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

[rsc2a]

Those two are not separable.

But you're foisting an agenda onto the passage.  Paul is talking about persuading men via the preached word, just as he was in Romans 10:14, not an iota there about any absolute necessity to gain cred via relationships or demonstrations of changed lives.

First, you explicitly tried to separate something that cannot be separated.

Second, you might want to review 2 Corinthians again:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. 2 Corinthians 1:3-4

For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience, that we behaved in the world with simplicity and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God, and supremely so toward you. 2 Corinthians 1:12

Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:1-6

From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 2 Corinthians 5:16-19

I'm barely getting started. Do I need to keep providing verses (and I am limiting myself to this particular letter) where Paul talks about the necessity of a changed life? Should I start trotting out all those verses about being an example to others and why? I don't have to stay in the Pauline epistles either. You prefer the gospels or Old Testament for further corroboration?

The content of the gospel is the Word. (See the difference?)

Christ is presented to you and me via the word, otherwise you'd never have known Him.  It's that same word/Word that serves as the converting of the soul, not our good works on display.

Way to put God in your box....

(I'm also thinking that last sentence (before the comma) may be heretical...and that's a word that is exceedingly rare in my vocabulary.)

You missed the point.  People being moral, ala the Mormons, isn't the basis for conversion.

And neither is some man preaching. The "basis of conversion" doesn't have anything to do with you or me.

God has appointed the preached word as the means of salvation.

As a means of salvation. (Unless you want to broaden it to include the Spirit preaching, which may not necessarily be words....)

I can't even believe this is being debated on an evangelical/fundamental forum. If Balaam preached the gospel people could get saved.  I know for a fact that many conversions have taken place at the preaching of a man/men  who himself/themselves weren't even saved when they preached it.

And?

They do provide a platform for corroboration of the truth, ie, give cred to the message, but ultimately they are not necessary to the converting of the soul, only word is ordained for that.

The "word" isn't necessary either. The Word is. (Also, this statement is different from what you were saying earlier.)

No, you are saying that a person MUST have the accompanying good works and display them before the prospective convert in order to have a platform, whereas I'm saying that those things do provide credibility for the messenger, but ultimately they are not needed for the message to be effective.  God, by the Spirit, through the word, is the effective agent in the conversion of the soul.

Now why did you have to do that again? God does not fit in your box. He doesn't fit in my box. Why are you telling God how He has to do things? (I'm also going to point out the double speak here...does God need a human herald or no?)

 

[ALAYMAN]

I can't even believe this is being debated on an evangelical/fundamental forum. If Balaam preached the gospel people could get saved.  I know for a fact that many conversions have taken place at the preaching of a man/men  who himself/themselves weren't even saved when they preached it.

And?[/quote]

And....the undue proportion of emphasis you give to lifestyle evangelism, particularly when you poo-poo cold-call door knocking as you've continually done (calling it "salesmanship" and "deception", among other things) is simply a poor lens through which you view evangelism.  It is a bias, plain and simple.  If you would say that your life living the gospel leads to opportunities to evangelize I'd see more merit in your argument, but as it is you have said <erroneously> that such a notion is anathema to your concept of heralding the gospel.

The "word" isn't necessary either. The Word is. (Also, this statement is different from what you were saying earlier.)

This is contrary to numerous Scriptures.  You continue to separate Christ the word from His word, yet it is Christ who refers to Himself as truth, and that by his word we will be sanctified.

Now why did you have to do that again? God does not fit in your box. He doesn't fit in my box. Why are you telling God how He has to do things? (I'm also going to point out the double speak here...does God need a human herald or no?)

God doesn't need anything, but it doesn't surprise me that you'd be victim to your own theological imprecision.  However, despite His lack of want for anything, He has ordained not only the grounds of salvation (Christ's atoning death on the cross) but also the agency and the means of it, which is the proclaimed gospel.

