Okay, so I'm not sure if anyone remembers two weeks ago on Sunday night, that's usually a long time ago for us, even for a Sunday night crowd. For the faithful few, it's been a while. But last time we met on a Sunday night and talked about this book, Tell the Truth, we did the first half of chapter nine, which is called Ordinary Christians Can Witness. And this week, we're kind of finishing up the chapter, doing the second half, so I've called it, Ordinary Christians Can Witness Part Two. So, remember a little bit of what we talked about two weeks ago. A lot of it had to do with the opposition we will encounter when we talk to people about the exclusive claims of Christ on their life. We talked about how pluralism in the West has introduced a new definition of tolerance. Remember, pluralism is the idea that we all live together, people of various backgrounds and creeds and religions. We all live together in harmony and to some extent that's good. For instance, we aren't just trying to kill the Jews and they aren't trying to kill us and the Muslims aren't trying to kill us in this land, etc. We're living together in tolerance, realizing that we cannot force faith, religious faith, on people from the outside. It has to come from inside their heart. So, we live in a pluralistic society, but it's gotten to the point where we not only live in this situation, but people have started to view this pluralistic atmosphere as something good in and of itself. It's come to be something that people value. We value the fact that people have different beliefs. And to some extent, yes, we can learn from each other and from each other's different backgrounds. But from this pluralism has come a new definition of tolerance. Remember, tolerance used to mean that I except you in the sense that I tolerate you, I exercise forbearance towards you, I know you're different than I am, I don't agree with you, but I can live beside you, right? And so that's what tolerance used to mean, but now tolerance is being promoted but with a different meaning. People have changed the definition of tolerance to mean that I accept you in the sense of approving of and agreeing with everything about you. This goes along with the idea that truth is relative. that you can figure out what you want to believe and what's right for you, and I can figure out what I want to believe and what's right for me, and we should all coexist and not try to pop each other's bubbles, so to speak. The idea in our land now is that we should accept each other to the extent of approval and agreement. But we saw, last time we met talking about this, that That's not compatible with the nature of Christianity, not biblical Christianity. Why? Well, Jesus claims to be the only way to God. And Jesus claims to be the ruler of heaven and earth. And he makes an exclusive claim on the allegiance of those he's made and those he's died for. So, when we come into this context, into our current culture, and say you must believe on the name of Jesus Christ to be right with God, that directly contradicts some of the most fundamental and cherished beliefs of people. because they think it is intolerant and it is bigoted, and it is prejudiced to say that my belief is something that you need to submit to as well. I think this quotation from the book, from page 195, is right on target. Metzger says, God's sovereignty, is the reason why there is no other way to God except through Christ. Meaning, why is Christ the only way to God? Well, because God is the sovereign. God is the king. God is the one in charge and he dictates the terms of what is and what is not true. And he is the one who has said, I am sending my son as the only way of salvation. And so that should settle the matter. But for the unbeliever, that doesn't settle the matter because they rebel against God's sovereignty in the first place. So he said, God's sovereignty is the reason why there is no other way to God except through Christ. Then later on he says, this question of whether all religions lead to God can never be answered to the non-believer's satisfaction, for the answer involves a submission to the biblical view of God, and that would be tantamount to conversion. And then he says something else. He says, acceptance of our answer of Christ as the only way would also involve the non-believer in acceptance of the biblical diagnosis of man's sickness and cure. In other words, why are people so resistant to the exclusive claims of Christianity? Well, first, because in order to accept what you're saying to them, they have to basically believe and submit to God. There's no other option. And they're naturally sinners and rebellion against God. But second, If they accept our Christian gospel, our Christian message, they have to admit that they are not inherently good people. They have to admit that when God diagnoses them as people dead in sins and in rebellion against Him, they have to admit that that's true about them. And that also is something that sinners will have a hard time with. In fact, unless God's Spirit is at work within them, they will always rebel against that. So, given the exclusivity of Christ, he is the only way to God, and the resistance of the sinner, the fact that the sinner will always resist Christ's claims, and particularly in our current context, we have to keep some principles in mind of how to communicate the gospel truthfully and lovingly. Once again, the title of the chapter was Ordinary Christians Can Witness. The question is basically how. What is the right way, what are some right ways to be truthful and loving and using both truth and love to communicate the gospel? Well, first of all, he points out that we need to be willing and able to reason with people. We need to appeal to their reason that God gave them. He says, let's see here, I didn't mark down which page this is, but he says, apologetics, or the defense of the faith, has much value in witnessing and can be an effective tool to prepare the way for the gospel. All reality testifies to a creator, according to Psalm 19 and Romans 120. The validity of Christianity is confirmed through archaeology, history, and various sciences, but these are not proofs. For even if we are able to prove from archaeology that Christ died, we are still not able to scientifically prove it was for our sins. Thus, rational