Pages

Thursday, January 27, 2011

GTCC Outreach Report 1-25-2011

INTRODUCTION: Today was an interesting mix of discussions with students about election, predestination, soteriology, Islam, pantheism, and denominations.

The Question of the Day: "Does God hate people?"

I'll bet you won't have a problem guessing what the universal answer was. Some people gave me a freaked-out look when I popped that question on 'em. Frankly, given the false gospel preached in many churches nowadays, I can't say I blame 'em.

Election, predestination, and soteriology

The first man I spoke with was in his late 30s and heading to the parking lot. After I introduced myself and handed him a gospel/ministry card, he willingly stopped to chat and after I asked him the question of the day he said, "No, God doesn't hate anybody." I then quoted the following passages:
for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." 13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." (Romans 9:11-13 NAU)
The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity. (Psalms 5:5 NAU)
The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates. (Psalms 11:5 NAU)
I then explained the basic context of each verse, especially Romans 9, and he responded, "Man, I've never heard anything like this before. I said, "I figured as much; that's because churches don't teach this nowadays. It doesn't bode well for the multi-million dollar facility you're in when you teach about the judicial hatred of God from Romans 9." He then asked what our church was like and I had the opportunity to explain to him that when it comes to church meetings, form follows function and if you understand the purpose/function of the church, then it will take a particular form and do particular things. He appreciated the chat, I encouraged him to read 1st John and examine himself per 2 Corinthians 13:5.

Mr. "I'm all good"

The next guy I spoke with was a nice kid with crumbs all over his face from eating his vending machine snack while sitting on a picnic table in the quad. His iPod buds were in his ears while he was talking to me, but he heard every word. After introducing myself, and asking the question of the day he said, "Naw, I don't know why God would want to do that." I then started explaining sin and God's righteous judgment to him, he smirked, blew it off, and said, "I don't think He's really like that, I mean, I believe in God 'n all, and I try to be a good person, but I think that as long as you're sincere, you're good to go." I then said, "What if I sincerely believe that the oak tree behind us is Jesus and I repent and believe in the oak tree, will that get me into heaven?" He said, "Uh, yeah, I guess." I then said, "What if I sincerely believe that flying jet planes into the world trade center will get me into heaven, is that okay?" He said, "Naw man, that's wrong." I then said, "Then mere sincerity isn't an accurate test for religious truth claims is it?" He agreed. I then returned to an explanation of God's righteous judgment and said that because God is good, He must give people what they deserve, which is Hell. He disagreed. I then asked him how God could be just and still forgive people willy-nilly (i.e., arbitrarily - without a grounds for forgiveness). He said, "He just does" to which I responded, "then He just does unjustly."

Then I quoted Proverbs 17:15, "He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD", then explained that for God to justify the wicked without His justice being met would make God Himself abominable. So I asked him, "How does God justify the wicked without becoming an abomination to Himself?" Of course, he didn't know, so I explained to him how God could be both just and the justifier of the wicked by virtue of what Messiah Jesus did in place of sinners when he died on the cross. I then explained from 2 Cor. 5:21 how the sinless Messiah took the punishment of sinners upon Himself on the cross so that those who believe in Him could be counted as righteous before God. He still didn't get it, so I said, "look, if a guy raped and brutally murdered your sister but didn't get caught until 20 years later, and stands before the judge and says 'Judge, I realize what I did was evil, but I've been a morally upstanding guy the last 20 years. Since I raped and murdered that girl, I've changed my ways: I've been working in a soup-kitchen and I went to school to be a RN and now I'm working in a nursing home because I have a love for the geriatric population so much that want to help them in their twilight years. I've earned many nursing achievement awards from the state and national nursing boards and so I ask you to forgive me and please let me go. I'm terribly sorry for what I did. Those old people can't do without me." I asked this dude, "If the judge just lets this guy go willy-nilly, would he be just or unjust?" He said, "He'd be unjust." I then said, "Then how much more should the infallible, holy God of creation who never makes mistakes and has no sin be just with your sin?" He got the point. I then went through a few commands with him (adultery of the heart, lying, stealing, blasphemy, etc.) and he seemed to get a little convicted. I then said, "See man, that's why you need Christ. Without Him, you'll get what you deserve, which is pure and unmitigated justice in Hell forever." He balked, I shook his hand, and I was off.

