(Pulled from POFO), RE: Evangelizing, A Response for Christians Between Christians

I wanted to address something that troubled me on the POFO forum (I originally started to do so there but then I thought it was out of place), and I thought maybe this was the place. I’m not arguing here, and I could be off-base. I know the apostle Paul, in prison, wrote that he was just happy people were talking about Jesus or the message about Christ (even if he didn’t necessarily agree with exactly everything said or every way it was painted. And perhaps that's the way I should be here. But then again… here goes. Here were some of the quotes that I’m referencing – and all these are from the Christian side (if you’d like to read the whole exchange, go to POFO, and it's probably unfair if you don't, but I can't post every quote):

resnor (and Doc, I guess),

First, I'll say this: Jesus is Lord. In that, I think we agree. And just to start with some disclaimers, I'm probably the last person that needs to say stuff, and you're welcome to take it with a grain of salt or throw it away or attack me. I'm a hypocrite, a sinner, a fake, a liar - every bad thing you can label me. But I'm also redeemed, or being redeemed, as I live and breathe.

Saying that, I agree in principle about showing and telling others about Christ. He commissioned His followers to do so (and I appreciate you doing so). His coming, death, and Resurrection are the # 1 greatest event in humankind's history, so much so as to make anything else almost non-existent in comparison. At the same time, what does it mean to be His follower (a Christian as we're called)? More than anything else, shouldn't we act as He acted?

Time after time that I can think of in His associations with others He exhibited love and compassion, especially relative to a person's sins. Yeah, He took on the institutions that were obstructing people's path to the One True God (who He Himself was/is) -- the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Temple traders, scribes and teachers of the Law, etc. -- but individually, to each person he came in contact with, He showed concern, love, and care.

-- People at a Wedding - He gave them more wine, the best wine (although it may be offensive to Christians for people to be drunk and if I was betting, I'd hazard a guess to say there were some drunk folks at that wedding, and some drunk off the wine Jesus made)
-- The Woman at the Well - With only slight admonition, He simply told her He offered Living Water (although it may be offensive to Christians to be a fornicator, adulteror, or living with someone other than a spouse)
-- Nicodemus - He told a Pharisee, one on one, how much He/God loved the (sinful) world in one of, if not the, most precious discourses in the Bible (although Nicodemus was a part of the prideful, hypocritical institutions that Jesus railed against and Christians should be offended about if there are such today - and there are)
-- Zaccheus - He invited Himself to eat with the tax collector who had stolen from others (although it may be offensive to Christians for people to steal)
-- Peter - His denier He instantly forgave and made Him the rock of the Church (although it may be offensive to deny Christ)
-- Rich Young Ruler - Jesus looked on him, most likely one of the reprobate, in compassion (although it may be offensive to Christians for people to hoard their wealth)
-- Judas - While Christ knew Judas would betray him from the beginning, He walked with, taught, and loved Judas as one of His disciples for three years (although it may be offensive to Christians to betray Christ)
-- Saul/Paul - Christ came to him on the road to Damascus where he planned to execute followers of Christ and converted Paul then and there (although it may be offensive to Christians for people to kill them)

People should know they are sinners (or at least claim Jesus as Lord - Romans 10:9) to be saved, but who makes people aware? Is it not the Spirit of God that awakens a man's/woman's soul to see his/her true self? If it's me, if I do it myself, I'd almost have cause to brag. Everything is grace, is it not?

And as far as sin being offensive, which it is to God I realize, He's still bigger than it in such a way that sin really has little bearing to Him. He has conquered it. I have enough sin in me that needs to be dealt with on a consistent basis that I know pre-marital sex being offensive and homosexuality being offensive are just drops in the bucket. What I need to do more than anything else is not harp on that other stuff, but follow what Christ said were the two most important commandments. Love God. Love others. If I spent all my time doing that, I'd have less of the bad stuff into which to be delving. I guess, if we want to rationalize it, we can say we're loving them when they think we're telling them they're going to hell, but that's not the sense of what I see in Jesus' actions at all. I see no condemnation there. In fact, although both Old and New Testaments have laundry lists of the Sin in us and sins in us that keep us from God, it always seems like Jesus looked beyond that (though not altogether ignoring it) and showed His True Self through His relationship with each of the persons He dealt with.