evidences, like traditional or classical apologetics, are useful, but only of limited value. So he's saying that traditional or classical apologetics in which we present various ways in which reality confirms the truth of the Bible, he says that is of value, but it's of limited value because the sinner is already hostile against God. And also because you can't scientifically, to man's full satisfaction, prove spiritual realities. Spiritual realities of sin and salvation are not something that you can scientifically prove to someone. He goes on, the most effective apologetic is to admit our presuppositions, things we assume to be true about the world according to the Bible, and show how they make sense of both the real world and the creatures who live in it. We ask unbelievers, we prod them, to look at life through our glasses We expose their own assumptions to them, for many have unconscious beliefs about the world, and ask them to evaluate how consistently they live out those assumptions. We show them the dead-end and dehumanizing results of their positions. Later he says we need to learn how to lovingly take off the protective roof of a false worldview that people have built over their heads to keep God away. Let's go to Romans chapter 1 for a second. Romans chapter 1. If you read the New Testament much at all, you find Jesus and the apostles in the early church reasoning with people about the gospel, about the truth of God's Word, but they don't feel the need, apparently, to scientifically prove or to prove to human satisfaction everything they take for granted to be true. For instance, Genesis 1 starts by simply stating, as a self-evident truth, that God created the heavens and the earth. We see in Romans 1 that people can see in the world God made some basic truths about God. Romans 1 verse 18 says, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, But they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." So, we see that people, all people, no matter what they claim, all people have a basic sense that there is a Creator and they recognize Him. It's not like they reconstruct Him from nothing, but people recognize their Creator in what He has made in the world. But, as it says here, people naturally suppress that truth in unrighteousness. You're not going to get a sinner unchanged by God's Spirit to just automatically admit all that he knows deep down, because that would imply that he has some responsibilities to his Creator. So, because of that, there is a limited value of rational evidences alone, because, look, in the first place, people have a basic knowledge of God's existence. Even atheists, deep down, have that within them. You have something that's on your side already within them, their innate knowledge of God and of their responsibility to Him. But rational evidences alone, if you just try to reason with people and totally prove to their satisfaction that God is the Bible is God, and that the gospel is true, and so on, it won't work. So there's limited value to rational evidences alone, but there is greater value of a presuppositional framework, as the author of the book, Will Metzger, said. In other words, we have to admit to people, if I'm talking to someone, I have to admit to them, look, of course I can't prove to your satisfaction that the God of the Bible, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is your God, your Creator, and your Judge, and so on. And I can't prove to your satisfaction that Jesus' death paid for sins, and that His resurrection can give you eternal life. But, what I can do, is I can say, but the Bible assumes these things to be true, and it is God's Word, And I will admit, those are my presuppositions, that the Bible is God's Word and that it is truth. Now, let's look at your worldview and your presuppositions, your assumptions about the world. First of all, we have to expose the inconsistency and falsehood of human worldviews. We say, okay, we expose the fact, basically, that people are suppressing the truth and unrighteousness, that they can't live with what they say they believe, all right? People can say, let's take the example of atheism, and I'm probably stealing thunder from the groups here a little bit, but just we'll stick our toe in this. Take atheism. Some very famous and mouthy atheists, very loud mouth atheists, talk with great conviction about how the God of the Bible is untrue, is false, and he's evil. But, on their own assumption, if there is no God, and there's no God of the Bible, why do they have that sense of good and evil? There's a certain, I can't think of his name off the top of my head, there's a certain famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, I believe it is, who will talk about how the God of the Old Testament is evil, he's megalomaniac, he's genocidal, he lists all these things that are supposed to be bad, evil, about this God pictured in the Old Testament. And then he reasons of the basis of morality that we should not believe in this God. Well, who made morality? Where do you get morality if there's no God, as Richard Dawkins claims? Where do you get that sense of ought and of right and wrong? Well, you can't get it anywhere. unless you admit there's a God who set up a moral order in the universe. You can say, well, I feel a certain way about something, but what if someone else feels a different way about that something? If everything is just evolution, and everything came about by natural processes, and I decide to kill you to get your stuff, why not? Why not survival of the fittest? Why are you getting mad? Well, see, that's the sort of thing we have to do with unbelievers because they are suppressing truth about God within them. But when they do that, their worldview cannot, when pushed, when tested, their worldview cannot hold together. As some people have put it, everyone borrows things from the Christian worldview or from the knowledge they have of God. and of right and wrong and so on, and they borrow it and they incorporate it into their own idolatrous worldview. So, our job often is to find out what stuff they've borrowed and to show them how this is all inconsistent. So, first of all, we basically walk into unbelievers' human worldviews and we break their furniture. We show that their worldview is incompatible, it doesn't hold together. And then we