Featured Met an "effective" evangelist

But you did mention it -
so again I ask : "AND WHO ON THIS BOARD WOULD SAY THIS MAN IS AN EFFECTIVE EVANGELIST?"

 

It stands to reason you don't believe God uses men who hold less than perfect doctrine, but that is no more a lie than saying you deny the literal interpretation of Scripture.

You see, a man who interprets those passages about adultery, marriage, and divorce to mean it is OK to divorce his wife who refuses to "leave and cleave" lacks the hermeneutic ground to correct another for viewing Hell figuratively. A man who divorces his for such lacks the moral ground to correct a man who is at least striving for holiness. This is why sin is so dangerous in the Church. It voids any testimony we may have given. And you have gone to great strides to take a less than literal approach on things that would affect you.

 

With none saved.

 

Holy Spirit filled preaching has results. Shouting at people who pass by is not preaching.

 

The author seems to be too stupid to know what a figure of speech is and to recognize one when he sees it.

 

Our church fed 144 needy families last week. I guess we must be sinning,

 

The issue, I believe, is consistency as I use (perhaps erroneously) "literally" to include various literary types and devices. The problem is when we apply one set of rules to argue against someone but another to support our conclusions.

 

I've seen it the other way around also (people ignoring physical needs to focus on the spiritual, and of course thereby invalidating their efforts). A starving child needs food. The atheist may feed the child, but the Christian should feed the child in the name of Jesus (with the mindset that Jesus would have met the child's physical and spiritual needs).

 

OK.