Evangelism Conference Q&A

Well, thank you for sticking around. We're going to deal with the questions and answers that Mike's not very loud and I think it's on. Turn the piano up. He's on the piano. Is this better? There you go.

Okay. I've got several questions that you all have asked and I've tried to sort them by category and we'll let each of these gentlemen have the opportunity to address the questions that were indicated to all and a handful of them have been indicated to a specific individual and we'll try and get through as many of these as possible.

Can Regret and Guilt Disqualify Salvation?

The first topic we're going to deal with is that of salvation and this is addressed to all of you and the question is, can you truly be saved if bad things you've done in the past still bother you? Take that one first.

Yes. Go right ahead. Absolutely. Conscience won't validate or invalidate the reality of your salvation. Hebrews does tell us that the blood of Christ does purge our conscience from dead works to serve the living and true God, but that doesn't mean that we won't be at times plagued by guilt.

Paul said he had to forget everything that was behind him and press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ. So yes, if you're bothered by your past, it's definitely something that you should seek the Lord about and try to work through, but it's not something that disqualifies you from salvation at all.

First Timothy chapter one, we read the Apostle Paul says, I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has strengthened me because he considered me faithful, putting me into service even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor.

And yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners among whom I am foremost of all.

The Apostle Paul as he grew closer to glory. He never forgot his former sins. He never forgot the fact that he had persecuted the church, but he always remembered them as sins that have been covered in the blood of Christ.

So I don't know that we're ever told to try to forget in the sense that we could ever forget our former sins, but we do need to always bring them back and recognize that we see them through the blood of Christ as Jesse has just said.

And he concludes by saying, and yet for this reason, I found mercy in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate his perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in him for eternal life.

In other words, Paul would be saying as the chief of sinners, whatever you've done is nothing compared to what I did. And yet God had mercy on me. So you should be encouraged that he can have mercy on you as well.

I think the best thing we can learn to do as believers is to learn to preach the gospel to ourselves. And every time you have a regret, it's an opportunity to remind yourself the ground on which you stand.

Preach the gospel to yourself and that regret is actually helping your sanctification. It's grounding you more. I think that's great answers.

The Wages of Sin and Why Christ Had to Die

We can move on to the next question. Pair these two together because I think they kind of address the same subject. Again, these are addressed to all of you. Question number one, what do we mean by the phrase the wages of sin?

And number two, why did Christ have to die? I think they go very well hand in hand. So I was going to ask them both at the same time.

Take the, at least to start out, a wage is something that is earned. It is something that is due. So when we address the wage of sin, effectively what it's referring to is what is the result? What is the earned result of what we have done as sinners?

So if I've often described it, if you work all week and your boss comes up and hands you a paycheck and he said, this is your earnings, you've earned this much per hour and this is your wage. This is what's due to you.

And so when the apostle says the wages of sin is death, he's talking about the fact that what we have earned through sin is condemnation. And when the apostle talks about death, he is not there simply referring to physical death, but he is referring to, in fact, the death of the spirit.

He's referring to the fact of eternal torment. And so the wages of sin is eternal conscious torment and hell. That's the expanded expression of what he is saying. And the follow up is just as important.

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. The gift is in opposite or contrast with the wage. We earn death, but we're given life. And that's the contrast which is made there.

I think it's very important. And as far as why did Christ have to die, I'm going to say something controversial and this is I may get kicked off the chancel. That's OK. Christ didn't have to die. He died because God chose to save.

That's important. Do you want to add something to that? I was just going to add to that. I agree with you completely. Acts 223, it's pretty simple that the father predetermined and predestined the son to be handed over and delivered and to be crucified by godless men who would hang him on a cross.

And he certainly did not have to die. As Keith said, he chose to die. He willingly chose to die and submit himself to the father. But there's another element here that needs to be brought in when we're speaking about the wages of sin being death and connected with that, the idea of why Christ died.

And that has to do with the holy character of God and flowing from that, the justice of God. God would not be just and God would not be God had he not punished sin in some former fashion and praise be to God.

