet their goals. Or show ignorance of the true context of the teacher and philosophers they quote.

I also noticed that this style will give allot of information with no pauses. So if there are any questions, chances are they will be missed, or get buried under the preachers continuations.

an example is in the Atheist backsliding to agnosticism video. In one breath the preacher talks aobut Aristotle, Steven Hawking, The Big Bang, What is Truth, and gave out of context eamples of Socratic argument. Now for a person with questions or observing, where would they start to ask the preacher? There is allot there, and no pause. The argument was lead and curved so either confusion or automatic acceptance happens.

Just my thoughts. ;)

 

[Steven84]

I saw that video...the preacher made a good case for God being Creator then presented the gospel (which is the most essential thing) and then he opened it up to questions again where he knocked they "how do you know there is a God question out of the park!

The preacher's argument was aiming at the second students question in regards to the stuff you brought up. He Shot at it from Science (Hawking, BBT, 2nd Law of Thermodynics) Philosophy (David Hume's Causation quote, Impossibility of Travering an infinite) and scripture...he then opened it up for the college student to respond (Which I thought was fair and well balanced) but the student said he didn't want to rebuttle the preachers remarks and then the student changed the question and the preacher engaged the question.

Are you familiar with apologetics? Because this is a very common argument and line of evidences that the preacher was going through...In fact I have heard Dr. William Lane Craig (hands down best Christian apologist debater of our time) uses the same lines of logic and science...

Where specifically do you see the preacher to be wrong? I simply saw him giving multiple lines of evidences which is exactly what the student asked for...

Here is the link that "Lance_Iguana" is talking about in case anyone else wants to check it out for themselves. http://www.youtube.com/user/rationalres ... lCiYMm_oIQ

 

[Tissue]

(To piggy back on Lance's post, most street evangelists I've listened to are terrible at putting together an argument. It sounds nice, but once you get down to what they are actually saying, there are all sorts of fallacies.)

 

[Lance_Iguana]

I want to open up this by stating that I have nothing agaisnt the word of God or about people disscusing or pressenting the word of God in public.

I saw that video...the preacher made a good case for God being Creator then presented the gospel (which is the most essential thing)

To me he didn't setup that well. He sprinkled various scripture into his coments and then attempted to find corrolation. I'm not a big fan of just taking various scripture. I prefer to read entire chapeters and talk about them in context and find the historical and cultural context that was trying to be made. Taking various or random scripture lines in the street preachers fashion, can be molded to the situation, instead of the situation being compared to scripture. Understand my point?

and then he opened it up to questions again where he knocked they "how do you know there is a God question out of the park!

Actually he didn't. His answere would make sense to those who have faith already, or those questioning their faith, but not to those who don't have faith, or have a differnt world view outside of Theism. The existance of a God, let alone The God of Abraham, is not an easy question to answere, and has been asked and never answered to even the wisest men in history. Its not a question of wheter he exists, its a question of whether you acknowledge him.

The preacher's argument was aiming at the second students question in regards to the stuff you brought up. He Shot at it from Science (Hawking, BBT, 2nd Law of Thermodynics)

He named theories and names, but didn't show how their contexts fit together. Only showed speculation that would have to be looked at more indepth. Especially since Hawkings is a Theist, but not a Christian.

Philosophy (David Hume's Causation quote, Impossibility of Travering an infinite)

The problem with using Hume though, is that his traversing an infinate, is based on the slipery slope fallacy, and not on the existance of time and space. Hume made this statement back when the scientific community still thought that the universe was static and unmoving. Way before the theory of the Big Band even had roots. So the context dosent' fit.

and scripture...he then opened it up for the college student to respond (Which I thought was fair and well balanced) but the student said he didn't want to rebuttle the preachers remarks and then the student changed the question and the preacher engaged the question.

Actually instead of thoroughly engaging the question, hs starts talking about the nature of truth and claims there is evidence, but dosen't give evidence. Only states that it is there.

Are you familiar with apologetics?

yes

Because this is a very common argument and line of evidences that the preacher was going through...In fact I have heard Dr. William Lane Craig (hands down best Christian apologist debater of our time) uses the same lines of logic and science...

What I really dont' like about apologetics, ist that instead of it bieng a search for knowledge, it turns into trying to get knowledge to fit towards a pre determined answer. So there always going to be a bias. Not saying thre is anyting wrong with that. It just makes it hard to actually debate, i ad evaluate, if everything has to center around a preconcieved answere.

Where specifically do you see the preacher to be wrong?

I'm not saying the preacher is necessarily wrong. I'm just stating that I feel he isn't doing that great of a job showing corrolation and causation. His context is also worrying me, since he seems to be throwing in allot of science, but not addressing the actual nature the science has shown. The big bang, 2nd law of thermodinamics, etc.

I simply saw him giving multiple lines of evidences which is exactly what the student asked for...

he didn't show how it all fits together, or show the evidence in its original context. Only refrenced them.

Here is the link that "Lance_Iguana" is talking about in case anyone else wants to check it out for themselves. http://www.youtube.com/user/rationalres ... lCiYMm_oIQ

I hope others watch this, and point out things I either missed, or mistranslated. :yes