As A Christian I Don't Need to Talk About Jesus

[ALAYMAN]

Preach the gospel, if necessary, use words Part Deux:

Should Christians Evangelize?

 

[rsc2a]

Bad theology, red herrings, and strawmen used to argue a position in a manner I would disagree with (even if I agree with his conclusion).

 

[HeDied4U]

Wow, someone had too much coffee that morning. The narrator spoke way to fast to be able to understand too clearly the points trying to be made.

However, having said that, while I do agree with the points being presented, I do believe that there is room for both approaches to evangelism. I've had people ask me about my faith just from them observing some of the things I do, but I also think it's essential that we spread / share the gospel by taking it "to the streets" so to speak.

 

[Izdaari]

Wow, someone had too much coffee that morning. The narrator spoke way to fast to be able to understand too clearly the points trying to be made.

However, having said that, while I do agree with the points being presented, I do believe that there is room for both approaches to evangelism. I've had people ask me about my faith just from them observing some of the things I do, but I also think it's essential that we spread / share the gospel by taking it "to the streets" so to speak.

That's how I see it too. I enjoyed the video, and thought it made some very good points. But it isn't all one or the other. Be a good example AND be willing to share the Gospel with any who want to hear it. But don't push it on those who don't, you'll just annoy them, which contradicts the good example part.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Wow, someone had too much coffee that morning. The narrator spoke way to fast to be able to understand too clearly the points trying to be made.

However, having said that, while I do agree with the points being presented, I do believe that there is room for both approaches to evangelism. I've had people ask me about my faith just from them observing some of the things I do, but I also think it's essential that we spread / share the gospel by taking it "to the streets" so to speak.

It's the necessary style that communicates to this A.D.D. generation.

Bad theology, red herrings, and strawmen...

For instance?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Bad theology, red herrings, and strawmen...

For instance?[/quote]

Bad theology
It's a big jump to assume anyone can live a good life.
No one is good except God alone.

vs.

"Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." - 1 Cor 11:1

(We can be good, but we are good because of what Christ has done in us.)

Strawmen
How would you know know any detail about God's plan if no one told you? You wouldn't. You couldn't.

...unless you picked up a Bible.

Of course, his entire idea of "you never need to say anything to anyone [about the Gospel] as long as you are nice to people" is a strawman all by itself since I know absolutely no professing Christian who believes this.

Red Herring
How would we know if God created the heavens and the earth in six days...

Since this is debatable (even among Christians), to add it is to "mislead or distract from the real issue".



The problem isn't his thesis statement, just with his supporting details He could have made the same overall point without getting into the weeds.

 

[Izdaari]

00

Red Herring
How would we know if God created the heavens and the earth in six days...

Since this is debatable (even among Christians), to add it is to "mislead or distract from the real issue".

I missed that last one. Yes, it's highly debatable and I don't believe it. I'm undecided between some form of OEC and TE, but I'm sure it's one or the other.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Bad theology
It's a big jump to assume anyone can live a good life.
No one is good except God alone.

vs.

"Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." - 1 Cor 11:1

(We can be good, but we are good because of what Christ has done in us.)

Yes, we can be good, but his point wasn't that Christians cannot do good acts, but rather that those good acts by themselves were not enough to communicate the information necessary for people to know the gospel.  His whole point throughout the video was to say that good deeds absent the articulation of the gospel is insufficient when the gospel is never verbally communicated.  He futhered this with the illustration of the three types of "good" (socially acceptable nice) people.  All three claim to be doing their good works for Jesus, and all three are indistiguishable by the good acts that they equally accomplish.  You are decontextualizing his video by isolating one portion of it.

Strawmen
How would you know know any detail about God's plan if no one told you? You wouldn't. You couldn't.

...unless you picked up a Bible.

That is the revelation of God,  not humans doing "good" and calling it the sufficient expression of the gospel.  His point, taken in total, is that a person must receive the information about who Christ is and what He has done, not just witness good deeds.

