Judas & Modern Evangelism

March 15th, 2007 | 29 Comments | Church Issues, General Topics Judas & Modern Evangelism |  Facebook

Luke 22:47 And while he yet spoke, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near to Jesus to kiss him.

The Bible tells us that Judas led a “multitude” to Jesus. His motive, however, wasn’t to bring them to the Savior for Salvation. Modern evangelism is also bringing “multitudes” to Jesus. Their motive may be different from Judas’s, but the end result is the same. Just as the multitudes that Judas directed to Christ fell back from the Son of God, statistics show that up to 90% of those coming to Christ under the methods of modern evangelism fall away from the faith. Their latter end becomes worse than the first. They openly crucify the Son of God afresh.

In their zeal without knowledge, those who prefer the ease of modern evangelism to biblical evangelism betray the cause of the gospel with a kiss. What may look like love for sinner’s welfare is in truth eternally detrimental to him.

Like Peter (v.51), our zeal without knowledge is actually cutting off the ears of sinners. Those we erroneously call “backsliders” won’t listen to our reasoning. As far as they are concerned, they have tried it once, and it didn’t work. What a victory for the prince of darkness, and what an unspeakable tragedy for the Church!
- Ray Comfort

Bookmark and Share
HorribleBadAverageGoodExcellent

Related Articles

Paul Washer vs Joel Osteen
Paul Washer Youth Conference Project
Being What You Are – Romans 6 and Regeneration, by Paul Washer
Paul Washer on the Seeker Sensitive Movement
I’m Not Ashamed of the Scandal, by Paul Washer

 

29 Responses to “Judas & Modern Evangelism”

  1. I will add a hearty – amen!

  2. Amen!
    What a tragedy indeed! Many times I’ve seen this happen to people because of some easy-believism message that didn’t preach one important thing: God’s will be done! So many Christians are the greedy sort who get “saved” and then refuse to do what God has called them to do. They are soldiers caught up in civilian affairs. They are priests living lives of sin. They are servants trying to rule their Master. They are friends betraying their best Friend! Could you possibly imagine what the Church would do now when approaching Sodom or Gomorrah? We’d try to allow them to live in their sin AND be Christians!

  3. Ben Davis says:

    Ryan, wow! Unfortunately you’re spot on.

  4. Ryan,

    I am so thankfull that God is raising up voices in this hour that will share the truth.
    I am asking God to raise up voices in this hour that only have one purpose, that is to share the true Gospel that men might hear and be moved to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

    Amen !

    Shane Trammel
    shanetrammel@yahoo.com

  5. pete says:

    Pray about this often.

    Amen. God’s Will be done.

  6. “What a victory for the prince of darkness, and what an unspeakable tragedy for the Church!”

    Keep pushing forward brothers!

    Jason Johnson

  7. survivor says:

    AMEN, wow……

  8. Patrick Lane says:

    Hey Ben,

    Speaking of Judas, who bought the field that field that Judas killed himself in? Matthew 27 tells us that the religious leaders took the money that Judas had thrown back into the temple and bought the field. Luke in Acts tells us that Judas bought the field with the betrayal money…. So, who is in error, Matthew or Luke? Which gospels is right and which one is wrong?

    Oh and tell Reverend Brother-Pastor Teacher Ken I said hi.

  9. Ben Davis says:

    Hey Patrick,

    Whose money or “reward of iniquity” was used to purchase the field? Whether he made the transaction or not, it was still his money and his betrayal that paid for the field.

    Although Luke may have not been an eyewitness, he did his research and his accounts are still accurate.

    Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:14 NASB)

  10. Patrick Lane says:

    ok then Ben, who made the purchase? Matt says the religious leaders. Luke says Judas. Who is right and who is wrong?

  11. Patrick,

    Showing up to sow discord. Very nice. I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than this. They are both right; since the money came from the religious leaders in the eye’s of the Lord they are responsible for the purchase (Matthew’s perspective). And it was actually Judas who made the transaction itself so he made the purchase (Luke’s perspective).

    You know you are only asking these questions in order to try and trip these guys up. By your own admission you are apostate and don’t believe the text of Scripture literally. Your prerogative, but know that God is watching here…

  12. Patrick Lane says:

    Hey Reverend Brother Pastor Teacher Ken!
    Sowing discord??? hmmm… Tell me Ken how do you spell hypocrite?

