Bow your heads and close your eyes????

Allan, re: your post #15.

As you know, I consistently complain when someone, particularly one with an opposing view, mis-characterizes my view. I asked for feedback precisely because I don't want to be guilty of what I accuse others.

I appreciate your feedback. Actually, I agree with much of your post. Let me point out one sentence that jumped out at me:

If you ask a preacher if he believes that, he'll say, of course. But some preach as if God is helpless, and must yield to man's choice in salvation. In other words, God cannot bring the increase if man won't let him. This gives rise to all sorts of "methods" to get a man to "let him."

That one line I quoted confirms to me that you are not a typical non-Calvinist.

You are in no way like the Southern Baptist evangelist who guaranteed decisions if you followed his methods.

I have said all along that I'm less concerned with the use of methods than the abuse of them. The abuse of those methods, I think, arise when the preacher or other witness thinks the work of the Holy Spirit is insufficient to get the job done.

So I'm with you, Spurgeon--and Paul. Exhort, plead, call for a response. Then wait on God for the increase.

 

I know and I anwered because you asked Secondly, this is going to relitively be long post as there are some things I wish to address and other to clarify. So forgive me the length here brother.

Now see, in the above you state that they agree but some preach 'as if'...
Brother, this is an opinion based upon a view of a style of preaching. It isn't that they believe differently just that they close differently than you think they should. You must remember that even in your view God not only will not but can not save any person until they believe. You apply the 'helpless' aspect from your perception of what anothers theology supposedly entails and not what that theology actually teaches.

Here is where you miss the boat brother in trying to sum up a theology you misunderstand. God brings the increase period. Those who will be saved, are to be saved at the appointed time. Thus we plead with men as God moves upon men. Some whom He is moving upon might not be saved then and there but uses those words and others from various things and people to bring forth repentance at the appointed time in that person. I agree we don't need to sing 26 verses of 'Just as I am' in the hopes that 1 person will move. But we do need to give the opportunity to them. I have given an altar call at various times where we only did 1 verse because in my spirit there seemed to be no pulling for anything else. I have also done altar calls which lasted nearly 20 mintues (not singing the whole time either ) where the front was full of people, on their knees seeking God from their hearts, praying with each other, people coming to know the Lord, ect.. IOW - It went on as long as God was moving upon the people to seek Him out.

True, this 'could' give rise to such but the converse is just as true. It can lead to doing nothing evangelistic because it is all God. IOW - People will get saved even if we will never preach the gospel. Both aspects are extremes and not the norm - or at least should never become such.

Brother you have started threads and been involved in them also here on the BB in which altar calls are discussed, and in those not once that I can remember (but that doesn't mean a whole lot) has anyone of the non-cals espoused any such views as you described as the 'typical non-cal view'. So I am wondering why you keep saying this is the 'typical view'. In actuallity my is view is the typical view with respect to this. As you know we as baptists on BB have many different views on various things but in this all those differing view seem to be united on this subject and agree that abuse is there but not in the main.

The last part is speculative.
However the first part seems at the least misinformative, or at most something I am misunderstanding because I don't know or can't remember any 'method' you approve of per-say. In the post from which I responded to you stated that "one's soteriology drives his witnessing and soul-winning methods", which is apparently stressing that methods are derived from a soterological bent, and that bent is refering to non-cals theology.

Now I'm not stating this is your declared position but it seems to be your position. If I'm wrong brother correct me.

And give men the 'liberty' to move in length or brevity of words as the Lord leads :thumbs:


Furthermore, I would also ask you to remember - do to that small but well remembered group of manipulators, I asked that you would come along side the majority of Non-Cals to correct the misunderstanding of what an altar call or responsive call is, and or rebuke those who might still persist in manipulating people instead of calling to them.

 

This tactic seems to be more of a disconnect from me. Depersonalized. :BangHead:

 

Allan, thanks for the feedback. Some feedback from me on your feedback to me.

I admit that I'm probably over-sensitive here. I just think that the very terminology we use in presenting the claims of the gospel should at least be consistent with what we believe. If a preacher believes that God can save someone right there in the pew, then he should not leave any impression that salvation is to be found at the front, with such a term as "come to Christ." My own pastor, who gives invitations, does not use such language.

I didn't miss the boat here, because I could have written most of this myself. I agree that we need to give an opportunity to respond. But that opportunity could just as easily be offered as "come see me right after the benediction." And when God is stirring hearts, they'll come to see you.

I said:

You said:

You're right, it shouldn't.

