Evangelism Gone Wild

2 Responses

  1. Tucker Dean
    Tucker Dean February 21, 2013 at 1:48 am | | Reply

    The “Great Commission” (Mat 28:19-20) constitutes one of the most common misinterpretations of scripture in Evangelical Christian circles today. The Commission was given to the Apostles, who were to go make disciples of all nations, something they fulfilled. Unless we have the spiritual gift of evangelism, our calling is not to tell everybody we meet about the Gospel. We are to be salt and light within the institutions of society, transforming them from within. Our focus should be on our own sanctification (1 Thes 4:3), not the salvation of every sinner we know, and certainly not on evangelizing far-off lands when our own country is falling apart and rotting at the core. Here is the a web-site with the Calvinist interpretation of the “Great Commission:” http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/greatcomm.htm

  2. W.M. Godfrey
    W.M. Godfrey February 21, 2013 at 4:33 pm | | Reply

    Leave it to a Baptist (no matter how “Calvinistic”) to instruct his flock to lie supine before the godless state, no matter the consequences. Christ’s instruction on living by the sword and dying by the sword doesn’t mean that it’s un-Christian to sometimes do both, where necessary. It’s a statement of fact by Christ. A spiritual law. Not a condemnation of occasionally necessary force.

    Let’s say that God’s ordained and duly “elected” civil authority the “state” promulgates a “lawful” directive that children must be turned over to them for state-sponsored child prostitution service. This is their “national” service. Do I have the right to resist the kidnapping of my child by force in this instance? If I have no weapons, how will I do this? Who should we obey, God or Man? Piper says man. Kinists say God. As much as I dislike G. North’s economics and social views, at least he performed a neat reductio ad absurdum on pacifism.

    If the bearing of swords is in itself a sin, how could Christ direct his disciples to buy and possess them, thus sinning, even though it was only in fulfillment of prophecy? Christ could have been numbered among transgressors without the presence of the swords. He was already anyway. Obviously the swords were not to prevent Christ’s arrest, which was necessary that the prophecy be fulfilled. The swords were necessary to ensure the *escape* of the disciples who held them, that they not get caught up in the net as well, and thus to also fulfill the prophecy.This idea that nothing anywhere in the bible can be taken as a general principle is maddening. God ordained the utter destruction of Amalek, but, of course, war is forbidden. On and on. Everything is spiritualized away into nonsense and self-contradiction. Psalm 144:1? Gone. Temporized out of existence. Only that which an evangelical pastor SAYS can be taken as a general principle can be so taken. They need to tell us which parts of the Bible we can read, so that we don’t bump up against those thorny parts. Smack of clericalism, sacerdotalism?

    North’s position on turning the other cheek makes more sense, in that it was used a means for Christians to avoid public scandal or arrest in situations of public altercation, and to stand as an example of peacemaking, and not as a principle of total pacifism. The Apostle Paul tells us *where possible* to be at peace with all men. Obviously some men make this impossible.

Leave a Reply