Has Kirk's Death Prompted You?

[Gregory Thompson]

I disagree. The commands of Christ are not subjective or tailored differently for each believer. Jesus didn’t give one set of instructions to one disciple and another to the rest. He said plainly: “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). That command is for every Christian, not just a select few.
Of course, God gives unique callings and roles within the Body, but the foundational command to proclaim the Gospel is universal. To suggest otherwise is to excuse disobedience under the guise of “different instructions.”
Paul warned against this very attitude: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine… they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations… do the work of an evangelist” (2 Timothy 4:3–5).

So no, I will not “accept” a watered-down Gospel or the idea that silence is obedience. The Word of God is clear; if we believe, we must speak (2 Corinthians 4:13).

The message in the above post is the watered down message.

Why is it watered down? Because it teaches obedience to men reading a bible instead of the Holy Spirit.

 

[1Tonne]

The message in the above post is the watered down message.

Why is it watered down? Because it teaches obedience to men reading a bible instead of the Holy Spirit.

My post about obeying the Word and proclaiming the Gospel is not a “watered down” message; it’s the Word of God. The Spirit does not whisper one thing while the Scriptures proclaim another. To claim obedience to the Spirit while dismissing the commands of Scripture is nothing but rebellion dressed up as spirituality. The Holy Spirit inspired the Word; you cannot reject one without rejecting the other. If your feelings inside you lead you away from what Christ and His apostles preached, then you’re not following the Spirit of God at all.
You call obedience to Scripture ‘watered down,’ but that shows a confusion on your part. The Holy Spirit wrote the Scriptures (2 Pet. 1:21). To obey the Word is to obey the Spirit. A so-called Spirit that contradicts the Word is not the Spirit of God. If you teach people to ignore the Bible in favour of some vague ‘leading,’ you are not pointing them to the Spirit, but away from Him. The Spirit never tells us to stay silent when the Word says, ‘Preach the Gospel.’
If you are accusing me of watering down the message, please use quotes to show me where and also explain how I have watered it down. Then maybe we can discuss more.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

My post about obeying the Word and proclaiming the Gospel is not a “watered down” message; it’s the Word of God. The Spirit does not whisper one thing while the Scriptures proclaim another. To claim obedience to the Spirit while dismissing the commands of Scripture is nothing but rebellion dressed up as spirituality. The Holy Spirit inspired the Word; you cannot reject one without rejecting the other. If your feelings inside you lead you away from what Christ and His apostles preached, then you’re not following the Spirit of God at all.
You call obedience to Scripture ‘watered down,’ but that shows a confusion on your part. The Holy Spirit wrote the Scriptures (2 Pet. 1:21). To obey the Word is to obey the Spirit. A so-called Spirit that contradicts the Word is not the Spirit of God. If you teach people to ignore the Bible in favour of some vague ‘leading,’ you are not pointing them to the Spirit, but away from Him. The Spirit never tells us to stay silent when the Word says, ‘Preach the Gospel.’
If you are accusing me of watering down the message, please use quotes to show me where and also explain how I have watered it down. Then maybe we can discuss more.

Ah so that's how you answered.

You misunderstand. The watering down results from a lack of harmony with the Holy Spirit and the teachings of Scripture.

Since the aspect of the Holy Spirit cannot be proven except through fruit, what is one to say?

If you are satisfied by the fruit of your ministry, and myself likewise, then would it not result in two Proverbs 26:16 figures debating one another? Such a humorous display would edify no one.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[1Tonne]

Ah so that's how you answered.

You misunderstand. The watering down results from a lack of harmony with the Holy Spirit and the teachings of Scripture.

Since the aspect of the Holy Spirit cannot be proven except through fruit, what is one to say?

If you are satisfied by the fruit of your ministry, and myself likewise, then would it not result in two Proverbs 26:16 figures debating one another? Such a humorous display would edify no one.

