It never ceases to amaze me how many different types of people from various cultures and religions I can share the gospel with in my own hometown without ever having to leave the country. Yesterday, we had the opportunity to witness and preach to Buddhists, atheists, skeptics, Muslims, Roman Catholics, and several people that professed Christ but based upon their own testimony probably didn't possess Him. The first person I spoke with was a young weight lifter with a firm handshake and a Christian background. He said he was a believer and had a good relationship with Jesus Christ. I asked him "Okay then Christian, I have a knife stuck in my back and I have two minutes to live, tell me what I must do to get to heaven." He said, "believe." I said, "I don't understand, what am I supposed to believe?" He said, "Uh, ask for forgiveness." I said, "Why do I need to be forgiven?" and he really didn't provide a sufficient answer. I then went on to ask him, "If I asked your weight lifting buddies if you lived like a Christian what do you think they would say to me?" and he responded, "They would say 'Oh yeah, he's a pretty open-minded guy that doesn't judge people.'" and I responded, "Do you think that being non-judgmental a primary characteristic of what it means to be a believer?" He said, "Uh no, but it is important." At this point I explained the Biblical gospel to him and gave him an overview of what a Christian looks like per the overall message of 1st John. I then exhorted him to read 1st John from his own Bible and ask himself if he measures up to what he reads (1 John 5:13).The second person I spoke with was a sweet, young black lady that was a relativist. In the midst of the conversation I asked her, "If ethical standards are determined by society, how do we judge between societies when they have mutually exclusive ethical standards?" She replied, "Uh, I guess we go back to our own upbringing" and I said, "But that wasn't the original standard you raised and because of that it wouldn't be relevant." I then asked her the same question again, using Nazi Germany as the classic example and she said, "That's a good point, I see where you're going with this." I then told her that unless you begin with the Bible you cannot have a non-arbitrary, transcendent basis for any standard, much less ethics and that if God's word is ditched in favor of a social contract, then there are no absolute, transcendent ethical standards by which a society can objectively determine right from wrong (Judges 21:25). I then asked her what her religious background was and she said, "Christian"; I asked her to tell me how to get to heaven and it was essentially the same postmodern pottage I received from the young man above. I then gave her the gospel, our contact information, we exchanged a warm handshake, and I was off to talk to someone else.
The third person I spoke with was a young girl that rejected Christianity because she prayed that her mother would be delivered from enslavement to alcohol and it never happened, so she left the faith. She also noted that her father-in-law held to Native American religion and that she liked some of those beliefs better than Christianity. I asked her if she thought that Christianity was merely one of many ways to get to the same God and she agreed that she did. I then asked her how that could be true given the fact that most major world religions have competing and contradictory truth claims? She asked for an example and I noted that Native American religions tend to be animistic and pantheistic and then contrasted that with the Creator-Creation distinction made with the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and asked her how those four alternatives could be true at the same time and the same sense when they have completely different truth claims regarding the nature of God, man, the world, and the afterlife. She then saw the point so I then asked her "How do you determine the difference between right and wrong?" and she basically said that she follows her heart and seeks to do what brings the greatest happiness to the most people. I then asked her that if she made moral judgments based upon what her heart tells her and my heart tells me that its okay to molest little girls for fun then how can she object? Worse, if what makes the majority happy determines what is morally acceptable then upon what basis could she condemn the practice of widow burning in ancient India? She then admitted that there was a problem with her views and I then explained to her that this problem is solved through the gospel of Jesus Christ. I explained the gospel to her and she went on her way.
The third person I spoke with was a young man raised as a Roman Catholic but was now cynical of religion, especially "the Church". I asked what he now believed about epistemology (how does one know what he knows?), metaphysics (what is reality like?) and ethics (How do I determine right and wrong?). He was all over the board in answering these questions. I then explained to him the problems with his understanding of church history, "the Church", what the true Church is, what it looks like, and how truly regenerate people behave. He then shifted gears and explained that the existence of God can neither proved nor denied and I quickly responded with what God says in Romans 1:19-21, ". . . that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." I then said, "My friend, the Bible says you know God exists and the evidence is all around you. You're standing on it, breathing it, and living in it." He admitted that this was true and I said, "I don't know what all happened to you in your religious upbringing, but I would like to know this: Do you know what the gospel is?" He admitted he was clueless. I then took the next ten minutes to explain the differences between the Biblical gospel and the false gospel of Roman Catholicism. He avoided eye contact, was always looking around at who was listening in on the conversation, his body language screamed that he was uncomfortable and wanted out of the conversation, so I wrapped things up, asked if he had any questions, and he quickly bolted after a weak handshake.
I then took the opportunity preach open air for about 15 minutes because the foot traffic was sufficient enough to do so, and we had several hundred that milled through and heard at least part of the gospel. Several young folks were standing around listening for a few minutes, but no hecklers came forward and the foot traffic died down after 15 minutes.
