Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Interesting Comments

The Murphy’s, said, “I am not a Christian. Yet,I am a follower of Jesus."

How can you not want to hold to the title “Christian”? Yet you say you are "a follower Christ". The two are one in the same. I like the verses that emram quoted to you: Acts 11.26; 26.28; 1 Pet. 4.16. Perhaps you should check these out.

The Murphy’s, said, “If I said I were a Christian you would think that I agree with Ray(and the many others), I have always had a problem with Ray and his methods.”

Ray isn’t perfect and I would have a problem with “his” methods too. But they aren’t “his methods”. Using the law in evangelism is biblical (Rom 3:19) and many wonderful men of old (Spurgeon, Whitefield, Wesley, Moody, Calvin, etc.) used the law. Ray isn’t coming up with something new. It’s old truth. Taken from the scriptures and used by men of old down through the ages. Not sure what your problem is. Perhaps it’s with the scriptures and not with Ray.

The Murphy’s said, “Though Ray would think I am not a Christian, I am sure, and that I am liberal one at that.”

Why would Ray not think you’re a Christian? Have you talked to him?

The Murphy’s said, “Here's my suggestion to "Christians" in talking to our fellow brothers and sisters in this blog called "unbelievers"”

Unbelievers are not our “brothers and sisters”. Not sure why you are using these terms. This is not how a Christian should be talking. No where in the Word of God do we see that unbelievers are called our “brothers and sisters”. You are either in Adam or you are in Christ. And those that are in Christ are our brethren.

The Murphy’s said, “3. Lose, lose this battle.Its ok, as you believe, God is really big.”

Not sure what you mean by this.

The Murphy’s said, “Last, if you believe God is really big, then why aren't you talking to "unbelievers" about their soul.”

Not sure why you keep using quotes around the word “unbelievers”. They are unbelievers. An atheist doesn’t believe in God. Let’s look at a basic definition taken off the web of the word “unbeliever”. 1. One who lacks belief or faith, especially in a particular religion; a nonbeliever. 2. Someone who denies the existence of god 3. A person who does not manifest devotion to a deity. And I’m not sure if you have read any of my past posts and comments, but the gospel (which is the best thing for anyone's soul) has been presented many times.

The Murphy’s said, “Their soul is yearning to hear something real and authentic, not lies, and gospel selling tactics.”

Again, I’m not sure if you’ve been reading any of my comments or other Christian’s comments here on this blog. But we are consistantly attempting to share the everlasting Gospel of Jesus Christ with the unbelievers. That's my concern. Listen to one of the latest comments directed from a believer to an atheist "I'll pray for you, I mean...I've been praying for you and I want you to commit to me that when you are converted you'll let me know or at least Trish know. I have been talking to God about you and so has Trish. I pray that He breaks in on your hearts and that you'll fall to your knees and cry out to Him for mercy. That's what I did. He broke in on my world when I was 19 yrs old and I've never been the same. All I know was I was blind and now I see." And I said this, "...we can only plead with you and say look into the mirror of the 10 commandments and see how you measure up. You are guilty. You need the only one who can present you blameless to God, namely...Christ!"

The Murphy's, what can be more “real” more “authentic” than that? The Murphy’s said, "I am not talking about pointing out all of their sins either"

We don't point out their sins. The 10 Commandments do. God’s Word does. When we use God’s law…it’s like a mirror that shows us our true state before a holy God. It shows us that we are dirty. That we have sinned and that we need to be washed with the blood of Christ. The Commandments point out my sins, your sins and the worlds sins. “Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:19. And the hope is that the sinner will see that they need the Savior (Jesus Christ) and that He is the only one that can wash the sinner clean. When you have G.E. (an atheist) saying that what you have said is “nice” there is a huge problem with your message. G.E. denies God. And more specifically…he denies the God of the bible. He has suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. He doesn’t believe the bible. It should concern you that in your post you have done the very thing that you say we aren’t doing. Where is your gospel presentation to all the atheists?

28 comments:

Chew said...

I feel ya in this situation. I personally have a friend who is a "believer" and completely denies the validity of the Bible. Do people realize how absurd it is to follow Jesus, but not be a Christian or to be a "Christian" and not believe in the authoirty of scripture. No wonder the world sees the church as nothing but hypocrites.

Javier said...

The Murphy’s, said, “I am not a Christian. Yet,I am a follower of Jesus."

Which simply means, I'm a liberal.

“If I said I were a Christian you would think that I agree with Ray(and the many others),”

The word can mean many things to different people. For example if I said I were a Christian in a Roman Cahtolic forum, they would think I bow to statues, pray the Rosary and kiss the ring of Popes.

I have always had a problem with Ray and his methods.

Yes. And so do the pagans. If you have a problem, demonstrate why you have a problem.

Also, Ray's method has a history, its not stand alone and he didn't develop it himself (albeit he has a specific means of using the method). But it has a history, and its used by many Christian leaders.

“Though Ray would think I am not a Christian, I am sure, and that I am liberal one at that.”

You most certainly are, I wouldn't disagree at all. Of course, I've read your blog and some of your posts. You seem very confused.

I won't address the comments made in ignorance regarding the purpose of Trisha's blog. Apparently you've not read anything she's posted, or seen or heard any of the clips.

"I am not talking about pointing out all of their sins either"

Yeah. How dare Christians 'follow Jesus' .

get_education said...

Trish,

Not sure what your problem is. Perhaps it’s with the scriptures and not with Ray.

