City Considering "Do Not Knock List" to Keep Away Unwanted Solicitors

[FSSL]

I am not criticizing those who participate in this ineffective method. Just don't call it a biblical method.

[quote author=OZZY]Your categorizing it as ineffective with out any proof to back up your claim is in it's self a form of criticism.

Reread what I wrote.

I am criticizing the method as not being effective.
I am criticizing Alayman's assertions that it is a biblical method.
I am NOT criticizing THOSE who go door-to-door.

There are sincere people who go door-to-door and mean well. In fact, I am sure people have come to the gospel by means of people going door-to-door. I am critical of those who want to raise this outmoded 1950s marketing method to the level of a biblical method.

Going door-to-door is different than the apostles preaching/evangelizing at the house churches of wealthy Christians.

It sure is to bad you have no biblical proof that is what is going on.
[/quote]

I cross-referenced the "house-to-house" passage with Acts 2 (see above).

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=FSSL]
Usually Christians are able to control themselves in discussion even when they disagree wholeheartedly. Why have you given up on substance and now prefer a puerile IFBXr technique?

It is a forum. Get a grip and don't take disagreement so personally!
[/quote]


You want to know the irony here?  You've continually misrepresented my words, despite explicit correction of your sophistry, yet you call me IFBx.  Seems to me that you are still gripped by the deception that is inherent to those you condemn.  Secondly, whilst claiming that I have given up on substance you have yet to address a single Scripture I've put forth, the latest of which portrays the modeling of preaching to folks at their homes.  Alanis Morrissette would be proud of you.

 

[FSSL]

You want to know the irony here?  You've continually misrepresented my words, despite explicit correction of your sophistry, yet you call me IFBx.  Seems to me that you are still gripped by the deception that is inherent to those you condemn.  Secondly, whilst claiming that I have given up on substance you have yet to address a single Scripture I've put forth, the latest of which portrays the modeling of preaching to folks at their homes.  Alanis Morrissette would be proud of you.

I have addressed the Scriptures you put forward. You and I disagree. So, what?! It is hardly worth my time and energy to discuss this with you any further. It is JUST a forum! Get over yourself.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=FSSL]
I have addressed the Scriptures you put forward. You and I disagree. So, what?! It is hardly worth my time and energy to discuss this with you any further. It is JUST a forum! Get over yourself.
[/quote]

You just can't stop lying.  Where have you addressed Mat 10:14, or where have you spoken to Acts 2:42 use of euangelidzo rather than kerusso?

 

[rsc2a]

What type of relationship did Phillip build with the Ethiopian Eunich? did he takes weeks, months, years to build a trust and a familiarly with him  or did he just present the Gospel?

I fail to see lifestyle evangelism here, seem Phillip just did  as we are commanded and presented to gospel to a total stanger.

Ok...I'll accept this as soon as you can prove that an angel showed up and told you to go door-to-door. Oh yeah....I'll also need to verify that God carried you off as soon as you got that convert. There are things in the Bible that are definitely not normative. While we don't reject those things, we don't treat them as if they are normative. Again...what is normative? How did Jesus make disciples? If Jesus isn't enough proof, how did Paul (think Timothy and Titus et al)? How did Peter (think Mark)?

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]

Ok...I'll accept this as soon as you can prove that an angel showed up and told you to go door-to-door. Oh yeah....I'll also need to verify that God carried you off as soon as you got that convert. There are things in the Bible that are definitely not normative. While we don't reject those things, we don't treat them as if they are normative. Again...what is normative? How did Jesus make disciples? If Jesus isn't enough proof, how did Paul (think Timothy and Titus et al)? How did Peter (think Mark)?
[/quote]


Why do you continue to insist that in order to evangelize that a potential for discipleship must always exist?  If a person is on a business trip or vacation in an area that they have no ability to realistically return to, are you suggesting that they not ever attempt to present the gospel?  Or is what you present as a model for evangelization even more sinister than that, are you suggesting that you should never witness to a stranger?