 

[rsc2a]

You can trot out all the decontextualized verses you like, but though I will wholeheartedly (and have done so already) agree that our witness/testimony is important in portraying the gospel in action, it is incomplete without articulation of it.  More to the point, the passages you cite speak to the issue of community, and how we interact in it before those who are actually able to witness Christ in and through us.  But that doesn't address the many folk we might come into contact with that have ZERO ability to determine the legitimacy of our profession, nor will they see the gospel in action in us, and therefore, to maximize our evangelical witness the Logos/Word/word, must be conveyed to them absent that <ethos> trait.

They don't have to determine our legitimacy. They already have in mind what a "Christian" is. Ethos isn't something you carry around in your back pocket. Based on their already existing perceptions, your ethos is already speaking to them as soon as they find out you are a Christian.

That aside, the power of conversion of the soul rests in God's promise to bring faith about by the proclaimed Logos/Word, not pathos, nor ethos.

You do realize that the same word can have two meanings, right?

No, I have not.  The order of the great commission is conversion then teaching and baptizing.

I thought you said you have to proclaim the word (teaching/preaching) before conversion.

God could make the rocks cry out unto His glory if He chose, but, that's not how He has ordinarily ordained salvation to occur.  It is from faith unto faith, a sweet savor of life unto those who receive the gospel, and an odor of death unto those who stumble at it.

And neither is some man preaching. The "basis of conversion" doesn't have anything to do with you or me.

The word of God says otherwise, again, read Romans 10.  Yes, regeneration and justification is grounded in the finished work of the cross, but it is through the means of the gospel that God brings about conversion, and it is through preaching/reading the gospel that it occurs.

As a means of salvation. (Unless you want to broaden it to include the Spirit preaching, which may not necessarily be words....)

It is the primary and ordinary means.  Just like you prefer to let Christ witness in and through you via the multifaceted display of the gospel in action, the preference (overwhelmingly so) of God per His instruction book is the preaching of the gospel in words.

God doesn't need anything, but it doesn't surprise me that you'd be victim to your own theological imprecision.  However, despite His lack of want for anything, He has ordained not only the grounds of salvation (Christ's atoning death on the cross) but also the agency and the means of it, which is the proclaimed gospel.

Can't make up your mind?

Name one time in the NT where people (on this earth) trust in Christ (are saved) absent the proclamation of the death, burial, and resurrection.

Happily (after I corrected your statement):

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. 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 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. Romans 2:14-16

 

[ALAYMAN]

This will most likely be my last post to you in this thread, as I've given you too much time and energy already,  it is clear that I am casting pearls...


[quote author=rsc2a]
All that extra verbage because you're attempting to avoid simply answering the question. You did finally provide at answer in the last sentence using a very limited circumstance even though your answer is still wrong. What you are failing to acknowledge is that ethos is still the primary "voice" that people hear even when they haven't met you. People have in their minds what a "Christian" is. Before you ever knock on that door, your ethos is already speaking to your audience.

You can have the most solid presentation in the history of the world, and your apologetics can be without fail, but if the guy (or gal) you are speaking to is convinced that Christians are all bigoted jerks, it will not matter at all. Until you can overcome that, you're just a "noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" in their minds. (Yes, Paul addresses even this...)[/quote]

Yet countless people still get saved through door-to-door, despite your handwringing claims to the contrary. 

Why is that?  It could be because some of your theological/philosophical (pragmatic) paradigm is partially rooted in postmodern thoughts amounting to humanism.  I trust the power of the word to do what it has promised, convert the soul, in whatever witnessing model I engage in, whereas you essentially think that you have to be a friend to gain credibility in order to have the proper witnessing platform.

They don't have to determine our legitimacy. They already have in mind what a "Christian" is. Ethos isn't something you carry around in your back pocket. Based on their already existing perceptions, your ethos is already speaking to them as soon as they find out you are a Christian.