Ptuagh! Where in the Bible does it say:

You shall make straw men about what you do not believe.

Or:

Lying for Jesus is fine.

Show me and I will stop having problems with Ray.

G.E.

Jason and Vanessa said...

So you are a "...follower of Jesus."

and you say: "I am not talking about pointing out all of their sins either"

That would be a contradiction. Which Jesus are you following? Post-modern, liberal, emergent Jesus according to your own liking?

Jason and Vanessa said...

One more question,...

Shouldn't you want to follow the entire Bible,...not just Jesus? (some of the apostles told us to follow them since they were examples, and Hebrews tells us the saints of old were likewise examples for us)

Do you not follow everything else in the Bible?

The Murphy's said...

Hey Trish,

Sorry for not responding sooner, I didn't know you posted my comment on your blog. Thanks!

I will answer your questions/statements first:

1. "How can you not want to hold to the title “Christian”? Yet you say you are "a follower Christ". The two are one in the same. I like the verses that emram quoted to you: Acts 11.26; 26.28; 1 Pet. 4.16. Perhaps you should check these out."

Well if you look at the Acts 11:23 verses you will find that this term is what the people in Anitoch decided to call followers of Christ and the 26:28 verse King Agripa(not a Christian) called Paul a Christian. So in Acts, we don't have evidence that it is normal to be called a Christian, we just find they were designated this term. The Peter verse is where we finally see a follower of Christ designating themselve a Christian, a term given to them by outsiders of the faith.

So they aren't the same. What it meant to be a Christian then, and a Christian now, are a LOT different. If I say I am a Christian to a modern day person, there a million different things, cults, issues, etc. that go along with that word. If I say I am a follower of Jesus Christ, that is a different issue. It takes all religious overtones out of it. I could care less what people think about the religion Christianity or denominations and sects thereof,all I care about is what they think about Jesus and how I represent Him.

2. The Ray issue. As I commented on your original post, and I will admit now, along with Ray, that I am not perfect. I just think calling something "The Way of The Master" is VERY presumptuous. Ray, and you, are saying that his method is The Masters only way to evangelize, and simply, it is not. I have no problem with any scriptures. I love them! I've watched and heard MANY, of Rays, yours, and Todd shows, and it belittles people so much that I always have to turn it off, my blood pressure can't take it.I've read all of Rays books, and have them still in a box in my garage. The way you guys treat people is just so wrong. One of Rays old books is called "Militant Evangelism", I read it a while ago, and strongly disagree with him. Do you really think that I want to be associated with someone that calls himself a Militant Evangelist. Sounds like another world religion we denounce when they are militant???

3. Ray wouldn't think I was a Christian because I know all of his teachings on false conversion. I wouldn't fit into his box. I read the Bible before I came to Christ, fell in love with Jesus, went to a church, and responded to a altar call. Now Ray would say, did you hear the law first? Did you know you were a sinner? Was there to much love presented in the altar call? You and Ray put God in your little box called The Way of The Master, if no body fits, they aren't saved and they are damned to hell. I think all of my atheist brothers and sisters know deep down, just like I do and did, that we are not perfect. No one is. We can all admit that we make BIG mistakes in life. This leads to your next quesiton....

4."Unbelievers are not our “brothers and sisters”. Not sure why you are using these terms. This is not how a Christian should be talking. No where in the Word of God do we see that unbelievers are called our “brothers and sisters”. You are either in Adam or you are in Christ. And those that are in Christ are our brethren."

Great question. I am pretty sure you are a strong supporter of life. Since you believe that we are all created in the image of God as a child, why does your mind change for a older person. If you believe that we are all created by God, then aren't we His children and all of those that are his children aren't we their brothers and sisters? I think your mind is stuck on church talk. Hello brother....hello sister..so and so.I am talking about humanity, you are connected to the atheist just as much as you are connected to the best super dooper Christian. Maybe thats how you and Ray see people, that is called objectification. When you only look at a person as a object, instead of living, breathing, human being, with emotions and need for respect and love.

5. I know you have presented the gospel. Sorry if I sounded like you hadn't. The blog post we were talking about was about evolution, which is not a battle I think worthy of talking to atheist about. I want them to know the Jesus I know, and you know. I just don't agree with yours or Rays methods of presenting the gospel. I am sure we can agree to disagree. I know we can both agree that following Jesus is the greatest decision one could make.

6. About get_education (G.E.). G.E. is not just an atheist, he is a human, he is my brother. I want G.E. to know that there is a lot of room for his objectivity in Christ. I want G. E. to know its okay to think and be a follower of Christ. I will throw out everything, if G.E. will just for a second think that following Jesus isn't as hard as you and Ray make it out to be. G.E., if you are reading this, thanks for saying what I said was nice. If you have any questions, I am open for discussion.

7. This is the Jesus I want the atheist to know...."Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” " (Matthew 11:28-30, ESV)

Thanks Trish.

_______________________________

Chew,

Your right, the church is filled with hypocrites, I don't deny that.

I am one of them...So was Paul (Rom 7:13-25)
_____________________________

Javier,

You didn't have any questions to answer. You've obviously read Rays book about being Militant, because you are. Look at your comments.

______________________________
Jason,

Whats up! I follow the same Jesus you do. Are you saying all Jesus did and does is point out our sin? What about Luke 10:25-37? What did Jesus say merited eternal life? Did he point out sin to the lawyer? Actually Jesus pointed out the wrong doings of the religious of the day, rather than the unbeliever.

