'Religion versus Personal Relationship' Replaced the Gospel in Many Evangelical Churches

[A_Man]

I write about the presentation of the Gospel here.

I have been to many churches that have altar calls, or nowadays challenge people to pray at their seats. What seems to be the norm is to follow the script below:

- Preach a sermon that is not really salvation-focused.
- Do not explain to the audience Who God is.
- Do not explain to the audience Who Jesus is.
- Maybe, or maybe not mention that Jesus died on the cross. Do not discuss the atonement.
- Do not tell the audience that God raised Jesus from the dead.
- Tell the audience that religion is bad, and that they do not need religion.
- Tell the audience that they need a personal relationship with God or tell them they need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
- Offer the audience some sort of emotional comfort if they become a Christian.
- Have the audience repeat a prayer that mentions Jesus, asking Him into their lives.
- Tell the audience if they believed what they prayed, they are born again.

Some of you may say, "They don't do this with the altar call/ sinner's prayer at my church." I hope this is the case. I think a lot of Christian's churches do this, and they aren't paying attention to what the pastor says. I think a lot of these pastors aren't paying attention to what they say, either.

Problems with the Modern Evangelical Approach to Evangelism


1. It leaves out the Gospel.
The problem is that the 'Gospel' presentation above is so different from the Biblical Gospel. Take this example from Paul's writings

I Corinthians 15
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

We see in the apostle's sermons in Acts, that they preached the death of Christ. They preached the Lordship of Christ. The evangelistic sermons pay special attention to the resurrection of Christ.

You can believe Jesus died on the cross without being saved. Caiaphas believed that. The pagan Romans who beat Jesus and saw Him crucified believed that. Those who mocked him on the cross believed that. Believing that He rose from the dead is the controversial topic. And also a quite essential one.

Romans 10:9-10
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

When I was a child, I heard plenty of 'sinner's prayers' based on this verse where the individual confessed Jesus as Lord and that He rose from the dead. It seems like there are a lot of pastors who just follow a religious script they heard from other preachers about religion being bad and needing a relationship, who, if you asked them point blank that someone has to believe that Jesus rose from the dead to be saved, they might say 'yes', but they do not pay attention to the fact that they are not preaching the Gospel.

2. Telling People Not to Be Religious and How 'Personal' Everything is Not Particularly Helpful
American Evangelicals have redefined the word 'religion' in my own lifetime to be something bad. When I was a kid, church people did not have a problem with the word 'religion.' There was an old song, "Give me that old time religion." Then some evangelists started saying that religion is men reaching out to God, but Christianity is God reaching out to men. By the 1990's, I heard a preacher say religion is bad and not to be religious.

The typical unbeliever has no clue what these evangelicals are talking about. If religion is bad, why are they in church?

Then you have all these people out there who don't want to be 'religious'-- so there are people who oppose scheduled prayer times. There are people who do not go to church maybe because they heard that 'all that matters is your personal relationship with Jesus' and they believed this unbiblical message. There are people who call themselves 'not religious but spiritual'. They won't discuss the Gospel with you because "It's personal."

Isn't it a shame when preachers add unnecessary stuff to the Gospel and unbelievers throw it back in our faces.

3. Our Relationship with God is the Result of Our Believing the Gospel
We can have a relationship with God because we believe the Gospel, that Christ died for our sins and that He rose again from the dead. We pass from death unto life. We don't get people saved by telling them they can have a personal relationship with God without preaching the Gospel whereby they can be saved.

4. The Ritual Replaces the Biblical Role of Baptism
In Acts 2, Peter preached about Jesus dying on a tree and being raised from the dead, that He was both Lord and Christ. When his listeners were smitten to the heart and asked what they should do, he told them to repent and be baptized. We see this all throughout Acts. Peter decided the Gentiles at Cornelius house should be baptized. The Samaritans received Philip's message and were baptized. Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch. Paul baptized the jailer. Many Corinthians were baptized.

In the Great Commission, Jesus did not say to go into the world and tell the nations to repeat a prayer accepting him. He did want the apostles to preach the Gospel, to baptize the nations, and to teach them what He had commanded. No wonder Peter baptized.

