What they (she) think about us (Christians).

[Tarheel Baptist]

http://thomrainer.com/2013/06/15/what-do-non-christians-really-think-of-us/

 

[pastorryanhayden]

I thought that was a great article and very convicting.  I recently read Rosaria Chapagne-Butterfield's "The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert" and she mentions many of the same things (although from a post-conversion standpoint.
I do think we need caution though.  We don't preach the gospel merely for the salvation of others, but out of obedience to God.  Packaged in that is a good deal that offends the lost, particularly the committed atheists. 

 

[Just John]

Hard to disagree that their is a perception such as this made up by a reality of too many. The response from those who would act this way would likely say they can't remain friends and be "unequally yoked".

Jesus, filled with the Spirit, friend of sinners.

Susie, filled with the Spirit, afraid of sinners.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I agree with the gist of the article's main points....in the past evangelicals or fundamentalists have created a sub culture that insulates them from the real world...a world to which we're called to preach the Gospel.

However, this article, to my understanding, was based on the comments of one individual...who for some reason, keeps coming back to comment on Rainer's blog....a good place to grind her ax.

 

[Biker]

"We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one" (1 Jn. 5:19)

Mark 2:17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Considering the verses above the unsaved view portrayed in the article seems understandable. I've heard it more than once. It's true the unsaved condition cannot allow for true friendships with unbelievers.

They walk in darkness, Christians walk in light. Father is Satan, ours is God. Polar opposites working against one another. They relate to their own, we are not of this world. Now if I could just get that in my own head  8

Most of my close friends are unsaved. Saved 6 yrs ago yet  feel more comfortable, with unbelievers, my buddies. Yet I crave to be with my eternal family. Hopefully God will eventually use me to add my best buddies to the flock.

 

[Reformed Guy]

  I recently read Rosaria Chapagne-Butterfield's "The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert" and she mentions many of the same things (although from a post-conversion standpoint.

I just read that one as well.  It's an outstanding book.  I highly recommend everyone here get a copy and read it.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Much along the same lines, here is a documentary that I found quite interesting. Part of the interview was asking people about how people view Christians and how they view Jesus. More interesting is how uninformed Christians and conservatives are concerning "worldly" and liberal views in comparison to what they understand about Christianity. (Fast forward to the 2 minute 40 second mark: Lord Save Us From Your Followers Part 6 )

Movie:

http://www.lordsaveusthemovie.com/

If you have Netflix, you can watch the documentary there.

Or you can watch it in segments here on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScorpioJJ420

 

[FreeToBeMe]

Much along the same lines, here is a documentary that I found quite interesting. Part of the interview was asking people about how people view Christians and how they view Jesus. More interesting is how uninformed Christians and conservatives are concerning "worldly" and liberal views in comparison to what they understand about Christianity. (Fast forward to the 2 minute 40 second mark: Lord Save Us From Your Followers Part 6 )

Movie:

http://www.lordsaveusthemovie.com/

If you have Netflix, you can watch the documentary there.

Or you can watch it in segments here on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScorpioJJ420

I took the time to watch the entire thing.  I don't see how anyone claiming Christ as their Savior can watch this and not be moved to tears in certain places of this film.

Thanks for the link, Smellin.....

 

[christundivided]

I can't help but think that if the average person really knew anything about Christ of the NT.... they'd form the same opinions.

While our Master loved mankind. He never tolerated their sinfulness to point he refused to present Himself as the remedy. The average person today really doesn't know the historical Christ. Yes, he was a friend of publicans and sinners, Yet, none of them considered his friendship/care of them....enough to stand with Him through condemnation and afflictions. I do sympathies with what is written in the article and I try to get along with just about anyone. I don't bet people with the Gospel. I don't bet people with church attendance. However, I do know our Lord stood outside Capernaum and said

Luk 10:15  And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades.
Luk 10:16  "The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

I also know that he stood and watch as many disciples walked away from him because he claimed to be the true manna that came down from heaven...

