How the 20th century religion of anti-racism has neutered Evangelism

[lifepsyop]

I've about had enough your loaded, misdirecting, mischaracterizing questions. You're making yourself look foolish by using them. I hope you know that.

On the contrary, it's a serious contradiction within 20th century Christianity. This contradiction is having major effects concerning Christian identity today, especially amongst younger generations. The contradiction is that they see their religious leaders caring more about pushing 20th century secular multiculturalism programs instead of promoting a Christian society.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

On the contrary, it's a serious contradiction within 20th century Christianity. This contradiction is having major effects concerning Christian identity today, especially amongst younger generations. The contradiction is that they see their religious leaders caring more about pushing 20th century secular multiculturalism programs instead of promoting a Christian society.

You're doing it again. By your form of questioning, which isn't even Socratic questioning, you're imputing things into what I said which I didn't say or imply.

If all you can do is assert what are essentially informal fallacies, you don't give someone like myself any reason to continue on in discussion with you.

 

[PloverWing]

In the case of any instance of the "sins" of post 1950's secular consensus, i.e. accusation of someone being "racist", ethnocentric, anti-immigration, etc. = then the response was mobilization of entire church hierarchy to excommunicate or otherwise banish the offender/heretic.

There are two issues here: 1) whether racial segregation is morally wrong, and 2) what strategies are best for correcting past and present sins.

1. The quotation marks around the word "sins" need to disappear. Racial segregation as practiced in the United States was a sin, because it harmed Black people. Policies that barred Black people from attending a particular school or from holding a particular job or from owning property in a particular neighborhood harmed those people. It was a sin. Unless we agree on that, we're not going to get anywhere.

2. How best to correct past and present harms is a more complicated question. Excommunication doesn't work well with Americans, because we're stubborn individualists. Empathetic conversations, I suspect, are more productive. Correcting past harms is even more complicated, because in some cases the harm was done by people who are now long dead, yet we can't ignore the harm, because present-day people are still affected. Honestly, I don't yet know what the correction of past harms looks like yet. A conversation around this might be productive.

 

[1Tonne]

But whatever the case, and most of all, folks need to see in us the same Jesus that the sinful woman in the Gospel of Luke saw................but that's not what people are most often seeing or hearing. Usually they're hearing how different, sinful and useless they are. That's not ok.

I don't know of any Christians who point out how different people are or how useless they are. That in reality is not very Christian at all. But I do know of Christians who point out people's sins. This is what Jesus did. When we do this, we need to do it with "gentleness and respect, having a good conscience". So, we need to use wisdom in how to approach the sin topic.

What's more, as I said before, most people in the U.S. have already heard the basics of the Gospel message involving sin, repentance, baptism, etc.

Same here New Zealand. Everyone has heard the Gospel, and they have not accepted it. Most people look at the Gospel as foolishness. So, we need to show people the reason why they need the Gospel. But we have all sinned against God, and the punishment for sin is death and so we need to show the unbeliever this for them to understand their need for the Gospel.
In this following link, I tell of a conversation that I had with a 21-year-old girl a couple of weeks back. I showed her how she had sinned and then I told her the Gospel. She was really astonished because she had heard the Gospel many times, but this time it made sense. The reason why she understood it and it made sense to her was because she realised that she had sinned against God and so someone has to take the punishment.

Sharing the Gospel at a Town Event

This past weekend, a few of the guys and I attended an event called "The Wanga Republic Day." It takes place in a tiny village called Wangamonoma, which is tucked away in the middle of nowhere and feels like a ghost town most of the time. However, once every couple of years, the village comes...

www.christianforums.com

They already know this. What they don't know is that Christians can do more than merely excusing themselves from loving others by using sophistry in their often overly simplistic argumentation about how "Loving God" means preaching at others about Hellfire and Brimstone, and that because they love God and not the World, that's all they have to do to show their love for God.

This sounds as though you have taken offence. I was not attacking you.

"Sophistry" definition: "the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving."
Please tell me where I have tried to deceive you by using false arguments.

