Featured Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriages

That's not according to my logic. my logic says, if you in humbleness , humility and love are trying to point someone to Christ, why throw the stumbling block of being confrontational into the mix? People , in general, shut down and will not listen to you if they feel attacked.

As I've said many times before, folks in the evangelical church have pet sins. And using one of those pet sins as a singular starting point to convince someone they are a sinner becomes more about us winning an argument than it does convincing them they are sinners.

God draws people unto Himself. The Holy Spirit convicts. You're not convincing anyone.

Don't you think it would be a bit easier to show them they are a sinner by showing them that they've committed the same sins as practically every other person in the world? Don't you think it would be easier to show someone that they have , for instance, told a lie, than it would be to convince them that homosexual sex is a sin?

Are you trying to point them to Christ or win a political argument?

Try branding people and making them feel like one particular sin is worse than all others and see how effective you are in pointing them to Christ.

The witnessing of the Gospel should be relational. and the easiest way to make someone understand what you're trying to say when witnessing Christ is to put them on COMMON GROUND with you. You don't stick them on an isolated island of "the worst" sin.

You've told a lie. And you know that they have told lies. WOW. That makes them a sinner worthy of eternal separation from a HOLY God.

Why would something like homosexual sex even enter the topic of discussion? When people focus on these pet sins, it's because they are trying to win an argument and not trying to "win a soul" for Christ.

You ever wonder why avowed atheists, homosexuals, etc will ask Christians what they think about these things? It's because they want to argue. They aren't trying to understand. They are trying to win an argument.

And the church shouldn't fall into the same trap of framing the conversation around pet sins.

Stop being silly and expressing an opinion about my logic which you are obviously incorrect about. :laugh:

Read the rest of my response. Who in their right mind would start with homosexuality? That's about arguing and winning. It's not about pointing anyone to CHrist. There are much easier approaches to do that if that is your intent.

 

I don't understand the denial of professing Christians.

Yes it does have a standing. He will judge that state.

 

This is a good point. Maybe I am incorrect here, and anyone can feel free to correct me, but, with the exception for the preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost, I don't recall any instances of conversions that started with confronting people about their sin.

 

Teaching notes for a quarterly, text is Genesis 18 & 19

"The sin of Sodom: The text does not explicitly state the sin that brought God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah; in fact, the Bible does not imply that a particular sin brought this destruction. It seems reasonable that these people sinned in many ways.

Isaiah 3:8-9 says that their speech and deeds are against the Lord. This may refer to blasphemy and acts of deliberate defiance of God. Jeremiah 23:14 indicates that the cities of the plain were guilty of adultery, lying, and injustice. In addition, the prophet Ezekiel (16:49) outlined a number of Sodom’s transgressions: pride, gluttony, luxurious living, and oppression of the poor. These lists do not overlap in their accusations; therefore, we must conclude that city was guilty of a broad range of sins.

Traditionally, many Jewish and Christian commentators have concluded that homosexuality was at the heart of Sodom’s wickedness. Genesis Nineteen gives some indication of sexual sin in Sodom."

More here

 

People need to know why they need Jesus. People need to know just exactly what the cross means and why Jesus blood had to be shed. You cannot deal with those issues unless you discuss the sin of men. It is just not possible.

 

Aside from the sermon that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, is there an instance in the New Testament that you can point to that validates this? I can't recall an instance where Paul was speaking about the requirements of salvation where he said you had to believe you are a sinner.

I am not doubting you on this, but I would like to see some proof.

 

Well I do not know what gospel message you are preaching but the one of the bible certainly does. You cannot get to the death and shed blood of Christ without talking about why He shed his blood and died.

Paul said that the law is not what saves us but it is what shows us that we are sinners (Romans 3:20)

In contrast to salvation being a free gift Paul wrote that the wage of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)

Jesus Himself told people to repent, Peter said to repent in Acts 2 & 3.

Paul preached repentance in Acts 8, 17 and 26.


However, what Peter preached on the day of pentecost is evidence enough.

 

You have proved my point, next time you should check your references before posting. Acts 8 doesn't even have Paul in it.

Are you this friendly to the people you talk to face to face? /sarcasm

 

Never mind I will just add you to my list.