Some Passionate Muslims

I always enjoy talking to Muslims about religion. They are almost always willing to talk to you and generally, they are amiable. I love it because you can walk right up to them, ask them a question, and then you can almost be guaranteed a 30-45 minute discussion with them about the claims of the N.T., the Qur'an, and the injil (the gospel). Today was no different. I walked up to three male Muslim students, introduced myself, asked the question of the day, and we quickly entered into a discussion about what it means for Jesus to be the Son of God.

Every Muslim I have spoken with believes that the N.T. term "Son of God" means that the Father literally impregnated Mary and that Jesus is a literal Son from a literal divine-human union. However, the orthodox, Biblical understanding is that the phrase "Son of God" is to be understood as a metaphor, a relational term to help humans understand something about the relationship between Jesus and the Father in the Godhead; what's commonly known as the economic Trinity. After explaining that issue and then trying hard to avoid getting sidetracked by my Muslim friends into various irrelevant areas for a total of about 10-15 minutes, two of the original men left and a second young Muslim man listened a few feet away and then walked up and said, "But Zakir Naik has proven that the N.T. isn't reliable"

At this point I immediately asked, "Can you give me an example of any textual variant(s) in the N.T. manuscript tradition that undermines any essential Christian doctrine or changes the essential message of the N.T.?" to which this gentleman gave a confident, smirking grin but said nothing. I said, "If you cannot prove that the message of the N.T. has been substantially changed, then you have made a bare-naked assertion" and he responded, "If you watch Dr. Zakir Naik's videos on YouTube, you will see that I'm telling the truth." and I said, "But Zakir Naik uses examples that have been answered over and over and over again yet he refuses to stop using arguments that have already been answered by men who are experts in the field of N.T. Greek and/or N.T. textual criticism." He then asserted, "The Qura'n has not been changed at all like the N.T. has, and at that point I pulled up the following image on my iPhone:

Though you may not be able to make out exactly what this page is referring to, it is taken from Dr. James White's AOmin blog. I have this page bookmarked in my iPhone for these types of conversations. The photo to the left contains several variant readings that have been discovered in palimpsest manuscripts of the Qura'n. For the uninitiated, palimpsest manuscripts are manuscripts that have had the original writing erased and then written on top of what was previously erased. Through different methods, textual critics can determine what was originally written in the erased portions and determine whether textual variants existed.

After pulling this page up I said, "My friend, that's not true, there are textual variants in the ancient manuscript copies of the Qura'n just like any other work of antiquity. Please, take a look at this evidence." At this point, the young Muslim man refused to look at them and said, "I cannot speak against the Qura'n or Islam." and I responded, "I'm not asking you to speak against either, I'm proving my assertion by pointing you to evidence that contradicts your claim that there are no textual variants in the manuscripts of the Qura'n." He responded, "You don't understand, I cannot speak against Zakir Naik, Christianity, or the Qura'n." I then said, "I'm confused; isn't that what you just did with the the N.T.? Didn't you suggest that it had been corrupted to such an extent that we can't trust its message?" At this point, he took a cell phone call, and I turned to the lone remaining Muslim and said, "Look my friend, if you are truly lovers of the truth, then truth demands that you study these issues for yourself and not take Zakir Naik's word for it. I can tell you based upon my extensive study of the N.T. that his assertions simply aren't true." At this point the other young man briefly returned for a moment and I asked both of them, "Have you ever read the N.T.?" and they both said, "No."

