|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: By ALL possible means save some?
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
So says the apostle Paul, who I have heard described as "the ultimate pragmatist".
I have run across some people who appear to think that "all" here extends to include perpetrating known lies, provided these pull a crowd and get people to a place where they will "take a decision".
Assuming you take the Scriptures to have some kind of value in determining how the Good News is proclaimed, what if any limits to you think there are to "all" in this instance?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The process known as "evange-elastic presentation", otherwise known as stretching the truth for the sake of a good homiletic.
Otherwise known as telling lies.
Also known sometimes as pious fraud.
If the truth shall set you free, then telling lies about the truth will make sure you remain in your chains.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
So: by all possible means [except lying] save some?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Assuming you take the Scriptures to have some kind of value in determining how the Good News is proclaimed, what if any limits to you think there are to "all" in this instance?
The vital word isn't "all" (caps or not) but "possible". It isn't for man to determine what is possible: we're given plenty of guidance and if we choose to disregard it then we are (IMHO you understand) guilty of self-deception.
Naturally, once you can deceive yourself you can deceive anyone, and if you bring them to faith that way, then to what faith have you brought them?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
if you bring them to faith that way, then to what faith have you brought them?
That's precisely my concern. I think that my adversaries think that the answer is "still a valid one". Which is partly behind my parallel thread on sacraments. It's as if they view the Four Spiritual Laws™ as guaranteed to work no matter what goes on around them.
(In similar vein, when a famous evangelical on the French charismatic scene notoriously underwent a sudden and wholehearted Catholic conversion a few decades ago, there was a lot of head-scratching among the evo community about what to make of his previously-much-lauded teachings. Someone commented that Solomon's later lapses did not disqualify the Song of Songs from Scripture...)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
This is based on the absurd heterodox premiss, the ancient heresy, that it is down to us and our preaching of the perverted kakangelion to save anyone.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The vital word isn't "all" (caps or not) but "possible". It isn't for man to determine what is possible: we're given plenty of guidance and if we choose to disregard it then we are (IMHO you understand) guilty of self-deception.
I think this is the key. By "possible" does he mean anything that one could physically do? Like put someone in a prison cell and not let them out until they convert? Torture? Auto da fe, anyone?
Clearly "possible" must include "morally possible" which precludes deception.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
This is based on the absurd heterodox premiss, the ancient heresy, that it is down to us and our preaching of the perverted kakangelion to save anyone.
But, but... "how shall they believe if they have not heard"? It might not be exclusively down to us, but most believers seem to think they have their bit to do, don't they?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Beliefs are two a penny Eutychus, as you know.
Jesus does what He says on the tin.
I believe.
Despite us.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
The message is that of salvation, right? ISTM the means of proclaiming it must be consistent with the vision of salvation you're proclaiming.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well in the instance I have in mind, and at the risk of derailing this entirely, it's very very PSA-centred; basically just a transaction. And the belief ( ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Martin) seems to be that as long as you can get people to sign on the dotted line (or the set prayer equivalent) the rest doesn't matter. I wonder how much the theology (or lack of it) affects this extreme pragmatism?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
Well in the instance I have in mind, and at the risk of derailing this entirely, it's very very PSA-centred; basically just a transaction.
Well, if it's "just a transaction" based on PSA (by which I assume you mean Penal Substitutionary Atonement), then it cannot be down to us at all, since Christ has done the necessary transaction from a legal point of view. It's illogical to suggest that Christ has borne the punishment for our sins, while saying that it is only valid if we believe it. If one person takes the punishment for another person's crime, then that other person goes free, irrespective of what he believes. It's an objective transaction. Therefore PSA implies legal universalism. This is why I am amazed that the more theologically liberal types, who may be attracted to universalism, knock it.
What's the alternative? That it's all down to us to emulate Christ's example?
