**
The gospel, and the many ways and opportunities in which it is presented: Creation debates, evangelism, street preaching, etc.
**
Watching social media discuss the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye creation debate, a word kept coming popping up all over the place: the gospel. Let’s first look at its use within the widely publicized creation debate.
To sum up my general views on yesterday’s debate: I have a hunch that most people supported the guy on their side of the fence, and most likely were not swayed to jump to the other side of the fence after hearing the debate.
This 40-second video might accurately portray what a lot of people felt:
**
**
While many people looked at this debate as an opportunity to discuss science vs creationism, many were focused on this venue as an important gospel opportunity:
**
**
Here are comments from articles highlighting the gospel in the context of the debate from familiar names:
**
“Ham was consistently bold in citing his confidence in God, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the full authority and divine inspiration of the Bible.” ~Albert Mohler
**
“Ken Ham has an unwavering commitment to biblical authority and to the gospel. I admire that about him and do believe him to represent the most compelling position. I am grateful that he is out there fighting the good fight. He’s one of the good guys.” ~Denny Burk
**
First, I thought Ken Ham did very well. He shared the Gospel multiple times (I think I counted 4 complete Gospel presentations, as well as numerous references to sin, the Fall, and redemption in Christ), and he stuck to his message that the true disagreement is at the presuppositional level. ~JD Hall
**
Here are other comments from around the net:
Then you were not listening carefully. Ken Ham did what he needed to say. The gospel true was preached and he stuck to the Bible rather then [sic] his own opinion. As for the debate, it will go on till the end of time because the unregenerate heart will not understand God and will always ask to see more signs. ~Guy
***
How many times did Ken Ham share the gospel? ALOT… How many times did he direct everything to God & his word? ALOT… Bill Nye & the media is portraying that He won the debate… AHH, but you are wrong again world.. If one soul came to the Salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ – It was ALL worth it. How many non-believers do you think watched? Praising God for using this debate and Ken Ham & AIG to further His kingdom & for His glory!! ~Jay
***
1st Corinthians1:18 for the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing……… ken ham wove the gospel message into his portion of the debate, that in itself is a great advance. Do you have any idea how many unsaved heard the Gospel last night because of that….. ~Glen
***
More importantly last night, the Gospel was presented with Truth and grace. A seed was planted. It’s now up to the Holy Spirit to show Bill Nye the error of his ways. If the Lord can transform Saul of Tarsus, He can certainly transform Bill Nye, the Science Guy! Keep praying… ~Lee
***
That’s a whole lot of gospel talk, right?
While some in the Christian camp were thrilled with Ham’s gospel presentation and made note of how many times he included the gospel message in the debate, others (including Christians) were not so impressed:
**
**
There was a great debate on the topic of the gospel following the above tweet.
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. John 5:39-40
**
I’ve been thinking about this gospel that so many talk about. Obviously Ken Ham was being judged by Christians on how well and how many times he presented it. It seems there must have been people on the sidelines with scorecards making tally marks when listening to Ken Ham’s words, judging whether or not he passed their gospel presentation test.
Someone actually created a Facebook page on the same day of the debate to devote themselves to praying for Bill Nye: Pray for Bill Nye: “Let’s commit to praying that the Holy Spirit will prick the heart of Bill Nye “The Science Guy.”
I’m glad Ham touched on the important facets of Christianity – sin, death/resurrection of Christ. However, I’m curious to know how many people were won over to Christ by Ham’s gospel-ese words? Did anyone’s heart get stirred by hearing that gospel message four times in the debate? I suspect not. ::::Did I hear a collective gasp from a certain crowd? ::::
But this focus on the gospel message within the debate also reminds me of those who share the gospel recklessly. I’m not talking about being a fool for Christ, but maybe that other F word: Farisee, oops Pharisee.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are likewhitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:25-28, ESV)
Case in point, street evangelist Tony Miano doing his thing on Twitter yesterday – a smattering of spiritual words/verses in response to the recent announcement from Scotland that they now allow same-sex marriage. Look at the behavior. Look at the words in the hashtags. This is a man whose ministry is to share the gospel. The dude gets PAID to act like this. Seriously! (Strong language warning!)
I’m afraid that the following particular passages are sometimes used as a license to be rude when sharing the Gospel. The verses have been quoted by those who share their brand of the gospel on a whim, seemingly without a care in the world as to the responsibility of sharing it in a way that honors the Lord, or by looking at their life as a reflection of Christ and a witness to His saving grace.
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:17–18).
Here’s another verse along the same lines:
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16).
In conclusion, I have a hunch that God is not counting how many gospel presentations at creation debates or how many people are acting foolish for Christ while street evangelizing or on evangelizing on Twitter:
**
He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.
Luke 16:15
Related articles:
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Ann,
I completely agree. I don’t think I’ve said everyone has to agree with me. I’m just giving you my take on the Gospel and how I think it is laid out in the Bible.
Maybe I’m wrong or have some across wrong, but everyone here is telling me what they believe and don’t believe, so I’m just doing the same.
LikeLike
Now that Kevin has told Carmen that he speaks for God, it is my turn to have to step away from the computer for awhile.
LikeLike
“Maybe his plan for them is to become a missionary and be tortured for their faith? Maybe his plan for them is to be wrongly accused of a crime and spend the rest of their life in prison…..we don’t know what God’s plan is for anyone’s life so why give them a false sense that whatever it is, it’s going to be wonderful……”
God “plans” evil? Thank you for at least not claiming the evil glorifies Him as we hear so often these days.
I agree with you that telling folks God has a wonderful plan for their life is ridiculous but you guys go overboard the other way actually promoting a evil monster god who “plans” suffering. .
We live in a fallen world where we are subject to the evil around us. It rains on the just and the unjust.
Here is what I do not understand about the whole YEC movement. The “Good Newsl” is not YEC. Yet, it is tied to it by many just as comp/pat doctrine is tied to it by so many.
the YEC formula goes something like this:
Literal Genesis Account=Inerrancy=Gospel=salvation.
Now if you question some of them closely enough they will concede that YEC is not salvic but they continue to position it as such because they merge it with a literal (as in scientific) Genesis account AND inerrancy— totally ignoring the genre.
