We bashed Billy Graham. We criticised his evangelidtic methods. We deplored his gospel presentation. We even called into question his walk with Christ. But you know something? He was reaching people for Christ. While we Calvinist were trying to bring Arminians to the five points, Billy Graham was bringing people to Jesus. Praise God I left Calvinism and the bashing of other people.
While this thread seems to be unraveling, might we take note that it was posted by a moderator. A watchman on the wall for the community at large on SI. Not all are apprised of the false teaching coming out from various false teachers as more time is given to the study of truth vs. the lie. It does reveal the clearer picture that has been spoken of by various teachers on SI as well as what is experienced outside of the forum. Most people are dead! We cannot rest that one calls himself by denomination or doctrinal camp. The majority are suspect. This is the evangelism of our day in the United States.Lovefirst, I agree with you fully in regard to the necessity of action over words, given that action of course is bathed in prayer and of the Spirit who guides us in all Godly wisdom and gives us the very words to speak. I know that is what you were referencing. This is obviously the evangelism we must recognize for if we are truly of Christ we must recognize that the many who cross our paths are lost. The teachers we listen to on SI were about this concern and desired greatly that the lie be exposed even amongst their own congregations so that they should be brought to Christ by regeneration. Should we see it any different? I would not assume anything today given how the lie has been perpetuated and in so many forms. We cannot buy into the call for toleration that is the trumpet call of the day, we must be about the discernment that we are given. if we speak of false teachers we should rather talk of the subtle errors that become the foundation for the greater heresies and more importantly the truths of scripture that stand in opposition to such lies.As for Rick Perry or any other in the political realm? I do wonder what the participation of the first church would have been in the world of politics had there been such a vote in that day. Which Caesar might they have cast their vote for. Or would they?
lylewise... good word. Needed.I do wish to comment on the "first church". I assume you mean the 1st century church. 2,000 years later many believers sit and dream about how wonderfully perfect it must have been to be a part of the 1st century church.Think about this, the 1st century church was rampant with false doctrine. Who do you think the Apostles were writing to when they wrote the New Testament? There is so much stuff written about false teachers, and it wasnt written in a prophetic sense; it was happening right then! Look at the church in Corinth. Sexual deviance and drunkeness were practiced... IN the church. The churches addressed (scolded) by Jesus in Revelation: all 1st century churches.There was nothing magical about the 1st century church. They had weird doctrines, false teachers, deviants, cheats, liars, etc just as we do today. They had divisions, fights, disagreements, debates, etc.At least we have electricity and running water today.Krispy
Yes and there were also a few of those apostle guys, but just as the prophets before them, they were not very much loved by the world either. I have no utopian fantasies about the first church. I cannot imagine the depravity of the culture given what is recorded for us in God's word. We think it difficult today. No I think history has spoken well to what lies in men's hearts. I am curious however as to how much thought would have been given to politics had they been given the freedom of participation? For some reason I think it would have been the last thing on their agenda.
That was a great post lylewise about the early church and politics.The early church stayed out of politics. The did not seek to change men's hearts through the arm of the flesh. They honored and respected all men and their speech was seasoned with grace. There were some influential men in the early church, but they would rather labor in the gospel, following in Jesus' footsteps rather than labor in the flesh. If any generation had motivation to get involved in politics it would have been the early church. They were a nation that was occupied by a foreign army. What would Believers in America do today if they were occupied by a foreign army? Or not even that. Say Obama becomes like Chavez of Venezuela, what would Believers do? In Christ,Sarah
Sister don't need to look to far from Chavrez. Just look across the gulf to Cuba and see how believers are living under his buddies the CastrosBlaine
Hi Martyr,I chose Chavez because of the how he was very subtle at first and then once he had complete power his true colors came out. However, it is true that Castro when fighting during the revolution, convinced everyone that he was a freedom fighter and fighting for their interests when in reality he was fighting for his own interests. And of course we see the fruit of Castro's reign. Yeah, they are basically both Marxist, Socialists. I can say that Obama is too. It is not a criticism of him at all. More a fact of reality based on what he says in his books and his actions. It will become more and more evident to people that he is as time goes on.Just remember, that the Church under Marxist, Socialist rule always experiences purification and holiness. In Christ,Sarah
Amen, my sister, amen. I agree with every word of your post.Blaine
That was a great post lylewise about the early church and politics.The early church stayed out of politics. The did not seek to change men's hearts through the arm of the flesh. They honored and respected all men and their speech was seasoned with grace. There were some influential men in the early church, but they would rather labor in the gospel, following in Jesus' footsteps rather than labor in the flesh.
