The Problem With Evangelism

[Saint Steven]

Changing the fact that you misunderstood? I can't help that.

I'm at work writing as fast I can. I'm not always clear but I try to clarify when asked.

You shouldn't be doing this at work. That is stealing from your employer.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Imparting the good news of who God is can be done in so many ways, but ppl tend to 'switch off' when someone starts preaching at them.

My favourite model, if it can be applied, is to 'go the extra mile', where you try to discern the need, help shoulder a burden, then once you're walking together, the table is set for the good news of God.

 

[JAL]

Nope. Incorrect and narrow interpretation of that scripture. There are all kinds of examples to the contrary in scripture. How many prophets do you know? How many have you asked about their certainty?

Um....how about basing my beliefs - tautologically - on the very nature of honesty and integrity, as to avoid contradiction? Does that carry any weight here?

It is dangerously DISHONEST and MISLEADING for a prophet to insist, "Thus saith the Lord", if he's not really 100% sure. Remember that Moses and Joshua, for example, directed Israel to march forth to slaughter 7 nations to possess Canaan. Would YOU encourage such a murderous campaign at less than 100% certainty? I sure hope not.

 

[JAL]

You shouldn't be doing this at work. That is stealing from your employer.

Not if I make up the time later.

 

[JAL]

Right. That's why I say it is back-peddling. (inconsistent)

It obviously makes you feel better to keep so insisting. Enjoy your misconceptions.

 

[JAL]

This is a proposal, a theoretical model. Why is this not clear to you?

Depends upon which part of the model you mean - you mean the realization of the ultimate goal? For me it is a proposal, although I don't see it that way for men like Charles Finney and Yonggi Cho.

Are you in heaven yet? So it's just a proposal, a theoretical model, right? Just want to be sure you're being consistent here.

 

[topher694]

Um....how about basing my beliefs - tautologically - on the very nature of honesty and integrity, as to avoid contradiction? Does that carry any weight here?

It is dangerously DISHONEST and MISLEADING for a prophet to insist, "Thus saith the Lord", if he's not really 100% sure. Remember that Moses and Joshua, for example, directed Israel to march forth to slaughter 7 nations to possess Canaan. Would YOU encourage such a murderous campaign at less than 100% certainty? I sure hope not.

Bait and switch.

You avoided my question. How much actual experience do you have with the prophetic?

All this appears to be is an attempt to manufacture a spiritual excuse to avoid our scriptural responsibilities.

 

[JAL]

Bait and switch.

You avoided my question. How much actual experience do you have with the prophetic?

The problem is that it's hard to be sure that a message is prophetic if it doesn't impact me at 100% certainty.
I can only think of one occasion where a speaker impacted me at seemingly 100% certainty but the moment transpired quickly enough that, in retrospect, I'm not sure it attained to that level.

From statements you've made in the past, you claimed to have many years of experience with genuine prophetic ministry. And you went very much up in arms when I doubted the authenticity of those prophetic experiences.

I wasn't looking forward to repeating that kind of conversation with you.

 

[JAL]

So this is a proposal, a theoretical model.

My theoretical model has a somewhat self-certifying underpinning. Let me explain.

With 100 billion souls at stake, we NEED to wait upon God for 100% certainty in ecclesiological matters. You'll say, "That's just a theory. It might be mistaken"

Correct. Let's assume I'm in fact mistaken. With 100 billion souls at stake, I still need to be 100% certain that I'm mistaken. Anything less is too risky.

Thus, even if I'm wrong about the need to wait upon God for 100% certainty, I'm still right about it.

Thus I see my model as a no-brainer because the conclusion seems inescapable.

 

[Saint Steven]

My theoretical model has a somewhat self-certifying underpinning. Let me explain.

With 100 billion souls at stake, we NEED to wait upon God for 100% certainty in ecclesiological matters. You'll say, "That's just a theory. It might be mistaken"

Correct. Let's assume I'm in fact mistaken. With 100 billion souls at stake, I still need to be 100% certain that I'm mistaken. Anything less is too risky.

