To the Streets!

[JM]

A friend and went for a walk around the mall tonight to invite people to Church and talk with them a little about the Gospel. We figured 2 out of 10 blew us off but 8 out of 10 were willing to hear us out. Those are odds I can live with.

I handed a group of teens a tract from Ray Comfort's site, the one you tell them to try and tare it up...anyways, a young lady about 80# and 15 years old ripped it with no problem. We had a good laugh and it broke the ice really well, we invited them out to Church, and they seemed interested.

Anyone else stop people to invite them to Church?

 

[burtsweep]

A friend and went for a walk around the mall tonight to invite people to Church and talk with them a little about the Gospel. We figured 2 out of 10 blew us off but 8 out of 10 were willing to hear us out. Those are odds I can live with.

Hi. Just some food for thought (not trying to criticize or come down on you too hard): Even if everyone blows us off, we should still consider ourselves successful because God has been glorified by the message of Christ going out to the lost. From a human standpoint, some failure is experienced when a person rejects the gospel; but from the divine perspective, God has been glorified, and that means success.

I handed a group of teens a tract from Ray Comfort's site, the one you tell them to try and tare it up...anyways, a young lady about 80# and 15 years old ripped it with no problem. We had a good laugh and it broke the ice really well, we invited them out to Church, and they seemed interested.

Anyone else stop people to invite them to Church?

Generally, no. What I would rather do is try to present them with the gospel in some way. We need to go to where people are (which you seem to be doing) and not expect the lost to come to us.

Anyway, I'm glad that you have a heart for this kind of work.

 

[JM]

burtsweep, I'm with you on this one.

I wasn't clear, my fault. When I'm on the street I ask people questions like, "hey, did you get one of these [handing them tract from my Church], it has the times of our Sunday services? We have [fill in the blank] going on this weekend and we'd love to have you come out. [wihtout giving them time] Are you a Christian?" After we get talking THEN we present the Gospel. I know I was unclear in my op, but you are also unclear as to how you present the Gospel. I have a hard time thinking you're walking up to people asking, "did you know Jesus Christ died for your sins?" without any intro.

peace.

 

[Preacher Boy]

Yup, a small group of us go out to different events in town , all of us wear red "Jesus Saves" T-shirts, and give out the gospel. We just went to a car show few weeks ago , fireworks display tonight, and intalian festival next week, 200lap stock car race coming up in oct.


Its scary to confront people with some thing they will more than likely reject, but God commanded us to plant the seed not try and get increase, thats His part.

I am glad you are public with your testimony of Christ!!

Bobby B
http://www.inthestreets.org

2Ti 1:8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
:o

 

[Skipdawg]

It can be fun planting the seed this way and at times scary for some too. many ways to spread the gospel.

On the street corner, in the mall, door to door and even visiting places like the hospital if allowed.

We are to go teach and preach. And as we see here with the forum the web is another venue to do this.

God bless all Gods children may we find ways to bring as many as we can home.

 

[JM]

Hey folks, I'm happy to hear a few of us are doing the Lord's work. I do have a few concerns to share if you guys don't mind? It seems the modern message often shared is taken lighten and false confessions are made. It doesn't matter who knows Jesus [Lord, Lord...I never knew you], but does Jesus know them. It seems many people I stop and talk with believe in Jesus, know the lingo and think they're saved...yet, they live like the world. This bothers me. What steps do you take to follow up?

 

[Preacher Boy]

Hey folks, I'm happy to hear a few of us are doing the Lord's work. I do have a few concerns to share if you guys don't mind? It seems the modern message often shared is taken lighten and false confessions are made. It doesn't matter who knows Jesus [Lord, Lord...I never knew you], but does Jesus know them. It seems many people I stop and talk with believe in Jesus, know the lingo and think they're saved...yet, they live like the world. This bothers me. What steps do you take to follow up?

I never give out this 1,2,3 repeat after me gospel, i hate that. But i also don't make it to hard. They just need to see themselves as God does, repent of their sinful life and trust Christ as saviour. Then of course follow up and try to get them rooted in the fundamentals!

 

[Mathetes]

burtsweep, I'm with you on this one.

I wasn't clear, my fault. When I'm on the street I ask people questions like, "hey, did you get one of these [handing them tract from my Church], it has the times of our Sunday services? We have [fill in the blank] going on this weekend and we'd love to have you come out. [wihtout giving them time] Are you a Christian?" After we get talking THEN we present the Gospel. I know I was unclear in my op, but you are also unclear as to how you present the Gospel. I have a hard time thinking you're walking up to people asking, "did you know Jesus Christ died for your sins?" without any intro.

peace.