The ritual of repeating a prayer after a preacher came into widespread use through Billy Graham. There was a gradual evolution of evangelistic technique. Finney had the 'anxious seat' and even acknowledged that it occupied a similar role as baptism in the Bible. Why would those who do not believe in infant baptism not just baptize when they get to that point? Other evangelists would have audiences respond by shaking the preacher's hand, fill out cards, or pray with counselors. Billy Graham crusades had counselors. The counselors had a prayer to repeat. Eventually, as the crowds grew, Billy Graham had the audience repeat the prayer after him. Many evangelicals copied this method.

A generation or so later, I actually heard a preacher say, "If you have not prayed that prayer, you are not a Christian." What crazy false doctrine! As if the saints in the early church who lived before repeating a prayer weren't Christians. What started as a tool to help people confess their sin to God while at the same time confessing faith that Jesus is Lord and that He rose from the dead was treated as a ritual that saved. Now, many preachers strip their sermons and sinner's prayers of the Gospel content-- the atonement on the cross, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lordship and Messiahship of Jesus, and have the audience repeat a prayer. The ritual of repeating a prayer after the preacher is treated as the means of salvation.

 

[Episkopos]

A gospel of salvation is a focus on mankind. But a gospel of the kingdom of God.... is God oriented.

So which of these did Jesus preach? What about Paul?

 

[Willie T]

Why would people who are already Christians expect the Gospel to be preached to them? That is what they, themselves, are supposed to be taking to unsaved people in their sphere of life outside the walls of the church.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

- Tell the audience that they need a personal relationship with God or tell them they need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Oh, my, I'm afraid that I'm one of those Christians who stresses having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Just about every other religion on earth requires initiates to perform in some religious way in order to work their way to God (whatever they conceive him to be) and/or to connect with God. And even then, their God or god is very impersonal or unloving. Christianity is entirely different because our God did what was necessary by dying on the cross for us so that we can KNOW Him--have a personal relationship with our personal God. He calls Himself our Father (as God the Father), and our Friend (as God the Son).

Compelling people to follow a list of rules or participate in religious rituals was never the goal of Christianity, but it is the hallmark of religion. So, those things that are considered a compulsion in religions are a joy and privilege to Christians. Giving would be an example. In Judaism, tithing is compelled by the law, but in Christianity, we are told:

2 Corinthians 9:7--Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

I keep thinking about what Paul said in this verse:

Philippians 3:8-12--Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

This is Christianity, having a personal relationship with God through our Savior Jesus Christ--TO KNOW HIM and LOVE HIM! I get excited just thinking about my relationship with Him. Nothing compares to knowing Him!

 

[Enoch111]

I write about the presentation of the Gospel here.

How about actually presenting the Gospel? The full and true Gospel. As though you were a preacher of the Gospel yourself?

 

[farouk]

Oh, my, I'm afraid that I'm one of those Christians who stresses having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Just about every other religion on earth requires initiates to perform in some religious way in order to work their way to God (whatever they conceive him to be) and/or to connect with God. And even then, their God or god is very impersonal or unloving. Christianity is entirely different because our God did what was necessary by dying on the cross for us so that we can KNOW Him--have a personal relationship with our personal God. He calls Himself our Father (as God the Father), and our Friend (as God the Son).

Compelling people to follow a list of rules or participate in religious rituals was never the goal of Christianity, but it is the hallmark of religion. So, those things that are considered a compulsion in religions are a joy and privilege to Christians. Giving would be an example. In Judaism, tithing is compelled by the law, but in Christianity, we are told:

2 Corinthians 9:7--Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

I keep thinking about what Paul said in this verse:

Philippians 3:8-12--Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

This is Christianity, having a personal relationship with God through our Savior Jesus Christ--TO KNOW HIM and LOVE HIM! I get excited just thinking about my relationship with Him. Nothing compares to knowing Him!

John's First Epistle says nothing about ritual and everything about personal faith and walk, linked also with assurance.

 

[Enoch111]

A gospel of salvation is a focus on mankind. But a gospel of the kingdom of God.... is God oriented.

