Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Lampy 2.0 on August 02, 2010, 11:29:10 AM
-
That's right. You heard me. A Rock Band song pack which comes out tommorow will have Jesus Freak on it, as well as Love Addict by Family Force 5. Don't believe me? You should. Here's the proof: http://www.rockband.com/zine/eight-singles-dlc (http://www.rockband.com/zine/eight-singles-dlc)
-
*insert a flame war about DC Talk's music*
kk, we can lock the thread now.
-
I'm not gonna flame I'm just going to give DC Talk props for hiring the director that did Nine Inch Nails-Animal (A video/song I can't even come close to posting so go look it up on youtube)
tehehehehe
-
*insert a flame war about DC Talk's music*
kk, we can lock the thread now.
They weren't afraid of proclaiming Jesus as your savior. Anyone got a problem with that?
-
Jesus Freak is an alltime classic song. The video was pretty good too.
-
*insert a flame war about DC Talk's music*
kk, we can lock the thread now.
They weren't afraid of proclaiming Jesus as your savior. Anyone got a problem with that?
According to a fair bit of people I have heard here, they were however afraid to proclaim Jesus with actual good music.
-
Psalm 150: Praise Him with the strings
We also know that God uses fools to confound the wise.
-
Now we just need to get some Keaggy working.
-
Too bad it's on Rock Band and not Guitar Hero.
There is enough good Christian music to make a good showing on a good engine, even if the last tier would be 5 Phil Keaggy songs.
-
None of this "Guitar Praise". Seriously. How hard is it for Christians to make a good game?
-
None of this "Guitar Praise". Seriously. How hard is it for Christians to make a good game?
Very
-
You know how hard it is pitching Redemption thanks to our reputation... arg....
-
Awesome 8)
-
I dont remember what my buddy has got (GH or RB) but he bought Skillet Monster as a track and can play that one.
-
It's a question of resources.
Example: listen to Switchfoot's Learning to Breathe. The most successful album to that point (Grammy-nominated gold record) by a talented and successful Christian band on a Christian label, produced by one of the best minds in the sub-industry, Charlie Peacock.
Now listen to The Beautiful Letdown. Same band (although I'll entertain arguments that adding that Mortal guy is a contributing factor), signed to a major label and using their resources and their production staff. It's like night and day.
It's the same reason companies like WotC and Decipher and Upper Deck can release two to four sets per year of their headline card games, and Redemption releases one set per year. WotC has WotC money and WotC staff, while Rob essentially runs the company with the help of his family and dedicated volunteers.
In terms of effort and results, I think there is a lot to be said for what Christian independents accomplish with their music and their films and their games and so forth, given what they have to work with. But in terms of the quality of the final product, I think the disparity of available resources becomes apparent, in addition to the fact that the secular markets have a broader pool to choose from, and thus will tend to attract a higher percentage of elevated talent and innovative ideas.
-
If you're a Christian Band, you should have Christian lyrics imo. If you're not having Christian lyrics, you're just a group of Christians singing secular songs.
Daniel
;D
-
That's like saying if your a Christian artist, you should only paint biblical scenes. We're not in the Dark Ages anymore.
-
It's a question of resources.
Example: listen to Switchfoot's Learning to Breathe. The most successful album to that point (Grammy-nominated gold record) by a talented and successful Christian band on a Christian label, produced by one of the best minds in the sub-industry, Charlie Peacock.
Now listen to The Beautiful Letdown. Same band (although I'll entertain arguments that adding that Mortal guy is a contributing factor), signed to a major label and using their resources and their production staff. It's like night and day.
It's the same reason companies like WotC and Decipher and Upper Deck can release two to four sets per year of their headline card games, and Redemption releases one set per year. WotC has WotC money and WotC staff, while Rob essentially runs the company with the help of his family and dedicated volunteers.
In terms of effort and results, I think there is a lot to be said for what Christian independents accomplish with their music and their films and their games and so forth, given what they have to work with. But in terms of the quality of the final product, I think the disparity of available resources becomes apparent, in addition to the fact that the secular markets have a broader pool to choose from, and thus will tend to attract a higher percentage of elevated talent and innovative ideas.