You're right; I don't start off by asking people if they know Jesus Christ died for their sins. I generally use the approach promoted by Ray Comfort in his "Way of the Master" ministry. If you're not familiar with it, it stresses the importance of beginning an evangelistic encounter by showing to people that they have failed to keep the 10 commandments. This leads into talking about what Jesus did, of course.

 

[JustifiedByFaith]

A friend and went for a walk around the mall tonight to invite people to Church and talk with them a little about the Gospel. We figured 2 out of 10 blew us off but 8 out of 10 were willing to hear us out. Those are odds I can live with.

I handed a group of teens a tract from Ray Comfort's site, the one you tell them to try and tare it up...anyways, a young lady about 80# and 15 years old ripped it with no problem. We had a good laugh and it broke the ice really well, we invited them out to Church, and they seemed interested.

Anyone else stop people to invite them to Church?

Dear JM,

I found that just starting general conversations with strangers as Jesus did with the Samaritan woman at the well to be most beneficial. Gentle, yet interested conversation with people that gradually leads into the gospel is in my opinion, "a most effective" ministry. The "Hand out track and go..." method to me is "un-personal".

 

[Mathetes]

Dear JM,

I found that just starting general conversations with strangers as Jesus did with the Samaritan woman at the well to be most beneficial. Gentle, yet interested conversation with people that gradually leads into the gospel is in my opinion, "a most effective" ministry. The "Hand out track and go..." method to me is "un-personal".

I have some questions for you...

1) When does the Bible indicate that being "personal" should be the chief factor when determining how to evangelize? I ask this because your concern with being "un-personal" seems to be of first importance for you.

2) How many people have you been able to share the gospel with in, say, the past month using the "personal, conversational approach with strangers" approach you advocate?

Don't get me wrong -- if you are trying to share the whole gospel with strangers by starting conversations, there's nothing wrong with that; in fact, I applaud your desire to take the initiative in reaching the lost. But what I am getting at is what specific criteria we should use in determining how to evangelize and how not to evangelize. Your criterion seems to be how "personal" the approach is, but I'm wondering how biblical that approach is. It certainly resonates with our culture, but is it biblical?

 

[JM]

Dear JM,

I found that just starting general conversations with strangers as Jesus did with the Samaritan woman at the well to be most beneficial. Gentle, yet interested conversation with people that gradually leads into the gospel is in my opinion, "a most effective" ministry. The "Hand out track and go..." method to me is "un-personal".

I have some questions for you...

1) When does the Bible indicate that being "personal" should be the chief factor when determining how to evangelize? I ask this because your concern with being "un-personal" seems to be of first importance for you.

Sorry for taking so long to respond, I haven't been in here in a while. It doesn't need to be a "chief factor" but there's a human factor involved, and that's just one aspect of sharing the Gospel. How many times have you been slipped a coupon or whatever while on the street and how many times have you sat down to read it?

2) How many people have you been able to share the gospel with in, say, the past month using the "personal, conversational approach with strangers" approach you advocate?

As you know it's not about numbers...but I speak with people about the Gospel daily...every day...I work at a library "where people and ideas meet." [it's our slogan]

Don't get me wrong -- if you are trying to share the whole gospel with strangers by starting conversations, there's nothing wrong with that; in fact, I applaud your desire to take the initiative in reaching the lost. But what I am getting at is what specific criteria we should use in determining how to evangelize and how not to evangelize. Your criterion seems to be how "personal" the approach is, but I'm wondering how biblical that approach is. It certainly resonates with our culture, but is it biblical?

I don't believe I set a criteria.

jm

 

[Mathetes]

Dear JM,

I found that just starting general conversations with strangers as Jesus did with the Samaritan woman at the well to be most beneficial. Gentle, yet interested conversation with people that gradually leads into the gospel is in my opinion, "a most effective" ministry. The "Hand out track and go..." method to me is "un-personal".

I have some questions for you...

1) When does the Bible indicate that being "personal" should be the chief factor when determining how to evangelize? I ask this because your concern with being "un-personal" seems to be of first importance for you.