I have a suggestion concerning the Gospel as always being offensive because it is “truth”—try living as Christ and then you will offend mostly the big time religious leaders of today and not so much the pagans. (wink)
LikeLike
Honestly, I had no idea that saying unbelievers hate God would cause so much friction.
Jesus says in John 15:
18“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’
LikeLike
Kevin,
Thanks for suggesting that I am first among humanity. With all due humility, however, I must yield that honor to Jesus. See e.g. Colossians 1:15 ff.
LikeLike
Kevin,
I need to remind you that my blog is open to all (there are believers and unbelievers here). I try to keep it a safe place, especially for those who have been harmed at church. I believe my daughter was harmed by spiritual abuse (much more than the YEC debate) and many others here have also been harmed by it. I hope you will stick around here – – not so much to argue with people to prove your side – – but to gain understanding about what happens to Christians who are harmed by bully pastors – pastors who use their position of trust in order to control others spiritually. Sometimes these church leaders used scripture and/or their position as a weapon.
Please be cognizant that the way in which you are arguing or challenging may be off-putting for some of my readers (including me). Ask yourself how can you extend the love and grace of God to people who have been hurt by church leaders. I’m reminded that when Christ was on this earth, he met people at their point of need and was very compassionate. He was moved emotionally when a father lost his child. Somehow He managed to demonstrate both grace and truth in a way that didn’t cause people to stumble. He should be our example.
Thanks for sticking around.
LikeLike
Kevin, In John 15, who is Jesus talking to? Who is HIs audience? And who is He talking about? Only unbelievers as in Pagans? Let us not forget the Religious leaders of the day who were “believers” in Yahweh who also “hated” them. (History repeats itself)
So back up to here:
12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other.
So we have these “disciples” going out showing love for each other and to others. Perhaps our problem is how one defines “love” in action. Running out to debate the age of the earth in order to share the Gospel just does not seem to communicate that. It ties the age of the earth to salvation.
Perhaps Ham should debate Francis Collins? Then it would be two believers debating the age of the earth. But that would not sell as many tickets, would it?
LikeLike
Maybe it is just me but there seems to be a “notch in the belt” mentality with some people over this ” the world hates us” business. It is like they look for persecution and call the silliest things persecution to put a notch in their belt. It is almost as if a whole lotta people don’t hate them, then they aren’t real Christians.
Me thinks they have turned what scripture was communicating upside down.
LikeLike
Kevin
I might tentatively suggest that some may love God, but not recognise that fact yet.
I am reminded of a CS Lewis character in ‘The Last Battle’, Emeth the Calormene soldier who served Tash (a false god) all his life, with sincerity and integrity. When he met Aslan, he loved Him. And Aslan considered all his service done to Tash as done to Himself.
We alienate those who are coming to God when we accuse them of hating Him.
And this leads nicely into comment on Ken Ham. He too alienates by his dogmatism. It seems to me there are flaws in all the various accounts and interpretations of Genesis. And they all have some merit. (The only system that has none is the Atheistic materialistic one.)
So much wiser to ‘suggest’, even tentatively, what might be true rather than dogmatically assert, when as Julie Anne notes, these are by no means foundational salvation doctrines.
There is a member of the church we now attend who peddles YEC dogma constantly. He alienates himself in pushing the ‘logic’ that those who do not accept his interpretation do not, therefore, accept ‘the Word’ and that consequently their salvation is compromised.
Even if gently spoken it is too easy to become a spiritual abuser on the basis of rigidly held non-essential doctrines.
LikeLike
Kevin,
I don’t know, but I suspect that you are drawing such a negative reaction because you are triggering traumatic memories of how so many have been abused by so called pastors who insisted that their understanding of Scripture carried the same authority as Scripture itself. Just as one example, at 9:41 this morning you said the Gospel is offensive. Then a few minutes later you say the Gospel will always offend. Well, as always, I stand to be corrected, but I don’t think there is any Scripture that says this.
Sure, Galatians speaks of the offense of the cross. Setting aside the question whether it is legitimate to conflate the cross with the gospel, the context here makes it clear that the cross is an offense to the circumcision party, not to everybody. And, sure, Romans 9:32-33 speaks of Jesus Himself as a rock of stumbling, but only to the Jews.
If there is some Scripture that says the gospel is offensive, I am willing to be shown. I can’t find it in ESV. Whether or not there is any such passage, I suggest that when you insist on defending your mere interpretations and understandings as infallible you put yourself in the same bad light as abusive pastors who insist on having their interpretations accepted without questioning. Really, the only difference is that pastors are in positions that give them the ability to do real harm.
I do hope you are not offended by my suggestions. I do not intend to offend, only to maybe sharpen iron with iron.
LikeLike
Such an excellent comment, Chris. Thank you!
Even if gently spoken it is too easy to become a spiritual abuser on the basis of rigidly held non-essential doctrines.
and
We alienate those who are coming to God when we accuse them of hating Him.
So good!
LikeLike
Off topic, but I would like to draw attention to JAs Twitter update:
Is there anybody who is familiar with the situation who thought this wouldn’t happen?
LikeLike
Gary – – you’re right. It is something that has certainly crossed my mind. Another breaking story is this:
LikeLike
This Steve Carlson is an complete idiot. Sending a threat over the Internet of implied violence is a feloney in the State of North Carolina. The recipient needs to file a police report with the Raleigh Police department by calling 919-996- 3335 or the Wake county sheriff’s office at 919- 856-6900 (Raleigh is in Wake county) and if you need Mr. Carlson’s home address , DMV report, records of court matters and other publicly available information such as where he works email me. I just ran him through several investigative data bases at the office of a bail bond company I once owned. Definitely the same twit, apparently threatening people is a hobby of his starting some where around March 2003. A first class FOOL.
LikeLike
Chris,
Another scene from “The Last Battle” that I am reminded of in these types of discussions is when Narnia is ending and all the creatures come to Aslan. They either look in his face and love him, even those who had been the enemy, or they look in his face and hate him. Those who hate stream off into the darkness and the others know not where they go and they are sure it is none of their business. C.S. Lewis is such a theologian! Glad you brought him into this discussion.
LikeLike
Thanks much, Randy. I’m passing your note along. -Julie Anne
LikeLike
Never claim to see the heart of a person. You DONT KNOW how many hearts were planted with biblical truth.