There is no such distinction in Scripture since the Gospel of the Kingdom is also the Gospel of salvation. There is no need to pit one against the other, unless you want to manufacture your own theology.

 

[A_Man]

Why would people who are already Christians expect the Gospel to be preached to them? That is what they, themselves, are supposed to be taking to unsaved people in their sphere of life outside the walls of the church.

That is a valid question, but Paul did remind the Corinthians of the gospel in the passage I quoted, too.

Many churches still think of the church building as the place for evangelism. We are supposed to assemble and exhort one another and to break bread. But if we are going to present the gospel to visiting unbelievers, we should actually do so.

 

[A_Man]

Oh, my, I'm afraid that I'm one of those Christians who stresses having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Just about every other religion on earth requires initiates to perform in some religious way in order to work their way to God (whatever they conceive him to be) and/or to connect with God. And even then, their God or god is very impersonal or unloving. Christianity is entirely different because our God did what was necessary by dying on the cross for us so that we can KNOW Him--have a personal relationship with our personal God. He calls Himself our Father (as God the Father), and our Friend (as God the Son).

Would you agree with talking about relationship without mentioning the resurrection of Christ or even the mentioning cross, because that is what is going on in a lot of churches. In some places, they mention the cross, but don't explain the gospel. They expect the audience to already know the Gospel.

I am not denying the importance of knowing God. If talking about religion and relationship were central to evangelizing, why don't the apostles bother to preach this message in any of the passages where they preach to unbelievers in Acts? And how do we expect people to know God if we do not proclaim the risen Lord. Isn't this like putting the cart before the horse?

Compelling people to follow a list of rules or participate in religious rituals was never the goal of Christianity, but it is the hallmark of religion.

For many of us Generation X folks and baby boomers who went to church as children, 'religion' was an acceptable word. If someone asked us our religion, we might say, "Christian." But evangelicals started redefining the word. (I did not go along with that.) There is no other word to replace it in the English language, and it just creates a disconnect when trying to communicate the gospel with unbelievers. They try to say something like, "How do I know your religion is the right one?" only to get side-tracked by the Evangelical who parrots what he heard in church about Christianity not being a religion. Meanwhile, the rest of society outside of our evangelical bubble, our Bible translations, and the writings of Christian history in the English language up to a few decades ago share the same understanding of the word 'religion' with the unbeliever.

And we have people thinking it doesn't matter if they go to church or pray regularly. They have been taught that 'religion' is bad. Repeating a prayer after a preacher and being declared 'saved' without having heard the gospel is as 'religious' a ritual in the sense the words opponents use it as just about anything else, isn't it?

So, those things that are considered a compulsion in religions are a joy and privilege to Christians. Giving would be an example. In Judaism, tithing is compelled by the law, but in Christianity, we are told:

Can't this kind of religion be done with joy?

James 1:27,
"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

I looked at Bible Hub, and every single translation except for one used 'religion' except for Weymouth which used 'religious service. James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Should they translate it as 'pure relationship'?

When preachers say religion is bad, in my mind I put that in the 'junk some preachers say' box along with their saying that all sins are equal and other stuff like that. The word had a meaning. Preachers started redefining it. I don't think they've got the right to do that. It just confuses people. There are plenty of good words to use to explain trying to earn salvation by works, pretense in prayer, and plenty of things the Bible legitimately teaches against.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Would you agree with talking about relationship without mentioning the resurrection of Christ or even the mentioning cross, because that is what is going on in a lot of churches. In some places, they mention the cross, but don't explain the gospel. They expect the audience to already know the Gospel.

I am not denying the importance of knowing God. If talking about religion and relationship were central to evangelizing, why don't the apostles bother to preach this message in any of the passages where they preach to unbelievers in Acts? And how do we expect people to know God if we do not proclaim the risen Lord. Isn't this like putting the cart before the horse?

Yes, I agree that churches (and Christians in general) should be preaching the gospel. Of course. The gospel tells us how we enter into a relationship with God.

