THE EMERGING CHURCH: THE 21ST CENTURY FACE OF NEW EVANGELICALISM

[ptwild]

ptwild-

First:

You assert that "once we qualify ourselves by their standard, they will have to respect the evidence we present."

Why do you make such an assertion?
(See Psalm 14)

Because they use our (not necessairly your's and mine) qualifiactions as an excuse to disregard/discredit our position. If we have the same qualifications as they do, then we take away part of their ammo.
Second:

You also ask the following question: "Why should we expect them to listen to us when they don't respect us?"

My question to you is this: why should we ever expect the world to respect us?
(See Matthew 5 and John 15)

Because it is the world we are trying to convert. By "world" I mean the lost. I don't expect anyone to give much credit to what I have to say if they don't first respect me.

Third:

You state that "the lost don't care what our scriputer [sic] says."

Does the lack of care or belief in God's Word among the lost make null and void or in any way less binding upon the souls of all men?
(See Proverbs 13)

First, correcting someone's spelling on an internet message board is a social faux pas akin to correcting one's speech in conversation. In the South, that is considered very rude. And of course the lack of care doesn't make scripture null/void/less binding. But that attitude lets Christians feel good about themselves with the stance of "well, I told them what the Bible said and they just didn't listen." You and I believe the Bible because we believe it to be of God. We should not expect the lost to just magically accept what scripture says when they do not first respect scripture of being of God. Think of it this way: the lost don't respect the Bible the same way you and I don't respect the Koran, or the Book of Mormon. We have a duty to first show them why they should believe, before we ask them to actually submit and believe.

Fourth:

Even if a believer were to gain equal credibility with worldly "scholars" in the eyes of men, wouldn't that mean that any debate would be, at best, a case of one man's word against another?

What then could possibly cause one's credibility or believability to eclipse that of the other, especially when it comes to the issues regarding man's eternal soul and need of salvation?

It's already one man's word against another. The difference is that the lost use our lack of intellectual crediblity as a reason to reject our view. If we take that away from them, they will acutaully have to weigh the substance of the argurment, rather than just write us off due to credibility issues.

[John81]

LuAnne has already made some good posts here.

When it comes down to it, each individual has the choice of paying attention to the Holy Ghost calling them when they hear the Gospel or of rejecting the Holy Ghost.

Recall that Paul spoke at Mars Hill among those who thought of themselves as the educated of their day. As with everywhere Paul went, he presented the Gospel and some allowed the Holy Ghost to bring them to Christ and some refused.

Those who want to reject the Gospel will find an excuse to do so whether they use an intellectual argument, a rationalized argument, silly or absurd argument against accepting the Gospel.

We are studying apologetics in adult Sunday school at church. We began by reading some books which prove the reliability of the Bible in an intellectual manner. One problem these books have is they tend to leave out the work of the Holy Ghost.

Along these lines, I have to agree with LuAnne that todays generation is actually uneducated. Some believe that because they can use various tech gadgets that means they are intelligent but that's far from true. The in-depth educations that were once provided are not longer. I'm absolutely amazed at the ignorance of those who not only graduate high school but even of those who graduate college.

Educated or not, ones rejection or acceptance of the Gospel comes from their heart.

[ptwild]

Some valid points have been made, but what is really going on here. It sounds like you are saying that a person, let's say a young muslim boy, should automatically accept the gospel upon hearing it, even though no one in his family has ever heard it, let alone believes it, and everyone he knows hates Christians. I'm not ready to let us off that easily. I believe we have a duty to use all the tools God has given us to reach the lost. Everyone needs to quit imagining themselves and needs to imagine the lost. It's not that they are rejecting the Gospel, its that no one has ever shown them why they should believe it. And we've already addressed the, "because the Bible says so," argument. To "hear" does not just mean to receive an auditory transmission. It means to understand, to be convinced of the reasons why.

