Last year about this time, my then pastor asked me to teach a course on personal evangelism. Given the time frame and my creative bent, I put together my own course sessions, hoping to give a sufficient overview of the practice of personal evangelism -- at least for the context in which I was ministering. Of course, my end result was nowhere even close to worthy of publication, but I was, nevertheless, well received and happy with the end result.
After the course, my pastor (himself in a different course) asked my if I could summarize what I had taught in one page. I came across the one page summary this week as I was thinking about my own need to lead my present church by teaching and example in personal evangelism. The following is the "bullet point" summary of the course I taught. Not all the points apply in every situation, but I found it a good reminder for my own practice of personal evangelism. Perhaps you may find it helpful as well:
How to be a Witness for Jesus Christ
1. Have a vital, personal relationship with Jesus Christ – Matt 5:13-15.
2. Begin to see with “spiritual eyes” – John 4:35; 2 Cor 5:16.
3. Identify persons who need Christ within your circles of influence: immediate family, relatives, close friends, neighbors/co-workers, acquaintances.
4. Ask God to show you 7-10 people on whom you will focus your prayers and evangelistic efforts for the next 6 months.
5. Pray . . .
• for those who need Christ – 2 Tim 2:1-4.
• for opportunity – 1 Cor 16:9; 2 Cor 2:12; Col 4:3.
• for clarity in our witness – Col 4:4-6.
• for boldness – Eph 6:19-20.
• for fellow believers – 2 Cor 1:11; Col 4:3; 2 Thes 3:1.
• for more workers – Matt 9:38; Luke 10:2.
6. Invest in others – build relationships with un-churched people.
7. Remove any human barriers to the gospel – language, cultural, intellectual, personal offense, etc. Leave only the barrier of the gospel itself. – 1 Cor 1:20-25; 2:1-5; 9:19-23
8. Invite others to church, Sunday school, church event, or outing with other Christians -- John 1:40-42; 45-46; 4:29.
9. Include the Lord in your conversation – Col 4:5-6.
10. Ask good questions – Luke 10:25-28; Matt 22:41-46; Mark 8:27-30.
11. Share personal testimonies of what God has done/is doing in your life – Mark 5:19; Isa 12:4.
12. Share your salvation testimony – How you become a Christian – Acts 22:1-21; 26:4-29; Psalm 66:16.
13. Share a gospel tract (best to read with them and explain as you go) or follow the “Romans Road” (i.e., Rom 1:16; 2:4; 3:23; 5:8; 6:23; 10:9-10, 13).
14. Use the Scripture – 1 Cor 15: 3-4; Isa 55:11; Luke 24:45-46.
15. Ask for a response. – Mk 1:15; Acts 2:38; 20:21
16. Trust that God will be faithful in drawing people to Himself and grow His church. – John 6:37; 12:32; Acts 2:47; 1 Cor 3:6
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
One more post on Baptism and the IMB (posted primarily so I don't hijack my brother's blog comment stream).
On the issue of Baptism and eternal security, I submit once again that a baptism should not be disqualified because of a lack of belief in the doctrine of eternal security (or because of what they believe about Baptism of the Holy Spirit, or any number of other doctrines). Thomas White, in a White Paper for the Center for Theological Research at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary made the following summary statement on the validity of baptism: “The determining factor is the ordinance itself. Was the ordinance performed with the proper subject, in the proper mode, and with the proper meaning by a true church? If so, then it is valid” (White 2006, 10). In most cases, for a person baptized by immersion in an Arminian church, the answer to all four questions is “YES.”
A person who disagrees with my statement can show me all kinds of beliefs from the AG or any other Arminian denomination that are in error and I would agree with them. I am a Baptist, afterall, because I believe Baptist doctrine. The fact that other doctrines are in error still does not change the fact that their view of water baptism is identical to ours. When I was baptized, I could have readily affirmed the BFM statement on Baptism, as could almost any Arminian who practices believer's baptism. Yet, some want to argue that one's entire doctrine must be correct for baptism to be valid. If you believe that, then it's time for YOU to be re-baptized :)
If baptism is a picture of salvation, then only two doctrines must be correct for their baptism to be valid: (1) They must have a correct view of salvation. Few would suggest that Arminians teach a false gospel (for those who do, I have addressed that issue here). (2) They must have a proper view of baptism. (Note to Baptist Theologue, I have already demonstrated that such is the case, but you seem unwilling to accept their stated view.) Let me be clear. My view on Baptism is no different now than it was when I wrongly denied eternal security. I will not submit to rebaptism nor require anyone else to do so merely because some other pastor, denominational leader, or trustee claims I or my former church did not believe what we in fact DO believe.
