Halloween Street Preaching

[Willie T]

In John 17 true believers are said to be in the world but not of it.



I think that the Cross stands as a kind of "in-your-face" event in history; whether anyone is sent to preach about it or not.

It stands in history as something that we cannot ignore.

Even those who reject it have emotions about it.

No one can be indifferent about this event in world history; it stands as an event that breeds either loyalty or hatred.

So, you felt hatred for God before you became a Christian? In other words, if someone had asked you, you would have said "Yes, I hate Him, and I will scream at anyone I see preaching anywhere near me!" (You DID give just two choices.)

This is just another of the obvious ways we totally misunderstand the Bible's use of the word.

 

[Nancy]

I could possibly see a little of that in personal conversations with another. But, abusively screaming at total strangers they know nothing about and have never laid eyes on before? Nah...… I think they are just out to satisfy a desire they themselves probably don't even understand.

"to satisfy a desire they themselves probably don't even understand."

I thought if this too Willie. God knows their hearts, their motives...but I still do not see this as effective "witnessing"

 

[justbyfaith]

So, you felt hatred for God before you became a Christian? In other words, if someone had asked you, you would have said "Yes, I hate Him, and I will scream at anyone I see preaching anywhere near me!" (You DID give just two choices.)

This is just another of the obvious ways we totally misunderstand the Bible's use of the word.

I know that when it was effectively preached to me, the person preaching recognized that there would be a rejection in my heart concerning what he was saying; and he addressed it, so that I said to him, "no, that is not the case". But of course I was in denial of the truth of the matter, that I really was offended by what he was saying; but I received it because of the reverse psychology; in which he said that the natural response was to have an adverse reaction: but in order that I might continue to consider myself a good person, I told myself and him that I was receptive to what he was saying to me. I did in fact receive the message in order that I might continue to consider myself to be a good person. But I know that in my heart I was offended by what was spoken and would have in fact hated the messenger if he had not mentioned that that is the reaction the Bible says people will normally have. In order to reject what was spoken I had to receive it.

 

[Willie T]

I know that when it was effectively preached to me, the person preaching recognized that there would be a rejection in my heart concerning what he was saying; and he addressed it, so that I said to him, "no, that is not the case". But of course I was in denial of the truth of the matter, that I really was offended by what he was saying; but I received it because of the reverse psychology; in which he said that the natural response was to have an adverse reaction: but in order that I might continue to consider myself a good person, I told myself and him that I was receptive to what he was saying to me. I did in fact receive the message in order that I might continue to consider myself to be a good person. But I know that in my heart I was offended by what was spoken and would have in fact hated the messenger if he had not mentioned that that is the reaction the Bible says people will normally have. In order to reject what was spoken I had to receive it.

The two of you had a conversation together?

 

[justbyfaith]

The two of you had a conversation together?

No; the person who was preaching to me at the time of my conversion; not the people on the video.

 

[prism]

not sure how fair that is vis a forum? Do you mean in situ, or here?

I wouldn't know of 'here' so I'll vote situ. I have been 'there'.

 

[bbyrd009]

In John 17 true believers are said to be in the world but not of it

sure, but thats a um pretty amorphous def, yeh? I mean who here doesnt feel like an alien, raise em up lol

 

[bbyrd009]

I think that the Cross stands as a kind of "in-your-face" event in history; whether anyone is sent to preach about it or not.

i dunno about this translation "preach" tbh, esp the way we define that now? I'm more of a Proclaimer myself. And i go out of my way to not use religious language--ha or any language for that matter--to do my proclaiming now, tbh. And i notice ppl ask me now, v when i preached.

It stands in history as something that we cannot ignore.

well of course i dont suggest anyone ignore the event jbf, but imo we are a Codependent Nation now, and we are easily drawn into codependence rather than service imo, preaching rather than proclaiming imo. See even "preaching" i usually go somewhere specifically for that? Frankly i have more respect for Two Guys knocking on my front door lol, at least they are just asking

 

[bbyrd009]

So, you felt hatred for God before you became a Christian? In other words, if someone had asked you, you would have said "Yes, I hate Him, and I will scream at anyone I see preaching anywhere near me!" (You DID give just two choices.)

