What is being "Too Pushy"?

I simply see it as a reminder that what we do is often more of a reflection of Christ and witness for him than what we say. I'm all for preaching, as long as you recognize that your life witness will probably make more of an impact on others than your words.

Howdy, folks!

I've been watching this thread with some interest. There have been some wonderful replies.

Some observations:

We have been commanded to preach the gospel to every creature. If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost. The people to whom we are sent are one heartbeat away from eternal damnation. The need is great.

In the person of our most high Saviour we have an example of how to accomplish our mission. Likewise the person of Paul, Peter, Stephen, Phillip, etc. and so on.

Looking through my Bible at the aforementioned examples I learn several things. Among them...preaching involves verbal communication. I see preaching take place at feasts, in the streets, in the synagogue of an altogether unsympathetic religion, or in general--to people who didn't know the preacher at all. So much for lifestyle evangelism. We must preach the truth of the gospel in love. This involves telling a proud and stiffnecked people things they do not wish to hear for their eternal benefit.

I also see that in my day-to-day life I am to let my "light so shine among men, that they may see your good works and glorify our Father which is in heaven." Showing Christ to the people we meet and interact with in the course of our lives is not "preaching the gospel", but rather the natural outflow of a life now regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God.

"Taking people by the shirt collar and screaming that they are going to hell...?" Yeah, that's a bit pushy. Does anybody really do that? I've never encountered it. It would have to be a rare exception rather than the rule, I think.

A long time ago a man told me that God made me to fellowship with Him and love Him and to be loved in return. This person also told me that because men chose not to follow God that sin entered the world and ruined everything. He told me that sin earned a wage which was death, and that I was guilty! He told me that death involved hell and suffering, and that God wished to save me from such a fate! He said that God loved me so much that He paid the price for me, even though I had been faithless and unloving towards Him. This person said that pardon was God's gift to me, if only I would trust Him! He showed me where God had written it all down, told me of the effects of that gift upon his own life, said the offer was open to me even now!

And ya know what? I'm mighty glad he did.

I didn't know anything about how that fellow lived...had never seen him before in my life.

I'm glad he preached. If he had waited to get to know me, had offered kindnesses without words that might offend, I might be in hell even now. Funny...looking back now, he seemed a bit pushy. Thank you Lord Jesus, for your pushy servants.

Razorbuck

I think Jesus' words to his disciples as he was sending them out on a mission are appropriate in this thread.

Matthew 10:7-16

As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.
"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

Click to expand...

Ooh... dangerous to quote Matthew 10 in a room full of dispensationalists!

I appreciate the thought, but you have to be careful. This is not a command to us (particularly gentile "us").

Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff;

Click to expand...

In Luke 22 He changed that command:

35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.


Jesus' mission changed. In short, all things in the scriptures are written for us, but not all are written to us. We can learn from Matthew 10, but that does not mean that it is given to us as a command.

We must be very careful as to what is commanded to us (the church in the epsitles) and what is given to or commanded of Israel.

bleechers said:

In short, all things in the scriptures are written for us, but not all are written to us. We can learn from Matthew 10, but that does not mean that it is given to us as a command.

Click to expand...

Cool. Then we agree since nobody said anything about commands.

BTW, I am not a dispensationalist. :blasphamy:

BTW, I am not a dispensationalist. :blasphamy:

Click to expand...

So which of Jesus' words do you heed? Those in Matthew 10 or those in Luke 22?

bleechers said:

So which of Jesus' words do you heed? Those in Matthew 10 or those in Luke 22?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by heed. I don't see every verse in the bible or Jesus' words as a list of literal commands of what I should do. Both passages give insight into Jesus' view of how his disciples were to fulfill his commission and when applied properly to our current context, can give insight into how we are to fulfill that commission. I would not recommend legalistically and literally following those verses.

Gold Dragon said:

Not sure what you mean by heed. I don't see every verse in the bible or Jesus' words as a list of literal commands of what I should do. Both passages give insight into Jesus' view of how his disciples were to fulfill his commission and when applied properly to our current context, can give insight into how we are to fulfill that commission. I would not recommend legalistically and literally following those verses.

Click to expand...

That's sounds pretty close to dispensationalism!

In this case, which do we "apply to our current context"? In the first example He says take no "purse, money, or sword". In the second He says to take "purse, money and sword". ..

bleechers said:

In this case, which do we "apply to our current context"? In the first example He says take no "purse, money, or sword". In the second He says to take "purse, money and sword". ..

Click to expand...

Luke 22 is a passage about Jesus' "final words" as it were to his disciples before he was to be arrested and crucified. He is making reference to the fact that earlier he had told them to go without the preparation of things like money and protection in faith that God will provide. We see that attitude in many missionaries today.