^Very yes, I understand all that. However, the Bible says that we should be making the gentiles jealous.
-
Jelious of our relationship with Christ and the love we display to others, not jelious of our talents.
-
^Very yes, I understand all that. However, the Bible says that we should be making the gentiles jealous.
Before you do that, you have to excel at what you do. That's why I mentioned Phil Keaggy; he is the one who grabbed the attention of one Jimi Hendrix back when he was still playing with Glass Harp. And there is no shortage of famous Christians throughout history: athletes, scientists, mathematicians, composers, kings and heads of state... I'm mostly referring to a rather narrow branch of the entertainment industry that has really only developed in the last 50-100 years, which is always looking for the shiny new thing and which is often targeted at teens and young adults who have disposable income and a healthy disrespect for authority fueling their tastes. Art is a reflection of a society and its values, but in America it is also a sort of fashion industry, and it's difficult to be trendy or counter-cultural when espousing 10,000-year-old values to a disillusioned populace that sees cynics and hypocrites at every turn. It's kind of an uphill battle even to be noticed, much less to attract the best talent in that environment.
-
That's like saying if your a Christian artist, you should only paint biblical scenes. We're not in the Dark Ages anymore.
I agree with this 10000000% You can release a christian product without mentioning Christ. movies like Remember the Titans can easily be considered a christian movie because of their message even if they dont explicitly mention Christ.
I Dissagree that DC Talk was an inferior product. In many ways DC Talk was cutting edge, even for secular music from their Free at Last album on.
-
I personally liked DC Talk, I even think that the Newsboys are better with Michael Tait than with Peter Ferler. You can also argue that Toby Mac is equal or better than secular musicians, he won at least one grammy for his music. A secular award for good music from a Christian artist.
-
I personally liked DC Talk, I even think that the Newsboys are better with Michael Tait than with Peter Ferler. You can also argue that Toby Mac is equal or better than secular musicians, he won at least one grammy for his music. A secular award for good music from a Christian artist.
What stinx is Dc Talk is never gunna Return From Their "Intermission" :'(. If they Did it Would Rock! Literally 8)
-
^Very yes, I understand all that. However, the Bible says that we should be making the gentiles jealous.
Before you do that, you have to excel at what you do. That's why I mentioned Phil Keaggy; he is the one who grabbed the attention of one Jimi Hendrix back when he was still playing with Glass Harp. And there is no shortage of famous Christians throughout history: athletes, scientists, mathematicians, composers, kings and heads of state... I'm mostly referring to a rather narrow branch of the entertainment industry that has really only developed in the last 50-100 years, which is always looking for the shiny new thing and which is often targeted at teens and young adults who have disposable income and a healthy disrespect for authority fueling their tastes. Art is a reflection of a society and its values, but in America it is also a sort of fashion industry, and it's difficult to be trendy or counter-cultural when espousing 10,000-year-old values to a disillusioned populace that sees cynics and hypocrites at every turn. It's kind of an uphill battle even to be noticed, much less to attract the best talent in that environment.
I never thought of it like that. Very true, and shows how our perspective can be limited by our experience.
I still think we could be doing better now. Some have decided to live it up and raise the bar, but others seem to have accepted the fact that they won't be good enough, and it shows. Left Behind the movie, I'm looking at you.
As long as we don't come out with some "Christian" vampire parody. *waits for someone to post link*
-
Trust me, there's nobody you'll find on these boards that agrees more than I, that people should strive to excel in these areas as much as possible, and work to set the standard rather than re-hash the styles of ten years ago. Evangelism as an excuse for low quality is a pet peeve of mine as well.
In country-western, believin' in Jesus is as American as beer and pickups, so you can't really throw a rock in any direction on Music Row without hitting a God-fearing country singer. So some people try to live by example rather than use their music specifically as a tool to try and evangelize. I dunno, it seems like every time you look at another slice of the industry you see something a little bit different.
