Christians Converting Christians to Christianity
From 1983-85 I worked in electronics with a Bob Jones University ministerial graduate who was getting support for the mission field. His country of choice was the Pacific nation of Guam; a country where over 90% of the population is Roman Catholic or, as he put it: Over 90% are lost.
The excerpts below are from several of his news letters to his mission board and supporting churches. In them he shares a few of the burdens the Lord has laid on his heart to win the Catholic false religionist to Christ:
“We have almost finished another door-by-door visit through the village of Agat. Many of the doors are posted with Catholic signs that clearly state that they are not interested in any other “religion”. Never the less we keep sowing, praying and watering and trust the Lord of the harvest to bring forth fruit. We are very thankful for those that He has brought in and rescued from the religion that the devil has used to blind their eyes. Our old folks’ home ministry is also still going well. God keeps the door open though we preach strong doctrinal messages that contradict the predominant religion of the residents. A few have professed faith in Jesus Christ.”
“That village is on the southern tip of Guam and has about 2,000 folks living there. Please pray that the hearts of the folks will be receptive to the gospel since it is very strong Catholic. During the meeting there was one soul saved. In the past month one of our members had the blessing of leading a niece to the Lord and a daughter to confirm her salvation.”
“I am sad to report that a Catholic lady Doris and I had witnessed to many times over the past five to six years went into eternity last week and to our knowledge she had not been saved. What a price to pay to be loyal to a false religion!”
The excerpts below are from several of his news letters to his mission board and supporting churches. In them he shares a few of the burdens the Lord has laid on his heart to win the Catholic false religionist to Christ:
“We have almost finished another door-by-door visit through the village of Agat. Many of the doors are posted with Catholic signs that clearly state that they are not interested in any other “religion”. Never the less we keep sowing, praying and watering and trust the Lord of the harvest to bring forth fruit. We are very thankful for those that He has brought in and rescued from the religion that the devil has used to blind their eyes. Our old folks’ home ministry is also still going well. God keeps the door open though we preach strong doctrinal messages that contradict the predominant religion of the residents. A few have professed faith in Jesus Christ.”
“That village is on the southern tip of Guam and has about 2,000 folks living there. Please pray that the hearts of the folks will be receptive to the gospel since it is very strong Catholic. During the meeting there was one soul saved. In the past month one of our members had the blessing of leading a niece to the Lord and a daughter to confirm her salvation.”
“I am sad to report that a Catholic lady Doris and I had witnessed to many times over the past five to six years went into eternity last week and to our knowledge she had not been saved. What a price to pay to be loyal to a false religion!”
29 comments:
The christian vs catholic issue is something that I will never understnad.
It would seem that according to the missionary in the post, God doesn't care about our love or faithfulness as much as he requires we get every detail of our doctrine absolutely correct.
"to our knowledge she had not been saved."
Did they check?
Actually to an atheist he/she should not waste the time pondering the christian vs catholic thing. Instead he/she should devout his/her time debating whether God exist or not. As a christian I see this disagreement between catholics and protestant an internal one. Of course it is not closed to outsiders but we certainly agree at some things and disagree on others. Truly it is disappointing but this should never be a point of rejection of God. It is a human nature to disagree and it all started there right after the advent of chrsitianity and Christ predicted it.
>> MARC: The christian vs catholic issue is something that I will never understnad.
Would you like to understand? It is pretty simple. The whole reason that Protestants broke away from the Catholic church is that they had devolved their definition of what it means to be a Christian AWAY from the Biblical definition.
So rather than define a Christian as someone is justified before God if they (1) believe that Jesus died for them, (2) rose again to prove it and (3) become a Christian through personal invitation of Christ into their hearts to change them (be 'born again' as Jesus said in John 3, the Catholics devised a system where you had to (1) belong to the Catholic Church, (2) be baptized, (3) do good works, (4) pay indulgences, and (5) take the sacraments in order to be clean.
This 'religion of works' and ritual is certainly false as per Pauline doctrine, which is why it is correct to consider many Catholics, not to mention Mormons, Adventists, JW's, and mainline denominational members as yet to be converted to real belief in Christ, rather than the false illusions of faith embodied in mental assent, cultural membership, and faith in one's own piety.
I am certain that some, perhaps many Catholics, Mormons, etc. DO have a saving faith, but that is often DESPITE the doctrines of their churches, not because of. These people often DO need to be evangelized. This is why, for example, many many people in Latin American countries are leaving Catholicism for Pentecostalism - because they are becoming genuine Christians instead of cultural ones.
