Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Learn the MOST ESSENTIAL truths for following Jesus.

Get FREE articles and audio teachings in my discipleship emails!


Shotgun Hermeneutics is not a Proper Bible Study Method

43 Comments

Hermeneutical PrinciplesThere is a tendency in many Christian circles to think that if a particular theological viewpoint can quote a lot of Scripture, it must be right.

For example, in a recent book defending The Five Points of Calvinism (by David Steele and Curtis Thomas), the authors seem to think that if they just quote Scripture, they have proved their point. For each of the five points, they provide a theological explanation for the point, and then “prove” it by citing numerous pages of Scriptural proof-texts, without ever attempting an explanation of any of those texts.

I recently listened to a debate from several years ago between Bob Wilkin and James White. James White used almost his entire opening statement to simply read Bible verses. The implication was that to prove Calvinism, all you have to do is read the Bible, and anybody is not a Calvinist, hasn’t read Scripture.

Shotgun Hermeneutics

I call this shotgun hermeneutics. Those who use this tactic try to “blow you away” by the sheer number of verses they can quote which they feel proves their point.

When you try to explain one or two of them to show that you are aware of these passages but have a different understanding, they will focus on all the other passages they quoted which you did not explain.

Shotgun Hermeneutics

A Sample Conversation

In my discussions, the dialogue generally goes like this:

Calvinist: My view is right because of Passages A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J. If you would simply read and believe the Bible, you would agree with what God said.

Me: I have read and studied the Bible, and am aware of all of those passages you just quoted. I simply understand them in a different way. Let’s take the first one as an example. (I then proceed to explain Passage A.)

Calvinist: Well, that’s certainly a creative way to understand Passage A. But we know your interpretation is wrong, because of Passage B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J.

Me: I wasn’t trying to explain those passages, but again, I am aware of them, and all of them can be understood in a similar way as Passage A.

Calvinist: No, they can’t, because no one I’ve ever read has ever understood them that way. Here is what Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, and Calvin had to say about those passages. (They then proceed to quote their favorite authors.)

Me: But those are all Calvinistic authors. Of course they will agree with your interpretation.

Calvinist: Are you smarter or more godly than they are?

Me: No, of course not, but I do think…

Calvinist: Then since they all agree on what those passages mean, and there are so many passages that teach Calvinism, Calvinism is the truth. After all, what about Passages K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T?

Me: Yep. Those are all in the Bible.

Calvinist: Hah! I knew you would be silenced by the logic of my system and the irrefutable evidence of my many Scriptural proofs. To God be the glory!

Me: Well, I’m not really silenced, nor am I convinced …

Calvinist: That’s because you’re a depraved heretic.

Me: Oookaay … I gotta go. See ya later.

Calvinist: I’ll be praying for your soul that you would repent from your darkness and be brought into the light!

Theology Discussions

If you have ever tried to discuss theology with someone who holds strongly to a particular system of theology, you know that this is how many of these discussions go.

Recently, I have noticed this shotgun hermeneutics tactic being used by some who disagree with me on various other issues.

In their own blogs and in their comments on this blog, they seem to imply that I have not read the Bible, and that if I did, I would see the truth of their position. They argue that when they quote Scripture at me, I am silenced by the weight of Biblical evidence.

Yet when I attempt explanations of one or two passages they quoted, they say that my interpretation cannot be correct because of so many other Biblical passages which say something different, and furthermore, nobody they have ever read holds to my interpretation.

Then I get called a heretic.

A Proposal for Theological Debate

Shotgun hermeneutics and name calling is no way to proceed in theological discussion.

Shotgun hermeneutics isn’t even a proper method of hermeneutics. It’s actually a form of proof texting where dozens of passages are ripped out of context in order to prove a theological point.

So in order to really get somewhere in theological debate, the two sides must agree to discuss one passage at a time, and stick to it, camp upon it, walk around it, and work through it. Hopefully, you can both arrive at two or three possible interpretations of that one passage.