For many of us Generation X folks and baby boomers who went to church as children, 'religion' was an acceptable word. If someone asked us our religion, we might say, "Christian." But evangelicals started redefining the word. (I did not go along with that.) There is no other word to replace it in the English language, and it just creates a disconnect when trying to communicate the gospel with unbelievers. They try to say something like, "How do I know your religion is the right one?" only to get side-tracked by the Evangelical who parrots what he heard in church about Christianity not being a religion. Meanwhile, the rest of society outside of our evangelical bubble, our Bible translations, and the writings of Christian history in the English language up to a few decades ago share the same understanding of the word 'religion' with the unbeliever.

And we have people thinking it doesn't matter if they go to church or pray regularly. They have been taught that 'religion' is bad. Repeating a prayer after a preacher and being declared 'saved' without having heard the gospel is as 'religious' a ritual in the sense the words opponents use it as just about anything else, isn't it?

I'm not so much against using the word religion as I am against seeing Christianity as one of the world's religions without setting it apart as wholly different--as the ONLY way to know God.

Can't this kind of religion be done with joy?

To me, giving out of compulsion takes the joy out of it. It becomes something I have to do instead of something I want to do. IOW, I think it's better to be compelled by love than by religious duty.

Over the years my family has given to ministries that drill wells in Africa so that women and children don't have to walk miles per day to get dirty, parasite-infested water for their families. Local pastors dedicated the wells to the Lord and preached the gospel to the villagers served by the wells. It was the compassion of Jesus Christ moving on us to give, and we received His joy.

James 1:27,
"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

As a widow, I love this verse. No, of course religion and relationship are not interchangeable words. But it is what comes from our relationship with Jesus that gives us compassion for the widow and orphan. And it is through His righteousness that we keep ourselves unspotted from the world. And we do this because we love Him more than we love the world.
.

 

[shnarkle]

I write about the presentation of the Gospel here.

I have been to many churches that have altar calls, or nowadays challenge people to pray at their seats. What seems to be the norm is to follow the script below:

- Preach a sermon that is not really salvation-focused.
- Do not explain to the audience Who God is.
- Do not explain to the audience Who Jesus is.
- Maybe, or maybe not mention that Jesus died on the cross. Do not discuss the atonement.
- Do not tell the audience that God raised Jesus from the dead.
- Tell the audience that religion is bad, and that they do not need religion.
- Tell the audience that they need a personal relationship with God or tell them they need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
- Offer the audience some sort of emotional comfort if they become a Christian.
- Have the audience repeat a prayer that mentions Jesus, asking Him into their lives.
- Tell the audience if they believed what they prayed, they are born again.

Some of you may say, "They don't do this with the altar call/ sinner's prayer at my church." I hope this is the case. I think a lot of Christian's churches do this, and they aren't paying attention to what the pastor says. I think a lot of these pastors aren't paying attention to what they say, either.

Problems with the Modern Evangelical Approach to Evangelism


1. It leaves out the Gospel.
The problem is that the 'Gospel' presentation above is so different from the Biblical Gospel. Take this example from Paul's writings

I Corinthians 15
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

We see in the apostle's sermons in Acts, that they preached the death of Christ. They preached the Lordship of Christ. The evangelistic sermons pay special attention to the resurrection of Christ.

You can believe Jesus died on the cross without being saved. Caiaphas believed that. The pagan Romans who beat Jesus and saw Him crucified believed that. Those who mocked him on the cross believed that. Believing that He rose from the dead is the controversial topic. And also a quite essential one.

Romans 10:9-10
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

When I was a child, I heard plenty of 'sinner's prayers' based on this verse where the individual confessed Jesus as Lord and that He rose from the dead. It seems like there are a lot of pastors who just follow a religious script they heard from other preachers about religion being bad and needing a relationship, who, if you asked them point blank that someone has to believe that Jesus rose from the dead to be saved, they might say 'yes', but they do not pay attention to the fact that they are not preaching the Gospel.

2. Telling People Not to Be Religious and How 'Personal' Everything is Not Particularly Helpful
American Evangelicals have redefined the word 'religion' in my own lifetime to be something bad. When I was a kid, church people did not have a problem with the word 'religion.' There was an old song, "Give me that old time religion." Then some evangelists started saying that religion is men reaching out to God, but Christianity is God reaching out to men. By the 1990's, I heard a preacher say religion is bad and not to be religious.

