Persecution as Proof of Salvation

[whag]

At this point, I'll simply praise God that you're not in charge of World Evangelism: "hey, don't worry about those people over there - they've already had the Gospel, and don't need anymore".

That's not what I said. You used the example of an area with 90% Christians, leaving a remainder of 10% unreached. I then asked why the 90% of Christians cannot handle the job of reaching the rest. Why the need for outside intervention?

If your answer is to reduce poverty and provide clean water, then your mission isn't necessarily evangelism but humanitarian. Besides, the evangelism already happened many times before and for some reason isn't taking.

[tabibito]

That's not what I said. You used the example of an area with 90% Christians, leaving a remainder of 10% unreached. I then asked why the 90% of Christians cannot handle the job of reaching the rest. Why the need for outside intervention?

If your answer is to reduce poverty and provide clean water, then your mission isn't necessarily evangelism but humanitarian. Besides, the evangelism already happened many times before and for some reason isn't taking.

True, that!

[KingsGambit]

Whag loves framing his OPs as though he's attempting honest and open dialogue, but that's never been his motivation for posting here. He's only here looking for a fight, and he's said as much in previous posts. He believes the only reason for posting at Theologyweb, and primarily in the Apologetics section is so that Christians and anti-Christians can really get into it. Sort of verbally beat each other up. But, for whatever reason, he also hates it when his primary motivation for posting these sorts of threads is exposed, or exposed too soon I suppose. If you point this out he claims you are having what he calls a "whack attack". It's all very odd in my opinion. I'd rather he just put his cards on the table instead of go through with the pretense.

But anyways, you were right the first time, he doesn't really want a discussion, or at least, not the sort of discussion that one might have thought he was asking for in his OP.

You've mentioned this a few times and I honestly don't have the same experiences. Whag and I have had a number of productive discussions. I don't seem to have the problems communicating with him others seem to have

[KingsGambit]

Ravi Zacharias will often skip "stump-the-preacher" type skeptical questions in public forums he speaks at. He could easily answer most of those questions (and on other occasions has), but prefers instead to get to the heart of the questioner. So he'll ask something like, 'what motivated you to ask this particular question?', 'will an answer to this question alter your view of the Gospel message?' That usually leads into a heart to heart, or a rant from the questioner (basically exposing his actual motivation for being there) which wasn't to do with the question at all.

I think that's fair. As CP alluded to, once one question is answered, a thousand more will often come up... and it becomes a game that is a waste of everybody's time. The goal should be to stay on the offense and not the defense, especially when it's clear that a reasonable answer won't change anybody's minds.

And this thread has really blown up while I've been away for just a day.

[Cow Poke]

That's not what I said. You used the example of an area with 90% Christians, leaving a remainder of 10% unreached. I then asked why the 90% of Christians cannot handle the job of reaching the rest. Why the need for outside intervention?

And I answered that.

If your answer is to reduce poverty and provide clean water,

that's something we do in ADDITION to witnessing.

then your mission isn't necessarily evangelism but humanitarian.

It's both. Jesus fed the multitudes, He addressed them at the point of their NEED.... there's an expression in ministry, especially in the mission field: "a hungry stomach has no ear". Also, they don't care what you know until they know that you care.

I don't know why you think it has to be an either or. Would you prefer we just preached to them and ignored their need?

Besides, the evangelism already happened many times before and for some reason isn't taking.

You don't know that. And it's no skin off YOUR back what Christians do in evangelism / relief efforts. I don't understand why you're even opposing this.

[whag]

You've mentioned this a few times and I honestly don't have the same experiences. Whag and I have had a number of productive discussions. I don't seem to have the problems communicating with him others seem to have

Thank you for remembering we've had productive discussions. I'm sure you know from reading my posts that my wife is Christian. When I'm occasionally abrasive, I appreciate your forgiving me and understanding that I'm in a rather unique position. I'm not here to pick fights. But I do need to express the questions that I have that mystify me about religion and Christianity in general. I hope you can use those as opportunities to sharpen your toolkit rather than take offense to them. Of all the members here, you seem to me the very able to keep his cool without sacrificing your dignity. That's hard. Tabibito, as well.

This is a productive discussion, far less pick fight-y than your average Hitchens debate. There's no reason to be hostile or hold grudges.

[whag]

And I answered that.

If you're referring to post 83, you didn't. Why would follow up be needed if 90% of the native community is Christian and perfectly capable of following up?

that's something we do in ADDITION to witnessing.

I understand that.

It's both. Jesus fed the multitudes, He addressed them at the point of their NEED.... there's an expression in ministry, especially in the mission field: "a hungry stomach has no ear". Also, they don't care what you know until they know that you care.

I don't know why you think it has to be an either or. Would you prefer we just preached to them and ignored their need?