Only then can the two sides go to a second passage.

The same thing is done with passages A-Z.

Only when this entire process is complete can the two sides go back and reconsider all the evidence, in which any contradicting interpretations are discarded, and hopefully, only one possible interpretation remains.

Though this usually doesn’t happen, at least then you will understand each other rather than thinking the other side has never actually read the Bible.
Hermeneutics

My Exodus from Calvinism

The systematic verse-by-verse approach is what I used about 15 years ago to leave Calvinism.

In the early 1990’s, I was a five-point, hyper-Calvinist, Lordship Salvationist. Then, a good friend challenged my thinking on James 2:14-26. I camped on that passage for a few months. I saw that my friend’s interpretation was one possible understanding. However, I wanted to reject that view because “there are so many other passages that contradicted this understanding of James 2:14-26.”

In our conversations, my friend told me this: “Yes, it might be that my understanding of James 2:14-26 is wrong. That’s one option. Or maybe you are wrong in your understanding not just of James 2:14-26, but also in your understanding of all those others passages as well. How are you going to figure out which view makes the most sense? There is only one way: You need to study each passage individually.”

So that’s what I did. It took me about ten years, at the end of which time, every single point of Calvinism had fallen for me.

However, I still read books and articles by Calvinists and those who disagree with my views. Why? Because if I am wrong in my understanding of a particular passage, I want to know. I hope you do too.

So don’t practice shotgun hermeneutics. Such a practice is not beneficial since all it does is take aim at other people’s heads in an effort to blow them away.

And by the way, if you want to see some of the fruits of my labor from that 10-year study of various Bible passages, I am laying it all out for you in several of my online courses. The first course is done. It is titled “The Gospel According to Scripture.” I’m teaching and recording the second course right now. It is titled “The Gospel Dictionary.” A third course will come later, titled “Tough Texts on the Gospel.”

To take these courses, you need to be part of the RedeemingGod.com discipleship group. Go here to learn more and join us today.

God is Redeeming Scripture, Redeeming Theology Bible & Theology Topics: , , , , , ,

Advertisement

Free Grace Alliance Conference Panel Discussions

17 Comments

Free Grace Alliance Conference

I was a panel member at the Free Grace Alliance National Conference today on the subject of the death and resurrection of Jesus in relation to the gospel.

But before I write about that, let me write about a different panel which I attended. This other panel was on the issues of assurance, eternal security, and justification.

Assurance, Eternal Security, and Justification

The panel which I only attended was related to the issues of assurance, eternal security, and justification. The basic question was “Does a person have to know that what they get from Jesus can never be lost in order to receive it?”

Of the three panelists, I heard one, Tim Nichols, give a clear answer “Yes” and the other two were a little more evasive. This was not really their fault since many of the questions from the audience were not really on topic. Some questions were related to the death and resurrection of Jesus, or the deity of Jesus, and other things.

The last question, however, was very revealing. It was “If you are witnessing to an unsaved person, and you want to tell them how to be saved, what would you say?”

1. Dave Anderson answered first with two words: “Free Grace.” I’m not sure what he meant by that. I doubt the person he was evangelizing would understand it either.

2. George Meisinger said that he tells as much of the gospel as he can to the person in the time he has. If it’s on an airplane, he is able to tell them lots more than if he is sharing with someone on their deathbed.

3. Tim Nichols answered similarly to George Meisinger, but emphasized that the message we share with unbelievers must come from the Gospel of John.

All in all, it was a great conference session.

Death and Resurrection of Jesus and the Gospel

The second panel discussion I attended was the one in which I was a participant. It concerned whether a person had to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to be born again. The following are terribly poor summaries of the views presented:

(Note that due to comments for clarification, edits have been made to what was originally written. These are the crossed out sections below.)

What is the Gospel

1. Ken Wilson said, “Yes. We don’t believe in Jesus for everlasting life, but we have to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God who takes away our sins.” I’m not sure who in Christendom (including Catholics) doesn’t believe this, but maybe I misunderstood him.