This is just another of the obvious ways we totally misunderstand the Bible's use of the word.

funny you mention hatred for God, thats something i only recently was led to admit and begin dealing with. Of course there is a sense in which we all "hate" God so to speak, imo anyway. And the louder someone um proclaims that they love God, the easier it is to witness them hating God too imo, usually

btw are you still actively pastoring? ty

 

[Willie T]

funny you mention hatred for God, thats something i only recently was led to admit and begin dealing with. Of course there is a sense in which we all "hate" God so to speak, imo anyway. And the louder someone um proclaims that they love God, the easier it is to witness them hating God too imo, usually

btw are you still actively pastoring? ty

Why would you think someone as blunt and direct as me was a Pastor? I worked with the courts, through a local Psychologist, facilitating Sex Offender classes for 24 years, and I have 12 years of formal and informal Bible School, but I am not your typical sweet-mouthed Pastor material, at all.

 

[Marymog]

Such a thing wouldn't bother me in the slightest; because Catholic doctrine (such as ex-cathedra statements by the pope) does not have the word to back it up. I would not at all feel convicted by statements that are not backed up by the word of the Lord...you could scream at the top of your lungs and I would simply disregard what you are saying because it is not biblical.

Hi justbyfaith,

Sooooo according to your theory Catholic doctrine does not have the word of the Lord to back it up because Catholic doctrine is not biblical.

Is your doctrine backed up by the word of the Lord and biblical?

Mary

 

[justbyfaith]

And i go out of my way to not use religious language--ha or any language for that matter--to do my proclaiming now, tbh.

2Ti 1:13, Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

well of course i dont suggest anyone ignore the event jbf, but imo we are a Codependent Nation now, and we are easily drawn into codependence rather than service imo, preaching rather than proclaiming imo.

1Co 1:21, For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Tit 1:2, In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Tit 1:3, But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

Is your doctrine backed up by the word of the Lord and biblical?

I try not to say anything that isn't pure exegesis from the word of the Lord.

 

[Marymog]

I try not to say anything that isn't pure exegesis from the word of the Lord.

Hi JBF,

Soooo you really don't know if what you say is backed up by the word of the Lord and biblical?

I appreciate your honesty.

Since you really don't know for sure that what you are saying is pure exegesis from the word of the lord how can you know that the CC's doctrine is not backed up by the word of the Lord and biblical?

Mary

 

[justbyfaith]

Hi JBF,

Soooo you really don't know if what you say is backed up by the word of the Lord and biblical?

I do know that it is for the most part...for I endeavor towards sound doctrine.

Since you really don't know for sure that what you are saying is pure exegesis from the word of the lord how can you know that the CC's doctrine is not backed up by the word of the Lord and biblical?

The CC's doctrine specifically states that the pope's ex-cathedra statements (and certain doctrines of the church) are more authoritative than the Bible itself...and this would never be backed up by the Bible....since the Bible teaches that it is the final authority on every subject...2 Timothy 3:16.

 

[Marymog]

The CC's doctrine specifically states that the pope's ex-cathedra statements (and certain doctrines of the church) are more authoritative than the Bible itself...and this would never be backed up by the Bible....since the Bible teaches that it is the final authority on every subject...2 Timothy 3:16.

Hi JBF,

An ex-cathedra statement is an infallible teaching. Do you have anything that you teach, preach, practice etc that is infallible?

Can you show me a writing from the CC that says that the "Popes ex-cathedra statements (and certain doctrines of the church) are more authoritative than the Bible itself"?

How many "ex-cathedra statements" have been made by the Popes and what are they?

I agree with you that Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It does not say it is the final authority. The fact is Jesus said to his Apostles whatever they bind/loosen on earth will be bound/loosened in heaven. Did that practice end with them? In other words who on earth NOW has the final authority to decide what is authoritive and true doctrine?

 

[bbyrd009]

1Co 1:21, For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Tit 1:2, In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Tit 1:3, But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

also excellent places to see Proclaiming revealed instead of preaching, imo;
"foolishness of preaching" does not even fit our def of "preaching" now yeh?

I try not to say anything that isn't pure exegesis from the word of the Lord.

by which you still mean Scripture i guess right? So, what happens, see, is we read some Scripture and then exegesize from our understanding of It, while we say "i try not to say anything that isnt pure exegesis from the Word," which wadr (obv, as no example of Word can be Quoted that is not in close, very close proximity to the words hear or heard) which is not, exactly, the same thing, not saying they arent closely related or that one could not even extract some Word from Scripture--after they have heard it.

