What our duties are & how to motivate people

Start by reading Rick Warren's Purpose-Driven Church.

 

These are spiritual issues of the heart that need to be dealt with accordingly. I don't tknow all the answers on this,but I do know motivation comes from knowing and loving God...not church growth strategies.

 

I'm sure there are better books out there,but I don't think a book is the answer. It sounds like there are people who do not have a true love for the Lord...There is not a way to convince and make people do anything,it has to be motivated,as I said before,from a heart of thanksgiving to God.

Wish I could offer more help.

Molly

 

Sound to me as if it is a church that needs to find and fulfill its purpose.

It is not about church growth strategies. It is about coming to grips with "why we exist." In the end, it is a spiritual issue and Warren's book puts in practical terms how to help your people see the spiritual need to answer the why question.

 

This is an excellent suggestion. People with apathy need bad theology and practical foolishness.

 

Or they could always start with your theological works and practical insights

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you mock those who actually take a position? Should they follow your path and only talk about what you deem to be the essentials? No thanks. Relativism is for the lost, SBC.

Your real problem with my views is that they exclude yours. Gal. 1:10.

 

OUCH!

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you mock those who actually take a position? Should they follow your path and only talk about what you deem to be the essentials? No thanks. Relativism is for the lost, SBC.

Your real problem with my views is that they exclude yours. Gal. 1:10. </font>[/QUOTE]Let me get this straight: you are talking about someone mocking someone else. Did you read your previous post (and 90% of your others)? That's what I like about you: consistency.

Based upon your own words, I will assume you have no actual clue what relativism truly is.

I have no problem with your views. You have every right to be legalistically arrogant and ignorant all at the same time.

I count it an honor to hold different views than you. I tend to avoid the extremes of isolationism.

Of course I should expect no less from someone who compares himself to the apostle Paul. I have a better title for you, but evidently it is forbidden from the BB. Perhaps you should change your location to Hammond. Isn't that the Baptist equivalent to the Vatican.

 

1. It wasn't the fact of your mocking that I mind. Others do, I don't. I was talking about what you were mocking. Stay with the discussion here.

2. I am sitting here wondering why you didn't go into detective work with that bit of thinking.

3. Translation: I don't like the fact that you reject my views, have a position and don't pretend everything is a preference, and use the Bible not some book to determine your ministry philosophy.

4. This totally disproves your points. You want everything to be a preference. If it is just preference, then you would not have this attitude. You want tolerance for all except the intolerant thus proving your intolerance. How utterly laughable.

5. Nothing like arguing from the excluded middle. Either you are an isolationist, or you are relevant. Um, you might be well read, but you are not well learned if those are the positions you have come up with. I thought you were a Ph.D. student. Don't you learn this stuff right away?

6. I missed the evil in that. Perhaps you meant that in a bad way. Please explain yourself and the relevance to this discussion (as though there is any ).

7. Only in the more conservative forum. The very idea of a pope is the result of vicious work to the text of Scripture. Only the ignorant would call such a name.

8. Jack Hyles and I are poles apart in theology. The implication of yours further demonstrates your unawareness to reality. What exactly is it that you think we have in common?

 

What I "mock" is your attitude of superiority that blinds you to your own inconsistencies. Actually my words are not intended to mock you. I would suspect that few on this board take you seriously enough to do so. I simply find it amusing that someone who has never published a word of theology or practice elevates himself as the supreme authority on each.

Trust me it doesn't take a detective to discover your faulty use of the term relativism. If you want to discuss that subject matter, I am more than willing. Why don't you start by defining the term in the world of PtW.

1) I could care less what you think of my views. BB is entertainment alone for me. I have never changed or altered a view based upon what I read here. I take nothing said or done here seriously. Whether you agree with me or not is not even on my radar of concern.

2) My absolute positions are those the church has held as the fundamentals. My preferences are those the church has historically and consistently held as such.

3) I am more than willing to discuss text with you at any time. Oh that's right -- you don't actually deal with Scripture in its context. Your hermeneutic is more "thus says Preach therefore this has to be the 'plain' meaning of the text."

