D
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
We agree on so much, it’s a wonder we can disagree at all.
It's a methodological issue. You've mentioned you were a fundamentalist before. Fundamentalist interpretations usually turn gray areas into absolute dictates.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
Take for instance my experience on college and university campuses. Those who work hardest to undermine public, on-campus, evangelistic ministry are professing Christians who insist evangelism is living your Christian life (defined in many different ways and often not biblically) in front of unbelievers and establishing relationships with them. And the most frequently articulated fear of these students is that their unsaved friends might associate them with the public proclamation of the gospel taking place on their campus.
Professing Christians who are proponents of “friendship evangelism” often insist that open-air preaching and other forms of public evangelism (erroneously referred to as “cold evangelism”) is “unloving.”
On this I concur with Milano though I think he mixes categories in his post and on those memes. We could lose ourselves in an argument about who should be preaching but for the sake of argument I'll assume the preacher is called, examined and ordained (whether or not that is the case with Milano). There is indeed a shame among some believers about preaching. Part of this is the shaming that preachers usually endure and loss of social status of Christianity. Many act like teenagers embarrassed by their parents.
Also, people have indeed become Christians nowadays through more intimate means. Family, friends(hip), and even casual conversations. This mercy of God has led to unbiblical conclusions about preaching. urgency is a relative term. In an eschatological sense, against the backdrop of eternity, Christ is coming in less than a nanosecond. What does that mean for our lives? What it means it we need to apply wisdom to our situations. There is no formula for when to engage an individual. Christ himself was not formulaic in how he addressed people. The Rich Young Ruler and Woman at the Well did get the same plastic wrapped, standardized approach. The RYR was Pharisaic, the WatW knew she was a sinner. Christ pursued each person in a conversation with perfect timing and depth. He also rested, prayed (while not preaching) and likely spent most of his adult life as a carpenter. Why didn't he start earlier and wait around for John the Baptist? Why weren't they born 100, 200, or 300 years earlier? Why to fulfill prophecy sir! Okay, why did he set it up that way? I don't like where that leads. He didn't preach to everyone he came in contact with, he didn't heal everyone. He's response to Judas in the Upper Room was not another Gospel presentation.
Trusting Providence on when to engage people on the things of God will not look the same in any case despite the system one thinks that he is consistently deploying. Christ and the Apostles didn't act that way.
Saying that, there are bad examples in every approach. There are horrible preachers, think Second Great Awakening. There are types who immediately confront everyone they come in contact with and insist others do the same. I could adopt that and find myself fired in less than a week. These evangelists would have nothing to do with anyone not converting shortly. The fear of being tainted by worldlings as well having to watch people perish leaves them concluding they are not worth investing anytime in. That is a kind of cowardice. There is also the type that Milano implicates. Those ashamed of the Gospel. This comes in various forms. In our day, side b gay Christianity and red pill culture. These people relish fashionable causes and fear men. Christianity is "used" while its power denied. We need to quit judging people, hedging, heaping burdens and going beyond what is written. Instead, we need to read what IS written.
Professing Christians who are proponents of “friendship evangelism” often insist that open-air preaching and other forms of public evangelism (erroneously referred to as “cold evangelism”) is “unloving.”
On this I concur with Milano though I think he mixes categories in his post and on those memes. We could lose ourselves in an argument about who should be preaching but for the sake of argument I'll assume the preacher is called, examined and ordained (whether or not that is the case with Milano). There is indeed a shame among some believers about preaching. Part of this is the shaming that preachers usually endure and loss of social status of Christianity. Many act like teenagers embarrassed by their parents.
Also, people have indeed become Christians nowadays through more intimate means. Family, friends(hip), and even casual conversations. This mercy of God has led to unbiblical conclusions about preaching. urgency is a relative term. In an eschatological sense, against the backdrop of eternity, Christ is coming in less than a nanosecond. What does that mean for our lives? What it means it we need to apply wisdom to our situations. There is no formula for when to engage an individual. Christ himself was not formulaic in how he addressed people. The Rich Young Ruler and Woman at the Well did get the same plastic wrapped, standardized approach. The RYR was Pharisaic, the WatW knew she was a sinner. Christ pursued each person in a conversation with perfect timing and depth. He also rested, prayed (while not preaching) and likely spent most of his adult life as a carpenter. Why didn't he start earlier and wait around for John the Baptist? Why weren't they born 100, 200, or 300 years earlier? Why to fulfill prophecy sir! Okay, why did he set it up that way? I don't like where that leads. He didn't preach to everyone he came in contact with, he didn't heal everyone. He's response to Judas in the Upper Room was not another Gospel presentation.