However, Luke 22 states that something is different and about to change. Jesus is warning his disciples that soon, preparation will be important in the coming events of his arrest and crucifixion.

I don't see any of these things as laws or commands of what we have to do when we share the gospel because the legalism of the Pharisees was condemned by Jesus. Instead, I draw from these passages that sometimes an element of faith in God's providence is important while at other times, preparation for unknown conflicts is important.

Dispensationalism tries to say that this verse is for me while that verse is for that dispensation. I sympathize because it is difficult to rationalize the bible if you insist on interpreting every verse as literally as possible. Instead, I see all of scripture as being for me as long as I read it through the critical lens of contextual discernment and the prayerful guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Dispensationalism tries to say that this verse is for me while this verse is for that dispensation. I see all of scripture is for me as long as I read it through the critical lens of contextual discernment and the prayerful guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

It's the same thing... when you read Leviticus "through the critical lens of contextual discernment and the prayerful guidance of the Holy Spirit" you know that the commands given there are not for this day (this dispensation).

However, the Luke passage states that something is different and about to change.

Click to expand...

Things change. Things were different before the Flood, before the Law, before the cross... and things are different after the Flood, after the Law and after the cross...

In very very short: THAT'S Dispensationalism

bleechers said:

It's the same thing... when you read Leviticus "through the critical lens of contextual discernment and the prayerful guidance of the Holy Spirit" you know that the commands given there are not for this day (this dispensation).

Things change. Things were different before the Flood, before the Law, before the cross... and things are different after the Flood, after the Law and after the cross...

In very very short: THAT'S Dispensationalism

Click to expand...

The difference is that I believe that things writen for a previous "dispensation" as you call it, are also applicable to me if intepreted contextually.

Let's assume that the idea of dispensations is true. Why is it that things written for an earlier dispensation don't apply to later dispensations?

Let's assume that the idea of dispensations is true. Why is it that things written for a previous dispensation don't apply to future dispensations?

Click to expand...

I'll answer your question, then you answer mine. K?

I need to modify it to read "don't apply to THIS dispensation." I hope that doesn't confuse anything.

One of many possible answers to your question: The Law.

So tell me, what from a "previous dispensation" is "applicable" to you?

I don't understand what you mean by: The Law.

I just said that I believe all of the bible written for previous dispensations is applicable to me when interpreted contextually. BTW, I am also not a biblical literalist.

Gold Dragon said:

I don't understand what you mean by: The Law.

I just said that I believe all of the bible written for previous dispensations is applicable to me when interpreted contextually. BTW, I am also not a biblical literalist.

Click to expand...

OK. First thing, the Mosaic Law was never given to me and is not meant for the Church. Paul makes this abundantly clear in the epistle to the Galatians. So, in response to your question, the Law is not DIRECTLY applicable to me.

As to your second concern, by saying that the Law in not DIRECTLY applicable to me, does not mean that I cannot profit from studying the law. Christ is gloriously seen all through the sacrifices in Leviticus. There are glorious pictures all through the OT... but we don't take the commands of the Law as commands for us. (You don't go to the Temple every year to offer a sacrifice do you?)

Thirdly... not being a "literalist" can mean many things. If it means that you don't take the history of the Bible or the prophesies of the Bible as literal, then the chasm here is much greater than dispensationalism.

Apart from obvious metaphors, how do determine what is literal and what is not? Do you believe in a literal resurrection, but not a literal flood, for example? If so, why one and not the other?

bleechers said:

OK. First thing, the Mosaic Law was never given to me and is not meant for the Church.

Click to expand...

If this is the case, I have two questions/comments: first, which one of the 10 commanment is "ok" to break if the Torah does not relate to us today? Second, the sabbath was also applicable to the alien living with the Jews, but the aliens were not Jews, if was applicable to them (aliens) then why not to us today?

bleechers said:

Paul makes this abundantly clear in the epistle to the Galatians. So, in response to your question, the Law is not DIRECTLY applicable to me.

Click to expand...

I believe Paul is referring to the Oral Torah there in Galatians not the written Torah.

Anyway.........that was not intended to spark a debate, just my thoughts........

bleechers said:

OK. First thing, the Mosaic Law was never given to me and is not meant for the Church. Paul makes this abundantly clear in the epistle to the Galatians. So, in response to your question, the Law is not DIRECTLY applicable to me.

Click to expand...

I agree that dispensationalists have created the idea of dispensations because they needed a way to justify their insistence of literal interpretations of the bible with the belief that the Law does not apply to current days.

