Category: Evangelism

Eva Marie Cropsey — Daughter of a Michigan State Senator

“Isa” is the name for Jesus in Arabic. Yeah, it’s the name used in the Qu’ran, because the Qu’ran was written in Arabic. You can’t look at this and say it’s “totally disgusting, since all those mentioned are not the same God at all,” because they are all actually referring to the same person. Yeah, Islam goes wrong in what they believe about Jesus’ resurrection and in believing that Muhammad was greater than He was, but they do honor and revere Him.

Unless you actually talk to Rick Warren, you can’t give his motivation for praying the way he did. However, a possible alternative to the idea that he’s just trying to make everybody happy is that he’s trying to build on the common roots of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If you know anything about the history of these religions, you should know that Christianity’s basis is in Judaism (Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Hebrew scriptures), and Muhammad was greatly influenced by both Judaism and Christianity. If you want to reach people for Christ, you need to build on common ground, rather than trying to eliminate the commonalities you do share. Jesus called us to be peacemakers (Matthew 5), and Paul sets a precedent for this in his sermon to the Areopagus (Acts 15) where he quotes the an Athenian poet and references an Athenian religious tradition of worshiping an unknown God (for more on this, you should read Eternity in Their Hearts by Don Richardson). The Shema is from the Hebrew Scriptures, yes, but aren’t the Hebrew Scriptures also your Old Testament? God hasn’t changed since then. Islam teaches that God is compassionate and merciful, but doesn’t Christianity teach the same? And in case you’re wondering, “Allah” is simply a generic word that means “God.” There are thousands of Christians in the Middle East that use this word to refer to the same God that you and I worship.

I’m sorry. It looks like neither one of us is going to change our positions, so there isn’t any reason to discuss it further. I would suggest that you research the historical roots of both Islam and Christianity for yourself–outside of what you have been taught by a pastor or Christian educator–and also that you read the book A Deadly Misunderstanding by Mark Siljander.

Bret responds,

No, you are wrong. If Jews and Muslims do not believe Jesus is the Son of God who died for the sins of the world they do not revere him and they do not honor him. In point of fact they dishonor him, disrespect him and call God a liar. That is not revering! In point of fact that is blasphemy.

This can be seen by your notion that Islam, Christianity and Judaism has common roots. What Islam and Judaism teach is diametrically opposed to Christianity. Judaism and Islam are bastard religions that deny the essence of Christianity. The Triune God that Christians serve has absolutely nothing in common with the Unitarian blasphemy of Islam and Judaism. Muslims and Jews deny the virgin birth. Muslims and Jews deny that there is salvation in no other name except for Jesus. Muslim and Jews deny that Jesus is God. Muslim and Jews deny that Jesus will return again to judge the quick and the dead. Saying that Islam, Christianity and Judaism have common roots is like saying that a Porn Flick, a Snuff Movie and “Old Yeller” have common roots all because they are all cinema.

When a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ prays he is not looking to find common ground with pagan religions or pagan gods. In doing so he is doing exactly what I suggested he was doing when I wrote the analysis piece of Warren’s prayer. When a Christian minister prays he prays that the God of the Bible would defeat all other rival gods and deliver their adherents out of the false religions they are in bondage to.

No you advised me that my learning is deficient. I should probably tell you that I am a Pastor. I have the requisite degrees. I have done the research. I have already read the books you recommend.

Allow me to suggest you have read all the books that are creating the current crisis in Christianity. For example in Acts 17 Paul was not using a common ground approach. You might want to check out this links to see that discussed in detail.

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa045.htm

Common ground evangelism is a disaster precisely because the pagan denies the common ground exists. He hates God and so hates the common ground you are trying to reach him on. If you are interested in seeing this idea teased out I would recommend,

http://www.the-highway.com/defense_VanTil.html

The OT is my Bible but it is not the Jewish Bible. They read it in such a way that it is no longer the Scripture to them. They twist it and ruin it and what Jews need to be called back to is the Scriptures they deny by the way they read it.