Reputation is not the same as ethos the way Aristotle framed it in Rhetoric.  Again, you've mixed categories.  Will some people tune me out based on their bias as soon as they hear that I am a Christian?  Sure.  Will some be seeking, already having been prepared (as mudcat and I both alluded to earlier in the thread)?  Absolutely.  Which one will it be behind the door I knock?  I don't know.  I also don't see "the elect" on the foreheads of people either, so I go ahead and assume they need the gospel until I'm told they don't want it or that they are already regenerated.

You do realize that the same word can have two meanings, right?

You do realize that those two meanings in Scripture regarding Christ and the word of God inscripturated are inseparable don't you?

I thought you said you have to proclaim the word (teaching/preaching) before conversion.

If you had an ounce of intellectual integrity you would have read the response below (and where I referenced earlier in the thread) that the ordinary means is through the preached/read word of God.  I don't expect integrity from you, so there's no disappointment.

Can't make up your mind?

You simply can't keep up.  God can do whatever He wants.  The question is, what has He ordained and revealed in His word?  And the answer to that is just what I said, that He has appointed the preaching of the gospel (and comprehension of it via reading the gospel, which is done by "proclaiming"/publishing the word).

Happily (after I corrected your statement):

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. 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 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. Romans 2:14-16

 

[rsc2a]

This will most likely be my last post to you in this thread, as I've given you too much time and energy already,  it is clear that I am casting pearls...

Alrighty then. 

Yet countless people still get saved through door-to-door, despite your handwringing claims to the contrary.

Who has claimed people don't genuinely convert? I'm just arguing that those numbers are a lot lower than advocates for the door-to-door stuff realize (and, thereby, claim). The guys who wrote UnChristian are possibly stating that you are actually doing more harm than good in the long run.

Why is that?  It could be because some of your theological/philosophical (pragmatic) paradigm is partially rooted in postmodern thoughts amounting to humanism.

Ok...now I'm just convinced you don't know what those words mean.

I trust the power of the word to do what it has promised, convert the soul, in whatever witnessing model I engage in, whereas you essentially think that you have to be a friend to gain credibility in order to have the proper witnessing platform.

Odd...I never claimed that. Look like another example of you mischaracterizing my position so you can beat down a straw man.

They don't have to determine our legitimacy. They already have in mind what a "Christian" is. Ethos isn't something you carry around in your back pocket. Based on their already existing perceptions, your ethos is already speaking to them as soon as they find out you are a Christian.

Reputation is not the same as ethos the way Aristotle framed it in Rhetoric.  Again, you've mixed categories...

"Ethos is appeal based on the character of the speaker. An ethos-driven document relies on the reputation of the author. " - Source

And another, another, another and one more.  (If you'd like, I can swap those out and give you a dozen more just like it.)

You do realize that those two meanings in Scripture regarding Christ and the word of God inscripturated are inseparable don't you?

No...what you are advocating is (at a minimum) Bibliolatry lite. The words on the page don't matter.  The "logos" Jesus is talking about in His high priestly prayer is not about the grammata; it's about the entire revelation of God shown perfectly in Jesus Christ. It's the entire story of redemption told in the grammata, changed lives, and creation itself.

Numerous passages, only rightly understood by context, refer to Christ and the Scriptures as the Word/word.  That's not bibliolatry.  Christ the Word in the word is used of the Spirit to convert the soul.  I'm sorry that you are so inept and theologically anemic as to not understand that.

You would hang your Bible on a cross and call it Jesus.

I certainly would do that before believing that Rome accepts Sola Gratia, or any lessons, free or not, from you and FSSL.

So you are going to insist on this heresy?

(And, that last quote I provided honestly just makes me sad for your sake.)

I thought you said you have to proclaim the word (teaching/preaching) before conversion.

If you had an ounce of intellectual integrity you would have read the response below (and where I referenced earlier in the thread) that the ordinary means is through the preached/read word of God.  I don't expect integrity from you, so there's no disappointment.

Can't make up your mind?