-
As long as we don't come out with some "Christian" vampire parody. *waits for someone to post link*
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideforward.com%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2F%2Fkerusso%2Flarge%2Fapt1045-flat-thelight.jpg&hash=490b2ad9564b75c28e39ac0ccf0a84c77a0d8df3)
-
I'm not the biggest fan of country, sorry. I don't like that belivin' is "the thing" so everyone does it, and doesn't live it.
Anywhere, not just country.
-
FWIW, Newsboys has pretty much absorbed DC Talk. Their show at Lifest was like 1/3 DC Talk songs.
-
FWIW, Newsboys has pretty much absorbed DC Talk. Their show at Lifest was like 1/3 DC Talk songs.
really? that is unfortunate. I stopped listenign to the Newsboys when they released their worship album... that was the time of Christian music that I really detest. Hey everybody! lets all release remixes of our favorite worship songs so we can milk all the money we can out of this worship movement instead of being original.
It was all canned and stripped of life IMO
-
Worship = Good. Milking it = Defeats the purpose. Unless it's Becoming the Archetype, and they only did one song.
-
Newsboys' worship album was one of the biggest disappointments I have ever purchased. Right on the heels of Thrive and their remix album, they release one of the blandest, least original projects they have ever done. Epic fail.
-
Yeah, that album was fail. The newest album is win.
-
Yeah, that album was fail. The newest album is win.
With their Jesus Freak remix?
-
I didnt realize they had picked up michael tait. I havent looked at a New newsboys album since 2003 or so. I migh tjust go pick this one up.
-
My kids bought me the Newsboys album (Born Again) for my B-Day. It is very good. I am a little disappointed with some of the music, but the lyrics are epic. There is a little Techno feel to a couple of songs, but other than that, an overall good album. The "remix" of Jesus Freak is great, however, it really isn't a remix, just a newsboys version.
-
I agree that the new Newsboys album is good. But DC Talk was the first band that I have ever listened to so I am a bit biased towards Michael Tait.
-
You know, as much as I love Newsboys and DC Talk, I have to admit that I really grew up loving Carman. He's the best. My personal favorites are The Champion, The Prayer Anthem, Great God, and Faith Enough. Riot is also a classic. ;D
~Britta
-
The "techno feel" is a good thing imo.
-
The "techno feel" is a good thing imo.
OOOOOHHHHH you wanted techno.
Dancing Techno Dog (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taFqpUZKb5U#)
-
I agree with this 10000000%
Wow, that's alot!
You can release a christian product without mentioning Christ. movies like Remember the Titans can easily be considered a christian movie because of their message even if they dont explicitly mention Christ.
I agree more like 50%. True, not EVERYTHING has to have a Jesus label on it, but He IS supposed to permeate everything we do, and our whole entire purpose in life is to bring HIM glory and to make disciples of all nations. It is kinda hard to do that without mentioning the one who is supposed to be getting all the glory, and without mentioning the only one who can save.
If you have an opportunity to perform 10 songs for a group of lost people, shouldn't you try to have at least one of your songs contain some reference to your Savior, or to the hope we have in Him? Or if you write a movie, and the heroic character is who he is because of Christ, should that not be made clear at some point? Isn't that why God gave you that talent/gift in the first place? If we use our gifts to bring glory only unto ourselves, then are we truly being faithful stewards? Are we ashamed of Christ? Or do we just not feel an urgent need to witness? Regardless of the reason, the result is the same if we leave Christ out of too many opportunities: the lost won't hear the good news.
-
True, not EVERYTHING has to have a Jesus label on it, but He IS supposed to permeate everything we do
Agreed.
our whole entire purpose in life is to bring HIM glory
Agreed.
and to make disciples of all nations
Agreed, as long as you don't think preaching and direct evangelism are the only ways to achieve this end.
It is kinda hard to do that without mentioning the one who is supposed to be getting all the glory
Disagree. At least, the art itself doesn't have to directly mention him. If both the artist and the art are mum about their aims, then we have a problem.
and without mentioning the only one who can save.
Disagree strongly. Preach the gospel at all times, and--if necessary--use words.
If you have an opportunity to perform 10 songs for a group of lost people, shouldn't you try to have at least one of your songs contain some reference to your Savior, or to the hope we have in Him?