Your logic is as skewed as your attempt to use postmodern apologetical reasoning. Where you are mistaken is the fact that I allow for theological and practical tolerance only in areas outside the absolutes. Where you err is your attempt to turn non-absolutes into absolutes and in the process elevate them to the same level as the essentials.

There is a quote worth publishing.

Perhaps I should enroll in that bastion of academic thought Luther Rice

Let me spell it out for you: YOU ARE NOT PAUL!!!

The Pope is the RCC's standard of truth. You seem to take a similar attitude regarding your own preferences.

Take no offense in the reference, and I will take none in being called ignorant.

It's all about attitude.

 

There is a quote worth publishing.

5. Perhaps I should enroll in that bastion of academic thought Luther Rice.

6. Let me spell it out for you: YOU ARE NOT PAUL!!!

7. The Pope is the RCC's standard of truth. You seem to take a similar attitude regarding your own preferences.

8. It's all about attitude. </font>[/QUOTE]1. NEWS TO ALL PREACHERS: YOU MUST WRITE A THEOLOGICAL BOOK BEFORE YOU ARE QUALIFIED TO EXAMINE THE MERITS OF OTHER BOOKS. Brilliant.

2. That would explain all of your complaining about my "attitude of superiority" and my position on preferences that is different from yours. Classic.

3. Pick one. Send me a PM and we will decide which to use. Then, we can start a debate in one of the debate forums. It will be closely monitored by the moderator(s). Is that fair?

4. That is your position. You think that a person is either relevant or an isolationist. I recall reading something very similar by Warren.

5. All the more of an indictment against you. I have never claimed that LRS is superior to the other seminaries. It just happens to be where I went for my undergrad.

6. Whew! I needed that. I have never claimed such a title. You must be referring to my not pretending that only the "essentials" matters. Tell me, as you read his epistles, how much of his writing falls under your list of preferences?

7. I seem to take the same position in regards to my preferences. Um, EVERYONE does that. You do that. Paul did that. Everyone chooses their preferences. Perhaps you meant something else. I dunno.

8. Are you judging me? Are you imposing your attitude of superiority on me? Are you suggesting that through an internet discussion board that you are qualified to discuss the various aspects about me? Nevermind, I repent of everything I believe and will follow you because your arguments are just so strong.

 

Sorry,Willow..it seems your thread has become a discussion just waiting to happen! It's not your fault,it would've happened at some time or another!

Carry on,gentlemen....I love to read your explanations. I'll keep up with the points.

 

No, but to speak authoritatively and dogmatically on matters of faith and practice, you have to have some level of credibility and you have been found wanting.

Your opinions have so little influence that "complaining" is not a fair word. I am simply pointing out reality. I lived with such an attitude for years. It is not difficult to spot (especially from those who are not actually doing ministry at the time).

Only if you actually stick with basic hermeneutical principles of interpretation, which you have yet to prove you are able to do.

Actually it goes something like this: relevant or irrelevant. Relevance is not the issue here. Isolationism is a by-product of irrelevance. My reference to you as an isolationist is defined in terms of displaying a dogmatic attitude over matters of preferences.

One might refer to your views as legalism by negation, a term that can be explained in greater detail later.

And it shows.

I have never said preferences did not matter. I simply said they are not the essentials. Obviously Paul knew the difference and defined it clearly when explaining what the gospel includes.

The problem rests in your preferences. You have clearly shown in the past that what others deem preferences you make absolutes (thus making yourself the standard of truth -- thus the title).

I call them as I see them.

 

I have given a legitimate offer to debate any passage you come up with.

Your response: not answer and make an insulting comment and say you follow the hermeneutical principles to where you can judge other peoples interpretation (the very thing you accuse me of).

Hey, I am fine with your thinking the above. You merely evaded the offer. If you want to, let me know. Otherwise, I take it you are not up to it. Just let me know.

 

My answer would be because someone might try to hijack it.