I then replied, "My friends, I have read the Qura'n three times. I have examined its claims and found them wanting. But I did so after examining the Qura'n, not before. I also didn't base my conclusions wholly on what somebody else told me about the Qura'n. I looked at the evidence for myself, listened to other trusted scholarly sources (both Christian and non-Christian), listened to many public, moderated debates re: the claims of the Qura'n and Islam, and came to my conclusions after looking at the data and interacting with the arguments. I didn't just assume it was wrong; I actually examined it for myself in light of the claims that Muslims make for it. Thus, don't you think its disingenuous for you to dismiss the N.T. when you haven't even read and studied it for yourself?" At this point one Muslim agreed with my reasoning, whereas the other who originally brought up Zakir Naik didn't.

I then pointed out to them that their Qura'n put them in a difficult situation:
P1 - The Qura'n says the words of Allah cannot be changed or corrupted (Surah 6:34, 115; 10:64)
  • "Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers." S. 6:34
  • "The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all." S. 6:115
  • "For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed supreme felicity." S. 10:64
P2 - The Qura'n says the Bible is the Word of Allah (Surah 2:136; 29:46).
  • "Say ye: 'We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."
  • "And dispute yet not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, 'We believe in the revelation which has come to to us and in that which came down to you; Our All and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam).'"
C - Therefore, assuming the authority of the Qura'n for sake of argument, the Bible could not have been changed or corrupted as many Muslim apologists claim.
I then said,
"Look friend, if the Qura'n affirms the reliability of the Bible then it's false since it contradicts the very Bible that it affirms. On the other hand, if the Bible is false then so is the Qura'n since the Qura'n affirms the Bible's trustworthiness when its really not trustworthy. Thus, if you agree with the Qura'n that the Bible is reliable, then you'll have to believe the Bible, but that puts you in a very difficult situation since the N.T. contradicts many fundamental doctrines of Islam. Worse, you have a choice to either trust the Qura'n which affirms the trustworthiness of the Bible and so contradict every modern Muslim apologist that claims otherwise, or you can trust the Muslim apologist and deny the Qura'n."
At this point they wanted to get away from that argument as quickly as possible by changing the subject to irrelevant issues. I patiently redirected the conversation back to the gospel.

I finally was able to bring the law of Christ to bear upon them and explained the reason for Jesus' atonement while also contrasting it with Allah's arbitrary basis of forgiveness. For those who are unaware of this theological problem, Islam has no grounds for forgiving sins other than Allah's arbitrary will, thus making Allah unjust since he forgives the guilty without someone being punished for their sins. I used the courtroom analogy with them (i.e., an unjust earthly judge merely forgiving a brutal murderer and rapist just because he said he was sorry) and explained that this is the problem with Allah's method of forgiveness. I then explained that the N.T. teaches that Allah can be both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Isa because Isa's substitutionary atonement for sinners is the legal grounds for a sinner's forgiveness since the sinless Messiah bore the punishment that penitent sinners deserve but don't get because Isa died in their place (Proverbs 17:15; Romans 3:21-26; 2 Corinthians 5:21). They didn't accept the last argument due to their pre-programmed Muslim denial of the crucifixion, but they thanked me for the conversation with a warm smile, we shook hands, and we went our separate ways.

Pantheism and Denominational Confusion

The last conversation I had was with two American students smoking cigarettes and waiting on their rides to go home. One student, a male, said that he believed that God hated and loved people, and I said, "I agree, though not in the same sense." The other student, a female, said, "No, I don't think God hates anybody." I quoted the relevant passages of Scripture and explained that God's "hatred" isn't like ours, human, imperfect, and sinful, but is a demonstration of His judicial hatred of sin and sinners. The young man changed the subject and said, "I think God is everything" to which I responded, "do you think the cow pie in the field is God too?" to which he said, "I didn't think about that." I said, "Well, if you're consistent, you'd have to carry it that far" and then he said, "I basically agree with what the Bible says about God" and I responded, "No, the Bible teaches a Creator-creation distinction; the Creator is not the creation and vice versa" and then I quoted Romans 1:18-25 and other passages that prove this distinction. I then told him, "What you are advocating is called Pantheism; i.e., the idea that all is god and god is all. I'm god, you're god, the cigarette smoke is god, and cow pies are god". He said, "I've never heard of that before" and I said, "That's why I'm here." He smiled. I then said, "Look, if god is everything, then you have functionally defined god out of existence."