No. If I had the opportunity to perform 10 songs for a group of lost people, I would never mention Jesus in any of the songs, and I would make them 10 really really good songs with nothing offensive. Then I would invite the audience to come talk to me after the show, and let God bring those with ears to hear. Oh wait, that is what I do.
Or if you write a movie, and the heroic character is who he is because of Christ, should that not be made clear at some point?
I can't speak with authority on movies like I can with music, but I think the same principle applies here. Not everything that glorifies God has to say so explicitly. In fact, shouldn't it be obvious without being said?
If we use our gifts to bring glory only unto ourselves, then are we truly being faithful stewards? Are we ashamed of Christ? Or do we just not feel an urgent need to witness?
This offensive string of text assumes that only direct evangelism is a legitimate means of glorifying God, and that "witnessing" has less to do with relationship and, well, letting people witness you living a certain way (hence the name), and more to do with jibber-jabber.
Regardless of the reason, the result is the same if we leave Christ out of too many opportunities: the lost won't hear the good news.
If I write a song all about Ice Cream, with lines such as "I'm hungry for some moose tracks, or cherries jubilee! I love to eat my frozen treats, especially if it's free!" but never actually use the words "Ice Cream," have I left Ice Cream out of that opportunity?
I'm not saying that no music should directly reference Christ. There is a place for that, and maybe (maybe not) a bigger place. But I am definitely averse to the notion that Christian music must reference Christ directly...ever.
-
Interesting post. However, one qualm:
and without mentioning the only one who can save.
Disagree strongly. Preach the gospel at all times, and--if necessary--use words.
A.) Since when is that biblical? (go out into all the world and make disciples, not go and do nice things)
B.) There are plenty of secular people who are nice, and may somewhat follow biblical principles, for whatever reason. How am I supposed to know the difference between the two?
-
A.) Since when is that biblical? (go out into all the world and make disciples, not go and do nice things)
I know for a fact you are not reformed, so why you saying that the only means to salvation is through the preaching of the word (though, to be fair, the reformed would add the additional restriction that the word must be preached in a church also)?
B.) There are plenty of secular people who are nice, and may somewhat follow biblical principles, for whatever reason. How am I supposed to know the difference between the two?
And there are plenty of Christians are not nice and not following bilical principles. How am I supposed to know the difference? I am not supposed to. God knows the difference, and will use both Christian, non-Christians, correct and incorrect lives to work his plan of salvation for those whom he has chosen.
-
I know for a fact you are not reformed, so why you saying that the only means to salvation is through the preaching of the word (though, to be fair, the reformed would add the additional restriction that the word must be preached in a church also)?
There are many possible ways of salvation. However, unlike Redemption, we should not limit the ways a lost soul could be saved by keeping our mouths shut.
And there are plenty of Christians are not nice and not following bilical principles. How am I supposed to know the difference? I am not supposed to. God knows the difference, and will use both Christian, non-Christians, correct and incorrect lives to work his plan of salvation for those whom he has chosen.
Same point as above. We should not hinder God's plan by staying silent. What if Joan of Arc had kept quiet? What if Smith Wigglesworth or William Booth had decided to just be nice and hope that God would let people know? Clearly, if God wants something done, He has it within His power to do it. However, He has delegated His power to us.
Oh, and I know for a fact you are not reformed,
in order to put everything out in the clear (I don't want anyone getting the wrong impression), I'm a Spirit-filled Pentecostal, attending an Assemblies of God church.
-
and without mentioning the only one who can save.
Disagree strongly. Preach the gospel at all times, and--if necessary--use words.
A.) Since when is that biblical? (go out into all the world and make disciples, not go and do nice things)
B.) There are plenty of secular people who are nice, and may somewhat follow biblical principles, for whatever reason. How am I supposed to know the difference between the two?
Great questions.
That whole "if neccessary, use words" quote is not Biblical. It sounds like a cop out for people who are shy - a way to avoid the challenge of the great commission by pursuing a kind, pleasant, comfortable life and calling it a "witness."