You simply can't keep up.  God can do whatever He wants.  The question is, what has He ordained and revealed in His word?  And the answer to that is just what I said, that He has appointed the preaching of the gospel (and comprehension of it via reading the gospel, which is done by "proclaiming"/publishing the word).

See...you're doing it again. "Ordinary" and "only" are different.

Show me one, even one, orthodox commentator that understands that passage to mean that the people who showed good works to their brethren caused the salvation of those who were ministererd to via the works they performed!

First, no one is claiming that. Why do you insist on claiming ideas for others they never stated?

Second, you have now shifted the goalposts. Your original question was in regards to salvation without ever hearing about Jesus.

I've said that putting on a front in order to create opportunities to present the gospel is revolting. Can you really not see the difference in my words and yours?

Well, I gave you anecdotal and Scriptural evidence earlier that you ignored (the jail ministry and Jude 22) that demonstrates that some people aren't "putting on a front" merely in order to witness, but are rather, out of compassion, seeking to reach every creature due to a sense of gratitude for salvation, as the Lord has commanded.

Which is fine. But it doesn't match up with some of your comments. (You tend to be self-contradictory.)

 

[FSSL]

This will most likely be my last post to you in this thread, as I've given you too much time and energy already,  it is clear that I am casting pearls...

So, to boil down Alayman's argument against rsc2a and FSSL: "You are arrogant, lying pigs."

 

[ALAYMAN]

While Aristotle didn't include a speaker's position or reputation as a factor in establishing  favorable ethos, contemporary studies have provenover and over that a good reputation enhances believability in the short run.  However, most researchers have found, that in the weeks following a presentation, the audience is apt to forget the reputation of the speaker,  and remember positively or negatively, the substance of the speech.

Not only does this fact undermine the definitions that were given regarding Aristotle's view of Ethos, it subsequently frames the conversation in contemporary terminology that states that "facts" or "logos" goes further to aid in credibility than "reputation"/ethos.  Furthermore, several other academic resources reiterated Aristotle's view of ethos as relating to creating credibility based on the audience that you speak to.  In other words, give them a basis for your authority (in the theological realm..."testimony")  that seems plausible and you will overcome the bias of the audience regarding their lack of ability to have known your ethos/reputation prior to speaking to them.
http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~littledo/credibility4.pdf

This illustration of how rsc2a misunderstand and wrongly misrepresents a (Aristotelian) concept is just more example of how rsc2a says "Sola Gratia", but doesn't understand Sola Gratia, if ya know what I mean.  It's similar to the Mormons/Glen Beck saying Jesus is their Savior, but what they mean is not what is meant by orthodox Christianity.  Sometimes this is due to ignorance on the adherent's part, sometimes due to deception.  Same with rsc2a.  You make the call.

 

[FSSL]

Let's examine what "door-to-door" looks like today...

We invite you to VBS!
Would you mind taking a brief survey?
I'm from FBC. We are having special meetings.
If you were to die today, would you spend eternity in Heaven? (I wonder if this is Alayman's opener.)

I am not against those who go door-to-door. All power to them! But, let's just call it what it is. It is a form of marketing developed in the 1950s. In recent decades, the practice has become a marketing program with a little "bait and switch" (survey) thrown in. To suggest that these activities are modeled for us in the NT is absurd.

Since the NT is rather silent on the evangelistic method vis-a-vis the message, let's not get our "undies in a bundle" when people disagree with us. I am "cool" with the disagreement. I am intolerant of obnoxious people.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Let's examine what "door-to-door" looks like today...

We invite you to VBS!
Would you mind taking a brief survey?
I'm from FBC. We are having special meetings.
If you were to die today, would you spend eternity in Heaven? (I wonder if this is Alayman's opener.)

I am not against those who go door-to-door. All power to them! But, let's just call it what it is. It is a form of marketing developed in the 1950s. In recent decades, the practice has become a marketing program with a little "bait and switch" (survey) thrown in. To suggest that these activities are modeled for us in the NT is absurd.

