Persecution as Proof of Salvation

[whag]

Because I can talk to my brother/neighbour a thousand times and he won't respond, but you get someone else coming along (a missionary or guest speaker) and suddenly it will click for them and they will respond and be saved.

ETA: also sometimes, I am the one who God intends to bring the Word to Joe Bloggs. If God calls me to go to somewhere and I don't go because I figure "there is someone else closer who can do it" then I am not being obedient to Him

[tabibito]

There often doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for assignments. The Bible records four women who were prophets and in close proximity to Paul in Caesaria, yet a prophet from Judea was assigned to deliver a message to Paul. (Acts 21: 8-11)
Persons local and well attested for one reason or another get bypassed - and the "why" is not explained. (suddenly, lyrics from Jesus Christ Superstar begin running - "You're far to keen on where and how, but not so hot on why.)
It is just possible that from time to time, people are assigned for the purpose of their own benefit as much as for the benefit of those to whom they are sent.

[Cow Poke]

Just for the record, I've been extremely busy for the last day or so, and will be this morning and probably this afternoon, but, as that great theologian Mickiel would say....

I want to get into this.

[whag]

Just for the record, I've been extremely busy for the last day or so, and will be this morning and probably this afternoon, but, as that great theologian Mickiel would say....

I want to get into this.

Ah, so you admit it's a productive discussion despite your dopey suspicions of insincerity. My sincerity can't be presumed and is wholly irrelevent besides.

Tabby's doing just fine, thanks. You, not so much.

[Adrift]

There often doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for assignments. The Bible records four women who were prophets and in close proximity to Paul in Caesaria, yet a prophet from Judea was assigned to deliver a message to Paul. (Acts 21: 8-11)

In this case, there may indeed have been rhyme and reason,

Source: The Acts of the Apostles by Ben Witherington, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998, pg. 633

In view of the material in Luke 1-2, it is unlikely that Luke is trying to upstage these women by having Agabus do the prophesying in this passage. More likely, as I.R. Reimer suggests, Agabus prophesied because he had just come from Jerusalem and could give prophetic insight into what awaited Paul there. (See Reimer, Women in the Acts, p. 249)

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

Ah, so you admit it's a productive discussion despite your dopey suspicions of insincerity.

Ummmm.... there are others in this thread.

My sincerity can't be presumed and is wholly irrelevent besides.

Not to me.

Tabby's doing just fine, thanks. You, not so much.

Hmmmm.... your feelings got hurt.

[whag]

Ummmm.... there are others in this thread.



Not to me.



Hmmmm.... your feelings got hurt.

No, just noticing your tactic of playing the "you're insincere!" card to deflect a question. Clearly you aimed to convey that Christianity was tainted by voodoo there. I said nothing goofy.

[tabibito]

No, just noticing your tactic of playing the "you're insincere!" card to deflect a question. Clearly you aimed to convey that Christianity was tainted by voodoo there. I said nothing goofy.

If Christianity IS tainted, much of what we see is entirely explicable. Most churches acknowledge that there are problems with the precepts of their own and all others. It would be a rare event to find one that will acknowledge that its precepts actually need re-examination, or that anyone can possibly know more than it does.

[Cow Poke]

No, just noticing your tactic of playing the "you're insincere!" card to deflect a question. Clearly you aimed to convey that Christianity was tainted by voodoo there. I said nothing goofy.

That is absolutely false. Wrong. Goofy, even. It's CATHOLICISM (in Haiti) that was tainted with Voodoo. The POINT was that, when the locals asked "Are you Catholic or Christian", it's because they believed that CATHOLICISM was tainted by Voodoo.

So, yes, what you said (even here) is goofy.

Lookie here....

OK, you're REALLY not getting this.

Just because somebody is a Catholic does not mean they are "saved", any more than being a Baptist or a Lutheran or a Presbyterian makes one "saved".

And, specifically, as I already referenced, Catholicism in Haiti is particularly "messed up", having been tainted with Voodoo. Which is why the locals would ask, "Are you a Christian or a Catholic".

[whag]

That is absolutely false. Wrong. Goofy, even. It's CATHOLICISM (in Haiti) that was tainted with Voodoo. The POINT was that, when the locals asked "Are you Catholic or Christian", it's because they believed that CATHOLICISM was tainted by Voodoo.

So, yes, what you said (even here) is goofy.

Lookie here....

So I'm sincere because of that? Catholicism IS Christianity, just a form of it. Whether the tainting was protestant or catholic, the distinction is irrelevant unless you provide more information on the remediation of that problem. Are you, for instance, teaching them that Catholicism is the original Christianity in order to remove the taint?

[tabibito]

So I'm sincere because of that? Catholicism IS Christianity, just a form of it. Whether the tainting was protestant or catholic, the distinction is irrelevant unless you provide more information on the remediation of that problem. Are you, for instance, teaching them that Catholicism is the original Christianity in order to remove the taint?

eh? OK - that has me confused.

[whag]

If Christianity IS tainted, much of what we see is entirely explicable. Most churches acknowledge that there are problems with the precepts of their own and all others. It would be a rare event to find one that will acknowledge that its precepts actually need re-examination, or that anyone can possibly know more than it does.

I think there's a lot more going on here sociologically. Rather than a collaborative effort between the Christian factions to remedy the problem, it seems it's just an endless cycle of one faction attempting to undo the failures of the previous mission. A unified mission should be able to easily conquer the disabling and highly inferior superstitions of crude voodoo.

[whag]

eh? OK - that has me confused.

Catholicism itself isn't the problem. It was the original Christianity. Is the proper course to fix the taint and emphasize Catholicism is Christianity, or do you replace Catholicism entirely with Protestantism? If so, why?

[whag]

I think that's fair. As CP alluded to, once one question is answered, a thousand more will often come up... and it becomes a game that is a waste of everybody's time. The goal should be to stay on the offense and not the defense, especially when it's clear that a reasonable answer won't change anybody's minds.

Ravi's approach can still be seen as a deflection of a difficult question. If he believes evolution to be incompatible with Christianity, then he obviously can't comfortably answer nuanced questions about Adam (he thinks Adam is literally the first man) and Cain's wife (he literally believes Cain to be the first murderer).

These are good questions to be asked of someone who doesn't accept evolution on religious grounds.

[Cow Poke]

So I'm sincere because of that?

Nope. I think that's a symptom of your insincerity. Although, at this point, I'm beginning to wonder if I was wrong in saying you weren't stupid. Or maybe just so stubborn you refuse to understand.

Catholicism IS Christianity,

No, it's not.

just a form of it.

Catholicism is a religion. A denomination.

Whether the tainting was protestant or catholic, the distinction is irrelevant unless you provide more information on the remediation of that problem.

Are you, for instance, teaching them that Catholicism is the original Christianity in order to remove the taint?

I'm a Baptist. Why on earth would I want to teach them that Catholicism is the original Christianity? I teach the New Testament, not Catholicism.