You said "Shouldn't you want to follow the entire Bible,...not just Jesus? (some of the apostles told us to follow them since they were examples, and Hebrews tells us the saints of old were likewise examples for us)Do you not follow everything else in the Bible?"

I don't understand, are you saying Jesus isn't central to your faith? He is central to me. Are you saying I should put Paul on the same level as Jesus?

Fish with Trish said...

The Murphy’s said, “Ray, and you, are saying that his method is The Masters only way to evangelize, and simply, it is not.”

Where has Ray or I said this is the “only way” to evangelize?

The Murphy’s said, “I've watched and heard MANY, of Rays, yours, and Todd shows, and it belittles people so much that I always have to turn it off, my blood pressure can't take it.”

Nope. Wrong here. They are not adhominm attacks (attacking the individual’s character, etc.). We attack heresy, bad doctrine and tear down strongholds that rise up against the knowledge of God. Defend the truth. How can your blood pressure go up with these men are defending truth. You can look on my blog and you won’t see adhominm attacks, but you will see is me defending the truth.

The Murphy’s said, “I've read all of Rays books, and have them still in a box in my garage. The way you guys treat people is just so wrong.”

“Treat” people? All we do is tell them about the everlasting Gospel of Christ. Is that a negative thing? Ray hasn’t beaten anyone up or treated them in an ill manner”. I’ve never beat anyone up for disagreeing with the gospel, but the opposite has happened. Ray’s been persecuted for righteousness sake and so have I. I’ve been cussed out, spit at, had tracts thrown at me (but that’s nothing compared to what other precious souls are suffering right now for the gospels sake). Don’t forget that Christ said, “woe to you if all men speak well of you.” (Luke 6:26) If this is the case, then something is terribly wrong with your message. Either that or you’re not preaching the gospel. Once you begin to share your faith biblically, you’ll see what happens. Remember, Christ was perfect (absolutely perfect, morally perfect) and they still crucified him. I’m not perfect, just forgiven by a good God who loves me and gave himself up for me. I love to share the good news because He changed me. He made me new. I was blind and now I see. I have passed from death to life. I’m chosen. I’m Him Sheep and because of this…I’m compelled to preach.

The Murphy’s said, “One of Rays old books is called "Militant Evangelism", I read it a while ago, and strongly disagree with him.”

That’s a great book. I own it. He also has an audio teaching. It’s tremendous and very convicting.

The Murphy’s said, “Do you really think that I want to be associated with someone that calls himself a Militant Evangelist. Sounds like another world religion we denounce when they are militant???”

Nope. Of course you don’t want to be associated with that title. You don’t want the title “Christian” so why would you want something that speaks of being aggressive and pro-active, sold out and committed, combative and compelled to share your faith. The opposite of that word “Militant” according to online dictionaries are apathetic, compliant, peaceful, restrained, submissive, and tolerant. But please don’t misunderstand me. We aren’t to be offensive. The Gospel already is offensive. So my goal when I’m on the streets sharing my faith or here on the blog is to adorn the Gospel. But I am also called to defend it. For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. (1 Cor. 9:16).

The Murphy’s said, “Ray wouldn't think I was a Christian because I know all of his teachings on false conversion. I wouldn't fit into his box.”

“I think all of my atheist brothers and sisters know deep down, just like I do and did, that we are not perfect. No one is.”

Now you’re talking biblical—well, except for the “brothers and sisters” part.

The Murphy’s said, “Since you believe that we are all created in the image of God as a child, why does your mind change for a older person. If you believe that we are all created by God, then aren't we His children and all of those that are his children aren't we their brothers and sisters?”

No. We are his creatures. Those that are in Adam are of Adam and those that are in Christ are of Christ and are in the family of God. It’s not biblical to refer to an atheist as your brother and sister. The Church of God is addressed as that name. Atheists are wonderful creatures of the God but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness and if they don’t repent and fall on the mercy seat of Christ than they will not have any part in the kingdom on Christ and of God. (1 John 4:10), (Rev. 1:5), (John 3:16), (Matt. 9:13), (Mark 1:16; 2:17; 6:12), (2 Cor. 7:10), (Acts 17:30), (John 3:15-18), (2 Cor. 6:2), (James 4:14).

The Murphy's said, "I think your mind is stuck on church talk."

Wrong. Hopefully my mind has been thinking the thoughts of God after HIM. And that’s why I talk the way I do. The Murphy’s, I’m just trying to speak biblically here and that should be a priority for you as well, if you're a Christian. It concerns me that you don’t place a high value on the Word of God. It’s evident by the wishy washy language you use.

The Murphy’s said, “you are connected to the atheist just as much as you are connected to the best super dooper Christian.”

True. I am a sinner and so is the atheist. And there is no such thing as a “super doper Christian” we are sinners saved by grace. I love atheist’s. But I’d rather have them hate me now and thank me later. I’m praying that every atheist and unbeliever on my blog will have their eyes opened, that they’ll fall to their knees and be overcome with the kindness and mercy of God. That He would send his only Son to die and on a rugged old cross and be lifted up and provide a way for them to be forgiven. That’s why I’m pleading with them. There’s hope for them. But more importantly I care about God’s glory. I tell them hard things because I am commanded to. And it’s a joy for me to serve the Lord. But we still aren’t suppose to call them “brothers and sisters”. They aren’t, yet. :-)

The Murphy’s said, “I just don't agree with yours or Rays methods of presenting the gospel.”