There's more of that substantive interaction with the pesky passages, or, not.

Quit your petty sniping and go do it the right way, and quit criticizing those who aren't just like you.  You sound a bit like a control freak to me.

I am intolerant of obnoxious people.

I've heard about people who can't stand to be around themselves, but now I've met one.

 

[FSSL]

Well rsc2a, we just keep getting snide remarks.

It should be noted, that IF the door-to-door practice of today is anything like that of the the activities of the apostles, there is certainly some hermeneutical hoops and disregards to jump through.

If the Matthew passage is relevant to discerning a particular method, then why only methodologically apply part of the passage? Could it be that the Matthew passage is being overplayed? When is the last time a door-to-door campaign resulted in a bold cultural rejection on a particular house? Is there something more to the cultural mileau of Matthew's day? We only have descriptions of their activities. We do not have a normative method being prescribed. IF door-to-door is a biblical method, then those who do not go door-to-door are disobedient.

 

[rsc2a]

Well rsc2a, we just keep getting snide remarks.

It should be noted, that IF the door-to-door practice of today is anything like that of the the activities of the apostles, there is certainly some hermeneutical hoops and disregards to jump through.

If the Matthew passage is relevant to discerning a particular method, then why only methodologically apply part of the passage? Could it be that the Matthew passage is being overplayed? When is the last time a door-to-door campaign resulted in a bold cultural rejection on a particular house? Is there something more to the cultural mileau of Matthew's day? We only have descriptions of their activities. We do not have a normative method being prescribed. IF door-to-door is a biblical method, then those who do not go door-to-door are disobedient.

I did notice that my dismantling of the Matthew passage was in one of the posts that was ignored. (Probably because those posts ripped to shreds my friendly opponent's claims.) But I've decided that I'm not going to comment on someone that deliberately talks around/about me as though I haven't been part of the conversation instead of talking to me. (Alayman, that would be you.) I'll just ignore those posts from now on.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Well rsc2a, we just keep getting snide remarks.

It should be noted, that IF the door-to-door practice of today is anything like that of the the activities of the apostles, there is certainly some hermeneutical hoops and disregards to jump through.

If the Matthew passage is relevant to discerning a particular method, then why only methodologically apply part of the passage? Could it be that the Matthew passage is being overplayed? When is the last time a door-to-door campaign resulted in a bold cultural rejection on a particular house? Is there something more to the cultural mileau of Matthew's day? We only have descriptions of their activities. We do not have a normative method being prescribed. IF door-to-door is a biblical method, then those who do not go door-to-door are disobedient.

I did notice that my dismantling of the Matthew passage was in one of the posts that was ignored. (Probably because those posts ripped to shreds my friendly opponent's claims.) But I've decided that I'm not going to comment on someone that deliberately talks around/about me as though I haven't been part of the conversation instead of talking to me. (Alayman, that would be you.) I'll just ignore those posts from now on.

ROFLOL!  What a bunch of pansies and hypcrites both of you are.  FSSL did THE VERY thing that you're accusing me of when he began to ignore my Scriptural citations yet he continued to post about me in a passive aggressive manner.  That doesn't bother you in the slightest to be complicit in such behavior, because you and he are childish goofballs who like to argue more than you like being honest.

 

[FSSL]

I did notice that my dismantling of the Matthew passage was in one of the posts that was ignored. (Probably because those posts ripped to shreds my friendly opponent's claims.) But I've decided that I'm not going to comment on someone that deliberately talks around/about me as though I haven't been part of the conversation instead of talking to me. (Alayman, that would be you.) I'll just ignore those posts from now on.

Yeah...when challenged, he gets testy and starts in on the adhominem...

When asked to provide any scriptural evidence, he pulls out the Great Commission. As if that has any specificity about "door-to-door." THEN after multiple requests to give us scripture that really relates, he uses the "house to house" passages which commentators clearly demonstrate as house churches (homes of wealthy Christians). Now, he goes back to Matthew to suggest that the apostles went door-to-door when it says they shook the sandals off their feet.