He punished sin in his only begotten son. He didn't have to do that. He chose to do that. The son didn't have to do it. He chose to submit himself to the father so that all who are in Christ have the full wrath and anger of God satisfied in Jesus Christ so that we can have eternal life.

I think that the Garden of Gethsemane gives us an amazing statement regarding the necessity of the atonement of Christ when the son is coming into the garden and he brings Peter, James and John and says, he began to be very distressed and troubled.

And he said to them, my soul is deeply grieved to the point of death. Remain here and keep watch. He went a little beyond them and fell to the ground and began to pray that if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.

And he was saying, Abba, father, all things are removed this cup from me, yet not what I will, but what thou wilt, to the God of the impossible. And he says, all things are possible with you. And he prays that the cup would be removed.

And yet he prays that the will of the father would be done. The whole point of the fact that Christ did drink the cup and the cup is the wrath of God that is drawn from the Old Testament scriptures. We know that that's what the cup is, is the wrath of God.

And what we are being told here is that that which God would do, that is to save sinners, if God were going to save sinners, it is impossible for a holy God to save sinners apart from Christ drinking the cup.

And so that's one of the things that we draw from that is if a person comes and says that they believe they can be saved apart from Christ, we just go back to Gethsemane and say, no, it's not possible because God cannot be just and justify sinners apart from the Son drinking.

And I would just apply the big theological term here is consequent necessity. And it was something that many of the Titan medieval reformers, predated the reformers, but the Titan theologians of the medieval church like Aquinas and Anselm wrestled with.

And Hebrews 10, 2, 10 is really helpful in this regard because it uses a Greek particle here that is one of necessity. It was fitting, the ESV says, it was necessary, it was mandatory is a good way to understand it, that he for whom and by whom all things exist and bringing many sons to glory should make the founder of the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering, because he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source.

That is to say, because the wages of our sin were and are death, if unatoned for, then the way the only way we can inherit eternal life, it absolutely has to be this way, is that someone had to die the death we deserve.

I just want to make sure that I think you all understand, just to clarify what I said when I said he didn't have to. What I meant was that it was God's choice that he would, because one of the things that I've often tried to point out to people is when God created man, he could have chosen to save all indiscriminately.

He could have chosen to save none indiscriminately. And we all deserve hell. So if he would have chosen to save none, he would have been absolutely glorified and justified in doing so. But he chose to save some.

And in choosing to save some, he chose to provide a sacrifice, an atonement for them. So when I was saying if it came across as crass, when I said he didn't have to die, what I meant was he didn't God didn't have to choose to save.

He chose to save. And in choosing to save, this is how he chose to save through the sacrifice of his son. I'm really sorry. Just let me add one point. The justice of God and the love of God do not contradict one another.

And so in one sense, from at least a human perspective and perhaps an earthly perspective, the character of God and his holiness compelled him to send his son to die, to punish sin. But the love of God also compelled him to do that.

Those things don't don't conflict and they don't contradict one another. So God is bound by no one. The only one that binds God is God himself. No one can tell God what to do or demand anything from God.

It is God himself and who he is and all of his holy character and both his love and his justice that compels him to do anything. And so whatever he does is good, right, just and perfect. And he is worthy of our worship and demands us to bow to him.

And I would go back to Romans 9. Paul says, who are you, old man, to answer back to God? Why did you make me this way? In principle form, we understand in the context of Romans 9, that's talking about election.

Who's going to question God as to why he didn't elect some and he elected others? But in principle form, that question can be extended to any question regarding why God does what he does. The very simple answer is because he's God and he can and he will and he ought to.

Why Some Christians Do Not Evangelize

The next category of questions addresses evangelism. And the first one is, is the fear of evangelizing sometimes because one is not convinced, convicted and converted by the message that that individual is trying to share with others?

It's addressed to all of you.

I'm going to repeat it since I dealt with fear in my message. I'll go first and see if enough that I want to jump in. But essentially, the question is asking, is the reason why some people don't evangelize is because they themselves are not converted?