Even with the "stiff-necked" verbiage, God had a long and tried relationship with the Israelite people before He called them stiff-necked. Once you have that relationship, it's a little easier to digest. I'm not saying not to witness/evangelize on a forum such as this (I'd never say that), but it just seems to me that referencing Jews as "stiff-necked" and singling out homosexuality and pre-marital sex as offensive because of the political aspects as opposed to all the other plethora of sins that could be named before having built a relationship, even if it's merely a relationship of respect built on posts and PMs, seems counter-productive. In other words, if people haven't seen you "being Jesus" to them or others they love, I think they'd probably have a harder time accepting what is said for someone whom they deem is some religious nut on a ThePhins.com POFO forum. (And I’m not calling anyone a nut [besides myself] – far from it.)

I guess I’d just like to know your (resnor and Doc) thoughts or the thoughts of rest of the Christians in the forums here. There are many parts of the Body of Christ, I know, and some of them are silent on the back row of a church, some of them are in far off countries who have names I cannot pronounce, some of them are on Bourbon Street yelling through a bullhorn, and some of them are Dolphin fans on The Phins.com. I guess reading through this, some of it does sound like I’m judging – so I’m sorry for that. If all of this or any of this sounds condescending, just disregard it. That's not how I mean it. I just think the relationship part of being able to talk to people reasonably about the Savior of the world is important – and talking to people about Christ on a forum such as this can be a lot of things (tricky, intimidating, frustrating, loving, rewarding, sorrowful, etc.). I commend you for trying. You're certainly welcome to fire back. I'm sure I'm wrong in a lot of places and a lot of ways in writing this - but I just sort of cringed and was troubled reading the back and forth (of course, if I read enough on a lot of threads, I’d probably get numb to it) on the Palin's church thread, and I wanted to address my thoughts, illogical and unorganized as they are. If you want, just let me know yours.

And then, maybe you didn't bother to read down this far, in which case, I'm having fun writing to myself.

Lastly, if it sounds like I'm calling you guys out (resnor and Doc), I'm not sure I could help that. I surely don't mean this in such a way and hope it isn't taken as such. I just have a hard time with the whole pointing a finger, saying someone's going to hell, and then telling them they need to be saved by Jesus who loves them. That just sounds off to me. resnor didn't do that, but I think that was the way it was perceived. Not sure what the answer is there (although I know WHO the Answer Is), and I figure there are wiser Christian minds than mine on here to say what truly is wisdom here.

 

As Sparano says, "I feel you" there. Your posts do that in spades.

 

If you think I missed your point, fair enough. I do think the Gospel is offensive, but our facets might be a little different. Perhaps not.

Personally, I kind of feel that if I invited Jesus to my house, He'd sit and have a beer with me, if I was so inclined. A fine glass of wine, imo, is a really good thing. A pretty woman is a really good thing. I don't think Christ causes people to sin in any way, shape, or form. People do that well enough on their own. I know I do. So in the same way, despite warning after warning after warning about fornication or adultery, I don't think God creating woman causes men to sin, neither do I think Christ turning water into (alcoholic) wine caused people to sin. I know that's not a perfect analogy, but it is 1:31 a.m., and I'll cut myself some slack. Gluttony might be a better analogy, but I'm sure you get what I'm saying. We'll probably agree to disagree here, but as I've really never seen the need to study the wines of the Bible, I'll capitulate.

God is love. Jesus is love. Again, as I mentioned, Jesus railed against the sects and institutions and the hard line teachers of the law, all these made of people to be sure, that kept His people from knowing Him/God. But to my point, name one personal relationship He had where He spoke in condemnation. To His parents? No. To any of His disciples (which were Israelites of His generation), even after every single last one abandoned Him, fearing for their lives because usually false messiahs' followers at the time were hunted down and killed? No. To Thomas, who wouldn't believe Christ was resurrected unless he saw with his own eyes? No. To the Roman (Gentile) centurion asking for healing for his child - the Romans being the occupiers of the Holy Land, the land God set aside for His People, at the time? No. Apparently not to Joseph of Arimathea, who was a member of the Sanhedrin (another sect of the vipers mentioned), if Joseph cared enough to bury the Christ. Even with Judas, each time Jesus mentions the "one of you is a devil" or "one of you will betray me", I can almost feel the anguish in His words when I read them. And then I've listed a number of others besides Judas Iscariot above.

