Pagan-Friendly Worship

[Aaron]

Now, I really must go!

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Aaron:
I just can't stay away! This is too good! First, I will abandon the try-to-answer-every-trifling-jab reply. I seldom use it, as you know. It makes for interminable posts and very easily gets the thread off track.

It's easy enough to follow. Usually the parts that the other person cannot answer are dropped.

You must picture me smiling as I type this, because my problem is just the opposite. I often say things in person I would never commit to writing!

Which is what people often say on such message boards. I'm not too surprised. You fit the psychological type here.

Seriously, though, one of the evidences of being filled with the Spirit is being bold to speak. Whatever character flaw inflicts the carnal mind, I can assure you, the fear of confrontation is not one of mine. I'm not scared of anyone—anyone!

I should think that we are all scared of certain people. Why, it seems you're scared of homosexuals.

Now take some friendly advice. Next time you want to make a personal jab, don't use one that will poke just about everyone on your side, too, including yourself.

Such as?

The second doozie is your praise for the scandalous revision of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Your saying it could be just as true when told as The Good Homosexual? What's next? The Good Pedophile? How about The Good Voyeur? Now, you think of some. The Good (insert term for sexual deviant here).

Whatever - it makes you cringe just as much as the original one made the Pharisees cringe. The fact is that the homosexual, pedophile, and voyeur are your neighbors and God commands that we treat them a certain way.

Absolutely hellish. It says alot about the fountainhead of your theology. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.

Funny how you dropped the whole judge argument. I find that quite interesting how in the previous post you are quick to pass judgment but reserve such judging on yourself to God. You know, the Pharisees thought Jesus Christ was evil, too.

First, your impression of the word prophesy is somewhat puerile. The word means simply to speak forth, and is used to signify one who speaks forth the mind and will of God. It is used in the NT not only of future-telling, but also of the ordinary act of preaching.

Thayer's shows quite easily that the word propheteuo has a definite connotation of telling the future. Thayer's references several extra-Biblical support as well. Preaching - as you are referring - is karugma. Prophesy, in the NT, is far from "the ordinary act of preaching."

This is elementary. So you can see that I have not misapplied anything. Quite the contrary, I have eminently applied it in its proper sense.

Continue your Greek studies.

But lest you repeat the mistake of saying that "preach" can take many forms, I suggest you follow your own advice and study the Greek word behing the word "preach," and look at its usage in the NT.

I've shown you what preach meant earlier.

The facts are - (that haven't been addressed) - 1. You are still posting as if you live the life of the Pharisee.

2. We cannot expect non-believers to reach out to us - we have been called to reach out to them.

3. You won't have lunch with sinners, despite Christ's example to do so.

4. Hang out is not a profane term. The fact that you believe it is says much about your view of the world.

5. The purpose of bringing Paul to the temple was to mock him, not to hear him preach.

6. You write as if you hate non-believers.

7. You openly question my salvation. That says much about who you really are.

 

[Aaron]

I was called into work. It seems we're having a persistent problem with one of the cryo pumps. While waiting on the system to base out and the heaters to settle, I thought I'd see if Scott had a moment to reply.

Scott, you can think what you want about my neglect of your more inconsequential arguments. If you want to think that you have me in the crushing grip of reason what can I do about that? You are way off topic, but I'll be willing to discuss some of it privately with you if you wish. I'm determined to keep my replies as close to the topic as possible.

Here I will answer one of your direct questions and teach you how the NT gift of prophecy is manifested.

In response to this friendly advice to you, "Next time you want to make a personal jab, don't use one that will poke just about everyone on your side, too, including yourself," you asked, "Such as..."

Don't think that I am going to suggest some personal jabs for you to use against me. To do that I would have to be dumber than you look . Think up your own.

Secondly, the NT prophet is not characterized primarily by foretelling the future, though there was a little of that when the church was just born. The NT prophet is one who is characterized by a seemingly natural (it is a spiritual) ability to open up and explain the Word of God to someone else. And to this characteristic Paul bears witness when he said, and though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge. "All" mysteries and "all" knowledge is a form of hyperbole, of course. But so is, "the tongues of men and angels," and "all faith so that I could remove mountains." The point is that Paul magnified the characteristic manifestation of those gifts when he used them in contrast to the exercise of charity.