So, for an example, if you would exegesize "Easter" for me, and then exegesize
he who seeks to save his soul shall lose it if you would ty

 

[Heavenbound]

The light of the Word of God exposes the darkness of night in these days of Sodom and Gomorrah. Please pray for all the soldiers of the Cross on the front lines of battle in these wicked times. The days of fence-sitting are over; you're either going to gather with Jesus or you're going to scatter abroad just as satan wants.

Dark days these are friend. Everyone of us have duty to be on the front lines. As in the days of Noah...

 

[justbyfaith]

Can you show me a writing from the CC that says that the "Popes ex-cathedra statements (and certain doctrines of the church) are more authoritative than the Bible itself"?

So, are you saying that the Catholic Church does not teach this?

That's news to me...

And it takes away every reason we might have for division between Catholicism and Protestantism.

For the standard of Protestantism has been the concept of sola scriptura...

And if the Catholic Church now subscribes to this, they have come over to become like the Protestants and we can now come to unity over the teaching of God's word.

 

[justbyfaith]

So, for an example, if you would exegesize "Easter" for me, and then exegesize
he who seeks to save his soul shall lose it if you would ty

I don't have a teaching on these subjects at this moment.

 

[epostle]

Hi JBF,

An ex-cathedra statement is an infallible teaching. Do you have anything that you teach, preach, practice etc that is infallible?

Can you show me a writing from the CC that says that the "Popes ex-cathedra statements (and certain doctrines of the church) are more authoritative than the Bible itself"?

How many "ex-cathedra statements" have been made by the Popes and what are they?

I agree with you that Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It does not say it is the final authority. The fact is Jesus said to his Apostles whatever they bind/loosen on earth will be bound/loosened in heaven. Did that practice end with them? In other words who on earth NOW has the final authority to decide what is authoritive and true doctrine?

Hi JBF,

An ex-cathedra statement is an infallible teaching. Do you have anything that you teach, preach, practice etc that is infallible?

Can you show me a writing from the CC that says that the "Popes ex-cathedra statements (and certain doctrines of the church) are more authoritative than the Bible itself"?

How many "ex-cathedra statements" have been made by the Popes and what are they?

I agree with you that Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It does not say it is the final authority. The fact is Jesus said to his Apostles whatever they bind/loosen on earth will be bound/loosened in heaven. Did that practice end with them? In other words who on earth NOW has the final authority to decide what is authoritive and true doctrine?

Hi Marymog,
It's possible to explain "ex Cathedra" in biblical terms that a sola scripturist would accept, but it is impossible to explain infallibility. That is because they stick to an invincible myth that blinds them from the true meaning of infallibility. The only definition they know is not in the Bible. You may as well use Chinese text.

Marymog said:​

Can you show me a writing from the CC that says that the "Popes ex-cathedra statements (and certain doctrines of the church) are more authoritative than the Bible itself"?​

So, are you saying that the Catholic Church does not teach this?
That's news to me...

And it takes away every reason we might have for division between Catholicism and Protestantism.
For the standard of Protestantism has been the concept of sola scriptura...
And if the Catholic Church now subscribes to this, they have come over to become like the Protestants and we can now come to unity over the teaching of God's word.

It’s not a matter of one thing being “more authoritative” than the other. All of that is the invention of the 16th century and the biblically bankrupt and meaningless notion of sola Scriptura. The Bible presents Scripture-Tradition-Church as a “three-legged stool”: the rule of faith. All are in harmony; all work together. The notion that Church teachings are more authoritive the Bible is a man made Protestant tradition.

The Authority of Scripture is a Sacred Tradition of the historical indestructible Church that has never changed this. They compliment each other. Without the tradition of the Episcopate, you wouldn't have a Bible in the first place. So the sola scripturist is forced to put the tradition of the Biblical episcopate down at every opportunity, and ignore the well documented evidence written before the books of the Bible were finally ratified. (Ante-Nicene Fathers) They have to make up their own history in order to survive.
Worse, they dream up Bible origin fantasies in order to get around the Authority of Tradition. To make matters even worse, they spin "Tradition" to be a dirty word. Sometimes they think that bad traditions defines all tradition. The discussion goes in circles, peppered with derailments in a 1000 pages of going nowhere.

It's not enough to say this verse or that verse proves "...the sole rule of faith". What has to be proven, by scripture alone, that the authority of Tradition (properly understood), and the teaching authority of the Church (both in harmony with Scripture) is not needed as a rule of faith, or won't be needed at some future point, or is somehow above scripture. Followed by the endless process of reinventing the wheel.

The Biblical Rule of Faith