The Problem With Evangelism

[topher694]

See post 297.

Post 297 is a double standard. If someone has a different take on a scripture, say 1 Peter 3:15, you just dismiss it out of hand. But we are just supposed to accept your meaning of it. You say you want me to respond with a scriptural argument then but apparently YOU get to define what the scriptures I am talking about mean? Double standard.

 

[JAL]

Nothing relevant here.
(See I can do it too, doesn't make it true)

I responded to those statements which seemed relevant.

 

[JAL]

Post 297 is a double standard. If someone has a different take on a scripture, say 1 Peter 3:15, you just dismiss it out of hand. But we are just supposed to accept your meaning of it. You say you want me to respond with a scriptural argument then but apparently YOU get to define what the scriptures I am talking about mean? Double standard.

No. You don't have to accept my take on that verse. That verse refers to a scenario that I never debated. Feel free to take whatever stand on it you please. Thus with respect to this thread, that verse constitutes a strawman because it has nothing to do with my posts on this thread.

 

[topher694]

Strawman. 1 Peter 3:15 was already addressed. The primacy of conscience was also mentioned. Nothing relevant here.
Oh, so you ARE 100% certain of your salvation. And you ARE 100% certain of the gospel. That's odd, since you've been condemning me for an entire thread for postulating 100% certainty. You told me it was a self--created ideal that makes zero sense.

That would be 100% certainty. The very concept you condemned me for. This makes it difficult to respond to your post because I don't know how to take you. You seem to be equivocating.

Maybe what you're saying is that we can only be 100% certain of our salvation, we can never be 100% certain of God's specific will. But that flies in the face of much of the data.

As stated, 100% certainty isn't always 24-7 (except perhaps for Jesus) and not on all issues (even Jesus had limited knowledge on earth).


Uncertainty is possible. Obviously. And?
Look, 100 billion souls are at stake. If God is willing to give me 100% certainty on my OWN salvation, why would He not be willing to give me 100% certainty on how to most effectively reach out to 100 billion souls? You don't see that your position casts aspersions on God?

100% certainty appears to be His most effective messaging-tool. Why not put it to use? My position puts the blame on MEN - it claims that men lack 100% certainty for failure to align with God. YOUR position makes it look like God doesn't WANT to use His best tool. That insinuates, as mentioned earlier, that He doesn't much care about whether the 200,000 residents of Hiroshima live or die. Even if that soldier WANTED absolute certainty before dropping the bomb, God categorically refuses to help. Huh?

(1) He apparently doesn't care much for the 200,000.
(2) He apparently doesn't care much for the 100 billion.

Look, even if I'm WRONG about 100% certainty, there's too much at stake here. I still need to be sure - 100% certain - which approach is right, whether yours or mine. So even if I'm wrong, in principle I'm still right. THAT'S what I was referring to when I said that my deduction seems more compelling than yours.

Strawman. Conscience dictates, as I've stated repeatedly. No disagreement there.

However, conscience is often misinformed. For example traditional views might bias our conscience to feel obligated to evangelize even without 100% certainty. My posts here are a corrective to that error.


I appreciated the apology but then later you resumed in the same vein.
I focus mostly on arguments, not on personal attacks. I'm not aware of being abusive on this thread.

You know it took me some time but I've figured out exactly what you are, and what you are doing. There is a biblical word for what you are doing. One that I am not going to elaborate on here. I've actually learned quite a lot. Not from any theories you've put forth, but reading this has given me some greater insight into how the enemy works. So thanks for that.

 

[topher694]

I responded to those statements which seemed relevant.

So your response is relevant, mine is not? Double standard.

 

[JAL]

You know it took me some time but I've figured out exactly what you are, and what you are doing. There is a biblical word for what you are doing. One that I am not going to elaborate on here. I've actually learned quite a lot. Not from any theories you've put forth, but reading this has given me some greater insight into how the enemy works. So thanks for that.

Good for you. Glad we're on the same side, facing a common enemy.

 

[JAL]

So your response is relevant, mine is not? Double standard.

Relevant to what? Relevant to the thread? Or relevant to the bone of contention between us? I tried to respond to any argument relevant to that bone. If I missed something, feel free to point it out.

 

[topher694]

Good for you. Glad we're on the same side, facing a common enemy.

Surprisingly, this is truer than you even know.

 

[JAL]

Surprisingly, this is truer than you even know.

Again, wonderful. Glad to hear it.

 

[JAL]

So what did my responding to your argument accomplish?

I'm glad you did. It brought to light your equivocation on the concept of 100% certainty.