Daniel and Edson, I'm curious.
How many Christians that meet your definitions of the word "Christian" do you estimate there are in the world?
Through most of my ministry years I considered Catholics, and many non-Baptists as unsaved. That's why we would go into towns with ten Churches, 4 thousand people, and start another Church. The community needed a TRUE Church. :)
Things got easier when I came to the place where I viewed everyone who claimed the name as one indeed.
Today it is much much easier.........hey each to their own. :)
John, I as curious... have you ever done a "best of" post on DC? A sort of shortened version of the "DC challenge", with articles/blog posts instead of books for Christians without a lot of time to take the challenge?
Off the top of my head, evangelicalism would include most from bible-teaching denominations and non-denominational churches. So that would include:
- Baptists
- Pentecostals and Charismatics
- Non-denominational Churches
As well as a smaller fraction of believers from more doctrinally compromised / cultural churches like
- the RCC
- Episcopal / Anglican
- most mainline Protestant churches, though their numbers may be higher than the RCC (Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian)
And an even smaller fraction from seriously doctrinally compromised organizations like:
- LDS
- JW's
- Adventists
So if you look at, for instance the estimated 699 million protestants in the world, I might guess that 50-75% are actually believers (that may be high), while the number among the moderately compromised might be lower - say 25-40%. But those are just SWAGs, based on my observation of the clarity of their preaching the gospel.
jbierly, I haven't done anything in a while but I did post once on the best of DC so far, and there are several to be found in the FAQ Sheet. I'm also keeping track of posts specifically related to defending my bookEnjoy.
>> EVAN: How many Christians that meet your definitions of the word "Christian" do you estimate there are in the world?
Evan, I also wanted to address the sort of 'trap' that such a question can pose.
There are two extremes here - being so narrow in your definition that you are basically drawing the line just around yourself. This is what many cults do.
The other extreme is to make your definition so broad that it means nothing, or is at best seriously contradictory.
The trap is, for those who draw the line inbetween, which I think is intellectually proper, they run the risk of being called cultish (and therefore wrong), or at least self-serving and arrogant (and therefore wrong).
But I think the common sense approach is to set a minimum set of criteria (often called 'the essentials of faith'), and allow diversity in the non-essentials, hence the saying:
In the essentials, UNITY
In the non-essentials, LIBERTY
In all things, CHARITY
Daniel,
I also have a few questions...
You said the Catholic church was a decision to devolve AWAY from the Biblical definition. However, the definition of what was Biblical was in flux until a group of men decided to "close" the Bible through the process of canonization. For example, Paul's teachings heavily influenced the definition of Christianity despite never having met Jesus in person. In fact, Paul quotes from the Bible when there was no New Testament. Yet the decision was made by men to accept his letters as cannon, which changed the definition of "Biblical."
So, my question is, how do you determine when the actions or definitions of one group of men is "cultural" but another group of men is "non-cultural"?
>> SCOTT: However, the definition of what was Biblical was in flux until a group of men decided to "close" the Bible through the process of canonization.
The question is, I guess, WHEN did the RCC begin to drift from the scriptures?
Like most Protestants, I assume that the assembly of the Canon was proper, so that point would be the STARTING point for doctrinal drift.
If you think that the drift occurred beforehand, you are not really a traditional protestant, but some other sort of skeptic.
I am not sure enough of when the drift became aggregious, but by the 1600's, it was bad enough to cause the Protestant rift, and of course, many 'biblical' believers in the previous centuries were killed as heretics, or diffused by spinning them off into monasteries.
>> SCOTT: how do you determine when the actions or definitions of one group of men is "cultural" but another group of men is "non-cultural"?
If you are asking, how do I know that the drift from Jesus' and/or Paul's original teachings did not occur BEFORE the assembly of the Canon, I can only argue that I can at least agree with what I know of their criteria.
Books written by eyewitnesses (save Paul, who is a special case), written in the first (or perhaps early second) century by contemporaries of Jesus, and having common usage and authority in the church of the day.
Such works as the Gospels of Thomas and Judas don't even meet those simple requirements, let alone any doctrinal requirements.
You ask a good question, but I guess all I am saying is that, if, like the reformers, you believe that the Bible is the authority (sola biblia) on what it means to be a Christian, then you CAN determine who meets the 'essential' criteria.