The typical unbeliever has no clue what these evangelicals are talking about. If religion is bad, why are they in church?

Then you have all these people out there who don't want to be 'religious'-- so there are people who oppose scheduled prayer times. There are people who do not go to church maybe because they heard that 'all that matters is your personal relationship with Jesus' and they believed this unbiblical message. There are people who call themselves 'not religious but spiritual'. They won't discuss the Gospel with you because "It's personal."

Isn't it a shame when preachers add unnecessary stuff to the Gospel and unbelievers throw it back in our faces.

3. Our Relationship with God is the Result of Our Believing the Gospel
We can have a relationship with God because we believe the Gospel, that Christ died for our sins and that He rose again from the dead. We pass from death unto life. We don't get people saved by telling them they can have a personal relationship with God without preaching the Gospel whereby they can be saved.

4. The Ritual Replaces the Biblical Role of Baptism
In Acts 2, Peter preached about Jesus dying on a tree and being raised from the dead, that He was both Lord and Christ. When his listeners were smitten to the heart and asked what they should do, he told them to repent and be baptized. We see this all throughout Acts. Peter decided the Gentiles at Cornelius house should be baptized. The Samaritans received Philip's message and were baptized. Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch. Paul baptized the jailer. Many Corinthians were baptized.

In the Great Commission, Jesus did not say to go into the world and tell the nations to repeat a prayer accepting him. He did want the apostles to preach the Gospel, to baptize the nations, and to teach them what He had commanded. No wonder Peter baptized.

The ritual of repeating a prayer after a preacher came into widespread use through Billy Graham. There was a gradual evolution of evangelistic technique. Finney had the 'anxious seat' and even acknowledged that it occupied a similar role as baptism in the Bible. Why would those who do not believe in infant baptism not just baptize when they get to that point? Other evangelists would have audiences respond by shaking the preacher's hand, fill out cards, or pray with counselors. Billy Graham crusades had counselors. The counselors had a prayer to repeat. Eventually, as the crowds grew, Billy Graham had the audience repeat the prayer after him. Many evangelicals copied this method.

A generation or so later, I actually heard a preacher say, "If you have not prayed that prayer, you are not a Christian." What crazy false doctrine! As if the saints in the early church who lived before repeating a prayer weren't Christians. What started as a tool to help people confess their sin to God while at the same time confessing faith that Jesus is Lord and that He rose from the dead was treated as a ritual that saved. Now, many preachers strip their sermons and sinner's prayers of the Gospel content-- the atonement on the cross, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lordship and Messiahship of Jesus, and have the audience repeat a prayer. The ritual of repeating a prayer after the preacher is treated as the means of salvation.

Pointing out what other churches are doing wrong, or pointing out that they're not proclaiming the gospel, isn't proclaiming the gospel.

Moreover, pointing out that Christ died, rose again, etc. doesn't mean a thing if the people you're talking to have no idea what you're talking about. I can remember people coming up to me in a strip mall, and saying, "Are you washed in the blood"? I knew what they were referring to, but at the same time I asked them if they'd all lost their minds going around spouting off such nonsense.

Start with the basics: We are all created in God's image, and that image requires complete self denial. When we deny ourselves we can see God in those around us, and they can as well. By becoming transparent, God's love shines through us. Jesus points out to the religionists of his day a quote from the Hebrew scriptures that sent them into a fit: "You are gods".

Christ doesn't just provide the way to salvation, he is the way that must be entered into, and only those who are ready to let go of this fallen detestable world can enter into it. It doesn't have anything to do with professing a certain doctrine. It is only for those who have seen the goodness of the Lord. It's the difference between confessing what one has witnessed, and professing what one has been taught.

Those who are witnesses will stop at nothing to make their way into the kingdom as soon as possible. They will leave everything behind because it's all garbage.

 

[shnarkle]

A gospel of salvation is a focus on mankind. But a gospel of the kingdom of God.... is God oriented.

So which of these did Jesus preach? What about Paul?