1 cor 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
LikeLike
Oh, thanks for that verse, Chris. I just read the context and it is all about encouraging and building upon that small seed. The previous verses talk about giving milk and not solid food. This implies giving food at its appropriate time and being gentle and careful about this process of building that foundation of faith. So glad you mentioned this verse. Doesn’t that sound like how a loving father would tend his young babe?
LikeLike
Sarah said:
February 6, 2014 @ 6:07 AM
@opinemine You have zero way of knowing the impact the debate and the coverage had on people. God is in control and He is using it for His purposes!”
My response:
How do you know? I cringe every time anyone states, “God is in control”. How do you know? Sounds to me that Ken Ham was in control. Ken Ham is about Ken Ham, as far as I am concerned. I’ve seen Ken Ham debate other Christians. So, which side was God in control of there? To Ken, this is a salvation issue. If you don’t believe his version, you are not saved, because, in his mind, you must believe his version, or else you do not believe the Bible. Do you see why I ask you, How do you know?
Ed
LikeLike
Oh boy is that threat letter is somewhat familiar. You know, once you peel the onion back from the public persona’s of these “Christian” celebs making bank off Jesus and their hangers on…..it is unbelievable how much evil lurks beneath.
There is always the problem that some of these nuts are followers and the celebs don’t really know them so they hardly ever take responsibility for what they teach and how they act. Such is the case with guys like Driscoll, Mahaney, etc. But that is hardly ever the point. The point is what the cult of personality does to so many people. One expects it out of Hollywood but not in Christendom.
The evil I saw was most often covert and deceptive hiding behind a façade built on the cult of personality.
LikeLike
Tony Miano jumped in on the gospel bandwagon:
http://www.crossencounters.us/2014/02/ken-ham-answered-higher-call.html?m=1
LikeLike
Oops – missed this important last paragraph:
LikeLike
“How do you know? I cringe every time anyone states, “God is in control”. How do you know? ”
You know, another way to look at it rather than “God is in control” is that a “relationship” is never about control. And as believers we have a relationship with Christ. God knows and sometimes intervenes. Sometimes does not. In fact, I really believe God wants us to be in control of ourselves with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Kevin said:
“Kevin
February 6, 2014 @ 8:34 AM
Carmen, you may have missed this:
Romans 8:7 – For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.
Notice it says, “For the mind that is set on the flesh (unbeliever/unbelieving mind) is hostile to God”….it doesn’t say “is hostile to THE BELIEF IN GOD…” but “to God.”
My response:
Oh, you are way off base here, Kevin. It does NOT indicate the word “unbeliever/unbelieving” mind is hostile to God.
SIN is the topic. Christians sin. Sin is of the flesh. Stop inserting words where they are not. In addition, unbelievers are those who reject, not those who are ignorant.
Again, the topic is sin in Romans 1-8. Not unbelievers, not believers. Just sin. Lo and Behold, Christians sin, and Christians are hostile toward God when they sin. Stop making this about unbelievers.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed –
Good stuff, Ed. This whole comment was very helpful.
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
A while back, I debated a Lutheran. He emphatically rejects the notion that it’s about relationship. He thinks it’s all about “obedience”. Hence, the word, “control”.
Ed
LikeLike
Any time JA. It’s always good to clarify.
Ed
LikeLike
Kevin said:
“Well, the Holy Spirit has to enlighten every believer on all kinds of doctrine and theology, but it doesn;t mean those who hold to one side can’t encourage others to believe the right side. ;-)…..lol”
My response:
I emphatically do not believe in YEC. Are you saying that God has not “enlightened” me to the truth?
I have a whole write up on this YEC stuff. I was enlightened with the Bible that YEC is NOT TRUE.
Try me.
Ed
LikeLike
Kevin said:
“Honestly, I had no idea that saying unbelievers hate God would cause so much friction.
Jesus says in John 15:
18“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own…”
My response:
NOTE the first word in verse 18. This does not say that the world will indeed hate you. It states the word “IF”. No one can hate anything unless they first see it, feel it, smell it, taste it, hear it, touch it, etc. One has to make a logical conclusion in order to love or hate something, or someone.
This is why I harp on the word “UNBELIEVER” against you, Kevin. In order to believe, or not believe, one must be presented the facts of the case first and foremost. Without that, they are just in the ignorant category. And, those who are ignorant, they are not considered to be either an unbeliever, or a believer.
Romans 2:14-16 discusses this crowd, and the Apostle Paul states that this is GOOD NEWS for those people…the ignorant ones.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed – – I am so grateful for your comments. It seems a certain group actually enjoys presenting an angry image of God, choosing to focus on law and judgment. You noticing the discrepancy in scriptures used and then highlighting the difference between those who are ignorant and those who choose to reject God have been very enlightening. This is a very important distinction and really helps us to see God in a different light.
LikeLike
Kevin,
Hannah Smith said this:
“Hannah Smith
February 6, 2014 @ 12:43 PM
Kevin, I know Paul’s conversion story, and the whole story of his life, but nice way to deflect. I never said he hated Christians. I said he didn’t hate God prior to his conversion. Paul himself says he was zealous for God (Acts 22:3) – why not just admit that I have a valid point? See what I’m saying about coming across as having a superiority complex? A lack of humility in Christians is what turns many unbelievers away.
My response:
She beats you when she said that the Apostle Paul did not hate God. He was zealous for God. He thought that he was doing God a favor when he was murdering those who believed in Jesus. Who were those? JEWS. Believing Jews. Not believing Gentiles, for the gospel had not yet been given to the Gentiles.
Paul was doing what he thought was righteous by the Law.
Philippians 3:5-6
King James Version (KJV)
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
BLAMELESS.
Oh, and this is how the Apostle Paul evangelized:
1 Corinthians 9:19-23
King James Version (KJV)
19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
FIRST OF ALL…HE BECAME A SERVANT TO ALL. A servant.
Ed
LikeLike
JA,
Yes, I often notice discrepancies such as these. One of the most fascinating questions that is asked is, “What about all those people who never heard of Jesus? What happens to them?”
The answers are so bizarre. Especially the answer that they all go to hell, because they are sinners never saved. Hogwash. Jesus saves those people too, based on their conscience. If their conscience convicts them, the question is, what do they do about it? God judges, which means that Jesus judges. That is good news according to Romans 2:14-16. We don’t have to worry about those who never heard, even tho we are to Go Ye into all the world. We don’t have to feel guilty about the ones that died before we got the gospel to them. That’s good news.