And the fewer 'essential' criteria you have, the more inclusive you will be. But if you have too few, you have so little definition as to lack any discrimination at all.
Daniel, thanks for the response.
Assuming your numbers are correct (estimates vary significantly about the number of evangelicals and yours is on the high side)
I get about:
.5 x .7 billion Evangelicals = .35 billion
.3 x 1.4 billion RC & other = .46 billion
.35 + .46 = .81 billion total real Christians in your estimate.
The majority of true Christians by your estimate are actually in heterodox religions.
So given that fact, why is it so hard to convert them?
Additionally, is God really so hard to please that the majority of people who claim belief in Jesus Christ will actually go to hell? It suggests that being a Christian isn't worth the time it takes, since all it does is give you a worse than coin-flip chance at salvation (again, assuming your numbers).
Danielg, I still like a lot of what I see in churches, but this eternal Hell business is what turned me off to orthodoxy.
This used to bother me a lot, until I realized that there almost is no such thing as a real orthodox Christian. I think they're just pretending to believe every word. Secretly, they're just like me.
My guess is that, as most other Christians are, you are also ashamed to believe the same things that bother me.
For starters, given your definitions, could you make it clear to all that you would like to see Anne Frank in Hell?
In fact, you would like to see all Jews who didn't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior meet with a fate infinitely worse than the Holocaust. Am I right?
Danielg, I followed your link to the Wiki article on the list of denominations.
I used to think all that was terribly, terribly important.
Until I realized that only maybe 1% of the people I met in church had a clue about what other people believed, that they were rejecting.
If I can see it's virtually all a function of bleating and repeating what you've been love-bombed into bleating and repeating, doesn't God see that too?
That's not to say that some things aren't indeed better than others, but I just can't see how people who generally don't read even one non-fiction book on their own in their entire lives (i.e., just like the general population) should be taken seriously, when they declare they've come to "know" the truth.
The idea that one can figure out who is a "true Christian" is absurd, in my opinion. It's something I've had to come to grips with over quite some time. But ultimately, Catholics base their doctrine on their interpretation of scripture. And so do Protestants. In order to judge who is right and who is wrong, one must have some sort of standard to decide whose interpretation is correct - because there is no way to read the Bible and not interpret it in some way. All literature is interpreted by the reader. It's a simple fact of reading.
The only way I can think of to really figure out who has the right interpretation is to find out who has the Holy Spirit (whom, I'm assuming, would lead them to interpret it correctly). But this causes a problem because how does one know who has the Holy Spirit and who just thinks they have him? If only he'd show up like tongues of fire again, we could sort this whole mess out once and for all, but unfortunately he remains invisible. Convenient, isn't it? So I don't see any justifiable way to determine whose interpretation is correct, other than saying, "This person agrees with my own interpretation, therefore they're right."
And that's why the whole discussion of "true" and "false" Christians is absurd.
"Danielg, I still like a lot of what I see in churches, but this eternal Hell business is what turned me off to orthodoxy."
In fact the Hell concept in the Bible is depicted more as a figurative thing which could be interpreted in more than one way. Some see it as a literal fiery hell which is very embarassing to conceptualize while others think it will be eternal death of the soul which means nonexistance. Some like me think it as something that only God knows and that is non of my business and most of my time is used to try to meditate on the mysteriousness of God, the wisdom of God in sending Jesus on earth and God's involvement in world affairs such as politics, science and technology and relationship of the Church and the world. To me these are enough to enjoy God and life of this world without worrying others.
It is true that as humans the idea of caring about others fate in the afterlife occasionally burst up in our minds, but do you know what is my response? God is a loving God and just. I'm fully convinced no one will consider him/herself unjustly treated by God at the day of judgement.
"Here are some tests I couldn't pass, when I tried to see if I was really serious about my own faith," is the way I should say these things.
I just want the good to survive and the bad to go away, and I hope to create my own reality by shaming theologians into telling me what I want to hear. This seems to work better than anything Shirley MacLaine has to say on that, and I'll probably even get to call it orthodox - by simply following the rationalizations of future theologians. ;-)
Jeff, I've forgotten where you stand on this, but the idea that you can't tell a "real" Christian seems to clash with the idea that you can know you're saved.
Just ask people who say they know, and you'll have your definition. Either everybody's in, like they'll tell you, or even you can't really know if you know what's going on. Which is it?
Edson, I don't follow you, either.
Who knows what Hell really is, you say?
