OUR FEATURED MINISTRY ARTICLE: from Courageous Christians United

[Trout]

God can use anything, good or evil. Doesn't make it right.

Yes, it does.

[Your confused]

Another great idea...Ed Phelps has really advanced the kingdom with his "God hates Fags" campaign. Oh wait maybe that's too offensive.

You have no way to determine what God has done through Phelps.

You're exactly right God can use everything; we're assured of that in scripture. But I don't see where that gives us license to be an idiot.

No, we're idiots by nature, God can use our idiocy to further the Kingdom.

[Your confused]

You have no way to determine what God has done through Phelps..

It's pretty safe to assume that Phelps has done more to harm the cause of Christ and the name of Christianity then most other crazy campaigns.

No, we're idiots by nature, God can use our idiocy to further the Kingdom.

Really!?!?!?! Well then I guess you would have to throw out all that scripture about "fruits" being patient, kind, loving etc... Where in scripture do you have the right to be offensive and then celebrate about how you were lead by the Holy Spirit? Seeing as those "fruits" are commonly associated with the Spirit.

[Kelp]

God can even use the latter, DJ.

Of course he can, does that mean I should go up to someone with a gun in my hand and say, "except Jesus or I'll blow you away."? Of course not, that would be wrong. But the fact that God can use it doesn't mean that I should go do it.

All that Neo was saying, as far as I can see, is that it is encumbered upon us to correctly and honestly represent Mormon heresies. The fact that God can use someone who runs up to a Mormon, spouts some piece of missinfromation, calls them a dirty sinner, and runs off does not mean that it is right for us to behave so sloppily. You need to actually present a cogent case for why they need Jesus, not just assume that if you can get them mad enough, they'll do it themselves.

[Kelp]

It's pretty safe to assume that Phelps has done more to harm the cause of Christ and the name of Christianity then most other crazy campaigns.



Really!?!?!?! Well then I guess you would have to through out all that scripture about "fruits" being patient, kind, loving etc... Where in scripture do you have the right to be offensive and then celebrate about how you were lead by the Holy Spirit? Seeing as those "fruits" are commonly associated with the Spirit.

Did you just respond to yourself?

[Your confused]

@ DEE DEE

No I was confused on the quoting system. I was responding to a first page post.

It's corrected now.

[Kelp]

Oh. Ok.

[Trout]

It's pretty safe to assume that Phelps has done more to harm the cause of Christ and the name of Christianity then most other crazy campaigns.

How did you determine that?

Really!?!?!?! Well then I guess you would have to throw out all that scripture about "fruits" being patient, kind, loving etc... Where in scripture do you have the right to be offensive and then celebrate about how you were lead by the Holy Spirit? Seeing as those "fruits" are commonly associated with the Spirit.

You're being offensive right now toward me. How dare you, hypocrite.

[Trout]

Of course he can, does that mean I should go up to someone with a gun in my hand and say, "except Jesus or I'll blow you away."? Of course not, that would be wrong. But the fact that God can use it doesn't mean that I should go do it.

Even if you did do that, God could use that to further His Kingdom.

All that Neo was saying, as far as I can see, is that it is encumbered upon us to correctly and honestly represent Mormon heresies. The fact that God can use someone who runs up to a Mormon, spouts some piece of missinfromation, calls them a dirty sinner, and runs off does not mean that it is right for us to behave so sloppily. You need to actually present a cogent case for why they need Jesus, not just assume that if you can get them mad enough, they'll do it themselves.

Shame on John the Baptist . . . telling people they needed to repent, what a hatemonger.

[Kelp]

Even if you did do that, God could use that to further His Kingdom.

Is there an echo in here . I just said that. So do you wanna start the Death Threats for Jesus Club or should I? Seeing as how God's potential ends justify every one of our possible means....

Shame on John the Baptist . . . telling people they needed to repent, what a hatemonger.

John the Baptist spoke honestly and let the message offend. He did not missrepresnt the way that the people thought and what the nature of their errors were. He used Scripture to convince the people that they needed to repent. I'm not against loudness or passion, I'm against sloppiness and
treating people like they're stupid. It seems like a lot of what passes as confrontational evangelism degerates into contentless sloganeering. I don't know if these folks in the article are that way and I hope they aren't.

[Trout]

Is there an echo in here . I just said that. So do you wanna start the Death Threats for Jesus Club or should I? Seeing as how God's potential ends justify every one of our possible means....

I think you should start the, "Club any Christians you find offensive" ministry.

So all Christians don't believe the same about evangelism . . . so what?

John the Baptist spoke honestly and let the message offend. He did not missrepresnt the way that the people thought and what the nature of their errors were. He used Scripture to convince the people that they needed to repent. I'm not against loudness or passion, I'm against sloppiness and
treating people like they're stupid. It seems like a lot of what passes as confrontational evangelism degerates into contentless sloganeering. I don't know if these folks in the article are that way and I hope they aren't.