I then spoke to one other girl that became a Buddhist through her involvement in Asian martial arts. I have a long history in practicing various types of martial arts so this was a good stepping stone to discuss the differences between Buddhism and Biblical Christianity. I couldn't discern whether she held to Theravada or Mahayana Buddhism, but it didn't matter because she contradicted her own principles several times in her own description of what she believed. I then explained to her why I rejected Buddhism; because it didn't offer a loving personal God who could forgive my wrongdoings against Him and other men. After asking her if she knew what the gospel was, she said she didn't, and then I spoke the truth to her in love. She said she had a Bible, and I told her to begin reading in the gospel of John to read about who Jesus is. She truly was enjoyable to talk to and I hope to get the opportunity to speak with her again.
In conclusion, here are a few things to help you in your beginning evangelism/apologetical work:
1. Be able to summarize the gospel in a minute or less. This is the most important thing you can do. Be ready to explain the gospel in greater detail as needed. Some passages to read, familiarize yourself with, and do memorization work in are John 3; Romans 3-5, and Ephesians 2.
2. Study a reformed catechism and memorize the answers and Scripture proofs to the sections that pertain to the nature of God, the doctrine of salvation, the nature and sufficiency of the Scriptures, and other pertinent sections.
3. Be able to ask the following questions of people and provide the Biblical answers to people as needed: "If you could ask God one question, what would it be?", "If I have a knife stuck in my back and only have 2 minutes to live, what must I do to go to heaven?", "Do you believe in absolute truth?" "Do you believe in God?" "How do you determine the difference between right and wrong?" "Do you consider yourself to be a good person?" These kinds of questions are diagnostic and are designed to help you gather information about people so as to determine where to take the conversation next.
3. Print these out and familiarize yourself with the Biblical answers to questions and objections: God’s Answers to Man’s Excuses
God’s Answers to Man’s Questions
4. Here's more great evangelistic resources:
Lies Students Hear
Alpha and Omega
Are There No Absolutes?
Are You Bad Enough?
Are You Born Again?
Baptism or Christ?
The Bible
Born-Againism
Darwin’s Dilemma
Great Teacher or God Incarnate?
How Would You Feel?
One Way or Many?
Way of Salvation
What Then Shall I Do With Jesus?
The Worth of a Soul
What Every Woman Needs
Thanks for your work as an evangelist. It is inspiring.
ReplyDeleteOutstanding.
ReplyDeleteDusman, your work (online and offline) is appreciated. It's encouraging to hear of people who are working in fields where there are so few laborers. Your efforts probably are bearing more good fruit than you realize, by God's grace.
ReplyDeleteGod bless you richly Dusman. And your family too.
ReplyDelete"I asked him "Okay then Christian, I have a knife stuck in my back and I have two minutes to live, tell me what I must do to get to heaven." He said, "believe." I said, "I don't understand, what am I supposed to believe?"
ReplyDeleteAnd Protestants cheer this utter silliness?
Hi Dozie,
ReplyDeleteGiven the fact that this guy was a postmodern and had a dubious testimony it is not silly to ask what he means by "believe". Believe in what, in whom and why?
"Given the fact that this guy was a postmodern..."
ReplyDeleteThe silly part has nothing to do with whomever you were talking to; your approach simply presents your brand of Christianity as a dumb religion. Yours is a childish approach and I can't imagine anyone who has value for time stopping to listen to your very poorly framed questions. It is not even clear you would give a better answer if the table was turned against you. In the end, you show that Protestantism is bad for Christianity.
Dozie, and you think making a bunch of assertions without any argument whatsoever is what should be lauded about anti-protestantism? Likewise, do you think people should spend their "time" talking to someone who calls their position, "dumb?"
ReplyDeleteHey, Dusman, help Dozie out and next time report on how you called all the postmoderns &co. "dumb," so that Dozie can respect protestantism and hear the reports about the hours of time people gave you after calling them dumb.
Dozie, you didn't come of cool and hip and edgy, you came off lame.
DOZIE SAID:
ReplyDelete"The silly part has nothing to do with whomever you were talking to; your approach simply presents your brand of Christianity as a dumb religion. Yours is a childish approach and I can't imagine anyone who has value for time stopping to listen to your very poorly framed questions."
That would be more impressive if you had something resembling one good supporting argument. Instead, you resort to a slew of adjectives to mask for your lack of reasoning abilities. Thanks for exhibiting your childish, dumbed-down alternative to Protestant theology.
Actually, I wonder if Dozie could answer Dusman's questions. For some strange reason, I have my doubts....
ReplyDeleteDusman, to add to what others have said, thanks for your endless work spreading the Gospel!