Thanks for the discussion.

Let’s be clear: bold Gospel proclamation is not optional. Jesus commanded, “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). Paul said, “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!” (1 Corinthians 9:16). Obedience is measured by faithfulness to God’s Word, not by convenience, comfort, or visible results.
To claim that preaching boldly is somehow “out of harmony” with the Spirit is a misunderstanding. The Spirit never contradicts Scripture; He confirms it. Silence is not humility; it is disobedience. Eternal souls are at stake, and a true believer who sees the lost and stays silent fails in the very mission Christ gave him.

So yes, debate may be “humorous,” but the stakes are deadly serious. I will speak the truth of Christ boldly, no matter who objects or how it is received. If you wish, you can stay quiet about the wonderful sacrifice that Jesus made. That is your choice, and we will all be accountable for the time we have here.

 

[1Tonne]

Ah so that's how you answered.

You misunderstand. The watering down results from a lack of harmony with the Holy Spirit and the teachings of Scripture.

Since the aspect of the Holy Spirit cannot be proven except through fruit, what is one to say?

If you are satisfied by the fruit of your ministry, and myself likewise, then would it not result in two Proverbs 26:16 figures debating one another? Such a humorous display would edify no one.

Thanks for the discussion.

I just saw this by chance, and it is really appropriate. You should find the first 3 and a half minutes really good. It makes total sense. Then, if you like it, watch the rest. But anyway, watch the first 3.5 minutes. Blessings

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Let’s be clear: bold Gospel proclamation is not optional. Jesus commanded, “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). Paul said, “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!” (1 Corinthians 9:16). Obedience is measured by faithfulness to God’s Word, not by convenience, comfort, or visible results.
To claim that preaching boldly is somehow “out of harmony” with the Spirit is a misunderstanding. The Spirit never contradicts Scripture; He confirms it. Silence is not humility; it is disobedience. Eternal souls are at stake, and a true believer who sees the lost and stays silent fails in the very mission Christ gave him.

So yes, debate may be “humorous,” but the stakes are deadly serious. I will speak the truth of Christ boldly, no matter who objects or how it is received. If you wish, you can stay quiet about the wonderful sacrifice that Jesus made. That is your choice, and we will all be accountable for the time we have here.

I just saw this by chance, and it is really appropriate. You should find the first 3 and a half minutes really good. It makes total sense. Then, if you like it, watch the rest. But anyway, watch the first 3.5 minutes. Blessings

Thanks for sharing.

God bless.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Thanks for sharing.

God bless.

So a rough looking guy comes to install my laundry room floor. He happens to be wearing a cross around his neck. He ran into some difficulties with the floor and started using colorful language. Later on I complimented Him on it. That led to the story of how he got “saved” three years ago. We were Evangelizing and affirming each other at that point. It was a great moment.

I suppose we might have different understandings, theology; but that was not important. We could recognize our fellowship.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I often wear a small wood cross at work. Often people say they like it and I can geve them one.

https://www.livinggracecatalog.com/product/wood-cross-pendant-ns176?sku=NS176&promocode=lgcpc&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=17190398093&gbraid=0AAAAAD-0ypDmEekbsQGIQikEQlfaDRqta&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIs9De4Iv5jwMVHXR_AB3uHTgZEAQYDiABEgKepvD_BwE

So it is a devise to open conversations. But usually only with Christians. Non Christians ignore it. But part of my screening, if they consent, is to ask about what gives their life meaning and purpose. I ask if they would like a prayer. Sometimes a “No” sometimes “It doesn’t matter.” Sometimes “If you want to”. I hope my prayer and blessing plants a seed.

I remember One guy, “I don’t believe in the BiBible and I don’t believe in Jesus.” That was his tough exterior. I asked, “what do you believe in?” It was the beginning of many good visits. I was a hospice chaplain then.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The whole thing about “eternal death” or Hell as in the video gratitude about saved from Hell, it is do fear based. How about celebrating love here and now in abundant life? Of course it is difficult to be truly happy now if we think we are going to Hell. But atheists don’t think that. Some seem happy, some not. Most are pretty stoic.

