Discussion of 4 Spiritual Laws booklet from Campus Crusade??

[traveller]

I think the use of the term "law" is used a little loosely in the booklet, but I get what they're trying to do. Biblically speaking, however, there are no such "laws on the book."

[Guest]

Broken

"Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Luke 20:18

Or Crushed

[carlos123]

... to become "saved" is free, but to follow Him will cost us everything.

Hi Mike! Thanks for sharing your thoughts You bring up some good points. May I ask you, based on what you said above, whether you think there is a difference between getting saved and choosing to follow Him? Can one get saved without choosing to follow Him as a disciple?

I don't have a whole lot of time today or even tommorrow to get back on this thread but your statement caught my eye and I thought I would ask you for your further thoughts on this.

[carlos123]

....Most unsaved people are going to ask, "What's in it for me?"

Hi kross. Do you think Jesus statement to the effect that we must deny self and follow Him is applicable to an unsaved person asking "What's in it for me?".

So the gospel comes to us first from that point of view and, hopefully, we mature into a relationship that makes us ask, "What's in me for you, GOD?"

Are you saying then that it is possible to get saved while hanging on to self and that as we mature...we slowly but surely start to surrender to God...over time?

[Floatingaxe]

There is nothing wrong with the Four Spiritual Laws. I have used them. In fact I led someone to the Lord using one years ago. It is all truth. I also love Ray Comfort's Way of the Master evangelism style. I have been to one of his and Kirk's weekend seminars. Excellent!

I also have sat under William Fay. His evangelism style is, in my book, superior to TWOTM. His "Share Jesus Without Fear" is the best in my book.

http://www.sharejesuswithoutfear.com/templ...lt.asp?id=27043

All that said, there is no error in any of it. The Four Spiritual Laws does not promote false conversions by telling people their lives will be happy. It does speak the truth that God does have a wonderful plan for our lives (Jeremiah 29:11) and that knowing Jesus Christ is a wonderful adventure. You can't beat it--even when we have trouble...Jesus is our hope. The Four Spiritual Laws has added to its message advice to attend church for the strength provided in fellowship, and about growing in God. The salvation prayer alone is not enough, and that message that it is enough is the culprit in many of our false converts today...there is a walk with God into holiness that is so necessary, by obedience to His Word, which helps us avoid so many pitfalls in life.

[Guest shiloh357]

The Four Spiritual Laws is a good tract. It is not meant to be a compendium of everything a person needs to know about becoming or being a Christian.

Tract is designed, it would seem, as a set of talking points. There is an assumption by the author of some degree of competence and proficiency on your part, in sharing the Christian faith. Bright did not intend for it to be simply followed verbatim or quoted like a parrot. It is meant to be a guide.

It is ONE tool in your toolbox. It would seem that you should be be able to answer questions about your faith AND you should also be willing to commit to follow up with, as well discipling those whom the Lord allows you to reach with the gospel and who receive it as a result of your witness. That means you need to make sure you are able to guide someone, or you need to make sure that they can go somewhere to get further instruction and competent discipleship. Do not leave them to flounder on their own.

[carlos123]

I finally have a bit of time to get back on this thread. I just had no time the last few days to do much of anything internet wise.

I spent some more time reading more of Bill Brights book on reaching the lost using the Four Spiritual Laws. And while my initial post might have implied that the Four Spiritual Laws was no good in terms of presenting the true gospel I want to say that much good has come about through the use of that booklet. God has indeed used what is said there to bring people to Himself. And for that...I am thankful and encouraged.

I still think it's very worthwhile to take a closer look at what is said in the booklet though. Not to dissect the booklet itself for it's own sake but as a reflection of gospel presentations that seem so prevalent in the Christian world.

What I say next is based on the web version of the Four Spiritual Laws which can be seen at http://www.godlovestheworld.com/.

The first Law says "God LOVES you and offers a wonderful PLAN for your life." All quite true. Absolutely God loves the unbeliever. No question about it. Likewise He does have a wonderful plan for each life. Also true.

But let me if I might place myself in the role of an unbeliever and see how I might interpret that statement...hmmm...let's see God loves me...that sounds real nice....my mom and dad loved me too. God must love me that way. He would never do anything to harm me (such as end up sending me to hell). A plan for my life heh? Hmm...well I haven't succeeded too good at making money and pursuing a comfortable life for myself. Hmm...maybe God can help me with that.

