Featured "Soul-Winning" what's the problem?

through faith in the truth?

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Romans 5:10


Which is truth?

 

Too often the last part of the verse is placed as the primary focus when it should be recognized as the RESULT of the first part.

One cannot offer what they do not have.

If one does not have love, joy, peace, longsuffering ... (that is no fruit to offer) can they be considered wise and a soul winner?

 

Badaboom!! :laugh:

 

Calvinists on soul-winning (I are not one ):

“Soul-winning is the chief business of the Christian minister; indeed, it should be the main pursuit of every true believer” (The Soul Winner. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1963, p. 13)

J. I. Packer actually, speaking about Paul: “His aim and object in all his handling of the gospel, even in the heat of the polemics which contrary views evoked, was never less than to win souls, by converting those whom he saw as his neighbours to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” (Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, J. I. Packer, pp. 53).

And one who is not a Calvinist, but seemed to predict some denizens of the BB:

"There are altogether too many 'smart' Christians in our churches today who are not 'wise' in the sense of Proverbs 11:30. They can name all the dispensations, tell you the distinctive features to look for in the coming Antichrist, recite in perfect chronological order the events of the end times and define correctly such theological terms as justification, sanctification, propitiation, and ecclesiology. They are even able to explain the difference between sublapsarianism, infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism but — and herein lies the rub—they have never won a single soul to Jesus Christ!" (Biblical Evangelism in Action, by Bob Sumner, p. 15.)

 

Sumner was very wrong on this statement.

Sometimes called evangelistic-ally speaking it boarders on a lie.

There are untold number of Calvinistic thinkers that are and were soul winners.

But such is the representations of those who would oppose to use any statement that will sound good and impress the ignorant.

 

Whether or not one uses the term "soul winning" has nothing to do with whether one is a Calvinist or Arminian, but everything to do with proper exegesis.

Prov. 11:30 is Hebrew poetry with synonymous parallelism. The second half, "He that winneth souls is wise," must be interpreted by the first half, "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life." In other words, a righteous person produces life in others, therefore the meaning of "winneth souls" is a righteous person producing life. The only way to do that is by leading someone to Christ (recognizing that it is God who saves, not the soul winner).

A parallel passage is Dan. 12:3, "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." How does one turn someone to righteousness? Obviously by introducing them to Christ, "winning them to Christ."

Keil and Delitzsch (best ever on the OT): "The meaning of the proverb is, that the fruit of the righteous, i.e., his external influence, itself is a tree of life, namely for others, since his words and actions exert a quickening, refreshing, happy influence upon them. By this means the wise (righteousness and wisdom come together according to the saying of the Chokma, Pro_1:7) becomes a winner of souls (לקח as Pro_6:25, but taken in bonam partem), or, as expressed in the N.T. (Mat_4:19), a fisher of men, for he gains them not only for himself, but also for the service of wisdom and righteousness."

 

Relax. He wasn't talking about Calvinists any more than he was talking about dispensationalists, he was talking about people educated in theology who don't win souls. There are plenty of Arminians who can explain sublapsarianism, infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism, but have never won a soul to Christ.

Please note that I quoted two prominent Calvinists in the same post (#25) who used the term "soul winning."

 

It being Hebrew poetry with synonymous parallelism, both parts of the verse are equally important, and are referring to the same thing.

 

This is true.

But, do not neglect (which is written for readers who do not know - JofJ certainly does) that one of the characteristics of this particular poetry is that both lines reinforce each other. They do not stand alone.

Something is not parallel without the reliance upon that which parallels it.

Therefore, I stated that the "result" of the first was the second.

The more one "abides" in the tree of life, the more fruit they bear, and the more soul winning will abound for they shall be wise in that of God and Godly.

The wise soul winner is one who abides in the tree of life bearing the fruit of that tree.

The soul winner is not wise because or as a result of winning souls. And winning souls should not be some gauge of whether a person is wise, Godly or not. These are not foreign characteristics among some of the IFB world who would put great stock upon soul winning and wisdom going hand in glove.

 

I'm not sure you can prove that the result of the first line is the second. I don't see it.