Thus, even if I'm wrong about the need to wait upon God for 100% certainty, I'm still right about it.

Thus I see my model as a no-brainer because the conclusion seems inescapable.

Please resend this post to me when you get off work.
Until then please be a good witness to your employer by being an honest employee. Thanks.

 

[topher694]

The problem is that it's hard to be sure that a message is prophetic if it doesn't impact me at 100% certainty.
I can only think of one occasion where a speaker impacted me at seemingly 100% certainty but the moment transpired quickly enough that, in retrospect, I'm not sure it attained to that level.

From statements you've made in the past, you claimed to have many years of experience with genuine prophetic ministry. And you went very much up in arms when I doubted the authenticity of those prophetic experiences.

I wasn't looking forward to repeating that kind of conversation with you.

Because you talk with 100% certainty about something you appear to have a tiny amount of experience with or exposure to. You set standards for others that are too high for any human being to meet, but don't hold yourself to the same standards. Oh, the irony.

 

[JAL]

Because you talk with 100% certainty about something you appear to have a tiny amount of experience with or exposure to. You set standards for others that are too high for any human being to meet, but don't hold yourself to the same standards. Oh, the irony.

First of all, my "standard" is that the church should emphasize prayer and praise - waiting upon the Lord. What part of Moses' example do you not understand?

"As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning." (Ex 17:11).

That seems to be the standard, all I've done is identify some tautological, obvious supportive logic, namely that, since we've got 100 billion souls at stake here, our focus should be on waiting upon the Lord for 100% certainty on how to proceed. How can we lose, on this principle? Are you afraid that, if the church accepts my theory, the Lord will get too much prayer and praise? Again, my theory is a no-brainer.

Secondly, why are you so focused on MY experience, or lack thereof? Or to put it differently, why should I be obsessed with YOUR experience, when I can look to men like Charles Finney and Yonggi Cho who seemingly won millions to the Lord, by following the very model that I'm proposing?

 

[JAL]

Because you talk with 100% certainty...

Actually I wish I already did have 100% certainty. See my signature.

 

[JAL]

The prophetic can be a powerful tool in evangelism, but no prophet operates with 100% certainty. That would be exceedingly dangerous and lead to pride and destruction. Humility should be one of the core characteristics of a prophet.

The divine Voice endued the prophet Abraham with 100% certainty about murdering his own son. Why so? A psychopath - a man with an enormously warped conscience - might be willing to kill his own son on less than 100% certainty, but no good man would do so. The prophet Abraham was NOT a psychopath, he was a good man. The unavoidable conclusion is that the Voice gave him 100% certainty.

But here's the clincher. Hebrews 11 celebrates his attempted murder as one of the most righteous acts of faith in human history. Thus the kind of faith set forth in Hebrews as the paradigm for all of us to aspire to is 100% certainty. Exegesis will never take us there, but the divine Voice can.

 

[topher694]

First of all, my "standard" is that the church should emphasize prayer and praise - waiting upon the Lord. What part of Moses' example do you not understand?

See here's the problem. If I or anyone see things differently, your response is "what part of [fill in the blank] don't you understand?" You assume anyone who has a different understanding has NO understanding, yet you hold up a standard of 100% certainty which you don't meet. That's called bullying and hypocrisy.

That seems to be the standard, all I've done is identify some tautological, obvious supportive logic, namely that, since we've got 100 billion souls at stake here, our focus should be on waiting upon the Lord for 100% certainty on how to proceed. How can we lose, on this principle? Are you afraid that, if the church accepts my theory, the Lord will get too much prayer and praise? Again, my theory is a no-brainer.

