Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Let me deduce that you are a thinker, a gentleman and a scholar by how you handle yourself in debate.
Kind of like you do huh? 
</font>[/QUOTE]Since you are not addressing the point but rather you are casting a dispersion at me, I would say this is
ad hominem. Have you ever noticed how people do this when they don’t have a good answer?
Shame on you. This is not worthy of someone with intellectual pretensions.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> BTW, I read your answers to my points and they amount to repartee.
So you make accusations. You are asked to provide proof to substantiate your accusations and then you decide to "bow out"? What are we supposed to conclude from that? I would think at a minimum you would apologize for misrepresenting RW.
</font>[/QUOTE]No, this is no attack on your person or character or motives. It is an attack on your opinions and puny answers. Since this is supposedly a forum for debate, you have no reason to whine and take personal insult. Furthermore, you are taking an imagined offense at something entirely innocuous but you did take a personal jab at me in the beginning of this post. You must live by the standards that you seek to impose on others.
I could care less what you think about me. You don't know me. As I have said many times, BB is strictly entertainment for me. At the end of the day, I don't care who agrees or disagrees with me here.
There you go again, making this thing personal. If it means nothing to you, then why are you being so defensive? Are you trying to persuade me and the readers or yourself? The connotation is that you are concerned about what the folks here think. Your statement is not convincing. You don’t need to tell us this. Remember, I said that you will reveal yourself in what you post. As I said previously, I’m more concerned about debating ideas with people who are supposedly my peers in education and intellect. This can be a serious exercise for me but I have been somewhat disappointed on this thread thus far.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I cannot endorse or support RW. Is there anything wrong with that?
Absolutely not. But there is something wrong with making unfounded accusations against someone and then walking away when you are asked to support your claims.
</font>[/QUOTE]You seem to forget what my claims were. I merely said that ShannonL had reasons and reasoning which you had denied. I proceeded to summarize and list a number of his reasons. He listed such things as association with Schuller, taking Scripture out of context,
etc. It was established that RW has spoken on more than one occasion at Schuller’s programs. Can you deny this? IHMO, this violates the Biblical doctrine of separation from heretics. Yes, I do classify Schuller as a heretic.
Furthermore, RW has taken Scripture out of context to support his forty-day motif. How can an educated, intelligent theologian deny this if he knows anything about RW, PDL and Scripture? You have chosen to ignore the claims and reasons meanwhile chanting your mantra: “But there is something wrong with making unfounded accusations against someone and then walking away when you are asked to support your claims.” You may not agree with our position but you cannot truthfully say that we have not given reasons with observable evidence in support.
The aforementioned are just two examples of several that I could have used. Why should I work my fingers to the bone writing things that you ignore or brush aside? You have no argument, no case. Now deal with the issues instead of coming back with inanities.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Theology must dictate methods.
I would simply suggest that one's theology does have an influence upon one's methodology (eg, I do not employ strippers to promote events b/c of what I believe). Obviously methods are controlled by one's theology. (emphasis not in original)
At the same time I believe many churches are making the huge mistake of equating methods with theology. Take your example ... many churches would condemn those who choose not to use an altar call as compromising the gospel. Obviously the accuser in this instance has made the mistake of giving a method equal weight as a belief. Or take the opposite approach. Someone in Reformed circles might condemn a less Calvinistic approach and disparage someone for utilizing an altar call. Same mistake - opposite perspective.
</font>[/QUOTE]No, you can’t have it both ways.
Either theology determines methods or it does not. If theology dictates methods, it follows that I can theologically criticize your methodology if our theologies differ. In other words, if I can disagree and debate your theology then it is just as legitimate for me to disagree with your methodology. I don’t accept the old theological pabulum that methods don’t matter. They do.
Point? Is it right to use an altar call? Is it wrong to use an altar call? Answer -- yes. An altar call is a method. It makes no difference whether you choose to utilize it or not. Now your theology may help you decide to use or not to use it, but the theology behind the decision and the method itself are not equal.
Not so. Your theology determines whether you should use an altar call or not. If you’re a Calvinist believing in limited atonement and irresistible grace then you don’t give an altar call. It is repugnant to your theology.
I would agree that a large determining factor in employing methods has to do with results. I am not an opponent of results. I believe the more unbelievers I can get in our seats to hear the gospel the better. Therefore I am going to utilize methods that CONNECT to my hearer. I am going to use anything and everything that does not compromise the message to get people to hear the message.
This is a whole new question. According to I Corinthians 3:6, results are God’s doing. The problem is that we try to go beyond what God expects of us and produce the results. Our duty is to obedient and faithful. It appears that we have absorbed a good bit of business acumen into our theology. I question the valid of these so-called results. Many times, churches reporting thousands of conversions and baptisms grow only by a few hundred at best. The great results just seem to vaporize.
Every church utilizes methods. The only real question then becomes: do our methods help make the gospel clearer? Are they effective in communicating the gospel in a way the hearer will understand the message.
Problem not. Many of the Madison Avenue techniques are better suited to selling soap than bringing souls to Christ. Is the conversion genuine? Is there a changed life? Like the Pharisees, a false conversion experience may make the person seven times more the child of Hell.
Obviously I am working with the presupposition that God the Holy Spirit is at work as well. I do not believe a single person will come to faith in Christ outside of the work of the Spirit, yet ironically I have also discovered that the more effectively we share the gospel, the more people come to faith in Christ.
Generally, I agree with you on this point. However, it does not address the issues that some methods are incompatible with the Gospel and there are problems when methodology takes precedent over theology. Additionally, you are assuming that more people come to Christ with effective methods. I am not so sure. Can you substantiate this? This is not something that you can easily research with a double blind study.
There are two questions germane to your assertions. How do you know the professions are real and not just emotional hype generated by the methods? How do you know the methods made a difference rather than the working of the Holy Spirit?
For that reason, it is my responsibility to employ whatever means is possible (again within reason here) to communicate the good news of Jesus Christ.
Well, this is too broad and inclusive for me to accept or believe to be Biblical. Have you heard of Uzza? (see 1 Chronicles 13) Also, Saul (1 Samuel 13, 15) and Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26) probably used similar reasoning (end justifies the means,
etc.) to disobey God and get into their predicaments. In the final analysis, methods do matter.