Not everyone has Charlies verbal skills. Some people maybe do more harm than good. But a good listener can find opportunities for well placed questions that invite deeper reflection.

 

[Godcrazy]

I am American & I remember becoming an adult in the 1980s from high school to my mid 20s. I was politically minded then & there was plenty of arguments, name calling, obscene gestures etc. The thing is, I don’t remember anyone wanting to become so easily violent about even bitter disagreements. I didn’t hate the people I disagreed with; I was often an arrogant & onery ignoramus but to actually intend violent harm was unthinkable.

I grew up the same era. Ended high school early 80`ies. It was a great time and the 70`ies. Compared to now. In Scandinavia at the time very rural, very decent how you live were thought etc. We have never had the extremes ever like in America. We are very lets get along. More focus on that. And that everyone have. It is still very taboo to shout scream in public and to others. You get looked at and booed. The way it is in America would not be accepted.

 

[1Tonne]

The whole thing about “eternal death” or Hell as in the video gratitude about saved from Hell, it is do fear based. How about celebrating love here and now in abundant life? Of course it is difficult to be truly happy now if we think we are going to Hell. But atheists don’t think that. Some seem happy, some not. Most are pretty stoic.

Not everyone has Charlies verbal skills. Some people maybe do more harm than good. But a good listener can find opportunities for well placed questions that invite deeper reflection.

You call it “fear-based,” but the Bible says plainly: “By the fear of the LORD men depart from evil” (Proverbs 16:6). Jesus Himself spoke more about hell than anyone else in Scripture, not to scare for the sake of scaring, but to warn, because eternity is real. If we leave out hell or water it down, then we strip the cross of its weight.
As Charles Spurgeon rightly said: “Think lightly of hell, and you will think lightly of the cross. Think much of the suffering of lost souls, and you will soon think much of the Savior who delivers you from it.”
Yes, abundant life is found in Christ now (John 10:10), but that abundance shines brightest when we see what we have been saved from. To silence hell is to water down the gospel, and a watered-down gospel is no gospel at all (Galatians 1:8–9).

So no matter how “skilled” or “unskilled” a person is, the call is the same: “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2). Better to speak the hard truth with trembling lips than to remain silent and give a false peace.

 

[Freth]

Charlie Kirk wasn't anymore special than anyone else and he knew that it seems.
We all have the opportunity to be a Charlie whether in person or online.
I didn't follow the guy, but his stuff has been in news feeds more since he was murdered.
I'm angry that a Left leaning person thought the way to handle opinions he didn't like was to murder the person.
That's very dangerous!!
The murderer thought silencing Kirk's voice would take care of that or help, but it's only hurt that expectation.
We need to keep speaking the truth, yes in love and compassion when possible, but speak it and not let them, mostly the Left leaning, shut truth down!!

Whether you were a fan of Charlie's or not, has this prompted you to be more outspoken?

Welcome to the forums Pepperdoodle!

I used to be heavily invested in political outcomes, and spent a good portion of my time debating people daily on the internet. After coming back to the faith I let go of the political and looked to the heavenly.

While I agree that Charlie's work has helped bring people to God, I don't believe politics is the way to spread the gospel message. It intertwines the two (the political and religious), and leads to Christianity exercising civil power for political purposes. As we've seen in the past, this leads to persecution and death.

Revelation 13:15-17 says it will happen again, and who is not to say that this very movement is what leads us down that path? You could look at it as a positive thing, but if it is the very thing that leads to the worship of the beast, then we would find ourselves on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of God. (That's a whole other discussion, I know.)

I'm still a conservative. I care about the way the country is going. However, as a Christian, I believe my discourse should be on the Biblical, not the political.