But that is just what it sounds like to me. Whether or not that is true for a person really boils down to what that person means by "if necessary." Some people think that God can only save people is if a Christian butters them up first. And I'm not just talking about feeding them and talking about their lives for a couple hours. I mean spreading the butter for weeks or months before sharing the good news. Does not urgency dictate a quicker timeline?
The truth is, it is ALWAYS neccessary to use words at some point.
So, the better quote would be, "Preach the gospel at all times, and - at the right time (sooner rather than later) - use words."
-
If we use our gifts to bring glory only unto ourselves, then are we truly being faithful stewards? Are we ashamed of Christ? Or do we just not feel an urgent need to witness?
This offensive string of text assumes that only direct evangelism is a legitimate means of glorifying God, and that "witnessing" has less to do with relationship and, well, letting people witness you living a certain way (hence the name), and more to do with jibber-jabber.
The name "witness" does not stem from other people looking at us. The disciples were Christ's eye witnesses. They declared in the court of the world what they had seen and heard. Like a witness in a trial. Now, even though we did not SEE Christ, we have witnessed His work in our lives. Now, WE are Christ's witnesses. We take the stand and tell people about what Christ has done in our lives: saved us.
We can't possibly be bringing glory to God if we don't point directly to Him at some point in what we do. Who gets the credit/glory for what I do? Do I publicly declare my thanks or credit to God for what he has enabled me to do? If so, I am bringing Him the glory. If I just live a nice life and make people think, "wow, he's pretty good!" then I am not bringing glory to God.
"In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."
How can they praise my Father in heaven if they don't know he is my Father in heaven? And how can they know if they have not been told? Or at least seen me wearing a Christian t-shirt, or having a Christian fish on my car, or SOMEthing to identify me as a Christian?
If we live lives as "undercover Christians," then that is like a witness who refuses to take the witness stand. The witness in a trial is sometimes judged by manners and mannerisms, but the chief purpose and method of a witness is to use words.
-
I'm about results. How many people have I made an impact on when preaching at first and building relationships with after? Zero. And the other way around? Well, none, because I don't preach at people. But following the spirit rather than the letter, many people.
Does not urgency dictate a quicker timeline?
No. God and God alone dictates timeline. I believe that you are suffering from the delusion that we have something to do with saving other people.
The truth is, it is ALWAYS neccessary to use words at some point.
Yes. Somewhere down the line, some Christian in an individual person's life must use words, unless God bypasses us entirely and speaks Himself through His Word.
So, the better quote would be, "Preach the gospel at all times, and - at the right time (sooner rather than later) in God's time, if He so leads you- use words."
Fixed. It's not our job to save people. It's our job to do what God has for us to do.
"In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."
Um, actually this quote seems to heavily favor my position.
How can they praise my Father in heaven if they don't know he is my Father in heaven? And how can they know if they have not been told? Or at least seen me wearing a Christian t-shirt, or having a Christian fish on my car, or SOMEthing to identify me as a Christian?
The Bible has a good answer for what the best indication should be:
"By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35).
Seems like God's Word is on my side yet again. No talking required to be demonstrably Christian.
If we live lives as "undercover Christians," then that is like a witness who refuses to take the witness stand.
Yes, if God calls you to speak out and you don't, that is an apt analogy. But if you live your life as a "bullhorn Christian," you are a witness who takes the stand during the grand jury, preliminary hearings, the indictment, the opening statements, the closing statements, and the sentencing. "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven" (Ecclesiastes 3:1).
I was willing to give a bit more ground until I double-checked the Ultimate Source, and my position seems to be much more in line with His than yours does.
-
I'm about results. How many people have I made an impact on when preaching at first and building relationships with after? Zero. And the other way around? Well, none, because I don't preach at people. But following the spirit rather than the letter, many people.
We’re not businessmen. We don’t need to see the results. A few years ago, one of the major denominations was very excited that over 900,000 "decisions" or "prayers" were achieved by its members during that year. During later follow-up, it was found that only 1% of those people ever attended a church during the following year. We shouldn't be going for numbers, but instead preach in a way that will convey to others God's law, their sin, and how to repent (as Jesus did in Luke 18 and John 3-4), and leave God to do the saving. Many people get saved long after the encounter has ended, after they have begun to realize what they’re been told. We'd never know.
