Featured Hate speech in england

We do see in a parallel passage...


Mark 10:17-23

King James Version (KJV)


17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!


...that Christ loved him.

I think one of the primary points is to consider that this man thought he obeyed the Law, but that Christ made it clear that rote ritualistic observance is not what the Law was meant to teach.

I think we can correlate that to the Gospel, and balance our discussions concerning Eternal Separation with those we witness to. Failure to understand did not keep Christ from loving him, but at the same time it did not keep Christ from being truthful to him. The starting point here would seem to be the man's perception of what is "good." Christ makes it clear...there is none good, no, not one...but God. The man was basically placing himself on a level with Christ, in my view.

I think we might see that same thing in Don's experience, where, when failing to get Don to accept his person, the person then elevates himself over Don, charging Don with a false argument, which in that person's mind justifies the rejection. The example set by Christ is that the instruction never nullifies the motivation for the instruction, in this case, love. Most evangelism has at its root the love for others and the desire to see them saved. Dealing with unbelievers is quite different than how we interact among ourselves, and it is just my opinion that love is best presented by the fervency of the desire to see souls saved, whereby we never fail to allow our love for the lost to be overcome with our desire to instruct. It isn't going to make any difference to an unbeliever that they are "headed to Hell" if they have not come under conviction of judgment. Their condition is not so much a comparison between we and they, but a comparison between they and God. The JW in Don's example made it personal, and removed himself from an evangelistic approach to something on a human level. The man in the passage above elevated himself to a position that placed himself outside of the reality of the situation.

The correct answer for the man would have been, "But Lord...no man can keep all those." Not, "I have done that." The Lord targets his idol and the man sorrowed, not because he was told to give up his idol only, but because, I think, he understood the point. That is where the sorrow arose, I believe, rather than just a matter of his being sad that he would have to give up his possessions. What was targeted was the very thing that denied the position he claimed.


God bless.

 

I always look forward to visits from Mormons and JWs. I don't usually invite them in, because it doesn't take long for them to realize they don't really want to, lol. The last visit was very interesting. An older woman and her nephew, who was probably in his forties. They began asking if I believed the devil was real, and took me to Revelation 20. I assured them I did, and asked them what was meant by the resurrection in the passage, which led to a typical question...what does it mean to be born again? They tried to escape about three or four times, lol, but I didn't let them off the hook so easily. After admitting that they simply did not really know, I asked them, "If the Lord makes it clear in John 3 that no man can enter or perceive the Kingdom of God except he be born again/from above...isn't that something you should be ready to answer?" And I was not quite so blunt, but that was the gist of the conversation.

What I hoped to do is to point out that they were using a text that they did not actually have an understanding of to proof-text their message. They have not yet returned as they promised they would after they "studied regeneration."

I actually hoped they would return, and at that point I may have invited them in, because it would have shown that they were willing to have a discussion. Just as a suggestion, Don, I would encourage you to speak with them. You don't have to let them in your house, but you can make it clear that you are a child of the Kingdom, and in doing so, perhaps challenge them in the "Kingdom" they preach.


God bless.

 

The point of my story to Evangelist was about approach and wording. At the time, I wasn't a Christian. And guess what? With the JW's comment as he turned away, I was no longer interested in hearing what he had to say.

It was two years later before I heard the gospel message, and was saved.

 

Well, huh. I agree wholeheartedly. So should we have faith in Christ because of the law?

 

I agree; but that didn't answer my question.

 

Still didn't answer the question. Is faith planted in us because of the law?

I'll cut to the chase: I preach law AND grace to the proud AND the humble. Even the proud need to hear there's a way out provided for them.

Sending you a PM rather than sidetrack this thread further.

 

I think we can still safely say the JW elevated himself above you.

So who did you hear the Gospel from?


God bless.

 

Not sure I would agree with that. That the "aw is "vital," that is.

The Law was used to produce faith in men in the Previous Age, but in this Age the primary means of enlightenment is the Ministry of the Comforter Who specifies Gospel truth, which is a more direct message. It is true the Law can be successfully utilized in evangelistic efforts, but, we can minister the Gospel based on the basic condition of man and not bring the awareness of men to the Law. Men were violating God's will long before the Law was established, and sometimes the Law can be confusing to people, even believers. I would wager that most believers don't have a settled understanding of how the Law correlates to Christianity.


God bless.

 

Here is a reason why street preachers should record themselves preaching.
http://www.aol.co.uk/news/2016/07/2...rbal-confrontation-with-woman-in-tight-jeans/
I don't know the truth of this. If the preacher swore at and abused the woman then he deserves what he gets, but if it's a false allegation, then a recording would quickly establish the facts.

 

Romans 3:20. '......For by the law is the knowledge of sin.' The preaching of the moral law convicts men of sin and drives them to Christ for forgiveness (Galatians 3:24).