I believe that both the penal substitutionary view and the moral influence view of the atonement are correct. The former without the latter leads to antinomianism, and the latter without the former denies the grace of God, and the all sufficiency of Christ as the Saviour.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Of course you can't lie (defraud, deceive, blackmail, intimidate...) The people who are using this text need to go away and learn what basic (child-level) hermeneutics are. Though they'd probably do best to start off with basic morality.
I can hear the whining: "But Dad, you said I could have whatever I want for dinner, and I want poison!" Pffft.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The vital word isn't "all" (caps or not) but "possible". It isn't for man to determine what is possible: we're given plenty of guidance and if we choose to disregard it then we are (IMHO you understand) guilty of self-deception.
I think this is the key. By "possible" does he mean anything that one could physically do? Like put someone in a prison cell and not let them out until they convert? Torture? Auto da fe, anyone?
Clearly "possible" must include "morally possible" which precludes deception.
I may not be recalling it correctly, but didn't Philip get hold of an Ethiopian guy and torture the dog lovin' shit out of him, even cutting off his nuts? It made a believer out of him just like it always does and he just couldn't wait to be baptized.
But, like I say, my recollection may be a bit off.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Therefore PSA implies legal universalism.
Have you never met a full-blown five-point TULIP Calvinist? The L stands for Limited atonement (ie Christ's death was effective only for the elect). I'm pretty sure they believe in PSA, too, though perhaps not in the crudest form.
Calvinists, especially hypercalvinists, are certainly in danger of antinomianism, but most of the little-green-book/four-spiritual-laws PSA types I have met are legalists who live in fear of losing their salvation and who are very likely to "pray the prayer" or "make a recommitment" multiple times, just to make sure.
[ 23. April 2013, 05:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The vital word isn't "all" (caps or not) but "possible". It isn't for man to determine what is possible: we're given plenty of guidance and if we choose to disregard it then we are (IMHO you understand) guilty of self-deception.
I think this is the key. By "possible" does he mean anything that one could physically do? Like put someone in a prison cell and not let them out until they convert? Torture? Auto da fe, anyone?
Clearly "possible" must include "morally possible" which precludes deception.
I may not be recalling it correctly, but didn't Philip get hold of an Ethiopian guy and torture the dog lovin' shit out of him, even cutting off his nuts? It made a believer out of him just like it always does and he just couldn't wait to be baptized.
But, like I say, my recollection may be a bit off.
Where are you getting that?
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Eutychus
A lot of issues disappear if you consider that the crucial work of conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit. As is well known, the clues to the operation of the Holy Spirit are found in Jesus' discourse to the disciples in John 14-16. The Holy Spirit is the indwelling Spirit of truth, the teacher and reminder of all things, the witness to Jesus, the One who convicts "the world" concerning sin and righteousness and judgment, the One who guides into all truth.
Essentially, conversion is seen as an inner work, aided by proclamation and demonstration. That is a lot deeper than any act of human persuasion seeking to get people to agree to a set of propositions. If you like, there is a faithful human component (essentially true and faithful witness) which aids a Divine work of grace. God works through the witness of the church.
Or as Billy Graham once put it in my hearing, he has never converted anyone. "Conversion is the work of the Holy Ghost" he said, "I'm just one of the messenger boys".
It does seem clear that we are to be truthful witnesses, not only with our lips but with our lives, to the hope which is in us. I think this is quite a long way removed from any impression that we save.
This next bit is some Kerygmania-like reflection by me on 1 Corinthians 9. I've used the Blue Letter bible link so any who fancy can have a look at the Greek.
It's worth observing first of all from the preliminaries that he observes there is no glory which comes to him from preaching the gospel (v16) and that he must not abuse its power (v19)
A Greek expert may put me right on this, but my own belief re the passage from 1 Corinthians is that the key word is the verbal form "γίνομαι (ginomai)" (to have become, to be made) and the tense used indicates that Paul is reflecting on the ways he has responded in obedience to the inner promptings of the Holy Spirit. The common thread he has found is this. As a result of that, although freed from slavery, he has become a servant to all (v 19), identifying alike in his service with Jews (under the law), Gentiles (outside the law) and in his weakness with those who are themselves weak.
