You may be getting a free Quran on your doorstep

And I disagree he used the gospel.

 

'And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, to that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.' Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising."

He knew their own poets well enough to quote them. Was he wrong to know them?

 

==Since Paul, Peter, and others used the type of approach I am suggesting your assertion here is also false.

==So, you are saying that Paul was not consistant? Paul quoted their own poets to them (Acts 17:28). Clearly when he was walking around he learned about their religious beliefs and what their teachers were telling them (Acts 17:16,23). I am not reading too much into one event, you are ignoring the implications of this event.

==That was what Paul said to the Corinthian church. Clearly, in Acts 17, he learned about the people he was preaching to. Again, your position has Paul contradicting himself. That is one reason I know that something is very wrong with your position.

==How many Muslims have you witnessed to or talked to about the Bible (etc)? What was the outcomes of these discussions? God can use even the most poorly worded attempt at witnessing. However that is no excuse for not being ready to give a defense.

 

==No, I don't. However I am a strong advocate of apologetics and the importance of it in the church. I am also very concerned about the large number of false converts being produced by the easy believism that is so often very apparent in modern churches and missionary efforts. Saying a prayer is nice, but unless one has truly repented and turned to Christ as their Lord no prayer will save them. Therefore I am not impressed by the number of people who say a prayer or sign a card. I am impressed only by the number of people who have been truly converted. The Jesus Film gets a lot of responses and I know it has had more than its share of converts and I praise the Lord for that. The film is not the issue, the issue I have is with missionaries who don't prepare the people who are going to watch the film. People who live in polytheistic cultures can watch the film and add Jesus onto their polytheistic pantheon. That is not true conversion. People have to be told that they must turn away from all of their false idols, all of their false beliefs, and turn totally to Christ as Lord (1Thess 1:9-10). If, during this, people have questions or arguments the missionary/preacher has to know how to handle those questions and arguments. Just like Jesus, Paul, Peter, and others have done. To do that you have to know something about where the people are at. The position of RevMitchell does not allow for that and that is the position I am arguing against.

==So when they ask questions or present arguments based on their beliefs (etc) you don't believe it is necessary to answer those questions or refute those arguments? You just give them the Gospel and then refuse to defend your faith against their false beliefs?

Of course, since I am a strong believer in the doctrines of grace, I know that only the Holy Spirit saves. My position does not counter that. When I look at Scripture I see apologetics all over the place.

==Thats fine, it is your choice. However I am always amazed when the "you have all the answers" type of line is used. I have heard it more times than I can count from all sorts of folks (some orthodox, some heretic). It is like you folks get mad when I, and others, defend our positions and answer your objections. It is like you don't want a reply, only agreement. Well unless/until you say something I agree with you are not going to get that from me. If you want someone who is going to back down and roll over you are wasting your time talking with me. If on the other hand you want a discussion, reply/response, etc, about the different positions, then I am more than happy to have such a debate/discussion.

 

And this would be incorrect.

This is an imposition on this passage. What Paul preached was the resurrection. Seeing an inscription on an idol out in public and quoting on pet does not indicate Paul studied their religion so he could witness to them.

And that defense is to be the word of God. I have spoken with people of varying religions. It is only poorly worded when we use philosophy instead of Scripture.

 

Add to that this Scripture from 1 Peter 3:

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Are we not to put on the whole "armour of God"? (Ephesians 6)

 

Is no one going to condemn Paul for using a pagan poet?

 

I would be very careful about advising Christians to read the Koran. My bible tells me to set no evil thing before my eyes. Maybe some Christians could handle it, but the majority I think would be damaged. It doesn't seem like a very smart thing to do.

 

So you view the Gospel as so weak and uncompelling that the mere reading of a book from a different religion could cause one to stray from Christ? Not a very high opinion of either Christians or The Bible.

 

You are correct on one thing, <edited - LE>. You deny more of the bible than you support. I would counsel you especially not to read the Koran.

 

I wonder what you think, then, of the events at Ephesus. After the Jewish exorcists, who didn't know Jesus but tried to use his name on a possessed man, got beat up by the man, who said "I recognize Jesus and I know about Paul, but who are you?", many who had been practicing sorcery confessed and burned their books in public (Acts 19:18-19).

If the "mere reading of a book of a different religion could cause one to stray from Christ," as you said, were they right or wrong to destroy their pagan magic books?

 

You should first establish if M.P. actually believes that happened, before giving him the stronger meat. Don't want people choking, you know.

 

So how about sticking to the topic rather than slandering my views (which incidentally you know precious little about). So do you in fact, believe the Gospel as so weak to not withstand examination and comparison with the Quran, as your post indicates? Seems you are the one denying the power of God's word.

 

Nice try, M.P.

I think yer about to take a beating, and I've yet to see you stick around when someone brings scripture into a thread, so I'll continue if you want. But I understand if you want to bow out, as well. But I'd be ever so glad to go thru scripture with you, and see how much you really do know, and how much you really do believe.

 

I don't have a high opinion of a lot of folks who call themselves Christians. But you put words in my mouth that were not there, and that is a very poor trait for folks who say they want honest debate. I clearly did not say the bible was weak, I said the problem is weak Christians. And my cure for that is more scripture, not the little green book of lies.

I allready know how you feel about biblical Christians, your posting history tells plenty. But you shouldn't resort to dishonesty, just for the purpose of making folks look bad.

 

So in typical fashion, you attempt a derail and go with a pesonal crusade rather than answer a simple question about your own comment. Why do I ever think you will engage in rational dialogue?

 

You did no such thing. You put words in my mouth. My post did not say what you said it did.

Putting words in people's mouths is not rational dialogue, MP. But it is very "typical fashion" for you.