The gospel is focused on the kingdom to the extent that there is only Christ. The focus on mankind is only insofar that it can be abolished. Christ and Paul both emphasize self denial, or the crucifixion of the flesh, dying daily to this fallen world.

 

[Episkopos]

The gospel is focused on the kingdom to the extent that there is only Christ. The focus on mankind is only insofar that it can be abolished. Christ and Paul both emphasize self denial, or the crucifixion of the flesh, dying daily to this fallen world.

And yet all that people come away with is that they are now saved? saved to what?

 

[A_Man]

Moreover, pointing out that Christ died, rose again, etc. doesn't mean a thing if the people you're talking to have no idea what you're talking about. I can remember people coming up to me in a strip mall, and saying, "Are you washed in the blood"? I knew what they were referring to, but at the same time I asked them if they'd all lost their minds going around spouting off such nonsense.

That reminds me of this guy who had started going to a church with preachers with a 'tell-it-like-it-is' attitude. He was from a family that stole cars and had spent time in prison back in the day. The DA did not like him and investigated and found out that he'd sold cars with open titles, not reporting them properly and had him in court.

This man asked one of the prosecutors, "Do you know where you are going when you die?" She interpreted it as a death threat.

If we tell unbelievers to 'accept Jesus' and they don't know who Jesus is, that doesn't mean much to them. Asking them 'Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Savior?' doesn't mean much to a lot of people without explanation. And what is the word 'personal' doing there. That really makes no sense without explanation. I have a personal computer. It's mine, and no one else can use it. We have to explain the Biblical part of that-- Savior...saved from what.

I notice in Acts that with Jews and Gentile God-fearers in the synagogues, Paul dived right into the Old Testament and explained that Jesus was the Messiah. But with Gentiles, he talked about God being the Creator, sending rain, etc. He didn't just jump to the idea of Jesus being the Savior. It makes no sense without the preaching to explain it if the audience is unfamiliar.

I think that may be one of the main issues behind my concern in the OP. The preachers who do this are acting like their audience knows the Gospel and trying to convince them to accept a message they haven't preached yet. It really makes no sense, but it seems to be the norm in a lot of churches.

In this context, questionable stuff, like using the word 'personal' all the time when it is not a Biblical emphasis

I did visit a small mega-church once that was Baptist but didn't advertize it's affiliation. The pastor tagged an altar call on the end of a sermon and asked people to receive Jesus. I sent him an email quoting those verse from I Corinthians 15 and pointed out that He hadn't told people that Jesus had died on the cross for their sins and risen from the dead, but had them repeat a prayer that mentioned Jesus and said if they believed it, they were saved. I believe he took it well. He sent me a brief message back saying that he would consider what I said.

I kind of wish an army of Christians would do this when they see preachers do such things and that preachers, ministers, pastors, elders who realize what is going on will speak up on this issue. It's really weird. It is a lot like

 

[shnarkle]

That reminds me of this guy who had started going to a church with preachers with a 'tell-it-like-it-is' attitude. He was from a family that stole cars and had spent time in prison back in the day. The DA did not like him and investigated and found out that he'd sold cars with open titles, not reporting them properly and had him in court.

This man asked one of the prosecutors, "Do you know where you are going when you die?" She interpreted it as a death threat.

If we tell unbelievers to 'accept Jesus' and they don't know who Jesus is, that doesn't mean much to them. Asking them 'Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Savior?' doesn't mean much to a lot of people without explanation. And what is the word 'personal' doing there. That really makes no sense without explanation. I have a personal computer. It's mine, and no one else can use it. We have to explain the Biblical part of that-- Savior...saved from what.

I notice in Acts that with Jews and Gentile God-fearers in the synagogues, Paul dived right into the Old Testament and explained that Jesus was the Messiah. But with Gentiles, he talked about God being the Creator, sending rain, etc. He didn't just jump to the idea of Jesus being the Savior. It makes no sense without the preaching to explain it if the audience is unfamiliar.

I think that may be one of the main issues behind my concern in the OP. The preachers who do this are acting like their audience knows the Gospel and trying to convince them to accept a message they haven't preached yet. It really makes no sense, but it seems to be the norm in a lot of churches.