And I'm against someone who is silent about the Gospel because they're afraid to offend.

I'm glad those that I encountered who preached the Gospel to me did so in an offensive enough manner to get my attention.

[Your confused]

How did you determine that?.

Well with running the danger of a cyclical argument. How do you determine "all methods of evagelism" have benefited the Kingdom?

But for the sake of argument google "Phelps" and see what most bloggers (christian and non) are saying about this self proclaimed "prophet" of God.

You're being offensive right now toward me. How dare you, hypocrite.

I'm assuming that your being "witty" but incase you're not I offer this rebuttal.

The word of God cannot contradict itself. For instance "that which you of done unto the least of these you have done unto me" or "speak the truth in love" can not coexist with a theology of marginalization.

Equally so a by "whatever means necessary approach" that is nothing more than a mass marketing of the gospel is offensive to most (non-believers) and contradictory to scriptures mandates about how to make a true disciple. All missionaries to foreign countries undergo intensive culture training so as not to offend. So why is it that we assume if we bombard people with an in your face gospel message; without understanding their "culture"; we are actually doing a good work.

[Kelp]

So all Christians don't believe the same about evangelism . . . so what?

Well, it's no particular skin off my back, I was just trying to figure out what you guys are actually suggesting. So, here's what it looks like to me: If anything evangelisitc that God might use to advance His kingdom automatical becomes a right action, as you said to Yoshi back there(EDIT to add: in post 15), then it follows that if I decided to, say, blows some unbeliever's kneecaps off with a gun because I thought that might be what it takes for God to get through to him, I am not, in fact, quilty of sin but am performing a laudable deed of evangelism?

And I'm against someone who is silent about the Gospel because they're afraid to offend.

Same here. But that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm glad those that I encountered who preached the Gospel to me did so in an offensive enough manner to get my attention.

I don't know what they did. Assuming for a second that they did not preach in an optimal manner, I'm still glad that God used their methods to get through to you. However, being a Calvinist you believe, as I do, that God inscrutably makes up His elect. The fact that you are saved has nothing to do with what those evangelists should have done, if they did indeed do something wrong.

[Trout]

Well with running the danger of a cyclical argument. How do you determine "all methods of evagelism" have benefited the Kingdom?

Look, you made the statement, "It's pretty safe to assume that Phelps has done more to harm the cause of Christ and the name of Christianity then most other crazy campaigns."

I just thought you might want to back up such a slanderous statement as that.

I think Phelps is nutty, I think he goes way overboard, but I wouldn't say that he's "harmed the Gospel of Christ".

But for the sake of argument google "Phelps" and see what most bloggers (christian and non) are saying about this self proclaimed "prophet" of God.

You're making an appeal to the majority, that's not how Christianity works.

Most marriages end in divorce, does that mean marriage is wrong?

I'm assuming that your being "witty" but incase you're not I offer this rebuttal. The word of God cannot contradict itself. For instance "that which you of done unto the least of these you have done unto me" or "speak the truth in love" can not coexist with a theology of marginalization.

In the Psalms we read, "answer a fool according to his folly" we also read, "answer not a fool according to his folly". It seems that there is a time and place for each answer.

There's also a time and place for the street preacher.

Equally so a by "whatever means necessary approach" that is nothing more than a mass marketing of the gospel is offensive to most (non-believers) and contradictory to scriptures mandates about how to make a true disciple. All missionaries to foreign countries undergo intensive culture training so as not to offend. So why is it that we assume if we bombard people with an in your face gospel message; without understanding their "culture" we are actually doing a good work.

Why do you think Paul was stoned? Why do you think he was thrown in jail?

Was it because of his totally understanding and sensitive ways in the face of a new culture?

[Trout]

Well, it's no particular skin off my back, I was just trying to figure out what you guys are actually suggesting. So, here's what it looks like to me: If anything evangelisitc that God might use to advance His kingdom automatical becomes a right action, as you said to Yoshi back there(EDIT to add: in post 15), then it follows that if I decided to, say, blows some unbeliever's kneecaps off with a gun because I thought that might be what it takes for God to get through to him, I am not, in fact, quilty of sin but am performing a laudable deed of evangelism?

You can do something evil and God can use it to further the Kingdom.

I don't know what they did. Assuming for a second that they did not preach in an optimal manner, I'm still glad that God used their methods to get through to you. However, being a Calvinist you believe, as I do, that God inscrutably makes up His elect. The fact that you are saved has nothing to do with what those evangelists should have done, if they did indeed do something wrong.

What?

Romans 10:14

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

Maybe they were predestined to preach to me in language that would be effective?