    And listen if you have to rape the texts to make em fit, then have at it. But please don’t talk about your high view of scripture.

  13. Ben Davis says:

    Hi Patrick,

    I was wondering, why was it you brought this up?

  14. Patrick,

    You’ve spelled it correctly. :-)

  15. Patrick Lane says:

    Hey Ben,

    Its sort of a willingness to question or even challenge fundamentalist or in this case reformed theology foundations. In both cases, everything, absolutely everything hinges on inerrancy. McArthur regularly notes the importance of inerrancy with the consequences that follow if inerrancy is rejected, which is according to him the demise of reformed systematic theology and the plan of redemption that is at the center of it. The whole case is based not on scrutiny of the texts but on the consequences that follow if inerrancy is demonstrated to be false. I genuinely believe that if McArthur and most reformed theologians I know equate at least on some level belief in God with belief in inerrancy. The problem with that approach is that it does not prove or even demonstrate inerrancy. It only reflects the consequences of rejecting inerrancy and since those consequences seem so grave, then inerrancy must be true and cannot really face serious scrutiny.

    The problem then becomes making the Bible fit to that standart. I think any objective person would look at the example I gave of Judas, which was the focus of the article and following thread, and conclude that Matthew and Luke were in disagreement as to who bought the field. I think they would conclude the same about how many demoniacs were at Gaderene, or where the women were when the stone was rolled away, or that Paul and James disagreed about the role of faith and works, or who led David to take the census, God or Satan, and Ben that’s just a sample. I literally could point to 50 inconsistencies in syntax, form, and content.

    In my opinion then what follows is the raping of the texts to make them fit into inerrancy and further into a theological system. The texts are reintrepted in ways that at times outright contradict the intention of the author. Matthew’s intent was that the religious leaders bought the field. Luke’s was that Judas did. To make them congruent the integrity of the texts is ruined. It seems sort of a charade, symantical gymnastics, cutting the pieces of the puzzle to make them fit, and the people who in my opinion seem to be at the forefront of this are the ones who protest the loudest for the authority of scripture.

    Ken’s response to thoughtful challenges that are indeed well founded and articulated is to decry the proponents as heretics, apostates, and under the wrath of God. It is very much proof by assertion. It is then followed by circular logic, “How do know the Bible is true? Because it is the Word of God.” “How do we know it is the Word of God? Because it’s true.”

    A better alternative in my opinion is to just recognize the tensions within scripture, that Ruth protest Nehemiah, that Job protests Dueteronomy, and to then acknowledge that the people of God have always lived in tension and that in that tension is the truth, just like we do today. Rich Mullins, a personal hero, once said that the Bible doesn’t make sense, which makes it more like life than anything we know.”

    In short I believe that inerrrancy cannot withstand objective scrutiny and moreover destroys the integrity of scripture.

    Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts.

    Grace and Peace,
    Patrick

  16. According to what I read here (2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV) :
    Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    Scripture is prophecy from the Holy Ghost given to holy men whom had no interpretation or will in the matter, but spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. God wrote The Bible through man by His Holy Ghost.

    We know from (John 14:6 KJV) :
    Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    The word “truth” here means just that, “truth”. It does not mean anything but “truth”. For there to be error in The Bible we claim that the God of truth lied through His Holy Ghost to holy men who wrote down these lies and proclaimed them as truth. By claiming God’s Word is not inerrant you have called Jesus Christ a liar and now there is nothing you can believe from Him. Everything He tells you is under scrutiny and His Word will have no power over you because of that.

    This entire concept is absurd and I cannot see how a man claiming to be a Christian could, in the same comment, claim that God is a liar.

    In Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior,
    Ryan Patterson

  17. Patrick Lane says:

    Again your argument is based on the consequences of denying inerrancy, not from objective scrutiny of the texts. You conclude that denying inerrancy is calling Jesus a liar… and that I am not a Christian. So what? That doesn’t mean the Bible is inerrant.