And to clarify, I'm not talking about converting those highly educated atheist/nonbelievers who will refute us no matter what. I'm talking about the undecided nonbeliever who hears the positions of those highly educated, articulate and rational atheist. I'm talking about someone who hasn't made a decision of whether or not to accept the gospel yet. Maybe someone that is hearing it for the first time. We owe them a duty to do our best.

[speerjp1]

Let me start by saying that I meant no offense in my post. I do believe that I used [sic] in the proper manner, but I was unaware of it's offensive nature. Thanks for the information.

I was asking some questions leading to one point: that is that our responsibility is to preach the gospel. That is it. That is the responsibility God gave us.

We often times fail miserably at that, much less if we all had to become Ivy League scholars before successfully carrying out the Great Commission.

God promises in the Bible that while other men may water, it is He that gives the increase. The examples we are given in the Bible of Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others are never ones of intellectualism or the prideful arrogance of comparing credentials. Quite the opposite.

A few more questions for you to think about:

Do you not think that other Christians for centuries have thought of things like you are thinking now? From where do you think Christian apologetics originated? Do you honestly believe that this generation is somehow so vastly different to the core than all of the preceding generations that we must add human intellect to the gospel in order to see men saved? Is God so weak now that he can't draw a person as he has so faithfully done for literally thousands of years? Or is it possible that man no longer needs to humble himself and abandon all of self and the world and Satan in order to be saved?

God nor his Word have changed.

Think of the Ethiopian eunich in Acts. He heard the Gospel for the first time ever after having only read the book of Isaiah and he believed and was baptized. That scenario has been playing out over and over again for centuries.

(By the way, we have no business discussing anything Spiritual with an unsaved person unless it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. 2)

[ptwild]

Let me start by saying that I meant no offense in my post. I do believe that I used [sic] in the proper manner, but I was unaware of it's offensive nature. Thanks for the information.

I was asking some questions leading to one point: that is that our responsibility is to preach the gospel. That is it. That is the responsibility God gave us.

We often times fail miserably at that, much less if we all had to become Ivy League scholars before successfully carrying out the Great Commission.

God promises in the Bible that while other men may water, it is He that gives the increase. The examples we are given in the Bible of Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others are never ones of intellectualism or the prideful arrogance of comparing credentials. Quite the opposite.

A few more questions for you to think about:

Do you not think that other Christians for centuries have thought of things like you are thinking now? From where do you think Christian apologetics originated? Do you honestly believe that this generation is somehow so vastly different to the core than all of the preceding generations that we must add human intellect to the gospel in order to see men saved? Is God so weak now that he can't draw a person as he has so faithfully done for literally thousands of years? Or is it possible that man no longer needs to humble himself and abandon all of self and the world and Satan in order to be saved?

God nor his Word have changed.

Think of the Ethiopian eunich in Acts. He heard the Gospel for the first time ever after having only read the book of Isaiah and he believed and was baptized. That scenario has been playing out over and over again for centuries.

(By the way, we have no business discussing anything Spiritual with an unsaved person unless it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. 2)

In absolutely no way am I suggesting that anyone add anything to the Gospel. I am suggesting that we need to utilize the presentation tools God has given us. Using advanced intellect to reach the lost is no more adding to the Gospel than giving a street preacher a microphone. It merely aids in the presentation. And I do believe people are much much different now than they were in my own parent's generation. Almost everyone goes to college now. There is no class divide in which only the elite go to college. As more and more people have gotten educations themselves, they have began to respect education, and thereby intellect, more and more. Thus the lost, who are educated themselves, seem to be aligning themselves more with the highly educated. Now of course there are highly educated Christians already. The problem is that those highly educated Christians are not utilizing their intellect to refute those highly educated atheist, humanist . . . Thus, the lost are being presented with a well thought out and intellectual alternative to Christianity and we are sitting back going, "well, I told them what the Bible says, now its their own fault if they don't believe." If you do think this way, after witnessing to someone and not getting the result you wanted, do you ever ask, "did I sound like I knew what I was talking about? was I able to answer their questions in a reasonable and well thought out response? did I even bother to present evidence of why they should believe the Bible to begin with?" You've got to remember that you can't blame people that have no Christian background for not accepting what the Bible says without question. They need to know "why" they should believe. The world is giving them (the lost) tons of intellectual reasons why they should not believe. We need to counter with our own reasons why they should and we need to do so with the same credentials as our foes.