Joh 6:53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:66  From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

I do believe there is a right way and wrong way to present the truths of Christianity. I also believe that..... in the end.... I do know that isn't the real reason people end up rejecting Christianity nor the reason some have a "bad taste" left in their mouths from having dealt with some peoples who are doing a poor job of presenting Christianity.

A man must deal with God one on one. Without excuse and without pretense or objection.

 

[christundivided]

Much along the same lines, here is a documentary that I found quite interesting. Part of the interview was asking people about how people view Christians and how they view Jesus. More interesting is how uninformed Christians and conservatives are concerning "worldly" and liberal views in comparison to what they understand about Christianity. (Fast forward to the 2 minute 40 second mark: Lord Save Us From Your Followers Part 6 )

Movie:

http://www.lordsaveusthemovie.com/

If you have Netflix, you can watch the documentary there.

Or you can watch it in segments here on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScorpioJJ420

Compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing when it comes to political issues. Can the same thing be said of compromising Christian values.

For example. There isn't one single liberal in this video who compromise if I said that Jesus Christ is the only means to receive eternal life. Should we then compromise that truth to gain acceptance?

This is what has happened to men like Rob Bell. He took this very same issue and has fallen into total apostasy.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Much along the same lines, here is a documentary that I found quite interesting. Part of the interview was asking people about how people view Christians and how they view Jesus. More interesting is how uninformed Christians and conservatives are concerning "worldly" and liberal views in comparison to what they understand about Christianity. (Fast forward to the 2 minute 40 second mark: Lord Save Us From Your Followers Part 6 )

Movie:

http://www.lordsaveusthemovie.com/

If you have Netflix, you can watch the documentary there.

Or you can watch it in segments here on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScorpioJJ420

Compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing when it comes to political issues. Can the same thing be said of compromising Christian values.

For example. There isn't one single liberal in this video who compromise if I said that Jesus Christ is the only means to receive eternal life. Should we then compromise that truth to gain acceptance?

This is what has happened to men like Rob Bell. He took this very same issue and has fallen into total apostasy.

Don't know anything about Bell so please don't think I am an apologist for his belief system. I haven't a clue what he does or doesn't believe.

Regardless, your statement is about "Christian values". That statement alone makes it a (sub)cultural agenda. And there are varying degrees of interpretation. For example, the idea of speaking in tongues might be a "Christian value" to the Charismatic crowd or the Holy Eucharist is deemed a "Christian value" to the Catholic.

So yes, I do believe that "Christian values" should be subject to compromise. Reason? Because not all "Christian values" are "Christ's values". And even "Christ's values" are viewed in the nature of the human subjectivity.

 

[christundivided]

Much along the same lines, here is a documentary that I found quite interesting. Part of the interview was asking people about how people view Christians and how they view Jesus. More interesting is how uninformed Christians and conservatives are concerning "worldly" and liberal views in comparison to what they understand about Christianity. (Fast forward to the 2 minute 40 second mark: Lord Save Us From Your Followers Part 6 )

Movie:

http://www.lordsaveusthemovie.com/

If you have Netflix, you can watch the documentary there.

Or you can watch it in segments here on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScorpioJJ420

Compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing when it comes to political issues. Can the same thing be said of compromising Christian values.

For example. There isn't one single liberal in this video who compromise if I said that Jesus Christ is the only means to receive eternal life. Should we then compromise that truth to gain acceptance?

This is what has happened to men like Rob Bell. He took this very same issue and has fallen into total apostasy.

Don't know anything about Bell so please don't think I am an apologist for his belief system. I haven't a clue what he does or doesn't believe.

Regardless, your statement is about "Christian values". That statement alone makes it a (sub)cultural agenda. And there are varying degrees of interpretation. For example, the idea of speaking in tongues might be a "Christian value" to the Charismatic crowd or the Holy Eucharist is deemed a "Christian value" to the Catholic.