Allah may be the same word for God but He is not the same God. We do Islam no service by allowing them to think Allah and the God of the Bible are the same beings. Primarily because the God of the Bible exists and Allah doesn’t. I don’t care if converted Muslims use the word Allah to address God as long as they are convinced of Allah’s Triune character.

Siljander used to be my congressman years ago. He is a liberal and knows less about Islam then I’d care to mention. A good beginning resource on Islam is Serdga Trifkovic. He grew up around Islam and knows what a danger it is and how it hates Christianity, and how it will not be satisfied until it conquerors all its competitors.

Rick Warren is a well intended fool who is trying to sink Christianity into a sea of meaninglessness pluralism. I’m afraid you’re already wearing the weights around your ankles. You strike me as a sharp young lady. If you are as sharp as you sound you will go the extra mile and investigate these things I’m telling you to see whether or not they are so.

Dear Brethren

New Year greetings to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.Amen! The Lord is so gracious and compassionate. He is love! How He moved you to come to our rescue at the appropriate time. Only He knows. For the first time in over 15 months …

To be able to sit down as family and make a budget for family groceries etc.

To be able to secure some food that you expect to last the family for a month on a decent meal per day.

To be able to provide some clothes and shoes for the children.

To be able to make some lunch packs for the kids walking to school(cant afford to drive them anymore)

To be able to send all our children to a youth Bible Conference(camping fees)28 Dec-01 Jan 2009.

To be able to give to our Lord in a very significant way.

This was all because you shared with us the love of Jesus.Praise be to God.Continue to pray for us that the Lord will heal our land. Humanly speaking there is no end in sight.Inflation continues to gallop at a very fast rate.Even the US$ seems to decrease its purchasing power in our shops.So for our grocery shopping we have to drive to South Africa and Zambia. Schools will be charging their fees in US$ and each child will require about $650 by the end of January. This is a mammoth task and we ask for your prayers. Also pray for our political situation. There is literary a stalemate and there is practically no government at the moment.

We would love to communicate frequently but most of the time we are out of network.Also our computer broke down so we have to do it from other places yet networks are usually available in the evenings.

Till next half. God bless you all

As usual, if our Lord Jesus Christ prompts you to give to this family you can send checks to Charlotte CRC and we will make sure the money gets to them.

(No administration or handling fee — smile)

Recently, I had a local evangelical military wife inform me that “I ignore people with my constant reading and that the only time I interact is to fight.” Now in fairness to her I was getting in her kitchen about the sagacity of our youth signing up to go into the military after they graduate high school, and I was making the case that Biblical Christians serving in the US military struck me as more than a bit oxymoronic and so her words hurled at me were hurled out of defensiveness on her part. Still, three days later I am musing over her words and I must admit there is some truth in her words. And so for those who have come to similar conclusions about “the pastor who always ignores people with his reading and only interacts in order to fight” allow me a small apologetic for my idiosyncrasies.

First, I am not a particularly bright person by nature. Consequently, if I desire to have anything at all interesting to say in my role as Preacher and counselor I have to read, and I have to read with a vengeance. Inherently brighter men might be able to be in the ministry and not read and be successful but if I am going to be worth my wage and keep I have to read.

Second, we live in a culture that is stupid. This is not a malicious opinion. This is a fact. I struggle with that residue clinging to me as much as the next person. If I wish to rise out of the stream of this culture that is carrying so many of its sons and daughters along to destruction then I have to read. If I want to be an answer for the culture that I love and hate at the same time then I have to offer it something better then what it is offering. The only way I can do that is to read till I bleed. I read not in order to ignore people but to be a boon to them (even if they just wish I’d shut up).

Third, if I don’t read I’ll be a captive to this zeitgeist, and as I am convinced that this zeitgeist is from its father the devil I have to do all I can to saturate myself in the wisdom of other times. So, when I read, I try to read old books and old authors and the reason I do so is that I have hopes, as silly as they might be given our zeitgeist, that Christian men and women alive today might tire of the wickedness of this age and long for something other — a something other that I might be able to offer because of my reading of old authors, old books and of times and wisdom now forgotten.

