First, let me say that I think we largely agree and have mostly semantical things to hash out.
I'll give it a try.
Thwingly said:
And, regarding 2 Timothy 4:2, I think that all men should strive to do this, since we see our friends a lot more than our pastors and teachers. I strive for it but I'm not a teacher myself, however that does not excuse me for not warning a friend of a sin they have committed. I also think that the advice can be taken to an extent with non-believers, especially of the type that claims to be Christian but has not actually recieved Christ. Besides, the essential is not on the word preach, but on preaching the Word.
What I meant here was not that pastors and teachers are responsible for carrying out the actions described in this passage with respect to unbeliever, but rather that the passage specifies a pastor's behavior WRT to the flock.
Of course, I think, such directions can be generalized to other situations. It just that to support the idea of witnessing (or preaching) to the lost, the other passages I suggest, IMHO, work better.
Thwingly said:
Hebrew 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
If you don't use God's word in preaching/witnessing, you lose the advantage from this verse. The Bible, being one of our strongest weapons, should not be ignored. Some non-believers may have misunderstandings about the Bible which may incline them to not believe in it. I talked with someone today who believed that he would go to heaven, despite him being confessing to be a liar. It would not have been wise for me to just say, "well that's not how it is," rather I supported what I said from the Bible, a much greater figure of authority than I (I hope my thoughts are somewhat organized, but if they aren't I apologize).
I don't think I suggest that the Bible be ignored. But I think I know what you are referring to in my post. In my response to
Wasp I said
Picking a friend's most identifiable sin and looking up all the scripture that could apply and preaching at them is only gonna turn them off.
I am not proscribing the use of scripture in my recommendation. I am suggesting that ambushing a friend with a book-sized treatise of why their sin is sin is, in general, a bad idea. (Note from several posts ago, I suggest that one should always allow the Holy Spirit to guide and correct your course. The HS may direct against these generalities for some specific case, but that, I think, doesn't detract from the usefullness of generalities.)
As to your friend, the liar: it sounds as if he had a western generalized comprehension of Christianity. That is, he believes in heaven as conceived of by Christians. He believes in God, perhaps in the same way devils do (see James), as we conceive of him. He is profoundly influenced by a Christian world view. Quoting scripture to him corrects his beliefs that
already lie within a Christian framework.
Also, it sounds as if you'd already established a relationship with this person or at least established the right to carry on such a dialog with him.
What I am getting at, perhaps, is that the Gospel is the good news that Jesus came so that we might have a real relationship with God, that we might have life and that more abundantly.
Most folks don't need a detailed list of 40 passages explaining why strip poker is "evil" to come to the realization that all is not right in their lives. In general, what they need is knowledge of redemption.
You give 'em that list, you're likely to get either "gee, you are rather obsessed with sexual sin, aren't you" or "get the *bleep* out of my life, you festering mass of hypocrisy". (Of course, if the Holy Spirit brought you to that point, you would succeed -- but again, I'm discussing generalities.)
In addition, of course, getting them to stop a particular sin doesn't make them a Christian, even if you
could convince them.
Let the Holy Spirit do the convicting.
In your posts you listed 3 things we are do to for unbelievers. These are:
-Merely let the light of God shine in us.
-Merely present the information when asked.
-Presenting the information (not necassarily when asked)?
I would suggest adding prayer and love, and removing the "merely's" from the first two.
Yes, of course, we should pray and love. Part of my point, is that "preaching
at" is almost always done in absense of love. It is almost always interesting in demonstrating one's own righteousness or winning some a point in the non-existent game of win-your-neighbor.
When I use the word "mere", I am using it in the same way that C. S. Lewis did. That is, Christianity unencumbered with extras or with the peculiarities of denomination. Here, to "merely" letting the light shine is to be un-encumbered with usurping God's functions. To let the light shine is no small thing. To do so requires on-going sensitivity to the leading of the Holy Spirit and using discernment in any given situation to determine what words are required.
To merely present the information is to avoid self-aggrandizment. It is to present an environment where the seeker will feel comfortable to continue seeking. Is there a point where the Holy Spirit might have you draw a line in the sand? Sure. E.g., "Look we've been talking around the bush for 3 years now. The point has been and is now 'do you acknowledge your need for God', otherwise, there is not much more to say."
So with this clarification, I don't think I'm prepared to remove the word "merely".
I might also add that you said we are done after presenting the information, first of all, define broadly, what information? (The Gospel, apologetics, testimony and such...)
Well, of course, it just depends. All of it, none of it, some of it, it just depends. In general, one's testimony is among the best ways to go. It is unassailable. One cannot refute that God did something for you. They may be skeptical that your experiences aren't all in your head, but they cannot deny without calling you a liar that you had experiences. I don't think most would dare do so, even in their own private thoughts. Especially, if you've loved them to the point where they are ready for the conversation in the first place.
Beyond the testimony, depending on how specific it was, the Gospel would be next. After understanding what it means to you, they are prepared to hear how it all works -- substitutionary atonement (without the fancy words), etc.
Apologetics is rarely useful. I wouldn't say never. I would guess most often that your average non-christian who can argue apologetics would do so to avoid the real issue -- his/her need for God.
Nevertheless when encountered with an intellectual atheist, this can be useful. My co-worker is an atheist. He used to be a Christian (neglecting OSAS issues). I think to some extent lack of intellectual challenge from Christians and lack of answers to tougher philosophical questions has left him cold.
With him, I discuss what Christianity means to me. But beyond that, we exchange philosophy books. We take walks at lunch time and discuss these concepts. For me, each concept is cast in the light of Christianity. I say these things explicitly. For example, "The skeptics views as outlined by Russell strike me as very similar to the Christian concept of ..." He knows that I will do this. I know he will explain to me what it means to him absent a god. I never brow beat him.
I think he is softer to Christianity as a result of my openess and non-antagonistic responses to his ideas.
If ever he turns from atheism, I have some hope God may use me.
As I say, this is different kind of issue than usual though.
The flowers offers a good reason for taking it's nectar. The flower gives the bee something that tastes good and that is useful, and it also has it in abundance. So, if your analogy remains consistent to this point, we should offer good reasons for Christianity, it should be relevant to the people we talk to, and we should be well versed in Christianity if some overly-curious minds should arise (I don't mean these reasons to be exclusive).
This is precisely what I am getting at.
It might also be added that the bees afterwards produce honey for men's tongues to be sweetenized (not a real word..).
Heh. Maybe you should be an ad-writer!
Well, in summary, the primary thing is the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Often, in a rush to obey the Great Commission, we take the mission on ourselves and from our own strength rather than allowing the Holy Spirit his rightful place (first place) in the process. We often plow ahead with self-righteousness. We are consumed with being right rather than discerning. We want to
do something for God without asking whether that is what he wants us to do.
Tinker