In the verses that support Law 1 there is the one about God wanting us to have abundant life. Hmm...abundant life heh? I could sure use some of that. My life has been rather frustrating up to this point (I am speaking as an unbeliever mind you).

Okay...now I am back to being me, the Christian, again .

On that first whole page there is only one word that even hints about an eternal hell. The word "perish" in the first verse presented. But that one word is included in the context of the whole rest of the page. Which is all lovy dovey and nice. How God loves me, has a wonderful plan for me, that involves living a more abundant life. And if anyone knows anything about how humans process what they hear...a single word like "perish" can be drowned out in the rest of the lovy dovey context in which it is presented.

Nowhere is there a single mention of God's holiness. Of how we have offended, yes offended, God by our unholy behaviour and rebellious attitude. Nowhere is there a single mention of God's wrath hanging over our heads for how we have offended Him. Nowhere in the first page is there any picture presented which would make God's mercy truly seen as mercy. That we are undeserving of anything at all from a holy God. It's all about what we can get from a loving and nice God who wants to give us an abundant life...a better life than we have experienced so far (who in their right mind wouldn't want that?).

May I point out that the Lord God is not just Love but that He is also a God of anger, and justice? That His anger at sin was demonstrated on the cross in what happened to His own Son? Mind you...I do not want to swing the other way and make God out to be this mean spirited, cold, authoritarian being. It's a matter of balance where the Lord God is presented fairly in terms of who He is. Not as we might wish Him to be or as might seem more winsome in order to get people to be "saved".

I'll add more if this thread still appears to be alive with people who might want to continue this discussion.

Sorry again that I am so late to this discussion but I had little choice...time wise. Until now.

Carlos

[EricH]

The Four Spiritual Laws is a good tract. It is not meant to be a compendium of everything a person needs to know about becoming or being a Christian.

Tract is designed, it would seem, as a set of talking points. There is an assumption by the author of some degree of competence and proficiency on your part, in sharing the Christian faith. Bright did not intend for it to be simply followed verbatim or quoted like a parrot. It is meant to be a guide.

It is ONE tool in your toolbox. It would seem that you should be be able to answer questions about your faith AND you should also be willing to commit to follow up with, as well discipling those whom the Lord allows you to reach with the gospel and who receive it as a result of your witness. That means you need to make sure you are able to guide someone, or you need to make sure that they can go somewhere to get further instruction and competent discipleship. Do not leave them to flounder on their own.

I agree completely.

[WayneB]

The Four Spiritual Laws is a good tract. It is not meant to be a compendium of everything a person needs to know about becoming or being a Christian.

Tract is designed, it would seem, as a set of talking points. There is an assumption by the author of some degree of competence and proficiency on your part, in sharing the Christian faith. Bright did not intend for it to be simply followed verbatim or quoted like a parrot. It is meant to be a guide.

It is ONE tool in your toolbox. It would seem that you should be be able to answer questions about your faith AND you should also be willing to commit to follow up with, as well discipling those whom the Lord allows you to reach with the gospel and who receive it as a result of your witness. That means you need to make sure you are able to guide someone, or you need to make sure that they can go somewhere to get further instruction and competent discipleship. Do not leave them to flounder on their own.

I agree completely.

Me two... I use the tracts all the time, passing them out to the inmates. They are a good tool.

[carlos123]

Alrighty then...it looks like some are still "listening" to this thread so I guess I will post more of my thoughts for what they are worth...although I seem to be going against the grain . But that's okay. I figure it won't hurt to post my further thoughts.

By the way...hiya Wayne. I figured you were around here somewhere .

Incidentally, for anyone who has not read this whole thread, what I am posting about the 4 Spiritual Laws is not to take away from whatever good may come of using them. Certainly good has come of it. Much good. Far more good than I certainly have ever done in sharing the gospel. But at the same time I do think they can be made better and in view of my starting a web site for local Christians to interact and where I hope to share the gospel with many more than I have in recent times...I figure it's a good thing to discuss the gospel as it is commonly shared today and to see if there might not be a more biblically sound way of sharing it. I want to go back to the roots of the New Testament and see if what is used today stacks up to what they shared then. Perhaps as I hear from others here and take a closer look at the 4 Spiritual Laws through this discussion I will come to realize that it does indeed share the gospel accurately. More accurately than I have thought in the past or as my initial impressions lead me to believe.