2. Tim Nichols argued that since nobody would ever dream of not presenting the death and resurrection, the question doesn’t really matter. This is true. Sometimes, Satan’s greatest ploy is to get us talking about theology rather than living out the theology we do know.

3. Larry Moyer said, “Yes, because the death and resurrection is central to the Gospel, and we must always share the Gospel when telling people about Jesus.”

4. Tom Stegall argued similarly to Larry Moyer, but more emphatically.

5. I certainly do believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus are central to the Gospel, and that without the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is no Gospel. All the truths of the Gospel (of which there are dozens-if not hundreds) are for the purpose of getting a person to believe in Jesus and so receive everlasting life. So I always present the death and resurrection of Jesus when I witness to people. So I argued similarly to Tim Nichols–that it’s a moot point.

What is the Gospel

Some did Believe in Jesus, but not in His Death and Resurrection

However, I did point out that we do have examples of people in Scripture who believed in Jesus and received everlasting life, but did not know about the death and resurrection of Jesus, and even when presented with these truths, did not believe them (cf. Matt 16:31-32; Mark 9:31-32; Luke 9:44-45; 18:31-34; 24:19-26; John 20:9, 24-30). There may be some examples from Acts and the Epistles as well, but it’s almost 2 am, and I’m tired. But just one example: One reason Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15 is to persuade and convince the Corinthian believers about the resurrection of Jesus. It sounds like some of them had believed in the resurrection, but had turned away from it, but there apparently were others who had heard about the resurrection, but denied it as fiction. Paul is correcting these believers in Corinth about this.

So apparently, there are people who believe in Jesus, and lots of correct things about Him, but don’t have all their theological ducks in a row, but who are still considered by Biblical authors to be regenerate. It is possible to believe many wrong things about Jesus, but still receiver eternal life by believing in Him for it. I think it is possible there are people in the same category today. I may have talked with one a few weeks ago, which I mentioned in a previous post.

Due to the number of panelists, and the limited time, only one question from the audience was asked, and that one had nothing to do with the questions that I had come up with which I hoped to receive answers to. So I still don’t know how Tom Stegall would answer those questions. I refuse to speculate how he might answer them, because if there is anything more dangerous that theological speculation, it is theological speculation about someone else’s theology.

Free Grace Alliance Conference Panel Discussion

7 Comments

Free Grace Alliance Banner

I am on a panel discussion tomorrow night at the National Conference of the Free Grace Alliance. The panel discussion is related to the death and resurrection of Jesus, and whether a person needs to know and believe these historical facts in order to be born again. My invitation to this discussion is due to the so-called Crossless Gospel controversy. People accuse me of teaching a Crossless Gospel, which is exceedingly strange, since I believe the cross is at the very center of the gospel. Without the cross, there is no Gospel.

Anyway, here are some of the issues to be addressed in this Free Grace Alliance panel discussion.

Is Belief in the Death and Resurrection Necessary?

I am presenting the view that while the death and resurrection of Jesus was necessary for justification to be possible, belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is not what grants a person eternal life. A person simply needs to believe in Jesus for eternal life to be given it by God. I have written on this in the past. Certainly, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central to the Gospel, but since there is so much Biblical information that is part of the Gospel, one does not have to believe the entire Gospel to be justified.

There is a difference between the mechanism of justification (the death and resurrection of Jesus, along with a myriad of other things) and the message of eternal life (believe in Jesus for it). In other words, there is a difference between the Gospel information, and the Gospel invitation.

I agreed to be on this panel for three reasons.

Clarity in Evangelism

First, I want people to be clear in evangelism. If we have a muddled evangelistic message, all we do is erect barriers which keep people from believing in Jesus for eternal life. The death and resurrection of Jesus are definitely part of what we share in evangelism, but we tell them these things to convince and persuade them to believe in Jesus for eternal life, not because they get eternal life by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It’s a nuance, but a very important one. After all, there are many who believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, but don’t believe in Him for eternal life.

