Persecution as Proof of Salvation

[Cow Poke]

A sweet anecdote.

There are many more.

I have a few of them myself that demonstrate your approach doesn't always work but can actually repel.

Your crass criticism was that *I* was a terrible "proselytizer"... I can only answer for me. And you don't have a clue what my real life is like.

You're too stubborn to admit that.

Sharing the gospel is not a "sure thing", Whag. I'm not responsible for the "result" - just the effort. And, quite honestly, I'm totally good with standing before the Lord answering for my efforts on this earth, as opposed to answering to an internet blogger who pretends to be a "fish" that I should be catching.

Who does the missionary to Mexico proselytize to? Mexico is primarily Catholic.

Being a Catholic or a Baptist or a Presbyterian or any other denomination doesn't mean that somebody is saved. I really believe you're demonstrating your ignorance here. Heck, when I was in Haiti, a common question was "are you a Catholic or a Christian*"

[Cow Poke]

If the preacher was a literalist fundamentalist, the question about where Cain's wife came from is perfectly legitimate. That you perceive it as antagonism says a lot about you.

Um... KG flat out said....

He was of course trying to make the person look foolish.

That's antagonism.

You need a hug.

[Cow Poke]

Who does the missionary to Mexico proselytize to? Mexico is primarily Catholic.

First of all, you're kinda sorta misusing that term.... to "proselytize" implies an attempt to convert somebody from one religion to another. She's not trying to make "Catholics" or "Baptists", she's trying to make disciples, and doing quite well at it, I might add.

Soulwinning, or witnessing, or evangelizing is about bringing people into the "body of Christ", not a particular religion. "Proselytizing" is what we, "in the business", refer to as "stealing sheep".

[Adrift]

Evangelism often turns to apologetics, especially in front of a crowd. Someone will often try to turn the tables by asking the preacher a tough question.

I remember this happening at my college. There was a street preacher who had attracted a crowd of easily over 100-200 on campus. Somebody asked him where Cain got his wife from, and the guy had no idea what to say.

Apologetics can be used in evangelism, but the two are clearly not the same, nor do they always go hand in hand (as even Professor William Craig acknowledges). Some of the greatest evangelizers I've personally known, bringing dozens, perhaps hundreds of people to Christ over the years, hadn't a clue when it came to formal apologetic arguments, and not everyone that comes to Christ is asking the type of questions that require an apologetic response.

I've noticed, though, that this really breaks down by age groups and one's peers. I've noticed, for instance, that older unbelievers have far fewer qualms about the concept of a God, and their questions aren't things like "Where did Cain's wife come from?", but, more along the lines of, "Does my life have any purpose?" or "Does God love me? What must I do to get right with Him?" And no doubt a lot of this has to do with the current of cultural Christianity that they were raised in. People outside of that cultural current, both locationally and generationally are going to start at the bare bones beginnings, "Why should I believe that a god exists?", "Why should I accept the Gospel message over this other ideology?"

I think we see this distinction in the 1st century as well. So, for instance, Jesus didn't have to go into a whole set of arguments about the nature of God when the Rich Man asked him, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" The high context he was dealing with in Israel afforded him some room to get right to the point, "sell your possessions and follow me". Whereas with the Gentile Pauline and Petrine communities we see quite a difference in that some foundational truth claims first had to be established through systematic arguments.

I think with Generations X,Y,Z and on, as the US becomes more and more culturally secular, a deeper understanding of theology, and apologetics will need to be focused on within evangelism. That's not to say that good evangelism can't still be done without a focus in apologetics, but I believe it will become far more important as time goes on.

[Cow Poke]

Apologetics can be used in evangelism, but the two are clearly not the same, nor do they always go hand in hand (as even Professor William Craig acknowledges). Some of the greatest evangelizers I've personally known, bringing dozens, perhaps hundreds of people to Christ over the years, hadn't a clue when it came to formal apologetic arguments, and not everyone that comes to Christ is asking the type of questions that require an apologetic response.

My own theory on this is that God often uses the simple people (like me) to show that it's not by my power or my might or my intelligence, but by His Spirit.

[Irate Canadian]

The middle east and India are rife with conflict between religions and factions.

Any reason you picked only India as a example? You do realize there are other countries in the region with more conflict.

P.S: Sorry if this seems off topic. It's just as someone who was previously a Indian national, it kind of gets maddening to hear India always conflicted with religious tension.

[Adrift]

One of my favorite soulwinners - and the guy who taught me how to win souls - was a big tough steelworker with a very gentle spirit. I have been with him on many occasions where somebody would ask one of those "tough questions", and Ray would say, "I'll be glad to talk about that, but, first, can I tell you about Jesus?" He would be polite, yet firm, recognizing that often times those questions were a smoke screen. More times than not, when that person prayed and asked Jesus to save them, they didn't really care about their "question" anymore.

Ravi Zacharias will often skip "stump-the-preacher" type skeptical questions in public forums he speaks at. He could easily answer most of those questions (and on other occasions has), but prefers instead to get to the heart of the questioner. So he'll ask something like, 'what motivated you to ask this particular question?', 'will an answer to this question alter your view of the Gospel message?' That usually leads into a heart to heart, or a rant from the questioner (basically exposing his actual motivation for being there) which wasn't to do with the question at all.