No, the other way around. The preaching isn't working so much, possibly exacerbating the confusion. What makes you better able to convey the gospel than the native Christians there? I need more information about why the Catholic missions were unsuccessful.

You don't know that.

How do you quantify if it's taking? If it's taking, there's no need for expensive outside follow up. You've taught them to fish already.

BTW, you're the one who implied it wasn't taking by referencing the voodoo infiltration.

And it's no skin off YOUR back what Christians do in evangelism / relief efforts. I don't understand why you're even opposing this.

I'm not opposing but questioning the methodology of the outreach.

[Cow Poke]

BTW, you're the one who implied it wasn't taking by referencing the voodoo infiltration.

This is the kind of goofy comment that makes me think you're not here for a sincere discussion at all. I don't believe you're really stupid enough to have missed the part about Catholicism on the island as opposed to Christianity. It's Catholicism that got a bad name by being mixed with voodoo, not Christianity.

[whag]

This is the kind of goofy comment that makes me think you're not here for a sincere discussion at all. I don't believe you're really stupid enough to have missed the part about Catholicism on the island as opposed to Christianity. It's Catholicism that got a bad name by being mixed with voodoo, not Christianity.

And, specifically, as I already referenced, Catholicism in Haiti is particularly "messed up", having been tainted with Voodoo.

Which is why the locals would ask, "Are you a Christian or a Catholic".The week I worked in the clinic, I discovered that one of the main problems was malnutrition of babies, because the witch doctors in the mountains teach that evil spirits live in breast milk, so mothers would not breast feed their babies.

In what sense is my statement goofy in light of the language you used?

[whag]

Back to the topic of the thread:

There's an old saying, "if you haven't bumped heads with the devil lately, maybe you and he are going in the same direction".

2 Tim 3:[12]*Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

Do you acknowledge that many genuine Christians actually live persecution-free lives? That old saying implies that persecution is guaranteed.

[Raphael]

That's not what I said. You used the example of an area with 90% Christians, leaving a remainder of 10% unreached. I then asked why the 90% of Christians cannot handle the job of reaching the rest. Why the need for outside intervention?

[Raphael]

Don't know if anyone gave you a response to this but:
Matthew 10:32-33 (ESV)
32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

[tabibito]

Do you acknowledge that many genuine Christians actually live persecution-free lives? That old saying implies that persecution is guaranteed.

No - it won't and doesn't happen. The word used in 2 Timothy 3:13 uses "persecution" in the broadest sense, encompassing any form of hostility or opposition. While it is true that many Christians won't necessarily suffer persecution to the point of physical risk to person or property, it is also true that Christians will find themselves subjected to opposition at the least.

History of Global Anglicanism, Kevin Ward, Cambridge University Press pp280,281

Another important figure for Anglican mission in Australia, John Brown Gribble, ... legendary encounter with Ned Kelly and his gang ...
Invited by the Bishop of Western Australia to work among Aboriginal people ...
Appalled by the conditions of the Aboriginals on bonded labour contracts, little different from slavery. {MASSIVE understatement}
His outspokenness soon became an embarrassment to the diocesan mission that employed him. {MASSIVE understatement: they took action against him, joining in the whole -

is

[whag]

No - it won't and doesn't happen. The word used in 2 Timothy 3:13 uses "persecution" in the broadest sense, encompassing any form of hostility or opposition. While it is true that many Christians won't necessarily suffer persecution to the point of physical risk to person or property, it is also true that Christians will find themselves subjected to opposition at the least.

History of Global Anglicanism, Kevin Ward, Cambridge University Press pp280,281

Another important figure for Anglican mission in Australia, John Brown Gribble, ... legendary encounter with Ned Kelly and his gang ...
Invited by the Bishop of Western Australia to work among Aboriginal people ...
Appalled by the conditions of the Aboriginals on bonded labour contracts, little different from slavery. {MASSIVE understatement}
His outspokenness soon became an embarrassment to the diocesan mission that employed him. {MASSIVE understatement: they took action against him, joining in the whole -

is

Amazing insight into what that verse means to us. I totally buy that holding strong beliefs will bring hostility sometimes, but certainly not persecution in the modern sense, as you explain. I think Poke has been careful to say that mild opposition isn't persecution, though, so he's good.


I also still hold that it's very rare in some Christian-dominated demographies for Christians to encounter opposition. My wife and I live in a fairly religion-friendly locale (Loma Linda). Opposition is hard to come by and will be for the foreseebale future. ;)

[whag]

Don't know if anyone gave you a response to this but:
Matthew 10:32-33 (ESV)
32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

Of course I've heard that, but i'm sure it's not a blanket statement meaning you'll go to hell for the lie. That'd be harsh, especially if the life that preceded your lie was faithful. If my lying somehow extends my life long enough to rush the gunman and save other lives, I'm doing it. Jesus isn't so dumb that he can't figure that out!