So yes, I do believe that "Christian values" should be subject to compromise. Reason? Because not all "Christian values" are "Christ's values". And even "Christ's values" are viewed in the nature of the human subjectivity.

Thanks.

I gave a specific example. Should we comprise the message that Christ alone is the means for salvation?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Much along the same lines, here is a documentary that I found quite interesting. Part of the interview was asking people about how people view Christians and how they view Jesus. More interesting is how uninformed Christians and conservatives are concerning "worldly" and liberal views in comparison to what they understand about Christianity. (Fast forward to the 2 minute 40 second mark: Lord Save Us From Your Followers Part 6 )

Movie:

http://www.lordsaveusthemovie.com/

If you have Netflix, you can watch the documentary there.

Or you can watch it in segments here on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScorpioJJ420

Compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing when it comes to political issues. Can the same thing be said of compromising Christian values.

For example. There isn't one single liberal in this video who compromise if I said that Jesus Christ is the only means to receive eternal life. Should we then compromise that truth to gain acceptance?

This is what has happened to men like Rob Bell. He took this very same issue and has fallen into total apostasy.

Don't know anything about Bell so please don't think I am an apologist for his belief system. I haven't a clue what he does or doesn't believe.

Regardless, your statement is about "Christian values". That statement alone makes it a (sub)cultural agenda. And there are varying degrees of interpretation. For example, the idea of speaking in tongues might be a "Christian value" to the Charismatic crowd or the Holy Eucharist is deemed a "Christian value" to the Catholic.

So yes, I do believe that "Christian values" should be subject to compromise. Reason? Because not all "Christian values" are "Christ's values". And even "Christ's values" are viewed in the nature of the human subjectivity.

Thanks.

I gave a specific example. Should we comprise the message that Christ alone is the means for salvation?

Depends on whether one believes Jesus exemplified and preached the Gospel or whether He was the Gospel.

 

[T-Bone]

Much along the same lines, here is a documentary that I found quite interesting. Part of the interview was asking people about how people view Christians and how they view Jesus. More interesting is how uninformed Christians and conservatives are concerning "worldly" and liberal views in comparison to what they understand about Christianity. (Fast forward to the 2 minute 40 second mark: Lord Save Us From Your Followers Part 6 )

Movie:

http://www.lordsaveusthemovie.com/

If you have Netflix, you can watch the documentary there.

Or you can watch it in segments here on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScorpioJJ420

Compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing when it comes to political issues. Can the same thing be said of compromising Christian values.

For example. There isn't one single liberal in this video who compromise if I said that Jesus Christ is the only means to receive eternal life. Should we then compromise that truth to gain acceptance?

This is what has happened to men like Rob Bell. He took this very same issue and has fallen into total apostasy.

Don't know anything about Bell so please don't think I am an apologist for his belief system. I haven't a clue what he does or doesn't believe.

Regardless, your statement is about "Christian values". That statement alone makes it a (sub)cultural agenda. And there are varying degrees of interpretation. For example, the idea of speaking in tongues might be a "Christian value" to the Charismatic crowd or the Holy Eucharist is deemed a "Christian value" to the Catholic.

So yes, I do believe that "Christian values" should be subject to compromise. Reason? Because not all "Christian values" are "Christ's values". And even "Christ's values" are viewed in the nature of the human subjectivity.

Thanks.

I gave a specific example. Should we comprise the message that Christ alone is the means for salvation?

Depends on whether one believes Jesus exemplified and preached the Gospel or whether He was the Gospel.

What about if He is both?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Much along the same lines, here is a documentary that I found quite interesting. Part of the interview was asking people about how people view Christians and how they view Jesus. More interesting is how uninformed Christians and conservatives are concerning "worldly" and liberal views in comparison to what they understand about Christianity. (Fast forward to the 2 minute 40 second mark: Lord Save Us From Your Followers Part 6 )

Movie:

http://www.lordsaveusthemovie.com/

If you have Netflix, you can watch the documentary there.