At this time several people standing around were listening intently and I then asked him, "How do you know if what you believe is true or not?" and he said something like, "Well, I'm not sure about it" to which I responded, "Are you sure of that?" and then said, "If you're sure that you're not sure, then how can you be sure of that?" The female student standing beside him laughed, but he didn't quite get it yet. That's certainly understandable. So I slowed down a little and attempted to patiently explain how his beliefs were self-defeating. He got it, appreciated the explanation, and then I started talking to the female student beside him while she lit up another cig.

I asked her, "You seemed to follow what I'm saying pretty well, so let me ask you this, what is the gospel?" She never answered my question, but said, "I believe in God and know that I'm going to heaven when I die, but I get confused about all the different denominations . . . I mean, I grew up United Methodist and went to Baptist and Catholic churches with my friends and they all say that the differences amount to people's different interpretations of the Bible." I then said, "Well, Roman Catholicism is another animal that I'll deal with later, but most 16th century Protestants originally held to all the same basic doctrine (i.e., Trinity, 5 Solas, TULIP)." I then moved from briefly explaining the Protestant Reformation to discussing the major doctrinal differences between Rome's view of justification and Bibical doctrine of justification. She then understood why I earlier asserted that Rome is no true church. I then explained the gospel to her, exhorted her to examine herself in light of 1st John, and headed off to my car.

IN CONCLUSION
, the question "Does God hate people" is an excellent conversation starter. In light of that question, I'll ask you the same follow-up questions I asked a college prof. late last week. Do you love the God of the Bible who not only demonstrates love, compassion, and abundant mercy, but who also:
  • Hates the sinner and not just the sin (Psalm 5:5; 11:5)?
  • Creates most people for the purpose of displaying His justice in their destruction (Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 7:13-14; Romans 9:22-23)?
  • Predestines people for salvation and the rest for damnation (John 6:37-44, 65; Romans 9:11-23; Ephesians 1:4-11; 1 Peter 2:8)?
  • Punishes those whom He's created to destroy forever in Hell (1 Peter 2:8)?
If you know that the Bible teaches this yet don't love that God, you're worshiping a custom-crafted idol that exists only in your mind. Repent of your idolatry or perish (Luke 13:3, 5).

27 comments:

  1. Another episode in Pastor Dusman's 'How Not to Make Friends but Influence People'. :P

    I love these updates. Keep'em coming!

    ReplyDelete
  2. "[God] Hates the sinner and not just the sin (Psalm 5:5; 11:5)?"

    My man, Dusman!

    Prevailing platitudes blowing everywhere both in Christendom and outside of Christendom is that:

    God hates the sin, but not the sinner.

    ----

    You should write a book: "Everything You Thought You Knew About Christianity Is Wrong!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Another episode in Pastor Dusman's 'How Not to Make Friends but Influence People'. :P

    :-)>

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great report.

    Took me back to the days of my Middle Eastern Studies.

    I remember years ago after 9/11, having interesting conversations with many. The Sunday after, a couple was visiting from the States and I addressed some of the inconsistencies in the arguments of those who would have us treat the situation in a way that would let Islam completely off the hook.

    I remember saying then what I will still say today that a religion born in blood for the conquest of the world by blood must remain true to that idea.

    I said how I could have put on a screen, comments from Khomeni (sp) – for those who don't remember, the one who overthrew the Shah of Iran, and Bin Laden and if you did not know the dates, you could not tell the difference.