So then please give us your presentation of the Gospel. I’ll use Ray’s analogy. “I’ve got 3 minutes to live, I’ve got a knife in my back, and you have 3 minutes to give me the Gospel message before I die.” What do you say, The Murphy’s?

Jason and Vanessa said...

Ryan (The Murphy's),

You said:

Are you saying all Jesus did and does is point out our sin?

I am not saying that, but from what I am reading it sounds like sins can never be pointed out. (which He did point out sins to many "non-religious" as does the rest of Scripture)

I don't understand, are you saying Jesus isn't central to your faith? He is central to me. Are you saying I should put Paul on the same level as Jesus?

Lets just get to the root of this,...I don't want to assume so I will ask. Do you agree with Tony Campolo's "Red-Letter Christian"? (I ask cause it seems like you do,...that is that Jesus (the red-letters) override everything else in Scripture.)

Is not all Scripture breathed out by God? Profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness? All, not just the red-letters?

Soli Deo Gloria!

jason d.

Javier said...

2. The Ray issue.

It's not a 'Ray' issue. It's an issue of obedience, will you obey the command of scripture to proclaim the Gospel?

I've watched and heard MANY, of Rays, yours, and Todd shows, and it belittles people so much that I always have to turn it off, my blood pressure can't take it.

I. What exactly do you mean by belittle?

ii. The method used by WOTMites is pretty uniform, but the way its communicated is diverse. So you must disagree with the communication of the Law and The Gospel.

iii. Since the way the message is communicated is diverse you are generalizing.

The way you guys treat people is just so wrong.

i. Again, this is a generalization. What exactly do you mean?

ii. Do you mean its unbiblical?

iii. If it's not unbiblical, I can be honest with you, I don't care.

Sounds like another world religion we denounce when they are militant???

Yes. But we don't judge worldviews by their ability to be 'moderate' but the claims made in regards to truth. If Islam is true, then Islam is right in being militant, likewise if Christianity is true Christians are right in being militant. If God indeed does command us to be 'militant' (Which is just another word for being Biblical).

Since you believe that we are all created in the image of God as a child, why does your mind change for a older person.

It doesn't. We fight for the value of human life. That doesn't in anyway imply we mean they are in Christ.

If you believe that we are all created by God, then aren't we His children and all of those that are his children aren't we their brothers and sisters?

Then you are equivocating. Trisha clearly means the fact that we are a New Creation, and how all are dead in Adam and alive in Christ.

I think your mind is stuck on church talk. Hello brother....hello sister..so and so. I am talking about humanity, you are connected to the atheist just as much as you are connected to the best super dooper Christian. Maybe thats how you and Ray see people, that is called objectification. When you only look at a person as a object, instead of living, breathing, human being, with emotions and need for respect and love.

I have no idea how this follows from any use of the Law and Gospel. This is pure rubbish.

I am sure we can agree to disagree. I know we can both agree that following Jesus is the greatest decision one could make.


Yes! Decide for Jesus. Wrong. God makes the decision, man follows.

I will throw out everything, if G.E. will just for a second think that following Jesus isn't as hard as you and Ray make it out to be.

I'm not here to defend Ray, but apparently you've never really heard any of whats taught. This is pure unbiblical garbage. The Bible is not a manual on how to follow Jesus, its principally a book of God's revelation regarding his REDEMPTION of a people. It's ABSOLUTELY hard to follow Jesus, thats his WHOLE point in coming to save us from the Law. It's a tragedy that you would claim to follow Christ without recognizing your total inability, and perversity in his eyes.

G.E., if you are reading this, thanks for saying what I said was nice. If you have any questions, I am open for discussion.

Yeah. Let's be really nice to the unbeliever instead of sharing the Gospel maybe, just maybe he'll 'make a decision' for Jesus!

7. This is the Jesus I want the atheist to know...."Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” " (Matthew 11:28-30, ESV)

Amen. But the repentance and belief in the Gospel precedes obedience to the New Testament commands, and the Law precedes the Gospel. This is how G_E can know Christ by repenting of his sin, his wickedness before God, and his total inability to please him and turning from His sin. You are such a threat to Biblical Christianity because you paint our savior to be a hippy. You follow "Jesus"
(©American Post-Evangelical Culture). I will follow the Christ, the Messiah who came to redeem those in bondage to the Law so that God's wrath may be propitiated on the cross and we can be justified. You make Christ to be an American, I make Christ to be God.

Peace & Love maan.
-Javy

The Murphy's said...

Since you are such a fundamentalist I am sure you have read things about humility and being meek in your Bible.

4. "If God indeed does command us to be 'militant' (Which is just another word for being Biblical)."
Not a question, but just had to say WOW! I had no idea that being Militant was another word for Biblical.


You said "You make Christ to be an American, I make Christ to be God."

Hum... don't see where you get this from, as everything I've stated has taken Jesus out of any boxes we put Him in.


Last, you said "But the repentance and belief in the Gospel precedes obedience to the New Testament commands, and the Law precedes the Gospel."

Trish, Jason, EmRam, do you agree with this statement?

The Murphy's said...

Trish that wasn't my whole response, did something happen to the rest?

Fish with Trish said...

The Murphy's, nope that was all I got.

The Murphy's said...

Oh thats weird....thats just my response to Javy...I will rewrite...sorry.

Fish with Trish said...

No problem, friend.

Javier said...

