How to handle this unbeliever?

[evangelist6589]

According to the quotes you posted attributed to him, this person does not think the creation narrative took place in six 24 hour days, does not think the book of Job is literal, and does not think Revelation is literal. These are not salvation issues.

Furthermore, I don't see anything in your quotations of him stating that Revelation is not c@non or that he denies the blood atonement. You did say that he stated he believes the inerrancy of the gospels.

Why don't you simply ask him, "If you were to die today, where do you think your soul would go?" Then shut up and listen.

I did ask him that on the streets and he said he did not know. It was recently where he questioned the blood atonement of Christ.

I am trying to reason with him and I have some extra books I can give him AND I already have given him many scriptures defending the blood atonement.

 

[InTheLight]

It was recently where he questioned the blood atonement of Christ.

What, exactly, is his position on the blood atonement?

 

[JonC]

What, exactly, is his position on the blood atonement?

I was wondering the same. Adding to the gospel message the requirement to interpret and understand all aspects of Scripture in a way that agrees with our understanding is heresy. (Tim Keller rejects a "literal" view of Genesis... John MacArthur rejects a "literal" view of 1 John...but we don't go around calling them false converts). But the Atonement is essential to the gospel message. What is his position on the atonement?

 

[Don]

Why don't you simply ask him, "If you were to die today, where do you think your soul would go?"

I did ask him that on the streets and he said he did not know.

THAT is all we need to know; you don't need to defend your statements any further than what you just wrote. THAT is where all the other problems (biblical inerrancy, etc.) derive.

I, too, would be questioning his salvation with an answer like that.

 

[Yeshua1]

When did inerrancy become a requirement for salvation? Missed that verse I guess.

Not a requirement to be saved, but should still reaffirm what Jesus and Apostles taught concerning the scriptures!

 

[Yeshua1]

If you say the Bible is not the word of God then I question your faith.

saved persons do believe, wrongly, in it only being partially inspired, but the question on dock here with your friend is his views on jesus and what the Cross meant and did!

 

[evangelist6589]

saved persons do believe, wrongly, in it only being partially inspired, but the question on dock here with your friend is his views on jesus and what the Cross meant and did!

No that's neo-evangelicalism.

 

[evangelist6589]

THAT is all we need to know; you don't need to defend your statements any further than what you just wrote. THAT is where all the other problems (biblical inerrancy, etc.) derive.

I, too, would be questioning his salvation with an answer like that.

I am. Have not heard from him today. Lord willing he will get back or maybe I will just call him.

 

[Yeshua1]

No that's neo-evangelicalism.

I agree that is what it is, or else a type of barthism, but still means that they would be saved by the Cross if they believed about that the right way!