Here are some useful quotes:
"It's easy to take a stand on something if there's no risk involved. It's easy to give a quarter to a poor man if you keep a dollar for yourself. It's easy to take a stand against the war so long as nobody asks you to make a real sacrifice. Likewise, it is easy to be a Christian as long as we do not have to tell strangers the Gospel." Unknown author

It is amazing that we hesitate to talk about the wrath of God, for fear of making sinners afraid. The fear they feel this side of the grave will be nothing compared to the fear they feel when they stand alone before Almighty God. Ray Comfort

Preaching that downplays Gods wrath does not enhance true evangelism, it undermines it. John Mcarthur

"Doctor. You are too delicate to tell the man that he is ill. You hope to heal the sick without their knowing it. You therefore flatter them. Your delicacy is cruelty, your flatteries are poisons you are a murderer. Shall we keep men in a fool's paradise? Shall we lull them into soft slumber from which they will awake in hell? Are we to become helpers of their damnation by our smooth speeches? In the name of God, we will not." Charles Spurgeon

If you downplay the radical depravity of man, then you downplay the Glory of the Gospel. Paul Washer

He who preaches the Gospel without preaching the Law of God may hold all the results of it in his hand and there will be little for him to hold. Charles Spurgeon

I do not believe that any man can preach the gospel who does not preach the Law. ...... Lower the Law and you dim the light by which man perceives his guilt; this lessens the likelihood of his conviction and conversion. If you set the law aside, you deprive the gospel of its most powerful weapon; that is the tutor that brings men to Christ. Therefore, the Law serves a most necessary purpose, and it must not be removed from its place. Charles Spurgeon

“Evermore the Law must prepare the way for the gospel. To overlook this in instructing souls is almost certain to result in false hope, the introduction of a false standard of Christian experience, and to fill the church with false converts.” Charles Finny

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know of any Christians who point out how different people are or how useless they are. That in reality is not very Christian at all. But I do know of Christians who point out people's sins. This is what Jesus did. When we do this, we need to do it with "gentleness and respect, having a good conscience". So, we need to use wisdom in how to approach the sin topic.


Same here New Zealand. Everyone has heard the Gospel, and they have not accepted it. Most people look at the Gospel as foolishness. So, we need to show people the reason why they need the Gospel. But we have all sinned against God, and the punishment for sin is death and so we need to show the unbeliever this for them to understand their need for the Gospel.
In this following link, I tell of a conversation that I had with a 21-year-old girl a couple of weeks back. I showed her how she had sinned and then I told her the Gospel. She was really astonished because she had heard the Gospel many times, but this time it made sense. The reason why she understood it and it made sense to her was because she realised that she had sinned against God and so someone has to take the punishment.

Sharing the Gospel at a Town Event

This past weekend, a few of the guys and I attended an event called "The Wanga Republic Day." It takes place in a tiny village called Wangamonoma, which is tucked away in the middle of nowhere and feels like a ghost town most of the time. However, once every couple of years, the village comes...

www.christianforums.com

This sounds as though you have taken offence. I was not attacking you.

"Sophistry" definition: "the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving."
Please tell me where I have tried to deceive you by using false arguments.

Here are some useful quotes:
"It's easy to take a stand on something if there's no risk involved. It's easy to give a quarter to a poor man if you keep a dollar for yourself. It's easy to take a stand against the war so long as nobody asks you to make a real sacrifice. Likewise, it is easy to be a Christian as long as we do not have to tell strangers the Gospel." Unknown author

It is amazing that we hesitate to talk about the wrath of God, for fear of making sinners afraid. The fear they feel this side of the grave will be nothing compared to the fear they feel when they stand alone before Almighty God. Ray Comfort

Preaching that downplays Gods wrath does not enhance true evangelism, it undermines it. John Mcarthur

"Doctor. You are too delicate to tell the man that he is ill. You hope to heal the sick without their knowing it. You therefore flatter them. Your delicacy is cruelty, your flatteries are poisons you are a murderer. Shall we keep men in a fool's paradise? Shall we lull them into soft slumber from which they will awake in hell? Are we to become helpers of their damnation by our smooth speeches? In the name of God, we will not." Charles Spurgeon

If you downplay the radical depravity of man, then you downplay the Glory of the Gospel. Paul Washer

He who preaches the Gospel without preaching the Law of God may hold all the results of it in his hand and there will be little for him to hold. Charles Spurgeon

I do not believe that any man can preach the gospel who does not preach the Law. ...... Lower the Law and you dim the light by which man perceives his guilt; this lessens the likelihood of his conviction and conversion. If you set the law aside, you deprive the gospel of its most powerful weapon; that is the tutor that brings men to Christ. Therefore, the Law serves a most necessary purpose, and it must not be removed from its place. Charles Spurgeon

“Evermore the Law must prepare the way for the gospel. To overlook this in instructing souls is almost certain to result in false hope, the introduction of a false standard of Christian experience, and to fill the church with false converts.” Charles Finny

Do you want me to provide a list of all of the Christian preachers, teachers, theologians and philosophers whom I rely on? I'm guessing you don't, but I can tell you one thing: It's not going to be Charles Finney or Ray Comfort or anyone like them.