In every instance, care, compassion, and love. Yes, there was also some admonition, but it was done with a passion for that person He was relating to at the time. And that does sound loving to me.

Gotcha. For the most part when I refenced Romans 10:9, I was speaking like Paul was to the Roman jailer. "What must I do to be saved?" he asked. Paul told him, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, you and your whole household."

Now, not to quibble as I think we'll both agree that each person in the jailer's household needed to independently come to a decision of belief in Christ to be saved, but when asked, that was what Paul said. My statement above was similar.

I agree we must come to the conclusion we are sinners. Sort of what the Law helps us see, right? But my son walked the aisle and professed faith as an eight year old. With everything that he has, he believes on Christ. However, he was eight at the time and is nine now. For him to see himself as a sinner like I, a 41 year old see myself as a sinner, well, it's sort of like East and West there. He knows he's done wrong and is sorry for it, but I would say it's hard for most children to grasp exactly what sin or being a sinner really means. Still, I rest pretty assured that God has my son tucked into His bosom. He believes Jesus as Lord (and not as demons "believe" in Jesus and tremble, if that's a counter-argument). He's saved.

Sin is wrong. I stand against it. I do it and continually struggle with it, unfortunately, (and know God abhors it), but I stand against it. At the same time, if I have to say what I believe in stronger - to love others or take a stand against sin - I'm gonna go the love others route (at least in theory - as I fail a lot in that, too) every time. Obviously, they're not mutually exclusive, so we try to do both. However, and again, looking at what Jesus did when He was here - that is, God showing who He Is and how we should act - in every instance I see, Jesus never engaged in sin but His love for others always seemed the bigger issue (almost like it was something he might command ), and imo, it seems like mountains to molehills.

Maybe I put too much emphasis in the Four Gospels. I don't know. But to me, the whole Bible, from Creation to the Fall to God's People Israel and the Law, and then Advent to Resurrection, and then the Epistles and the Church - all the scripture points to Jesus. The whole Bible. The first three show God's holiness and why we need a savior, the next is the climax - Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection, and the rest bolster the claims of His redemption and start Christ's bride. But it's all about Him. And I don't think we get a better picture of who He is than in the Four Gospels.

Lastly, I hope you're not taking any of this different than I mean it - I know with the Internet it's sometimes hard to convey sincerity, sarcasm, laughter, anger, etc. I'm very happy you're not afraid to post your beliefs, and once more, I think that's awesome! I do get troubled, as I said, when I feel like Christians are finger pointing at others they hardly know, and then oh yeah, by the way, "you need to be saved." Maybe that's my own problem. But thanks for responding! Truthfully, I'm probably a lot more afraid to post my beliefs than you are yours. But now I've gone and done it... again...

 

Wow. All that is so good. I'll say thanks, first and foremost, for caring about this post.

Regarding your specific address to me, if you're getting that I think love and acceptance are the same - by no means do I think that.

Like the woman caught in adultery (where was the man by the way?), Jesus' first act and words were to forgive. "Neither do I condemn you." How relieved do you think this woman, crying and in shame must have felt as people with rocks in their hands slowly dropped them and trudged away at Jesus's rebuke? That was love, compassion, and care. But he certainly left her with, "Go and sin no more." That's what we try. Now, here's the question, who do you think this woman is more likely to listen to? Jesus, who saved her in too many ways to count just in that instance alone, or one of those with a rock in his hand?

My major point, I suppose, is this: I have a close friend, sort of an accountability partner, if you will. He holds my feet to the fire on a great many things, and it means something to me. I need to repent, and at times I do the same for him. When he admonishes me, it's many times like God Himself is speaking though my friend. Conversely, if a well-meaning member of my church sees me laugh at what might be construed as a dirty joke and lambastes me for it, I'm a little more hesitant to just accept what he says, although he may be fully correct in what he states. I still probably need to repent, but I have to go through a process within myself before I even accept what someone who doesn't know me at all has to say. And this is stuff between Christians. How much different then is calling someone who is not a Christian out as offensive? It a standard and it's cliche', but I fully agree with the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" line. I guess, though, for me, I'll take them in that order.