The whole phraseology is centred in humility and obedience. "In serving others I will do whatever God calls me to do; go anywhere, do anything in honouring my calling to preach the gospel." When taken together with other writings, it is clear that Paul believed that there was a Divine power (the power of God unto salvation) in the preaching of the gospel. So I think it is wrong to take from this verse the notion that Paul really believes he does any saving on his own, in his own power. He recognises that God may use him as an instrument through which the gospel is mediated and he must be open and obedient to that.
This puts preaching of the gospel in a proper context, which is miles away from any kind of "superstar" approach, or giving credence to any notion that any form of human manipulation will do. No form of human manipulation will do. It is a kind of blasphemy to believe that the Spirit of Truth would wish us to lie.
[ 23. April 2013, 07:37: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
OK, some clarifications.
Firstly, in the Gospel (kakangelion?) presentation I'm thinking of, the Spirit is conspicuous by his absence. You touch on an important point (and in this respect - viewing the work of the Spirit as vital - I think I'm still charismatic!).
Secondly, I wasn't meaning to imply that the work of effecting salvation was up to us humans (although I do believe we have a role to play). My musings are more along the lines of whether there are any limits on the means used in evangelism.
While I personally agree with all that's been said here about not being deceitful (and indeed Paul says that himself elsewhere) I have actually encountered a group that appears to take the view that deceitfulness doesn't matter. I don't agree with that, but anticipating their counter-arguments has given rise to an interesting (to me) train of thought, with two branches.
One branch is the sheer pragmatism of Paul. Greek to the Greeks, Jew to the Jews, scarcely has he announced that nobody needs to be circumcised to be saved than he is rounding on Timothy with a pair of scissors ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) (as I once heard Terry Virgo say, you can hear Timothy plaintively saying "but I thought you said..."?). Sometimes I think that for all his talk about not being deceitful, Paul in his understanding of grace was verging on the antinomian in his commitment to evangelising: the end (salvation) justified any and every means (and yes, since I've mentioned Virgo, I think this sort of thinking resulted in the "ruthlessness" (sic) I encountered in NF and their imperviousness to collateral damage).
The other branch of my thinking (as seen on the parallel thread on sacramanets) is the realisation that for this extremely pragmatic group I've recently encountered, the "four spiritual laws" decision-oriented type of approach seems to function as a sacrament (the kind of concept they would otherwise abhor). Administer it, and it works - irrespective of the disposition of the person doing the administrating. Never mind if they lied to get you to sign on the dotted line.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes, I get that. There is some truth in the observation that God seems able to use the most cack-handed forms of evangelism to produce some fruitfulness, but there is also much truth in the alternative notion that unethical and manipulative presentations can do great damage to people.
There is clearly some truth in the notion that the gospel is sacramental, an objective source of divine power and grace, and certainly when we look at Pauline teaching it seems very clear that he believed that. There is also truth in the notion that such power is not to be abused by any who have (or are perceived to have) the gift of evangelism. That seems to be quite clear from the 1 Cor 9 passage, and particularly verse 19.
There's a bit of a reminder that the James stricture re all forms of teaching, that those who teach will be judged with greater severity if they mess up or abuse the gift they have been given. That ought to put some kind of a brake on self-confident pragmatism. Actually, self-confident anything now I come to think of it.
I think the major issue we face in combating the forms of argumentation you refer to (and clearly see as wrong) is that they are self-enclosing. Once you've embraced the notion that anything goes as a means to a good end, then it's hard to see that it doesn't. For me the issue is pretty much resolved by John's Gospel and the repeated emphasis that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth who guides us into all truth.
That's hardly exegetical rocket science; in fact it is so obvious that you wonder how anyone can miss it. I don't think Paul did, but I see where you are coming from on that.