Trusting Providence on when to engage people on the things of God will not look the same in any case despite the system one thinks that he is consistently deploying. Christ and the Apostles didn't act that way.
Saying that, there are bad examples in every approach. There are horrible preachers, think Second Great Awakening. There are types who immediately confront everyone they come in contact with and insist others do the same. I could adopt that and find myself fired in less than a week. These evangelists would have nothing to do with anyone not converting shortly. The fear of being tainted by worldlings as well having to watch people perish leaves them concluding they are not worth investing anytime in. That is a kind of cowardice. There is also the type that Milano implicates. Those ashamed of the Gospel. This comes in various forms. In our day, side b gay Christianity and red pill culture. These people relish fashionable causes and fear men. Christianity is "used" while its power denied. We need to quit judging people, hedging, heaping burdens and going beyond what is written. Instead, we need to read what IS written.
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
I’m not so sure that being persuaded of one’s methodology or position on an issue is unique to any one corner of Christianity.
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
I agree overall with many of the points made in this post. However, the Lord was able to see and understand far more than we ever can. We don’t know when He’ll return. I’ve yet to hear any good biblical reasons for why we should hold off on doing what we can today when tomorrow isn’t promised.
I’ve heard some appeal to the sovereignty of God, I’ve heard others appeal to pre-evangelism, but I haven’t found any of these lines of reasoning very compelling. They all presuppose a tomorrow that may never come.
Out of curiosity, if we all lived today like it was our last, do you think God would be glorified more or less?
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
The question does not make sense. I have always rejected it. God would be glorified by me calling people letting them know I’m expiring at midnight the same as me earning a living to feed my family.
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
Are you quite sure about that?
Wouldn’t the people you and I work with finally hear the gospel proclaimed if we weren’t worried about keeping our jobs?
The bridges you built wouldn’t matter now. If there’s no tomorrow then today is D-Day, and it’s time to proclaim the gospel by land, sea and air, to family, friend and foe.
If we were absolutely sold out for Christ, you don’t think your life would look any different if you lived each day like it was your last (whether by death or the Lord’s return)?
He’s every bit as glorified with the gospel not being proclaimed as He is with it being proclaimed?
He’s every bit as glorified as Peter fleeing Rome versus walking back and being crucified upside down?
See, I think the question makes a great deal of sense. We have today Christians content to reign with Christ but not content to suffer with Him.
Last edited by a moderator:
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
If everyone lived every day like it were their last day...
No one would go to seminary (because what's the point starting a program of study I will never finish)...
No one would learn a language to be an effective missionary...
No one would do their laundry (well, maybe some would)...
No one would do the works of ordinary obedience that the Lord calls us to do...
Everyone would treat life as a sprint, when in reality for most of us it is a marathon.
For myself, I find it more than sufficient simply to try to do the good works that God has prepared for me to walk in today (Eph 2:10), loving God and my neighbor as best I can.
No one would go to seminary (because what's the point starting a program of study I will never finish)...
No one would learn a language to be an effective missionary...
No one would do their laundry (well, maybe some would)...
No one would do the works of ordinary obedience that the Lord calls us to do...
Everyone would treat life as a sprint, when in reality for most of us it is a marathon.
For myself, I find it more than sufficient simply to try to do the good works that God has prepared for me to walk in today (Eph 2:10), loving God and my neighbor as best I can.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Senior
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
You literally have come around to either attack me, or to speak for everyone. If you speak for everyone, you ought to speak more often.
When will you contribute something? I can’t be the only person who wants to hear from you.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Senior
You persist in grossly misreading and caricaturing virtually everyone else in this thread. When you stop doing it, perhaps others will stop pointing it out.
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
These are very fair points, Professor. But surely, on balance, there would be untold evangelistic benefits to living each day as though it is our last with respect to seizing every opportunity for Christ, don’t you think?
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
But when will you speak for yourself and contribute? You swoop in to swipe and bite. Why? Is this how you build up the brethren?
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Sometimes people take a long time to come to faith. Acting as if people are doomed to hell if they don't respond immediately to a gospel presentation of which they have little understanding isn't always a wise strategy. They are certainly doomed if they don't ultimately respond but in God's providence, sometimes we plant, others water and still others will see the harvest.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
That's not what I said. Fundamentalism's tendency to make laws of gray areas reveals these problems. I did not say being persuaded that one's methodology is correct is the problem. I believe my method is correct, for example.
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
Precisely. Without getting into specifics, it is plain that you believe you are correct about certain areas being gray. Perhaps you are, or perhaps you aren’t. Obviously I am fully persuaded of fundamentalism, whereas you aren’t. Perhaps I’m right. Perhaps not.
