On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:09:16 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 1/20/2005 2:43:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jt:I take it you are all for "friendship evangelism" but I don't see that in the life of Jesus or his disciples, that's not what the 70 were sent out for. I don't see Jesus or the apostles taking questions and answering in publicly. Paul may have done that while he was reasoning with people daily from the scriptures. People these days are so distracted with entertainment they may need to be jolted out of the mental fog they are in and God's anointing does rest upon His Word. Only He can shut down the voice of the enemy long enough for them to make a rational choice. <snip>
I can understand why you would not see any value in "friendship evangelism." As far as missing that point in the life of Christ -- "friendship evangelism" probably consituted the vast majority of His day.jt: I see this in his relationship with the disciples but not in his every day interaction with the people around him, in fact scripture says the opposite "When he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men and needed not that any should testify of man for he knew what was in man (Jn 2:23-25) So I'm reading that he didn't commit himself to these people because he knew what was in them .. Hebrews says that he kept himself separate from sinners. So how do you figure he was involved in Friendship Evangelism?Isa 58:9-11 is what I am talking about -- but since your paradigm rises out of the ashes of rage against the enemy -- you probably missed that point as well.jt: John where do you get the idea that I am angry with people? Isa 58:9-11 is primarly for Israel, the prophet is to cry out, spare not, and lift up his voice to the house of Jacob Vs.1 - what point were you making with it?Where you got "friendship evangelism" from what I posted is also, revealing. You seem to enjoy making up stuff and then treating such "opinions" as bastard theology while pretending that you have some corner on grace and peace.
jt: Why such accusation John and why do you always assume the worst. I use that term because it is a current fad in Christendom and it appeared to me that this is what you were talking about. If I misunderstood then please forgive me.
JD: It is amazing to me just how often you miss the point. Anyway - the point is this: Christ helped to create an audience . DavidM wrote that street preaching was something like priming the pump for other s (preacher or teachers). But, if you will -- go back in the archieves and find that post where I lay into Kevin for anything except rudeness -- and I don't recall doing that. His exhanges with Dave H, as well as Perry's, have been informative -- interesting read for me. If DaveH is not complaining, and he is not, then my lips are sealed. I don't respond to the Mormon postings because Mormonism, at its base, is off the mark. I hastened to add that my mother-in-law is Mormon and saved. I have accepted DaveH's claim to the Christ -- for what it is worth. For the record, there is no such thing as a right church. Grace - unmerited favor, Christ dying for us while we were yet sinners works for individuals and churches for the very same reason. Consider the first church's example FROM THE BEGINNING; immature, but zealous; often confused on issue; divided but united --- all the reasons given for "starting over" existed IN THE FIRST CHURCH -- RIGHT OFF THE BAT. But I respect their faith (DH And Blaine). I just think the reason for their church is not a good one. By the way, I feel the same about Baptists, RCC, Assemply, and so on. John
jt: So you just see Mormonism as a "different church?"
All denominations were started for the same reason - to present (finally) the right church to a confused world.
Has your mother-in-law renounced the works of darkness, repented of following false gods and left that system?
My M-I-L has done all that she can emotionally handle. She is a little old lady with absolutely no background in theology, including her own church's, born and raised "Mormon," and scared to death to make that break. The only question of import is the very question that does not come to your mind -- has she accepted Jesus Christ into her life? The anwser to that is yes. It is heresy to believe that this is not enough. If the Jewish church hung onto their Faith in total, so can she.
You are not doing DaveH any favors by the statement above.
An unimportant comment.
His soul is more important than us being 'nice' we need to call things what they are
Romans 14:4
. If you can't see the problem then possibly you are deceived in this area also John and need to do your homework.
Back atcha on that.
We have no authority to pronounce people "saved" It has to be between them and the Lord. all we can do is point them to "The Way" and encourage them in it - We can stand in faith for ourselves but until Jesus declares (at the end) those who belong to him - we speak presumptuously. jt
I love your "theology." You believe in Jesus as the Great Whatever in the Godhead and, now, you have no idea if one is saved when they accept Christ into their lives in a conscious way. But, once again, you fantasize a bastard theology on my part and nail it to the wall. Pass the hammer, please.