expose the self-consistency and reality of Christianity. We let God's truth speak for itself. And we say, now what the Bible says, this is truth. And this really makes sense of the world, if you accept its presuppositions, its assumptions. This makes sense of reality. And we can show the truth of Christianity that way. So, we need to reason with people. That's the larger point. And a lot of that will be not just from individual rational evidences, but a lot of it will be showing that people are living with false worldviews that can't be sustained and that Christianity is a true worldview. But beyond simple reasoning with people, we also need to do a second thing. We need to speak to the conscience. I like this one because We can start thinking that witnessing and defending the faith and evangelizing is something really complicated if we just focus on reasoning with people. But you know what? Everybody has a conscience. You don't have to know someone's background, their culture they came from. You don't have to know their family background. You don't have to know anything about them other than that they're human in order to know that they have a conscience that's on your side. In Romans chapter 2, verses 14 through 15, Paul says, when the Gentiles who do not have the law, they don't have the written law of God, when Gentiles who do not have the law do instinctively the things of the law, these not having the law are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them. Unbelievers ultimately have to see that their unbelief is not so much an intellectual problem as a moral problem. They have an inherent consciousness of God and His law, but they suppress it. So how do we prick the consciences of unbelievers? This doesn't involve, obviously, being unnecessarily abrasive, but it involves doing things like Jesus and the apostles did. Before I get to that, I should mention John 3, verse 19, where Jesus says, this is the problem with the world of humanity, of human sinners. He says, this is the judgment, John 3, 19, that the light has come into the world and men loved the darkness rather than the light for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. So maybe I should take a step back and say that, just not talk about it in terms of unbelievers, but in terms of our thinking. We need to get it firmly settled in our minds that the most basic problem of people we talk to is not intellectual. It's not just a matter of ignorance. It's a matter of what they don't do and don't want to do. Their conscience does tell them about God and about his law. And it does testify to the truth. But as Jesus said, everyone who does evil, why do they do evil? They hate the light and they don't come to the light. Why? For fear that their deeds will be exposed. Sinners don't want their sins exposed. So they will come up with a whole bunch of arguments, a whole bunch of intellectual problems and debates to shield themselves from the light of God's holiness. And that's the most basic problem. And so, we have to realize, we have to go for the conscience, not just the intellect. How did Jesus do this? John 4. He's talking to the woman at the well. And this conversation could have gone a very intellectual route only. You know, Jesus offers living water, and then the woman asks him if he's greater than their father Jacob, who gave them the well. And, you know, there's all sorts of intellectual debates between Jews and Samaritans. As a Samaritan woman, Jesus is a Jew. But notice what Jesus does early on in the conversation, verse 16 of John 4. Jesus said to her, go, call your husband and come here. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said to her, you have correctly said, I have no husband, for you have had five husbands. And the one whom you now have is not your husband. This you have said truly." Now, Jesus could do this because he was omniscient. He knew all things. But our point here is Jesus intentionally pricked this woman's conscience. He wasn't nasty in the way he did it, but he did say some very revealing things about her lifestyle. Paul, when Paul was in prison, and the governor Felix in Judea called Paul to talk with him a little bit. Paul gave the gospel to this man named Felix, this governor, and his wife, Jusilla, who was a Jewess. And in Acts 24, verse 24, it says that Felix sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. But as he was discussing righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix became frightened and said, Go away for the present. And when I find time, I will summon you. Notice that Paul gave the gospel sometimes a lot differently than we do. Sometimes we're going out of our way not to offend Paul, knowing Felix's wicked life with his wife, Drusilla. And there was a lot of wickedness there. Paul goes right for Not the stuff we would typically connect with the gospel so much. He goes for discussing righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come. He makes sure that this stuff is driven home into the conscience. And Felix's conscience is so pricked that he tells Paul to go away. And so that's also something that we need to remember that just because someone is offended doesn't mean it's our fault. It may just be that their conscience is being bothered by the truth. Here's some questions that can appeal to the conscience, just as examples. And usually, you probably won't end up using these questions until you've developed a relationship with an unbeliever, which is another argument for relational evangelism. But often, especially once you know a person, you might say something like this, are there things in your life you are not willing to face and have God change? Or you might say, isn't the real issue that you can't face your sin and guilt before God? Now that sounds a little direct, but you might have to say that at some point. You might say, if I were to answer all your questions about Christ satisfactorily, would you be willing to come to Him? If not, why not? You might say, assuming that God exists and has created you, don't you have a responsibility to Him? Have you ever thanked Him? You might say, if you had recorded in a notebook all your thoughts and judgments of others for the last day and then lost it, how would you feel? I like that question. If you kept a notebook of everything that's gone through your