I’ve debated on Calvinist a while back that thinks that all of mankind, except for a few Jews, are all burning in hell, because they were before Jesus died on the cross. Such nonsense.
Ed
LikeLike
“A while back, I debated a Lutheran. He emphatically rejects the notion that it’s about relationship. He thinks it’s all about “obedience”. Hence, the word, “control”.”
Look what Luther says in his preface to Romans:
“Sin in the Scriptures means not only external works of the body but also all those movements within us which bestir themselves and move us to do the external works, namely, the depth of the heart with all its powers.”
Think about it. This even includes temptation you do not allow to bring sin! Never
mind our Lord who was “tempted”. And this includes any “good works”! This thinking is the reason he wanted to toss out the book of James.
There can be no “relationship” in that particular construct.
LikeLike
Works is a most confusing word for these folks.
Works of the flesh (sin) (Romans 4)is being disobedient to the Law of Moses. The strength of sin is the law (1 Corinthians 15:56). Get rid of the law, and we have:
Works of the Spirit is what James is discussing. Love thy neighbor as yourself. The Royal Law. By that law, the fruits of the Spirit are evident.
Works vs. Works.
But if we notice, Adam did NOT lose his relationship with God. Temporarily he did, but that was not permanent. Why? Sacrifice. Jesus is our sacrifice, and therefore, our relationship with God is eternal.
A “doer” is a “worker”. James discusses the word, in that not the hearer is justified, but the doer. NOT the doer of the Law of Moses, but the doer of the law of liberty.
The controversy in regards to works is Romans 4 vs. James. They can’t seem to tell the difference between the two topics of the same word.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Kevin, you said: “Gary W, You would be first among humanity”.
I say, codswallup. You’re looney as a demented wombat on crack cocaine if you believe that. (Not to get personal or anything). You’re full of baloney, old son; you’re full of baloney.
LikeLike
Would anybody who watched the debate be able to tell us what it was, exactly, Ham presented as the gospel? The reason I ask is that I am convinced that the easy believism, Jesus-as-fire-insurance, version of the gospel is a dangerous lie. I further suspect that this easy believism version of the gospel, or something like it, is all there would have been time to present in the course of a debate on an entirely unrelated topic.
LikeLike
Gary W,
There is scripture that refutes your opinion.
Jude verse 23
And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
I have no problem with “easy believism”. The question is, what is believed? Should it be “hard believism”? Or “difficult believism”?
Ed
LikeLike
“Would anybody who watched the debate be able to tell us what it was, exactly, Ham presented as the gospel?”
Thank you. There is this magic pixie dust thinking out there that if you say key words then the Gospel has been “presented” and those who were listening now have no excuse before a Holy God.
Magic pixie dust words have replaced real kingdom living. I sort of blame the creeds for this. People tend to live off the creeds as a sort of Christian syllabus ticking off boxes. But they tend to ignore the events between Jesus’ birth and His death on the Cross. And that is a very important aspect of the Gospel. If we believe the “Gospel” we live it in action/deed. But that is taught as sin by so many because it is thought we can do nothing good nor can we be righteous. (taking metaphors from other places in scripture and teaching them as literal)
It is moral chaos and one reason people can look the other way when abuse, molestations, etc are done in church.
LikeLike
Ed,
What I perceive is that we have been fooled into thinking faith means merely belief, or intellectual acceptance. Paul begins and ends Romans with references to the obedience of faith. James makes it clear that simple belief is not enough, that we are justified by works and not by faith alone. From Hebrews 11 we see that belief involved works of obedience.
So, I have come to understand that when Scripture refers to faith, it means something like trusting obedience. There can be no faith without fealty, as in fidelity or obedient faithfulness to the Lord Jesus Christ.
It may be that this kind of faith can be germinated in the course of an abbreviated presentation, but I have real doubts whether this will be, in the usual circumstance, sufficient.
LikeLike
Just a thought. If Ham’s intent had been to “present the Gospel” he could have said that none of this earth age stuff makes any difference to the truth of Jesus Christ and refused to debate because it does not matter. I have been reading over at Biologos and that seems to be their attitude—age of the earth does not matter so let’s not make it a salvic issue.
OR, Ham could have simply debated him on the science. Uh no. That would not work because his entire argument boils down that the bible is a science book, too.
LikeLike
Ed, I have some experience with easy believism from the seeker mega movement. And you are right. What is believed? The “fire insurance” is not unlike what we are seeing from other movements that tend to tick off the doctrinal boxes of some creed or their belief statement It is all based upon believing what they think are the right things but not having to actually “do” anything as in being the Kingdom now. Here. On earth as it is in heaven.
. In other words sanctification is not really possible because we continue to be “sinners” after salvation. We cannot really be new creatures in Christ. (more Plato, just different methods) In easy believism you can sin all you want and be saved. It is cheap grace. In fact, a lot of it is usually not even considered sin because it was for Jesus if the leaders are doing it.
This approach makes Christians some of the most unsafe people around.
LikeLike
Well, Gary, when you dissect Hebrews 11:1, that is indeed what it boils down to.
Faith is the KNOWING that you are going to get what you expect. You believe that.
Check out my blog, titled Saving Faith or Faith. Simple belief IS enough. I think you have not dissected the book of James enough. What he is stating is that you LIVE your belief. You don’t just sit with your thumb up your….Fill In Blank.
Yes, it is easy believism. Gotta go to work. Catch ya all later!!
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
“From Hebrews 11 we see that belief involved works of obedience.”
And Hebrews 10 is a wake up call.
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
On another note, It could be there is a lot of misunderstanding about “obedience”. It is not a control thing but a relationship thing. It is a lot like how we know doing certain things will make our child joyful in the long run. We love them and want them live in peace and joy. We also, if we are smart, want a “relationship: with them as we are rearing future adults. We have such a command and obey type of church culture we cannot seem to wrap our heads around what such a relationship is like. it is all voluntary. People forget the Holy Spirit is also referred to as our “Advocate”. I think you get it, though. :o)
LikeLike
Ed,
Yes, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1, KJV) But also: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24, KJV). As to how we attain this KNOWING: “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye DO THIS THINGS, ye shall never fall:” (1 Peter 1:10, KJV, emphasis added)
I am using the term easy believism as meaning belief only, apart from works. I am increasing convinced that where there are no works, there is no faith, whatever the relationship between belief and works might be.