Since you are such a fundamentalist I am sure you have read things about humility and being meek in your Bible.

Since you're such a "Jesus follower" maybe you should follow Jesus when he rebuked people rightly, and harshly when they perverted God's holy doctrines, and His Gospel.

Not a question, but just had to say WOW! I had no idea that being Militant was another word for Biblical.


Sure is, in the sense that one is to believe the commands of scripture and what it teaches.

Hum... don't see where you get this from, as everything I've stated has taken Jesus out of any boxes we put Him in.

Oh please. You've removed Him from his rightful 'box' and placed him in yours.

Please answer Delgado's question. Are you a red letter Christian?




Trish, Jason, EmRam, do you agree with this statement?


Yes. One should know why he needs the Gospel, before he hears it. Which is the preaching of the Law to convict of sin. It removes your pride and demonstrates that you are totally hopeless in pleasing God. After this you are shown the Gospel, if you are regenerated you will have repent and believe which will be shown in works that demonstrate your justification.

get_education said...

Ryan (Murphy),

6. About get_education (G.E.). G.E. is not just an atheist, he is a human, he is my brother. I want G.E. to know that there is a lot of room for his objectivity in Christ. I want G. E. to know its okay to think and be a follower of Christ. I will throw out everything, if G.E. will just for a second think that following Jesus isn't as hard as you and Ray make it out to be. G.E., if you are reading this, thanks for saying what I said was nice. If you have any questions, I am open for discussion.

This was also nice.

I was about to come out to your defense. Then I thought you would be able to do that yourself. Then to my own defense. Trish, there is no relationship between an atheist saying that something is nice, and such thing being wrong. Thus, your statement including my acronym is a non-sequitur. I ave said "that was nice" to Mark W Laine, one of the most fundamentalist Christians posting at Ray's. I have thanked you for your offering of a Bible. Does that mean that your offer was "wrong"? So wrong that I even thanked you?

Many things I would like to correct in your post. But I might not see your answers. As busy as I have been lately.

G.E.

The Murphy's said...

Hello Trish,

Okay, sorry, I guess I accidentally deleted almost all my comment in response to everyones, except the part for Javy. So here is my repost. Sorry for the delay.

Answers to your questions:

1.“Where has Ray or I said this is the “only way” to evangelize?”

Trish, come on, its called THE WAY OF THE MASTER.

2.“How can your blood pressure go up with these men are defending truth?”

Its the way you, Ray, and Todd present it, its always in a condescending manner. I am not alone in my evaluation of this, I know Calvinist as yourself, that don't agree with Rays methods.

3.“So then please give us your presentation of the Gospel. I’ll use Ray’s analogy. “I’ve got 3 minutes to live, I’ve got a knife in my back, and you have 3 minutes to give me the Gospel message before I die.” What do you say, The Murphy’s?”

I don't like Rays analogy. Most life situations don't happen like this.
When I talk to people that aren't following Christ, I try not to use any church language that they wont understand. I may know the meaning to all theological terms and their greatness, but an unbeliever doesn't. So when I talk to someone about the Jesus I tell them that the greatest act of human love is to put oneself before another or to put your life on the line to save another's life. We call these heroes, they rush into burning building, they jump into icy cold water, etc. They put their life on the line to save another. Well the greatest act in all of history occurred when Jesus, who was an innocent man, was unjustly executed, Roman executioner style on a cross. Yet Jesus wasn't just killed, He willing gave up His life. Not just to prove a point, but to rescue humankind from their condition. That condition being the evil we see around us that other humans commit and the bad things we do in life that keep us from living a real life. This is called sin, the best way to describe sin, is that it keeps us from a relationship with God, every human has sin. So Jesus, having no sin in him, lived a perfect life, and willing put His life as a substitute for all of us, so that when God sees us, He only sees the perfection of Christ. When we decide to follow Jesus, we don't have to be perfect or try to attain perfection, but we are telling Him that we believe in the act that He did for us on the cross and we want to learn from Him how to life a real life.

Trish, I am so thankful that you feel called to share the gospel, that is awesome, don't get me wrong. The only thing that I am trying to convey to you, or Ray, or Todd is the way in which you make following Jesus look. I am pretty sure your whole life isn't Militant. I am sure you treat your family, your friends at church, with the other fruits of the Spirit. All I am asking is that you try and treat those you talk to with the same fruit of the Spirit. All people don't respond well to giving them tracts, confronting them on the street, or putting a camera in their face.
Also, most intellectual people I know, that aren't following Jesus could care less about fighting about creation,apologetics,etc. they want to objectively talk about the real spiritual issues of following Jesus. Questions like...why follow Jesus instead of Mohammed, Buddha, Tom Cruise (LOL).

Jason,
To answer your questions:

1 .“Lets just get to the root of this,...I don't want to assume so I will ask. Do you agree with Tony Campolo's "Red-Letter Christian"? (I ask cause it seems like you do,...that is that Jesus (the red-letters) override everything else in Scripture.)”


You know I don't like assigning myself to boxes, so why would I say I am a red letter chrisitian? I like most of what Campolo, Claiborne, etc. say, very good stuff. But I am not going to totally put all my stock in that. BUT, what I do put stock in is Jesus. You didn't answer my question, is Jesus Christ central to your faith and nothing else? IF not, why? Is that a Calvinist thing?


2. “Is not all Scripture breathed out by God? Profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness? All, not just the red-letters? “

Yes. BUT, Jesus is central to all scriptures, is He not?

