You do understand that giving people the proverbial finger, even in the form of a rabbit is an insult right?
-
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!
When did Christ embrace Sonship?
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
We can all learn better to defend our views. Insofar as the rabbits, I guess you could start a poll and ask. What I find insulting is when a person begins a thread and then refuses to engage the comments of others who took the time to respond. If that person replied "buzz off", I would probably view that as an insult as well. It detracts from your argument and is an immature reply to something you don't agree with.
You see, in this thread I have taken the time to answer your question and engage your comments. We might disagree but at least I have given you that level of respect. I didn't just say " buzz off."
Last edited:
a SATS prof
Member
Perhaps it is not all that is involved in evangelism methods.
What I am attempting to post (and not doing very well) is that often one finds a method that "fits" them. They then assume that is the only, and are critical of any who may do things a bit differently.
Remember the disciples that wanted Christ to rebuke the preacher, because that preacher wasn't one of them? He wasn't in their "camp," so to speak. Christ said, leave him alone. Some preach out of obligation, others out of love, but the Word is what is important.
In your zeal, there is a tendency (imo) to focus on what is of value or what you have determined is worthy in evangelism. Not everyone who is a believer will be an evangelist in the same manner.
For example, Hudson Taylor. (imo) the Christians of China owe a great deal to this man's zeal.
Johnathan Goforth was dramatically different than Hudson Taylor, yet they were both used of God.
I believe the word to say the Son was eternally in the God to be begotten of God, thus the Father, I will become who I will become Ex 3:14, and the Son, I am John 8:58.
Eternally in God Heb 1:1,2 all things were made for him and through him. Even man, Adam was created in the image of Elohim (Pl.) God and the woman taken from the man for the very purpose of; Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born fn of a woman, born under the law. Because of; 1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Which also brings about these results; Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
It appears to me that Satan and death were present before it was said, "Let there be light". Man was created, sold under sin, which he did, bringing the death, the power of the devil, in order for the begotten Son of God to be manifested as man, die in obedience and thus redeem the man who had been sold and destroying the works of the devil including, the death, by being given the promise of God, eternal life and becoming the Hope.
The, to be, begotten Son the heir and the redeemed joint heirs.
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; Titus 1:2 I believe that promise was made for the Son, who was eternally in God, to be begotten in woman and brought forth from her, to die in, obedience of faith, of the Father and then to be the firstborn from the dead in whose image we also can be born again as eternal beings.
Last edited:
The insult is when you think people are not worth answering. A number of times you have ignored interactions from me. (I can't speak for others.) You think that wins friends and influences people?
If your evangelism methods are correct they should be easy to defend from Scripture. But you can't apriori state that they are correct without proving it, and expect people to believe you.
Since you have refused in the past to defend them, you automatically fail to convince. I dare you to join me on a thread and discuss the use of the law in evangelism. You start it, though--I have no confidence that you would participate if I started it.
I will dig out my "What Did Jesus do?" book which does a good job at defending using the law in evangelism and will start a thread soon.
I will join you there if you start it soon, but I'll be at home for the weekend, and we don't have Internet there. But I'll be back on Monday. (I'm not teaching yet next week.)
Okay thanks for letting me know.
I believe John of Japan said "easy to defend from Scripture"; yet, your first response is "I'll dig out a book." I'm sure your book uses scripture to defend its premise; there are lots of books that use scripture to defend their premise. Peter Ruckman used a LOT of scripture in his books to defend his premises/views.
I would ask that you NOT make the thread a defense of/discussion about your book; but a defense of/discussion about evangelism methods.
And now I'll go chase my rabbits....
It wasn't a comparison of anyone to Ruckman. It was a statement that anyone can use scripture to justify their position; that's why you should discuss the scripture and its application to evangelism, rather than the book.
Your knee-jerk response is an indication of hero-worship. Give it some thought.
I'll be waiting, though it has been since yesterday that you started looking for your book. Biggrin I have to leave in a short while and will not get back on until Monday, at which time I'll see if you have started a thread.
Ummm... that dog is on a leash. Should be fairly easy to chase it.
I have been working OT and had a service yesterday. I post on my breaks. But I will have time to post this weekend.
Oops!