Plus which,maybe we can neither believe in Jesus nor obey Him, over the long term, if we do not love him. 1 Corinthians 13:13. While a preacher may be able to drive a sinner by fear to recite the sinners’ prayer, it takes time to introduce the reality of Jesus with such depth as to engender that love which will permanently draw us to Him with such conviction that we will willingly obey him.
Ken Ham, in the time available to him in the debate, probably cannot, for the most part, have been successful in doing more than having sowing seed where it might sprout, only to wither in the heat of trials. To my mind, it would be better for such seed never to have been sown. C.f. Heb 6 and, as Lydia points out, Heb 10.
LikeLike
“I am increasing convinced that where there are no works, there is no faith, whatever the relationship between belief and works might be.”
I totally agree. Now, perhaps we need to define “works”. :o)
I am BIG on definitions.
LikeLike
That’s exactly what I’m talking about, Gary. So in the midst of the debate filled with information, sharing pictures/diagrams on a screen, light-hearted rhetoric, Ham presented the gospel 4 times, which means that he said that magic formula that went something like this: – Christ came to the earth without sin, we in our sin were in need of a Savior, He paid the price for our sin by His death on the cross so we can have eternal life.
That’s the gospel message that many Christians are focusing on. You’re obedient as a Christian if you say that kind of formula to as many people possible. And I notice a pattern: the same people who are lauding Ham for doing the amazing work of sharing the gospel four times are some of the same ones who show themselves to be rude bullies by their behavior. Hence, my comment earlier about sharing the gospel gives people the license to be rude.
I never thought about it before about easy-believism. That’s one of the things CON used to harp on, but you’re right – – he goes around yammering at abortion clinics and street preaching/evangelizing, giving himself opportunities to spout out that magical formula, but then what? Leaves them high and dry? Now, he might leave a BGBC business card with them so they can come to BGBC, but if not, does he have a way of follow-up? Is that a concern? To me, that should be a big concern about a new babe in Christ – to help them along the way and disciple them. So, yes, I think you could be right about easy-believism with this kind of evangelism.
BTW, here’s TM tweeting the importance of that gospel message again:
https://twitter.com/TonyMiano/status/431590591026057216
LikeLike
Let’s not forget that YEC is his livelihood.
LikeLike
“I never thought about it before about easy-believism. That’s one of the things CON used to harp on, but you’re right – – he goes around yammering at abortion clinics and street preaching/evangelizing, giving himself opportunities to spout out that magical formula, but then what? Leaves them high and dry? Now, he might leave a BGBC business card with them so they can come to BGBC, but if not, does he have a way of follow-up? Is that a concern? To me, that should be a big concern about a new babe in Christ – to help them along the way and disciple them. So, yes, I think you could be right about easy-believism with this kind of evangelism.”
I simply despair of this sort of thing. It is all around me with the seeker mega. They give out water at Marathons and call it witnessing. What on earth are we doing to people? The whole point for people like CON is to fill up the pews. I know the drill. The seeker world is nothing but this sort of thing. Without the pews filled there is no money. It is a cycle.
Yes it is easy believism for CON and Miano. They simply go out and say the words but don’t really “invest” themselves into any individuals they speak the words to. They prefer to be set apart. They are to be followed. This does nothing for people except either make Christianity look shallow or if a seed IS planted in someone then they believe magic ‘words” are salvation, too.
Getting in there and investing in people is a very messy and often disappointing business. It requires tons of humility and grace.
How many times they say the magic words are seen to be the notches in their belt. If they are made fun of then they are persecuted.
LikeLike
. . ummm. .. and isn’t Ham in need of mega bucks for his Ark replica? You know, the one that’ll have to be big enough to fit all those pairs of animals – including dinosaurs and extinct species. We’ll see if “the bible tells me so” is a prolific fundraiser.
LikeLike
Ham’s gospel according to JA: “Christ came to the earth without sin, we in our sin were in need of a Savior, He paid the price for our sin by His death on the cross so we can have eternal life.”
Setting aside the question whether “eternal life” has a quantitative meaning (as in living forever and ever) or a qualitative meaning (as in being a reference to the kind of life characterizing to the age to come), this is at best a truncated gospel. It may (or may not) convey the bare minimum required for entry into the Kingdom, but it is without power for actual transformation. According to the so called great commission, Jesus was not seeking mere believers. He was seeking disciples. To be a disciple of Jesus, one must spend time with Jesus, becoming increasingly like Jesus. (Tip of the hat to Dallas Willard.)
My own testimony is that my wholehearted embracing of this truncated sort of “gospel” left me utterly defeated, for about 3 decades, when it came to being transformed into the image of the Son of God. To tell the truth, I am still seeking that fullness of that Gospel which is sufficient for transformation.
LikeLike
“Jesus was not seeking mere believers. He was seeking disciples. To be a disciple of Jesus, one must spend time with Jesus, becoming increasingly like Jesus.”
BINGO! Thanks Gary for that reminder. Disciples live the “kingdom” now……” On ‘earth’ as it is in heaven”.
And never mistake a stage persona for the real thing. Too many people don’t really know their so called pastors, personally.
( I think the institutional church has totally redefined the concept of pastor for most of its history)
LikeLike
Oh, please, Lydia – -it’s not as messy as getting arrested twice in 2 countries, having your local city open an investigation into your practices that leave women entering a women’s health clinic feeling intimidated. No, that’s persecution. These humble men are saints.
LikeLike
Gary W – – that was my word “eternal life” – – I can’t remember what word he used exactly – but that was the gist of the message.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Whether or not Ham used the words “eternal life,” they appear in John 3:16. I have come to understand that these words, being based on the Greek for “age,” would be better translated as something like “life of the age to come.” But I’m stealing this insight from NT Wright, which no doubt discredits me in the eyes of many. Well, never mind. NT Wright is a better scholar than, say, John Piper, whose underlying authority is Johnathan Edwards. Wright actually starts with Paul (strange concept), as seen within the context of the intellectual climate of Paul’s own time.
LikeLike
Thanks, Gary. That makes sense.