Sorry, the passage does not say to abide in the tree of life. It is not the same metaphor as in Rev. ("tree of life"), but as in Matt. 7 about the fruits of a false teacher: "17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

Remember the parallel passage in Daniel 12:3 I mentioned above. It is not that soul winning makes one wise, but that a wise person will seek to become a soul winner, because thereby we will shine in Heaven. How? By having brought glory to Christ, because it is He who saves.

I am reminded of that great hymn,
"Must I go, and empty-handed?
Must I meet my Savior so?
Not one soul with which to greet Him,
Must I empty-handed go?"

I agree that there is a danger in making numbers saved a sign of spirituality. That is wrong when an ind. Baptist does it or anyone else. Sometimes we glorify humans for their soul winning "ability," and that is wrong. On the other hand, how awful would it be to life a long Christian life, yet arrive in Heaven having not been a faithful witness for Christ, not ever having seen a single soul come to Christ?

In Japan, a drug addict named Togo trusted Christ in our church. After we moved to Hokkaido, his girl friend called us and told us that his ravaged heart had stopped and he had passed away quietly in the night. I asked her if Togo San had talked to her about Jesus and she said he had. There over the phone she trusted Christ as Savior--and Togo San rejoiced up in Heaven!

 

Those who have been set apart in Christ have been reconciled. The reconciliation is "through" the sacrifice (death) of God's Son Jesus. Here the salvation refers to our future salvation from God's wrath in the afterlife; nevertheless, our being set apart (positional sanctification) resulted not only in our immediate salvation but also in our eternal salvation. See verses 8 and 9. Notice verse 11, which says "we have now "received" the reconciliation provided by Christ's death. Those who have "received" the reconciliation have been set apart in Christ "through faith in the truth."

Thus, there is no conflict, for scripture cannot be broken.

 

I was contemplating more on John 15 and James 3:17+.

I don't want to make too much of the parallelism view, because it isn't within me at this time to explain my thinking very well.

Let me try this to see if you perceive the nuance I am attempting to explain.

The second line does not exist without the first (for all true wisdom comes from above); therefore, the parallelism rests (imo) upon the first resulting in the second. Godly wisdom certainly is not human generated, nor is soul wining a gauge of how wise one has become; rather, wisdom comes from the first line manifested by the second. Therefore, though parallel (in the sense of similar cadence and theme, the two cannot exist independent, and the first is run then the second as parallel to the first. Not the other way around.

I have found that in most cases the dual poetry is written in such a way that it is as a set of old time telephone poles. The first line is strung, and then the second. The first can abide as a principle by itself, however the second not only balances the pole, but sharpens the point or focus of the first, reinforcing the first, at times supporting, or restating the first, and never properly applied without the first. Imo, many of the couplet poetry in proverbs follows this thinking.


That is why (imo) leaving off the first part of the proverb causes some to be off balance and I have seen all manner of excuse for sinful excess (cursing in the pulpit, questionable morals, embezzlement...) because salesmanship type technique bolsters soul winning as a tool to judge how right with God one esteems another - which thinking is discredited by the first line of the proverb.

Perhaps I am making too much of this proverb.

 

The fruit of righteousness is a tree of life, and he who is wise wins souls.

How many people have we helped into the kingdom. This "tree of life" our spiritual children, earns rewards as we enter heaven "abundantly." This tree of life is eternal, and when tested does not burn up as hay or straw.

Thus, people who are wise win souls. Not all of us are gifted as preachers or teachers. One of the most powerful witnesses I have encountered was a man who raked the leaves around our church. He kept it looking well tended, sharp, a caring place. People laughed when he would climb up a tree to shake it, getting a head start of the leaves.
But I knew he was doing his dead level best to serve his Lord, and he made me want that strong a walk too.

 

Sorry, but John 15 is a different "fruit" metaphor. As you must be aware, the same term can be used metaphorically in more than one way: the sword can be the Word of God or a sword of God's direct judgement, for example. The James 3 metaphor is closer, but still not the same as the Proverbs one.

I'll let your nuance stand here. You do have a point, but it doesn't negate my exegesis given above, agreeing with Keil and Delitzsch's famous commentary and many other commentaries. K & D linked the proverb with Matt. 4:19, where Jesus said, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men." Virtually all other commentators will interpret it the same way. Those who say that Prov. 11:30 is not talking about personal evangelism misunderstand what the term "soul winning" means. It does not mean that one person can save another, and I've never known anyone who used the term who thought they were saving people. Only God does that.