Javy,

To answer the rest of your questions.

1. “It's not a 'Ray' issue. It's an issue of obedience, will you obey the command of scripture to proclaim the Gospel?”

Do you want me to be obedient to Ray or Matthew 28?

2.“What exactly do you mean by belittle?”

See my answer to Trish, but its about how they treat people.

3.” Since you're such a "Jesus follower" maybe you should follow Jesus when he rebuked people rightly, and harshly when they perverted God's holy doctrines, and His Gospel. “

This is what I mean, all you see Jesus as is a Militant Savior. I am sorry you see Him that way. By the way, most of the people he rebuked were the religious of the day, because they were Militant and Legalistic.

Jason and Vanessa said...

Murph (Ryan) said:

You know I don't like assigning myself to boxes, so why would I say I am a red letter chrisitian?

I am aware you don't like boxes, even though you put everyone else in one. What I asked is if you agreed, not are you one. Again I ask cause it seems like this is your appeal, that Jesus' sayings override everything else. (I am trying to ask very direct questions cause I can never seem to get a straight answer on some things)

You didn't answer my question, is Jesus Christ central to your faith and nothing else? IF not, why?

Yes, Jesus is central to my faith, (as we have discussed before) I believe He even gave me the faith, and that Jesus Christ is both the Author and the Finisher of my faith, thus all praise and glory belong to Him. However I wouldn't say "Nothing Else" is? There was the work of also God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. God used means to bring people (like myself) to faith,...like His life, death, and resurrection and the preaching of the Gospel, which one must hear before they can know Jesus (at least in a saving way) (Rom. 10)

Is that a Calvinist thing?

I define Calvinist as nothing more than being a Biblicist. I believe my view is consistent with the whole of Scripture. Either way this is simply a red herring. Do you believe the red-letters OVERRIDE everything else or not (or partially, if so how is that)?

“Is not all Scripture breathed out by God? Profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness? All, not just the red-letters? “

Yes. BUT, Jesus is central to all scriptures, is He not?


"Yes. BUT" ???

So is all Scripture profitable or not? Or is it, but the red-letters are just more profitable? I am trying to figure out what you are saying so you may need to be a little more specific. Perhaps this will help answer all our questions and we can see where you are coming from.

The whole of the book is written about Him (Jesus said) but I don't think just saying "Jesus is central" answers the question.

Saying "Jesus follower" can be misleading as you assert saying "Christian" can. So why not just explain what you mean if you are so afraid of people thinking wrongly about you. If someone doesn't know a church word why not explain it? Do you believe someone can be a Jesus follower apart from the new birth? What is the benefit of following Jesus if one is not saved? Can people be saved apart from hearing the gospel?


Here is some interesting thoughts on just being a Jesus follower:

“Doing what Jesus did is different from bearing the fruit of Christ’s righteous life. In fact, the most important things that Jesus did cannot be duplicated. Because he fulfilled the law in our place, bore our curse, and was raised in glory to take his throne at the Father’s right hand, we can have a relationship with him-and with the Father-that is far more intimate than the relationship of a devotee to a guru, a student to a teacher, or a follower to a master. Following Christ is the consequence, not the alternative to or even means of union with Christ. Even when Scripture calls us to follow Christ’s example, the relationship between master and pupil is asymmetrical.”

- Michael Horton, (read the rest of the article: What’s Wrong and Right About The Imitation of Christ)

Javier said...

To the Red Letter Jesus Follower,

You know I don't like assigning myself to boxes, so why would I say I am a red letter chrisitian?

You have assigned yourself to a box, the box of 'no boxes'. Now please, be serious and stop the foolishness.

Also, can you please tell me why you 'put stock' in Jesus' words and not as much 'stock' in that of Paul or the other Apostles? If you do 'put stock' in the words of Jesus, do you put stock in the Words of Jesus that 'put stock' in books of the Old Testament? Jesus, apparently followed the black letters pinned by His Father.

Do you want me to be obedient to Ray or Matthew 28?


You know what I mean. I'm not here to play games.

All I am asking is that you try and treat those you talk to with the same fruit of the Spirit. All people don't respond well to giving them tracts, confronting them on the street, or putting a camera in their face.

I can only conclude that you're deluded. You've not been in evangelism with Trisha then. I've personally been there (went this weekend) and did not in any sense see how she belittled anyone. Perhaps, its your conscience thats pricked, or perhaps your worldview is not molded by God's word as much as it should be.

Who cares what the culture has to say about the Gospel. This is exactly what got Jesus killed!

This is what I mean, all you see Jesus as is a Militant Savior. I am sorry you see Him that way.

Ryan, frankly you're not offering any argument for your opposition to the method used by WOTMites, or Christians in general. I'm sorry you want to remove Jesus from his 'box' and place him in another thats makes him no savior at all.

Also, I'm sorry you don't see Jesus that way. American Evangelicalism is a disaster for the very nonsense you're trying to push, Jesus isn't our 'good ol buddy' He is our God.

By the way, most of the people he rebuked were the religious of the day, because they were Militant and Legalistic.

Sure. But stop being ambigious. The term militant can mean so many things, and it seems your equivocating it with the Islamic militant who is bent on killing, and blowing up buildings. This is not even within the Christian bounds of evangelism. So to equate it is silly.

Finally, I am militant. So?

Can you argue for your position at all? It seems thorughout this whole post you've offerd a compare and contrast, as if we're not informed on the opposing positions.