 

[topher694]

Relevant to what? Relevant to the thread? Or relevant to the bone of contention between us? I tried to respond to any argument relevant to that bone. If I missed something, feel free to point it out.

1) You keep calling on me to respond to your post

2) I respond

3) You respond back by saying the key part of my point is not relevant

4) I respond in jest (that was missed) that your statement was not relevant

5) You say it was relevant because you were responding to me, which is exactly what I did in 2

6) 3 & 5, which are both YOUR statements... are contradictions... a creating a double standard

The level of hypocrisy here is staggering

 

[topher694]

I'm glad you did. It brought to light your equivocation on the concept of 100% certainty.

I do not accept 100% certainty as you have outlined it. You are twisting my words again.

 

[topher694]

I'm not aware of being abusive on this thread.

I have directly pointed it out several times as have others. You continually ignore it.

 

[JAL]

I do not accept 100% certainty as you have outlined it. You are twisting my words again.

Originally you made no disclaimers/qualifications. You categorically condemned it. Then later, after I challenged you at post 260, you finally admitted the validity of the concept of 100% certainty, at least with respect to salvation. I consider that a serious equivocation. And even if perhaps you didn't strictly equivocate, I'm glad that anyone monitoring this thread has now witnessed your advocacy of the concept. Enough said.

 

[JAL]

One can have confidence in their own salvation and still have uncertainty in their direction.

Yes. Uncertainty is possible. Where have I denied that? How is this kind of statement not a strawman?

So your position is that God is willing to make us certain of His salvation, but not of the specifics of His will. Can we be 100% certain that the Bible is true? I think you would assent. Ok,then, consider the following argument.

Paul gave epistles to his churches and apprentices. In those letters, he sometimes indicated specific commands. Therefore, if I were a recipient:

(1) I now have a specific command in writing.
(2) I am certain that this was a true, inspired writing.
Conclusion: God IS willing to grant 100% certainty as to the specifics of His will.

Feel free to continue with the insults - meanwhile I'll stick to the arguments.

 

[JAL]

topher694,

I'm curious. Are you 100% certain that God wants His church to evangelize?

 

[topher694]

Originally you made no disclaimers/qualifications. You categorically condemned it. Then later, after I challenged you at post 260, you finally admitted the validity of the concept of 100% certainty, at least with respect to salvation. I consider that a serious equivocation. And even if perhaps you didn't strictly equivocate, I'm glad that anyone monitoring this thread has now witnessed your advocacy of the concept. Enough said.

Incorrect. Just more twisting. You do not know what I meant better than I do.

 

[topher694]

Feel free to continue with the insults - meanwhile I'll stick to the arguments.

You said this to me:

Question: Have you read even one chapter of the Bible? Ever?

That is a personal attack that is WAY out of line. It is insulting and has nothing to do with the topic. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I haven't read the Bible. This is just one of many examples in this thread alone.

Once again you ignored my comment about such behavior. I will no longer interact with someone who behaves in this manner while projecting it onto others. I am ignoring you, I am unwatching this thread. Not because your argument is better as you continually claim, but because of your continued unrepentant bad behavior. I stand behind everything I stated previously. What you are putting forth is harmful, unbiblical and a doctrine of one. Repeating it over and over and over proves nothing and changes nothing.

 

[JAL]

Incorrect. Just more twisting. You do not know what I meant better than I do.

So you didn't disparage 100% certainty? Ok, if you say so. But when I look at your post #24 for example, I can hardly be faulted for misreading you. You can accuse me of twisting all you like, but I thought I was reading you correctly.

 

[JAL]

That is a personal attack that is WAY out of line.

No it's not. You categorically condemned my project which I defined as waiting upon God in prayer and praise. This left me in a state of absolute incredulity. To rephrase the question, if the 1st approach offended you, "Are you actually throwing out the whole Bible?"

I stand behind everything I stated previously. What you are putting forth is harmful, unbiblical and a doctrine of one. Repeating it over and over and over proves nothing and changes nothing.

See, there you go again. You condemning my entire project categorically.

Essentially you're ignoring one of the main points made earlier in this thread. I said that my position is a no-brainer - it's basically a cannot-lose strategy - because it is virtually impossible for us to be overcommitted to prayer and praise. My proposed project consists of remaining in prayer and praise, to the extent that conscience permits, until we get 100% certainty on the specifics of God's will. And yet, to an extent that literally defies my comprehension, you categorically condemn that project.

And then, ironically enough, you demand that I treat your stance with the uttermost reverence and respect. Whenever I don't, you insult me in every possible way.