Sorry for taking so long to respond, I haven't been in here in a while. It doesn't need to be a "chief factor" but there's a human factor involved, and that's just one aspect of sharing the Gospel.

Okay, at least we've cleared that up.

How many times have you been slipped a coupon or whatever while on the street and how many times have you sat down to read it?

Quite a few times, actually. I wouldn't say that I've always sat down to read it, but I have checked it out to see what it was about. In any case, this question of yours is an invalid one, IMO, because it seems to be based on the assumption that the results of the method determine its usefulness. IOW, if something works, use it; however, if it doesn't produce results, don't use it. Your reasoning seems to be, "If most of the time people don't read a tract, then we shouldn't use that method." But as I see it this reasoning is faulty because God doesn't deal with man based on how people may or may not respond; God deals with man based on what they need the most, not based on how they will respond to Him. And man's greatest need is redemption, divine forgiveness.

2) How many people have you been able to share the gospel with in, say, the past month using the "personal, conversational approach with strangers" approach you advocate?

As you know it's not about numbers...but I speak with people about the Gospel daily...every day...I work at a library "where people and ideas meet." [it's our slogan]

Yes, it's not about numbers when it comes to visible results. IOW, we shouldn't be preoccupied with the number of people that walk down an aisle after a gospel presentation, for such visible results do not necessarily indicate any real spiritual conversion. However, numbers are a valid consideration when it comes to the type of outreach we use. As I see it, there are two reasons for this:

1) The Great Commission tells us to go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone. It follows from this that we should strive to reach as many people as possible with the gospel message.

2) The gospel is a message of urgency, and as such it should be taken to as many people as possible.

If I may use an analogy: Imagine a city with a population of ten million that is about to be infested with a deadly plague. Certain death is coming to those ten million people; it is only a question of time. However, this terrible fate won't happen to them if they are warned in advance to evacuate. Since this is such an urgent matter, the powers that be would do everything they can to make sure that everyone in the city gets the warning message, and this would entail using the most effective means possible to get the warning message to as many as possible -- perhaps radio, perhaps television, probably both, plus other methods. In other words, in a life-or-death situation like this, numbers are most definitely a factor. Everyone in the city must be warned, and they must be warned in a timely manner, for time is of the essence due to the certain death headed their way.

Now, imagine someone involved in the warning process suggesting that numbers were not an issue. Imagine such a person suggesting that all that needed to be done was to simply tell people in the city to spread the warning to those they work with. "Yes, there is certain death headed this way in a short time," this person admits, "but this is not about numbers. So let's not worry about how many people we warn."

Salvation is as much of a life or death issue as my fictitious analogy of the city about to be assailed with a deadly plague. In fact, salvation is infinitely more serious than the plague-threatened city because it is for eternity. This is why I take issue with your statement that “it's not about numbers†when it comes to the method used to communicate the salvation message. The stakes are simply too high not to be concerned about how many people hear the message.

Don't get me wrong -- if you are trying to share the whole gospel with strangers by starting conversations, there's nothing wrong with that; in fact, I applaud your desire to take the initiative in reaching the lost. But what I am getting at is what specific criteria we should use in determining how to evangelize and how not to evangelize. Your criterion seems to be how "personal" the approach is, but I'm wondering how biblical that approach is. It certainly resonates with our culture, but is it biblical?

I don't believe I set a criteria.

jm[/quote]

No, but the Bible certainly does when it says:

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. - 1 Cor. 1:21 (ESV)

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. - Romans 1:16 (ESV)

 

[JM]

The stakes are simply too high not to be concerned about how many people hear the message.

Who's "hearing the Gospel" with a hand out and how do you know they took the time to read it? You don't. I agree we need to preach to everyone and it's the most important message anyone can "hear" but when I stop 10 people to talk, I know they at least knew what I was sharing with them. If I hand out a tract, all I know is I gave them a tract...they may never open it...and the message we both agree is urgent was not presented.

Not saying we shouldn't give out tracts [I do after while we talk], what I am saying is we should care enough to talk about the Gospel with people. As far as you know, the tract was tossed and the person you gave it to doesn't think on it after you handed to them because you didn't take the time to talk to them.

This is why I take issue with your statement that “it's not about numbers†when it comes to the method used to communicate the salvation message.

You're really making a something out of nothing, you should be taking issue with someone that doesn't share the good news, not with someone who does.



j :-?

 

[Mathetes]

The stakes are simply too high not to be concerned about how many people hear the message.