No, here's the missing bit you need to realize: most people need to hear something other than, and more than simply, an explication about the nature of sin. Rather, they need to know 'why' the Bible is believable at all in the first place, especially in the face of a world that doesn't care about them.

Secondly, they don't want to hear the sort of tripe that lifepsyop (that is, the guy who is writing just right above you and I, as in directly up), yeah,.................people don't want to hear that, and know that shouldn't be hearing it. In fact, they all already mostly knows that some sort of amalgamation of modern racism mixed with "Da Goh-spehll" isn't really the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, here we are, in the 21st century, and people who claim to be Christian are STILL, ......................................STILL......................................pushing the separation of ethnicity and race card.

That notion needs to finally die.

If I catch even one whif of racism on the breath of someone who is supposed to be a dearly beloved fellow "saint," the gloves are going to come off just as surely as Paul did the smack down on Peter. Do you get what I'm saying? Am I CLEAR ENOUGH???!!!

I expect to see ZERO racism in another Christian person's verbal communication, and I'm pretty certain the Lord does too.

 

[lifepsyop]

1. The quotation marks around the word "sins" need to disappear. Racial segregation as practiced in the United States was a sin, because it harmed Black people. Policies that barred Black people from attending a particular school or from holding a particular job or from owning property in a particular neighborhood harmed those people. It was a sin. Unless we agree on that, we're not going to get anywhere.

I don't necessarily agree with those segregation policies, but that is not a sin any more than barring women from the workplace would be a sin, which a majority of women would also argue to be harmful to them.

I think these are markers of a new religion, a 20th century "civil rights" based religion that has redefined the concept of sin around the "open society"

And just to be clear, it would clearly be a sin to not allow a believer of a certain ethnicity into church fellowship, but that's something very different.

 

[lifepsyop]

If I catch even one whif of racism on the breath of someone who is supposed to be a dearly beloved fellow "saint," the gloves are going to come off just as surely as Paul did the smack down on Peter. Do you get what I'm saying? Am I CLEAR ENOUGH???!!!

I expect to see ZERO racism in another Christian person's verbal communication, and I'm pretty certain the Lord does too.

And I'm guessing you would not exhibit even a fraction of this intensity (if any at all) towards another Christian who spoke tolerantly of homosexuality. (even though Paul railed against homosexuality as a horrible sin against God, repeatedly)

And therein lies the problem.

Christianity has been transformed into something else throughout the end of the 20th century.

We care deeply about sins that Christians did not even recognize for over 1900 years.

And we care little about sins that Christians were completely intolerant of for over 1900 years.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And I'm guessing you would not exhibit even a fraction of this intensity (if any at all) towards another Christian who spoke tolerantly of homosexuality. (even though Paul railed against homosexuality as a horrible sin against God, repeatedly)

And therein lies the problem.

No, you're dead wrong on this about me. And not only that, the problem as I see it is you're a bit like some of the people of Israel whom Paul cited as having "zeal without knowledge."

You apparently need to shore up your acquaintance with the Scriptures and with how to best interpret them, among other things.

Christianity has been transformed into something else throughout the end of the 20th century.

"Christianity" has been undergoing human deliberation ever since it was dropped off by the Lord to His Church. In fact, no one Christian in 2,000 years has been a clone of another in his/her thinking about how we answer the perennial question: "Who do you say that I am?"

We care deeply about sins that Christians did not even recognize for over 1900 years.

Yeah, and that's why we have to avoid valuing 666, and our Enemy has made that a difficult task. But what you're proposing with "racial segregation" plays right into his schemes. So, WAKE UP!!!!!

And we care little about sins that Christians were completely intolerant of for over 1900 years.

You're doing it again. And again, you're dead wrong. You need to stop that and step back, and rethink.

