I hope we slowly wakeup and realize God is moving his work towards Asia and Africa even more so. But yeah, thanks for the great info.

I go to a private Christian college, and its rediculous how little bible knowledge these students have, and their lack of defense of the gospel, yet everyone has to partake in communion when its offered, even while living in sin… Rediculous

Do you take these statistics to indicate some sort of judgment of God on these nations as indicated by their comparative degree of unbelief (at least compared to that of European nations)?

To me, the idea that evangelism makes “no net difference” in who God saves would be backed up by some equality among the races and nations and that Christianity wouldn’t simply predominate where the culture is already Christian (if that makes sense).

Spurgeon did not have an ‘altar call’. “He did not ask people to walk to the front of the auditorium, raise a hand, sign a card, or perform any outward action.”

Jonathan, the premise is that salvation is 100% God acting upon man. Man is and can only be reactive, not proactive. Thus, evangelization is done not so much to convert or persuade but simply out of obedience, for God commands it even though it is technically not needed for God to work out the salvation of men.

Hence, my question: what does this seem to state about the great pockets of the world where the number of the saved is very low? If the voices of men are not needed, God could just as easily save men to the same degree He does in America or South America.

Do you feel that the number of unsaved in these nations is then due to the lack of men preaching (lack of men doing) in these places, or is it a judgment of God on these nations as witnessed by the fact that He has not intervened? I can think of no other alternative. The implications then seem to be either that:
a) the activity of man is needed in God’s plan of salvation, or
b) God has passed judgment on these nations, perhaps even abandoning them altogether

By the way, I don’t deny the fact that there are indeed false converts. This is obvious. My question is more related to the role of humanity in God’s plan of salvation.

On one hand like you said scripture states we are to go make disciples of all men. But also on the other hand, there are thousands of new muslim converts, many of whom have said that Jesus has appeared to them in dreams and called them to follow him. In islam, having dreams is held in very high significance. Knowing that its literally impossible to preach the gospel of Christ to muslims, it looks as if God is doing things his way in this case out of his love for saving some of them.

As you said though and on the other hand, God allowed millions of people in history to die, possibly many of whom didn’t know God or want to know him. Paul states in his writings that the knowledge of God is in the being of every man, just that many deny it. So on the other hand quite probably many were given a chance to hear the gospel in some form whether through dreams, evangelism, etc. We don’t know. There have been reports of angels speaking to tribes in untouched regions of the world and those people coming to Christ.

Another very big idea but also a difficult to grasp idea that some theologians are backing up with scripture is that Jesus didn’t come to die for everyone. He only came to die for those whom God has called. One scripture in John has Jesus saying “If I explained to them what the parables meant then they might turn from their sin and be saved.” Jesus was saying the reason he didn’t explain the meaning of the parables is because they woulda have understood them and changed.

Sounds strange doesn’t it? I don’t believe we were given the minds and knowledge to comprehend many things that occur in this life. If we believe God to be omniscient and all loving, then we just have to use our faith and follow in obediance best we can, the rest we have to leave up to God. Even if we question God about things, which he wants us to do, he doesn’t have to respond or tell us anything. Kind of the same way Job questioned God about his troubles and God came back with statements questioning Job about secrets of the universe.

I believe its both yes and no. If people are supposed to go as part of God’s plan for them to preach to lost people and they don’t, I believe God will use another avenue to reach those people. If a particular people group never hear the gospel, which we can’t prove by the way whether they were given dreams, messages, signs, or the gospel from angels, then we have to chaulk it up that its part of God’s greater plan for things which we can’t comprehend because its not our plan, its his. He reveals the parts of his plan with us that he wishes to, and never gives us more than we can bear to live with.

I absolutely agree with this post, and for a few years now have implemented Spurgeon’s methods into the way I do ministry. I do have a nagging question, perhaps you can help. It concerns the way that Spurgeon would wait before baptizing professing believers. I like this practice. It would really curb the swarm of false converts in our churches. Here is what is nagging me. How is this reconciled with the “quick” baptismal practices in Acts? Perhaps, I am just reading into the text, but it appears to me that they would baptize upon profession and not so much upon fruit.

Let me try to briefly explain how I deal with this issue:

First, it is not wrong to immediately baptize a professor. We see this practice in scripture, and there is NO warnings against it. It is not immediate baptisms that I am warning against (neither is Spurgeon), it’s rather these shallow, make-a-decision gospel messages that actually manipulate people into flimsy, emotional decisions.

Secondly, we must ALSO remember that we are not apostles. Although we see instant baptisms in scripture, we do not have the revelation that the apostles had to assist them. I cite the Ethiopian Eunuch as an example. The Holy Spirit actually miraculously put Philip in that situation for that specific purpose. We do not have these luxuries –especially to see into the hearts of others.

Next, we must always, always be careful not to speak where scripture is silent. Spurgeon’s methods above are very good, and I agree with them, but we must be careful that we do not enforce them as rules, as though there is no other way to do things. Scripture is sufficient in the matter, and scripture gives no real, detailed outline as to how we are to do some of these things.

Now, as to why I would not agree with immediate baptisms in *most* circumstances:

-Salvation is so widely misunderstood and misapplied in this age and culture, that people have lost the scriptural truths surrounding the matter.

-These professions are usually the result of massive ministries, campaigns, and sermons, where the immediate baptisms in scripture usually surround a more intimate situation, where the Apostles were involved personally with the individuals. When we’re involved personally, we can better determine whether someone is sincere or not.

-Because of the great danger of false conversion, the great danger in leading others astray, the great danger in baptizing someone into Christ who is not really in Christ, and the integrity that we should have for these things, we owe it to ourselves, not just to the other person, to act with pure motives, sincerity, and diligence, so that their blood will not be on our hands if they are indeed unbelievers. It’s not that baptizing immediately is a sin; it’s that flippantly acting in these things can bring great danger to us and others.

Hope that helps. Excellent question. I’d recommend you research this further.