Who's "hearing the Gospel" with a hand out and how do you know they took the time to read it? You don't.

You're right, I don't. But I can't make anyone read the tract, any more than you can make them listen to you or understand you even if they do listen to you. We have no control over the responses of others, so your question is really not an issue at all.

I agree we need to preach to everyone and it's the most important message anyone can "hear" but when I stop 10 people to talk, I know they at least knew what I was sharing with them. If I hand out a tract, all I know is I gave them a tract...they may never open it...and the message we both agree is urgent was not presented.

Now don't misunderstand me...I try as much as possible, when I hand out tracts, to engage others in conversation. But when you're out on the street, you're simply not going to get to talk to everyone. Does that mean I should not attempt to give them the gospel in print? Absolutely not! That kind of logic just doesn't make any sense. It's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You mentioned above that I don't know if people take the time to read the tract. But I could easily say the same thing in the negative, i.e., I don't know that they have not read the tract. But either way, it's the wrong question to ask because my lack of knowledge of whether a person will respond or not cannot determine the method I use. You might as well say that the people in my analogy should not canvas the city with thousands of leaflets warning of the coming plague because some might toss the paper in the trash and disregard it.

Not saying we shouldn't give out tracts [I do after while we talk], what I am saying is we should care enough to talk about the Gospel with people.

Again, I do try to engage others in conversation. Nevertheless, if I may be so bold, I do notice a flaw in your thinking here. You assume that just handing out a tract without talking to people means one does not "care enough." I would counter by saying that standing on a street corner in my own free time passing out tracts I have bought with my own money (or written and printed with my time and ability) to complete strangers is itself one of the surest proofs that I "care enough."

As far as you know, the tract was tossed and the person you gave it to doesn't think on it after you handed to them because you didn't take the time to talk to them.

As far as I know, the tract was not tossed! And even if I got to talk to them, that is no guarantee that that person will "think on it." Our guidelines must come from Scripture. And Scripture teaches that it is the Holy Spirit who opens the heart, regardless of whether the gospel is presented orally or in writing. You see, you're really raising an objection that is pointless. You think that somehow engaging the person in conversation is a surer way to get the person to think about the gospel, but in reality that is not necessarily the case. Some may get saved in that way, but others (such as I) get saved by reading material by ourselves. However, we don't know how God is going to work in someone else's heart -- whether through conversation with a Christian or through reading a tract -- so we should use both ways.

This is why I take issue with your statement that “it's not about numbers†when it comes to the method used to communicate the salvation message.

You're really making a something out of nothing, you should be taking issue with someone that doesn't share the good news, not with someone who does.[/quote]

I noticed you did not respond to the rest of my post. I would be very interested in hearing your response to the other points I made, my analogy being one of them. As Christians it is our solemn responsibility to warn as many people as we can to flee from the wrath to come, to present Christ to them. It stands to reason, then, that we need to accomplish this in the surest way possible. Hitting the streets with the gospel message -- both printed and oral -- is a way of working toward accomplishing that objective. Restricting my gospel presentation only to those with whom I get to talk face to face, however, is not.

 

[JM]

Now don't misunderstand me...I try as much as possible, when I hand out tracts, to engage others in conversation. But when you're out on the street, you're simply not going to get to talk to everyone. Does that mean I should not attempt to give them the gospel in print? Absolutely not! That kind of logic just doesn't make any sense. It's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You mentioned above that I don't know if people take the time to read the tract. But I could easily say the same thing in the negative, i.e., I don't know that they have not read the tract.

You're working on the assumption of a positive, you haven't proven it, it's just your assumption....besdies, no one is arguing except you.

But either way, it's the wrong question to ask because my lack of knowledge of whether a person will respond or not cannot determine the method I use. You might as well say that the people in my analogy should not canvas the city with thousands of leaflets warning of the coming plague because some might toss the paper in the trash and disregard it.

Please re-read thread.

Again, I do try to engage others in conversation. Nevertheless, if I may be so bold, I do notice a flaw in your thinking here. You assume that just handing out a tract without talking to people means one does not "care enough."

Please re-read thread.

I would counter by saying that standing on a street corner in my own free time passing out tracts I have bought with my own money (or written and printed with my time and ability) to complete strangers is itself one of the surest proofs that I "care enough."

The flaw is in what you believe others perceive, please re-read thread.