The worst part of it is that you've decided to put this rhetorical piece of yours right into the middle of the 'Missions, Evangelism and Witnessing' section of the forums. What a lousy testimony that is.

 

[lifepsyop]

No, you're dead wrong on this about me.

So "the gloves are coming off" if you detect even a whiff of tolerance of homosexuality? Based on what you've wrote already, I doubt that.

However, Paul certainly took the gloves off when it came to rebuking homosexuality.

The worst part of it is that you've decided to put this rhetorical piece of yours right into the middle of the 'Missions, Evangelism and Witnessing' section of the forums. What a lousy testimony that is.

I thought it relevant for this forum because the 21st century Christian mission seems to be more about promoting multiculturalism and "ending racism" instead of bringing people to the Gospel.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So "the gloves are coming off" if you detect even a whiff of tolerance of homosexuality? Based on what you've wrote already, I doubt that.

No, the gloves come off when I have to fence with fellow Trinitarian Christians who INSIST upon injecting, and justifying, sinful aspirations into the Gospel.

Also, if you've any knowledge of my own interactons here on CF for the last decade and a half, you'd know that I can give the most vociferous and sarcastic skeptic a run for his money. So..............................................it depends on who it is and how smart someone 'thinks' they are in justifying their errors. I don't give a rat's patootie if they're atheist or Christian. They will be addressed here just as surely as they would be if they showed up on my front door.

However, Paul certainly took the gloves off when it came to rebuking homosexuality.

He also took the gloves off in Romans chapter 3 and 4.

Or, as but one example, did you fail to read the book of Romans as an entire unit of communication?

I thought it relevant for this forum because the 21st century Christian mission seems to be more about promoting multiculturalism and "ending racism" instead of bringing people to the Gospel.

Uh................I think you're too adverse to one concern while you strain at a gnat for another concern.

Am I implying that I think you're not a Christian? No, I'm not implying that, but you are showing evidence that you have some things to learn where the advance of our Lord's Gospel is concerned. And where's there's racism and the discounting of other human beings, there's something wrong.

 

[lifepsyop]

No, the gloves come off when I have to fence with fellow Trinitarian Christians who INSIST upon injecting, and justifying, sinful aspirations into the Gospel.

Also, if you've any knowledge of my own interactons here on CF for the last decade and a half, you'd know that I can give the most vociferous and sarcastic skeptic a run for his money. So..............................................it depends on who it is and how smart someone 'thinks' they are in justifying their errors. I don't give a rat's patootie if they're atheist or Christian. They will be addressed here just as surely as they would be if they showed up on my front door.

He also took the gloves off in Romans chapter 3 and 4.

Or, as but one example, did you fail to read the book of Romans as an entire unit of communication?


Uh................I think you're too adverse to one concern while you strain at a gnat for another concern.

Am I implying that I think you're not a Christian? No, I'm not implying that, but you are showing evidence that you have some things to learn where the advance of our Lord's Gospel is concerned. And where's there's racism and the discounting of other human beings, there's something wrong.

Okay, I don't mean to offend you, and I apologize if I have.

I just don't know how you could look at the fruits of society for last 50 years or so and not conclude that the church essentially abandoned its role of generally promoting the Good in society and fostering a restraint of sinful behavior...

yet simultaneously the church became just as obsessed with pushing multiculturalism as the secular authorities. The moral framework seemed to shift. That is a big issue that is not going away. The younger generation of Christians see it clearly and they have a lot of questions.

 

[PloverWing]

I don't necessarily agree with those segregation policies, but that is not a sin any more than barring women from the workplace would be a sin, which a majority of women would also argue to be harmful to them.

Well... I agree that barring Black people from the workplace is morally similar to barring women from the workplace.

But mistreating people based on their gender is a separate question from mistreating people based on their race. Let's stay focused on race for the moment.

Can you make your statement any stronger than "I don't necessarily agree"? Are you willing to say "I emphatically disagree with those segregation policies"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, I don't mean to offend you, and I apologize if I have.

I just don't know how you could look at the fruits of society for last 50 years or so and not conclude that the church essentially abandoned its role of generally promoting the Good in society and fostering a restraint of sinful behavior...

Who says that I've concluded that everything various Christians have done anywhere and any time during the last 50 years, or 150 years, or 350 years, has been copacetic with Christian advocacy for holiness and peace?

