Like Peter did. Like Paul did. Like just about every missionary ever.
Looking for results is not a problem. It's a sign God is blessing your efforts.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Met an "effective" evangelist
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
Like Peter did. Like Paul did. Like just about every missionary ever.
Looking for results is not a problem. It's a sign God is blessing your efforts.
Your problem is you intentionally ignore them so you do not have to be accountable to making disciples.
But you did mention it -
so again I ask : "AND WHO ON THIS BOARD WOULD SAY THIS MAN IS AN EFFECTIVE EVANGELIST?"
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
On this topic, I found this article I ran across last week to be interesting: I Don’t Take The Bible Literally, And Neither Does Anyone Else.
With none saved.
Holy Spirit filled preaching has results. Shouting at people who pass by is not preaching.
I could only get through the first paragraph because it was so sophomoric I could no longer stand it. Give me a break.
I don't agree with everything the author said, or the way he said it. But I think there is nevertheless a big picture worth considering in relation to this article -- many people don't know what "literal" means and polls that ask the question in that way are likely skewed against the number who believe the Bible is completely accurate and truthful.
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.
OK?
Really?
If you only focus on the physical and ignore the real reason people need help then yes.
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.