Skip to comments.The Most Evangelistic
Posted on 06/09/2009 9:40:29 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Facebook is an interesting tool/phenomena. Its a great way to catch up with real friends, far and wide. It also provides a way to keep up with our new friends. We can also listen in on conversations carried on in the ether world that are not our own. In that way, Facebook can become quite voyeuristic.
This morning Ive been eavesdropping on a conservation between a friend and one of his so-called friends. The latter is accusing the former of being either theologically inconsistent at best or an outright liar at worst because he claims to be evangelistic. The accusers concern, so it seems, is that the defendant apparently holds to a theological position that allegedly doesnt believe in evangelism.
The unspoken element, at least insofar as Ive been able to see from the vantage point of an outsider, is that the plaintiff assumes that he, because of his theological presuppositions, must be the more evangelistic of the two.
What we have here is a classic us versus them donnybrook with evangelism as the measuring stick of theological correctness. He who is the most evangelistic must be right.
Ironically, most of the theological positions invoked in these kinds of debates have every reason to be the most evangelistic position. Consider a few (in overly simplistic terms):
Calvinists ought to be the most evangelistic. Calvinists believe that it is Gods sovereignty that determines who will be saved and when. Calvinists believe that Gods sovereignty ensures that even their most flawed evangelistic efforts can be used for eternal good. Calvinists ought to be the most evangelistic.
The same can be said of Arminians. Arminians argue that human responsibility demands that the human will must be absolutely free before, during, and after salvation for ones faith to be valid and praiseworthy. Therefore, they contend that the eternal fate of others souls depend on the Christians faithfulness in evangelism. That said, Arminians ought to be the most evangelistic.
This debate extends to discussions of the end times as well. Those who hold to a postmillennial view, that Christ will return at the end of time once His kingdom has enveloped the earth, ought to be the most evangelistic.
Dispensationalists ought to be the most evangelistic. They believe that Christ wont return to establish His kingdom until the world has been evangelized.
Conservatives ought to be the most evangelistic. They believe in a literal hell. Theyre afraid their friends and loved ones are heading there without Christ.
Likewise, liberals ought to be the most evangelistic. The world will be a better place, they contend, when we all embrace Jesus message of universal love and self-sacrifice.
On and on, we could go. Hardly a theological position in the Christian world can be found that shouldnt be the most evangelistic, if the proponents of said systems were theologically consistent. The fact of the matter, however, is that most of us arent consistent. We hold to positions that demand that we be the most evangelistic. But, since we arent, we attack others who are, questioning their methods, their message, and their motivation.
Instead of comparing ourselves according to our theological gurus, lets compare ourselves to the biblical standard. According to Scripture, Christians ought to be the most evangelistic. We have been snatched from the teeth of death. We have been reconciled with our one time enemy. We have been made children of God. Weve got a great message because weve got a great Savior. Weve got no reason to be silent about it. We dont have a choice in the matter. Christ demands that all Christians be the most evangelistic.
I don’t understand the quote marks around “eavesdropping”? Do they make it somehow different than just regular eavesdropping?
The article said — Dispensationalists ought to be the most evangelistic. They believe that Christ wont return to establish His kingdom until the world has been evangelized.
I call “baloney” on this one... LOL...
That’s *not* what Dispensationalists believe... not at all. Sure we’re all supposed to go out and evangelize the world, but Dispensationalists don’t believe that Christ won’t come back because *they* (themselves) don’t succeed in evangelizing the world. Not at all.
They can see that in Revelation there is that angel who goes around the world, giving the everlasting Gospel to all tribes, nations and tongues, at that time, during the Tribulation period (I guess that angels is a Dispensationalist, then... LOL...).
And also there are those 144,000 Jews, who are sealed by God, who go out into the world and are giving the Word of God to the entire world. (that’s what Dispensationalist preach, whether others believe that it’s true or not... :-O )...
BUT, in practice, Dispensationalists have a great motive for evangelizing, for anyone that they personally know, because they know that *at any moment* the Rapture will come and they will be taken out of this world — and if they have any concern at all for their family, friends and coworkers, these same Dispensationalists will be telling them about the everlasting Gospel, just like that angel in Revelation will).
You said — I dont understand the quote marks around eavesdropping? Do they make it somehow different than just regular eavesdropping?
Yeah... when two people have a “conversation” using “bullhorns” to announce their conversation to the *entire world* — yes, there’s a reason for putting “eavesdropping” in quotes... LOL...
HOWEVER, what I will say, is that any theological position — which denies that God has anything to do prophetically with Israel, any longer — is teaching *DOCTRINES OF DEMONS* and doesn’t even deserve to be considered a Christian.
[ now, they may be a Christian, but they’ll be one and deny God and His prophecies, at the same time. I don’t want to personally know Christians like that... ]
Perhaps this illustration might help. Suppose you are in a restaurant, and you notice two of your friends sitting at tables across the room from each other, and you are sitting where one friend is on your left and the other is on your right though you are not directly between them. They haven't seen each other in quite some time, but rather than either one of them moving to the other's table they just talk back and forth loudly enough to hear each other (and also loudly enough for anyone else in the restaurant who cares to listen to hear them too). If you listen to their conversation, you might be "eavesdropping" because you aren't really a part of the conversation even though they are speaking loudly enough that you can't help but hear it. On the other, if they were sitting at the same table, talking privately in hushed voices, but you had planted a listening device in the salt shaker at their table, you would be eavesdropping in a more literal sense.
On Facebook, you can have "wall to wall" conversations where any of your friends or the other person's friends can see the whole conversation. You also have the option of having private chats or email conversations. Just like on FR, you can post comments back and forth and engage in a conversation on a thread (and anyone else viewing the thread sees your comments) OR you can send a private reply via FReepmail.
Well, I’m not familiar with Facebook, and I still can’t see the need for quotes, but OK and thanks.
I do believe that most of the Dispy’s I know believe that we can have a part in taking the Gospel to every people group . . . and that when that’s done . . . the end will come in relatively short order.
Given the windup MP-3 players oral Bible method . . . that’s projected to take less than 12 years IIRC.