I have one definition everyone agrees on: Since you can never, ever, ever, ever deny Jesus, whatever Hell is, it's seen as being worse than any amount of torture - since in practice, every "sincere" Christian is scared shitless of doing such a thing. I've never seen anyone counsel that you should say, "yeah, sure, whatever," when Muslims try to coerce people into converting.
"So and so and his whole family was crippled, blinded, raped, had their tongues torn out, and their limbs amputated, rather than temporarily give in - AND AIN'T IT JUST GLORIOUS???"
No, I think it's messed up. It's only a big deal because of what most people believe would be the alternative.
I wonder what kind of answer someone who's been through such a thing would give to someone who asks, "I denied Jesus to save my daughter's life - do I still have a chance?" A yes answer would mean they unnecessarily sacrificed their own child's.
It always makes me chuckle a bit when Christians tell atheists they must "convert" or "get saved" - as if believing in Jesus were the only criteria for getting into their Heaven. As this blog entry implies, it's much more complicated than that.
The commercial goes something like "repent and believe in Jesus", but then the details come: You should (or should not) speak in tongues, you should (or should not) be a Trinitarian, you should (or should not) tell your sins to a priest, and so forth.
Despite the initial promise that it was all very simple, to the American Christian, all these various permutations of beliefs and ideas reflect whether one has salvation or not. Depart from it one bit and you may as well be sacrificing humans on your front lawn in the middle of a tequila-drinking orgy.
I've read plenty of Protestant blogs with their continual labeling of heretical anyone or anything who doesn't adhere exactly to their own version of faith. "False teachers", "apostates" and "reprobates" are terms that get tossed around frequently, not just against atheists but by Christians against other Christians.
Wow, glad to be back. I've missed you all and am thankful to John for allowing us back on. I will try to adhere to all of DC's rules.
Bruce, good to hear from you.
"Be ye kind one toward another, especially unto those of the household of the faith" The reason the Bible says especially unto those of the household of the faith is because God knew if Christians treated each other well we could bring more people to our faith. Maybe even skeptics?
Christianity has to with you and Christ. Religion has nothing to do with it. There will be people in heaven that never went to church, and a lot of people in hell that went to church every time the doors were open.
I just used this verse on my personal blog, but it seems to fit here. "Religion that God accepts is taking care of widows and orphans." James 1:27
Unfortunately we Christians are our own worst enemy.
Peace out, feeno
"Jeff, I've forgotten where you stand on this, but the idea that you can't tell a "real" Christian seems to clash with the idea that you can know you're saved."
I'm an atheist now, so I don't care whether I can know I'm saved or not. I would say that Christians can't know it, since they have no basis for determining whether they have the correct beliefs to get them into heaven. All they have is their own interpretation of Scripture with no independent justification for whether it is true or false.
"Just ask people who say they know, and you'll have your definition."
Lol, except everyone is convinced that they know. They just have different definitions...
That was my point, Jeff. It makes no sense to me, either!
It seems to depend on the sympathy level. In the abstract, billions are going to Hell. When it comes to individual examples (real people that we can see), almost no one is, because God is just and loving.
I think it's related to a psychological phenomenon that I wish I knew the name for.
More high altitude bombers, although they've probably murdered many more innocents, can sleep at night because they never see their "targets", but many more ground troops are messed up for life, because they have to live with having killed women and children that they could see, even though they probably did it accidentally.
Substitute in "most are going to an eternal, bestial torture" and "but surely not this specific person I know, because God is loving and understands", and I think that explains a hell of a lot!
I'm glad you've got it all together, feeno.
I don't want to shatter most of your faith (only some of it!) -
so what do you think of my challenge questions I posed on the Jews? Do you or do you not want 'em all in Hell? :)
thanks for the links, John! Thanks for enabling comments again, too
ismellarat,you asked "...so what do you think of my challenge questions I posed on the Jews? Do you or do you not want 'em all in Hell?"
Frankly I dont know what you exactly want to know here. Perhaps it is still the same point you asked earlier in the context of failure to comprehend an idea of hell...that what about billions of people out there who are not christians and seemingly even more pious than than so called christians? Are they all going to be burnt in hell?