You know, I've never gotten a phone call or weird feeling inside or a special thought telling me who to talk to, and I don't see anything in my Bible about explaining the system to me. What feeling should I be waiting for? (Until I know what to look for, I'll just talk to whoever I can, just in case.)
It's not our job to save people. It's our job to do what God has for us to do.
God saves people, yes. They still need somebody to tell them that they need to be saved. Check out Romans 10:14-17: "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!' But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, 'LORD, who has believed our report?' So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
"By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35).
Seems like God's Word is on my side yet again. No talking required to be demonstrably Christian.
You can demonstrate that you are different than the world, yes, and we should. But people won't go repent from sin just because we are nice to one another. I've yet to have anybody walk up to me and say they’ve given up their immoral lifestyle because I was wearing a cool t-shirt. We are all called to act right, but this is different than actively witnessing, something only 2% of Christians have ever done.
"For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven" (Ecclesiastes 3:1).
2 Timothy 4:1-5
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
We are responsible to tell the world about God's coming judgment. They are like a blind man walking across a rotting bridge. They don't need us inviting them to hang out and become friends over three years. They need to be told that they are in trouble immediately, they need to realize they are in trouble, and they need to be told how to get to safety, for they may plunge to their death at any moment.
Ezekiel 3:18
When I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.
"Have you no wish for others to be saved? Then you are not saved yourself. Be sure of that. The saving of souls, if a man has once gained love to perishing sinners and his blessed Master, will be an all-absorbing passion to him. It will so carry him away, that he will almost forget himself in the saving of others. He will be like the brave fireman, who cares not for the scorch or the heat, so that he may rescue the poor creature on whom true humanity has set its heart. If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unprayed for." Charles Spurgeon
-
I'm about results. How many people have I made an impact on when preaching at first and building relationships with after? Zero. And the other way around? Well, none, because I don't preach at people. But following the spirit rather than the letter, many people.
It is always nice to do SOME relationship building before sharing the good news. As I said in my last post, feeding them or talking for a couple hours is a great lead in. Paul talked to people about their beliefs before transitioning to the Gospel. But that process should be short and sweet. The goal is sharing the good news, not making a friend with a lost soul. If I give kindness, am generous, and devote a couple hours to "getting to know each other," then that is sufficient foundation to transfer over to a conversation about church, faith, and ultimately Christ.
Does not urgency dictate a quicker timeline?
No. God and God alone dictates timeline. I believe that you are suffering from the delusion that we have something to do with saving other people.
If we don't have something to do with saving other people, then why are you "about results"? And why do you bother "preaching without words"? Are you really that mixed up? If we have nothing to do with saving people, then why did Christ command us to preach the good news, and be his witnesses on this earth? Our role is to PREACH, God's role is to save.
The truth is, it is ALWAYS neccessary to use words at some point.
Yes. Somewhere down the line, some Christian in an individual person's life must use words, unless God bypasses us entirely and speaks Himself through His Word.
Jesus didn't say "You are my witnesses undercover agents, so go live nice lives without letting anyone know you believe in me, and people will become Christians by reading my word."
So, the better quote would be, "Preach the gospel at all times, and - at the right time (sooner rather than later) in God's time, WHEN He so leads you- use words."
Fixed. It's not our job to save people. It's our job to do what God has for us to do.
Fixed again. There is no "if," only "when." You are absolutely correct that it is our job to do what God has for us to do: "preach the good news." Direct quote from Christ. If you get to Heaven and are asked, "Did you obey the great commission?" try that "for everything a season" line, and see how that flies. :)
-
Speaking of using words, that was a much better use of them than me. Thanks.
-
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. 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. 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.
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.
-
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. (http://www.underground-gamer.com/forums.php?action=viewtopic&topicid=27779&page=1) (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?