Changing subjects. This just came across my newsfeed. Wow – flashback:
http://t.co/rUA4AmtbjH
LikeLike
JA, yeah, flashback. I heard that so many times even in the seeker world. It is a great way to make sure we do not think for ourselves, trust our senses or be led by the Holy Spirit. it never occurs to them there might be a problem with their preaching.
And as to Miano’s messes. Hey that rhymes! Well, his donors pay for the messes(including his wife who works to support him) and he gets all the attention. Which is what it is all really about.
LikeLike
So Christians are saying Ham won the debate because he presented the gospel and Nye didn’t? In other words, Ham won because Ham agrees with himself and Nye doesn’t.
LikeLike
David: I wonder about this. Let’s say Nye, as an unbeliever, mentioned/presented the gospel 5 times during the debate while Ham mentioned it 4 times.
These guys are all saying it’s about the gospel, right? So, it wouldn’t matter who the gospel came from just as long as the gospel was mentioned – – again, it’s that magic gospel formula.
So . . . . . . . if Nye happened to have presented the gospel more times than Ham, would they agree that Nye won the debate (as an unbeliever)? I wonder how that would work?
LikeLike
JA, regarding what you link to at 10:12, it appears to me to be what we could call flagellation by sermon, flagellation typically being associated with achieving merit by suffering–often self imposed. Flagellation is defined as the act or process of flagellating, not to be confused with flatulating (well, unless you are thinking in terms of what is coming out of the mouths of . . . , Well, never mind.
LikeLike
Because Nye isn’t even a Christian, judging by how effectively each man presented the gospel would be wrong. Beyond wrong and stupid. But they are doing it anyway.
You are wrong because I am me and you are not!
LikeLike
Gary, I understand flagellation very well. I lived in the Philippines where this is a practice that some Catholics do (not approved by the Catholic church) on Good Friday. The parade down the road holding a rope filled with shards of glass and swing it at themselves on their bear upper torso. As they walk down the street, blood is dripping from them. It’s nasty looking. Some even will be crucified on crosses – – nails driven into their hands.
Yes, that is a good descriptor of what it felt like to sit under Chuck O’Neal’s messages.
LikeLike
chris
“Never claim to see the heart of a person. You DONT KNOW how many hearts were planted with biblical truth.
1 cor 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
Indeed!
Think I’ll put an R on my username for clarity 😉
LikeLike
Chris R – -Sorry I missed that. I’ve changed your comments to Chris R.
LikeLike
David C –
Yes, and the debate wasn’t even about the Gospel. It was supposed to be about the age of the earth. It’s mind numbing how easily some people lose track of what the event was “supposed” to be about. It’s equally disturbing to see the astounding lack of integrity by some who now pronounce a winner (yuk) based on what the debate “wasn’t” about.
sigh . . .
LikeLike
No, Bridget – – but it’s a Christian’s responsibility to be ready in season and out of season to present the Gospel and if he failed to do that, I wonder what all of “them” would have said. This gospel presentation is so important – – seemingly more important than living godly lives showing Christ through your behavior and character.
LikeLike
Bridget, you are spot on. It wasn’t about the gospel.
When Christians debate issues with non-Christians, it would be nice if they would be thoughtful enough to bring to the table verifiable facts. In other words, present statements of fact, not of faith. Faith makes sense only to the faithful, not not to those outside of the faith.
This is frustrating. To think that I once held onto every word uttered by men like Mohler out of deference for their spiritual authority. Now I admire their ability to pack so many logical fallacies whenever they open their mouths.
LikeLike
David, your words have revealed much. I’m going to ask my readers to pray for your soul.
::::::sarcasm on::::
LikeLike
I suspect the real purpose for this debate had absolutely nothing to do with Creationism vs Evolution or Proclaiming The Gospel.
Ham is losing (may have already lost) funding for his Noah’s Ark exhibit.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-03/noah-s-ark-risks-collapse-without-bond-buyers-by-february.html
This was just a publicity stunt. Nothing more, nothing less.
LikeLike
Ok. Many thanks.
Isn’t Ham’s Gospel-presenting in the context of a debate on origins strikingly similar to the fraudulent sales practice of ‘Bait-and-switch’?
LikeLike
Julie Anne @ 1:00p –
I fear that the words have become empty of meaning when spoke out of turn and by those whose lives don’t witness to the words.
BTDT –
I view the investment of $55m in this project a waste of money. There are real people with real needs that could benefit dramatically from such monies. To raise and spend it on this project is frivolous IMO. Sound more like someone is trying to make a name for himself and leave a ‘legacy.’
LikeLike
You can always send me an ebuke. :).
LikeLike
Chris R, You are on a roll.
LikeLike
I forgot about that, David. Lol
LikeLike
Julie Anne, I finally got to read Mohler’s piece to see if the quote you cite oversimplifies his take on the debate. It only gets worse.
(emphasis mine)
As Bridget says above, it is disturbing to see the astounding lack of integrity by some who now pronounce a winner (yuk) based on what the debate “wasn’t” about. Now that the debate is over and Ken Ham got thoroughly trounced in every aspect, let’s just change the rules and the topic of debate to “divine revelation” after the fact. Science? What science? Nobody said it was going to be science.
LikeLike
Wow, David, I must have skimmed over that paragraph. So, it really was a contest to see who would present the gospel message the most times and they put a Christian against an unbeliever – go figure. LOL – why didn’t they tell us? I wouldn’t have bothered to waste my time.
Bridget and BTDT – Good point about the $$ involved to put this on or also the Noah’s Ark exhibit.
Things are becoming more clear now. And it’s it’s not pretty.
LikeLike
David C quotes Mohler as saying, “As it turns out, the reality and authority of divine revelation, more than any other issue, was what the debate last night was all about.” Bait-and-switch-indeed, as Chris R points out. Really, all this after-the-fact re-framing of the issues is just an admission that these people lost the science debate.
Plus, to frame any discussion of origins in terms of “the reality and authority of divine revelation” utterly bypasses the foundational question whether the creation account is to be viewed as a literal or as some sort of non-literal literary device. Certainly there is the possibility that the creation account can be the revealed word of God in non-literal form. Jesus Himself spoke in figures of speech, to the point the disciples appear to have experienced no small amount of frustration. Surely the parables are not to be taken as literal accounts of actual events. Surely Jesus wasn’t to be taken literally when He said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood.