Dozie's behavior in this thread is similar to his behavior in previous threads, for years. See here and here, for example. Dusman only has a small amount of time with the people he evangelizes and only a small amount of knowledge about those people. Dozie, on the other hand, behaves the way he has in this thread even when he has more time and more knowledge of his audience to work with. Maybe Dozie can point us to the work he's done, so that we can learn from his example. But the fact that he hasn't done so already, after posting here for years, tells you something about him and about his love for the Protestants he keeps criticizing in such a ridiculous manner.
ReplyDeleteLooks like Dozie just wants to call me names instead of engaging in any kind of helpful critique:
ReplyDelete"The silly part has nothing to do with whomever you were talking to; your approach simply presents your brand of Christianity as a dumb religion. Yours is a childish approach and I can't imagine anyone who has value for time stopping to listen to your very poorly framed questions. It is not even clear you would give a better answer if the table was turned against you. In the end, you show that Protestantism is bad for Christianity."
Thus, if we wants to engage in ad homs, I leave him to his choice.
To all the rest, thank you for your encouragement and prayers!
"Looks like Dozie just wants to call me names instead of engaging in any kind of helpful critique"
ReplyDeleteIf you read carefully, you would notice I criticized the approach, the quality of the discourses in your encounters, and the system of religion itself. I repeat, you shame your religion by the silliness you expose.
When I read carefully, I notice an abundance of adjectives deputizing for a dearth of arguments.
ReplyDeleteDozie,
ReplyDeleteYou don't "criticize" like a skilled critical thinker, rather, it's more like how a drunk, abusive husband "criticizes" his wife. As I said, you don't come off looking interesting and intelligent, you just come off looking beligerent, deperate and childish. In fact, I'd wager that you're aware of this deficiency with your critical thinking aparatus, and so you just settle for being a troll.
Dozie said:
ReplyDelete"If you read carefully, you would notice I criticized the approach, the quality of the discourses in your encounters, and the system of religion itself. I repeat, you shame your religion by the silliness you expose."
Dozie, let me help you out here. Yes, you did "criticize" his approach, quality and system of religion. But nowhere did you give an argument that would lead any of us to think your criticism is valid. Anybody can "criticize" or state an opinion. But such criticism means little without any arguments to back them up.
For example you said that his approach makes Christianity to be a "dumb religion". Well, I ask you, in what way? What is your argument? You've merely asserted a position without providing an argument as to why we should believe you. You also called his approach "childish". Again, I ask, in what way? What evidence do you give that the question was childish?
Perhaps you believe your assertions are self evident but that's not the way it works. If you make an assertion, you need to argue for that position, not merely state it and think everyone's going to fall in line behind you.
So come back when you think you got something beyond just mere assertion.
"You also called his approach "childish". Again, I ask, in what way? What evidence do you give that the question was childish?"
ReplyDeleteIn the very first comment I made above, I cited an example of the kind of conversation the gentleman was having and I appropriately labeled it as silly. That should be enough evidence for you.
Besides, the only argument that needs to be made is that Protestantism is a deviation from true Christian religion and as such, its adherents have no business confusing the "man on the street" with less than thoughtful questions and argumentations. Now, the fact that Protestantism is sub-christian (properly speaking, a corruption of Christianity) is more than an assertion, it is authoritative Church teaching.
Hey, I just discovered this great on-line course which teaches you all the tactics needed for debate. It's called: Dozie's School of Arguing.
ReplyDeleteSo Dozie: "HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You're teh stupid!"
For proof, please see paragraph 2 of this comment.
Dozie said:
ReplyDelete"In the very first comment I made above, I cited an example of the kind of conversation the gentleman was having and I appropriately labeled it as silly. That should be enough evidence for you."
You still don't understand. Just citing an example and calling it "silly" doesn't make it so. What if I played the game the way you did? I could cite the example of your post and call it "silly". So there what would that achieve? We both called each other "silly" but neither of us has given an argument as to why that is so or why anyone would choose to believe either one of us.
Pike in the post after yours does exactly to you what you did. How can I not believe his argument if you expect me believe yours? What's good for the goose is good for the gander after all.
You really need to take some basic lessons is logic and argumentation because all you have right now is assertion which counts for nothing.
Dozie said:
"Besides, the only argument that needs to be made is that Protestantism is a deviation from true Christian religion and as such, its adherents have no business confusing the "man on the street" with less than thoughtful questions and argumentations."
Again that's an assertion not an argument. Where's your proof? What evidence do you have. I could just as well turn around and say "Catholicism is a deviation from the true Christian religion". That's as good an "argument" as the one you just gave after all.
Dozie said:
"Now, the fact that Protestantism is sub-christian (properly speaking, a corruption of Christianity) is more than an assertion, it is authoritative Church teaching."
So what? I don't recognize your church as being authoritative so the fact that your church teaches it means nothing to me. Again, you have made no argument as to why I should believe you or your church.