Fourth, to be perfectly honest, the people I meet in my books are usually 100 times more interesting than the people who are walking expressions of this culture. If I have to choose between Charlemagne and Joe the Dispensationalist, my tendency is to choose Charlemagne’s company every time. If I have to choose between the insights of Robert Nisbet or the wisdom of Daphney the Government school teacher it’s Nisbet every time. Now, I realize that this is a weakness and even a sin. Joe and Daphney still need Jesus and Charlemagne and Nisbet don’t and so I should expend more effort with Joe and Daphney, but I have to tell you when Joe and Daphney insist that I’m an idiot or respond with strained silence when I bring up conversation that goes beyond conversational pleasantries Nisbet and Charlemagne look more and more attractive.

This is why I read. I make no apology for it. If you see me reading try to keep in mind that at least somewhere in this vessel of clay — despite all the sin that still clings to me, there is a small motive of love for God, people, and the desire for Reformation that has me turning page after page in book after book.

Now as to the fighting part of my interlocutor’s accusatory words I must once again plead guilty. But, please, I ask that you would once again hear me out.

First, understand that I wear myself out resisting fighting. I doubt that there are more people who chew more holes in their tongues then I do. I literally, bite my tongue. I literally pinch myself. I literally walk away in order to allow for conversational and relational bonhomie. A little credit where credit is due if you please.

Second, y’all have to realize that I am convinced that this culture needs Reformation. Allow me to suggest that Reformation isn’t going to come without fighting. So, yes, I’m often in the midst of intense conversation. In the Lansing area I’ve warred with the Evangelicals about their love for America and civil religion that is above their love for Jesus. I’ve argued the doctrines of grace vs. the doctrines of self-salvation that most evangelicals embrace. I’ve debated with them about their constant need to plight their fidelity to the flag. I’ve debated with them about the wisdom of sending their children into the Military of a country that is doing its utmost to destroy Christianity. I’ve debated with them about the density of Dispensationalism, trying to get them to take my standing wager that my great grandchildren will die of natural causes before Jesus comes back. I’ve debated with them about their happy clappy churches and their “God is my girl-friend” church hymns. I’ve debated with them their strange notion that their covenant seed shouldn’t be Baptized and the notion that the important decision is not God’s decision for their seed as proclaimed in the waters of Baptism, but rater their seeds decision for God when they reach the age of accountability. I’ve debated with them about the utter nonsense that we should care about Red Heifer’s being born in Israel, or that Israel has anything more to do with God’s eschatological intentions or timetable then any other nation. I’ve argue with them about the advisability of sending their children to “youth-groups.” I’ve argued with them about the propriety of holding Church in their “living rooms,” where the blind lead the blind. So, yes I have fought — I have fought about these things and a million more — but don’t you see that unless someone fights this culture is going to go the way of Rome. Listen, my evangelical friends — the problem isn’t with the pornographers, or the homosexuals, or the abortionists, the problem is with us and our twisted theology and thinking. Somebody has to fight to try and set these things straight.

Hey, I’m not any different, instinctively speaking, then the next guy. I’d love to go along to get along. I’d love to glide along with the cultural current. It sure would be a lot easier to float downstream then swim against the tide. But until God grants Reformation and Awakening, I will continue to be “the pastor who always ignores people with his reading and only interacts in order to fight.”

Won’t you join me?

There is always room for one more.

Election Cycle 2008 and the Christian

Bret 1

Natures proves it is the purpose or proper function for Mammals to kill their young. Nature tells us that this is normative. Similarly homosexuality is normative as it is clearly the purpose and proper function of nature.

Paul M.

Those aren’t arguments, Bret.

Say’s you Paul M.

