How Evangelism Was Corrupted Among Independent Baptists

voicecrying said:
Many years ago, I left an Amazon review for Hyles' book Let's Go Soul-winning. I said something like it was useful if you wanted to sell vacuum cleaners door-to-door but not for winning people to Christ. I was told to get right with God lol.
Click to expand...
you were telling the truth remember they can't handle the truth
 
Baptist Renegade said:
I'm no fan of David Cloud either and seeing that he is a rabid anti-Calvinist, I am certain his position on repentance is somewhat erroneous. He does make a good point even though he is focused upon the likes of HAC/FBCH which is one of his favorite "Whipping Boys!"

This is one of the reasons I went through everything I did on my initial response to this thread.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I went back and read your entire post. I have to admit, when I see posts of more than 5 lines, I skip.

There is a guy at the Baptist board who posts long excerpts from John Gill's Body of Divinity. I just respond TLDR: Sorry.
 
Bob Jones V said:
The article was written by David Cloud at wayoflife. I don't trust anything he writes.
Click to expand...
Nor do I. He witches and moans about everyone misrepresenting things..yet, he's misrepresenting most of the things he's writing about.
 
The assumption behind some of modern-day evangelistic techniques is that if the prospect can be cajoled into reciting the "sinner's prayer," then he is automatically saved and secure. It is considered impertinent to question whether the prospect was "really saved," even if there is no evidence of a changed life, even if the "convert" never comes to church and is never heard from again.

J.C. Ryle (1816-1900) questioned such assumptions: "Beware of supposing that a man may have the Spirit when there is no outward evidence of His presence in the soul. It is a dangerous and unscriptural delusion to think so. . . .

"The delusion is to flatter yourself you have the Spirit dwelling in your heart while there are no fruits of the Spirit to be seen in your life. I firmly believe that this delusion is ruining thousands, as surely as Antinomianism. . . .

"Once for all, I charge my readers to remember that the effects which the Spirit produces are the only trustworthy evidences of His presence. To talk of the Holy Ghost dwelling in you and yet being unseen in your life is wild work indeed. It confounds the first principles of the gospel. . . .

"Where the Spirit is, there will be fruit. He who has no fruit of the Spirit has not the Spirit. A work of the Spirit unfelt, unseen, inoperative, is a positive delusion. Where the Spirit really is, He will be felt, seen, and known." (From "Old Paths: Being Plain Statements of Some of the Weightier Matters of Christianity," 1898)

(Not intended as an endorsement of all the doctrinal positions and trustworthiness of J.C. Ryle. He was an Anglican Bishop, but on some issues, he may have had a better understanding than some Baptist preachers today)
 
illinoisguy said:
The assumption behind some of modern-day evangelistic techniques is that if the prospect can be cajoled into reciting the "sinner's prayer," then he is automatically saved and secure. It is considered impertinent to question whether the prospect was "really saved," even if there is no evidence of a changed life, even if the "convert" never comes to church and is never heard from again.
Click to expand...
That is what the "Free Grace" people at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake Indiana teach. I.e. Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie, etc. Lou Martuneac is the online proponent.
 
The 1-2-3 pray after me problem is real, but the show me sufficient evidence to prove you’re saved is on the other side of the ditch.
 
ALAYMAN said:
The 1-2-3 pray after me problem is real, but the show me sufficient evidence to prove you’re saved is on the other side of the ditch.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be on the person to "Show" sufficient evidence of anything but the evidence should be there without your trying to prove anything!

Anyone can "Turn over a new leaf" and put on an act of self-reformation and make people think you are a "new man" when you know you really are not!

There should be a "New Song" in your mouth that is evident and seen by many - especially to the believer who knows that it is truly "Not I but Christ who liveth in me!"
 
Baptist Renegade said:
It shouldn't be on the person to "Show" sufficient evidence of anything but the evidence should be there without your trying to prove anything!

Anyone can "Turn over a new leaf" and put on an act of self-reformation and make people think you are a "new man" when you know you really are not!

There should be a "New Song" in your mouth that is evident and seen by many - especially to the believer who knows that it is truly "Not I but Christ who liveth in me!"
Click to expand...
I agree with all that, but the issue that I take is with those who are self-appointed “sin-sniffers” and how they impose some kind of an arbitrary and artificial timetable upon that process. In my example, anecdotally speaking, after I was born again, it took 10 years before I was baptized and became productive/fruitful.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I agree with all that, but the issue that I take is with those who are self-appointed “sin-sniffers” and how they impose some kind of an arbitrary and artificial timetable upon that process. In my example, anecdotally speaking, after I was born again, it took 10 years before I was baptized and became productive/fruitful.
Click to expand...
The only "Sin Sniffers" the scriptures acknowledge are the elders - those who have the "rule over you" watching over your souls as one that must give account. They are the ones who should be confronting you if you get "unruly." Scriptures also give some fairly straight-forward go/no-go guidelines whereby anyone can discern whether you are for real or not. I believe the scriptural mandate to "Have no fellowship..." with certain individuals goes all the way down to the average Joe "pew pounder" who is simply minding his own business.

I am guessing that until you were actually baptized, you were not a member of your Church nor did you serve in any sort of position of leadership? How should a pastor regard someone who seems disinterested, refuses to get baptized, or have any meaningful involvement with the Church? I am certain he would be patient and kind but should he regard you as a fellow believer or should he be praying for your conversion?

The evidence of salvation of which I am speaking should be quite obvious to all. First of all, you have a desire to know God, to know the scriptures, to emulate Christ, and desire to be among and affiliate with God's people. If you are lacking in any of these areas, how would you even call yourself a "Christian?"
 