Yes, we have clear examples of God speaking non-literally.
LikeLike
An “easy poll” taken at Christianity Today shows that people voted 92% to 8% (as of now) that Nye won the debate. I am glad because Ham didn’t engage the issue, barring his initial pre-suppositional statement. People noticed it!
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/bill.nye.vs.ken.ham.debate.live.stream.free.watch.online.creation.vs.evolution.debate.here.start.time/35688.htm
LikeLike
I forgot about the Ark. Yeah, the creation museum. A big money pit and for what? It reminds me of the mega’s and their constant building projects. For what? To house as many people as possible so a few guys can be on stage in front of thousands and make bank off Jesus. That glorifies God much more than smaller church plants. (sarcasm)
I did meet some prospective vendors who put bids in on some exhibits back when it was being designed. They were glad they did not win the bids as payment was a problem.
LikeLike
“An “easy poll” taken at Christianity Today shows that people voted 92% to 8% (as of now) that Nye won the debate.”
Wow!!! Even if you take into consideration internet poll voting problems, 45 thousand votes on a “Christian” website with that result is not something to ignore. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
LikeLike
“Things are becoming more clear now. And it’s it’s not pretty.”
Seems like there is a never ending need for money for these ministries and projects. Why does God make it so hard?…I wonder. Could it be it’s really not His plan, but theirs? Yes.
“Tony Miano @TonyMiano · 15h
We find ourselves $600 short of covering our living expenses for the rest of the month. If you would like to help…”
Short again?….what a shock. Most people work when they are short. Two jobs even. It’s as if he is above that now that God has supposedly called him to yell at women and insult people on twitter. Actual work is just for the donors to do.
“Tony Miano @TonyMiano · 14h
The Lord has met the need. Thank you so very much to those of you who contributed.”
Oh good. More enabling.
“Tony Miano @TonyMiano · 14h
. @PastorSJCamp @JoyceMeyer @jtoddmullins When will these pastors begin 2 take James 3:1 seriously. They presume God will give them tomorrow”
Now THAT tweet was funny. Why does Miano presume to have tomorrow?…or worse yet- the entire month of February as evidenced by his asking for money to get him through to the end of the month? I cannot believe people give money to this man. Living expenses? Like what?
And Miano needs to stay far, far away from James chapter 3. The first verse applies to him. The entire chapter is about him.
LikeLike
“Seems like there is a never ending need for money for these ministries and projects. Why does God make it so hard?…I wonder. Could it be it’s really not His plan, but theirs?”
Not according to Ken Ham. In an email quoted in this article http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2014/01/06/ken-ham-ark-encounter-close-to-failure-because-of-atheists-secular-media-and-possibly-the-devil-himself/ he says:
“As I’ve written to you before, the attacks we have seen on the Ark bond offering have just confirmed for me that the Enemy does not want this project to go ahead. Actually, though, the opposition just encourages me. You see, if we weren’t involved in a vital Bible-proclaiming outreach that should have a massive impact on the hearts and lives of countless people, I don’t believe we would see this sort of opposition.”
In the words of the immortal SNL Church Lady, it’s SATAN. Never mind that there are many believers who do not embrace either Bill Nye or Ken Ham’s pov. Ken Ham’s vision is the “Will of God.”
LikeLike
Shift blame, right, BTDT? It’s the enemy’s fault and now he’s are getting persecuted. We’ve seen this before.
Cry me a river: Boo-hoo!
LikeLike
‘In the words of the immortal SNL Church Lady, it’s SATAN. Never mind that there are many believers who do not embrace either Bill Nye or Ken Ham’s pov. Ken Ham’s vision is the “Will of God.”’
So “the enemy does not want this project to go forward”, yet they will say God is in control. Again, why does God make it so hard? lol
LikeLike
The response of course is
1) The Christianity Astray poll is not scientific. A lot of atheists are trolling the site (Oh, all of a sudden, you care about science?)
2) Even if the poll is scientific, Ken Ham has
Mohler’sGod’s vote because he preached the gospel! That is all that matters.Using that logic, we can conclude that Tim Tebow should be inducted into the NFL Hall of Fame cuz he preaches the gospelz!
LikeLike
“So “the enemy does not want this project to go forward”, yet they will say God is in control. Again, why does God make it so hard? lol”
Once again, they do not practice their doctrinal beliefs. How convenient. If God is controlling every molecule perhaps He does not want the Ark completed? LOL.
Of course it is hard to be consistent in that doctrine when it is about money. See: Miano.
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpuple,
You had said: ” In other words sanctification is not really possible because we continue to be “sinners” after salvation. We cannot really be new creatures in Christ. (more Plato, just different methods) In easy believism you can sin all you want and be saved. It is cheap grace. In fact, a lot of it is usually not even considered sin because it was for Jesus if the leaders are doing it. This approach makes Christians some of the most unsafe people around.”
If this is what “easy believism” is defined as, then yes, this is the problem.
I have never seen a dictionary definition of easy believism before.
But that word, “easy”…it’s opposite is the word “hard” or “difficult”.
Christianity IS easy. It really is. Really. So, I have a problem with the terminology of “easy believism” as being something bad. I think that it really needs to be defined properly. Maybe you have. I haven’t researched it enough to know.
If we are discussing sanctification, then many church’s have that wrong, beginning with the Catholics in regards to their teaching of purgatory, and works.
Sanctification needs to be thoroughly discussed. As I see it, it’s a process of the Holy Spirit TRANSFORMING us.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Gary W,
This is exactly what I was talking about. The MIX UP in the difference between Romans 4 works, and James works.
Dude, there is a HUGE difference. HUGE. I think you really need to see what works is.
Romans 4 discusses works of the law, which is the same as saying “deeds of the flesh”, etc. That is ALL ABOUT the Law of Moses.
Keep in mind Romans 4…Abraham was Long before The Law of Moses.
What is the LAW under Christ? Love God and Love People. It’s the Law of Liberty, the Law of Faith. What is our works? LOVE is an action word.
To summarize: 1. Romans 4 works = OBEDIENCE to the Law of God, AKA Law of Moses, AKA Deeds of the Flesh (and a few other AKA’s).
2. James works = OBEDIENCE to the Law of Christ, AKA LAW OF LIBERTY, AKA Law of Faith, AKA LOVE God and Love People as yourself.