    Legitimate grievances aside, and there are some. Islam is forever crippled by the fact as Khomeni reminded his followers, the Prophet founded the perfect society and nothing or no one can improve upon it.

    I love the discussion on pantheism which is basically the default religious belief of most Atheists even if they cannot see it. It was basically Nietzsche's default religious system.

    Keep up the mission of witness in the power of the Spirit concerning Jesus Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pastor Dusman,

    When you finish a conversation with folks, do you give them a card or flyer to your church so that they could follow up with you?

    I'm speculating that many folks, if you don't extend them an invitation, will shortly forget their conversation with you.

    Of course, the converse is true as well, even if you gave them a card to your church with a map and time of service, they'll still probably throw away the card and forget their conversation with you.

    Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So I am to hate my family as commanded in Luke 14:36 or am I to love them less than Christ as commanded in Matthew 10:37?

    And how does this fit in with Jesus' teachings in Matthew 5:

    43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "the question "Does God hate people" is an excellent conversation starter."

    I think it is. I've never done it before, but I'm guessing that it is.

    I mean, how many times have I heard people say or write: "God is Love"?

    Over and over again, I've heard that. So to ask "Does God Hate People?" should surely engender conversation after they do a double take at the question.

    ReplyDelete
  8. TODDES SAID:

    "So I am to hate my family as commanded in Luke 14:36 or am I to love them less than Christ as commanded in Matthew 10:37?"

    Is that your attempt to be cute and clever, or do you really not get it?

    i) To begin with, the love/hate lingo is a rhetoric device based on Hebrew parallelism. Hyperbolic language to stress opposing conduct. It doesn't refer to feelings.

    ii) There is no "command" to hate your parents. That's grossly simplistic. The context of that statement is explicitly qualified.

    If your family forces you to choose between allegiance to Christ and allegiance to kith and kin, then you must choose Jesus over your natural family.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "the question "Does God hate people" is an excellent conversation starter."

    Works pretty well for the Westboro Calvinists.

    Kudos to Dusman for being upfront with people, letting them know exactly what he believes, including the ugly parts. Telling folks that God hates 9 out of every 10 people that walk the earth, is probably not a good way to pack the pews--but at least you are not trying to sugarcoat it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. WALTER:
    ""the question "Does God hate people" is an excellent conversation starter."

    Works pretty well for the Westboro Calvinists.

    Kudos to Dusman for being upfront with people, letting them know exactly what he believes, including the ugly parts. Telling folks that God hates 9 out of every 10 people that walk the earth, is probably not a good way to pack the pews--but at least you are not trying to sugarcoat it.

    1/27/2011 5:02 PM

    So, let me get this straight... You read that whole post, the whole of the three encounters,

    and at the end, you couldn't tell the difference between a Dusman and a WBoro fan?

    If I ever need a life-jacket, please don't throw ANYTHING my way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bruce, here are the quotes from Dusman's post in reference to God:

    He ...
    -"Hates the sinner and not just the sin (Psalm 5:5; 11:5)?
    -Creates most people for the purpose of displaying His justice in their destruction (Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 7:13-14; Romans 9:22-23)?
    -Predestines people for salvation and the rest for damnation (John 6:37-44, 65; Romans 9:11-23; Ephesians 1:4-11; 1 Peter 2:8)?
    -Punishes those whom He's created to destroy forever in Hell (1 Peter 2:8)?


    Here is the theology of Westboro: http://www.godhatesfags.com/reports/20060331_god-loves-everyone-lie.pdf

    Just because Dusman delivers his message a bit more tactfully perhaps doesn't mean the content is different in substance.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Does Dustin's theology prescribe that he picket military funerals?

    Does does evangelism. Does the Westboro cult? Phelps is a hyper-Calvinist, not a Calvinist.

    Dustin's campus ministry it, itself, an expression of his love for the lost.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Dustin's campus ministry it, itself, an expression of his love for the lost."