As Louis Palau once (memorably) put it "evangelists are dumb". He went on to observe that they sense they are under orders to preach for a decision. No doubt both you and I have seen and heard some OTT stuff preached under that kind of compulsion. Quite a lot of "evange-elastic" is a kind of over-enthusiam; the preacher gets carried away in the act of preaching.
But making manipulation a considered and justifiable strategy is just basic unethical bullshit really.
[ 23. April 2013, 08:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Bonjour M Le Eut,
Maybe your pal should read the whole passage where Paul also worries about abusing his authority in the Gospel (v18) and being a 'servant' to all (19) and running a race for an imperishable crown (25).
Compared to the way some people take a 'pragmatic' view of Scripture, your mate is on the mild end of the spectrum. I remember a group who encouraged their young ladies to offer sex to blokes to get them into the church. The verse for that? 'Offer your bodies as living sacrifices...'
I admire the guy's passion - but if he reckons he needs to resort to deception to get people to engage with the message, how much confidence does he really have in the power of the Gospel? In the end, is this really about seeing people saved, or getting some personal validation for his ministry?
Hope you get some good ideas out of all this to talk some sense into him.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd go further, Eutychus and suggest that some charismatic evangelicals run to a similar over-emphasis on the act of 'confessing' or acknowledging Christ as Saviour - as if the very words they used had some kind of magical or perhaps quasi-sacramental effect. I've certainly heard 'If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth,' used this way in some charismatic circles.
I suspect the people you've encountered who deploy the '4-Spiritual Laws' in the way you've described are cessationist or otherwise very conservative rather than charismatic. Hence the scant reference to the work of the Holy Spirit.
Fr Gregory (whom many of you may remember from these boards) once shocked me by stating that he found many very conservative evangelicals to be almost Islamic in their approach. When I sat back and considered this, I came to a similar conclusion. I once saw a programme about some people spending time on an Islamic retreat and at the end one of the participants became a Muslim.
The way she 'prayed the prayer' as it were and acknowledged that there was no God but Allah and Mohammed as his Prophet, was spookily reminiscent of how I've seen conservative evangelicals 'lead people to Christ.'
Sure, in any form of conversion there has to be some kind of public acknowledgement and outward profession ... but the parallels were uncanny.
I think what we're dealing with here in its evangelical Christian form is a highly reductionist tendency. These same people, I suspect, were they to be RCs or Orthodox would probably take a highly mechanistic approach to the eucharist or else have some kind of fixation with this or that shrine or this or that holy relic ...
Theirs is a fundamentalist and mechanistic mindset that would express itself in different ways in different settings but broadly towards the same reductionist end.
It's a tick-box approach to faith.
As far as deception and dubious ethical practices go ... well, no tradition seems free of those, of course.
I once challenged an evangelist who'd first got people to raise their hands in response to an 'altar-call' type challenge, then he asked them to stand, then he upped the ante and asked them 'come down the front', then to go into a separate room for counselling ... he ratcheted up the stakes at each point.
I felt that this was deceptive. The people who put their hands up didn't know what was going to happen next and that there'd be a ratcheting up of the expected response.
His answer was that Jesus had used this tactic with Zacchaeus - 'Come down from that tree ...'
I couldn't see how this was analogous at all.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
In the end, is this really about seeing people saved, or getting some personal validation for his ministry?
I think you're close to the mark there. And yes, I think 'flirty fishing' is another extreme example of this line of reasoning - and not confined to the Children of God cult.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Food was used in India to entice people to missions - worked particularly well in times of death and famine.
The people who came for feeding were known as "rice Christians".
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Never knew that (the "flirty fishing" thing). I've led a sheltered life. But it is a kind of "reductio ad absurdum".
On the other side of that coin, there was a kind of justifying of "putting to the question" (means of torture used against suspected heretics in various inquisitions) which argued
a) that it was essential to get at the truth of whether they were misled or misleading others away from the True Path, because of the dangers to themselves and others
b) their souls were in danger of eternal frying if they did not repent and therefore inflicting pain on them in this life was a kind of loving concern that they be saved from eternal damnation.