My point with my previous reply is that while you may have correctly attributed a methodology to fundamentalism, everyone has a methodology they’re persuaded of that they reason using. So while it is true, it is also somewhat vacuously true. I’m not sure what to make of it or how to advance our exchange past that point.
You believe you have a very clear and correct view of things. I somewhat do as well. How do we decide?
We could look at other texts apart from the one you mentioned Logan was commenting on if you’d like. Maybe I overemphasized one text to the exclusion of another, but I believe it’s quite easy to demonstrate it’s all there.
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
I see what you’re saying. I don’t disagree that acting as if people are doomed to hell if they don’t respond immediately to a gospel presentation isn’t always a wise strategy. I was more driving at that urgency motivating us in our evangelism. I do agree with what you’ve shared about God’s providence as well. Thank you very much, Professor, for your reply.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I was heading back to my car in Bangor the other week when I got stopped by a couple of Mormon missionaries who asked me, "Do you want to talk about Jesus Christ?" I replied, "Yes, I do; the only problem is that you boys do not really believe in him." I then proceeded to ask them certain questions about salvation, which they answered in a manner that would be sufficient to dupe most evangelicals into thinking that they were saved. However, I then asked them questions about the Trinity and Christology, which led me to tell them again that they were not real Christians. This approach seemed entirely suitable when dealing with Mormons. But would you do the same thing when talking to other people? If your answer is "no" then you recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Senior
I'm pretty sure I am speaking for myself. I'm really curious what else I would be doing and frankly it's hard to read such a remark without a bit of a smirk.
I think it's a seriously unfortunate error to consistently caricature the positions of others. At best it reveals a lack of critical thinking skills and at worst it indicates wilful lack of charity. I find it worthwhile to point out to you that this is a consistent shortcoming of yours. I'm not the only one. Go back and count the instances in this thread of people saying some variant of "that's not what I'm saying".
That you insist on viewing it as you do may well say something about me, and I will happily list people on this board that I consider my superior in wisdom and graciousness of speech. It would be a long list. If people stopped playing piano because they were inferior to Horowitz and Rubinstein, the world would have only two pianists. Okay, three; can't forget about Richter. Of course, maybe we would be better served if some gave up the profession.
But it is also possible that your response says as much as, if not more, about you. I would be afraid of being a lone wolf, afraid of being self-assured and unchecked in my sin, afraid of confusing "what saith the Scripture" with "what saith me". That you don't seem to have that same sense of reservation and fear is a source of concern to me on your behalf. Hence my repeated efforts to stir up a similar sense of concern in your soul.
By the way, you've missed one very obvious truth in all of your long-winded argumentation. There are those who will have to answer for not sharing the gospel out of cowardice. There are also those who will have to answer for sharing it an absolutely terrible misguided way, and for bringing reproach on the name of Christ along the way. It's a fearful thing to focus on one way of sinning to the exclusion of others. I hope you will one day have that fear in your own heart.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
In practice fundamentalism doesn’t believe in gray areas, or things adiaphora
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
On the Last Day when the books are opened, friend, perhaps you'll have a look at my heart. There's far more holy fear in there than it seems you can see from out here. We do seem to clash quite a bit. Hopefully it's more me than it is you. I've got no shortage of things to learn and mountains to climb, and I do acknowledge that it is quite perilous to be in the minority, but I think the article in the OP is onto something that the vast majority of folks here have little interest in acknowledging. Note, I say the majority, not all. A few of the quiet, more senior folks have been more charitable. Thank you for the sincere concern and for your contribution (finally). I hope you have a blessed evening.
I acknowledge the concern in the article, while being unappreciative of the demeanor and broad brush application of the author. There is certainly no doubt that there are those who use the idea of relational evangelism as a crutch to avoid ever having to verbally share the gospel for fear of the cost. We are sinful folk who oft find ways to neglect and justify neglect of our duties. My problem with the article was, and always has been, the ”generational tool of Satan” comment.
In terms of our interactions yesterday, I found your interaction with what I am saying and with the texts I mentioned to be incomplete, or to miss the point entirely. That’s fine, Im happy to move on. But the statement that “something a vast majority of folks here have little interest in acknowledging” is simply inaccurate and dismissive. Quite a number of your interlocutors expressly did acknowledge and reject precisely what the article was speaking of. The concern has been and continues to remain the “throw out the baby with the bath water” approach you and the article have taken.
D
Deleted member 13126
Guest
Howdy. To briefly reply, I do think I see what you're pointing out. Many did 'acknowledge and reject what the article was speaking of'. This is not what I meant when I said 'the article in the OP is onto something that the vast majority of folks here have little interest in ackowledging'. That something, to your point, is what they're rejecting. Perhaps instead of 'acknowledging' I should have written 'accepting' in order to try to remove any chance of being misunderstood. Thank you for calling attention to these things and for your charity.