    Maybe, but what better place is there than a funeral to approach people with the Good News? Let's face it: a campus is generally not going to be the most receptive place for hearing the Gospel. At a funeral, people are more likely to be pondering the weighty matters of life and death.

    If preaching the Gospel is an act of love, as you suggest, I don't see why a very public funeral should be off limits.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Westboro cult isn't using graveside services to present the gospel. Rather, it's going out of its way to alienate the mourners.

    I didn't say funerals were out of bounds for evangelism, and you know it. You're not even attempting to be honest.

    Rather, you think you have a wedge issue you can exploit, so you willfully disregard some fundamental differences.

    When you can't make an honest case for your position, what does that say about you and your position?

    ReplyDelete
  15. James,

    You asked,

    "Maybe, but what better place is there than a funeral to approach people with the Good News?"

    I've preached many funerals. As as matter of fact, I'd rather preach a funeral than almost any other venue since you have people being reminded that they too will one day "return to the dust".

    I tell any family that asks me to officiate their deceased loved one's funerals: "I'm here to provide comfort in a difficult time through reminding the saved of their glorious inheritance and the lost of their impending doom. The greatest means by which God comforts people is through the glorious truth that there's no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus and that heaven awaits them, but for those outside of Christ, this is as good as it gets for you, so don't stop breathing. The dead loved one is gone, but you and your family are alive and listening, so if you don't want to risk having potentially angry family members and you don't want the walls sweating, don't ask me to preach."

    I've had people's relatives so angry with me for telling them they are going to Hell at funerals that if they could have slit my throat and got away with it they would've. I've had people get up and walk out mid-sermon (both in church and at funerals). I've had redneck family members wait in the parking lot to cuss me out or worse after I walked outside from the church building. Then when they then spew their venom, I preach the gospel to them again and *plead* with them to repent and believe lest they get what they deserve. I've been physically attacked for the cause of the gospel and didn't do it for my own glory, but for His.

    So, I have a question for the God-haters here, how many times have you loved people enough to put your own safety, livelihood, and even life on the line so as to lovingly help those who passionately hate you and all you stand for?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Then when they then spew their venom, I preach the gospel to them again and *plead* with them to repent and believe lest they get what they deserve.

    It is interesting to hear a predestinarian pleading with people to repent. Almost as if the truly lost--those predestined for damnation--had libertarian free will, and could actually respond to the plea.

    ReplyDelete
  17. WALTER SAID:

    "It is interesting to hear a predestinarian pleading with people to repent. Almost as if the truly lost--those predestined for damnation--had libertarian free will, and could actually respond to the plea."

    Of course you frame the issue in tendentious terms. Unbelievers are "truly lost" apart from faith in the gospel.

    God uses evangelism to call the elect out of darkness into light. There's no internal contradiction here.

    ReplyDelete
  18. God uses evangelism to call the elect out of darkness into light. There's no internal contradiction here.

    So you are only reaching out to the "lost" elect who have not YET been regenerated? If that is the case, then why would you need to "plead" with them to repent? The elect cannot help but be regenerated before they die, while the objects of wrath are beyond any hope. Seems like there would be no need to "plead" with either group.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No, I'm not reaching out to *elect* unbelievers–since I don't which unbelievers are elect or reprobate. From my blinkered, human viewpoint, it makes no difference. It's the same message for both groups.

    All things being equal, regeneration a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for salvation. All things being equal, salvation requires saving hence. Regeneration restores a predisposition to believe the Gospel, but that's not a substitute for saving faith. Regeneration makes the soul receptive to revealed truth, while evangelism supplies the object of of knowledge.

    We can debate special cases, like mental incompetents, but if they are exceptions, there's an obvious reason why they are exceptional (since they lack even the natural cognitive ability to exercise saving faith).

    ReplyDelete
  20. "God uses evangelism to call the elect out of darkness into light."