Or you can watch it in segments here on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScorpioJJ420

Compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing when it comes to political issues. Can the same thing be said of compromising Christian values.

For example. There isn't one single liberal in this video who compromise if I said that Jesus Christ is the only means to receive eternal life. Should we then compromise that truth to gain acceptance?

This is what has happened to men like Rob Bell. He took this very same issue and has fallen into total apostasy.

Don't know anything about Bell so please don't think I am an apologist for his belief system. I haven't a clue what he does or doesn't believe.

Regardless, your statement is about "Christian values". That statement alone makes it a (sub)cultural agenda. And there are varying degrees of interpretation. For example, the idea of speaking in tongues might be a "Christian value" to the Charismatic crowd or the Holy Eucharist is deemed a "Christian value" to the Catholic.

So yes, I do believe that "Christian values" should be subject to compromise. Reason? Because not all "Christian values" are "Christ's values". And even "Christ's values" are viewed in the nature of the human subjectivity.

Thanks.

I gave a specific example. Should we comprise the message that Christ alone is the means for salvation?

Depends on whether one believes Jesus exemplified and preached the Gospel or whether He was the Gospel.

What about if He is both?

He said the only way to God is through Himself. God has made Him a judge of mankind so we have to determine if the "through Christ" is about faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection or if it is about obedience to His teaching with Him being the determinative factor as to entrance into eternal life. Jesus never taught salvation by grace through faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection. He never said that His righteousness would be imputed to those who "believe". So if He didn't teach those things, which Gospel did He preach?

 

[T-Bone]

Much along the same lines, here is a documentary that I found quite interesting. Part of the interview was asking people about how people view Christians and how they view Jesus. More interesting is how uninformed Christians and conservatives are concerning "worldly" and liberal views in comparison to what they understand about Christianity. (Fast forward to the 2 minute 40 second mark: Lord Save Us From Your Followers Part 6 )

Movie:

http://www.lordsaveusthemovie.com/

If you have Netflix, you can watch the documentary there.

Or you can watch it in segments here on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScorpioJJ420

Compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing when it comes to political issues. Can the same thing be said of compromising Christian values.

For example. There isn't one single liberal in this video who compromise if I said that Jesus Christ is the only means to receive eternal life. Should we then compromise that truth to gain acceptance?

This is what has happened to men like Rob Bell. He took this very same issue and has fallen into total apostasy.

Don't know anything about Bell so please don't think I am an apologist for his belief system. I haven't a clue what he does or doesn't believe.

Regardless, your statement is about "Christian values". That statement alone makes it a (sub)cultural agenda. And there are varying degrees of interpretation. For example, the idea of speaking in tongues might be a "Christian value" to the Charismatic crowd or the Holy Eucharist is deemed a "Christian value" to the Catholic.

So yes, I do believe that "Christian values" should be subject to compromise. Reason? Because not all "Christian values" are "Christ's values". And even "Christ's values" are viewed in the nature of the human subjectivity.

Thanks.

I gave a specific example. Should we comprise the message that Christ alone is the means for salvation?

Depends on whether one believes Jesus exemplified and preached the Gospel or whether He was the Gospel.

What about if He is both?

He said the only way to God is through Himself. God has made Him a judge of mankind so we have to determine if the "through Christ" is about faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection or if it is about obedience to His teaching with Him being the determinative factor as to entrance into eternal life. Jesus never taught salvation by grace through faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection. He never said that His righteousness would be imputed to those who "believe". So if He didn't teach those things, which Gospel did He preach?

