One Thing You Can't Do In Heaven (ISBN 0964366584)

Simply the best witnessing manual I have used:
A youth pastor gave me this witnessing manual 5 years ago, along with a box of tracts from Livingwaters.com I had absolutely zero experience in street witnessing and it seemed like a terrifying, yet exciting thing to do. I read the book, and decided to try it out. I went to the flea market with a friend. We brought the tracts along, and just tried out the teachings outlined in this book. I was amazed at how interested by the conversations people were. I experienced no rejection that day (it helps if you have an engaging smile and cheerful voice), and found my life calling. Now 5 years later, and over a 1000 people later (yes, you can share the Gospel with over 1000 people without being Billy Graham: just explain the gospel in detail to about 5 people a week, and after a few years you'll have shared the Gospel with over 1000 souls). My friend Josh shares with that many people in a year (see his witnessing encounters at http://witnessingwithjsb2.blogspot.com). As trite as it sound, this book changed my life because I put it in practice. The first few times I went out street witnessing, I was nervous, and had to rely on my notes to find questions to ask people, and present the gospel using specific illustrations and analogies. But now with practice, I'm comfortable with it. The most devoted evangelists seem to be shy, introverted people who decide to obey God in sharing the gospel in spite of their fear of rejection. My favorite evangelists, Mark Cahill and Ray Comfort, are both very shy people in person. If you ever have the chance to meet them at conferences, or evangelism boot camps and talk to them one on one, you will notice how shy they are and not all that comfortable talking to a stranger. They will both admit that they are shy, yet they have shared the Gospel one on one with several 1000 complete strangers by now. How can they do it, if they are shy? Simple: Love for the Lord, concern for the lost, and a humility that make them willing to risk rejection for the sake of the Gospel. And the belief that people will be mad at you and reject you if you share the Gospel is a lie from the devil anyway. Out of the 1000 plus people I shared with, only 3, maybe 4 people were mad at me and rejected me. Of course the way you interact with the person, and present the Gospel affect their reaction to you. Basically I use the same approach as Mark Cahill: I use an ice breaker, and I smile and chat in a very conversational, friendly way, and it shows that I find it fun, which make the other person smile. I build a rapport within a couple of minutes or less (it's all in the book: it will teach you how to make people enjoy talking with you), and swing the conversation toward spiritual things. I listen to what they believe, ask polite `socratic' questions that challenge their beliefs. And then I share my belief with them by asking socratic questions (basically I make them say the Gospel to me: if they do not answer right, I gently correct their answers until they get it right) and using illustrations and analogies. Now when my Gospel presentation is complete, I usually make them explain it back to me (to make sure they understood the Gospel). If they fail, I smile, very amused and tell them something like, "let's go through it again. It seemed like you missed the main point I was trying to make." It makes them pay attention. Basically, once a lost person is able to explain the Gospel back to me, my job is done. The work of an evangelist is to share the Gospel so that the other person understands it, and remembers it. The work of the Holy Spirit is the actual conversion on the person. No evangelist can `make' a person convert. That is God's work. A few times I had people who wanted to get saved on the spot, and I didn't lead them into the `sinner's prayer'. I just told them to go ahead and pray, and if this is a real conversion, the Holy Spirit will give them the right words to pray that will sound just like the sinner's prayer. That's why I don't do the `repeat after me' thing. If they are soundly saved they will not need to parrot a prayer, they will come up with a heartfelt one of their own , in their own words. And it's much more edifying for both of us than to have them repeat a formula, that's like reducing salvation to a magic incantation. I learned so much from Mark Cahill. "One Thing You Can't Do In Heaven" was invaluable in making me into the seed sower I am today. Mark's example really was and always is an inspiration to me. I highly recommend his books, and please sign up for his free newsletter at his website for more tips on witnessing www.markcahill.org So, just go ahead and get this book, and go out and try it on strangers. You won't regret it. Veronique

Outstanding.:
Outstanding I would recommed this book to every Christian that I know and then pray that they would read and go and do likewise.