Hear from the Horse’s Mouth

Second, I know there are a lot of people who are trying to understand the various positions on the Gospel, and there are many people accusing me of believing things I don’t believe.

So I hope to let them hear my position from me rather than from those out there who don’t understand my position but continue to write pejorative and negative things about me. It’s always best when researching a matter to go to the source.

To Understand the Other Views

Third, I see no logical or Biblical consistency in the view of those who are taking the opposing view. Clearly, they think their view is logical and Biblical or they wouldn’t hold it. I am not exactly trying to persuade them to my view, but I do want to try to understand their view. Toward that end, here are the questions I hope to have answered:

  • If a person must believe in the death of resurrection of Jesus, is it sufficient to believe in the historical facts of these events, or does a person also have to believe in substitutionary atonement?
  • If a person does have to believe in substitutionary atonement, what if that person holds the ransom to Satan view?
  • If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, do they have to believe that it was by the shedding of blood of Jesus on the cross that sins are forgiven, or can they just believe that it was simply His death that was sufficient? In other words, does a person have to understand that their sins are forgiven “by His blood” and not just by His death?
  • If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, must they believe that Jesus rose in a glorified, eternal, incorruptible body, and that He went on to ascend into heaven, or can they believe that He went on to live, grow old, and die again of old age like the others who were resurrected in Scripture?
  • If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, must they believe that the resurrection is a past, historical event, or can they believe that Jesus will rise from the dead in the future?
  • If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, what was the object of faith for OT people and the apostles who did not (as far as we can tell) believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus? Did the object and content of faith change after the death and resurrection of Jesus?
  • What passages are there in Scripture which teach that a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to receive everlasting life?
  • If a person believes that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, and rose again from the dead, but don’t believe that by faith in Jesus they have life that can never be lost, are they justified? (E.g., They say things like “Jesus did his 99%, but I must do my 1%” or “I’m saved now, but if I sin later, I won’t be saved any more” or “I accepted the gift of eternal life, but I can give it back if I don’t abide.”)

Some other Free Grace Alliance Leaders

In all of my study of the other view, I have yet to read an attempt to answer these questions. Others have noticed this same thing, and we receive daily e-mails and phone calls from people saying they are prayerfully supporting Bob Wilkin, myself, and the ministry of Grace Evangelical Society as we continue to present the offer of eternal life to all who believe in Jesus for it.

Email Questions

Here is one such e-mail:

Jeremy,

By way of introduction, we have been with GES almost since its beginning and had been proclaiming the free grace gospel message for 25 years before that. We were instrumental in formatting the first several years of GES Journal articles for the website and have printed and distributed several thousand pages of GES articles to many pastors and Christian leaders in our area. In other words, we support what you are doing.

We have been keeping up with the ongoing issue of what constitutes the gospel message and are grieved about the possible damage to the cause of Christ that might ensue. We also have supported the ministry at Duluth for quite some time and distributed much of their literature.

I believe that your article, “The Gospel Is More Than ‘Faith Alone In Christ Alone,'” was excellent and it even helped me to “connect the dots” in some of my study on the subject. The open letter on the Duluth website refers to, among other things, this article and mentions two points of disagreement. These comments appeared to me to be a bit pejorative as there was no attempt at biblical refutation or even explanation of the context of your statements.

In addition to the significant biblical evidence that you gave for your position (a position which should be either accepted or proved wrong biblically), is one point that has come up in my study and that I have not seen mentioned anywhere.

It is as follows: In 1st Corinthians 15, we find the classic definition of the gospel which includes the death, burial, resurrection of Christ, and probably the contents of the next few verses. Per verse 15 we see that the resurrection is necessary for our justification, but does not say that belief in it is necessary. Verse 12 and following shows that some of the Corinthian believers did not believe in the resurrection and reiterates the deleterious ramifications of this error. This epistle is written to the Church at Corinth (1:2; 1:7 et al).