mind in the past day, through your heart, and then you lost it, would you panic? Why? You might say, how do you know what love is? If someone's trying to say, well, this guy in the Bible isn't a loving God. How do you know what love is and that you're not actually running away from it? You know, a rebellious teenager can talk about how their parents are so unloving and don't love them and are so mean and sometimes it's just because they're running away from tough love. Same thing with the unbeliever. We need to point out these things and be willing to in appropriate contexts. A third thing we need to keep in mind is that we need to face our fears. And I'm sure as we talk about some of this confrontational sort of evangelism, fears already started popping up as we talked about this. We need to face our fears. We need to come to grips with our responsibility and privilege. Like Paul told Timothy to not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me as prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God. And then he goes on to describe how God has called us with a holy calling. According to his grace, he gave us from the ages past and eternity past. And this is according to the grace that's now been revealed by the appearing of Christ Jesus. But we need to come to grips with the fact that we have a responsibility that's really a privilege to share Christ. And that should outshine our fears. Also, we need to accept the unavoidable offense of the gospel. The gospel will unavoidably offend sinners. We can sinfully offend other sinners, true, but the correct preaching of the cross will also offend sinners. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1.18, for the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. And then later on he says that, in verse 22, indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified to Jews as a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Paul said, yes, unless God steps into the situation and calls someone to salvation, All the message of the cross is going to be is it's going to be an offense, a stumbling block to the Jews and it's going to be foolishness, stupidity to the Greeks in their natural frame of mind. So we need to accept that the gospel has an unavoidable offense and we also need to be humble and thus bold because this isn't about us. Be humble and because of that be bold because it isn't about you. Most of our fears are There's strength in the fact that we are very self-focused. We're not focused as much on the eternal good of the sinner in front of us as we are on our own reputation or on our own comfort, on our own well-being as we see it. And we're certainly not focused on God's glory more than ourselves when we are afraid and given to our fears. Fourth thing we need to keep in mind is that we need to be wholesome in our attitudes and motivation. And I like what Metzger wrote about this on pages 205 to 206. He said, Do we love others? Translated into practical terms, how much time do I give to others? Do I spend time only with people who are like me? What do I enjoy most? Would I forgo it to help someone? Am I constantly thinking only of my time, fun and interests? Then he says, love is enterprising and has an inventive genius all its own. Guys who are married. Somehow, I'm assuming, you figured out a way and you built up the nerve to ask your wife to marry you, right? Love has an inventive genius all its own. Even for those of us who are more naturally shy and introverted and so on. If you love sinners, and if you love God, you will find a way to spread the message of the gospel. You just will. That's often the basic problem. We aren't always wholesome in our attitudes and motivation. We don't always have love at the center of what we're doing. Then he says, Love is enterprising and has an inventive genius all its own. Gratitude for God's grace and a love for Christ spontaneously overflow to those around us. Our heart must be set on the salvation of others. When this end is not reached, we will be deeply pained. Complacency is a sign of an indifference to even our own salvation. When have we been moved with compassion like our Lord or like Paul cried out with our hearts for the salvation of others? I won't go there, but I'll mention for you to look up on your own if you would like, 1 Thessalonians 2, verses 1 through 12, where Paul talks about how he and his evangelistic team behaved and lived among the Thessalonians when they were first among them. And he makes a big deal of the fact that they were wholesome in their attitudes and their motivations. When Paul looked at his gospel work, he didn't just look at what he was saying, what was coming out of his mouth. A big part of what he looked at was how he was living around these people. And was it clear for all to see that he loves these people? He says that they acted toward the Thessalonians when they were first giving them the gospel and nurturing them in their new faith. Paul and his associates acted toward them as a father would toward his children or as a mother would be tender toward her child or infant. They were that tender and that loving and that concerned about these people's welfare. They even worked to pay their own way and to make sure they were not a burden to anyone because they were truly concerned about these people as people. And often the question for us is very simple, do we care about people as people? And fifth and lastly, We need to depend on prayer and the Spirit. This came up this morning in the message. Paul said, 2 Thessalonians 3.1, Finally, brethren, pray for us that the word of the Lord will spread rapidly and be glorified just as it did also with you. Paul was a great evangelist. He had had a lot of successes, but he actually believed that if God didn't work supernaturally again, he would never again win another soul. So how do we seek the power of God in evangelism? We pray. We depend on prayer and then the Spirit of God to answer that prayer and to work in people's hearts. This isn't rocket science. You pray, you go tell people about Jesus, the Spirit works in their hearts and changes them. That's all evangelism is, if you boil it down. We're going to split up into our groups at this point and discuss a few different things about how we ordinary Christians can witness. Alright? So, let's be dismissed.