Once you accept any means to good ends, anything goes, really. And that really puts believers of that kind of stuff in danger themselves; of falling into the hands of the cynical and power-hungry "wolves in sheeps' clothing".
Such self-enclosing ideologies are not safe thought-worlds in which to live and grow up.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Therefore PSA implies legal universalism.
Have you never met a full-blown five-point TULIP Calvinist? The L stands for Limited atonement (ie Christ's death was effective only for the elect). I'm pretty sure they believe in PSA, too, though perhaps not in the crudest form.
Fair point. I have met quite a number of such Calvinists. But, in a sense, the 'L' of TULIP is a form of legal universalism, in the sense that "all for whom Christ died will be saved". So obviously if we believe that Christ died for everyone, then, by that same logic, all will be saved. A strict substitution is an objective event or transaction. Its efficacy is dependent on the one making the transaction, not the one for whom the transaction is being made.
I am actually a "legal universalist", but I also certainly believe in hell and condemnation. Is that a contradiction? Not at all. The legal aspect is only one part of salvation. There is also the orientation of the will. Someone may be saved legally but may hate it. He is "condemned to salvation" or "condemned to eternal life", and this life of God is sheer hell for the one who hates God and is consumed with pride, bitterness and hatred.
Penal substitution is certainly central to the work of the cross. If this were not so, then God would just be able "to forgive" by sheer fiat of authority by riding roughshod over his own character of justice. This speaks of a fickle God, who acts purely on naked authority. He may forgive today, but then tomorrow may decide not to forgive. The sheer cost of the cross speaks of a God who is 'bound' by His own justice, and pays the heaviest price to satisfy the demands of justice in order to forgive. I think this is tremendous and speaks of a constancy and reliability in God, which is the basis of our faith in Him. (By the way... if PSA is not true, then the entire symbolism of Old Testament sacrifice is inexplicable. "Without shedding of blood there is no remission" - Hebrews 9:22. Why does there need to be shedding of blood if God can "just forgive" by fiat of authority?)
The idea that the cross is merely a demonstration of moral commitment that we should somehow emulate is quite sadistic. Some may argue that PSA is sadistic: the nasty father abusing his child. But it is sheer presumption to think in these terms. It is not for us to feel sorry for Jesus, who gave up His life willingly, and who, after all, "only did what He saw the Father doing" (hence the truth of Patripassianism). The sadism of rejecting PSA is that it places an intolerable moral burden on man, who is by and large not able to live up to the example of the extremity of the sacrifice that God revealed as the ultimate example. The gospel is clear that we are saved by grace and we live by grace. I know what I am talking about, because I suffered in an extremely manipulative Pentecostal fellowship where we were guilt tripped into "being wholehearted for God" by thinking about the lengths that God went to for us, but, of course, it was not really about commitment to God / Christ, but about commitment to the leader of the fellowship. The cross was presented as the ultimate act of psychological blackmail: "I suffered all this for you, now you better make sure that you suffer for me". PSA cuts through all this crap, and places grace at the heart of salvation.
As for evangelism: since the transaction on the cross was and is objective, then there is no requirement for anyone to fulfil some kind of gnostic condition in order to benefit legally from it. The preaching of the gospel and the entire work of the Church is simply a matter of following the leading of the Holy Spirit to minister the love of God to others, and there is no simple formula. I think this is what Paul really meant. There is no "simple gospel" that functions as a kind of magic spell to unlock heaven, but the Holy Spirit works through believers in many different - and sometimes controversial (though not immoral) - ways to reach different people with the reality of the love and life of God. The point of this is to enable people to enjoy the salvation that has already been won for them on the cross.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The vital word isn't "all" (caps or not) but "possible". It isn't for man to determine what is possible: we're given plenty of guidance and if we choose to disregard it then we are (IMHO you understand) guilty of self-deception.