Did these believers who already have eternal life then lose their salvation? Did the awareness of their lack then show that they were not true believers in the first place? Or were they eternally saved, carnal believers, who needed to know and apply these resurrection facts so that they may be saved in the sanctification sense and enjoy the resurrection life during their earthly pilgrimage? The first two options are not implied in the context and are disqualified by other scripture. Something similar to the last seems to be more on target.

Unless you are already way ahead of me on this it might be beneficial to also develop this point. No reply to this note is expected as I realize that you have a heavy schedule.

We continue to pray. Keep up the good work (1 Cor. 15:58)

This is an excellent observation and should be developed further. I also want to point out that Peter and the apostles did not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus until after He died and rose again (cf. Matt 16:20-23; Mark 9:31-32; Luke 9:44-45; 18:31-34; 24:19-26; John 20:9, 24-30). Does this then mean that they were not justified until they believed in the death and resurrection?

I’ll give an update on how things went after the conference.

God is Redeeming Theology Bible & Theology Topics: , , , , ,

Advertisement

Do you HAVE to believe in the resurrection? This woman did … sort of …

17 Comments

Resurrection of JesusI ran into someone this past week who would pose quite a dilemma for some, especially if we are trying to determine if people have eternal life based on what they believe. (NONE of us do that, do we?)

Anyway, I thought it was interesting, so I am throwing it out here for you to weigh in on…

It was a woman who called about some questions related to whether or not she had eternal life.

Asking the Kennedy Questions

As we talked, I asked her some diagnostic questions to help me determine where she was coming from.

I asked her that if she were to die tonight, if she were sure she would go to heaven. When she answered, “Yes” I asked her why. She said something along the lines that since Jesus died for all of her sins, and she has believed in Him, she gets to go to heaven when she dies. Though she could have been a bit clearer, this answer was initially satisfactory.

But I asked some follow-up questions as well, to see if she was in any way relying on her past, present, or future good works in order to earn, prove, or keep her eternal life. For example, I asked her if there was anything she could do in the future that might prevent her from going to heaven when she died. From her answers, she seemed certain that since she did nothing to earn her eternal life, there was noting she could do to lose it either. Though I am not the judge of her spiritual condition, I was once again satisfied with her answer. To the best of my knowledge, she understood that simply by her faith in Jesus, she had everlasting life which could not be lost.

Confused Christology

Then we started to talk about some of her questions, and in the process, she mentioned about how she knows Jesus is going to come again when He rises from the dead.

It was an odd way of phrasing it, and so I asked her what she meant. She stated that she knew Jesus died on the cross 2000 years ago for her sins, and that He was right now in heaven, and He was coming again in the future. I said, “That’s good, but what was it you said about Him rising from the dead?”

She said, “You know…when He comes again. He died, went to heaven, and when He comes again, He will rise from the dead.”

Wait… what?

Apparently, she didn’t know that Jesus had risen from the dead.

I talked a bit more with her about this, and as it turns out, somehow, here in America, she had never been told (or had just never understood) that Jesus had already risen from the dead!!! I didn’t even know this was possible, but I discovered she doesn’t read her Bible, and doesn’t go to a church that teaches the Bible much.

I asked her if she saw The Passion of the Christ, which she had. I asked, “Didn’t you wonder what was going on at the end of the movie when Jesus rose from the dead?” She said she didn’t think anything about it, because all it shows is Jesus with a glow around Him, and so she thought that was supposed to be Him in heaven, which matched her theology perfectly. (Go look at the end of the movie! She’s right. The ending is very vague.)

After taking her to some passages in the Gospels, and then to 1 Corinthians 15 (which Paul partly wrote to prove the resurrection has taken place), she said she now understood and believed that Jesus had already risen from the dead.

Did She Have Eternal Life?