But here again, I've got to keep going back to Jesus acts - the thief on the cross, those casting lots for His clothes - people full of sin, just like me and just like you. What did he do? He forgave them and spoke even through pain, and certainly with the thief, loved him immediately. I don't even remember Him saying word one about the sins themselves or anything to the other thief that mocked Him (and from a human standpoint, that seems like a time one might lash out) - although to be fair, Jesus was suffering as I have never suffered at the time.

More than anything Ohiophinphan, I'm probably a good example of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing (which makes it good that you and Doc have commented here). And then I guess I'm not fully coming across correctly if you think I accept ANY type of sin and try to say I am loving someone by that acceptance. I do not. I do not accept sin. Not being cross with my child when I wake up on the wrong side of my bed, not lying to my boss that I'm sick on a "mentally ill" day, not pre-marital sex, not hating my brother, not my divorce from my wife, not my lusts, not my sins of my eyes, not my sins of my flesh, and not my pride of life. I accept none of it. Yet I do it. So, I will sit and eat and talk with people (read - others sinners, Christian or no) getting to know them before I ever call them on any of it. Or really yanking out one of the scriptures "laundry lists" of sins that prevent humans from the Kingdom of Heaven. I fully admit, though, the way I look at things is likely flawed. It is, however, the way I look at things.

More than anything else I wrote in between, however, I'll go back to my thanks. Appreciate every word you wrote.

 

Also, thanks for quoting Martin Luther. You're always welcome to sprinkle in a little Luther if I well up and start a thread on the Religion forum. I was being honest when I told resnor I'm probably more afraid to espouse my views than he is, so chances are, this one will be one of the few. Still... Luther...

 

Like I said, I think we're going to end up agreeing to disagree here, which is why I capitulated. If He wouldn't, and I've already stated I think He would, but if He wouldn't, it wouldn't bother me in the least. Again, no biggie to me.

By people, I think you mean me, and if I turned what you wrote or the conversation back-and-forth into something it wasn't, then I'm wrong and I hope you'll forgive me. While, no, I don't think you were personally calling out sins, the conversation worked itself into the personal, and imo, schmoolioot definitely thought the finger was pointed at him, specifically in regard to the "stiff-necked" stuff. If it's all in the name of standing up for your beliefs and those beliefs being offensive, then you're right. I'm wrong, and this thread is a mistake. However, when someone ends up saying he/she feels like someone else is telling them they're going to hell and calling them stiff-necked, and then ends the thread with "I'm done with this post" I think it has crossed over from standing up for your beliefs into the personal, at least from schmoolioot's POV. And then after that, everyone thinks they're right and goes away righteous. That pretty much ended the whole Palin's Church thread, and it seemed like a sorry way for things to end (imo).

But, yeah, I'm probably wrong. I have no prob with this whole thread being deleted. Just say the word or PM me, and I'll ask that it is.

 

Ohiophinphan (it feels weird now "speaking with handles in a conversation like this - my name is Rich, btw),

We've kind of moved from the point of the post here, but this one gets a little deep, and I don't totally understand it myself. I think it's sort of the monergism/synergism debate, which several denominations are split over, I'm pretty sure. I have my own questions on this one, because it seems a difficult one to understand, especially if you're more of a layman, so to speak, which I am, than a devout student of the Word - to which I mean, studied the Bible in its original languages like I'm pretty sure you do and have done.

I think your last line, regarding acknowledging other views of Christianity that may be correct, is probably a key one for all of us (I don't necessarily mean we three - I mean all Christians). But moving on...

Would I be correct (in your view, I guess I should say - but more it's probably my view I'm stating here) in stating simply that its GRACE (through the Cross) that saves - nothing else - however the vehicle used to bestow that GRACE is faith? In a sentence, I'd say that's how I understand it (and I don't think I'm alone in my understanding as this sentence is probably plagiarized from many similar I've read over the years), but I'm certainly willing to hear alternative views if yours is such.

It's a difficult subject and probably one that will take more explanation than an answer on a forum would allow - but I think it's hard for anyone to hear/read:

What must I do to be saved?