Is this “something“ the James 4:14 dimension?
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
Brother, everyone here knows you are pursuing righteousness and that you are a smart man. You just tend to have some different views on things than the majority, so that naturally leads to pushback. Lol, during covid, I took more of the "believe the leaders above you and submit to them stance", and man I remember the pushback. Also, I am fascinated with the topic of aliens. Something I now know better to talk about on the PB, lol. Don't take anything personal or let it affect your identity and confidence in being God's child. You are a blessing.
John The Baptist
Puritan Board Sophomore
Paul never would have worked on tents. To do so would be a waste of time. He could have used that time to evangelize, not support any sort of future ministry.
Has anyone here read Horton’s ‘ordinary’? I haven’t had the chance to but I imagine it would have something to say on this.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
As to the question of preachers and preaching, which also touches on the Great Commandment matter (Matt. 28:18-20, which is given to the whole church to be duly carried out in a leading way by those called to be ministers of Word and Sacraments), I discuss this in the thread on open-air preaching.
I might also note here that though all are not called to evangelize and disciple through preaching, baptizing, etc., all are called to be ready to give for a reason for the hope within (I Peter 3:15), in every sort of circumstance (with superiors and equals, I Peter 3: 1-7, over whom we don't have the same authority as we do with inferiors; and with persecutors of the faith, I Peter 3: 8ff.). There is much to discuss about all of this. All are called properly to share Christ as circumstances allow when opportunity is sought.
Now as to the time question. Yes, we must not presume that any of us have time (as Edwards in his Resolutions notes): sinners ought to repent (and to be urgently called to it) forthwith; saints should not postpone obedience either. Having said that, it is proper to note times and seasons, to live with planning and forethought, and to remember (in the rules to be observed for a right understanding of the Ten Commandments) what WLC 99.5 says, "That what God forbids is at no time to be done; what he commands is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times (emphasis added)."
A text that Johannes Vos, in his WLC Commentary, found particularly apt for the fact that our lives are to be well-ordered though variegated in terms of circumstances and time usage is Ecc. 3:1-8. It doesn't say "there's no time" for these things; rather all things have their appropriate place and time. An overly simplistic view of time does not correspond to the Bible's teaching on the matter.
Should we tell people that we know sooner rather than later about the gospel and that the call to Christ is urgent and comes without any "future guarantees," apart from faith in the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ? Of course. More to say, but I'll stop here due to the lateness of the hour and my tiredness from travel, meetings, etc.
Peace,
Alan
I might also note here that though all are not called to evangelize and disciple through preaching, baptizing, etc., all are called to be ready to give for a reason for the hope within (I Peter 3:15), in every sort of circumstance (with superiors and equals, I Peter 3: 1-7, over whom we don't have the same authority as we do with inferiors; and with persecutors of the faith, I Peter 3: 8ff.). There is much to discuss about all of this. All are called properly to share Christ as circumstances allow when opportunity is sought.
Now as to the time question. Yes, we must not presume that any of us have time (as Edwards in his Resolutions notes): sinners ought to repent (and to be urgently called to it) forthwith; saints should not postpone obedience either. Having said that, it is proper to note times and seasons, to live with planning and forethought, and to remember (in the rules to be observed for a right understanding of the Ten Commandments) what WLC 99.5 says, "That what God forbids is at no time to be done; what he commands is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times (emphasis added)."
A text that Johannes Vos, in his WLC Commentary, found particularly apt for the fact that our lives are to be well-ordered though variegated in terms of circumstances and time usage is Ecc. 3:1-8. It doesn't say "there's no time" for these things; rather all things have their appropriate place and time. An overly simplistic view of time does not correspond to the Bible's teaching on the matter.
Should we tell people that we know sooner rather than later about the gospel and that the call to Christ is urgent and comes without any "future guarantees," apart from faith in the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ? Of course. More to say, but I'll stop here due to the lateness of the hour and my tiredness from travel, meetings, etc.
Peace,
Alan
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
(/me opens the door and walks in)
Hi guys!
How are you all.... ummm... doing... wait... what in the world is going on in here... ??!!!
(/me backs slowly out of the room)
I'll come back later when y'all are not busy.
Hi guys!
How are you all.... ummm... doing... wait... what in the world is going on in here... ??!!!
(/me backs slowly out of the room)
I'll come back later when y'all are not busy.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
It is either this or CN debates on Twitter.... I'd rather stay here.
Boreal
Puritan Board Freshman
John, please don’t tell me you favor secular liberalism…
- Status
