Wisdom In Witnessing (or the lack thereof)

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

It doesn't have to be done by me or EXACTLY like I would do it to be accepted.

I agree. It is CCI who is limiting what God will do through someone.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by CC1

Michael, if you think what I described is an effective way of witnessing I feel sorry for you and believe you are perhaps confusing old testament judges and prophets with the New Testament ministry.

While Jesus and the Apostles were bold in their preaching they did not engage in this type behavior.

Just because a man has a beer in his hand does mean he is a drunk as this "christian" stated. The "christian" also had no way of knowing that mans status with God and called him "a sinner".

Well I have witnessed enough to know that at least GENERALLY if the man he addressed indeed WAS a child of God he would have spoke up and identified himself as such.

I don't know how you witness but I know that unless one understands he is a sinner he cannot be saved. Most of us are a bit uncomfortable to press home that truth to other people especially to those who know nothing or very little of scripture.

How do you know what kind of behavior Christ engaged in while witnessing? He seems like he was FAR and I do mean FAR more bold than men today.

He told people they would burn in Hell if they lust after women in their hearts!

He told people if they hate not their Father, Mother, Brothers and Sisters even their own lives they could not be his disciple!

He told men they would give an account to him for every idle word they ever spoke!

He said men hated him because he testified to them their works were evil! On and on it goes.

The Church members of today are offended in the Christ of the Bible. Its no wonder they do not witness. They by and large know him not.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by CC1

Michael, if you think what I described is an effective way of witnessing I feel sorry for you and believe you are perhaps confusing old testament judges and prophets with the New Testament ministry.

While Jesus and the Apostles were bold in their preaching they did not engage in this type behavior.

Just because a man has a beer in his hand does mean he is a drunk as this "christian" stated. The "christian" also had no way of knowing that mans status with God and called him "a sinner".

Really?

Nonetheless I agree with the point you are trying to make there. I have a bottle of wine in the Frig here.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Really?

Nonetheless I agree with the point you are trying to make there. I have a bottle of wine in the Frig here.

LOL!! Thanks for pointing out I left out the word "not". I have gone back and edited my post.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by CC1

Michael, if you think what I described is an effective way of witnessing I feel sorry for you and believe you are perhaps confusing old testament judges and prophets with the New Testament ministry.

While Jesus and the Apostles were bold in their preaching they did not engage in this type behavior.

Just because a man has a beer in his hand does not mean he is a drunk as this "christian" stated. The "christian" also had no way of knowing that mans status with God and called him "a sinner".

I would say the beer in the hand was a pretty good indication of the mans status with God.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Luke

I would say the beer in the hand was a pretty good indication of the mans status with God.

Do you believe the fact that he had a beer meant he was "a drunk"? If so then your response along with a couple of others on this threads makes me think old time Pentecost is even worse off than I previously thought.

A person can drink alcohol and not be a "drunk". It was not this "christian's" place to make that judgement. I can tell you that the man was clearly not inebriated. he was a 60ish man who was not loud, obnoxious, or anything else. He was just walking and talking quietly with two friends (he was directly ahead of us) when this so called chrisitian started his schtick.

You guys act like this "christian" encountered an obviously drunk man and I am upset at that. That is not the case at all.

If you agree with this method of witnessing your kind are doomed to remain a relatively tiny religious sect who does as much harm to the gospel message as satan does.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by CC1

Do you believe the fact that he had a beer meant he was "a drunk"? If so then your response along with a couple of others on this threads makes me think old time Pentecost is even worse off than I previously thought.

A person can drink alcohol and not be a "drunk". It was not this "christian's" place to make that judgement. I can tell you that the man was clearly not inebriated. he was a 60ish man who was not loud, obnoxious, or anything else. He was just walking and talking quietly with two friends (he was directly ahead of us) when this so called chrisitian started his schtick.

You guys act like this "christian" encountered an obviously drunk man and I am upset at that. That is not the case at all.

If you agree with this method of witnessing your kind are doomed to remain a relatively tiny religious sect who does as much harm to the gospel message as satan does.

A couple of Fred Phelps can do as much damage as a ten thousand ACLU lawyers.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by CC1

Do you believe the fact that he had a beer meant he was "a drunk"? If so then your response along with a couple of others on this threads makes me think old time Pentecost is even worse off than I previously thought.

A person can drink alcohol and not be a "drunk". It was not this "christian's" place to make that judgement. I can tell you that the man was clearly not inebriated. he was a 60ish man who was not loud, obnoxious, or anything else. He was just walking and talking quietly with two friends (he was directly ahead of us) when this so called chrisitian started his schtick.

You guys act like this "christian" encountered an obviously drunk man and I am upset at that. That is not the case at all.

If you agree with this method of witnessing your kind are doomed to remain a relatively tiny religious sect who does as much harm to the gospel message as satan does.

I never said that the man was a drunk I simply stated that if he was drinking beer that was a pretty good sign as to his salvation or lack there of.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Luke

I never said that the man was a drunk I simply stated that if he was drinking beer that was a pretty good sign as to his salvation or lack there of.

Only in the U.S.A.

[CC1]

I stand by what I said that if any of you think what I described is a good way to witness you are warped.

Of course you witness with truth but you don't do it by assuming facts not known and not in an offensive manner.

Now if a man was clearly drunk I would have no problem identifying him as such and talking to him honestly and directly about it. But to assume that a man walking to a ball game drinking a beer is a drunk and telling him that he is one is absurd and not christian in any way shape or form.

Likewise assuming a man is a sinner without knowing him is not right. Michaels come back that he would have identified himself as a christian is also absurd. I listened to this moron and just shook my head in dismay. I certainly didn't feel a need to enlighten him that I am a christian. He was so judgmental my proclamation would have probably meant nothing to him anyway.