honey or vinegar?

[ByzantineDixie]

If you look at the story of Jesus and the woman at the well, he wasn't nasty but he didn't waste any time pointing out her sin either.

What wasn't clear to me in the OP was...are you just wanting to approach the person nicely, engage in a conversation and then bring out the Law where the person can be made to understand their sin, how their sin has separated them from God and why they need a Savior? Or are you just wanting to begin with the "God is love" message.

The whole "God is love, come believe because you are loved" is not the scriptural message. The message of scripture is one of Law and Gospel. Law, so that the sinner becomes aware of his sin and eternal separation from God that sin has caused and Gospel, the sweet balm of salvation bought for us by the death and resurrection of our Christus Victor. That's the only message there is...God is LOVE can only be understood in the context of that message.

I am not saying we have to hit people over the heads with Bibles the second we start talking to them but frankly, outside the context of Law / Gospel the God is Love message flat out doesn't work. God shows us how much He loves us by Christ crucified. If a person doesn't understand the weight of his sin then the whole thing is crazy won't make sense.

So I guess my response would be sure...be kind, be gentle, be ready to comfort but don't try to give the Gospel message before the full weight of the Law has hit. It can't work.

Peace

Rose

 

[herev]

If you look at the story of Jesus and the woman at the well, he wasn't nasty but he didn't waste any time pointing out her sin either.

What wasn't clear to me in the OP was...are you just wanting to approach the person nicely, engage in a conversation and then bring out the Law where the person can be made to understand their sin, how their sin has separated them from God and why they need a Savior? Or are you just wanting to begin with the "God is love" message.

The whole "God is love, come believe because you are loved" is not the scriptural message. The message of scripture is one of Law and Gospel. Law, so that the sinner becomes aware of his sin and eternal separation from God that sin has caused and Gospel, the sweet balm of salvation bought for us by the death and resurrection of our Christus Victor. That's the only message there is...God is LOVE can only be understood in the context of that message.

I am not saying we have to hit people over the heads with Bibles the second we start talking to them but frankly, outside the context of Law / Gospel the God is Love message flat out doesn't work. God shows us how much He loves us by Christ crucified. If a person doesn't understand the weight of his sin then the whole thing is crazy won't make sense.

So I guess my response would be sure...be kind, be gentle, be ready to comfort but don't try to give the Gospel message before the full weight of the Law has hit. It can't work.

Peace

Rose

I'm with you 100%

 

[porcupine]

That was the way he preached, you are 100% correct, yet when he dealt with (one on one) the prostitute caught in sin, first he kept her from being stoned, next, he said he didn't condemn her, then he told her to go and sin no more.

He kept her from being stoned in violation of the Law -- without witnesses, without her "companion," and without a trial. It wasn't because He approved of her sin. Nor was she unconvinced of her sin. He commanded her to sin no more. I'm sure you would say a modern preacher who said such was too harsh too.

 

[porcupine]

perhaps, but I doubt it. He's determined to continue tormenting God's enemies, of which I think he feels I am one

I don't know if you are, herev. I know you represent yourself as a Rev. which means your culpability level is much higher than other believers -- and your need for open and direct confrontation is higher, too. I confronted you on the overall sense I got from what you said about how you deal with the lost. I believed, given what you said, that you were playing soft on sin with them. If that is true, you would be leading them to Hell, no matter how many times you told them that Jesus loved them. You are in a position of authority, so the blood on you hands is liable to be worse. Think about it.

My epigram is tongue in cheek (and i think you know that -- but it is possible that you take yourself so seriously that you have lost your sense of humor). The Scripture teaches that when God's people do His will, the wicked really hate it. Thus, when I do the will of God (which must be done in the love of God) it automatically torments God's enemies. It is terrible having to explain a joke, isn't it?

 

[herev]

He kept her from being stoned in violation of the Law -- without witnesses, without her "companion," and without a trial. It wasn't because He approved of her sin. Nor was she unconvinced of her sin. He commanded her to sin no more. I'm sure you would say a modern preacher who said such was too harsh too.