The same one John taught .."He came to His own but His own did not receive Him...but to as many as received Him to them He gave the right to be the children of God...to those who believed on His Name." John 1, which ties right in with your thoughts recorded in John 14:6 and with Paul's testimony of salvation in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4...there is no conflict.  Jesus is salvation and the only way to come to Him is by His grace through faith...what a great gospel taught consistently throughout the NT.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Much along the same lines, here is a documentary that I found quite interesting. Part of the interview was asking people about how people view Christians and how they view Jesus. More interesting is how uninformed Christians and conservatives are concerning "worldly" and liberal views in comparison to what they understand about Christianity. (Fast forward to the 2 minute 40 second mark: Lord Save Us From Your Followers Part 6 )

Movie:

http://www.lordsaveusthemovie.com/

If you have Netflix, you can watch the documentary there.

Or you can watch it in segments here on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScorpioJJ420

Compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing when it comes to political issues. Can the same thing be said of compromising Christian values.

For example. There isn't one single liberal in this video who compromise if I said that Jesus Christ is the only means to receive eternal life. Should we then compromise that truth to gain acceptance?

This is what has happened to men like Rob Bell. He took this very same issue and has fallen into total apostasy.

Don't know anything about Bell so please don't think I am an apologist for his belief system. I haven't a clue what he does or doesn't believe.

Regardless, your statement is about "Christian values". That statement alone makes it a (sub)cultural agenda. And there are varying degrees of interpretation. For example, the idea of speaking in tongues might be a "Christian value" to the Charismatic crowd or the Holy Eucharist is deemed a "Christian value" to the Catholic.

So yes, I do believe that "Christian values" should be subject to compromise. Reason? Because not all "Christian values" are "Christ's values". And even "Christ's values" are viewed in the nature of the human subjectivity.

Thanks.

I gave a specific example. Should we comprise the message that Christ alone is the means for salvation?

Depends on whether one believes Jesus exemplified and preached the Gospel or whether He was the Gospel.

What about if He is both?

He said the only way to God is through Himself. God has made Him a judge of mankind so we have to determine if the "through Christ" is about faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection or if it is about obedience to His teaching with Him being the determinative factor as to entrance into eternal life. Jesus never taught salvation by grace through faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection. He never said that His righteousness would be imputed to those who "believe". So if He didn't teach those things, which Gospel did He preach?

The same one John taught .."He came to His own but His own did not receive Him...but to as many as received Him to them He gave the right to be the children of God...to those who believed on His Name." John 1, which ties right in with your thoughts recorded in John 14:6 and with Paul's testimony of salvation in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4...there is no conflict.  Jesus is salvation and the only way to come to Him is by His grace through faith...what a great gospel taught consistently throughout the NT.

Not being "received" or "accepted" had nothing to do with Paul's idea of the involvement of resurrection in the Gospel. John says the receiving is that of "logos", the teachings of Christ. He reiterates it in John 14: ""The WORD (logos, singular) you hear is (singular) not my own but of the Father who sent me." And "dwelt" is skeinei meanint "to tabernacle". IOW, God "tabernacled" the "logos" in Christ. The people did not receive that. Adding Paul's definition in I Cor. 15 is simply adding to the Gospel that Jesus taught.

 

[T-Bone]

Much along the same lines, here is a documentary that I found quite interesting. Part of the interview was asking people about how people view Christians and how they view Jesus. More interesting is how uninformed Christians and conservatives are concerning "worldly" and liberal views in comparison to what they understand about Christianity. (Fast forward to the 2 minute 40 second mark: Lord Save Us From Your Followers Part 6 )

Movie:

http://www.lordsaveusthemovie.com/

If you have Netflix, you can watch the documentary there.

Or you can watch it in segments here on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScorpioJJ420

Compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing when it comes to political issues. Can the same thing be said of compromising Christian values.

For example. There isn't one single liberal in this video who compromise if I said that Jesus Christ is the only means to receive eternal life. Should we then compromise that truth to gain acceptance?

This is what has happened to men like Rob Bell. He took this very same issue and has fallen into total apostasy.

Don't know anything about Bell so please don't think I am an apologist for his belief system. I haven't a clue what he does or doesn't believe.