Correct. Yeah, that I mean, that's one of the reasons why we don't share the faith is because we don't hold to the faith. There was a great I didn't get I didn't read this in my sermon, but there is a great letter that was written and I don't know if it was written to J .C. Ryle, but it was written to I know it was in some of his writings and it was written to a minister.

And the letter was from an atheist and the atheist just chided the believer and said, you don't believe what you say you believe, because if you really believe that you couldn't contain yourself from telling people about it.

If you really believed that people were going to hell, you would you couldn't stop yourself from trying to pull them out of that predicament. If you walk by a house and saw it burning down and didn't run in and try to take as many out as you could, you'd be considered a monster.

But yet you walk by people every day who are going headlong into hell and you're not reaching out trying to save them. You really don't believe what you say. That was from an atheist to a Christian. Saying you really don't believe it, because if you did, you would you would be out in the world doing something about it.

So so I mean, that's challenged me on many levels that that letter and I've read it multiple times and I think so I think is the reason why some people don't share the faith because they don't believe the faith.

Yeah. Is that always the reason? No, no, but it certainly can be. And I do think that Charles Spurgeon did say, and I believe he was right, he said, if we have no desire to see lost men saved, we can be quite confident that we're not ourselves.

You know, so that would be my answer.

Council Paul said in 2nd Corinthians chapter, I think it's chapter he says, we are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus sake that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.

So death works in us, but life in you. But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, I believed therefore I spoke. We also believe, therefore also we speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will be who will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you.

One of the great sermons I heard on this text is from Warfield. And what Warfield says at the end of that sermon on this text, 2nd Corinthians, which is a quotation of Psalm 116, he says, the problem is we don't believe it.

He says, believe it. He says, there are people that say, well, I can't preach that. People may not accept that. He said, the problem is we don't believe it. If you believed it, you would preach it. In fact, it would preach itself, he says.

He said, there is the heart of our problem. We don't believe what we say. We believe. I believe, therefore I spoke. The question says, should one evangelize within a divided house, a family of mixed believers and unbelievers?

Should you evangelize?

Let's say yes. Talking about living in the midst of this home. I think that's the context. Yes.

First, Peter 3, where Peter, is that where you're going? In 1st Peter 3, the woman, this is if the woman is the believer and the husband's the unbeliever. The woman is told in the same way, wives, be submissive to your husband so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior and let not your adornment be merely external, braiding the hair, wearing gold jewelry, etc.

But let it be of the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. I remember talking to, there were many times that I had women in a Bible study that I did, and they would have unbelieving husbands and they would complain about the fact their husbands wouldn't listen.

And I just said, well, what does your husband complain about? And the woman, one of the women said, well, he's always complaining about the fact that I don't, I forget what it was, something to do with putting the top on the milk carton or something.

I said, well, put the carton, put the top on the milk carton. That's easily enough done. I said, do the things that you can do to remove any impediment and be an example. Do the things that, you know, go beyond, go above and beyond as a wife, being the kind of wife you can be, not leave tracks around the house all the time.

Every time he opens up the cabinet and he goes to get his shaving cream out, tracks fall down on him. I said, be an example, live as a godly woman, quietly, you know, having a gentle spirit. And I remember one time I was dealing with a man who I was seeking to bring the gospel to, and I found out by getting into that home that the biggest impediment to the gospel was his wife, who was a member of our church.

And I had to finally take her aside and say, you need to stop. I'm trying to reach your husband with the gospel and you're tearing down with both hands what I'm trying to do. Just be quiet. Let me do the work that God's called me to do.

You wanted me to come here to the house. Well, now I've come and now you need to cooperate by being quiet. And God was gracious. She listened to me. And in time, the Lord had mercy on this man and saved him.

And I'll never forget that experience. And that passage in 1 Peter is a very important passage. That's for the women.

Yeah, the question is especially addressed that way. I mean, we do know there's a time to speak and a time to be silent. I think all of us who would understand the conception of a child would know that the word of God is like the sperm implanted, which brings forth a new birth.

