Brent #fundie

Brent #fundie christianforums.com

I would say 95% of Christians "tone down" the Gospel on a regular basis in order to avoid "offending" people. We cringe at the thought of sounding "intolerant." Some people claim we must water down the Gospel in order to draw in the unbelievers. That is to say, if we preach the Bible, they'll be "turned off." Here is my response to such heresy:

If we water down the Gospel in order to draw people into Christianity, it won't be Christianity anymore. It will be another gospel, and those people we "draw in" will be deceived by our false gospel, and will surely be condemned as a result.

Do we want to be responsible for such a thing?

Why not preach the truth boldly, and leave the rest to the sovereign God?

Why do we avoid preaching about the Judgement and the Lake of Fire when such events/places are BIBLICAL FACT?

IF WE REALLY LOVE UNBELIEVERS AS WE CLAIM TO, IS IT NOT OUR OBLIGATION TO WARN THEM ABOUT HELL?

59 comments

old comment by Sandman

Well. most Christians avoid "preaching the Judgement and the Lake of Fire" because sometime around 1500 AD they figured out that you can't really frighten people into faith and belief. You can only frighten them in to submission to secular authorities and behavioral patterns, and those aren't the same as "faith."
No one ever converted to Chrtistianity out of fear of Hell and damnation; they convert because they see some hope for something better for their lives than what they currently have, they convert out of a sense of something greater than themselves, something beyond the mundane. No one has ever believed out of fear, not truly believed. Most Christians realized that 500 years ago, why haven't you?

old comment by Tain

I don't know. I think this is fundy, but, as an atheist, I can't see how other stances can be intellectually honest. If, indeed, hell were fact; refraining from preaching about it would be a terribly immoral act. The true flaw in this statement is that it disregards the possibility for an accurate interpretation of the bible without coming to the same conclusion that this person has reached. I'd prefer someone babble like this, then make up stories that make me wonder how many people belong in mental institutions or something, and instead wind up in church. (example: that Samaritan story a few quotes ago, with the reference to Satan as a "bitch")
As others have mentioned, the big plus here is that next to no one would follow the most strict interpretation of the bible (no possessions, constant preaching, constant prayer/praising, adhereing to a ridiculous number of ancient laws, and a life of total submission to parent/husband/preacher/god, with no freedoms of pretty much any kind.)

old comment by Matilde

In fact, it´s the other way round. The first Christians, missionaries and the 95% of people you mention have one thing in common. They understand that you´re not going to convert people by warning them about a hell they don´t believe in. Moreover, the psychological picture that one gives to them after that is not convincing. Hell is a product of the Middle Ages and some of the Jesuists and protestant ministers who, sure that their flock was 100% Christian, preached a punishment that was effective as coercive measure. But I insist, if they had to convert people from other religion, that wouldn´t be the method. People who convert to Christianity were never afraid of going to a place they didn´t believe in. They either tell that they wanted something more or that religion helped them in a tricky situation. Just because you think that people believe in God but they pretend, doesn´t mean that it´s necessarily true. Moreover, they have the sensation that it´s you who is interested in their conversion for your own sake, not theirs.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"I would say 95% of Christians "tone down" the Gospel on a regular basis in order to avoid "offending" people. We cringe at the thought of sounding "intolerant." Some people claim we must water down the Gospel in order to draw in the unbelievers. That is to say, if we preach the Bible, they'll be "turned off." Here is my response to such heresy:

(emphasis added):

'I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son'

- CS Lewis. A Christian.

"IF WE REALLY LOVE UNBELIEVERS AS WE CLAIM TO, IS IT NOT OUR OBLIGATION TO WARN THEM ABOUT HELL?"

image

Two words: Prove it.

Using the Bible to prove itself is invalid. Therefore everything you say is invalid.

...oh, and:

image

"Why not preach the truth boldly, and leave the rest to the sovereign God?"

Or 'Why not leave God to preach his truth boldly.' - Fixed?

...oh yes, that's right. He can't And why? As a comedian once said (emphasis added):

'If God is the most powerful being in the universe, why does he have a bunch of bozos to do his P.R.?

Yep. That's being 'Omnipotent', all right. [/hyper-sarcasm]

Brent #fundie christianforums.com

59 comments

Confused?