  18. Still at it Patrick? “I literally could point to 50 inconsistencies in syntax, form, and content.” Yeah, and I can point you to 50 books which have adequately explained them. Next your typical ad hominem: “Ken’s response to thoughtful challenges that are indeed well founded and articulated is to decry the proponents as heretics, apostates, and under the wrath of God.”

    Show me above where I did so; I answered your objections, you just didn’t like the answer. That’s between you and God but when I said you are apostate I simply state a fact. You were once an orthodox Southern Baptist and now you left the faith (apostatized) and are a liberal. You say: “I believe that inerrrancy cannot withstand objective scrutiny and moreover destroys the integrity of scripture.” And we say inerrancy can withstand objective scrutiny and moreover this only increases the integrity of Scripture. Now what do you do?

    Then you say to Ryan, a member of my local church: “You conclude that denying inerrancy is calling Jesus a liar… and that I am not a Christian. So what? That doesn’t mean the Bible is inerrant.” No one can be a Christian who does not have the same view of Scripture Christ had. Christ is God and the Bible is the written Word of God. We also know that Christ is the living Word of God and further that He is Truth. Therefore the Bible is without error in any matter it speaks to because it is spoken by God Who by definition IS Truth.

    No way out Patrick; and thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts.

    In Christ’s Truth,

    Ken Silva, pastor-teacher

  19. patrick lane says:

    How many men did the chief of David’s captains kill? Read the context of both chapters. This is conflicting account of the same event.

    2 Samuel 23:8
    The … chief among the captains … he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

    1 Chronicles 11:11
    the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.

    I can litearally give you 300 more.

  20. patrick lane says:

    Was Abiathar the father or the son of Ahimelech? Which is the father and which is the son?

    1 Samuel 22:20
    And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahibub, named Abiathar.
    1 Samuel 23:6
    Abiathar the son of Ahimelech.
    ______________________________

    2 Samuel 8:17, 1 Chronicles 18:16, 24:6
    Ahimelech the son of Abiathar.

  21. Ben Davis says:

    These two verses have striking similarities, as well as obvious differences. They both talk about David’s primary mighty man, but his name is Josheb-basshebeth in 2 Samuel and Jashobeam in 1 Chronicles. This difference amounts to little more than a slight name variation. For instance, if you were to say that Robert Butt wrote this article and another person said that Kyle Butt wrote this article, both of you would be correct since the author’s name is Robert Kyle Butt. Often parallel passages in the Old Testament offer different spellings of a name or different names altogether when discussing the same individual.

    Source: Apologetics Press

    Why can’t someone call their child after their father?

  22. patrick lane says:

    Ben, with all due respect, and I’m not trying to be malicious, it is clear to most everyone that this is conflicting account of the same story. The details are the story are parallel, includind David’s refusal later in the chapter to drink the water that was brought to him by three spies who went behind enemy lines to get it. If you want to note that there are two different names, then it is just as easy to find a contradiction in that.

    I understand that we disagree and I won’t go further down with this particular passage, unless you would like to. I made my point and you expressed you interpretation in regard to it. Obviously we disagree, which is no sin. The readers will have to decide what they think. And I have a sneaking suspicion that our discourse will probably do very little to change anyone’s mind.

    Still, I do enjoy talking with you . You seem a kind person who at the same time remains committed to his convictions. I enjoy hearing your take on these texts and would like to continue. And seriously, thank you for not attacking me personally. Your approach has been exemplary and has reminded me to refrain from insuating or calling folks like Ken, hypocrites. For that comment earlier in the thread, I do apologize.

    OK then, Here’s another:
    When did Absalom rebel against David?
    2 Samuel 15:7 says after 40 years.
    2 Samuel 5:4 says it was much less than forty years, since David only ruled for a total of forty years.
    -David reigned forty years, and as such, it is not possible that Absalom rebelled against David 40 years after his reign began. And Absalom was not born until after David had begun to reign (2 Samuel 2:4; 3:2-5).

  23. patrick lane says:

    Ben, real quick, I re-read your reply to my post and I was noting the number of people killed, 300 or 800, not a name change. I failed to ask this in my reply. Is it then your conclusion that these are two different and seperate incidents? Also, I am looking forward to your reply of the question of when Absolom rebelled.

    Grace and Peace,
    Patrick

  24. Ben Davis says:

    Patrick, you don’t want answers.