In this context, questionable stuff, like using the word 'personal' all the time when it is not a Biblical emphasis

I did visit a small mega-church once that was Baptist but didn't advertize it's affiliation. The pastor tagged an altar call on the end of a sermon and asked people to receive Jesus. I sent him an email quoting those verse from I Corinthians 15 and pointed out that He hadn't told people that Jesus had died on the cross for their sins and risen from the dead, but had them repeat a prayer that mentioned Jesus and said if they believed it, they were saved. I believe he took it well. He sent me a brief message back saying that he would consider what I said.

I kind of wish an army of Christians would do this when they see preachers do such things and that preachers, ministers, pastors, elders who realize what is going on will speak up on this issue. It's really weird. It is a lot like

What I've noticed about effective evangelization is that Christ, Paul, etc. meet the sinner where they're at. Christ comes in the likeness of sinful flesh. Paul quotes pagan poets and philosophers. He points to one of their gods, and tells them that is the god he's proclaiming. Paul is a Jew to the Jew, a gentile to the gentile, etc. We need to do the same. We need to be an atheist to talk to the atheist, an agnostic to the agnostic, a skeptic to the skeptic, a Buddhist to the Buddhist. We need to be able to understand their position so we can relate it to the gospel using terminology they can understand.

We live in a post modern world now, and this makes proclaiming the gospel a matter of distilling it down to a point where words can't have any baggage from the past. This isn't a matter of watering down the gospel just fitting it to the culture. The gospel is radical enough without forcing people to learn a whole new language, doctrines, etc.

 

[shnarkle]

And yet all that people come away with is that they are now saved? saved to what?

Saved to serve. Saved from sin. Saved from ourselves.

 

[Enoch111]

But if we are going to present the gospel to visiting unbelievers, we should actually do so.

We are still waiting for your full presentation of the Gospel to those who (unlike Christians) have no clue. Let's see it you do it.

 

[A_Man]

I presented the gospel with the scripture I quoted in the OP. Please reread. Look at Romans 10:9-10. one of my main doctrinal objections to the new trend is that it leaves out the resurrection. 'Not a religion but a relationship' is not there in Paul's summary of the Gospel in I Corinthians 15, nor in any presentation of the Gospel the apostles made to unbelievers in the Bible.

Are you asking this because you think "Not a religion, but a relationship" is the Gospel?

I kind of assumed I'd get agreement in this thread from Christians, who, like the preacher, believe the cross and the resurrection is essential, but aren't aware that it isn't being preached. If you actually think the religion/relationship thing is the gospel, and many others believe like that, evangelicalism may be in more trouble than I realized.

 

[A_Man]

What I've noticed about effective evangelization is that Christ, Paul, etc. meet the sinner where they're at. Christ comes in the likeness of sinful flesh. Paul quotes pagan poets and philosophers. He points to one of their gods, and tells them that is the god he's proclaiming.

I read in one of Don Richardson's book the alleged history of the event. Athens was having a famine or pestilence. They sacrificed to their gods but nothing helped. They got desperate so they called in a foreign wise man-- one of the poets he quotes if not mistaken--who tells them that they have offended a God, but since they do not know which one, they should not make an image of him. They were to make three monuments 'to the unknown God.' They would pen up sheep and not feed them. The ones that just laid down when they came out, they would sacrifice to the unknown God. So they did so and the problem stopped. Supposedly, only one of these monuments was left. Richardson's argument as that this was something of the true God in their culture, and he argued that many cultures had something in their culture through which the Gospel could be related.

The 'in him we live and move and have our being quote' is said to be about Zeus in an 8th century AD manuscript. I kind of like to think the original did not mention Zeus because that makes me uncomfortable. I am sure Paul was not trying to teach them that their Zeus-- which they associated with Baal elsewhere, was the true creator God.

 

[Philip James]

I'm not so much against using the word religion as I am against seeing Christianity as one of the world's religions without setting it apart as wholly different--as the ONLY way to know God.

Hello Prayer Warrior,

Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI would seem to agree with you: Dominus Iesus

You too ! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!