The Murphy's said...

Jason,

You asked:

“What I asked is if you agreed, not are you one. Again I ask cause it seems like this is your appeal, that Jesus' sayings override everything else. (I am trying to ask very direct questions cause I can never seem to get a straight answer on some things) “

&

“Do you believe the red-letters OVERRIDE everything else or not (or partially, if so how is that)?”

Answer:

Jesus didn't come to abolish the Law, He came to fulfill it. Yet, Jesus says some things to the religious of the day they thought was heretical, He claimed to be God, in which He is and was. He also added to the old laws, with deeper descriptions, I.e. Hate = Murder, Lust = Adultery. He also said that all the Law and the Prophets were summed up with this.”Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

So Jesus did Override/Add to existing laws and commandments, do you agree with that? What about healing on the sabbath, etc? Did He override that? What about the women caught in adultery? Why didn't Jesus follow the Law and stone her?

"At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” He went on from there and entered their synagogue. And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”— so that they might accuse him. He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other." (Matthew 12:1-13, ESV)

Question:

“Yes, Jesus is central to my faith, (as we have discussed before) I believe He even gave me the faith, and that Jesus Christ is both the Author and the Finisher of my faith, thus all praise and glory belong to Him. However I wouldn't say "Nothing Else" is? “

Answer:

However??

Question:

“If someone doesn't know a church word why not explain it? Do you believe someone can be a Jesus follower apart from the new birth? What is the benefit of following Jesus if one is not saved? Can people be saved apart from hearing the gospel?”

Answer:

"One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” " (Luke 23:39-43, ESV)

Javy,

Please see my response to Jason about your question. The position I am arguing is antiMilitant, you are Militant, as seen in your comments. If you talk to unbelievers the way you talk to me, I feel sorry for them.

Jason and Vanessa said...

Ryan (The Murphy's),

You said:

He also added to the old laws, with deeper descriptions, I.e. Hate = Murder, Lust = Adultery.

I don't know if I would say He added to them, rather he was expositing them, explaining them in their full meaning.

If I grant your view then I could say James overwrites Jesus cause he says break one part of the law and you broke them all. That is more than what Jesus said, so perhaps Tony Campolo's new book could be "Letter-from-James Christians",...hm,...maybe not doesn't have a good ring to it ;)

He also said that all the Law and the Prophets were summed up with this.”Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Yes, but summing up doesn't mean overwrite.

Again, if I grant your argument then I could say Stephen overrides Jesus, cause He pretty much sums up the Old Testament in Acts 7, and that is more than Jesus summed up. So maybe Tony Campolo's 3rd book in his series could be "Stephen's-Speech Christians",...but again that is a weak book title ;)

So Jesus did Override/Add to existing laws and commandments, do you agree with that?

I would agree, depending on what you are talking about. Jesus did give new commands like "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another." (John 13:34) and "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[1] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," (Matthew 28:19) ect,... but the rest of the New Testament also has some commands we never had before,...right? So why just focus on the "red-letters" and not all letters? All Scripture is profitable, it really is.

What about healing on the sabbath, etc? Did He override that? What about the women caught in adultery? Why didn't Jesus follow the Law and stone her?

That was a law, but there is a higher law (or principle) which came from the Old Testament, and Jesus mentions it in that passage ("I desire mercy and not sacrifice") That was also done to show He was Lord of the Sabbath:

Matthew 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

I am still not hearing clear answers. Quoting Luke 23:39-43 does not answer these questions which I believe are core to this discussion:

Do you believe someone can be a Jesus follower apart from the new birth?

If so what is the benefit of following Jesus if one is not saved?

Can people be saved apart from hearing the gospel?


Grace & Peace,

jason d.

The Murphy's said...

Jason asked:

"Do you believe someone can be a Jesus follower apart from the new birth?"

Answer: Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus takes care of that question.

"If so what is the benefit of following Jesus if one is not saved?"

Answer: Salvation is only one part of the pie.

"Can people be saved apart from hearing the gospel?"

Answer: Ask the thief on the cross.

Jason and Vanessa said...

How about a straight answer?

Let me be more clear:

(italics was my original question
bold is your response)

--

"Do you believe someone can be a Jesus follower apart from the new birth?"

Answer: Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus takes care of that question.

That doesn't answer the question. Are you saying yes or no?

--

"If so what is the benefit of following Jesus if one is not saved?"

Answer: Salvation is only one part of the pie.

That doesn't answer the question, or maybe I am just not sure what this means, can you explain?

--

"Can people be saved apart from hearing the gospel?"

Answer: Ask the thief on the cross.

That doesn't answer the question.

If what you are trying to say is, "Yes, people can be saved apart from hearing the gospel" by your reply then I would disagree.

First off, you will have to assume that the thief on the cross did not hear any of the teaching of Christ prior to meeting Him on the cross, or he heard nothing of Him or His teachings from anyone else (like the disciples, or the 70 sent out by Christ).

Secondly, remember this is a narrative, and it isn't the only Scriptures that we have that talk about this issue. So though it is unclear whether or not this man heard the gospel, what can answer the original question by looking at specific teachings about this issue in Scripture? If you are saying "YES", then how do you reconcile that view with the following passages (just to point out a few)?

'And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.'
- Acts 4:12

'Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,...'
- 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

'For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?'
- Romans 10:13-14

Solas Christos,

jason d.

The Murphy's said...