So, you see that again, my view is the one that is based on the examples provided in the Scriptures.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Aaron:
Secondly, the NT prophet is not characterized primarily by foretelling the future, though there was a little of that when the church was just born. The NT prophet is one who is characterized by a seemingly natural (it is a spiritual) ability to open up and explain the Word of God to someone else. And to this characteristic Paul bears witness when he said, and though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge. "All" mysteries and "all" knowledge is a form of hyperbole, of course. But so is, "the tongues of men and angels," and "all faith so that I could remove mountains." The point is that Paul magnified the characteristic manifestation of those gifts when he used them in contrast to the exercise of charity.

So, you see that again, my view is the one that is based on the examples provided in the Scriptures. [/QB]

Look up all the NT uses of propheteuo, and you see that you are incorrect here. Again, a quick look at any lexicon worth its salt agrees. Paul's use of prophesy in this context does not help you at all. As much as you would like to be able to isolate verses out of context, this is simply not good hermeneutics. I've provided you with Thayer's definition of the word. Strong's agrees with Thayer's. Do you have any support for your position... real support?

 

[Aaron]

I will repeat what I said about prophecy, and then quote Thayer's, as Scott is especially enamoured with that particular Lexicon, and then provide the denotative meaning of the Greek itself.

We will also look at the NT descriptions and examples of the exercises of that gift that are NOT future-telling.

From this you will be able to see that I was right (again), for this is not the first time I've ever looked into the gift having come out of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement some 15 years ago.

You will also see that Scott is not a skilled interpreter nor expositor, and, worse, not wholly forthcoming.

First, what I said:

The word means simply to speak forth, and is used to signify one who speaks forth the mind and will of God. It is used in the NT not only of future-telling, but also of the ordinary act of preaching.

Now Thayer's:

to speak forth, speak out: [Thayer compares the term to the LXX translation of a Hebrew term which shares the same root as an Aramaic term meaning] 'to divulge,' 'make known,' announce'..., [Thayer concludes] therefore prop. i. q. interpreter, ... hence an interpreter or spokesman for God; one through whom God speaks

...

In the N.T. ... one who, moved by the Spirit of God and hence his organ or spokesman, solemnly declares to men what he has received by inspiration, esp. future events, and in particular such as relate to the cause and kingdom of God and to human salvation.

...

and in the religious assemblies of the Christians, being suddenly seized by the Spirit (whose promptings, however, do not impair their self-government, 1 Co. xiv. 32), give utterance in glowing and exalted but intelligible language to those things which the Holy Spirit teaches them, and which have pwoer to instruct, comfort, encourage, rebuke, convicts, stimulate, their hearers....

And the first thing that comes to view is that Thayer lists exercises other than future-telling. So far Thayer agrees with me.

Scott, on the other hand said, "The minute you can foretell future events (see the Greek word for prophesy here - propheteia) without error..." The subtext here is clear. Prophecy equals prediction, and nothing more.

He further aggravates his crime by mis-representing Thayer's definition, "Thayer's shows quite easily that the word propheteuo has a definite connotation of telling the future." Yes, that and other "connotations" as well. But again, the intent is clear. His purpose is to say that Thayer excludes the other operations of the gift. The reader can easily see that the truth is other than what Scott was willing to put before our eyes.

Thayer provides for us the denotative meaning at the head of his exposition. And you will see that he further agrees with what I said which was that the word 'prophecy' "The word means simply to speak forth..."

Now the NT equivalences of prophecy to preaching:

1. Paul said that one who prophesies "...speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." 1 Cor. 14:3 (Where is prediciton mentioned in this account?) Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised," Luke 4:18.

2. Paul also said that Moses preached the Gospel. "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." Hebrews 4:2.

3. And Peter's instructions to the preachers and teachers in the church, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God," 1 Peter 4:11. In other words all speaking and teaching in the church is "prophecy." And this is not stretch. It is exactly what it means to prophesy, to speak forth the mind and will of God.

NT examples of prophecy where prediction is not evident.

1. Jesus with the woman at the well, "Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." Her response, "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet."