In all of this, there is a clear lack of understanding the cultural mileau in which the apostles operated. In their culture, travelers from city to city were given shelter in homes. This provided them a great opportunity to share the gospel. If their message was rejected, they shook the dirt off their sandals to demonstrate to the providers of their shelter that they were done there.

Good commentaries that explain the culture and history will give you this information. It is not a matter of arrogance or lying. Those words are used to cover the fact that Alayman has ignored the commentaries (or has commentaries with minimal information).

If a method is biblical, then those who do not practice it are disobedient. For example, the Lord's Supper is laid out for us with clarity/detail as to its method. It can rightly be called a biblical method. Why did Paul (et al) not lay out evangelistic methods with the same clarity/detail? Because these things change with culture.

So, using Alayman's Matthew 28 passage, I guess we could say:
--An Easter egg drop from a helicopter is "a perfectly biblical method."
--A Harley Davidson ministry is "a perfectly biblical method."
--A bus route with a 66 passenger bus is "a perfectly biblical method."

We could continue on, but the point is made. Don't call a method, biblical, to constrain the consciences of the brethren when said method is not explicitly given as a prescriptive practice.

 

[Izdaari]

When the conversations get this long, involved and nit-picky I don't even try to follow them anymore. Y'all are in tl;dr land and have been for several pages now.

 

[FSSL]

When the conversations get this long, involved and nit-picky I don't even try to follow them anymore. Y'all are in tl;dr land and have been for several pages now.

What is tl;dr?

 

[ALAYMAN]

When the conversations get this long, involved and nit-picky I don't even try to follow them anymore. Y'all are in tl;dr land and have been for several pages now.

I agree.  The nitpicking started when FSSL made the claim that door-to-door wasn't Biblical.  I've got evidence that says it is, he's got potatoes that says it ain't.  Let's say he's right.  Who flippin' cares about normative models?  We're talkin' about getting the gospel out, seeing people saved, and glorifying God.  Get the word out however you can, to all creatures, and that's been my point all along.  Door-to-door is just one way (I said so on the very first page, and said that it wasn't the exclusive way), but if it ain't your <general "your"> way, as long as you have *A* way, then good on you.  He wants to quibble over "biblical models" ( and I think his heremeutic is hosed up, or he has a semantics issue regarding "models" and their imperative implications), and I say just go.  Too few Christians do.

 

[Ransom]

Do you think that such a measure could have detrimental effects on the spread of the gospel, and if so, as a Christian, does that bother you or change your perspective?

Fewer JWs, Hyles-bots, and Steve Anderson clones means a marked improvement.

 

[rsc2a]

When the conversations get this long, involved and nit-picky I don't even try to follow them anymore. Y'all are in tl;dr land and have been for several pages now.

What is tl;dr?

Too long. Didn't read.

 

[Ransom]

Bro Blue said:

Amazedbygrace, I am referencing the people who have answered their door and affirmed that they are saved and go to such and such church, but have no interest whatsoever in sharing how they got saved or even express thanks for someone being interested enough to call upon a stranger to share the gospel that saved them too. In my door knocking experiences I have seen more rudeness from church goers than the lost people.

Is that any more rude than your implicit assumption that just because you have knocked on their door and found out they are Christians, you are entitled to their time?  Maybe they're busy.

 

[Bro Blue]

Ransom, without going into the many ways one can be rude, I tend to expect a little more kindness from christians when I come upon them. I am not entitled to their time, and there are plenty of kind ways to let a person know that they are busy. I would probably say that this attitude has been fostered by obnoxious door knockers. I have never tried to be pushy when addressing a person at their own home. That approach has given door knockers a bad name. Speaking for myself, I would be more than happy to let someone know the reason of the hope that I have in Christ. But if I am otherwise engaged, I would like them to understand and not try to hold me up.