You said:

Sorry, I'll stick with my contention that you are not a typical non-Cal. Typical non-Cals do not go around saying, as you did in the first part of your previous post "God brings the increase period. Those who will be saved, are to be saved at the appointed time."

As a general rule, the invitation should be part of the message, not an addendum to it. If, however, one feels led to give an invitation, I hope the preacher will resist leaving the impression that one must "walk the aisle" to be saved; that "come to Christ' doesn't necessarily mean "come down here to Christ." At least use terminology consistent with Scripture.

You may think I'm citing rare or extreme examples of invitation abuse, but I'm telling you, Allen, this is typical in many, many SBC and IFB churches, particularly in the south where I grew up.

 

Prominent SBC pastor Ronnie Floyd's wife, Jeana, came forward at my home church back in 1985 to commit her life to Christ. She had grown up in church and had made a "decision for Jesus" as a small child because she felt it was expected of her. Some in our church family found it difficult to believe, but there was a definite change in her life afterward that could not be attributed to anything else.

A few months later, our youth minister, Alan Damron, and his wife, Sarah, also committed their lives to Jesus for the first time. Prior to coming to our church, the Damrons had been involved in full-time evangelism for a number of years. In a similar way, the Damrons had made "decisions for Christ" at a young age, but his Sarah did it because it was expected, and Alan Damron did it because he was hoping his father would "get saved" by following the example of his son and get his life straightened out. It didn't work.

I saw some of those situations too. I had several previous Sunday School teachers, a couple of deacons, and many church members (including most of my friends) come to faith in Christ that was manifested by a change of life that has endured for more than 20 years now.

I've thought long and hard about it, and I think the reason we previously had so many false professions in our church was because, simply put, the gospel wasn't being taught from the pulpit or in most children's Sunday School classes. Both from the pulpit and in our children's Sunday School classes, a decision for Christ was presented as a rite of passage, without any real teaching as to what it was supposed to be. I was heavily pressured as a child to "walk the aisle" before I became 12-years-old using threats ("You don't want to burn in Hell do you?") and appeals to emotion ("You love Jesus, don't you?" or "Why do you hate Jesus?"). I couldn't figure out what moving from the pew, up the aisle and shaking the pastor's hand had to do with my citizenship in heaven, so I resisted. I also resisted because I don't like being manipulated and I hated the bullying and public shaming of my Sunday School teachers. I wasn't going to give them the satisfaction of making a profession of faith while under their direct influence.

One day during the summer between seventh and eighth grade, I heard an evangelist actually preach the gospel in a clear manner. I responded to the message because the Spirit was working in me, telling me the message was true. My life was transformed.

Throughout the period where almost all my church friends made true professions of faith, I didn't feel any pressure from Ronnie Floyd or any other speaker at our church. In faith, the whole two-year period where so many in our congregation were converted was relatively unemotional. I rarely saw any manipulation or excess. Moreover, our entire church was forever changed.

Yep. It makes many people very uncomfortable. It doesn't help that there are a number of evangelists who seem to make it their business to get people to doubt their relationship to Christ instead of making the gospel message clear.

 

I'll touch on this point.. If a person is saved you can't make them doubt their salvation, only their opinion or the works they placed their faith in. If they have based their faith upon anything other than Christ (be it a prayer, walking and isle, believing in Christ but no repentenance and thus only a head knowledge, ect...

I tell evey pastor and evangelist I can, preach it true so that they MUST question their salvation so they can 'KNOW' in whom they have believed and and that they ARE persuaded.

I think preachers, evangelists and pastors alike need to preach in such a way that unless a person is truly born again and that by placing their faith in Christ and His work, that they need to be brought out of their stupor and into truth. To question their salvation as the scriptures tell us to. (examine yourselves to know whether or not you are in the faith)

 

I agree to a point. If a person is truly "saved" and an active disciple of Jesus, then any doubts an evangelist can raise will disappear very quickly. However, if someone is "saved" and they have accepted popular church opinion that being an active disciple of Jesus is optional, then they can have long-lasting grave doubts about their situation (for good reason) while still remaining in a saving relationship with Christ. They just won't have any current experiential understanding of their connection to Christ, only a memory (sometimes vague) of a decision they made a number of years before under circumstances that often involve a lot of emotion.

I'm speaking from personal experience on this point.

I agree. The point I was trying to make (and it sounds like I didn't make it strongly enough) is that the goal of the evangelist should be to introduce Spirit-led doubt (that is, conviction) regarding false professions and to inspire Spirit-provide faith for those who have made true professions, but are wavering in their spiritual life because of lack of sound teaching.