 

[JrChurch]

Thanks for the laugh....

Really! I wish I were ALAYMAN-FOR-A-DAY so I could comment without seasoning words with grace.  ;D  Alas, I will just shake my head and leave people to their embarrassing lack of reading comprehension.   

 

[Izdaari]

What type of relationship did Phillip build with the Ethiopian Eunich? did he takes weeks, months, years to build a trust and a familiarly with him  or did he just present the Gospel?

I fail to see lifestyle evangelism here, seem Phillip just did  as we are commanded and presented to gospel to a total stanger.

It wasn't necessary because the Ethiopian was not only willing to hear the gospel but eager, hungry for it. And because of that, and because he would spread Christianity in his land when he returned home, God had directly, miraculously, brought him and Phillip together. It was a wonderful opportunity, but it doesn't happen that way very often.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Izdaari]
It wasn't necessary because the Ethiopian was not only willing to hear the gospel but eager, hungry for it. And because of that, and because he would spread Christianity in his land when he returned home, God had directly, miraculously, brought him and Phillip together. It was a wonderful opportunity, but it doesn't happen that way very often.
[/quote]


In making their rounds, is it possible that a soulwinner could providentially come upon a person that has been already prepared by God in a variety of ways so that they are also eager to hear the word and receive it?

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

I have found that there is no one pattern when evangelizing.  In my almost 30 years of salvation, I have witnessed to people that I thought were ready (my brother) to get saved, and expected them to respond, but they didn't.  Then, months later, my brother called me up and had me meet him at his 2nd shift job during lunch and lead him to the Lord.  Another man I worked with seemed to be under conviction, but did not respond.  He then went to another job.  Years later he got saved, and told me that he could never get away from my witness to him, and thanked me for sharing with him.  Another time I went to a rest home to speak, and an older gentleman responded.  Sometimes on visitation, God has someone ready, and they get saved on a cold call.  This is the exception, but it happens. A preacher friend of mine witnessed to his dad for 16 years, never gave up, and his dad got saved.

The truth is, some sow the seed, some water it, but God always gives the increase.  Salvation doesn't depend on our methods, but the Holy Spirit wooing the lost soul, and God the Father drawing the lost soul, who is drawn to the one who died for him, and then rose from the dead.  We think too much of ourselves sometimes, but it is the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation, thank the Lord. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Excellent post mudcat, and the first sentence says it all.

I have found that there is no one pattern when evangelizing.  In my almost 30 years of salvation, I have witnessed to people that I thought were ready (my brother) to get saved, and expected them to respond, but they didn't.  Then, months later, my brother called me up and had me meet him at his 2nd shift job during lunch and lead him to the Lord.  Another man I worked with seemed to be under conviction, but did not respond.  He then went to another job.  Years later he got saved, and told me that he could never get away from my witness to him, and thanked me for sharing with him.  Another time I went to a rest home to speak, and an older gentleman responded.  Sometimes on visitation, God has someone ready, and they get saved on a cold call.  This is the exception, but it happens. A preacher friend of mine witnessed to his dad for 16 years, never gave up, and his dad got saved.

The truth is, some sow the seed, some water it, but God always gives the increase.  Salvation doesn't depend on our methods, but the Holy Spirit wooing the lost soul, and God the Father drawing the lost soul, who is drawn to the one who died for him, and then rose from the dead.  We think too much of ourselves sometimes, but it is the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation, thank the Lord.

 

[rsc2a]

If a person is on a business trip or vacation in an area that they have no ability to realistically return to, are you suggesting that they not ever attempt to present the gospel?  Or is what you present as a model for evangelization even more sinister than that, are you suggesting that you should never witness to a stranger?

Wouldn't want to accuse the brethren, would we?