I took your requirements for Natural law and put my previous statements in your Natural law arrangement demand. Your saying it is not an argument does not make it not an argument. Now, I’m sure that since it refutes your objection you would consider it not an argument but I’m glad to let the reader decide.

Bret 1

No straw man here Paul. Quite to the contrary what I see you doing is using a straw man to try and rescue natural law as being acceptable.

That’s not an argument, Bret.

Sure it is Paul. It is an argument advancing the idea that you didn’t make an argument in your previous post but just an accusation. I took your argument about what Natural law is and I proceeded to show you that what I said could easily fit under your thinking of natural law.

Bret 1

No, but neither was God appealing to Natural law when he said that. The ant provides a proper lesson to those whose epistemic apparatus is working somewhat properly and whose presuppositions are what they ought to be.

Paul

How does the “ant” do that? How would the reasoning go?

That “ant” does that the same way that all the heavens declaring the glory of God does that Paul M. Or are you denying general revelation? Remember all reality points to God. The problem isn’t in the sender but in the receivers. The “ant” is a testimony of God’s reality to all who are not suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Let me guess though Paul M. …. that’s not an argument.

Is unbelief not proper function rational?

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/rru.html

So Sudduth disagrees with Plantinga. I’m quite confident that somewhere out there, there is somebody who disagrees with Sudduth and has written a dissertation showing how Sudduth is allegedly wrong just as Sudduth as shown that that Plantinga is allegedly wrong. I didn’t read the whole thing. When I finish my Polanyi I’ll be sure to turn my attention to it. Thanks for the link though. I hear that Sudduth is a smart guy.

So many books … so little time. I’m sure you know the feeling.

Bret 1

However, allow someone to suppress the truth in unrighteousness about ants and the ant could as easily teach them that we should all live in houses made of cones of sand. Proper conclusions about ants will not be arrived at by people who hate God consistently. Telic conclusions are always affected by presuppositional beginning points.

Paul M.

That’s not an argument, Bret.

Neither is that Paul M. I think they call that an assertion.

You’re arguing:

1. A
______

2. Therefore A.

And you’re arguing

1.) Not A

_______________

Therefore Not A

Ah, but the difference Paul M. … that with Scripture there is a written objective to appeal to. In Natural law each man interprets what is right in his own eyes.

Really, Bret? This is not an argument, again, Bret.

Oh Darn.

And neither is yours an argument Paul. Once again, I think it is called an assertion.

Bret 1

“When the heretic appeals to scripture wrongly to the law and to the testimony we must go.”

Paul M.

“So. The point is that anyone can cite anything they please, this doesn’t “make it so.” Your changing the goal posts doesn’t avoid the non-sequitur you made.”

I never said that anyone citing anything they please “makes it so.” Do you often put words in people’s mouth Paul M.? I’ve often found when one does that it makes it easier to win the discussion.

I said we go to the law and testimony. From that point let the appeal to Scripture unfold.

And please do provide for me my alleged “non-sequitur” and my “changing of the goal posts” that you asserted but did not argue for.

Bret 1

“However when the Natural law theorist interprets incorrectly … well, what objective standard do I appeal to in order to correct him? Right reason? Surely a Van Tillian wouldn’t go for that idea. Whose right reason?”

Paul M. responds

Typical Van Tillian, confuses questions with arguments.

LOL … Typical philosopher wannabee elitist who started with Van Til and now has “grown beyond” him…. confuses rhetorical questions for not being arguments.

By the way you didn’t answer the argument caught up in the rhetorical question. Clever move.

Paul M.

Should I respond, “whose interpretation of Scripture?” The heretics? Yours? Surely the “Van Tilian” hasn’t just been hoisted by his own petard, has he?

Whose asking questions now? Should I snort at you and say … “Typical elitist philosopher wannabee, confuses questions for arguments?

Still, unlike you, I’ll provide an answer. Maybe this will compel you to answer my earlier question.