Regardless, your statement is about "Christian values". That statement alone makes it a (sub)cultural agenda. And there are varying degrees of interpretation. For example, the idea of speaking in tongues might be a "Christian value" to the Charismatic crowd or the Holy Eucharist is deemed a "Christian value" to the Catholic.

So yes, I do believe that "Christian values" should be subject to compromise. Reason? Because not all "Christian values" are "Christ's values". And even "Christ's values" are viewed in the nature of the human subjectivity.

Thanks.

I gave a specific example. Should we comprise the message that Christ alone is the means for salvation?

Depends on whether one believes Jesus exemplified and preached the Gospel or whether He was the Gospel.

What about if He is both?

He said the only way to God is through Himself. God has made Him a judge of mankind so we have to determine if the "through Christ" is about faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection or if it is about obedience to His teaching with Him being the determinative factor as to entrance into eternal life. Jesus never taught salvation by grace through faith alone in His death, burial and resurrection. He never said that His righteousness would be imputed to those who "believe". So if He didn't teach those things, which Gospel did He preach?

The same one John taught .."He came to His own but His own did not receive Him...but to as many as received Him to them He gave the right to be the children of God...to those who believed on His Name." John 1, which ties right in with your thoughts recorded in John 14:6 and with Paul's testimony of salvation in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4...there is no conflict.  Jesus is salvation and the only way to come to Him is by His grace through faith...what a great gospel taught consistently throughout the NT.

Not being "received" or "accepted" had nothing to do with Paul's idea of the involvement of resurrection in the Gospel. John says the receiving is that of "logos", the teachings of Christ. He reiterates it in John 14: ""The WORD (logos, singular) you hear is (singular) not my own but of the Father who sent me." And "dwelt" is skeinei meanint "to tabernacle". IOW, God "tabernacled" the "logos" in Christ. The people did not receive that. Adding Paul's definition in I Cor. 15 is simply adding to the Gospel that Jesus taught.

Your understanding of LOGOS while partically correct in not complete...John 1: 1 & 14 make it clear that the LOGOS is more than the words or word of God...the LOGOS is the God who took on flesh and dwelt among us...Jesus.  And the attempt to make it look like Paul taught another Gospel rather than add understanding of how the Gospel (Christ) is received is a conflict created my man that doesn't actually exist in the Scripture. And I believe you are incorrect about Paul's view of receiving ...1 Cor 15: 1&2 makes it pretty clear.."the gospel which I preached and which also you received...by which you are saved...that Christ..."

 

[christundivided]

T-Bone, SM has an issue with what he believes about the teaching of Christ. This is an issue he will struggle with for a long time. I hate to see him struggle With the issue.

I didn't ask the question I asked to bring this to the surface. Whether he realizes this or not, the question I asked didn't have anything to do with how he responded. Whether he believes The Gospel is preaching an aherance to the strict teachings of Christ or salvation by Grace through faith alone..... neither aspect should be compromised. I think he would agree. He simply saw it an opportunity to interject his objections to salvation by grace through faith alone.

A liberal, like in the video, wouldn't accept either position. There wouldn't be any "compromise". A liberal would never accept anything through Christ alone. Nothing.

 

[christundivided]

Not being "received" or "accepted" had nothing to do with Paul's idea of the involvement of resurrection in the Gospel. John says the receiving is that of "logos", the teachings of Christ. He reiterates it in John 14: ""The WORD (logos, singular) you hear is (singular) not my own but of the Father who sent me." And "dwelt" is skeinei meanint "to tabernacle". IOW, God "tabernacled" the "logos" in Christ. The people did not receive that. Adding Paul's definition in I Cor. 15 is simply adding to the Gospel that Jesus taught.

I hope you realize that what you believe about "LOGOS" affects your view of the Deity of Christ. Its more than an intellectual battle against the teachings of Paul.

Can you unequivocally say that Christ was God in the flesh? Christ more than " tabernacled" the LOGOS. You can not make such a distinction. Christ and LOGOS are inseparable. There is no division. No facets of existence. They are One.