When I have preached those messages, I have tended to preach from 1 John and Hebrews regarding the ways you can know you are of the faith. However, my growing conviction is that the situation is so serious in the churches, we need to make it a regular part of our messages since many portions of the Old and New Testament make distinctions between religiousity and true faith.

 

What would be wrong with the following statements? Jesus commanded His disciples to make disciples. Those who make disciples are following Christ. Those who are not making disciples are not following Christ. Those who are not following Christ are not saved.

 

I agree completely. That is the Great Commission itself.

Yes, those who make disciples of Christ are following Christ.

Unfortunately, sometimes religious leaders make disciples for themselves, according to their unChristian prejudices, political opinions (across the political spectrum), and denomination political structures. As Jesus said, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves." (Matthew 23:15)

For the most part, I agree. However, there are many Christians these days who have been taught, explicitly or implicitly, that discipleship is optional. They are laboring under false teaching.

I can't agree here because there are many Christians who don't understand the fundamentals of following Christ beyond a profession of faith. But I will say, those who are truly saved will have a yearning for discipleship. When they receive clear teaching, they will respond affirmatively.

 

The question is when do they receive the clear teaching and when do they experience in action? I would contend that it seldom happens and that most of their examples have taken the easy route out. If the opposite were true the lukewarm would not stay long.

My point was that most Christian can easily be manipulated because they do not know their Bible.

Years ago am an told me that he could get almost everyone to come forward. When I saw what he did it was disgusting. He had an excellent message and did not need to add coercion.

 

Maybe we should adopt some of the Church of England practices where they have classes for discipleship. We may not like all they teach, but at least they are teaching something.

I don't claim perfection, but I gave each convert under my minstry a book which took the believer from conversion to glory in scripture. In a few churches I also held classes. Must be my Church of England background showing.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I would state that unless the statement is not worded very well, the person who would make such a statement grossly misunderstands salvation and needs to do a little more studying.

Secondly, who determines the standard for measuring who is a disciple and thus the salvation of the person discipling that person? Because if a disciple is one who always does what God says and never is disobedient in anything - then no one is a disciple.

With respect to 'what is wrong with the following'? ..
1) Jesus commanded his disciples to make disciples
- Nothing.

2) Those who are not making disciples are not following Christ
- Yes and No. They can still be following Christ but still in disobedience in this area. A similar example could be said in that we are command to not worry, so when you do you are not following Christ and in the context of the above, also not saved.

3) Those who are not following Christ are not saved
- Disobedience does not equal not saved, and thus this is a gross misunderstanding of salvation. This is true 'IF' this is not worded as good as it could be :thumbs:

 

This is what most every SBC Church I have ever been in has done. Some call it discipleship some calling mentoring but whatever the name it is the churches responsibility to teach the people what we, as the church, hold to and believe as well as teach them how to study for themselves that they might know from where our beliefs are derived and why.

 

Im wondering what you are thinking here? Im not saying I disagree, but when we have faith and repentance, I understand it as follows-

Repentance is not only the act of turning from sin, but turning from everything you lived for to faith in Christ. How can you not follow? If you say you have faith in Christ and you have not turned to him, or that you have turned to him and have no faith then it doesnt make sense. Not that we perfectly follow Jesus all the time, it is our general lifestyle that began at conversion as we have fled to him for mercy.

 

Context, brother context. That portion was not an island unto itself but went in tandum with the other parts as given by the other poster. The declaration of the statement was that if a person is not discipling then they are not following Christ and those who are not following Christ are not saved. This is not a true statement and thus my presumption it was most likely worded incorrectly.

Disobedience does not equate to 'not being a follower' and thus 'not being saved'. If this were so then even Paul who stated, there are things I should do but do not do them, is amoung the unsaved. And if he was unsaved then what hope have you or I??

 

That is my point about what some make about a person being eager to act like a Christian. Babies are eager to eat but the must be fed with nourishing life sustaining food. Too often in churches the feeding is little more than intellectual knowledge. When babies are born they cannot even feed themselves but too many expect young believers to grow.

My point was to show how people can be manipulated by wording and be entirely wrong. I would contend that I have met few new Christians who were not eager to grow but two years later in a church where they do not make disciples on purpose and it is much different.

Several years ago I knew a young college student who had just received Christ. She followed what the people did who led her to Christ. They were in the choir so she joined the choir. etc. She was doing what she thought Christians did until she met some college students who were making disciples.

 

Sorry I must have missed the point.. I agree that we are far from perfect obedience.

 

I posted the original point to show how words that flow logically can point to something wrong and deceive people.