I think this is the key. By "possible" does he mean anything that one could physically do? Like put someone in a prison cell and not let them out until they convert? Torture? Auto da fe, anyone?
Clearly "possible" must include "morally possible" which precludes deception.
I may not be recalling it correctly, but didn't Philip get hold of an Ethiopian guy and torture the dog lovin' shit out of him, even cutting off his nuts? It made a believer out of him just like it always does and he just couldn't wait to be baptized.
But, like I say, my recollection may be a bit off.
Where are you getting that?
Acts 8. I finally looked it back up and, yes, the recollection was a bit off.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Acts 8. I finally looked it back up and, yes, the recollection was a bit off.
It was so outrageously off I thought you were just being sarcastic.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I knew it was intentionally funny. Made me laugh, anyway.
[Actually, it gave me an idea for a different way of doing bible studies ... Find a narrative, stand it on its head for dramatic effect, observe "that's obviously NOT what was going on, so what WAS going on?". A kind of sideways approach to encourage engagement with text folks have looked at loads of times before and so have stopped seeing what's there. Shake up the temptation in favour of automatic thinking. That sort of thing.
For example, Prodigal Son is cheesed off in the pig sty. Suddenly recognises that his father is the one really to blame. For his lack of protection, refusal to say no to his son's naive and selfish presumption. Decides to return home to put Dad straight ..A very modern Prodigal]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
EE. No.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC....
EE. No.
A profound and well substantiated rebuttal of my position.
Well done. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) And there was me thinking "Martin doesn't think much of my novel idea on bible studies.
"Ee no, we don't want none of that sort of rubbish going on!" A cry of pain re my heretical meanderings.
But you're right, EE.
I await the explanation with interest.
[ 25. April 2013, 08:25: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Food was used in India to entice people to missions - worked particularly well in times of death and famine.
The people who came for feeding were known as "rice Christians".
Any actual documentation on this? I mean on Christian missions in India only giving food aid to people who converted and refusing it to others? And on that tactic producing large numbers of converts?
I'm sure its happened now and again but I suspect its a bt of a myth. The "rice Christian" name was I think coined by Europeans about people they thought were becoming superficially Christianised as part of taking on a whole "cultural modernisation" package. Something taht seems to happen a lot in West Africa and might be happening in China. But if anythign its more common among the better-ediucagted and better-off rather than the very poorest. So a degree of "churchianity" goes along with wearing European-style clothes, speaking English, etc etc. If anything India is the cultural region whaere that sort of thing is least common. Tens of millions of peopel quickly adopted a "modern" post-industrial-revolution lifestyle without abandoning their tradtional religions, languages, caste structures and so on.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Eeeee nay, never Barnabas.
EE, you don't have a position. You have a bunch of a priori assumptions from which further rhetoric bereft of logic 'follows'.
So, no. Or 'uH errr' as Simon Cowell's buzzer goes in Britain's Got Talent.
Feel the love.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Food was used in India to entice people to missions - worked particularly well in times of death and famine.
The people who came for feeding were known as "rice Christians".
Any actual documentation on this? ...[just above]
Also in India you had the East India Company, which wasn't particularly keen with rocking the boat.
You can't see William Carey being in a position to be doling rice in such a fashion (though thinking about it if they only have enough for a few that might actually make you focus on your (Christian) friends).
And from the time (but opposite side of the world)
"He [Gladstong] admitted, too, that we had not fulfilled our Christian obligations by communicating the inestimable benefits of our religion to the slaves in our colonies, and that the belief among the early English planters, that if you made a man a Christian you could not keep him a slave, had led them to the monstrous conclusion that they ought not to impart Christianity to their slave"
I did see a board about John Smith (of Demera) (the quote is from a linked pdf) and it was depressing.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
[although (trusting wiki) the term seems to be associated with the Portuguese time]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Paul and his fans not being my favourite sort of Christians. I get Jesus spending more time on moral teaching and lots less on the selfish pursuit of getting a ticket to heaven. Or scaring others by encouraging them to sell their souls to him and God.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Paul and his fans not being my favourite sort of Christians. I get Jesus spending more time on moral teaching and lots less on the selfish pursuit of getting a ticket to heaven. Or scaring others by encouraging them to sell their souls to him and God.
