Cactus Game Design Message Boards

You're going to continue to limit God and his plan, and I'm going to continue to insist that God's endgame is far above an individual.

We're far from "limiting" His plan by teaching others about it.  Though I do agree that God's endgame is far above any of us, so are elections.  Yet they still come down to the individual and their choice.

You're going to continue advocating direct preaching as the only acceptable form of evangelism, I'm going to insist that there are different cogs in the wheel.

Since when have we done that?  I've seen mention of many different ways (one involving my favorite, food).  All we're saying is that direct evangelism (not just preaching) is a key part in expanding the kingdom.  Everyone's different, but the Great Commission, just like salvation, is for everyone.  How would you respond to someone who said "Why Christianity?  There's different cogs in the machine?"

You're going to continue making it sound like I don't think I, or anyone, should ever preach directly ever, and I'm going to continue to try to argue from somewhere other than an extreme by merely countering your polar assertions.

It's fairly clear you're thinking from an extreme yourself.  Again, following the Great Commission is something all Christ-followers should aspire to.  If one (anyone, not you) wants to just be a "Christian" and sit in a pew, that's their own decision, but it's not what Jesus spoke of.

If there's someone who's never heard about Jesus, I'll send them to you. If there's someone who's interested in learning doctrine or has hard questions about what Jesus requires of His followers, I feel more comfortable handling that myself.

How many people enter the kingdom by debating doctrine?  These people certainly didn't.  (Warning, unsure of language in link)

Sorry to inject reality into this debate but let's look and the facts.
In today's world who are people more apt to emulate?
Someone who tries to do what's right and just be a good person
or
Someone who tries to talk about Jesus and God whenever they get a chance?

That's all based on opinion and isn't quantifiable.  Nor is it "injecting reality".  Everyone's different, and if you try to generalize, people will get both mad and hurt.  There's something different for every situation.

If someone acts like Christ, then people will be drawn toward them.  Jesus was out there, and talked about God a lot.  He also offended people.  But let's note that he offended them with the truth.
Sorry, slightly off topic, that's one of my pet peeves

I knew you were Pentecostal when you mentioned you went to Master's Commission, Kittens. I used to go an Assemblies Church. Now I go to a PCA church.

Anywho, I would largely agree with Pol's work here. It seems to me that the opposing viewpoint is limiting God by forcing humans into the equation. We do not need to be in the equation, we must merely not attempt to break the equation. Sometimes this involves speaking, sometimes not speaking, and sometimes perhaps even allowing someone to be right (even when they are not). It is about not being a stumbling to the equation.

However, in His great plan, for some unknown reason, God has made human interaction the primary catalyst for interest in the Him. This can be through action, relationship building, or preaching (and other things of course). However, ultimately, that is only a beginning, and it does not work because you do it well. It works because God wishes to work (or not work, who am I to judge?).

In many ways, this is an argument of election vs. moral agency or omniscience vs. open theism (ok, so the second one is a stretch for sure).

I really hope this this isn't just boiling down to Alex and I being reformed Presbyterians and Kitteh and Bryon being charismatic...

I don't know where Bryon stands on the issues, so I don't know, but that's the general vibe I get from other people of Kittens' (is that the proper pluralization?) viewpoint, and I can only go with what I know.

Personally, I would prefer the word reformed, not presbyterian (that's just the governmental system, not nearly as important).

Reformed Presbyterian means "stubborn blockhead" in my area, so I try to avoid it's use.

FWIW, Presbyterianism has a terrible stereotype of being an old person's denomination.

I agree. Calvinism was actually named the #3 idea changing the world in 2008/2009. Hardly an old person thing nowadays.

What presbyterian denomination was your church a part of?

Well, check out how many there are here. Granted, that is a reformed church listing, but most Presbyterian Churches worth their weight in salt will be there.

There are quite a few on the list that aren't worth their weight in salt either. Such as the PCUSA. They ordain women and homosexuals. Clearly reformed. (that is clearly sarcasm)

For someone claiming to read the Bible literally as much as possible, I don't get some of your thoughts. Here is a fun article for you about it.