Because this is at best a narrow understanding at worst straight up wrong. What about when Jesus sent out the 70? Why would He tell them to wipe the dust off their feet when they are rejected if He and they were evangelizing with 100% certainty? Why Paul have ever feared going anywhere or ever been arrested and beaten or ever had people reject his message if he was operating with 100% certainty? Why would Jesus say that the least... THE LEAST in the kingdom of heaven would be greater that the greatest of the OT Prophets, John the Baptist, if they couldn't minister to people without 100% certainty... Your "theory" doesn't line up with Biblical experience OR real world experience... It makes no sense. And you have zero fruit to back it up. Which leads to:

Secondly, why are you so focused on MY experience, or lack thereof?

Because, you are telling people, especially prophets, how they should behave when you don't know what it means to be a prophet. All you have is an opinion that is not 100% certain, but ridicule those who differ. This type of behavior causes DAMAGE to believers. It makes them question if they can hear God for themselves, question their faith, even question their salvation. I've seen it set good people back, even make them walk away from God because they feel like they can never measure up. I have seen it first hand and had to deal with the aftermath, it is ugly.

Or to put it differently, why should I be obsessed with YOUR experience, when I can look to men like Charles Finney and Yonggi Cho who seemingly won millions to the Lord, by following the very model that I'm proposing?

How about because I am a Prophet, and I'm 100% certain you are wrong? You'd have to believe me then, right?
How about because knowing how Charles Finney and Yonggi Cho operate, neither would advocate the model you are proposing. You have twisted their words and ministries to fit your narrative.


Truly, you should just stop posting and responding until you are 100% certain. What you are engaging in here could be considered a form of evangelism, or at least considered attempting to teach evangelism, and if you are attempting to do those things without 100% certainty, well... I don't have to tell you what the consequences of that are do I? At the very least it is hypocrisy, but if we were to follow the letter of scripture as you have suggested... look out.

 

[topher694]

The divine Voice endued the prophet Abraham with 100% certainty about murdering his own son. Why so? A psychopath - a man with an enormously warped conscience - might be willing to kill his own son on less than 100% certainty, but no good man would do so. The prophet Abraham was NOT a psychopath, he was a good man. The unavoidable conclusion is that the Voice gave him 100% certainty.

But here's the clincher. Hebrews 11 celebrates his attempted murder as one of the most righteous acts of faith in human history. Thus the kind of faith set forth in Hebrews as the paradigm for all of us to aspire to is 100% certainty. Exegesis will never take us there, but the divine Voice can.

Are you 100% certain about this?
If I have come to a different conclusion, is your conclusion truly, then, unavoidable?
Are you 100% certain the divine Voice told you this?

 

[JAL]

See here's the problem. If I or anyone see things differently, your response is "what part of [fill in the blank] don't you understand?" You assume anyone who has a different understanding has NO understanding, yet you hold up a standard of 100% certainty which you don't meet. That's called bullying and hypocrisy.

I argue vigorously but I don't think I bully people.

 

[JAL]

Because this is at best a narrow understanding at worst straight up wrong. What about when Jesus sent out the 70? Why would He tell them to wipe the dust off their feet when they are rejected if He and they were evangelizing with 100% certainty? Why Paul have ever feared going anywhere or ever been arrested and beaten or ever had people reject his message if he was operating with 100% certainty? Why would Jesus say that the least... THE LEAST in the kingdom of heaven would be greater that the greatest of the OT Prophets, John the Baptist, if they couldn't minister to people without 100% certainty... Your "theory" doesn't like up with Biblical experience OR real world experience... It makes no sense. And you have zero fruit to back it up.

You're creating strawmen. There may be times when God wants you to witness to a Pharisee or a King, even if he knows in advance that neither will repent. That fact doesn't exempt you from the obligation to seek 100% certainty as to His will. With 100 billion souls at stake, we cannot afford to play guessing games. It's too risky.

 

[JAL]

How about because I am a Prophet, and I'm 100% certain you are wrong? You'd have to believe me then, right?

Sure, if I am 100% certain that you are in the right.

 

[topher694]

I argue vigorously but I don't think I bully people.

Are you 100% certain about that? I have counseled sweet, sincere, loving people who were in tears and felt distanced from God because someone treated them exactly the way you have acted here. THAT is why I'm so passionate about it.