On to page two of the 4 Spiritual Laws .

So far I have not seen a balanced presentation of who God is and of His anger against man's rebellion and sin. Instead I have seen a very positive, lovy dovey, impression left of God as being this all loving, wonderful being, who has a great plan for our lives and who wants to give us abundant life (an abundant life that most unbelievers will understand as being where God helps us make more money, have better marriages, enjoy a more comfortable life, get a great job, etc. none of which is what Jesus meant to say by abundant life).

Page Two of the 4 Spiritual Laws is much better I think though still very lacking I think in presenting things as Jesus would have done and would want us to. The 2nd "Law" is stated as such..."Man is SINFUL and SEPARATED from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life.". Now to you and I, the Christians, we understand what that means but again let me, if I may, place myself in the shoes of an unbeliever....

Hmmm...sinful heh? Well I am imperfect. For sure. So is everyone else. Nothing new there. But I am really not that bad. I mean I have never committed adultery, or robbed a bank, or killed anyone. I'm actually much better than most people I know.

Separated from God...hmmm...not sure what that means but as has already been said in the first Law...He LOVES me so whatever that seperation entails...it can't be that bad. I mean everyone is imperfect right? Doesn't that make everyone seperated from God in the same sense?

Now I am back to me, the Christian....

The first verse given in support of Law 2 says that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Again most unbelievers are going to look at sin as just being imperfect. A state that everyone is in. Certainly not sin in the sense of offending a Holy God by our own actions and attitudes. Such that instead of God's love and favor we deserve nothing from Him at all.

And of course if the unbeliever has any understanding of what the glory of God means they also will agree that everyone falls short of being like God. Of course they will realize that. But again they will not readily connect the dots and associate their individual sin with personal responsibility and becoming accountable to a Holy God for their own sin. Such that they will be judged and found wanting. Enough to be seperated from God for the rest of eternity. They will tend to lump themselves in with everyone else as not being like God. I mean who is...right? So what they might conclude. God is not going to punish everyone for not being just like Him is He? Of course not they will think to themselves. That would make God unloving. Wouldn't it?

The explanation in Law 2 says that an attitude of active rebellion or passive indifference is evidence of what the Bible calls sin. When I was an unbeliever I would not have seen myself as either actively rebellious or passively indifferent. At all. This had to be explained to me and the Holy Spirit had to convict me of how utterly lost and sinful I was before a Holy God. According to His righteous standards.

The wages of sin is death it says. All well and good. But again the explanation in parenthesis is that this means spiritual seperation from God.

Why is the word "hell" never used? One is still left with the impression that God is LOVING (and He certainly is), that He wants us to have an abundant life (a life which is never clearly explained as to what that means), that we can't have the abundant life on our own but that He wants to give it to us, and that we can benefit from God. The whole presentation so far strikes me as being mostly about what God can give to us. How He can enhance our lives and give us more of what we want.

Here are some of Jesus's words to bring this into perspective...

I have taken the liberty of paraphrasing the King James (which is not copyrighted) into modern language...

"But I say to you, that every idle word that men speak, they shall give account for it in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36

"The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and those which do iniquity; And will cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:41-42

"Then said Jesus to his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Matthew 16:24

One more...

"Therefore if your hand or your foot offends, cut them off, and cast them away: it is better for you to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if your eye offend, pluck it out, and cast it from you: it is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." Matthew 18:8-9

Now that is just on a cursory look at the book of Matthew alone. There are probably hundreds of such verses. Jesus freely and openly spoke of judgement, hell fire, denying self, taking up your cross to follow Him, everlasting fire, and other such things. He called the Pharisees hypocrites and white washed tombs. He didn't mince words.

I get the impression that Jesus did not try and make the gospel popularly acceptable. He just told the truth as God the Father told Him to speak.

If Jesus thought such things were important to say to the masses does it not stand to reason that we, as His Body, should consider whether such things are likewise important to say to the multitudes? Especially in a presentation of the gospel?

Carlos