My belief is that the Law does apply to me but it is by the saving grace of Christ that fulfills the Law and not my obedience of each verse. Paul goes into detail about the Christian perspective on the law in the book of Romans without the use of the idea of dispensations.

bleechers said:

As to your second concern, by saying that the Law in not DIRECTLY applicable to me, does not mean that I cannot profit from studying the law. Christ is gloriously seen all through the sacrifices in Leviticus. There are glorious pictures all through the OT... but we don't take the commands of the Law as commands for us. (You don't go to the Temple every year to offer a sacrifice do you?)

Click to expand...

Good thing we can agree on the modern application of the law.

The reason I don't go to the Temple has nothing to do with dispensations but has everything to do with the contextual interpretation of those verses. One of the key principles of Christianity is that our religion is one of grace, not legalistically following the literal interpretations of every verse in the bible.

bleechers said:

Thirdly... not being a "literalist" can mean many things. If it means that you don't take the history of the Bible or the prophesies of the Bible as literal, then the chasm here is much greater than dispensationalism.

Apart from obvious metaphors, how do determine what is literal and what is not? Do you believe in a literal resurrection, but not a literal flood, for example? If so, why one and not the other?

Click to expand...

That is why I keep mentioning context. Dispensationalists insist on literal interpretations of the bible and that is fine and dandy. However they have created this concept of dispensations to deal with the weakness of insisting in using literal interpretations so that it doesn't seem like they are picking and choosing what is literal and what is not. Instead, they pick and choose what applies to our current dispensation and what applies to other dispensations.

However, contextual intepretation allows for the use of literary, historical and cultural context to derive principles and teachings which are not simply literal application of verses but ones that can be applicable to any cultural and historic context. As for the use of allegory and metaphor, the literary context of a passage usually gives clues to the possiblity of allegory and metaphor. Jesus used metaphor liberally in parables and God used it liberally in the visions of the OT. I do believe in a literal ressurection and flood but am open to it being a local flood. I believe in a literal biblical history but I think that prophecy is often allegorical although it may have a literal aspect to it.

Gold Dragon said:

Dispensationalism tries to say that this verse is for me while that verse is for that dispensation. I sympathize because it is difficult to rationalize the bible if you insist on interpreting every verse as literally as possible. Instead, I see all of scripture as being for me as long as I read it through the critical lens of contextual discernment and the prayerful guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Ack!

That is why I keep mentioning context. Dispensationalists insist on literal interpretations of the bible and that is fine and dandy. However they have created this concept of dispensations to deal with the weakness of insisting of using literal interpretations to that it doesn't seem like they are picking and choosing what is literal or not. Instead, they pick and choose what applies to our current dispensation and what applies to other dispensations.

However, contextual intepretation allow for the use of literary, historical and cultural context to derive principles and teachings which are not simply literal application of verses but ones that can truly be applicable to our modern situations. As for the use of allegory and metaphor, the literary context of a passage usually gives clues to the possiblity of allegory and metaphor which Jesus used liberally in parables and the God used liberally in giving visions.

Click to expand...

ACK!!!!!!!!!!

Hey BT. It's cool to see another Canadian baptist here. Can you elaborate on your Acks!

No debate. Just clarifications

If this is the case, I have two questions/comments: first, which one of the 10 commanment is "ok" to break if the Torah does not relate to us today? Second, the sabbath was also applicable to the alien living with the Jews, but the aliens were not Jews, if was applicable to them (aliens) then why not to us today?

Click to expand...

1. I neither break nor obey any of the 10 commandments for I am not under the Law. The Law is not divisible. If you want to be under the 10 Commandments, then you must ascribe to the penalty laid out for each in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

2. Which part of the Mosaic law is OK for you to break? Why separate out the 10 commandments from the 603 other laws in the Torah? Be careful here. The NT clearly states that to be under any part of the Law is to be in obligation to the WHOLE law.

3. I am under the Law of Liberty and the Law of Christ which is much higher than the 10 Commandments. In the Law is the power of sin.

I believe Paul is referring to the Oral Torah there in Galatians not the written Torah.

Click to expand...

Based on what? In Romans "the Law" clearly refers to the Mosaic law. In Galatians the written law is referenced. There is a distinction made in the NT between the Law wriiten on "tablets on stone" and the Law written of the heart. The Oral Law (Talmudic Law) was not "written on stone", the 10 Commandments (representing the whole Law for it is indivisible) were indeed written on tablets of stone.

So when did God take you out of the land of Egypt?

What did Abraham live by 400 years before the Law? Adam, Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph? There were no 10 Commandments then. It served a purpose in the plan of God. That plan can only be understood in context of dispensations. I don't do what Adam or Abel did... they didn't do what I do... Israel in the millenium will not do as I do...

But we're getting ahead of ourselves.