I see this all the time in my line of work. A highly skilled and well presented young man has an awesome interview but is passed over for the guy who doesn't seem as smart or as capable, but he went to the right school(s). I am of course not saying this is right, however, its the way it is. If the first young man (analogous to today's Christians) wants us (analogous to the lost) to consider him, first he needs the right credentials. "Because I said so" is obsolete in all facets of life, whether it be in the home, work place, mission field . . .

[speerjp1]

I challenge you to study 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 more thoroughly.

If you, as a professing Christian, cannot accept these scriptures as eternally true, then how do you ever expect a lost person to accept any other portion of God's word, intellectually or otherwise?

Make no mistake, you are denying the principles taught in those verses.

Also, have you considered it a possibility that those highly educated Christians you referred to have come to the conclusion that it is vanity to try to convince a man of spiritual things on the basis of intellect?

Have you further considered it possible that we are not seeking the "results" that we want when we witness of the gospel to an unbeliever and that whatever the result, it is solely between that person and God?

If you have somehow been deluded into the "kingdom now" movement's philosophy that vast numbers of souls should be entering the kingdom today, but are not because Christians are too bound by the Bible, then you will have abandon that idea all together as well. The Bible teaches us that the majority of humanity will not accept Christ but will instead stubbornly go down the wide way to destruction.

You seem far to willing to dismiss the work of the Holy Ghost in the salvation of men. He has and will continue to convince men of their sin and need regardless of what their intellect is telling them. Maybe you need to get in touch with some of the missionaries in deepest Africa or New Guinea and listen to them tell of the souls that have come to Christ after hearing a single presentation of the gospel. Or listen to the stories of how literal royalty were so struck by the power of God in the life of the preacher that they listen to a presentation of the gospel and are saved. Or listen to people like me who have spent an hour preaching the gospel to a pagan atheist drug-addicted metal band member and see the change of his countenance as the power of the gospel, the word of God, and the Holy Spirit converge at a single time and space.

Think about this as well: many gang members wouldn't listen to anyone who doesn't have "street cred." Do you think that it would be acceptable for a Christian to purposely get into legal trouble by robbing, raping, or even murdering in order to improve his chances of reaching gangs?

How far are you willing to go in the abandonment of absolute reliance upon God and his word? How far are you willing to go in the accommodation of man-made, Satan-originating excuses for the rejection of the Saviour? How far are you willing to go in your railing accusations against the members of the body of Christ that insist God's power can overcome any of those excuses?

[John81]

I challenge you to study 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 more thoroughly.

If you, as a professing Christian, cannot accept these scriptures as eternally true, then how do you ever expect a lost person to accept any other portion of God's word, intellectually or otherwise?

Make no mistake, you are denying the principles taught in those verses.

Also, have you considered it a possibility that those highly educated Christians you referred to have come to the conclusion that it is vanity to try to convince a man of spiritual things on the basis of intellect?

Have you further considered it possible that we are not seeking the "results" that we want when we witness of the gospel to an unbeliever and that whatever the result, it is solely between that person and God?

If you have somehow been deluded into the "kingdom now" movement's philosophy that vast numbers of souls should be entering the kingdom today, but are not because Christians are too bound by the Bible, then you will have abandon that idea all together as well. The Bible teaches us that the majority of humanity will not accept Christ but will instead stubbornly go down the wide way to destruction.