-
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
-
Kittens, that post was directed much more at Bryon than you. I personally don't think we disagree about anything on this issue; we have differing perspectives. I agree that at some points (often super-frequently) in every Follower's life he will be called on to testify to the Light, but I put more emphasis on seed sowing and tag-team endgame (something I have experienced much more frequently). In other words, in my experience, infrequently (in America) does the first person to tell a lost soul about Jesus "close the deal." Much, much more often, a convert will have heard about Christ and rejected him until someone with a greater investment in his life lives out Jesus. And then talks about Him, of course ;)
-
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 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.
-
I really hope this this isn't just boiling down to Alex and I being reformed Presbyterians and Kitteh and Bryon being charismatic...
I like to think I think for myself and not with any party line. What you don't know is that I was Presbyterian until I was 16, so I'm not indoctrinated and clueless.
Kittens' (is that the proper pluralization?)
The viewpoint of the poster who is to be known as SomeKittens is what's normally used. It got too confusing otherwise.
Basically, I think the most important point here is the Great Commission. I can safely assume we all agree there?
The highlighted word for me is "Go". Clearly, we can't all get everyone saved by sitting on the couch watching The Simpsons. We need to do something. My one qualm with Alex and Pol is how clearly we are supposed to relate that something to Jesus.
-
Personally, I would prefer the word reformed, not presbyterian (that's just the governmental system, not nearly as important).
-
I do as well, but people don't generally know what that means. And to be fair, the "P" in "PCA" does stand for something ;)
I could tell that you haven't been charismatic your whole life because we've been able to have a civil, logical discussion about something other than feelings ;) I agree that, while we may differ on methodology, we both agree that the important part is to avoid the sidelines.
-
Reformed Presbyterian means "stubborn blockhead" in my area, so I try to avoid it's use.
-
I could tell that you haven't been charismatic your whole life because we've been able to have a civil, logical discussion about something other than feelings ;)
While Jesus was the "Rock of our Offense", you may want to look into "Lest we offend some". I know plenty of Pentecostals who are perfectly capable of rational thought, and 90% of said Presbyterian church was offended if you mentioned the "E-word". (Evangelism)
-
FWIW, Presbyterianism has a terrible stereotype of being an old person's denomination.
-
The Presbyterian church I belong to in Franklin is primarily young people, very active in missions and evangelism, and is one of the most vibrant churches in the area. So yeah, idk if the stereotype is warranted, but it doesn't apply to Parish.
-
I agree. Calvinism was actually named the #3 idea changing the world (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1884779,00.html) in 2008/2009. Hardly an old person thing nowadays.
-
Well, my church fit the stereotype, which is exactly why I left.
-
What presbyterian denomination was your church a part of?
-
uhh, the presbyterian one? Not reformed by any means. Most in there wanted it to be a social club.
-
Well, check out how many there are here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Reformed_churches#North_America) Granted, that is a reformed church listing, but most Presbyterian Churches worth their weight in salt will be there.
-
Couldn't find it, sorry. I'll ask my dad tomorrow.
Though they weren't exactly "worth their weight in salt"
You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. Matt 5:13
-
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)
-
Hmm. While I was there, we had a woman pastor. I can see what's wrong with ordaining current sinners, but what sin is it to be female?
-
For someone claiming to read the Bible literally as much as possible, I don't get some of your thoughts. Here (http://www.carm.org/should-women-be-pastors-and-elders) is a fun article for you about it.
-
The subsection "Does this also mean that women shouldn't wear jewelry?" claims that the objections failed to properly exegete the scripture in question. They would rather we interpret the jewelry passage in a cultural context, and look at the order of the verses.
So really, they want one piece literal, and one not so much. Funny how that works.
-
Literal interpretation makes sense for women in the pulpit. Paul directly compares and uses the created order of God to defend and support his thoughts. The "dress code" is written in a way that could be seen as Paul's personal thoughts. And besides, there are very logical and physiological reasons why women should not be pastors. They were not made to be pastors and as thus have not been properly equipped for the task. This does not mean that women are terrible. It just means they are different.
Though, to be fair, I don't consider Paul authoritative (and I don't see support for him being authoritative within his works like some do), so this argument is moot in the fact that I do not feel the need to subscribe to all of it (though I do subscribe to all of it).