So here is the question: Did she have eternal life prior to understanding and believing that Jesus rose from the dead? I say “Yes.” She was justified the moment she first believed in Jesus for everlasting life. I was able to disciple her some more this week and teach her some things about the Jesus she had believed in that she did not previously know.

However, even though I would say, “Yes, she had eternal life before she believed in the resurrection of Jesus,” there are lots of Christians who would probably say, “No.” They might argue that until she believed in the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus she does not have eternal life. Although she believed in her own sinfulness, the deity of Jesus, His death on the cross, and that she had eternal life in Him alone, she did not have eternal life until she believed the whole package. Even though she believed in a future resurrection of Jesus, this is not sufficient.

To me, this is incredulous. Antonio da Rosa has posed a similar situation as I have encountered here. He stated somewhere (I can’t find it now) that to consign someone like this woman to hell for not knowing all the Biblical facts about Jesus that are on a man-made list is the height of legalism. This woman believed in Jesus for eternal life, and by Jesus’ own promise, whosoever believes in Him, has everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47).

Note as well that on this account, the woman is just like all the disciples of Jesus. The disciples believed in Jesus for everlasting life, but not a single one believed that Jesus would die and rise from the dead until after He died and rose from the dead! Does this mean that none of them really had eternal life until after the resurrection of Jesus?

No, again, this is an example of one of those central doctrines of the Gospel which help a person believe in Jesus for eternal life, but are not required for a person to believe in order to receive eternal life. Don’t get me wrong, without the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is no Gospel. But one does not have to believe the entire Gospel in order to receive eternal life. Most of the Gospel message provides supporting facts and evidence for why and how Jesus can offer eternal life to anyone who believes in Him for it, and how to live in response.

But the single “message of life” in the Gospel is this: Whoever believes in Jesus has everlasting life (cf. John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47).

Does this help you in your evangelism and discipleship endeavors? Does it help clarify the Gospel message? What do you think about this lady who didn’t know Jesus had risen from the dead? Have you ever encountered someone like this?

God is Redeeming Theology Bible & Theology Topics: , , , , , , ,

Advertisement

How I Evangelize

49 Comments

cat.jpgOK, the cat is out of the bag (I guess it was never in the bag)…The article I referred to in the previous post about the Crossless Gospel is indeed the one by Tom Stegall. But I am also now including Rokser’s “Two Clarifications” from the most recent issue of the “Grace Family Journal.”

It appears from Comments to my previous post that although Stegall is accusing various Free Grace writers and speakers of having a “Crossless Gospel,” what he really means is that we have “Crossless evangelism.” I see these two things as distinctly different since nobody ever shares the entire New Testament gospel when they evangelize. So the issue isn’t whether the cross is part of the gospel or not. Of course the cross is part of the gospel.

Instead, the issue seems to be, “Does a person need to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to receive eternal life?”

So to help clarify the debate, I thought it might help to share what I try to do when I evangelize…after all, this is what it is all about, right? Please note that I don’t exactly know what the evangelistic method is of Zane Hodges, Antonio DaRosa, or any of the other Free Grace people accused of teaching a “crossless gospel.” I do, however, know that the evangelistic practice I describe below closely resembles what Bob Wilkin does. I know this, becuase I work with him, and we have talked a lot about it. Even still, I am not speaking for him, but for myself alone.

Stegall’s Gospel Checklist

Tom StegallBut before I get to my practice, it is probably best to begin with what Stegall says a person must believe to receive eternal life. If I remember correctly, Stegall has five things he says must be believed if a person is to be born again. These five things were not listed in his article, but I think I heard him list them in a talk he gave at the Annual Fall Conference at Duluth Bible Church. (So my memory may be wrong on these five…).

He says that for a person to be born again, they have to believe in:

  1. The death, resurrection, and substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ.
  2. The full humanity of Christ.
  3. The full deity of Christ.
  4. The sinfulness of man.
  5. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Technically, this is more than five, but I’m not going to quibble over that.