Jason,
You said:
"First off, you will have to assume that the thief on the cross did not hear any of the teaching of Christ prior to meeting Him on the cross, or he heard nothing of Him or His teachings from anyone else (like the disciples, or the 70 sent out by Christ)."

I thought you were a biblical literalist? Wouldn't you accuse someone else of adding to scripture if they said this? What you are saying is that the scriptures aren't sufficent and that we need more to explain this situation, are you not?

Jason and Vanessa said...

I know you don't like boxes (even though you are quick to put everyone else in one) but there is a box I am thinking of that is very good at not giving any straight answers, and even though you may not like it you seem to do everything they do. If you have a certain conviction about something then why can't you say it? Why can't you give a straight answer?

So again I repeat the unanswered questions:

"Do you believe someone can be a Jesus follower apart from the new birth?"

"If so what is the benefit of following Jesus if one is not saved?"

And to respond your your comment about the last question which has still not been answered:

You said:
I thought you were a biblical literalist? Wouldn't you accuse someone else of adding to scripture if they said this? What you are saying is that the scriptures aren't sufficent and that we need more to explain this situation, are you not?

No, I am not saying that at all. I would say as you have told me in the past,..."This passage is not about teaching this doctrine we are discussing". That is the point, and if you come to the conclusion that I believe the Scriptures are not sufficient, then why would I use the Scriptures to prove my point to what we are talking about? I said exactly what my point was and I still await a answer as I am trying to understand where you are coming from as I think that is why we have very different ways of doing things. So let me repeat myself:

If you are saying "YES" (people can be saved apart from hearing the Gospel and this is proved by the thief on the cross), then how do you reconcile that view with the following passages (just to point out a few)?

'And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.'
- Acts 4:12

'Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,...'
- 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

'For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?'
- Romans 10:13-14


Solas Christos,

jason d.

The Murphy's said...

Jason,

I answered these questions already without a yes or no, but if thats what you want.....

I don't deny that the scriptures you quoted lead to Salvation alone in Christ. Yes, I believe if one follows Christ according to the new birth, there is salvation in no other name....

You cant deny the story of the thief on the cross though....my methodology and what you are stating are different...When I say thats not what a passage is saying,it is because of other scriptures that affirm a certain doctrine. In this instance you have nothing else to compare the thief to...so if you believe the scriptures then you believe that this man was saved, not based on hearing a gospel presentation, but by seeing Christ for who he was on the cross. I believe God can do anything, even to an aborigine that has never heard the gospel.That is because I base my doctrine off of God being an all loving God and a God that is just. How is it just that I was born in the bible belt, and an indigenous person with no communication to the rest of the world. God is just, He will give every man and woman a chance. (ref. Rom 2)

"If so what is the benefit of following Jesus if one is not saved?"

When one decides to follow Jesus, we learn from Him, and we experience true life. We learn our inadequacies(sin) and find our gifts. So I would never discourage anyone from following Him, because they will never be the same.

In John 19:38 we see a disciple that is fearful, but never the less, he is a disciple.

Jason and Vanessa said...

That would be our difference then. We are convinced from Scripture that the Word is to be preached (as it is commanded), in and out of season, and God uses the means of the gospel to graciously save undeserving sinners. This is why we place a high view on preaching the gospel to people, a high view on missions, ect,...

I am not debating whether the thief on the cross was saved or not, I know he was because Christ promised Him that he would be in paradise with Him that day.

As you said the thief on the cross saw Christ for who he was, I believe that too. But that doesn't teach the "wider mercy" view. If your proof for this is this story then does that aborigine see Christ (as you say) "as He really is"? Dying on the cross for sin.

Romans 2 is not making the point that "all get a chance" but that even though it is clear to all that there is a God that will and cannot save them.
Rom 2 is making the case that all have general revelation,...that is we can all see creation and know there is a Creator, but we exchange the truth for a lie,..ect...
Then chapter 3 says "no one seeks God" referring to everyone in the world,...all those who have creation as a proof.
So if that is your case that Rom2 says everyone gets a chance (even if they didn't hear the gospel) that just doesn't work with the rest of Romans. Romans 10 answers this directly:

'For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?'
- Romans 10:13-14


I reject that the Bible teaches a wider mercy view of salvation. Why would Paul say:

"woe is me if I do not preach the gospel"
- 1 Corinthians 9:16

The red letters of Jesus also tell us disciples are made from preaching the gospel, and if we do what He says (red letters) then we are His disciples indeed. Creation (Rom 2) doesn't tell us red letters.

I would be quick to reject a teaching that has always been seen as heretical and is a polar opposite of what is clearly taught in the Bible.

Sola Fide!

jason d.

Jason and Vanessa said...

oops,

I realized I had a incorrect reference in my last comment. Whenever I refer to "Rom 2" I meant "Rom 1".

However, regarding Romans 2, it goes on further to show all are guilty (as chapter 1 did, showing all are guilty cause they have creation) and chapter two says all our guilty because of what we call "conscience":


Rom 2
"12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."

So that doesn't prove God saves people outside of the gospel, it just show that He can justly condemn them even though they did not receive the law, cause their actions show they are a law unto themselves. So Rom 2 actually says the opposite for what you are trying to make it say.

"remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. - Eph 2:12

You say they all get a chance, right? So what happens to those who die without hearing about Christ? Do you also believe in "post-mortem evangelism", that people who didn't hear the gospel on earth well get to hear it after they die, then it's Heaven or Hell based on their decision?