Of course, his entire idea of "you never need to say anything to anyone [about the Gospel] as long as you are nice to people" is a strawman all by itself since I know absolutely no professing Christian who believes this.

Well, the fellow pointed me to this clip has a show where he does open air evangelism, and on countless occasions I have seen with my own eyes the fact the there are evangelical Christians who oppose open air confrontational evangelism, all in the name of just simply living a good life.  Some of them believe that their good life will eventually grant them the opportunity/credibility to speak the gospel, but some of them have explicitly said that they believe their life will be the example for conversion.  In other words, simply because you don't anecdotally know of such species doesn't mean they don't exist.

Red Herring
How would we know if God created the heavens and the earth in six days...

Since this is debatable (even among Christians), to add it is to "mislead or distract from the real issue".



The problem isn't his thesis statement, just with his supporting details He could have made the same overall point without getting into the weeds.

nitpicking fer sure.  His point in that segment of the video was clearly that people need special revelation in order to become completely aware of their need for salvation.  He was speaking of the fact that evolution is untrue, and that the plight of man falling into sin from the beginning demanded that salvation come through God's divine method.  All this points to the doctrinal insufficiency of simply leading a good life.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Yes, we can be good, but his point wasn't that Christians cannot do good acts, but rather that those good acts by themselves were not enough to communicate the information necessary for people to know the gospel. [/quote]

Of course this directly contradicts what he actually said, but let's not let that get in the way.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]His whole point throughout the video was to say that good deeds absent the articulation of the gospel is insufficient when the gospel is never verbally communicated.  He futhered this with the illustration of the three types of "good" (socially acceptable nice) people.  All three claim to be doing their good works for Jesus, and all three are indistiguishable by the good acts that they equally accomplish.[/quote]

I agree with his major thesis. I don't agree with his supporting "facts" for a variety of reasons, three of which I have outlined.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]You are decontextualizing his video by isolating one portion of it.[/quote]

That "portion" is a third of the video and serves as the primary reason for the remaining 2/3's.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Strawmen
How would you know know any detail about God's plan if no one told you? You wouldn't. You couldn't.

...unless you picked up a Bible.

That is the revelation of God,  not humans doing "good" and calling it the sufficient expression of the gospel.  His point, taken in total, is that a person must receive the information about who Christ is and what He has done, not just witness good deeds.[/quote]

So you agree...his statement was inaccurate.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Of course, his entire idea of "you never need to say anything to anyone [about the Gospel] as long as you are nice to people" is a strawman all by itself since I know absolutely no professing Christian who believes this.

Well, the fellow pointed me to this clip has a show where he does open air evangelism, and on countless occasions I have seen with my own eyes the fact the there are evangelical Christians who oppose open air confrontational evangelism, all in the name of just simply living a good life.[/quote]

I'm generally opposed to open air (especially confrontational) evangelism. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to talking to others about Jesus.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Some of them believe that their good life will eventually grant them the opportunity/credibility to speak the gospel...[/quote]

Yes.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]...but some of them have explicitly said that they believe their life will be the example for conversion. [/quote]

And yes. Neither statement says anything about talking about Jesus.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]In other words, simply because you don't anecdotally know of such species doesn't mean they don't exist.[/quote]

The person you described isn't the same as the hypothetical person in the video.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Red Herring
How would we know if God created the heavens and the earth in six days...

Since this is debatable (even among Christians), to add it is to "mislead or distract from the real issue".



The problem isn't his thesis statement, just with his supporting details He could have made the same overall point without getting into the weeds.

nitpicking fer sure.  His point in that segment of the video was clearly that people need special revelation in order to become completely aware of their need for salvation.  He was speaking of the fact that evolution is untrue, and that the plight of man falling into sin from the beginning demanded that salvation come through God's divine method.  All this points to the doctrinal insufficiency of simply leading a good life.[/quote]

Then he should have made his point in a non-controversial manner. It would have been extremely easy to do. (Of course, since you just did the same thing...)