You seem far to willing to dismiss the work of the Holy Ghost in the salvation of men. He has and will continue to convince men of their sin and need regardless of what their intellect is telling them. Maybe you need to get in touch with some of the missionaries in deepest Africa or New Guinea and listen to them tell of the souls that have come to Christ after hearing a single presentation of the gospel. Or listen to the stories of how literal royalty were so struck by the power of God in the life of the preacher that they listen to a presentation of the gospel and are saved. Or listen to people like me who have spent an hour preaching the gospel to a pagan atheist drug-addicted metal band member and see the change of his countenance as the power of the gospel, the word of God, and the Holy Spirit converge at a single time and space.

Think about this as well: many gang members wouldn't listen to anyone who doesn't have "street cred." Do you think that it would be acceptable for a Christian to purposely get into legal trouble by robbing, raping, or even murdering in order to improve his chances of reaching gangs?

How far are you willing to go in the abandonment of absolute reliance upon God and his word? How far are you willing to go in the accommodation of man-made, Satan-originating excuses for the rejection of the Saviour? How far are you willing to go in your railing accusations against the members of the body of Christ that insist God's power can overcome any of those excuses?

:thumb:Thank you for you excellent posts in this thread!

[ptwild]

I challenge you to study 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 more thoroughly.

If you, as a professing Christian, cannot accept these scriptures as eternally true, then how do you ever expect a lost person to accept any other portion of God's word, intellectually or otherwise?

Make no mistake, you are denying the principles taught in those verses.

Also, have you considered it a possibility that those highly educated Christians you referred to have come to the conclusion that it is vanity to try to convince a man of spiritual things on the basis of intellect?

Have you further considered it possible that we are not seeking the "results" that we want when we witness of the gospel to an unbeliever and that whatever the result, it is solely between that person and God?

If you have somehow been deluded into the "kingdom now" movement's philosophy that vast numbers of souls should be entering the kingdom today, but are not because Christians are too bound by the Bible, then you will have abandon that idea all together as well. The Bible teaches us that the majority of humanity will not accept Christ but will instead stubbornly go down the wide way to destruction.

You seem far to willing to dismiss the work of the Holy Ghost in the salvation of men. He has and will continue to convince men of their sin and need regardless of what their intellect is telling them. Maybe you need to get in touch with some of the missionaries in deepest Africa or New Guinea and listen to them tell of the souls that have come to Christ after hearing a single presentation of the gospel. Or listen to the stories of how literal royalty were so struck by the power of God in the life of the preacher that they listen to a presentation of the gospel and are saved. Or listen to people like me who have spent an hour preaching the gospel to a pagan atheist drug-addicted metal band member and see the change of his countenance as the power of the gospel, the word of God, and the Holy Spirit converge at a single time and space.

Think about this as well: many gang members wouldn't listen to anyone who doesn't have "street cred." Do you think that it would be acceptable for a Christian to purposely get into legal trouble by robbing, raping, or even murdering in order to improve his chances of reaching gangs?

How far are you willing to go in the abandonment of absolute reliance upon God and his word? How far are you willing to go in the accommodation of man-made, Satan-originating excuses for the rejection of the Saviour? How far are you willing to go in your railing accusations against the members of the body of Christ that insist God's power can overcome any of those excuses?

You are either not understanding what I am saying (which may be my fault) or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I have stated. Education and intellect come into play whether you like it or not. In the earliest of times it came out in literacy as more people learned to read and it has progressed now to where it comes out in science and history. We don't need intellect or high degrees of education to present the Gospel. So the examples of gang members or primitive tribes (or anyone else who has never been exposed to arguments against Christianity which are based on intellect and education) are irrelevant to this discussion. We need intellect and education to refute our competition, which is essential in our battle against the world.

We are already doing this to a certain degree whether you recognize it or not. All this information that we have which we use to argue against atheist or Muslims or whomever, came to us from education. Many here believe that Catholicism is a "false religion" and all the information they use in their attempt to prove this proposition is based on their study of history, which is nothing more than education. All I'm suggesting is that we need to take this a step further. We need to be seeking the highest degrees possible from the most prestigious schools for the sole purpose of bolstering our argument. Christians have been utilizing tools to reach the lost for centuries (radio, newsprint, t.v., the internet). Many times people dismiss us automatically, without ever giving us a chance, because they see us as uneducated ignorant anti-intellectuals. I'm suggesting we take that excuse away from them.