As far as I know, the tract was not tossed! And even if I got to talk to them, that is no guarantee that that person will "think on it."

You're getting out of hand with this topic, your zeal is robbing you of the point you're trying to make...which no one is disagreeing with.

Our guidelines must come from Scripture. And Scripture teaches that it is the Holy Spirit who opens the heart, regardless of whether the gospel is presented orally or in writing.

If you mean this in a literal sense, you have no example of handing out tracts from Scripture. : But no one is suggesting that we NOT hand out tracks.

You see, you're really raising an objection that is pointless. You think that somehow engaging the person in conversation is a surer way to get the person to think about the gospel, but in reality that is not necessarily the case.

That's not the case at all. I'm only the means, God convicts the sinner and it doesn't matter what form the Gospel is preached, the work is God's not mine.

Some may get saved in that way, but others (such as I) get saved by reading material by ourselves. However, we don't know how God is going to work in someone else's heart -- whether through conversation with a Christian or through reading a tract -- so we should use both ways.

Agreed, in fact I never disagreed.

I noticed you did not respond to the rest of my post. I would be very interested in hearing your response to the other points I made, my analogy being one of them.

I really don't feel the need to respond to the rest of you post, and for you analogy, I've heard it many many times before. [see Amazing Grace DVD]

As Christians it is our solemn responsibility to warn as many people as we can to flee from the wrath to come, to present Christ to them.

Agreed, so take issue with someone who isn't doing what God commands.

It stands to reason, then, that we need to accomplish this in the surest way possible.

Which is why convo with someone, building a relationship so you can further disciple them is important. [see Matt. 13]

Hitting the streets with the gospel message -- both printed and oral -- is a way of working toward accomplishing that objective.

Never disagreed, that's the problem. :-?

Restricting my gospel presentation only to those with whom I get to talk face to face, however, is not.

Mathetes, please go back and re-read the thread, no one wrote to restrict Gospel sharing to a face to face talk, what one did write [and I agree] is quoted below.

Dear JM,

I found that just starting general conversations with strangers as Jesus did with the Samaritan woman at the well to be most beneficial. Gentle, yet interested conversation with people that gradually leads into the gospel is in my opinion, "a most effective" ministry. The "Hand out track and go..." method to me is "un-personal".

Yes JustifiedByFaith, I agreed with you.

:microwave:

 

[Mathetes]

Now don't misunderstand me...I try as much as possible, when I hand out tracts, to engage others in conversation. But when you're out on the street, you're simply not going to get to talk to everyone. Does that mean I should not attempt to give them the gospel in print? Absolutely not! That kind of logic just doesn't make any sense. It's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You mentioned above that I don't know if people take the time to read the tract. But I could easily say the same thing in the negative, i.e., I don't know that they have not read the tract.

You're working on the assumption of a positive, you haven't proven it, it's just your assumption....besdies, no one is arguing except you.

I'm not really working on any assumption; I'm merely responding to your reasoning, which I have reasonably shown to be wrong. You objected to the method of handing out tracts without conversation when you wrote:

"Who's "hearing the Gospel" with a hand out and how do you know they took the time to read it? You don't. I agree we need to preach to everyone and it's the most important message anyone can "hear" but when I stop 10 people to talk, I know they at least knew what I was sharing with them. If I hand out a tract, all I know is I gave them a tract...they may never open it...and the message we both agree is urgent was not presented."

I responded to this by saying that it would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to avoid handing out tracts just because I can't talk to someone. It's like saying, "If I can't have a conversation with someone about the gospel, I'm not going to give them anything, not even a printed presentation of the message." Anyone can see that such reasoning is faulty.

But either way, it's the wrong question to ask because my lack of knowledge of whether a person will respond or not cannot determine the method I use. You might as well say that the people in my analogy should not canvas the city with thousands of leaflets warning of the coming plague because some might toss the paper in the trash and disregard it.

Please re-read thread.

No need to; I understood where you were coming from, and I made a reasonable response. Now it's up to you to respond to that response.

Again, I do try to engage others in conversation. Nevertheless, if I may be so bold, I do notice a flaw in your thinking here. You assume that just handing out a tract without talking to people means one does not "care enough."

Please re-read thread.

Please respond to my points. :D

I would counter by saying that standing on a street corner in my own free time passing out tracts I have bought with my own money (or written and printed with my time and ability) to complete strangers is itself one of the surest proofs that I "care enough."