The interpretation that most consistently aligns with all of Scripture and itself grows out of Scripture. Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority found in a true interpretation of God’s Word, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

What are you arguing? Are you arguing that all there is, is interpretation? How po-mo of you. Or are you arguing that fallen man can start with fallen reason and interpret general revelation aright to the point of being able to construct God honoring cultures?

In terms of petard hoisting … well, you’ll have to explain more clearly, as opposed to asserting, that Van Til has been hoisted upon his own petard. I know that is a common accusation but I’d like to see you flesh it out all the same.

“Paul M>

Of course, what Scripture affirms is objective, same with natural law. but you’re confusing our interpretation with the thing-in-itself.

No, I’m not. I fully recognize that natural law is itself objective. I also fully recognize that the fallen man coming to natural law has an agenda that is informing him not to read the objective natural law aright. However, unlike with Scripture, when the fallen man interprets Natural law in a bent fashion, there is nothing I can check his bent interpretation against. There is no “law and testimony” to repair to in order to dispute with the kind of natural law interpretation that the Nazi’s appealed to, for example.

Now, should we take what sounds to be the implications of your positions then all we have is the interpretation since it seems to be the case that you have given us the Kantian problem of never being able to get to the “thing-in-itself, as located in the Noumenal realm.” But if we can’t get to the “thing-in-itself” then how could we even have an interpretation of the “thing-in-itself?” Indeed, if we can’t get to the “thing-in-itself” how do we know there is a “thing-in-itself” to get to in order to interpret wrongly?

Sorry…. more of those questions.

Paul M.

“You acted as if natural law means “go outside and look at nature” and you act as if simply quoting Van Til has some of sanctifying effects that works ex opere operato.

Says you. Who is Paul M. that I should be mindful of his assertions?

But let’s cut to the chase in all this Paul.

One man says: “God says that it is sin to murder.”

Another man says “Natural Law says it’s wrong to murder.”

2 Observations:

* I know God has authority over my life and I know that HE can cast me into Hell for transgressing HIS law. Natural Law cannot send me to hell because it has no power or authority. In fact, not even special revelation law can send me to Hell. Law has no authority. Only The law Giver does.

* Universals Laws, whether natural or special cannot be justified apart from an appeal to God’s special revelation. Paul, if you think thinks otherwise, demonstrate it! It looks to me that your making law, not the law giver, to be your final authority. In short, you’re deifying law.

Thanks to RD for offering the last section of this response.

Actually, I like Tim Enloe. Really, I do. Still, he as a bad habit of characterizing a conversation in an interesting light. Actually, I only barely recognize the conversation that Tim summarizes in what we can only hope will be his closing post on the subject. I think he re-works the conversation in the way he does because the conversation didn’t really go that well for him.

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6077&Data=3003#posts

Well, at least the important issue of what “reform” even is has been put on table by all this. Those who think the Reformation formulations are the end of the discussion have revealed an attitude which would have prevented the Reformation itself from happening, because they don’t recognize the possibility of fruitfully engaging the tradition understanding that it isn’t a self-contained, self-justifying whole.

1.) I never even came close to saying that there isn’t any possibility of fruitfully engaging the Reformed tradition. Nor, do I necessarily think of it as a self-contained, self-justifying whole, though it could very well be. It all depends on whether or not the people who engage the Reformed tradition ever end up doing so fruitfully. I’ve read a great deal on the engagements so far and I see a lot of good fruit but the good fruit I see is a reclaiming of the Reformed tradition. All the so called “extensions of the Reformed tradition” that I’ve read (especially on justification) is just pretty lousy stuff, that should not satisfy anybody who realizes the depth and width of all that justification by faith alone touches.

2.) As to my attitude … well, I kind of like Ronald Reagan on this score. Reagan said, “trust but verify.” I trust Tim but having looked at what is being offered as a replacement for justification by faith alone, whether it is from Reformed Catholicism, Federal Vision, or New Perspective I can honestly say that I can not verify that it isn’t just another arrangement of justification that is analytic and process at its core.