And gestation times for different individuals vary. If the wife has spoken the gospel like the seed and it's implanted, she might not have to keep trying to inseminate. Would that be, take time to grow up?

So let that happen. But at the same time, recognize from Acts chapter one, you shall be my witnesses to the ends of the earth. And the be in that case is just as important as the doing and the speaking.

So we're talking about the general quiet spirit being a witness without even saying anything.

Just say one thing since the whole issue of 1 Peter 3 came up with the testimony of a wife toward an unbelieving husband. That passage does apply to unbelieving husbands. What about a wife who's an unbeliever?

I think in principle form, we could use 1 Peter 3 .1. It would look a lot different because you would have masculine qualities of a testimony rather than feminine. But also think we can go to Ephesians 5.

And in Ephesians 5, it's very clear, verse 23, that the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. Whether an unbelieving wife recognizes it or not, her believing husband is her head.

And then Paul says in verse 25, husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to sanctify her. So a husband who has an unbelieving wife is to sacrificially love her and demonstrate the same love that Christ demonstrated to the church.

And to do that in such a sacrificial manner that he might compel her to be humbled under the weight of his humility because the gospel has changed him and he wants to serve her even though she hates his God.

So that the Spirit of God might be pleased to regenerate her heart. As the head of the home, by example, loves his wife, and then as the head of the home, by example, also preaches the gospel to his wife and to his children.

So it's both by word and by example that that can be done, if there's an unbelieving wife.

And in 1 Corinthians 7, the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband who believes, and vice versa. I mean, we know that doesn't mean necessarily they're born again at that moment, but there's a sanctifying influence at work.

And you trust that that's gonna continue.

Witnessing to Catholics and Asking Better Questions

The next question says, if I wanted to witness to friends that are lifelong Catholics, what would be my opening remarks and on which topics are best to start with?

Certainly no expert on Catholic theology, but probably where I would start is how good is good enough to get into heaven? So in other words, in Roman Catholic theology, it's faith plus good works equals justification.

So your justification is directly corollary to the degree of your sanctification. So at what degree, and perhaps I'm talking myself into an answer here, how can you ever obtain assurance of salvation in Catholic theology?

And that's why Robert Bellarmine said that the greatest Protestant heresy is the assurance of salvation. Because he believed that, representing the Roman Catholic position, that if you teach and preach the assurance of salvation to people, they're gonna become lax in doing good works and living the Christian life, etc.

So where I would start would be, how good is good enough to merit justification? How sanctified do you have to be? And how can you ever know truly the peace of conscience and soul that comes from knowing that you are truly saved and secure in Christ?

And they're not gonna have a good answer for that, I don't think. That's gonna stand up to scripture. And we have the answer for them. That security is found in trusting Christ alone, who has secured our salvation apart from our good works.

I was in dialogue with a Catholic last week who made it easy for me. He began with a question, well let me ask you, what's the difference between what you as a Presbyterian believe about hell and what we believe as Catholics?

And I prayed silently. I said, well let's begin with, we don't believe in purgatory. That was a great setup for a difference because there's no biblical justification for saying there's some middle ground where I need to be further purified.

And we moved on there to the doctrine of the authority of scripture alone and the history of Martin Luther. So I thank the Lord for those kind of questions where it's kind of a setup for you already.

Roman Catholicism is a very serious issue. More serious, I think, than we might realize because we're in Southern America where everybody's a Southern Baptist. No offense, brother. But in many parts of the world, Catholicism is the only Christianity anyone knows.

And that's bad. I'm not saying that's a good thing. It's a bad thing because Roman Catholicism, I just recently had a conversation with a Roman Catholic myself. It was an online interaction, but it was a good conversation about the mass, the belief in the perpetuatory sacrifice of the mass.

And it really is. The issue of dealing with a Roman Catholic is people ask me, can a Roman Catholic be saved? And my answer has been consistent, and I pray it will continue to be consistent. They are saved in spite of what they are taught, not because of what they are taught.