2. Peter with Simon the Sorcerer, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Acts 8:20-23.

3. "But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth." 1 Cor. 14:24-25. This is not the predictive kind of prophecy as evident in verse 3 quoted above. It is also contrasted to a supernatural revelation in verse 6.

4. And of course 1 Corinthinans 13, which you so glibly dismissed, because it so painfully corrects your pixilated whims about the exercise of the gift. As you can see, this verse does not stand alone, but it would not be any less true if it did. "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge..."

And what more shall I say? You're wrong again. Doesn't that get a little tiresome?

 

[ScottEmerson]

let us examine his argument and see if it passes the standard of honest exegesis.

From this you will be able to see that I was right (again), for this is not the first time I've ever looked into the gift having come out of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement some 15 years ago.

And yet somehow you've carried fallacious exegesis this from then until now.

You will also see that Scott is not a skilled interpreter nor expositor, and, worse, not wholly forthcoming.

Very well. I've had years of Greek training at Samford University, so I would say that I am decently skilled in the area.

First, what I said:Now Thayer's: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />to speak forth, speak out: [Thayer compares the term to the LXX translation of a Hebrew term which shares the same root as an Aramaic term meaning] 'to divulge,' 'make known,' announce'..., [Thayer concludes] therefore prop. i. q. interpreter, ... hence an interpreter or spokesman for God; one through whom God speaks
...
In the N.T. ... one who, moved by the Spirit of God and hence his organ or spokesman, solemnly declares to men what he has received by inspiration, esp. future events, and in particular such as relate to the cause and kingdom of God and to human salvation.
...
and in the religious assemblies of the Christians, being suddenly seized by the Spirit (whose promptings, however, do not impair their self-government, 1 Co. xiv. 32), give utterance in glowing and exalted but intelligible language to those things which the Holy Spirit teaches them, and which have pwoer to instruct, comfort, encourage, rebuke, convicts, stimulate, their hearers....

</font>[/QUOTE]Allow me to send you HERE so you can see the actual, scanned definition from Thayer's. This is straight from his Thayer's original work. I have no clue where some of the stuff Aaron posted comes from. Faulty internet sources? Anyway - this is the real deal - and much of what he writes ahead is simple not in Thayer's. But, see for yourself.

And the first thing that comes to view is that Thayer lists exercises other than future-telling. So far Thayer agrees with me.

Don't know which Thayer you are using here.

Scott, on the other hand said, "The minute you can foretell future events (see the Greek word for prophesy here - propheteia) without error..." The subtext here is clear. Prophecy equals prediction, and nothing more.

And you clip my words.

He further aggravates his crime by mis-representing Thayer's definition, "Thayer's shows quite easily that the word propheteuo has a definite connotation of telling the future." Yes, that and other "connotations" as well. But again, the intent is clear. His purpose is to say that Thayer excludes the other operations of the gift. The reader can easily see that the truth is other than what Scott was willing to put before our eyes.

And I've shown you the actual definition. I am still not sure what Aaron has shown you.

Now the NT equivalences of prophecy to preaching:

1. Paul said that one who prophesies "...speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." 1 Cor. 14:3 (Where is prediciton mentioned in this account?)

Those who are able to predict the future because of a gift from God to edify, echort, and comfort. The prediction is mentioned in the context. Had Paul meant something else, surely he would have used a different word...

Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised," Luke 4:18.

...such as the one Luke uses. Euaggelizo, which has a totally different meaning. Had Paul meant this, he would have used this, eh? Paul does use this word 5 times in the book of I Corinthians, so he knew that that word meant.

2. Paul also said that Moses preached the Gospel. "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." Hebrews 4:2.

So Paul wrote Hebrews? That's funny! Guess what - this word is also euagglizo! How does this add support to the prophesy word in question?

3. And Peter's instructions to the preachers and teachers in the church, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God," 1 Peter 4:11. In other words all speaking and teaching in the church is "prophecy." And this is not stretch. It is exactly what it means to prophesy, to speak forth the mind and will of God.

This verse merely says that we should exercise our gift with the aid of God alone. What does this have to do with prophesy. No where in this chapter is prophesying even mentioned!

NT examples of prophecy where prediction is not evident.