NOTE: So many are hung up on that word “obedience” that it really makes me sick to my stomach. They twist that word so as to make obedience to Christ a bigger yoke than that of what Jesus carried on that cross.
To me, that is difficult believism. Following Jesus is EASY. Easy I say. Religion makes it difficult. Religion has a problem with “easy believism”.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
You had said: “Now, perhaps we need to define “works”. :o) I am BIG on definitions.”
My response:
In a nutshell works is another word for “do”, and a worker is a doer.
Otherwise, I defined it with Gary, that Roman 4 works is different than James works.
Romans 4: Obedience to the Law of Moses James: Obedience to LOVE. Love is an action word…WHAT DOES LOVE LOOK LIKE was a phrased question that I really like. Love is the works James discusses. Love to God, and Love to people as yourself.
Abraham is our example. People seem to forget that. HENCE, Romans 4.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Ed (8, 3:17pm), re easy believism. Bonhoeffer called it “cheap grace”. I like that.
LikeLike
Julie Anne said: “Ham presented the gospel 4 times, which means that he said that magic formula that went something like this: – Christ came to the earth without sin, we in our sin were in need of a Savior, He paid the price for our sin by His death on the cross so we can have eternal life.”
Just a question, however…Did anyone ask Ham to present the Gospel? Did Nye show an interest in God, or science, let alone a message about him being a sinner, and let alone the resolution of that sin. Or did If one does not believe in God to begin with, then there would be no interest in hearing about sin or salvation.
As far as I am concerned, Ham was deceptive, not bringing glory to God, but to himself, to pat himself on the back for “giving them the gospel”. To me, it was self serving.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Gary W said: “But I’m stealing this insight from NT Wright, which no doubt discredits me in the eyes of many.”
My response: Who did the Bereans consult? Just a question. I look forward to the day that you can say, “insight from my own mind, based on a book that God wrote, called the Word of God.”
I think that is what people need to focus on. Too many in religion are writing books, and then people conform to the author of the book, instead of the author of our faith. Just saying.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Patrice,
Grace is a gift. It isn’t cheap. It is cheaper than cheap. It’s free. Jesus paid. We don’t.
Ed
LikeLike
Free gifts are cheaper. It is free. I like that better. Free is my favorite four letter word. Jesus paid the price so I don’t have to.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
CON was hot on this topic. It’s taught at MacArthur’s church, too. What they are referring to is the gospel message and having an easy salvation message where the sin part is left out or minimized. I can guarantee you that people like CON and Miano were focusing on Ham’s gospel messages to see if he really touched on the weightiness of sin. If he hadn’t focused on the magnitude of our sin and the necessity of Christ’s death for our weighty sin, then Ham would have been judged to have given an “easy gospel message.” Well, maybe not – – they probably would have let it go because he has the right doctrinal beliefs.
LikeLike
Gaining credibility with his friends? Was that the goal?
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
In regards to Con and Miano, Acts 19 shows that the people of Ephesus were in an uproar, and highly upset that Paul and his disciples were in town to “Give them the gospel”. End result…Paul left. He never stayed where he wasn’t wanted. He didn’t force his beliefs on anyone who didn’t want to hear it. So, he moved on. He could not even proclaim to the world that he presented the gospel to them. There is a lesson for Con and Miano here. Do not go where you are not wanted. Do not give the gospel to those who have no desire to hear it, just so you can pat yourself on the back for giving them the gospel, somehow equating the end result as persecution. The Apostle Paul did not mention one thing about the people, good or bad. He just left.
Well, in regards to what you are saying about easy believism…who are we to blame? In a nutshell, the teachers have a weird teaching in regards to sanctification, and how that effects a Christian that sins. What it boils down to, is that discipleship is missing. It’s missing from the top dog at the pulpit to the elders to the newest of new Christians, and those top dogs are so hot on that word “obedience” that not even the Jews could be obedient to.
I think that if a person is so focused on not sinning, that they will end up sinning. That is what I get from the words of the Bible.
Hence, comes the question in regards to Abraham. He was before the law. How did he live his life without all of those do’s and don’t’s?
It’s easy for those at the pulpit to point fingers and tell Christians “Stop Sinning”, when there is no one guiding. No elder who really cares, but just plays the “yes man” to the guy on the pulpit. They wear the nice suits, sit in the front…wait…isn’t that what the book of James discusses? How do these people LOVE THY NEIGHBOR?
More importantly, why is there absolutely no teaching on Abraham before the law? Why is the only teaching of Moses with the law? We are to focus on Abraham, hence Romans Chapter 4.
Ed
LikeLike
Diane quoted and responded: ”
‘In the words of the immortal SNL Church Lady, it’s SATAN. Never mind that there are many believers who do not embrace either Bill Nye or Ken Ham’s pov. Ken Ham’s vision is the “Will of God.”’ So “the enemy does not want this project to go forward”, yet they will say God is in control. Again, why does God make it so hard? lol”
My response:
Yes, the ole talking out of both sides of their mouth routine. Therefore, since they believe that “God is in control”, then they should be asking God why God doesn’t want them to do the project, instead of blaming it on the enemy, Satan. This double speak is so evident, I can’t see how they don’t see or acknowledge it. They can’t blame Satan if God is in control, can they?
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
I think so, Julie Anne. It was all about pandering to his own audience, and judging from the pieces you cite in the blog, I think they are very pleased to have heard their particular brand of the gospel.
I really doubt that years and months from now we will hear about new converts from Ken Ham’s gospel presentation. But the important thing is, Ham’s allies got to hear their particular brand of the gospel preached and affirmed and had their ears tickled.
LikeLike
Such a mutual admiration society.
LikeLike
Haha. BTW, the cover photo of your twitter page always makes me think of this.
One of the top comments reads: “Does anyone know what Church this is???”
LikeLike
@ Lydia~
“So “the enemy does not want this project to go forward”, yet they will say God is in control. Again, why does God make it so hard? lol”
Once again, they do not practice their doctrinal beliefs. How convenient. If God is controlling every molecule perhaps He does not want the Ark completed? LOL.
Of course it is hard to be consistent in that doctrine when it is about money. See: Miano
Well…that’s how I see, it but I am sure there is some spin on it I am just not spiritual enough to see…lol.
LikeLike