  25. patrick lane says:

    Ben, I did not discount your last response. I was not disrespectful. In fact, I found your reply to be exemplary in regard to Christian civility. I just didn’t agree. You and I had a healthy disagreement, no name calling, condescension, etc.

    One of the primary tenants of the hermeneutic of this site is non-contradiction in the scriptures. Is it not appropriate then to point by point, verse by verse, see if that tenant is valid? What does scripture have to fear from such scrutiny, especially if one views ineranncy and non-contradictions as essential doctrines of grace and faith.

    Seriously, I assure you that I will remain completely courteous. My last reply was only to make sure that I understood how you reconciled the accounts, not to provoke or discount you. I have enjoyed our discussion and I do hope you will not cut it off. The issues I raise are legitimate and deserve thoughtful responses from those with whom I disagree.

    Grace and Peace,
    Patrick

    If you’re still interested. I am curious as to how you reconcile the time-line of Absolom’s rebellion. Thank you.

  26. For future reference Patrick, I ask you to view the symbols used for 300 and 800 in the Hebrew and I ask you to view the corrupted Bibles produced by corrupt beliefs. After doing so, I ask you to view Revelation 22:18-19.

    In Christ Jesus,
    Ryan Patterson

  27. Ben and Ryan,

    I submit the following for your consideration in regard to Patrick Lane. I have dealt with him before here and in this post, by his own hand, he gives you much insight into his apostasy:

    “But let me confess here I hardly believe the Bible is inerrant. I believe it has contradictions and some things are just wrong.” (http://sliceolaodicea.com/?p=109)

    Lane also says, “hell, totally contradicts God’s gifts to us of: experience, tradition, and reason, and as well everything I’ve ever experienced in Jesus.” By rejecting the Word of God in favor of corrupt human “experience, tradition, and reason” Lane has judged himself the Biblical definition of a fool.

    Ben, you are right Lane is not looking for answers so as a pastor-teacher, “Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.” (Romans 16:17)

  28. patrick lane says:

    I am not running from any of my statements. I concur that I have said the very things Ken has accused me of. Regardless, the issues I raise are still valid and are irrelevant to my personal views or even motives. My perspective doesn’t negate the value of my inquiry. What does Truth have to fear from scrutiny?

    Ryan notes that the discrepancy in number is likely due to the way Hebrew is translated and the symbols involved. (Ryan if I am off in what you meant, please correct me.) That is a response and one that I have not challenged. It may well be legit.

    Still, what I have heard to this point regarding the timeline of Absolom’s rebellion is that I am being divisive and not really interested in answers, neither of which address the issue I raised concerning Absolom. Ben and Ryan… I will not debate your perspective. I will treat you and your views with respect. I promise. Its just that I can’t get an inerrantist to genuinely discuss or even address these tensions in scripture and the more than 300 others. More often than not they call me a heretic, threaten damnation, and then as Ken has done, use some passage to dismiss me. So dismiss me, but don’t ignore the question. I am genuinely interested in how you reconcile the timeline of Absolom’s rebellion with these texts that seem to reflect a discrepancy.

    Ken, dismiss me if you choose. Turn away from me. But the issues and questions I raise are still present and deserve a response. How do you reconcile the texts? If you need to take some time, do some study, read some commentaries, do so. But just because I am a heretic doesn’t mean my questions aren’t valid.

    Grace and Peace,
    Patrick

  29. I replied to your questions that I personally studied and did not address those that would have been whatever I could have thought up to answer your question.

    An important part of faith is trust. By saying Biblical texts are wrong you’ve judged God Himself and showed your lack of trust and thus lack of faith. Whether you are or aren’t a Christian I cannot say, but I can say that you should learn to fear The LORD your God who has promised fools who lean on their own understanding a very scary eternal reality. Without trusting God, you’ve shown such a large lack of faith that it seems almost impossible to even answer your questions since only faith in Jesus Christ will ever show you the Truth in these matters.

    I can do nothing apart from Him, and you will understand nothing apart from Him. I ask that you seriously pray for more faith in Jesus Christ.

    I will brush the ash off my robes, as I’ve been instructed, and turn away from this issue.

    In Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior,
    Ryan Patterson


Leave a Reply