And, for the record, I've struck up plenty of conversations with restaurant servers, cashiers, new neighbors (who were *gasp* strangers), and the like included discussion about Christ and His work, yet I've never had to force the issue. I also didn't come across like I was trying to sell them something. I invite new neighbors over to dinner and our Bible studies. Even if they don't ever show up to a Bible study, they are still welcome to come over for dinner.

Maybe I should pull down the statistics showing what are the major influences regarding conversion. (I'll give you a little hint: most people cite someone they know as the largest influence.) In fact, I might even pull down the statistics showing what turns many non-believers off of Christianity (limiting it to the USA). (Another hint: perceived falseness, including them feeling like they are being sold)

I have homosexual friends, friends employed at abortion clinics, Hindu friends, and agnostic friends who openly discuss faith issues with me. Why? Because they don't feel like I'm trying to sell them something and, therefore, are genuinely interested in what I have to say about what I believe. They are interested because my family's lifestyle is such that we are actively trying to live out what we believe and they can see that and recognize our faith as sincere. They know that we am their friends regardless of their faith position, not in spite of their faith position. In other words, through our actions, hopefully they are seeing Christ in us and that is a greater witness than all the words I could possibly speak.

The Greeks discussed three ways we communicate: ethos, logos, and pathos. While all are important, which one do you think carries the most weight when it comes to presenting the Gospel? What do you think impressed the Romans more? The apologetical explanation for the resurrection or the fact that Christians were running into plague-stricken cities while non-Christians were running out of them?

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]"You want to know the irony here?  You've continually misrepresented my words, despite explicit correction..."

Now...would you like to tell me where I've said that the potential for discipleship must always exist?[/quote]

It seemed you implied it by talking about the great commission by framing it only in terms of discipleship, as well as your emphasis on building relationships in order to be effective in witness, but if you say that you are in favor of evangelism even in situations where you don't have great potential for discipleship then good for you.

Wouldn't want to accuse the brethren, would we?

And, for the record, I've struck up plenty of conversations with restaurant servers, cashiers, new neighbors (who were *gasp* strangers), and the like included discussion about Christ and His work, yet I've never had to force the issue. I also didn't come across like I was trying to sell them something. I invite new neighbors over to dinner and our Bible studies. Even if they don't ever show up to a Bible study, they are still welcome to come over for dinner.

Maybe I should pull down the statistics showing what are the major influences regarding conversion. (I'll give you a little hint: most people cite someone they know as the largest influence.) In fact, I might even pull down the statistics showing what turns many non-believers off of Christianity (limiting it to the USA). (Another hint: perceived falseness, including them feeling like they are being sold)

I have homosexual friends, friends employed at abortion clinics, Hindu friends, and agnostic friends who openly discuss faith issues with me. Why? Because they don't feel like I'm trying to sell them something and, therefore, are genuinely interested in what I have to say about what I believe. They are interested because my family's lifestyle is such that we are actively trying to live out what we believe and they can see that and recognize our faith as sincere. They know that we am their friends regardless of their faith position, not in spite of their faith position. In other words, through our actions, hopefully they are seeing Christ in us and that is a greater witness than all the words I could possibly speak.

I assume your point is that you prefer to build relationships in order to evangelize.  Good for you, but that is not a command of Scripture. 

The Greeks discussed three ways we communicate: ethos, logos, and pathos. While all are important, which one do you think carries the most weight when it comes to presenting the Gospel?

The Pneuma?

What do you think impressed the Romans more? The apologetical explanation for the resurrection or the fact that Christians were running into plague-stricken cities while non-Christians were running out of them?

So pragmatism drives your theology? 