How do you know she was concinced of her sin before he told her to go and sin no more?
Your surety of what I preach is not only lacking in any foundation, it is wrong. I preach in the same sequence that Jesus dealt with the woman. I do not condemn, Go and sin no more.
God bless.

 

[herev]

I don't know if you are, herev. I know you represent yourself as a Rev. which means your culpability level is much higher than other believers -- and your need for open and direct confrontation is higher, too. I confronted you on the overall sense I got from what you said about how you deal with the lost. I believed, given what you said, that you were playing soft on sin with them. If that is true, you would be leading them to Hell, no matter how many times you told them that Jesus loved them. You are in a position of authority, so the blood on you hands is liable to be worse. Think about it.
My epigram is tongue in cheek (and i think you know that -- but it is possible that you take yourself so seriously that you have lost your sense of humor). The Scripture teaches that when God's people do His will, the wicked really hate it. Thus, when I do the will of God (which must be done in the love of God) it automatically torments God's enemies. It is terrible having to explain a joke, isn't it?

I represent myself as a Rev because the Bishop and the Board of Ordained Ministry represent me that way, too--not to mention, being called and ordained by God to do so. Yes, my culpability level is higher--that is scriptural--the need for open and direct confrontation depends on the circumstances. Am I dealing with a brother who knows me and respects my opinion? Or am I dealing with a stranger who does not know Christ?
Again, your belief of how I deal with sin is lacking, since you only read things I posited in a forum thread on one particular sin--you still haven't figured out that I do not condone sin, nor do I ever preach it is ok, I merely believe that we ought to love them before we preach to them--and that we ought not let our own prejudices lead us to treat some sins as worse than others. IF they show up and are told to straighten up b4 they are welcome, they won't stay and hear the gospel. Never have I tried to lead somone to Christ by telling them only that Jesus loves them. I do believe they all they need to know at first is that Jesus died for them to atone for their sins--something they could never do on their own. as the old adage goes, they don't care how much you know (about sin or anything else) until they know how much you care.
Yes, I really understand your signature. I got the joke. By the way. This:
"perhaps, but I doubt it. He's determined to continue tormenting God's enemies, of which I think he feels I am one" taken from my earlier post
was a Joke--note the tears as a reference to your continued reference to my immaturity, based on the ironic way you choose to torment others in the forum who disagree with you, whether they are enemies of Christ or not. It was intended for the person I quoted the response to, as she was present in the other thread where you demeaned, belittled and insulted me, my intelligence, my aptitude for reading and studying scripture. It was based on the irony I saw in your signature. I do hate to have to explain a joke.
But still, in spite of the poisened quills sent my way--I still love you and hope God continues to bless you in your endeavors.

 

[porcupine]

herev,

Of course! You're right about everything.
(Keep what you've got.)

 

[Polycarp1]

The key point to me is that we're told to go and spread the Good News.

And the Good News is not "you're sinners destined for Hell" but rather "God loves you and wants to give you eternal life with Him."

To be sure, repentance plays a part in that, but the key is in the affirmative -- we are His beloved children, who have made grievous mistakes, but He's prepared to forgive them if we will just turn to Him.

Sin is real and important. But a focus on sin and not the fruits of salvation is like a doctor diagnosing an illness but not informing the patient of the cure.

Peace.

 

[HomeBound]

I chose the "Love them as they are without condemnation--then tell them how to live righteously" for lack of an "other" catagory. I don't believe it's up to all of us to teach how to live righteously. That comes from the examples we set by the way we live our own lives. We are not all teachers. I believe a lot of people in this forum still have "beams" in their eyes, and haven't yet learned how to remove them, myself included.

I'm not copping out of the responsiblity of "teaching the Gospel" But if you look at the gifts of the spirit, there are some that are specifically meant for the responsibility of teaching. And I don't believe that all who claim to "teach" have recieved those specific spiritual gifts. I don't know if you've noticed, but the people that Jesus addressed with "Go into the world, and teach the Gospel", did it with powerful gifts of healing and casting out demons.