I agree pretty much with the opposition to "salesmanship type technique." (Note, though, that Calvinist James Kennedy's soul winning manual has similar techniques in it.) If the conviction of the Holy Spirit is not present then no matter how much salesmanship one uses, no one will be saved. On the other hand, we are commanded to "give an answer to every man," which indicates persuasion. Again, Paul spoke of using persuasion (2 Cor. 5:11, Gal. 1:10).

You can't make too much of the Word of God

 

Ok, I understand what you are indicating. And the difference is good to point out.

I did and they "proof texted" Jude "save others, snatching them out of the fire" to bolster their claim. They also fortified their view by the statement given by Christ in Matt 16 and 18 in binding and loose-ing.

I agree that there is nothing wrong in using some technique. A very wise administrator was demonstrating a technique that the teachers were to try on some difficult students. However, the administrator was very quick to say that it must fit you (the teachers) and isn't something that you can merely use to resolve and fit every situation.

Of course then, I have read and heard those who would state that one isn't saved if the witness did not use the KJV.

Being ready to give an answer would (imo) imply that one is actually ready and therefore able to give an appropriate answer. This is one of the problems with those who only think that one must come to Christ in a certain per-scripted way - no other way is valid.

You and I both recognize that every day conversations should include the two spices that adorn nearly every table - salt and pepper.

May the salt of the Word pepper our speech in such a way that the Holy Spirit may use the spice of the conversation to God's glory.

 

Thank you.

I don't know what you mean here. What did you do? If you are talking about my K&D reference (arguably the greatest scholarly commentators on the OT), I don't see a reference to Jude or Matt. 16 & 18 in their commentary.

To return to the OP, in light of this post and our discussion so far, are you still saying that we should use the term "soul winning" for "personal evangelism"?

And of course that is ridiculous, condemning to Hell everyone before 1611, or anyone who can't read English.

Amen. Except I don't like pepper!

 

No, John. I was reflecting upon what I have heard and witnessed of some who actually state that "they saved" a person and used the proof texts I gave.

I think the terms could be interchangeable, however, I really like to use the term "witness." It seems to me that it reflects exactly what the believer is to be and do, and at the same time acknowledges that the "winning" is in the authority of God and not man. (Acts 1:8)

The witness is a continuum from new birth to eternity.
The witness has no limit of time or day, no special hour, but is.
Every believer is a witness and is one of the evidences (imo) of belief.
The witness is not only a fruit barring person, but one who is cultured to bear more fruit (Paul - all things to all men).
The witness presents what they have knowledge by study and experience.

But I write for others, John well knows these things in very personal ways with many experiences of the foreign missionary.

Is there a difference between "soul winner" and "evangelist?"

 

Being a witness differs semantically from being a soul winner. By that I mean that the term describes the fact we are witnesses of what we have seen or heard, as the apostles put it. In words, when I witness for Christ I tell of my own experience of salvation and my own personal love for Christ. However, I may give the Gospel without telling someone of my own personal experience, and in that sense I am not a witness all of the time, in my view.

Yes, definitely. Only one person in the NT is specifically called an evangelist, and Philip was far more than just a soul winner. Looking at his life and ministry, and adding to that the other passages about the evangelist, and we get a fuller picture.

 

Sometimes I think some folks make this way to hard. I'm not a theologian, I have never been to seminary school, I have to spell check everything I write, I keep a dictionary with me most of the time so I can look up words I don't understand, I was lucky to get out of high school, had to do an extra year and six weeks to do that. I was saved when I was in my 40's and one of the first things I realized about being a christian was, that there was more to it than sitting in a pew. I read in the bible that I was supposed to be a witness for Christ ( Acts 1:8 ) so that's what I do, some of the people I talk to I will never see again. One man an older gentleman I stopped to help change a flat, I asked him about his relationship with Christ, he said he did not have one, I explained to him the bible teaches we have to turn from our sin ( Luke 13:3 ) and turn to Jesus ( John 14:6 ) and that if we confess Jesus as Lord we will be saved (Rom.10:9&10)
When I finished chancing his tire he said he understood that he believed what I told him and he left. I will never see him again, I just did what scripture tells me, It's not that hard.

Danny