The flaw is in what you believe others perceive, please re-read thread.

I don't believe they perceive anything; in fact, it was you who brought up the whole issue of how people might respond to the gospel. Please respond to my points with actual arguments, not brief, unclear statements and exhortations to "re-read thread." All you're accomplishing by saying such things is showing evidence that you can't answer my points. If you can't, the honest thing to do would be simply to acknowledge that maybe I'm right and leave it at that.

As far as I know, the tract was not tossed! And even if I got to talk to them, that is no guarantee that that person will "think on it."

You're getting out of hand with this topic, your zeal is robbing you of the point you're trying to make...which no one is disagreeing with.

My friend, all I've been doing is responding to your points with reason. You may disagree with my reasoning, but if all you're going to do is try to make it look like I am "getting out of hand," we are going to get nowhere. Please either respond to my points with reasonable arguments, or don't respond at all. You'd save us both a lot of time.

Our guidelines must come from Scripture. And Scripture teaches that it is the Holy Spirit who opens the heart, regardless of whether the gospel is presented orally or in writing.

If you mean this in a literal sense, you have no example of handing out tracts from Scripture. : But no one is suggesting that we NOT hand out tracks.

1) No example of tracts in Scripture, true; but the Bible does affirm the verbal presentation of the gospel message, so handing out tracts fulfills that principle. : ;-)

2) I know you're not suggesting that we not hand out tracts. You seem to want to portray me as missing the whole point and getting away from the issue, but I'm not. You object to merely handing out tracts without engaging people in conversation; that is the objection I was addressing.

As Christians it is our solemn responsibility to warn as many people as we can to flee from the wrath to come, to present Christ to them.

Agreed, so take issue with someone who isn't doing what God commands.

Hey, bro, go back and re-read the thread -- this recent big dialogue we've been having was because you took issue with me -- it was yesterday (8/12). The post of mine that you responded to was actually addressed to JustifiedbyFaith, not you. So if you don't want me taking issue with you, you shouldn't have taken issue with me in the first place -- fair is fair.

Restricting my gospel presentation only to those with whom I get to talk face to face, however, is not.

Mathetes, please go back and re-read the thread, no one wrote to restrict Gospel sharing to a face to face talk, what one did write [and I agree] is quoted below.

JM, let me refresh your memory (again). You wrote in an earlier post:

"Who's "hearing the Gospel" with a hand out and how do you know they took the time to read it? You don't. I agree we need to preach to everyone and it's the most important message anyone can "hear" but when I stop 10 people to talk, I know they at least knew what I was sharing with them. If I hand out a tract, all I know is I gave them a tract...they may never open it...and the message we both agree is urgent was not presented."

This statement clearly shows your objection to the method of handing out a tract without engaging in conversation. If you weren't, you wouldn't have bothered to critique it. If you weren't intending to do this, you should have made yourself clearer. I'm simply responding to what you wrote.

 

[JM]

Mathetes, you win.

 

[destiny]

For anybody who cares to answer..

If someone gets saved and has a real encounter with God while you are street wittnessing, are you prepared to take that person under your wing and disciple them? It would seem that this would be a very crucial part of it.
You can't just say, 'praise God, now be on your way' because thats like sending a lamb to the slaughter.
Just wondering how that works??

 

[golfjack]

reply

Destiny, I believe Christians should always do followup work. I was saved in 1979, but because of no followup, I floundered in ignorance and carnalty, as I was brought up in the Catholic Church. At least, we can give them a call on the phone or take them to our Church. We should alwys realize that they are babies, and they need the milk of the Word.

Hope this helps you.


May God bless, golfjack

 

[destiny]

Re: reply

Destiny, I believe Christians should always do followup work. I was saved in 1979, but because of no followup, I floundered in ignorance and carnalty, as I was brought up in the Catholic Church. At least, we can give them a call on the phone or take them to our Church. We should alwys realize that they are babies, and they need the milk of the Word.

Hope this helps you.


May God bless, golfjack

Yes, jack, I was left to 'flounder' also, and as a result I spent quite a few years rebelling against 'religion'.
I was led to water but I didn't know how to drink nor was I taught how, figuratively speaking.
This happened to me in a church, so how much more can it happen on the streets?
I would think that we would really have to count the cost of the impact it will have on our own life, bearing in mind that we are to make 'disciples'.
Thats an aspect that I don't hear anything much about so I thought it would be interesting to bring it up here.