It is even mentioned that the gift of speaking in tongues is to edify the believer, not the unbeliever, where as the gift of prophecy, and others are to edify the unbelievers. There's a reason these gifts are given. They are given according to the works the recipient is meant to do, and each gift is given in accordance to that work. We all can't be the eyes, or the hands of the body, but we should all accept in mekeness those responsibilities set forth by God.

see also 1 Corinthians 12 & 13

 

[herev]

herev,

Of course! You're right about everything.
(Keep what you've got.)

Thanks, but I have never presented myself as knowing everything. I have never told anyone of their interpretation, "you need to grow up and learn to read the Bible."
I have never told anyone, "If you can't follow that, you can't follow Jesus." I have never told anyone "Wake up and teach what's in the Word," concerning their doctrine, nor have I questioned anyone's authority, maturity, or sincerety.etc. Instead, I have responded by apologizing multiple times for any misunderstandings or insults, intentional or not, without the apology being accepted. I have asked forgiveness only to hae it not offered.
I have not even defended myself against individual attackes until I was "awakened" by someone crossing a line and assuming they had the right to judge those who are under my care as spiritual leader, suggesting that their salvation is in question. I am their spiritual guide and I DONT HAVE THAT RIGHT. I don't pretend to be always right--either here, one on one in witnessing, or in the pulpit.
As to keeping what I have--??? I have no idea what that means, but I'll hang on tight to my salvation that comes as a free gift from a loving, merciful, wise God.
Thanks
Tommy

 

[herev]

The key point to me is that we're told to go and spread the Good News.

And the Good News is not "you're sinners destined for Hell" but rather "God loves you and wants to give you eternal life with Him."

To be sure, repentance plays a part in that, but the key is in the affirmative -- we are His beloved children, who have made grievous mistakes, but He's prepared to forgive them if we will just turn to Him.

Sin is real and important. But a focus on sin and not the fruits of salvation is like a doctor diagnosing an illness but not informing the patient of the cure.

Peace.

well said, thanks for the input

 

[porcupine]

The key point to me is that we're told to go and spread the Good News.

And the Good News is not "you're sinners destined for Hell" but rather "God loves you and wants to give you eternal life with Him."

To be sure, repentance plays a part in that, but the key is in the affirmative -- we are His beloved children, who have made grievous mistakes, but He's prepared to forgive them if we will just turn to Him.

Sin is real and important. But a focus on sin and not the fruits of salvation is like a doctor diagnosing an illness but not informing the patient of the cure.

Peace.

Jesus spread the good news -- "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
The everlasting "good news" (gospel) according to the Bible is as follows:

Revelation 14:6-7
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

This is GOOD news, friend.

You are wrong to say, "we are His beloved children, who have made grievous mistakes." Sin is deliberate rebellion. We are not His children until we are born again.

Also, your introduction of a cure is useless unless the patient is convinced he has the disease. The disease is total moral guilt before God. The Law proves it. We are not forgiven until we acknowledge that sin and guilt. If you do not convince the person of the diagnosis, they will nbever accept the cure -- repentance and death through the cross of Christ.

 

[Polycarp1]

I think the problem here is in people seeing this as a theological dispute. What it is, is an apologetical (and in the case of herev a homiletical) dispute.

Do we focus on sin? Or on the alternative which God graciously makes available?

 

[porcupine]

Instead, I have responded by apologizing multiple times for any misunderstandings or insults, intentional or not, without the apology being accepted.

And I told you that there was no need as you had not harmed me at all. You can't accept that?

I have asked forgiveness only to hae it not offered.

As I said, I cannot offer forgiveness for something that was no offense to me.

 

[porcupine]

I think the problem here is in people seeing this as a theological dispute. What it is, is an apologetical (and in the case of herev a homiletical) dispute.

Do we focus on sin? Or on the alternative which God graciously makes available?

Jesus focused on sin first since it was the impediment to God. He preached "Repent!" -- the very use of the word shows He was telling people that they had sin to repent of.