I have no idea how you can draw the conclusion that I am some how removing the Holy Spirit this process. Before the Holy Spirit has a chance to get involved we have to present the Gospel. If we don't speak the language of the people we are witnessing to, how do you expect the Holy Spirit to get started? Are you suggesting that we can convert the earth's millions of non-English speaking people without ever learing another language other than English. Or without ever teaching them English. Or having a Bible printed in their language? The point is that we need to learn the language of the people we are seeking to convert and the new language is education and intellect. I am not comfortable with sitting back like some with that tired old excuse of, "sad, some people just chose not to listen to the Word of God." How do you expect them to listen if they don't even know what you are saying?

And I stated in the first post I made on this thread that I do not agree with this movement, only the portion that suggest that we can go further with our soul winning if we have further education.

[speerjp1]

You are operating outside God's word. Until you acknowledge the binding nature of all of God's word in its entirety, I will not continue in this discussion.

The position that some of us have taken can be easily demonstrated to be based upon God's word. You do not have that luxury. If you can produce passages or principles that teach method you're asserting for reaching the lost, then we can have further discourse.

"It's so important to see souls saved that anything goes" is not a suitable response.

[ptwild]

You are operating outside God's word. Until you acknowledge the binding nature of all of God's word in its entirety, I will not continue in this discussion.

The position that some of us have taken can be easily demonstrated to be based upon God's word. You do not have that luxury. If you can produce passages or principles that teach method you're asserting for reaching the lost, then we can have further discourse.

"It's so important to see souls saved that anything goes" is not a suitable response.

I am not "operating outside of God's Word" and you should be reprimanded for making such outlandish and baseless remarks. You should be disciplined by the Church for your false accusations. You chose to discontinue the discussion because you are wrong.

I am not asserting a method for reaching the lost. The method is the same as always: Teach them the Gospel. I am asserting that we use all of our faculties in that teaching, faculties which you already use but are unaware of. I have a feeling you are uneducated (or marginally educated by unaccredited sources) and you see me as threatening your comfort zone.

[His by Grace]

Gentlemen , Could we agree all here desire to reach the lost for Christ? The LORD has called us to do His will, agreed? Then can we agree that the LORD has given us each different people to reach that can identify with one person perhaps more than another? Maybe this is because of background, education, life experiences or even gender. First we need to be praying that the Holy Spirit is convicting them of their sin and need for Christ's salvation. If they aren't, then no matter what our method of out reach or how we share the Gospel will be heard. I think we lose focus at times in our zeal or desire to see people come to the Saviour. We forget He's the one who calls and does the saving. All we need is to abide in Him. This is His fruit that will come to bear! Remember, we're just fruit hangers!! in Christ's love His by Grace

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

I have a feeling you are uneducated (or marginally educated by unaccredited sources) and you see me as threatening your comfort zone.

Burn.

Did I really just read this? This is a very immature remark. Stop acting like you know how educated someone is. You seem to elevate education to a degree that it almost becomes an idol. It is time you take a class in manners 101 young man.

[Bakershalfdozen]

I think this thread is finished.

[Bakershalfdozen]

This thread is open again since some of you wanted to continue in discussion...

hopefully without the cursing this time...

[Jerry]

I did want to commend Speers for his excellent comments in this thread. We do not need an elitist or "educational" approach to preach the Gospel to the lost - that is just the foolish mentality of this world that thinks higher education is the answer to everything. It is not the answer to the sin prOBlem, nor the answer to interpreting the Bible or understanding creating - faith is. That is taking God at His Word - and it is His Word that will strike the conscience and enlighten the minds of the lost, not intellectual arguments.