I made the decision to be religiously outspoken many years ago, so I can't say anything changed with me personally in that regard.

I have noticed that Charlie's passing has had an impact on people across the religious and political spectrum, and they are speaking out. People coming to God is a good thing, but I'm cautious about where a religio-political movement might lead.

I was not an avid follower of Charlie. I watched his videos when they popped up on my feed, and so I was aware of what he was doing, but I was not at all invested in his work. As a conservative I agreed with much of what he said, but that was about it.

When he died it affected me in a way I wasn't expecting. I don't know if it was the shared experience of seeing an innocent man shot down in his prime, or the family he left behind. Or maybe it was the death knell that woke us all out of a slumber and made us realize that, even though we knew it anyway, things had changed and we weren't in Kansas anymore.

I think we'll be seeing the ripples of Charlie's death for a long time. I am cautiously optimistic.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You call it “fear-based,” but the Bible says plainly: “By the fear of the LORD men depart from evil” (Proverbs 16:6). Jesus Himself spoke more about hell than anyone else in Scripture, not to scare for the sake of scaring, but to warn, because eternity is real. If we leave out hell or water it down, then we strip the cross of its weight.
As Charles Spurgeon rightly said: “Think lightly of hell, and you will think lightly of the cross. Think much of the suffering of lost souls, and you will soon think much of the Savior who delivers you from it.”
Yes, abundant life is found in Christ now (John 10:10), but that abundance shines brightest when we see what we have been saved from. To silence hell is to water down the gospel, and a watered-down gospel is no gospel at all (Galatians 1:8–9).

So no matter how “skilled” or “unskilled” a person is, the call is the same: “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2). Better to speak the hard truth with trembling lips than to remain silent and give a false peace.

This is where I have been told that entering a relationship out of fear of punishment, it is not much of a relationship.

For me it has always been about present day love of Christ, the fullness and joy it brings.

 

[1Tonne]

While I agree that Charlie's work has helped bring people to God, I don't believe politics is the way to spread the gospel message. It intertwines the two (the political and religious), and leads to Christianity exercising civil power for political purposes. As we've seen in the past, this leads to persecution and death.

I think that we need to realise that if we do speak the Gospel, people will not like it, and whether it is intertwined with politics or not, there will still be persecution for those who speak it.
In saying this, I try to separate the two. But if I see an opening, I will use politics as a way to get a foot in to say the Gospel.

This is where I have been told that entering a relationship out of fear of punishment, it is not much of a relationship.

For me it has always been about present day love of Christ, the fullness and joy it brings.

Many people say that fear of judgment is a poor motivation for faith. But Scripture says otherwise: “By the fear of the Lord one departs from evil” (Proverbs 16:6). Jesus Himself warned of hell more than anyone else, not to produce shallow fear, but to expose the seriousness of sin and the urgency of salvation.
It is only when people realize the weight of their guilt and the reality of judgment that the cross shines in its true beauty. To strip the Gospel of law, judgment, and hell is to strip Christ of His glory. As Spurgeon said, “Think lightly of hell, and you will think lightly of the cross.”

So how do fear and love work together in a believer? If a person knows they have sinned and deserve punishment, that fear will drive them to flee to Christ and to live in a way that honours God. Over time, as they walk in obedience, that fear gives way to awe and is replaced with overwhelming love and gratitude for Christ’s sacrifice. Fear awakens the sinner; love sustains the saint.

Yes, love for Christ and the joy of new life are central. But that love is magnified, not diminished, when we see what we’ve been saved from. A “nice” gospel may feel compassionate, but it’s actually cruel; it leaves people blind to their real condition. If someone “accepts Christ” without ever seeing their desperate need for a Saviour, their faith will be shallow. And as Jesus warned, “when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles” (Matthew 13:21). Fear of the Lord creates a root that endures.