Further, while I do not expect all Baptists to agree with me on this, although they should because it is the biblical position :), I DO expect the Convention to support my right and my church’s right to differ on this view and to send missionaries through the mission board that we fund. If the belief that a denial of eternal security negates baptism is one that is important enough to disallow missionary service, it is important enough to put in the BFM, and important enough to disassociate my church.
Some have related the IMB trustees’ response to the differing views on baptism to its response to differing views of divorce. Namely, that the IMB does not allow divorcees to serve as full time missionaries. I do not know enough about the history or rationale of the divorce policy or any possible actions at the Convention level related to it to offer informed commentary on it at this point. However, I could envision a scenerio in which divorced persons are denied service on the pragmatic grounds much like they deny service of persons with high a Body Mass Index or certain medical concerns. If the trustees have based that decision on doctrinal grounds, however, and if the Convention has not spoken to the issue elsewhere, then I suppose I would add the divorce policy to the list of IMB personnel policies that should be reversed. Indeed, the Convention acknowledges there is no consensus on the issue. They also list a number of other doctrinal issues on which Baptists have not taken a stand. I do not think it is proper for the mission board trustees to make policy decisions on any of such issues, regardless of any perceived consensus among Southern Baptists. Doctrinal issues must be decided at the Convention level, not by trustees.
Back to the BFM… I think it is certainly demonstrable, that the BFM has intentionally left out certain tertiary doctrines (on tertiary doctrines see Mohler, “Theological Triage”). The BFM statement on election, for example, is intentionally worded to allow for varying opinions including Calvinism. The statement on end times is intentionally worded to allow for various views on the millennium and tribulation, etc. While Baptist polity allows for the IMB trustees to set their own policies, one should not support the Trustees if they were to set a personnel policy that disallowed Calvinists or Dispensationalists or people who preached from the NIV from serving with the Board?
Blessings,
Todd
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Upholding the Right of the Minorty View -- The Impact of the Lifeway Study on the IMB Policies
Well, the folks at SBCToday have already started using the new Lifeway study to support the IMB baptism policy. I have posted a response on their blog and am re-posting my thoughts on my own blog as well. In response to Tim Rogers, and anyone else who supports the IMB policy, I would argue three things here in response to the Lifeway study as it relates to the IMB policy:
One, I would argue that the 74% figure (i.e. those who would re-baptize someone previously baptized in a church that did not affirm eternal security) shows that the majority of Baptist pastors have an insufficient view of baptism or a misinformed understanding of Arminian theology or both (see my previous posts on this). On what basis, other than Baptist tradition, do we require rebaptism? If baptism means what we say that it means in the Baptist Faith and Message, then there is no grounds to rebaptize a born-again believer who has been immersed after conversion to Christ.
Two, 26% is a significant enough minority to demonstrate that the IMB personnel guidelines are a excessive. The guidelines go well beyond the BFM2000. Our statement of faith allows for this minority view. To restrict missionary service in this way goes against the practice of 1/4 of our SBC churches. That is no small minority. Thus, the personnel policy concerning baptism should be reversed.
Finally, the fact that a majority hold a particular doctrinal opinion, does not mean that those who hold that position wish to restrict missionary service to only those who agree with them. Lifeway studies have shown that 90% of SBC pastors are not Calvinist and 63% are “concerned” with the rise of Calvinism in the Convention. If one reasons that the Baptism policy is appropriate because it reflects the majority opinion, the IMB should hurry up and add Calvinists to the list of faithful Southern Baptists who cannot serve on the mission field.
Contrary to the folks at SBC Today, the new Lifeway study shows not that the IMB policy should be upheld, but rather that it should be reversed.
Blessings,
Todd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