If they are saved, it is in spite of Roman Catholic theology, not because of it. So when I talk to a Roman Catholic, I talk to them as an unbeliever because they have a different understanding of salvation.

They have a different understanding. You might could argue they have a right understanding of the Trinity because they hold to the ancient creeds, as we do, of who Christ is and the hypothetic union and things like that.

And that may be a good place to start. Start on some things that you have in common, but show them the deviations of the false. I had to tell this girl, this young lady, I said the perpetuatory understanding of the sacrifice of the mass, which I know some of you don't know what I mean, but in talking to her, I said that is a 13th century heresy.

That is not something that is found in the ancient... Well, Augustine may have said something like this, kind of, sort of. No, the teaching that Christ is brought down from heaven and represented on the table as a re-sacrifice, that is a medieval heresy.

That is not what the ancient church believed about the body and blood of Jesus Christ. And so, being able to understand some of Catholic theology helps, but the most important thing is understanding that you are talking to somebody who is most likely an unbeliever.

And if they are saved, they are saved in spite of what they have been taught, not because of what they have been taught.

I think it is important also to, and whenever I have people ask questions about a Roman Catholic, there are a million different kinds of Roman Catholics in America. And what you have to do is, you first of all, have to find out what do they believe.

And we can assume certain things that they believe, but in many cases, they are ignorant. They have no idea. They will say that, you know, I was born a Catholic, I will die a Catholic. They think, I was born Italian, I am going to die Italian.

Well, yeah, that is true. But being a Catholic is also ultimately a choice. And most of them did not become Catholics by choice. They were by birth. And so, I would always want to be able to, and I am speaking from experience, because my father was born and raised in a Roman Catholic Church.

And he came to Christ later in life. And his whole family on that side are Roman Catholics. And I think that you deal with them as an individual. You speak to them as individuals. And you begin by asking questions.

Don't give them answers they are not asking. You get questions and find out, well, what do they believe? Because a lot of times you will find people who say, I am a good Catholic, but I don't agree with the Pope.

And I say, well, your definition of a good Catholic, you are not a good Catholic. You may be a Catholic in name, but you are not really a Catholic. You have got to, you know, you don't pick and choose.

This is not a multiple choice deal. I said, if you are a Roman Catholic, you have got to believe what they teach. And if you don't, well, then I don't know what you are, but you are not really a Roman Catholic.

And so I think sometimes what we need to do is just get people to realize that they are not what they think they are. And then be able to open their eyes to see what the Gospel and what the Bible actually teaches.

I just can't emphasize enough, you need to ask good questions in evangelization. I was talking to another Catholic last week, and obviously right away he began discussing with me his divorce. Whether or not he is forgiven for that.

And then it got to, I am not sure if I should take Mass or not. I said, well, if you take communion, do you consider that to be a venial or a mortal sin if you take communion as an unauthorized divorcee?

Do you understand what I am saying? Because his conscience is bothering him. There is guilt there. And I didn't have to answer that question. He said, that is a good question. I need to talk to my priest about that.

Because I am taking communion. There are times when you can't bring somebody all the way to faith in Christ, but you can certainly, again, rile up their conscience so that perhaps you have asked a question that they will keep seeking the truth about.

Incidentally, this was funny. Another question with a different Catholic was, I have got this health problem. I can't eat gluten in my diet. And my priest insists that transubstantiation cannot happen unless there is gluten in the bread.

Seriously. And I said, well, I will stop there. But that is a good instance of being an apologist there.

Well, just for the record, I just wanted to say, Keith was making fun of me for being a Southern Baptist. Apparently, I am one of the only ones here. Let me just say this, though. There are too many Southern Baptists and not enough Christians.

That is my stance on Southern Baptist theology for you.

How to Engage an Atheist Who Rejects Conversation

Let's go back to the asking good questions. Because this one addresses a person who doesn't want to hear good questions. How would you engage an atheist on the subject of the gospel when that individual runs from any form or manner of religious conversation?