Here's the thing. Like Kierkegaard, you and I can both see that some Christian groupings today may not be engaging the Christian faith the way they probably could be or should be, but--------and here's my qualifier----------I don't lump Christians together in identification with groups and I don't resort to stereotypical categorization. Rather, I take each Christian I meet or see or talk to on an individual basis and enter a mutual encounter of evaluation and fellowship with him or her.

Additionally, from my own life experience and education, two issues that reach to the core of who I am and with which I feel I must deal are 1) Racism, and 2) the presence of anything, anywhere, any idea or any policy in the World that even approximates The Playboy Philosophy. These are the two things that raise my ire the most, one for social reasons and the other for more personal reasons; but both for Biblical reasons.

yet simultaneously the church became just as obsessed with pushing multiculturalism as the secular authorities. The moral framework seemed to shift. That is a big issue that is not going away. The younger generation of Christians see it clearly and they have a lot of questions.

Yes, you're right. The Moral framework has changed, but it's not as if it wasn't already corrupted in various ways well before the 1950's. The main difference today is that what we see is becoming increasingly more globally accepted and assumed.

 

[1Tonne]

Do you want me to provide a list of all of the Christian preachers, teachers, theologians and philosophers whom I rely on? I'm guessing you don't, but I can tell you one thing: It's not going to be Charles Finney or Ray Comfort or anyone like them.

I was simply showing you how useful the law is by using some quotes. I collect quotes and some of them are from atheists. So, this was not a list of my favourite preachers.
If you wish, I can use bible verses to show you how important the law is. This may be more helpful for you.

No, here's the missing bit you need to realize: most people need to hear something other than, and more than simply, an explication about the nature of sin. Rather, they need to know 'why' the Bible is believable at all in the first place, especially in the face of a world that doesn't care about them.

You can defend argument after argument about the bible and you could win them all. But this will only change a person's mind, it will not change a person's heart. In the end, you will have to prove to the unbeliever that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, that there was a great flood, and that Jerico fell because of the sound of trumpets. You will have to prove story after story after story and even then, the unbeliever will not have a heart change. But the Gospel has the power to change a heart of stone into a heart of flesh. So, we need to say the Gospel in its fullness. I have debated very intelligent atheists who even believe that it has scientifically been proven that there was a great flood. And knowing this, their hearts still were not changed. So, it is the Gospel that has the power to change hearts and not our apologetics.
Can you tell me what you say to a non-believer that makes them think that the bible is believable? (There is an answer to this and even if you prove this to a non-believer, it still will not change their heart, it only changes their mind. I will tell you what I say once you have answered.)

I expect to see ZERO racism in another Christian person's verbal communication, and I'm pretty certain the Lord does too.

I believe that we are all one people with different amounts of melamine in our skin. So, we are all the same.

You seem to be on the attack. I am not attacking you at all. The original quote that I used that sparked the discussion between you and me said "My job is to love them and encourage them to let go of the World and Let Jesus Help." Can you explain this? Maybe you could add some bible verses.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was simply showing you how useful the law is by using some quotes. I collect quotes and some of them are from atheists. So, this was not a list of my favourite preachers.
If you wish, I can use bible verses to show you how important the law is. This may be more helpful for you.

Brother 1Tonne, what may be helpful in interacting with other Christians is to FIRST ask them how and to what extent they may already be familiar with, or even educated, about Biblical teaching and interpretation. That way, you don't end up having to assert something the other brother or sister likely already knows.

You can defend argument after argument about the bible and you could win them all. But this will only change a person's mind, it will not change a person's heart.

Right, and as Paul the Apostle said in the 1st letter to the Corinthians, there's an act of the Holy Spirit that has to take place in addition to our sharing of the Gospel teaching.

In the end, you will have to prove to the unbeliever that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, that there was a great flood, and that Jerico fell because of the sound of trumpets. You will have to prove story after story after story and even then, the unbeliever will not have a heart change.

Actually, that's not exactly what I "have to do." It's what you perceive you need to do in your own understanding of faith.

Again, from what came previously in this thread with the other poster, my qualm was with the issue of Racism. I think you may have missed that point.

But the Gospel has the power to change a heart of stone into a heart of flesh. So, we need to say the Gospel in its fullness. I have debated very intelligent atheists who even believe that it has scientifically been proven that there was a great flood. And knowing this, their hearts still were not changed. So, it is the Gospel that has the power to change hearts and not our apologetics.