Insulting:
If you are trying to persuade an impressionable teenager (with no background in science or reasoning), then shove this intellectual pornography into his hands! Be warned, however, if your unbelieving reader knows how to think and knows when an author is playing tricks on him, as a clever lawyer behind whose leading questions lie glaring presuppositions or a persuasive quack peddling the new and improved snake oil. Straw man argument: Page 17 shows us how foolish atheists are. He presents us with two girls, claiming to be 20 and 21, dressed as cats, who were trick or treating at his door. He asked them what evidence they had for not believing in God. They didn't have any on them. Cahill found this "very interesting." That Cahill not only included this anecdote in his book, but also considered this a point in his argument for God is revealing. Is he really searching for truth in trick or treaters? Does it make him satisfied when he beats them in a debate? A person convinced against his will is no closer to the kingdom of heaven. Page 12, blind as he is to his own hypocrisy, Calhill quotes Churchill, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." This is what I find so unsettling about Christians apologists. They have the audacity to use lines of reasoning to prove God, whom they claim is incomprehensible. They further claim that they know his will for your life better than you do (not realizing that by doing so they set themselves up as infallible, by appealing to their preacher, their sacred text, or their tradition...they claim infallibility...they know, I know not). But when you show them the flaws in their thinking, they try to challenge you from yet another angle, without pondering their self-deceptions. They never admit defeat. So Churchill, it seems to me, is referring to those with faith, those who believe in spite of any evidence which may shake their belief. The belief is a feeling, not predicated on observation. Indeed, when observation seems to run contrary to their worldview (eg. the earth is not the center of the universe), the Christians resist for several decades, several centuries, torturing the scientists to death for the sake of God, and viewing scientific progression with squinted eyes. Page 15, "does science alone explain this incredibly beautiful and complex creation in which we live?" Some problems here. First, no unbeliever would use the word "creation" to describe the world. Cahill is preaching to the choir, which means this book should not have been written. The believers have holier things to do than read this. Another problem with the question is, not only does it assume a creator by defining it as "creation," but it also portrays this world as incredibly beautiful. I'm certainly not going to argue that there are parts of it that strike one as incredibly beautiful, but then, I'm an American, not a North Korean. I don't live in Calcutta or Bangladesh. My view of the world would not be so Pollyannish if I saw the whole picture. Another thing I find very annoying is that it is hard to trust an evangelist who continually runs into people who offer him his own argument, then look amazed when the evangelist tells them his point which should have been obvious from the outset. I can't believe people in Georgia are this naive. Page 18, for example, "I pointed to a skyscraper and said, 'Prove to me that there was a builder for that building.' He answered, 'That's easy. The building itself is proof that there is a builder.' I said, 'Exactly (my dear Watson)...The sun, the moon, the stars, the ocean, the sand, each unique snowflake (which shows how much he doesn't know about snow), and your DNA are absolute proof that there had to be a creator.' He looked at me. I could see the light bulb flash on behind his eyes. As he thought about that statement, he realized he had provided his own proof. Another example of what I can only hope is embellishment, is on page 17. I asked them what would be enough evidence to prove that God exists...I asked them, If everything else has a creator, a designer, artist, or orderer behind it, why would you think that there is not a Creator...behind this universe?" Suddenly their eyes grew wide. One of the trick or treaters said, "Yesterday, I walked outside at dusk and saw a sunset. I was wondering to myself, 'Who painted that in the sky?'" Okay, we get the point, Cahill. People worship you when you parrot answers from your Answers for Atheists pamphlet. From this one argument, the only thing to conclude is that it is likely that an intelligent superbeing has prepared and shaped matter with skill--I cannot conclude from this that this superbeing has made the matter out of nothing, or that he is infinite or all-powerful or all-good in any sense (i.e. that he is God). The same argument could as easily be used to prove the existence of a group of gods, the Egyptian gods, pagan gods, Hindu gods, take your pick. There could have been a committee of deities. Another problem with this proof is that Cahill does not apply its own logic to his proposed Designer...any designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object. This only creates an infinite series of designers (which, as I understand Mormon theology, is true for the LDS Christians...This takes care of the "something from nothing" notion, which many Christians seem to believe, whereas Mormons believe God organized the universe, but did not fashion it from nothing, a logical notion). This argument is incomplete as it does not indicate why the designer can be undesigned but the universe cannot (except that Cahlil tells me so, that God by definition doesn't need a designer, but of course that is not a logical argument). The last problem I will mention, which may not interest most readers of this book, is this: Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could you show this? Nature is the basis of comparison by which we discriminate between designed objects and natural objects. Therefore, to claim that nature was designed is to undermine the basis on which we discern artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. It's just "intuitive," which itself is problematic, since intuition is either a product of nature or a gift from the gods. On page 10, Cahlil wrote, "An amazing two-thirds of atheists and agnostics accept the existence of an afterlife, so it's obvious that many people have not carefully thought through what they believe and why." Wow. It should be obvious to you that Cahill forgot that not everyone is neatly cataloged into protestant Christian and atheist/agnostic. For some reason he fails to mention, he believes that if there is not his version of a monotheistic, all-powerful, all-good God, then (of course) that means there is no afterlife. Verily, verily, there is more to this heaven and earth, Cahill, than is dreamt of in your philosophy. As far as his arguments for god and against evolution and the Big Bang, I hope you don't let him pull the wool over your eyes so easily. Be shrewd, for Christ's sake. Everything he wrote about evolution and the Big Bang is absurd. He understands nothing about either theory, both of which theories are supported by MOUNTAINS of observation. If you can't understand that, I suggest you start reading books on science written by scientists, not evangelists. He uses old, stale, infantile proofs against evolution which are ridiculous if you know anything about the laws of thermodynamics, biogenesis, the big bang, or evolution. I trust that Jesus would turn over in his grave if he read this. If anyone knows of any better book that might show my brother, a Nuclear Physicist, a good reason for belief in god or the afterlife, please advise. And don't say the Bible--he's conversant with it and not too impressed with God's behavior.

Good Motivational Tool for Personal Evangelism:
This book is a good motivational tool for personal evangelism. While the author gives some pointers on apologetics, the theme is getting to the task of sharing the Gospel with people all around us. His earnest, heartfelt desire to take Jesus to other people is very refreshing.

Best on Practical Evangelism:
Everywhere we go, from the second that we exit our homes, we walk on to the mission field that God has put us in. This book tells us the practical steps to walking on to that mission field and sharing the Gospel! It is not a theological book so much as it is to give us the tools and encouragement we need to be bold for Christ.