1. Jesus with the woman at the well, "Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." Her response, "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet."

Why did she think Jesus was a prophet. Because he spoke well? Or was it because he knew something that a normal man would have no way of knowing. Isn't this, then, a prediction?

2. Peter with Simon the Sorcerer, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Acts 8:20-23.

The word for perceive is not the word in question - it is the basic word for seeing. What are you trying to say here.

3. "But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth." 1 Cor. 14:24-25. This is not the predictive kind of prophecy as evident in verse 3 quoted above. It is also contrasted to a supernatural revelation in verse 6.

Prophesying is, indeed, different from revelation. But, again, why does Paul use this word instead of peaching, as you want it to mean? Why not ude euanggelizo? Sometimes what the author does NOT use is more important than what he does. If the word means what you say it does, then why not a different word for it, without the connotation of foretelling events?

4. And of course 1 Corinthinans 13, which you so glibly dismissed, because it so painfully corrects your pixilated whims about the exercise of the gift. As you can see, this verse does not stand alone, but it would not be any less true if it did. "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge..."

See above.

And what more shall I say? You're wrong again. Doesn't that get a little tiresome?

You're not a prophet, Aaron. The Bible doesn't back you up. The fact that you use a Thayer's that is obviously not Thayer's and that your Scriptures that support your text go so far as using different words confirms this.

How about a little academic honesty next time?

 

[Travelsong]

It sure is a good thing Aaron lets you know that he is spiritually and intellectually superior than you with every single post, otherwise I just wouldn't be able to tell who's winning this debate.

you try to tell her what to do
and all she does is stare at you
her stare is louder than your voice
because truth doesn't make a noise

 

[Aaron]

Well, Scott, the page you link us to doesn't load, but I can show you where Thayer says exactly what I said he said.

HERE

and

HERE

Now the reader can see with just a cursory glance that in both definitions (expositions, really) Thayer does not even come close to limiting the operation of prophecy to prediction.

The truth being established with this regard, let's move on.

I've had years of Greek training at Samford University, so I would say that I am decently skilled in the area.

Was it Samford that taught you a word study could be done without looking up more than one form of the word? Why do those who write lexicons for us continually refer us to roots and synonyms? You look up one definition, don't even try to look at the passages where they're used, and you call that skill?

That's not what I'd call it.

Those who are able to predict the future because of a gift from God to edify, echort, and comfort. The prediction is mentioned in the context. Had Paul meant something else, surely he would have used a different word...

Again, your limitation of the meaning here is not founded. Thayer does not limit it, and neither do the Scriptures.

Now concerning Luke 4:18 and Hebrews 4:2, you said this word is also euagglizo! How does this add support to the prophesy word in question?

Your problem is that you're handling these things with your eyes shut. If you had taken an ed. psych. course you would have been introduced to the hierarchy of learning (Dr. B. Bloom). There are six levels </font>

• knowledge (most basic)</font>
• comprehension</font>
• application</font>
• analysis</font>
• synthesis</font>
• evaluation (most advanced)</font>

Now where you're hanging up is at the analysis and synthesis levels. (Actually, your violence to the Scriptural accounts you used to support Pagan-friendly Worship—especially in regard to the Parable of the Good "Sodomite"—and your complete misaprehension of Thayer leaves your comprehension and application abilities in question, but because I'm such a nice guy, I'll give those to you. )

Once these passages are analyzed, the relationships between them are clear and inferences can be drawn.

The interrelationships in these passages cry out. Moses was a prophet, yet very little of his teachings have anything to do with prediction. Jesus is the Prophet that the Lord raised up like unto Moses. Again, the bulk of Christ's teachings are not predictive. They are both called prophets, yet what is the defining characteristic of their roles? They preached the Gospel.

For unto us was the Gospel preached AS WELL as unto them.... The passage in Luke parallels Christ's preaching with the role of the prophet as defined by Paul in 1 Cor. 14:3.

So Paul wrote Hebrews? That's funny!

Puh-leeze! Yer reachin'. As if you'd know. Click on the link below and see my footnote at the bottom of that post. Note also, the date.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=33;t=000228#000003

Ancient scholarship and tradition assign Hebrews to Paul. It's easier than saying "the author of Hebrews," or "the Apostle."