My concerns in all this have been chiefly the restricting of “the Gospel” both in proclamation to others and belief by others to an explicit consciousness of JBFA – a restriction which seems to prevent “the Gospel” from being readily seen in the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and 1 Corinthians 15.

1.) Tim’s problem here is that he is reading the Gospels, Acts, and I Corinthians 15 in isolation from the rest of the Bible. It’s like saying because you can’t find the name of God in the book of Esther therefore the Bible really isn’t about God. This is nonsense.

2.) I would say that justification is found all over those books that Tim cites if only implicitly. Justification, soteriologically speaking touches everything, therefore if one finds a soteriological fact in any book there will be some way in which justification will eventually be involved.

3) Tim greatly mischaracterizes the conversation because I’ve clearly admitted that people can be justified apart from an explicit consciousness of jbfa. What I have denied is that someone can explicitly deny justification by faith alone and still be considered as justified.

4.) By Tim’s downgrading the importance of justification by faith alone Tim has revealed that it is, for him, no longer the hinge upon which Reformed theology turns. All I can do is recommend people read Buchanan’s book on Justification or Owen’s book on Justification or Chemnitz’s writing on Justification, or Turretin’s writings on Justification or …. (Let me guess Tim … these are all standard Reformed manuals.)

Tim’s downgrade on jbfa and the downgrade that we are seeing through much of the Reformed Church on this doctrine is, in my estimation, an attempt to rebuild Christendom with those who clearly deny jbfa. Christianity is being assaulted and our numbers are dwindling and there seems to be ostensibly Reformed people with opinions that one way to rebuild the crumbling walls of Christendom is by removing those doctrines that divide the epistemologically self-conscious Reformed Biblical believer from those who are seen as sharing our Christian morality. If this project is successful Christendom will go into full eclipse. It is only a Reformation Biblical worldview that includes jbfa that can successfully rebuild a genuine Christendom.

Other than that, my concern is with the demonstrable massive historical ignorance of the Reformed community as a whole regarding the state of the Church prior to the Reformation, including but not limited to (1) the continuity of the Reformers with previous tradition, (2) their knowledge of and creative interaction with issues our standard Manuals never mention, and (3) the simply grossly uncharitable sloganeering about other theological viewpoints. These issues remain as legitimate points of discussion regardless of any regrettable flaring up of personal stuff.

As to the above

(1) Anybody who knows Church History understands how much certain early Church fathers influenced the Reformed. The doctrines of the Reformation didn’t jump out of the Reformers heads as Athena jumped out of Zeus’ head. For Tim to suggest that anybody who disagrees with his profundity doesn’t know Church history is just silly. I’m glad to admit the continuity of the Reformers with previous tradition. Is Tim glad to admit the substantial discontinuity of the Reformers with previous tradition?

(2) Tim keeps mentioning his “standard Manuals” without defining which exact books he has in mind. Now, I’m not the Medieval Church Historian that Tim is but I’ve done a great deal of reading that I’m pretty confident extends well beyond Tim’s “standard Manuals.” This “standard manual” line is just a sophisticated way to disparage somebody who doesn’t agree with Tim.

I will continue to insist however that on this point Tim is just plain upset that people haven’t come to the conclusion that he or his favorite authors have come in light of these “non-Standard manuals.” I will repeat, yet again, there is a host of ways to read the Reformation, the theological/philosophical/cultural influences on the Reformers, and what I call the “psycho-history of the Reformation.” For Tim to insist that his reading must be the standard that measures all other readings is just disingenuous.

Still, I’m all for taking on all comers. The Reformation has nothing to fear from Tim’s non-Standard manuals with their speculation about the Reformers psycho-history.

(3) I quite agree that history can’t fit on a postcard. So, I understand Tim’s concern about sloganeering. Still, I won’t apologize to those who are self consciously against jbfa for any sloganeering I involve myself in. The reason that people are so offended by sloganeering so quickly, I suspect, is because the slogan has hit its target.