[Cow Poke]

Ravi Zacharias will often skip "stump-the-preacher" type skeptical questions in public forums he speaks at. He could easily answer most of those questions (and on other occasions has), but prefers instead to get to the heart of the questioner. So he'll ask something like, 'what motivated you to ask this particular question?', 'will an answer to this question alter your view of the Gospel message?' That usually leads into a heart to heart, or a rant from the questioner (basically exposing his actual motivation for being there) which wasn't to do with the question at all.

That's not fair! It sounds like a Jesus tactic!

[Cow Poke]

Ravi Zacharias will often skip "stump-the-preacher" type skeptical questions in public forums he speaks at. He could easily answer most of those questions (and on other occasions has), but prefers instead to get to the heart of the questioner. So he'll ask something like, 'what motivated you to ask this particular question?', 'will an answer to this question alter your view of the Gospel message?' That usually leads into a heart to heart, or a rant from the questioner (basically exposing his actual motivation for being there) which wasn't to do with the question at all.

I remember Paul Little (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship) recounting an experience that happened after he spoke at a Midwestern college. A young man came up to him after his talk, and said, "I'm impressed - you have successfully answered every opposition I have had to Christianity". Little, delighted, said, "they you're ready to become a Christian?" The young man shook his head no, and Little asked, "why not, you said I answered all your oppositions..."

The student replied, "it would mess up the way I'm living".

[whag]

There are many more.

I have many more, too.

Your crass criticism was that *I* was a terrible "proselytizer"... I can only answer for me. And you don't have a clue what my real life is like.

You also don't know what my life is like. I can only base my opinion on your sneering condescension here.

Sharing the gospel is not a "sure thing", Whag. I'm not responsible for the "result" - just the effort. And, quite honestly, I'm totally good with standing before the Lord answering for my efforts on this earth, as opposed to answering to an internet blogger who pretends to be a "fish" that I should be catching.

Every human being you encounter is a fish, whether a blogger or not. You realized that when you called me an ass and did a quick back peddle to save face. You sought to be a good example for reasons we both know have to do with evangelism.

I don't blog, but I do bring up issues (like in my OP) here that are controversial and relate directly to me and you--a lack of persecution in a Christian's life is a big one. That seems to get under your skin, probably because it's part of your sermony repertoire to suggest to those who aren't being persecuted that something isn't quite right with their life.

I've heard the spiel many times before, the latest with my wife's aunt.

Being a Catholic or a Baptist or a Presbyterian or any other denomination doesn't mean that somebody is saved. I really believe you're demonstrating your ignorance here. Heck, when I was in Haiti, a common question was "are you a Catholic or a Christian*"

I don't understand that. If an area is demographically Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, or whatever, the gospel has officially reached that area. What kind of system do your caught fish have to not redundantly cover regions that have already been reached? *scratches head*

Also, please link me to the missionary organizations you've referenced so far. I have a sneaking suspicion that those churches are exporting fundamentalism if they think Catholicism isn't Christianity.

[Cow Poke]

That seems to get under your skin

Gets under my skin?

I don't understand that. If an area is demographically Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, or whatever, the gospel has officially reached that area.

Belonging to a denomination is not the same as belonging to Christ.

What kind of system do your caught fish have to not redundantly cover regions that have already been reached? *scratches head*

You can be a Baptist or a Catholic or any of a number of other denominations without being a Christian. And even if that weren't true, it's just goofy NOT to evangelize an area because they're "predominantly" something or other.

Also, please link me to the missionary organizations you've referenced so far.

I have a sneaking suspicion that those churches are exporting fundamentalism if they think Catholicism isn't Christianity.

A Christian is a Christ Follower. Belonging to a denomination, or having been born into a Catholic or Baptist family doesn't necessarily mean one is a Christian. I don't know why that's such a difficult concept.

[Cow Poke]

You also don't know what my life is like. I can only base my opinion on your sneering condescension here.

Sounds like somebody's getting under YOUR skin.

[Teallaura]

God has many children, but no grandchildren.

[Cow Poke]

So, let's try this another way....

God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to eternal life.

So, let's assume that 90% of the people in a given geographic area are already Christians, in the true sense of the word, and not simply members of a particular denomination.

Do you really think that Christians who believe in The Great Commission should just write off that 10%? Particularly in light of the parable of Jesus concerning the lost sheep?

I'm really not understanding your angst over evangelizing areas of the world simply because they may have a large denominational footprint.

[whag]

Ravi Zacharias will often skip "stump-the-preacher" type skeptical questions in public forums he speaks at. He could easily answer most of those questions

(and on other occasions has), but prefers instead to get to the heart of the questioner. So he'll ask something like, 'what motivated you to ask this particular question?', 'will an answer to this question alter your view of the Gospel message?' That usually leads into a heart to heart, or a rant from the questioner (basically exposing his actual motivation for being there) which wasn't to do with the question at all.

That could be a tactic to expose the troll in the questioner, but it could also be a way of deflecting an uncomfortable question given evolution and the difficulty it presents to modern evangelism. Pete Enns and Karl Giberson are way better equipped to address it. Note that they're way less arrogant than Zacharias in their presentation.