In regard to 1 Peter 4:11 you said: This verse merely says that we should exercise our gift with the aid of God alone. What does this have to do with prophesy. No where in this chapter is prophesying even mentioned!

There's that comprehension thing again. How on God's green earth you do you get these things? The word prophecy does not have to be mentioned. It is directly referred to in the phrase "oracles of God." Peter is not saying we are to speak "with God's help," but as God's mouthpiece in truth and faithfulness. Go back to your Greek dictionary and look up the word for prophet and prophecy again. This takes no analysis or synthesis. It is stated rather simply.

Now to quote renowned authorities on the subject:

Matthew Henry:

Prophecy. Whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith. It is not meant of the extraordinary gifts of foretelling things to come, but the ordinary office of preaching the word: so prophesying is taken, 1 Co. 14:1-3, etc.; 11:4; 1 Th. 5:20. The work of the Old-Testament prophets was not only to foretel future things, but to warn the people concerning sin and duty, and to be their remembrancers concerning that which they knew before. And thus gospel preachers are prophets, and do indeed, as far as the revelation of the word goes, foretel things to come. Preaching refers to the eternal condition of the children of men, points directly at a future state.

Adam Clarke

Whether prophecy— That prophecy, in the New Testament, often meansthe gift of exhorting, preaching, or of expounding the Scriptures, is evidentfrom many places in the Gospels, Acts, and St. Paul’s Epistles, see 1Corinthians 11:4, 5; and especially 1 Corinthians 14:3: He thatprophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. This was the proper office of a preacher; and it is to the exercise of this office that the apostle refers in the whole of the chapter from which the above quotations are made. See also Luke 1:76; 7:28; Acts 15:32; 1Corinthians 14:29. I think the apostle uses the term in the same sense here-Let every man who has the gift of preaching and interpreting the Scriptures do it in proportion to the grace and light he has received from God, and in no case arrogate to himself knowledge which he has not received; let him not esteem himself more highly on account of this gift, or affect to be wise above what is written, or indulge himself in fanciful
interpretations of the word of God.

John Calvin

“Let him who has prophecy, test it by the analogy of faith; let him in the ministry discharge it in teaching,” etc. They who will keep this end in view, will rightly preserve themselves within their own limits. But this passage is variously understood. There are those who consider that by prophecy is meant the gift of predicting, which prevailed at the commencement of the gospel in the Church; as the Lord then designed in every way to commend the dignity and excellency of his Church; and they think that what is added, according to the analogy of faith, is to be applied to all the clauses. But I prefer to follow those who extend this word wider, even to the peculiar gift of revelation, by which any one skillfully and wisely performed the office of an interpreter in explaining the will of God. Hence prophecy at this day in the Christian Church is hardly anything else than the right understanding of the Scripture, and the peculiar faculty of explaining it, inasmuch as all the ancient prophecies and all the oracles of God have been completed in Christ and in his gospel. For in this sense it is taken by Paul when he says,

“I wish that you spoke in tongues, but rather that ye prophesy,” 1 Corinthians 14:5;
“In part we know and in part we prophesy,” 1 Corinthians 13:9.

And it does not appear that Paul intended here to mention those miraculous graces by which Christ at first rendered illustrious his gospel; but, on the contrary, we find that he refers only to ordinary gifts, such as were to continue perpetually in the Church.

John Gill

The offices here, and hereafter mentioned, are not of an extraordinary, but ordinary kind, such as are lasting, and will continue in the church unto the end of time: and are divided into two parts, which are after subdivided into other branches. The division is into "prophesying" and "ministering". By "prophesying" is meant, not foretelling things to come, thought this gift was bestowed upon some, as Agabus, and others in the Christian church; but this, as it is of an extraordinary nature, so it is not stinted and limited according to the proportion of faith; but preaching the Gospel is here designed, which is the sense of the word in many places of Scripture, particularly in 1Co 13:2.

And what more shall I say? Who else shall I quote? I can't find a commentator who says otherwise. It seems that I am in agreement with the consensus of scholarship on the subject, and you are not.