Here is a resource I believe you would find eye-opening. Even Charlie Kirk read this, and because it had such an effect on him, he began promoting it:
God Has a Wonderful Plan for Your Life

 

[Aaron112]

Whether you were a fan of Charlie's or not, has this prompted you to be more outspoken?

No, but maybe to give more thought to it. It has been impossible to tell if Charlie was a free mason or not, and that would or does or could change everything. btw, I never heard of him before he was killed.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Well of course people veer off onto politics because it seems politics inform their faith which is a sad thing to see

That's a ridiculous accusation. My faith informs my politics - not the other way around If not for my Christian beliefs I would not hold the worldview I hold and thereby would not vote the way I do. To accuse people blindly is inherently unfair and accusatory without evidence.

To pretend our Christian ethics don't inform our politics is to ignore truth. Because Charlie Kirk was outspoken as to his personal political positions as wellas his faith, politics will come up in any discussion about Charlie Kirk.

Voddie Baucham died the other day if you prefer, he spoke a little less about politics. He's always been one of my favorite Pastors.

 

[Hazelelponi]

intertwines the two (the political and religious)

The problem is the two are intertwined.

Our faith informs our morality and our morality informas what we vote for and against.

I believe abortion is wrong according to my faith - because I am opposed to murder and believe mankind is created in the image of God and it's that image that gives the human being worth.

On the other hand, someone who doesn't share my faith and my beliefs is more likely to think murder is fine and abortion is simply a choice.

With me you end up with someone who opposes abortion both personally and politically - as I think all murder should be illegal and those who don't share my faith will support abortion politically and personally because they have a belief that excuses and makes room for cold blood murder in society writ large and don't mind living in a society desensitized to murdering whatever unwanted segments of the same.

It's faith - and we can't separate our faith from the things we support. What you support tells us what you believe, and what you believe tells us what you will support.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Yes, homosexuality is a sin. Divorced people remarrying is a sin. Divorced people remarrying is commonly excused, so I would ask the church to be consistent on these two issues.

Even Jesus Christ said there's reason to get a divorce (adultery) so divorce isn't universally a sin. Each case is unique as to whether it is a sin.

However there's no instance of homosexuality that isn't a sin.

That's why the two things are approached differently from a policy making standpoint in society writ large, although keeping marriages together and the father in the home is a necessary thing in society so it's heavily promoted by the political right, as two parent families are the backbone of any society

When we aren't dealing with the exact same thing, we have to treat them differently. We can't promote making divorce illegal in our society when not even Jesus did that, for example, whereas we can in the case of homosexuality - and seeing the harm it causes to society, it likely should be illegal.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I don't really have any complaints until you start telling others what to do.

When we make murder illegal and a criminal offense, we are "telling others what to do". Aka, we are telling everyone who wants to kill that it's not acceptable here, and if they do so will face punishment for it.

The law told Charlie Kirks murderer not to murder Charlie Kirk before he committed the crime.

Society makes rules based on the shared values of that society - and every society has their own version of what's acceptable and what kind of punishments should be meted out for which crimes.

The left of today is pathological and anarchist, while the rest of us are simply trying to keep a society the majority citizens are safe in and can potentially prosper in.

 

[1Tonne]

Voddie Baucham died the other day if you prefer, he spoke a little less about politics. He's always been one of my favorite Pastors.

Wow. I did not know that. That is sad.

When we make murder illegal and a criminal offense, we are "telling others what to do". Aka, we are telling everyone who wants to kill that it's not acceptable here, and if they do so will face punishment for it.

The law told Charlie Kirks murderer not to murder Charlie Kirk before he committed the crime.

Society makes rules based on the shared values of that society - and every society has their own version of what's acceptable and what kind of punishments should be meted out for which crimes.

The left of today is pathological and anarchist, while the rest of us are simply trying to keep a society the majority citizens are safe in and can potentially prosper in.

Here is Charlie Kirks view on what should happen to those who kill. It is a really good answer