Yep. I already agree with that sentiment. But thank you for rehearsing it again.

Can you tell me what you say to a non-believer that makes them think that the bible is believable? (There is an answer to this and even if you prove this to a non-believer, it still will not change their heart, it only changes their mind. I will tell you what I say once you have answered.)

It depends on who the unbeliever is, and what I perceive they are needing to address in their own lives with their struggle to believe.

You may want to consider that I already have over 30 books from various Biblical Scholars, teachers and other brethren, from various denominations, from whom I've learned Apologetics and the different forms of Apologetics.

So no, there's not a "singular" answer to this question of yours and we'll be wasting our time talking about it since you are set with your own approach.

I believe that we are all one people with different amounts of melamine in our skin. So, we are all the same.

And that's exactly what I believe too. So, why are you bringing this up with me? I'm already anti-racist to the teeth.

You seem to be on the attack. I am not attacking you at all. The original quote that I used that sparked the discussion between you and me said "My job is to love them and encourage them to let go of the World and Let Jesus Help." Can you explain this? Maybe you could add some bible verses.

What do you think I mean when I say "Encourage them to let go of the World"? Just take a guess. Assume that I'm a fellow Christian who knows the Bible about the same as you do. What do you think I mean? Could it have something to do with the nature of repentance and sanctification?

 

[1Tonne]

Right, and as Paul the Apostle said in the 1st letter to the Corinthians, there's an act of the Holy Spirit that has to take place in addition to our sharing of the Gospel teaching.

Correct. The Holy Spirit was given to us so that we would speak. The Holy Spirit gives us the power (dynamis=ability and strength), boldness and clarity to speak the Gospel. Then it is the Gospel that changes hearts.

Actually, that's not exactly what I "have to do."

So, what do you do to prove that the bible is authentic?

Again, from what came previously in this thread with the other poster, my qualm was with the issue of Racism. I think you may have missed that point.

We are discussing within a discussion. So, I am not taking note of what the other person is saying.

It depends on who the unbeliever is, and what I perceive they are needing to address in their own lives with their struggle to believe.

Please give me an example. If you do not, then how will I learn?

You may want to consider that I already have over 30 books from various Biblical Scholars, teachers and other brethren, from various denominations, from whom I've learned Apologetics and the different forms of Apologetics.

I am glad you have read a lot.

So no, there's not a "singular" answer to this question of yours and we'll be wasting our time talking about it since you are set with your own approach.

Once again, if you will not answer, then how will I learn? Maybe you could use a bible verse to help with your point.

This is how I prove the bible can be trusted:
Paul reasoned from the Law and the Prophets, using the Law to convict sinners, and the Prophets to demonstrate that Jesus is the promised Messiah. By doing this, he also showed that scripture must be divinely inspired—what other book in the world accurately foretells the future? None. The Bible stands apart because countless prophecies, written long ago, have been fulfilled with remarkable precision. This confirms that it is divinely authored, trustworthy, and worthy of belief.
"So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening." Acts 28:23

But even if I point this out, someone can still deny the Bible's authority because Satan has blinded the eyes of those who do not believe. And even if they saw someone raised from the dead, they can still deny God. It is the Gospel that changes people's hearts. So, we need to speak it.
"Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’" Luke 16:29-31

And that's exactly what I believe too. So, why are you bringing this up with me? I'm already anti-racist to the teeth.

We seem to be discussing a different topic within a discussion. I have not spoken about the comments of Lifepsop or racism (Apart from the melamine comment). I have only responded to your post about how you did not need to show people their sin and then you used some vague wording about letting go of the world and letting Jesus help. I then simply responded by saying that we should use the Law to show people's sins. From here you have been offended.

What do you think I mean when I say "Encourage them to let go of the World"? Just take a guess. Assume that I'm a fellow Christian who knows the Bible about the same as you do. What do you think I mean? Could it have something to do with the nature of repentance and sanctification?

That is better. So, now you are saying that you do point out their sin so that they can repent. Earlier you said, "I DON'T have to tell them they're going to Hell because most of them have already heard that message". (The full message is, that they have sinned and deserve Hell and one day they will be judged by a righteous and Holy God.)
All I have been simply saying is that we should use the law to show people their sins so that they can turn from their sins and come to a place of genuine repentance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Correct. The Holy Spirit was given to us so that we would speak. The Holy Spirit gives us the power (dynamis=ability and strength), boldness and clarity to speak the Gospel. Then it is the Gospel that changes hearts.