Now, back to the original issue. The Scriptures state plainly that it is as we prophesy that the Spirit reveals the "relevance" of God's Word to an individual. It is not by making friends with them or going to the local pub.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
Now, back to the original issue. The Scriptures state plainly that it is as we prophesy that the Spirit reveals the "relevance" of God's Word to an individual. It is not by making friends with them or going to the local pub.

Oh most wise and learned Aaron. I have a question for you. Are we allowed to go to family gatherings where our relatives are unsaved? Exactly what are our dealings with unsaved relatives limited to? Also, how does one infiltrate a foreign culture such as a rainforest tribe without getting to know the people and share their burdens and such. I know that you are wisdom is above all here so I am sure you have experience in this area and can convert heathens without ever knowing a shred of personal information about them.Care to expound?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Aaron:

1. I did make a mistake in missing one of the two Thayer's definitions. That was my fault.

2. I have a Master of Education degree in counseling psychology from one of the top schools in the Southeast. I have completed a year of doctoral studies in counseling psychology at one of the three top programs in the world. You really don't want to travel down the road of educational psychology.

3. You're still not a prophet. Sorry to burst your bubble. I see nothing in your posts that would back up the attitude, the wisdom, the discernment, or the speaking of God's words that would point me in that direction. A good majority of people here would agree with me.

Now, back to the original issue. The Scriptures state plainly that it is as we prophesy that the Spirit reveals the "relevance" of God's Word to an individual. It is not by making friends with them or going to the local pub.

And why can we not "prophesy" to them wherever they are? There's nothing in the SCriptures for that at all, is there? The Scriptures establish that Jesus met the people where they were. We, then, should act likewise. You position for not befriending the non-Christians is not only absent from Scripture, but it goes against the example of Christ. If this makes you a prophet, then I want no part of that prophesy.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Oh most wise and learned Aaron. I have a question for you. Are we allowed to go to family gatherings where our relatives are unsaved? Exactly what are our dealings with unsaved relatives limited to? Also, how does one infiltrate a foreign culture such as a rainforest tribe without getting to know the people and share their burdens and such. I know that you are wisdom is above all here so I am sure you have experience in this area and can convert heathens without ever knowing a shred of personal information about them.Care to expound? [/QB]

That's funny. If we were to take "the prophet's" words on this matter, then evangelism to anyone other than the church would be dead. I have a feeling that the postmodern world is going to, at one point in Aaron's life, rock his world, as he wakes up and realizes that the methods of evangelism of the 50's has passed him by.

Perhaps we should just let Aaron do his thing, and the rest of us do ours. After all, I'm sure that he is having a huge effect on his town and city at large with the whole evangelism thing. Surely they will listen to his prophesy.

Meanwhile, I will continue to be faithful to the commands of Christ and "GO INTO" the world and share the gospel, following the Spirit's lead wherever it takes me, whether it be their home, on the basketball courts where I play, eating with them at a restaurant (even if they order wine!), or anywhere that God wants me to go.

 

[DanielFive]

Perhaps we should just let Aaron do his thing, and the rest of us do ours.

I think you'd better, obviously you're struggling for an answer to Aaron's scriptural arguments.

What makes you think that Aaron is not an effective witness, is it the fact that he limits his methods to those found in Scripture? The Lord will bless an obedient servant. Maybe Aaron prefers to give God the Glory for those who are converted as a result of his witness.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by enda:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Perhaps we should just let Aaron do his thing, and the rest of us do ours.

I think you'd better, obviously you're struggling for an answer to Aaron's scriptural arguments.</font>[/QUOTE]He has been unable to show Scripture that says that Christians should not befriend non-Christians. The prophesy argument is a red herring. This is where Scripture is silent. I personally do not think that we should be adding to Scriptures, myself. What he does, he will do, I suppose.

What makes you think that Aaron is not an effective witness, is it the fact that he limits his methods to those found in Scripture? The Lord will bless an obedient servant. Maybe Aaron prefers to give God the Glory for those who are converted as a result of his witness.

I don't know if he has led anyone to Christ. I really don't. I don't know what his testimony is. I don't even know if he is saved or not. I have what I read from him.

