Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 4
When Chuck contrasts evangelism today (“felt needs,” testimonies, C.S. Lewis, “come to church”) with evangelism in Acts (“reasoned from the Scriptures”), what assumptions about people, truth, and conversion are being challenged—and which of those assumptions do you personally resist?
Another way to ask: Chuck compares today’s evangelism (felt needs, stories, “come to church”) with Acts (arguing from Scripture). What beliefs about people, truth, and how someone changes are being challenged, and which one do you most push back against?

Direct Answer Chuck challenges the assumption that people are mainly convinced by benefits, stories, or programs; he argues Acts shows conversion often came through public reasoning and proof from Scripture—especially fulfilled prophecy—treating truth as objective and persuasive.

Support from Transcript:

  • He lists common starting points today: broken lives, “come to church,” marriage retreats, reading John, handing out “C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity,” and personal testimonies.
  • Then he asks, after studying Acts: “How did they communicate to people who didn’t believe?…It wasn’t quite the same.”
  • He rejects sales-pitch framing: not “God has a wonderful plan,” not “I’ve got a great life,” and not minimizing cost like a “used car salesman.”
  • He repeatedly says the apostles “reasoned…from the Scriptures,” “explaining and demonstrating that Christ had to suffer and rise,” and “showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.”
  • He implies people can be confronted by evidence: “If I can prove to you from the Old Testament…would you believe and follow Him?”
Discussion Follow-ups Do you resist the idea of “proving” because it feels confrontational, or because you doubt your own grasp of Scripture?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10
Back Questions Next