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

(my paraphrasing of verses in Acts - sorry, these are off the top of my head and may not be quoted directly but I think it's the discussion with the Roman jailer)

and then feel like the belief part isn't a part of the saving process, if you get my meaning. Same with John 3:16, "...for everyone who believes in Him shall not perish..."

From Paul's letters (mostly), the act of Salvation, to me, seems totally God's act, but it doesn't seem like men/women are free from responsibility here.

Hope this makes sense as a question.

 

vt - I'm not great with answers like these, but here's what I'd suggest, and you're probably going to think it sounds curt, and I don't mean it that way.

Instead of looking to the religions or denominations for the right answers, look to Jesus, Himself. Look at what Jesus said and what He did. It (Scripture) is all about Him. Because here's the deal (from my POV), either the Resurrection happened or it didn't. If you ever come to the point where you think it did, then it validates everything Jesus said and did, which includes being the Creator of the Universe and Creator of you and me. If it didn't happen, then we're all off the hook and should be seeking something else. And to me, Salvation isn't the core issue. Jesus is.

This is what all the denominations are seeking, and I dunno, maybe one has their theology all correct, but I doubt it. Sometimes, they help and when you're where you are (where we all are, really), other people (from denominations, generally) are going to play a part in our learning. However, the only ONE that truly knows everything would be God. That's Who to seek.

 

Debby,

Love what you wrote, especially the highlighted. I think in one paragraph and really one sentence, you probably said more than the entirety of this thread.

Thanks.

 

resnor, with respect, I'm not accusing you of being unloving. Offensive? I don't know, but I believe you have a genuine belief system that guides you, and, to me, it certainly falls in the realm of Christendom.

However...

Do you really want to presume this much? You're stating here, pretty definitively, that you know what most Catholics believe - that they depend on living a good life to go to heaven (which I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that your presupposition is not true) - and then saying based on what you believe they believe, they're not going to heaven. Here, you don't really even know what they believe, yet you've stereotyped most of the lot of them to some place other than heaven, which we all know what that is. Do you not see how that might be offensive? It's only not offensive if all your presuppositions are totally - or at least majorly - true. And I mean that in a totally different way than "the Gospel is offensive or scandalous" way. I guess you're pretty confident that you're correct.

What about this - because I think this is more than merely hypothetical? What if a Catholic or Baptist or Lutheran or Methodist or Anglican or Pentecostal (etc.) held to what you're saying. They believe they're a sinner in need of Christ, and they repent and believe on Christ's death and resurrection for salvation. But then, along with that, they've got some theology you don't think fits with what the Bible says. Let's say they believe all that, but they also pray to saints or believe in Purgatory or believe there's a second work of grace, i.e. a Baptism of the Holy Spirit after an initial indwelling or they go back and forth with some works-related issues being involved in salvation or they sin boldly from time to time or, for goodness sakes, what if they stop believing for a time but then start belieiving again. What then? How are you dividing the wheat from the chaff then so as to make a statement like most of the "XYZ Denomination" is not going to heaven? Because people in different Christian denominations - the Church - believe a lot of different things. Only God has the definitive say. So why do we need to be so bold as to make declarative statements on who's going to heaven or hell, here, when if only God knows (hearts other than our own), we are being offensive? Every individual that the Father has given to Christ Jesus, He won't lose a single one, be they Catholic, Protestant, non-denominational, etc. Of that, I do believe the Bible's quite clear.

Not sure if you've read C.S. Lewis' Narnia chronicles, but if you have and remember, at the end of The Last Battle (the final book of the series) where the new heaven and new earth are being created, just outside, there's a battle raging. And then, suddenly, the Pevensies and other Narnia children sort of make it from that battle into the new creation. When they get there they see a lot of their friends in heaven with Aslan (the Jesus figure) and some notable people missing as well (like their sister, Susan, who was once one of the four kings and queens), but then, they also see some of the very people who they were fighting against - people who were serving Tash, frolicking in the new heaven with them. They notice that for a second, and then they don't really care anymore. Similarly, I think we might be pretty surprised for a moment or two just who all "get into Heaven", but then that'll pass because, and I'm beating a dead horse here (but it's a horse that can be forever beaten, imo), it's all about Jesus.

Anyway, take it for what it's worth... if anything.