I agree that the Lord blesses an obedient servant. Here is what I know: I know is that God is doing amazing things in the ministry that I have at First Baptist Church here in Ocala. The ministerial staff, the parents of the students, those who volunteer in the ministry, and the students agree on this. To hear Aaron speak, this is impossible. Because of these two options, I can either conclude that God really isn't working, these students are not being saved, and my discipleship is all for naught, as I am some kind of anti-Christ, teaching anti-Christian methods of evangelism, OR I can come to the conclusion that Aaron, as badly as he wants to believe it, is wrong.

I choose the latter.

 

[Eladar]

I don't know if he has led anyone to Christ. I really don't. I don't know what his testimony is. I don't even know if he is saved or not. I have what I read from him.

Leading people to a false Christ is in actuality leading people away from the true Christ.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
That's funny. If we were to take "the prophet's" words on this matter, then evangelism to anyone other than the church would be dead.

Some missionaries have spent years in other countries before seeing a soul saved. I can just imagine Aaron going into a foreign country:

1) "Heathen people of a primitive barbaric culture, put down your spears and gather unto me".

2) "I have here a contract which contains all the rules and regulations required to qualify you for eternal paradise"

3) "Repent now wicked people and follow the statutes contained within. Do I have any takers?"

4) "No? Oh well, the seed has been planted. I leave you all to your inevitable doom."

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Some missionaries have spent years in other countries before seeing a soul saved. I can just imagine Aaron going into a foreign country:

1) "Heathen people of a primitive barbaric culture, put down your spears and gather unto me".

2) "I have here a contract which contains all the rules and regulations required to qualify you for eternal paradise"

3) "Repent now wicked people and follow the statutes contained within. Do I have any takers?"

4) "No? Oh well, the seed has been planted. I leave you all to your inevitable doom." [/QB]

...Reminds me of what you get when you cross a missionary with a pushy door-to-door salesman.

 

[Aaron]

I have a Master of Education degree in counseling psychology from one of the top schools in the Southeast. I have completed a year of doctoral studies in counseling psychology at one of the three top programs in the world.

And that is no small accomplishment. I admire the way you made use of the opportunities that God has given you. BTW, the Taxonomy of Learning thing was just a way to jab at you. I don't buy into that all the way, I just didn't know how to get your attention.

Feel free to jab back. You should know by now that I have a thick skin.

The prophesy argument is a red herring.

Huh? Let's look at this again. You characterized Christ's relationship with the Samaritan woman as one of "befriending." I said Christ came to her as a prophet, then quoted Paul's statements as to the effectiveness of prophecy. Then you said we don't prophesy anymore. I said, "Yeah, we do."

"No, we don't."

"Yeah, we do."

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-huh.!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Uh-huh."

"Prove-it, prophet-boy!"

So I did.

How can you call this a red herring? It bears directly on the methods extolled by Crampton. He said:

But those who want to successfully relate to the emerging culture will base church life around relationships. Rather than subscribing to a series of beliefs, newcomers first want to connect with a community of people who subscribe to those beliefs to see how they fit in. If they feel like they belong, they would be more likely to believe. So church life based on community is less likely to alienate newcomers and inquirers who may later come to embrace the Christian faith as a result of being part of a faith community. This doesn't mean the message changes, just the context of how it is being communicated.

Paul blows Crampton right out of the sky.

[ July 05, 2003, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Aaron:
But those who want to successfully relate to the emerging culture will base church life around relationships. Rather than subscribing to a series of beliefs, newcomers first want to connect with a community of people who subscribe to those beliefs to see how they fit in. If they feel like they belong, they would be more likely to believe. So church life based on community is less likely to alienate newcomers and inquirers who may later come to embrace the Christian faith as a result of being part of a faith community. This doesn't mean the message changes, just the context of how it is being communicated.

Paul blows Crampton right out of the sky. [/QB][/QUOTE]

You really need to understand that you have no good Scriptural support to disprove this. That you can't see that is sad. Even sadder is that you do not understand that this is the world we live in now.

Do your thing, Aaron, and I will do mine. I'm sure that as a prophet you can do amazing things. By the definition you give, I am one as well. However, I don't see myself as a prophet, merely a minister of the gospel who God is using to help change people's lives. And really, you can't argue with fruit, for that is how people will really know us.