I am always impressed what deceived men will do for a lie. This afternoon I had two guests who are of the Jehovah's Witness persuasion. They talked and talked and (I know, we've all experienced it) and talked. Yet, if I had not forced the conversation into the direction of Paul's letter to the Romans, we would never have talked about salvation.
What are the issues in evangelization? Are Tim LaHaye's books the main way to convince people to come to Christ? How about rock'n for Jesus at a concert? How about throwing a party at church to show that men need to repent? That seems to be the method today. We could have a Super Bowl party for Jesus.
I am not saying there are not different ways to evangelize. We all use different methods to "springboard" our conversations into the Gospel message. I am simply wondering if we often compromise or miss the message altogether. Have we become like the JWs and missed how the Spirit of God commands us to proclaim God's Word faithfully? Just a thought.
Here is one of the most powerful sermons I have heard in a long time. John Piper preaches on Romans 9. How should we proclaim the Gospel? Click Here.
A La Carte (April 18)
2 days ago
10 comments:
Very interesting, but how do you know that they are the deceived?
i dont think we should have to have a gimmick to talk about god i think heaven should be enough of a reward
Ken, the answer is simple. When you take the doctrine of Sola Scriptura seriously (most evangelicals don't even do that), then we can test our traditions. When you do not, you end up where your Traditions lead you. For instance (this actually happened to me) if I read John 6 35-45, the JW will say, "that is your interpretation". So they reject the plain teaching for their Watch Tower. Just an example.
Danielle, I agree.
God Bless
Interesting choice, Romans 9, 1-5, as the essential doctrine of the Church. Actually, I would think that a poor one.
Indeed, what was said in the sermon was true: you shall come to people and they shall say "we already have that" but its not TV and possessions. The possess what is the message or constitution of Christianity, while Romans 9 is more Roberts Rules of Order...
Shall all go straight to hell for wishing and working for peace on earth, good will toward men?
"Paul offers some reassuring words for the journey [through life]: "Be at peace among yourselves ... encourage the faint-hearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all. Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks ... hold fast what is good, abstain from every form of evil"—wise words for all of us, whatever our doubts, whatever our faith." Or not.
Now, if I have that, what makes Romans 9 essential? More important?
Hey Fish:
My new pastor was teaching on Eph 1 last night, and he made the statement that Joel Osteen doesn't talk about sin, blood and redemption because (his paraphrase) it brings people down. Hey Joel: sorry that the actual Gospel (that is, the good news about Jesus Christ) "brings people down".
I wonder: what are we doing if we are more worried about the way people feel right now rather than taking the command to preach the Gospel to all living things seriously?
for Ken:
"know"? How about if I tell you that I don't "know" that they are the ones deceived?
Feel free to use that to respond.
Hi centuri0n,
Well from first reading, I would say that you are quite honest in your assessment. Not to sound Clintonian, but what do you mean by "know"? You seem to be putting an emphasis on it that implies a connotative meaning that I am not aware of.
Think about The Johovahs witnesses. Almost everyone you know thinks of them as looney. Why is that, you would say it is because of what they believe. But most people consider them looney and have no idea what they believe. They consider them looney because they go door to door to try to get you to join. So really it is their evangilizing that makes them appear crazy. My point is the process of evangilizing really has the opposite effect of its desired purpose. Regardless of the actual process of evangilizing and even the religion behind it. I see it as inaffective and perhaps even adverse. The main reason it has become inapropriate to discuss religion amongst some circles is the fear that someone will start to evangilize.
It has taken me 33 years to begin to find my place with religion. perhaps without evangilizing it may have been ten years sooner (maybe not), but I can certainly tell you that evangilizing played no helpful role.
Even the devil believes he knows the truth.
"Even the devil believes he knows the truth."
I don't know where that idea comes from. The Devil knows he is a liar. Jesus teaches that the Devil is the father of lies.
"I can certainly tell you that evangilizing played no helpful role."
It is true that different methods of evangelism are better than others. But you assume a couple of things that are false. First you assume you have a neutral will that may or may not accept the Biblical gospel message. Both Jesus and Paul taught that you were not neutral, but in fact hostile to God.
Second, you misunderstand the WHY of evangelism. Although most Christians seek to evangelize to save men (noble enough). When they should be evangelizing because it is a command of God in which God is glorified when obeyed.
The Gospel is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but it is the power of God unto salvation for those who believe.
Post a Comment