Between the two of them, Jesus spends a hell of a lot more words on scaring people with the fear of Hell than Paul does.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... What's the alternative? That it's all down to us to emulate Christ's example? ...
You say that like it's a bad thing ...
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Damn right mousethief. Where does Paul get it from, eh?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I guess I am too stupid to remember when Jesus spoke of hell, and somehow have a skewed view of Paul then. Can someone point me to some clear information so that my perception of Jesus being less focussed on hell than Paul, being less threatening than Paul etc can be corrected? And the while, I've thought Jesus was more anti-violence than pro.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Paul and his fans not being my favourite sort of Christians. I get Jesus spending more time on moral teaching and lots less on the selfish pursuit of getting a ticket to heaven. Or scaring others by encouraging them to sell their souls to him and God.
Between the two of them, Jesus spends a hell of a lot more words on scaring people with the fear of Hell than Paul does.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Jesus scaring people with Hell.
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Mt 10:28
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[a] it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell,[b] to the unquenchable fire.[c] 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ Mk 9:42-48
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. - Mt 5:22
You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? - Mt 23:33
I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” - Mt 8:11-12
----------
In contrast, a search for "hell" in the epistles of Paul turns up no hits, even in various translations.
[NB: many of the Matthew texts are repeated in Luke]
[ 26. April 2013, 18:58: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mousethief: Between the two of them, Jesus spends a hell of a lot more words on scaring people with the fear of Hell than Paul does.
He liked to exagerrate a bit sometimes to make a moral point.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: Between the two of them, Jesus spends a hell of a lot more words on scaring people with the fear of Hell than Paul does.
He liked to exagerrate a bit sometimes to make a moral point.
What, like that one about actually loving your enemies?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: What, like that one about actually loving your enemies?
I said 'sometimes'.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: What, like that one about actually loving your enemies?
I said 'sometimes'.
And you can tell them apart how?
And this has what to do with the question of whether Jesus or Paul was more likely to bring up avoidance of Hell as a motivation?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: Between the two of them, Jesus spends a hell of a lot more words on scaring people with the fear of Hell than Paul does.
He liked to exagerrate a bit sometimes to make a moral point.
That's what I used to think. That and poetical rhetoric. Apparently Jesus loves some and hates others, enough to damn some to hell and others to heaven.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mousethief: And you can tell them apart how?
I just try and stumble along.
quote:
mousethief: And this has what to do with the question of whether Jesus or Paul was more likely to bring up avoidance of Hell as a motivation?
There's no doubt that as related in the Bible, Jesus mentions Hell more often than Paul. On this thread, this is about whether it is Jesus or Paul who taught more about selfish pursuit of a ticket to Heaven. The question of whether Jesus might be referring to a literal Hell or making a moral exagerration, is relevant to this.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
On this thread, this is about whether it is Jesus or Paul who taught more about selfish pursuit of a ticket to Heaven. The question of whether Jesus might be referring to a literal Hell or making a moral exaggeration, is relevant to this.
1. So you say. How?
2. Does Paul try to scare people into agreeing with him the way Jesus does? If so, where, please? So far I have provided solid evidence that Jesus used "selfish pursuit" (or "enlightened self-interest" for people with less of an axe to grind) to lure people into the Kingdom. Will my serious attempt to provide evidence be met in kind by people who think Paul uses "selfish pursuit" as a drawing card more than Christ does?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I've always taken the crucifixion of Jesus as a pretty dramatic unselfish thing to do.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