Baptist Renegade said:
The only "Sin Sniffers" the scriptures acknowledge are the elders - those who have the "rule over you" watching over your souls as one that must give account. They are the ones who should be confronting you if you get "unruly." Scriptures also give some fairly straight-forward go/no-go guidelines whereby anyone can discern whether you are for real or not. I believe the scriptural mandate to "Have no fellowship..." with certain individuals goes all the way down to the average Joe "pew pounder" who is simply minding his own business.

I am guessing that until you were actually baptized, you were not a member of your Church nor did you serve in any sort of position of leadership? How should a pastor regard someone who seems disinterested, refuses to get baptized, or have any meaningful involvement with the Church? I am certain he would be patient and kind but should he regard you as a fellow believer or should he be praying for your conversion?

The evidence of salvation of which I am speaking should be quite obvious to all. First of all, you have a desire to know God, to know the scriptures, to emulate Christ, and desire to be among and affiliate with God's people. If you are lacking in any of these areas, how would you even call yourself a "Christian?"
Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiments that a person who makes a claim to Christ(ianity) should be showing evidence of sanctification after having made such claims. My point is that oftentimes that scrutiny by "elders" (as was the manner you claimed had proper authority to do so) is practiced in a contrived way by virtue of some composed list (how much you read your Bible, how often you come to church, if you conform to some outward image of human standards of dress or hair length, etc). And the question remains, if there is a Biblical measure or evidence for us to see Christlikeness (and I agree there is, ie, Galatians 5:22), how long a time-period is a prospective convert given before they are cast out of fellowship for not living up to that list? And for the sake of rhetoric I will answer my own question by stating that if a person claims to be reborn but is living for an extended period of time in known blatant unrepentant sin (and they have been shown scriptural proof of their lack of repentance) that they should be considered an unbeliever. The key there is how the list of sins (and the lack of any other areas of Scriptural growth aside from those sinful struggles) is defined (ie, by the Bible, or by legalistic/externalistic improperly inferred/applied eisigesis).
 
ALAYMAN said:
The 1-2-3 pray after me problem is real, but the show me sufficient evidence to prove you’re saved is on the other side of the ditch.
Click to expand...
I agree. When someone comes to a church and gives testimony of conversion, the congregation should know this person at least somewhat.

If they are new to the area, elders should ask them for their history. In big cities especially, it is too easy to run from one church to another where nobody knows you and just jump in on your own testimony.

But if you are from that area, someone will know them, even a little and be able to corroborate their conversion without trying to make them provide evidence. Generally, we believe people who give a credible profession unti they are members and we can then watch them and see if it is real. ("Giving credible profession" is a term Jonathan Edwards used in Northampton as a pastor. It separated people whose parents were Christians (And hence they were baptized upon their parents profession, and just remained Church members) from people who were genuine believers.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I agree with your sentiments that a person who makes a claim to Christ(ianity) should be showing evidence of sanctification after having made such claims. My point is that oftentimes that scrutiny by "elders" (as was the manner you claimed had proper authority to do so) is practiced in a contrived way by virtue of some composed list (how much you read your Bible, how often you come to church, if you conform to some outward image of human standards of dress or hair length, etc). And the question remains, if there is a Biblical measure or evidence for us to see Christlikeness (and I agree there is, ie, Galatians 5:22), how long a time-period is a prospective convert given before they are cast out of fellowship for not living up to that list? And for the sake of rhetoric I will answer my own question by stating that if a person claims to be reborn but is living for an extended period of time in known blatant unrepentant sin (and they have been shown scriptural proof of their lack of repentance) that they should be considered an unbeliever. The key there is how the list of sins (and the lack of any other areas of Scriptural growth aside from those sinful struggles) is defined (ie, by the Bible, or by legalistic/externalistic improperly inferred/applied eisigesis).
Click to expand...
Now you have crossed over into legalism and extra-biblical staaaaaaaaandeeeeeeerds! The scriptures speak of behavior that requires someone to be disfellowshipped and regarded as an unbeliever (1 Cor 5:9-11). Hair length, drinking a Bud Light, or listening to Led Zeppelin are not such grounds for Church discipline. We sure like to go from one extreme to the other now don't we?

I listed some general guidelines which I believe to be quite biblical: a desire to know God and be like him, a love of the scriptures, and a love for God's people. That such character traits are not evident is not grounds for Church discipline in and of itself but it is reason for your Pastor/Elders to lovingly confront you and tell you they are concerned. Such deficiencies would definitely prevent you from serving in any sort of official capacity such as becoming a deacon, Etc.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
Now you have crossed over into legalism and extra-biblical staaaaaaaaandeeeeeeerds! The scriptures speak of behavior that requires someone to be disfellowshipped and regarded as an unbeliever (1 Cor 5:9-11). Hair length, drinking a Bud Light, or listening to Led Zeppelin are not such grounds for Church discipline. We sure like to go from one extreme to the other now don't we?

I listed some general guidelines which I believe to be quite biblical: a desire to know God and be like him, a love of the scriptures, and a love for God's people. That such character traits are not evident is not grounds for Church discipline in and of itself but it is reason for your Pastor/Elders to lovingly confront you and tell you they are concerned. Such deficiencies would definitely prevent you from serving in any sort of official capacity such as becoming a deacon, Etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think we're far apart. The prime example I gave was my own experience, of not getting baptized for a long time. During that 9 year stretch between salvation and baptism I wasn't attending any church at all so there was no chance that any elder/deacon/member could have had any influence or confrontation of me. So that aspect of membership and service is a moot point. I know if at the moment I began attending once again (at the IFB church I've been a member now for 23+ years) that the issue of "confrontation" was handled poorly (to be fair to your proper view of this matter you said "lovingly", which needs fleshed out a bit but is a fair and Biblical description of the process) came about in the form of "get baptized or you ain't obedient nor saved" I probably would still be a carnal Christian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top