RX for the Ailing Bride

Chapter 2 – The Fallacy There’s a single doctrine that is essential for those pushing the ideal Christian mold I was exposed to in college. It doesn’t often get talked about. Frankly most people just assume it’s true and don’t bother to shine the light of scripture on it. The lynchpin doctrine of the “Every Christian should be a soul winner” model is this: God has willed that He will depend completely on flawed man to make sure his message goes out to the end of the earth, and that the souls of unbelievers hang in the balance of us (the believers) getting that message out. We literally have the ability to grant access for someone to go to heaven through our witness/testimony or the bloodstained hands of condemning someone to Hell through our inaction or ineptitude. Because of this belief, then the only thing we should be possibly doing is spreading the gospel everywhere we go. Everything else is just a distraction. We hope we never have some unfortunate lapse where we were not prepared for an opportunity and accidentally send someone to Hell. This would normally be the point where I quote the scripture that is being used to support this model and show how it is being distorted. Problem is, there isn’t any scripture in the New Testament to support this view (at least the Calvinist has Romans 9). I have looked for it again and again as I read scripture and can’t find anything to support it. I’ve listened close to preachers who are pushing this model in their evangelism sermons and they have never pulled out any scripture to support it other than a few clearly misinterpreted Old Testament passages. Feel free to look for yourself. You may find a tangential verse here and there, but the pastor that is teaching “dresses only” for the women has stronger scriptural grounds than this. You would think that if this doctrine were true, it would be pasted all over the New Testament because it would have a severe impact on how far God’s gift of salvation, the precious blood of Christ, would extend to humanity. Since this belief doesn’t have any recognizable New Testament support, let’s dig into a couple of the Old Testament passages that those who embrace the “guilt doctrine” (that is inept Christians are guilty/responsible for unbelievers going to Hell) seem to hearken back to over and over again. Ezekiel 3:17-19, Proverbs 11:30b, and Psalm 126:5&6. I want to introduce some very basic Bible study skills (fundamental “blocking and tackling” skills) that need to be employed when reading these passages. These are: identify the author, recognize the audience, establish context, understanding special textual considerations of the root language, and ensure the interpretation is consistent with the rest of scripture. Establishing the degree of personal application is often made clear when basic Bible study skills are applied.  In Ezekiel 3:17-19, God gives Ezekiel a firm warning that if he fails to warn the Jews of pending doom because of their rebellion, that their blood would be on his hands (e.g. Ezekiel would be accountable for their death). Those pushing the “guilt doctrine” want us to believe three things: 1) That this passage applies to all believers 2) That the message God gave Ezekiel is synonymous with the evangelism message 3) The death spoken of is not just a physical death, but eternal spiritual damnation, separated for eternity from God. - The author: Ezekiel is the author of the book, but He is quoting a command that he received from God - The audience: Ezekiel - The context: Judah has been taken captive to Babylon (because of their rebellion against God) and Ezekiel is among the captives. God has appeared to Ezekiel and wants him to communicate a message of repentance to the captives. - Special textual considerations: None Based on the audience and the context it seems that this passage does not apply to all believers. Try using my patented “guy standing next to the action” approach in identifying if the message is universally applicable or personally specific. If a Jew were standing next to Ezekiel when God delivered His message to Ezekiel, would the one who overhears the message be able to assume that he was commanded to speak the message as well? Would he be correct in assuming he would have the same responsibility as Ezekiel, with the same consequences if he failed to obey? If not (and it clearly is not), then what makes us think that it would be every believer’s mandate 2,600 years later? I think it is abundantly clear that this is a message specifically for Ezekiel and that it would be a fallacy to assume others should share in this mandate. Can we assume that this message is synonymous with the evangelistic message? I hardly think so. The audience for Ezekiel’s message was the rebellious Jews that had turned their back on God and embraced idolatry. If anything it was a reformation message to those who knew the truth, but had become severely backslidden (think of the church today). It had nothing to do with the future way of salvation provided through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, rather it was a call to reject idolatry, repent of sins, and follow the OT Law. Can we assume that the death spoken of was spiritual death/separation from God for eternity? Not a chance. This passage is clearly talking about the physical death that would take place if the captive Jews failed to heed the call to repentance from God communicated through Ezekiel. There is absolutely no mention of “spiritual death” in the passage. On all three assumptions the purveyors of the “guilt doctrine” are terribly wrong.  In Proverbs 11:30b Solomon makes the statement “He who wins souls is wise”. - The author: Solomon - The audience: Solomon’s son. - The context: Solomon wants to convey wisdom to his son, presumably his successor. - Textual Considerations: Another possible rendering supported by the LXX and Syriac is “But the one who takes away lives is violent” As we listen in on the conversation between the father and son we can recognize the wisdom being spoken as Solomon has observed certain truths to be evident in the earthbound existence. Because the audience is not directly believers, but also recognizing that general truths are being spoken, I would say that any commands given in Proverbs is not a requirement on believers, but one would do well to heed. Many of the statements of Solomon are in firm agreement with the teachings of Christ and the apostles on how we should conduct our daily lives. One thing that is clear is that Solomon is observing reality and then conveying the blessings or consequences of choosing the right or wrong action. Does it make sense that Solomon in the middle of this observation on life, insert a statement regarding evangelism? I have a very hard time making this leap. For one, Solomon’s insights are “earth bound” e.g. he doesn’t speak of spiritual things. To think that he would suddenly encourage his son to recognize the coming redemption of Christ which will pay the penalty for our sin allowing us to spend eternity in the hereafter with God, and in recognizing and believing that truth, be a witness to others of this truth, seems very out of context to say the least. Secondly, in Proverbs, Solomon’s pattern in that he repeats his exhortations/warnings with little twists repeatedly in the 29 chapters he authored, but we don’t see anything else that looks remotely like a call to evangelism other than this single phrase. What this appears to me is that someone has taken a modern day phrase “soul winner” and assumed that it had the same definition in Solomon’s day. Or perhaps someone in the past discovered the term “soul winner” in Proverbs 11:30b and coined the new evangelistic meaning out of it. Either way it is a clear misuse of scripture.