My question for Stegall is: “Why these five?”

What if a person believes all these five, but doesn’t believe in the virgin birth and believes that Jesus sinned? What if a person doesn’t believe in the Trinity, and instead is a modalist? What if they believe these five things, but believe that Jesus is “a god” just like the rest of us? What if they believe these five things, but don’t believe in life after death, and “salvation” is only a good life here and now?

Personally, I believe that the virgin birth, the sinlessness of Jesus, and the Trinity are all essential to the gospel, as well as numerous other truths. But do I expect a person to know and believe all of this in order to become a Christian? No. So I don’t have a “crossless gospel.” I have a gospel that includes all five elements Stegall includes, plus a bunch of other Scriptural truths that Stegall does not.

So the real issue is, “What do I share when I evangelize?” Right? Though not directly stated, it seems this is what people want to know. Here is how I evangelize.

How to Evangelize
No, this is NOT how I evangelize…

How I Evangelize

I share any truth of the gospel I think is necessary to get a person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life. All of the truths of the gospel either prepare a person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life, or prove that He can make good on His promise.

So, when I evangelize, I always begin with the gospel invitation and tell them that if they believe in Jesus, He guarantees them eternal life.

Then, I allow the convicting and drawing work of the Holy Spirit upon that person and their natural, logical questions to lead me into what other information about the gospel I might share. Most people, I find, already know and believe that Jesus was God, that He died on the cross for their sins, and that He rose again from the dead. Even most unbelievers believe this.

So generally, the conversation centers around how Jesus can guarantee eternal life to those who believe or how it can be only faith without works, or why a good person cannot get into heaven. This is when we get to Stegall’s five truths plus any of the other gospel truths that will convince the person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life.

One time, I actually talked to a person in the United States who didn’t know who Jesus was. I was pretty amazed that they had never heard of Jesus, but went on to explain to them that He was God, who came to earth 2000 years ago, and lived a sinless life, yet died a painful death on a cross for the sins of the whole world. His resurrection three days later proved that His death was acceptable to God as the payment for our sin. We were able to have a long and lively discussion about the gospel and the offer of eternal life. The conversation naturally led to all of Stegall’s five points, plus several others. But even if the conversation is short, I have still expressed the bottom line gospel invitation.

Natural Conversational Evangelism

This, it seems, is the most natural and biblical way to evangelize. It’s what Jesus did. It’s what Paul and Peter did. I’m not trying to run through a checklist of ideas, which have no basis anywhere in Scripture, or in actual practice. I can’t find any place in Scripture where a person shares all five of Stegall’s points when evangelizing or defining the basics of the gospel. Even 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 10 don’t include all five of these truths. And when compared, those two passages don’t even include the same gospel truths. The truth is, I can’t find one Scriptural passage that includes all five of Stegall’s truths. He has to pick and choose from various passages to get his essential gospel truths, and these five seem pretty arbitrary.

He may accuse me of having a crossless gospel (which I don’t), but I can accuse him of having a cherry-picked gospel.

So what do I share?

When I evangelize, I share anything and everything I can in the time I have that I think will get the person to the point where they become persuaded that simply by faith alone in Jesus they have everlasting life.

Once, when I was a pastor in Montana, I was outside by my woodpile (we use wood to heat our houses in Montana) talking with a man about all of this, and he wasn’t persuaded. He said, “I just don’t know if all of this is true. If it is true, I wish God would just hit me over the head with a 2×4. Then I would believe it.”

I almost reached out and grabbed a 2×4 and whacked him on the head with it! If he said “Why did you do that?” I could have responded, “God told me to, and He wants to know if you’ll believe in Jesus for everlasting life now.” If I had done that, I would have called it the “2×4 gospel,” because not only did I share with him about his sin, the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I also got a 2×4 in there…all in an effort to get him to believe in Jesus for everlasting life.

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!