The Bible says the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and it says for us to preach it to every creature.  You can do that in a variety of venues (I'm repeating myself here, but nonetheless) and a variety of methods, but the Bible does not prohibit door-to-door (in fact, despite you and FSSL claiming otherwise, there is Scripture like Matthew 10:5,6,and 14 to demonstrate the contrary), nor does it command  that we forge relationships in order to have credibility.  It also doesn't say that we have to be unintrusive.  Paul preached in synagogues, and was despised for it.  Peter preached in the streets that the Jews had crucified the Lord of glory, and was imprisoned for it.  Softening the gospel through a form of lifestyle evangelism is not explicitly commanded anywhere.  A variety of methods in numerous locales are depicted.  We just need to be harmless as serpents and wise as doves, but most importantly, more need to spread the message.


Would you like to address Matthew 10:14, or Acts 5:42 where the word euaggelizo was used rather than kerusso?

 

[rsc2a]

I assume your point is that you prefer to build relationships in order to evangelize.  Good for you, but that is not a command of Scripture.

No...my point is that I build relationships, period. I don't build relationships in order to evangelize...in fact, I explicitly stated that I find that kind of practice disgusting. My further point was there are plenty of people who would slam the door in your face as soon as you started your spiel, but who openly discuss matters of faith with me because of those relationships.

And, I've never said it was commanded that we build relationships in order to evangelize. (Gross!) We are Scripturally commanded to build relationships though, both directly and by example/precedent. Who was accused of being a friend of sinners and tax collectors?

The Greeks discussed three ways we communicate: ethos, logos, and pathos. While all are important, which one do you think carries the most weight when it comes to presenting the Gospel?

The Pneuma?

Good point. In fact, leave it all to the Spirit. We'll stop sharing the gospel in any fashion because God can handle His own business.

Or you could answer the question.

What do you think impressed the Romans more? The apologetical explanation for the resurrection or the fact that Christians were running into plague-stricken cities while non-Christians were running out of them?

So pragmatism drives your theology?

Depends on how you want to define that.

You can do that in a variety of venues (I'm repeating myself here, but nonetheless) and a variety of methods, but the Bible does not prohibit door-to-door...

Who here as stated it is inherently wrong? I don't think people who witness door-to-door are doing something inherently evil. I just think they are extremely misguided in their beliefs regarding its effectiveness.

...in fact, despite you and FSSL claiming otherwise, there is Scripture like Matthew 10:5,6,and 14 to demonstrate the contrary...

So when you get a willing listener in a new town, you're forbidden to leave their house and go to the next one. Make sure you follow that one all the way through, ok?

It also doesn't say that we have to be unintrusive...

Paul disagrees:

We put no obstacle in anyone's way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry...

Paul preached in synagogues, and was despised for it...

Yeah...I got no problem with you preaching in church. In fact, grace-based salvation is very unpopular with many people (in spite of what they state they believe), so if you want to preach grace in your church, preach away. (Caution: you will get hammered by some.)

Peter preached in the streets that the Jews had crucified the Lord of glory, and was imprisoned for it.

Again...I have no problem with street preaching. Just let the message be offensive and not the method. The ones I know that prefer to street preach seem to think the offensive of the gospel gives them a right to be obnoxious and/or offensive.

Softening the gospel through a form of lifestyle evangelism is not explicitly commanded anywhere.

Because a relational basis for speaking into peoples' lives automatically softens the message.  :

Would you like to address Matthew 10:14, or Acts 5:42 where the word euaggelizo was used rather than kerusso?

I addressed Matthew above. I've addressed Acts earlier.

 

[FSSL]

No...you twisted my words to say something I never said and then used that mis-characterization to attack a straw man by foisting that mis-characterization onto the great commission. I implied nothing.

Yep! That is the way it goes with Alayman...

Too bad he does not have any good expositional commentaries on these passages. He will accuse you (as he has, me) that you are making things up, you are arrogant and a liar. There is a good discussion to be had, but Alayman gets in his own way and it is impossible to discuss biblical things with him.

RSC2a, are you interested in taking this topic to the dedicated debate forum? We can leave Alayman out of the picture and debate with Ozzy and others.

 

[ALAYMAN]

No...you twisted my words to say something I never said and then used that mis-characterization to attack a straw man by foisting that mis-characterization onto the great commission. I implied nothing.