The atheist doesn't want to hear about what you are talking about? Correct. Yeah, I mean, kind of going back to what I said earlier about atheists. I don't believe in atheists. I don't. I don't. I don't believe in atheists.

Neither does God. That's right. Saying there is no God is as ignorant as saying there is no gold in China. Because you can't know that. At best, you're convinced agnostic. You're convinced that you're ignorant.

That's all. Because if I said there is gold in China, I don't have to show you one piece. I'd have to show you here's gold and we're in China. So, ipso facto, there's gold in China. But if I said there's no gold in China, I'd have to know what was inside of every mountain.

I'd have to know what was inside of every rock. I'd have to know what was inside of every Chinese person's mouth to prove that there is no God or that there's no gold. So, when a person comes to me and says there is no God, I say you just don't know that.

And you can't know that. And your heart knows that's wrong. But that's one of the apologetic methodologies for when someone says there is no God. No, you don't know that. You can't know that. And I don't believe you're an atheist.

At best, you're convinced agnostic. But in regard to someone who doesn't want to hear what we have to say, at best, once we have given someone the gospel and they have plugged their ears, like you guys, we're all small children.

And I'm sure at certain times in the past, your mom was yelling at you and you plugged your ears and ran away. And I don't want to hear what you have to say. And that happens. We share our faith with people.

They plug their ears. They don't want to hear. And I like what Jesse said the other night about the fact that we continue to put it before them. We continue to share our faith with them. But there is a point where we have to shake the dust off our feet and move on.

We cannot sit there and try to break the heart. We're not going to. We're not going to open the heart. But we can stand for Christ. We can, when we're with these people, when we're given the opportunity, be an example of Christ to them, tell them the truth, not be sorry for the truth or apologetic in the sense of being sorry for the truth.

But, you know, Matthew 7, 6, you know, we don't give the holy things to the dogs. We don't cast our pearls before swine. And there is a point at which that's what we're doing. We're allowing people to take that which is holy and trample it under feet.

And I think there's a point at which we have to say, you know what? I have given them the gospel. I've given them all I can. And I will continue to stand for that gospel. I won't shirk it. And that's why I want to commend what Jesse said the other night.

I'm not ever going to give up on that. But there is a point at which I have to say, you know what? I have. They have heard it for me. As I said, I've stood over many dead bodies as a minister of the gospel.

I've seen many dead people. And I can look down at them and I can say, you know what? I know they heard the gospel for me. I stood over my cousin who was dead. I said, you know what?

I know he heard the gospel for me. That's all I can say. I think the one thing we can do with a person who says that they don't want to listen anymore, they can't stop you from praying. You have the example of the Valley of Dry Bones in Ezekiel where he's told to prophesy over the bones, which was a foolish thing to do.

But he did it anyway because he was told to do it. And of course, the bones came together and the flesh came on the bones, but there was no life. So what is he told to do? Preach more? No. He's told to pray, to prophesy to the wind, to prophesy to the spirit.

And then the spirit came and there was a living army. And so I think that once we have planted the seed, you know, the insemination process, we then water it through prayer. And then God is the one who causes the increase.

Paul says, what is Paul? What is Apollos? We're nothing. One plants the other waters, but God is the one who gets the increase. So it's all of God. So it's just a reminder to us that salvation is of the Lord.

We believe in monergism and we prove that by praying. Because there's nothing more futile looking than praying. But God is the one who answers prayer.

Michael, thank you for bringing that up about prayer. Because there are some hyper-Calvinists who, and I'm sure you've probably heard this, not only do they think it is unnecessary to preach the gospel to the lost, which is to go completely contrary to Jesus, the great evangelist, who knew who the elect were and preached to the non-elect anyway, along with the elect.

But those same hyper-Calvinists will say that there's no place in Scripture that tells us we're to pray for the lost. And you just pointed out one in Ezekiel 37 in the Old Testament. And I want to point out one in 2 Thessalonians 3 .1.