I find that too many people really upon a false understanding of the charismata to justify their supposed "boldness in the Spirit." So, I take claims as to any one person's "ability and strength in the Spirit" with a grain of salt, and sometimes with an entire bag of salt.

Ultimately, it is the Lord, through His providence and His Spirit, that brings a person closer to Him. As you know, and as Paul stated, we are but vessels and it is the Lord who gives the increase.

So, what do you do to prove that the bible is authentic?

I told you already. And like Kierkegaard, I don't think there is a Systematic Theology or Apologetic that one can use to guarantee any mode of convincing, But since you want to know, I lean most toward a cumulative case form of Apologetics and Christian Philosophy, along with the application of solid Hermeneutics.

Now, if you want for me to share this with you, brother to brother, I'd be more than happy to do so. Should we start another thread for that?

We are discussing within a discussion. So, I am not taking note of what the other person is saying.

Maybe not, but sometimes it is good to do so, 1Tonne.

Please give me an example. If you do not, then how will I learn?

I am not going to write out an extensive example when I've been doing this for many years. Not in public because, frankly I don't currently have a church, and my wife doesn't want me to expose myself to street preaching.

I am glad you have read a lot.

And I'm glad you've spent many an hour on the street corner preaching.

Once again, if you will not answer, then how will I learn? Maybe you could use a bible verse to help with your point.

Ok. Let's start with Matthew 7:6, "“Do not give that which is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, for they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

This is how I prove the bible can be trusted:
Paul reasoned from the Law and the Prophets, using the Law to convict sinners, and the Prophets to demonstrate that Jesus is the promised Messiah. By doing this, he also showed that scripture must be divinely inspired—what other book in the world accurately foretells the future? None. The Bible stands apart because countless prophecies, written long ago, have been fulfilled with remarkable precision. This confirms that it is divinely authored, trustworthy, and worthy of belief.
"So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening." Acts 28:23

Great. I'd eventually use that material too once a potential convert showed true and full interest. Otherwise, there's no way I'd start with the Law and the Prophets. No, as a Christian Philosopher, I'm all about Apologetic Offense via Critical Thinking (i.e. Philosophy)----I'm going to undermine and challenge their epistemological assumptions second, after I do what I said I do earlier, which is find out who they are and where they feel they are in life.

But even if I point this out, someone can still deny the Bible's authority because Satan has blinded the eyes of those who do not believe. And even if they saw someone raised from the dead, they can still deny God. It is the Gospel that changes people's hearts. So, we need to speak it.
"Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’" Luke 16:29-31

ok

We seem to be discussing a different topic within a discussion. I have not spoken about the comments of Lifepsop or racism (Apart from the melamine comment). I have only responded to your post about how you did not need to show people their sin and then you used some vague wording about letting go of the world and letting Jesus help. I then simply responded by saying that we should use the Law to show people's sins. From here you have been offended.

Right. I am moderately set off because I hate it when other Christians approach me assuming they've got 'more spirituality' than I do.

Yes, I detest their pretenses.

That is better. So, now you are saying that you do point out their sin so that they can repent. Earlier you said, "I DON'T have to tell them they're going to Hell because most of them have already heard that message".

No, you've misunderstood what I said earlier and now you're attempting to twist what I've said in a false attempt to make it seem like I've somehow contradicted myself when it's obvious to anyone else here that I haven't. ..... you need to read more closely and carefully.

(The full message is, that they have sinned and deserve Hell and one day they will be judged by a righteous and Holy God.)
All I have been simply saying is that we should use the law to show people their sins so that they can turn from their sins and come to a place of genuine repentance.

Good. Fine. Use the Law first if you feel that's your "thing" to grab people's attention to the Lord. But that's not my gift, and I don't have to make your gift my gift.

 

[1Tonne]

Ultimately, it is the Lord, through His providence and His Spirit, that brings a person closer to Him. As you know, and as Paul stated, we are but vessels and it is the Lord who gives the increase.

We are His vessels that He uses. Sadly, many believers let their flesh override what the spirit is telling them and so they keep their mouths closed.
But as you say, we plant the seed (the spoken Gospel), then it is God who gives the increase.