Yep! That is the way it goes with Alayman...

Too bad he does not have any good expositional commentaries on these passages. He will accuse you (as he has, me) that you are making things up, you are arrogant and a liar. There is a good discussion to be had, but Alayman gets in his own way and it is impossible to discuss biblical things with him.

RSC2a, are you interested in taking this topic to the dedicated debate forum? We can leave Alayman out of the picture and debate with Ozzy and others.

For a fella that wants to have substantive discussion so bad you sure do avoid dealing with Matthew 10:14 and euaggelizō of Acts 5:42 an awful lot.  Folk at the Shepherd's Conference (Macarthur/Montoya) are just one that is in agreement about euaggelizo and evangelizing the community.


rsc2a, your post is lengthy, and I don't have the time right now to address it in detail, but I will do so either later this evening or first thing in the morning.

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Izdaari]
It wasn't necessary because the Ethiopian was not only willing to hear the gospel but eager, hungry for it. And because of that, and because he would spread Christianity in his land when he returned home, God had directly, miraculously, brought him and Phillip together. It was a wonderful opportunity, but it doesn't happen that way very often.

In making their rounds, is it possible that a soulwinner could providentially come upon a person that has been already prepared by God in a variety of ways so that they are also eager to hear the word and receive it?
[/quote]

It's very possible. Note that in this thread I have not argued against door to door evangelism.

I have only pointed out that of all the many times someone has come to my door seeking to share their faith, only once was it a Christian...

(the pastor of a local IFB church plant, and I was happy to have his visit, since his love of God seemed genuine and he was very pleasant; but when I visited his church at his invitation, I didn't like it much -- it was too Frag-like if you know what I mean.)...

Otherwise, it has been JW, LDS and that weird Korean "Church of God" cult that believes their founder is Jesus returned and that his wife is God the Mother.

 

[FSSL]

For a fella that wants to have substantive discussion so bad you sure do avoid dealing with Matthew 10:14 and euaggelizō of Acts 5:42 an awful lot.  Folk at the Shepherd's Conference (Macarthur/Montoya) are just one that is in agreement about euaggelizo and evangelizing the community.

It is not a matter of avoiding Matthew 10:14. I am not interested in discussing anything with you. As rsc2a noted, you twist our words. You rely on adhominem. A substantive discussion requires substance. I am not sure you are capable of substance.

 

[ALAYMAN]

It is not a matter of avoiding Matthew 10:14. I am not interested in discussing anything with you. As rsc2a noted, you twist our words. You rely on adhominem. A substantive discussion requires substance. I am not sure you are capable of substance.

lol, uh, yeah, sure buddy.


Tomorrow when I have more time I'll show how bankrupt and lacking in substance your arguments have been in this thread, using your own words in black print.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Izdaari]
It's very possible. Note that in this thread I have not argued against door to door evangelism. [/quote]

Yes, I know you're not arguing against it.  And theoretically, I suppose rsc2a and FSSL are not arguing against it either, albeit in a very schizophrenic manner.  lol

I have only pointed out that of all the many times someone has come to my door seeking to share their faith, only once was it a Christian...

(the pastor of a local IFB church plant, and I was happy to have his visit, since his love of God seemed genuine and he was very pleasant; but when I visited his church at his invitation, I didn't like it much -- it was too Frag-like if you know what I mean.)...

Otherwise, it has been JW, LDS and that weird Korean "Church of God" cult that believes their founder is Jesus returned and that his wife is God the Mother.

I know what ya mean.  I'm 42 years old.  In the first 15 years of my life I lived in a town of population circa 20K, and not once did a Christian knock our doors.  In the last 27 years, in a pretty rural setting, only the JWs have knocked our doors ( a couple of times).  I think that it is a sad commentary that the vast majority of Christians don't attempt to reach their community who are strangers with the gospel.