 

[Polycarp1]

Is "repentance" the turning from sin, or the turning to God? I'm not trying to be a smartalec -- obviously it's both. But to me the question herev posed depends on which you emphasize -- and certainly Jesus did not need to come to preach a legalistic adherence to the Law -- the Pharisees had that bit of sermonizing quite under control. Instead, he condemns them for focusing on what separates man from God and preaches the availability of salvation to all who repent.

It's not that anybody is denying the reality of sin -- it's a question of what is the focus of the Christian message. And apparently we disagree on what that ought to be.

 

[porcupine]

Is "repentance" the turning from sin, or the turning to God? I'm not trying to be a smartalec -- obviously it's both. But to me the question herev posed depends on which you emphasize -- and certainly Jesus did not need to come to preach a legalistic adherence to the Law -- the Pharisees had that bit of sermonizing quite under control. Instead, he condemns them for focusing on what separates man from God and preaches the availability of salvation to all who repent.

Gee, I thought Jesus condemned them for hypocricy -- for not acting in accord with what they preached, for coveting when they preaced against it, etc. Where does he condemn the Pharisees for preaching against sin, i.e., ""what separates man from God"?

(BTW, it is possible to only turn from sin and not TO God. Alcoholics in AA do it all the time. However, it is not possible to turn to God and not turn from sin.)

It's not that anybody is denying the reality of sin -- it's a question of what is the focus of the Christian message. And apparently we disagree on what that ought to be.

The fact is most people have no ide that they have offended a holy God -- that they are miserable, lost sinners. Such people are those Jesus Christ came to save -- but they cannot be saved until they know and acknowledge that. (1 John 1:9) Yes, most people will agree that they have sinned, but they don't think it serious enough to warrant Jesus dying for them and their repenting (truning away from) sin. This is why we need to preach the Law -- so that all the world will be presented as guilty before God. Once that message sinks in, then they are ready for the cure.

Of course the assumption when I say this has been and, I'm sure will continue to be, that it must be done in a harsh or bombastic way. Sometimes that is true, other times it is not. This is why the poll is bogus. It presents a false dichotomy (but someone already brought that up and it was ignored then, too).

 

[herev]

Of course the assumption when I say this has been and, I'm sure will continue to be, that it must be done in a harsh or bombastic way. Sometimes that is true, other times it is not. This is why the poll is bogus. It presents a false dichotomy (but someone already brought that up and it was ignored then, too).

Not so, it was not ignored, it was acknowledged and agreed with--see post 19

 

[Celticflower]

Jesus focused on sin first since it was the impediment to God. He preached "Repent!" -- the very use of the word shows He was telling people that they had sin to repent of.

It seems to me that everyone is forgetting the very first act of Jesus was an act of love. He was BORN, a simple human baby. He lived the life of the people of his day. And he did it BEFORE he preached a word or condemned a sin (at least, that we know of). What better way to reach a people than to live with them and learn their failings. Isn't this love?

Love is not turning a blind eye to the sins of another. It is showing them in a loving manner that what they are doing is wrong and showing them a better way. Otherwise we could end up like the extremist who will kill you for not converting to their form of religion. Aren't there enough wars started in God's name without starting little ones with every person you meet who doesn't meet your standard of rightousness? None of us are perfect, none of us has the authority to determine who goes to Heaven and who goes to hell, and none of us can save another's soul. We each have our strengths and weaknesses. It is how we use those that determines how well we live our lives for God.

Celtie

 

[Zona]

...I agree there is a time for righteous anger--Jesus always seemed to use it, however, when he dealt with those who misused their position of authority or their use of the temple. I haven't found a situation where the whip is the first course of action in dealing with outsiders who are lost in their sin. What do you think?

I am not sure if the temple sellers, adulterous woman, or tax collectors were outsiders, so I am not sure if Christ treated them differently than others.

I do believe that if we truly love a person we will gently and boldly tell them if their behavior is destructive to themselves. Sin is the vehicle for destruction of our lives; it does not passively exist in us, but rather leads us to our own harm. Its natural end is death. So to keep silent while someone we love destroys themselves is a grave error.

I think if we speak out against sin without love, we are performing a worthless act and we are sinning. Could this be the crux of your concern?