    Amen. I preach to all, plead with any who will listen, and God uses that as the God-ordained means to bring the elect to faith in Christ in in His time. "One plants, one waters, but God causes the growth." 1 Cor. 3:6

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I've had people's relatives so angry with me for telling them they are going to Hell at funerals that if they could have slit my throat and got away with it they would've. I've had people get up and walk out mid-sermon (both in church and at funerals). I've had redneck family members wait in the parking lot to cuss me out or worse after I walked outside from the church building. Then when they then spew their venom, I preach the gospel to them again and *plead* with them to repent and believe lest they get what they deserve. I've been physically attacked for the cause of the gospel and didn't do it for my own glory, but for His.

    My brother in Christ, Pastor Dusman, I know where your heart is. And as such you have my unqualified support for what you've just described in the quoted excerpt above.

    Wincingly, I have to speculatively report that the majority of Christians would criticize you for doing this. I suspect that if I were to read off that excerpted paragraph to my Christian friends here, they would criticize you heavily.

    I don't know what to do. Just expressing my angst.

    Thanks again Pastor Dusman for your Great Commission work.

    ReplyDelete
  22. As a friend and in also my role as a Pastor, I just attended a funeral in support of several church members who had a relative die suddenly.

    There was No Gospel, just a vague mention that Jesus helps us through the trials of our lives. Sheltered in the Arms of God was one of the songs sung.

    But with no mention of the Gospel the question becomes; how does one get sheltered in the arms of God?

    I to find a funeral a God-ordained time to speak of life and death in the light of whether we live or die – we are the Lord's. And one day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Many people find it hard (if not impossible) to do the kind of bold evangelism that Mr Dunsman describes.

    So just to throw in another perspective on our obligation? to cold call, here are some verses in the Bible that need to have a place in our theology:

    'They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth....Therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time, for it is an evil time.' Amos 5:10,13

    'Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words.' Prov 23:9

    'Leave the presence of a fool' Prov 14:7

    There is 'a time to keep silence, and a time to speak' (Eccl 3:7).

    '...the wise heart will know the proper time and the just way. For there is a time and a way for everything...' (Eccl 8:5-6)

    'The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable...' Prov10:32

    The apostle Peter seemed to indicate to wait until asked - we are to be 'prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you' 1Pet3:15.

    Paul said we should 'walk in wisdom toward outsiders' (Col 4:5) and the focus was also on knowing 'how you ought to answer each person' rather than how to 'go up and tell' each person.

    Even Paul himself was seeking an open door before he declared the Word: '...pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ...' (Col 4:3).

    And Jesus, to a guy delivered from demon-possesion, did not tell him to tell everyone he saw but only to go 'to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you' (Mk 5:19).

    Another interesting article by Doug Wilson on this topic:

    http://www.credenda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=116

    See the article in Volume 14 Number 6 called "Guilt-free Evangelism".

    I think the evangelism Dunsman does is amazing, thank God for the gift he has. All I intend is to raise questions about what obligations the Lord has laid on the rest of us individually in this regard.

    ReplyDelete
  24. TUAD,

    Don't worry, I work hard to be compassionate in such circumstances. However, sometimes people still get hot.

    Halo,

    Thanks for encouraging the average Christian to be perceptive and recognize opportunities that God provides to give the gospel.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dusman is the perfect example of why the body needs all its parts. Sending an evangelist to do a funeral is just not good work.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dusman: >>If you know that the Bible teaches this yet don't love that God, you're worshiping a custom-crafted idol that exists only in your mind. Repent of your idolatry or perish (Luke 13:3, 5).<<

    Amen, brother. It is refreshing to see a Christian - however rare - who is willing to lay out and stand on this truth. I regularly make that same point online and in "real life," and am unfailingly challenged as to my charity, love and so forth, even by staunch Calvinists.

    I admire your straightforwardness and boldness for the sake of Christ. Wish I had a bigger piece of the gift you have in such abundance! Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sending an evangelist to do a funeral is just not good work.

    Um, yes it is. That's the best person to send.

    ReplyDelete