I lean most toward a cumulative case form of Apologetics and Christian Philosophy, along with the application of solid Hermeneutics.

Now, if you want for me to share this with you, brother to brother, I'd be more than happy to do so. Should we start another thread for that?

I don't think we need to start a new thread. We should be able to tell that the bible is divine simply by looking at prophecy coming to life.

Ok. Let's start with Matthew 7:6, "“Do not give that which is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, for they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

Are you saying that we should not share the Gospel because it is giving pearls to pigs?

Great. I'd eventually use that material too once a potential convert showed true and full interest.

Everyone is a potential convert. Even the atheist. We should be ready to share our faith to all. So, be ready in season and out of season.

Otherwise, there's no way I'd start with the Law and the Prophets. No, as a Christian Philosopher, I'm all about Apologetic Offense via Critical Thinking (i.e. Philosophy)----I'm going to undermine and challenge their epistemological assumptions second, after I do what I said I do earlier, which is find out who they are and where they feel they are in life.

It is good to use apologetics etc when talking to a non-believer. But this is only an intellectual argument. So, as long as you do get to show them their sin and God's amazing sacrifice, then this can change the heart. We need to get from a battle of the mind (intellect) to a battle of the heart. Many believers will simply argue apologetics and then leave out the Gospel. The Gospel is of utmost importance as it changes hearts.

Right. I am moderately set off because I hate it when other Christians approach me assuming they've got 'more spirituality' than I do.
Yes, I detest their pretenses.

I do not presume anything about anyone's Spirituality. So, it was not I that presumed.

No, you've misunderstood what I said earlier and now you're attempting to twist what I've said in a false attempt to make it seem like I've somehow contradicted myself when it's obvious to anyone else here that I haven't. ..... you need to read more closely and carefully.

Please tell me what you meant earlier.

Good. Fine. Use the Law first if you feel that's your "thing" to grab people's attention to the Lord. But that's not my gift, and I don't have to make your gift my gift.

You do not have to use the law first. You may use your apologetics or whatever. But do not forget to show them their sin or tell them the Gospel.
I first use a challenge where people have to name the 10 Commandments. This leads to a discussion where I can show the law and then tell them the Gospel. So, I do not start with the Law. I create a relationship (a repour) over a couple of minutes that allows me to share the Gospel.

I don't have to make your gift my gift.

I do not have the gift of evangelism. I am simply obeying what Jesus commanded us to do. That is to go and preach the Gospel to as many people as possible.
If you do want to say that I have a gift, then the gift is a great love for God. So much so that I will obey Him. Jesus said, "The one who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me". I thank God for this great gift.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We are His vessels that He uses. Sadly, many believers let their flesh override what the spirit is telling them and so they keep their mouths closed.
But as you say, we plant the seed (the spoken Gospel), then it is God who gives the increase.

I don't think we need to start a new thread. We should be able to tell that the bible is divine simply by looking at prophecy coming to life.

Are you saying that we should not share the Gospel because it is giving pearls to pigs?

Everyone is a potential convert. Even the atheist. We should be ready to share our faith to all. So, be ready in season and out of season.

It is good to use apologetics etc when talking to a non-believer. But this is only an intellectual argument. So, as long as you do get to show them their sin and God's amazing sacrifice, then this can change the heart. We need to get from a battle of the mind (intellect) to a battle of the heart. Many believers will simply argue apologetics and then leave out the Gospel. The Gospel is of utmost importance as it changes hearts.

I do not presume anything about anyone's Spirituality. So, it was not I that presumed.

Please tell me what you meant earlier.

You do not have to use the law first. You may use your apologetics or whatever. But do not forget to show them their sin or tell them the Gospel.
I first use a challenge where people have to name the 10 Commandments. This leads to a discussion where I can show the law and then tell them the Gospel. So, I do not start with the Law. I create a relationship (a repour) over a couple of minutes that allows me to share the Gospel.

I do not have the gift of evangelism. I am simply obeying what Jesus commanded us to do. That is to go and preach the Gospel to as many people as possible.
If you do want to say that I have a gift, then the gift is a great love for God. So much so that I will obey Him. Jesus said, "The one who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me". I thank God for this great gift.

Be blessed in what you do, 1Tonne.

 

[1Tonne]

Be blessed in what you do, 1Tonne.

Good discussion. Blessing.