Perhaps I should answer you with specifics of how I personally think about it. Remember that for any ideal christian his/her faith should be deeply rooted from what is revealed in the bible. Otherwise I am just as any atheist in the sense that "I dont know, I am still blind and the life to me is mystery". It is the bible that tells me there is life and it is the same that tells me there is death. It is the same that tells me there is heaven or hell. See the only difference between an atheist and a christian is only on the trust of the bible. So when you bring on the question of jews, I must return to the bible and see what it does speak about jews.
Biblically I see that jews have a special place in the heart of God with or without Christ. With Christ it is much better because the ideality of jewishness is found in Jesus.
ismellarat, you also asked who is a true christian?
It is hard to tell who is a true christian because christianity is a spiritual thing and only Jesus who is the head of Church can tell. However there are basic requirements for any christian that should even be visible to any person:
Jesus said a true worshiper is the one who does it in truth and in spirit. Key words here: truth and spirit. Clearly here truth stands for Jesus because he declared he is the truth. It also denotes that any other way of worshiping God will be manmade because we only know God through a historical Jesus. In spirit, it means one must be filled with Holy Spirit to get that sort of connection betwen God and man. And the fruits of spirit are also clear, love, humility, patience, etc, you know those fruits of spirit as told by Paul in Galatians 5:22. So to me when I see someone who calls him/herself a christians but apparently lacks these traits, I suspect he/she misses a point in his/her christianity. I do not go directly and say he/she is not a christian, who I am to say that? But deep in my heart I feel he/she is missing a point.
In many cases I have seen catholics having traits of fruits of spirit and to me these are real christians, at the same time I have seen evangelicals behaving barbarically, and to me these have missed a point.
Edson, it's hard for me to not sound harsh on this, but there's probably no other way to make my point.
Which is that
1. parts of Christianity are abhorrent to me, (although I'd like for most of the rest to survive) and
2. I don't believe that the vast majority of Christians really believe those parts either, (and I don't think you do)
To cut to the chase, I ask challenge questions in the form of "publicly affirm Repulsive Doctrine X by wishing it to be applied to specific people everyone has strong sympathies for, or admit you really don't believe it."
One example is Hell. However you imagine it, it's the worst possible thing that can happen to someone, right?
So - why can't you show just how much you believe in it by captioning Holocaust videos (which depict what happened to real, live, specific people) with, "if you think this is bad, just wait 'til Jesus gets through with them."
As in the example of bombers sleeping well at night, compared to foot soldiers going insane with guilt, although they do exactly the same thing, I think you and so many others get away with not thinking about what you say by just repeating innocuous-sounding doctrinal affirmations, like "I believe you must be a Christian to go to Heaven."
I could challenge you in the same way on things like stonings. For that we now have videos. I could describe in the most hideous detail what happens to the (real, live, specific) victim, ask if you could imagine Jesus doing such a thing (because he's God, who commanded them, right?), and if you could imagine yourself performing them. If you say no, that's barbaric, you're also saying the same of the God you say you believe in, right?
I think Christians are just like me. You really only agree with the good parts.
So far, you've managed to stand your ground with some rather vague and mushy "Jews are special to God" stuff.
You think billions are going to Hell, and yet I don't think you'd have the guts to look most of them (real, live, specific people) in the eye and say you wouldn't have it any other way. I think they only exist in the abstract for you.
If you stay vague and mushy on this, I'm going to have to find some videos and keep making you say things like "no, Hell is much worse than that, and that's exactly where I want these people."
How 'bout another example: one of the most harrowing accounts I read was that of a Jewish mother slitting her finger in hopes of keeping her baby alive with her own blood, because she couldn't do it any other way, being near death from dehydration herself.
Assuming she wasn't a Christian, would you have the guts to tell her surviving child on national television that she's in Hell, and that that's exactly where she belongs? (If you're in the minority that believes Jews don't need to be Christians, imagine Muslim example. Or a Hindu, etc.)
Maybe you can follow it up with an altar call.
Again, sorry for being harsh, but I think it's the only way to make the point.
I don't think you really believe it all.
Edson, I think I was illustrating the bomber/foot soldier [general/specific] point I was making in the post where you thought I was asking what a true Christian was.
I still do like most of what they stand for, but that wasn't the main issue there.
After reading over the comments I find that most are only guessing as to what a Christian is and who is “saved”.
Here are some facts I’d like to call attention to:
A. Without Paul, salvation is undefined. Proof: Pick up any Protestant Gospel tract and try and find one that teaches the Protestant Plan of Salvation based ONLY on what Jesus says; especially in the Synoptic Gospels…you can NOT do it!B. Fact is, that before the First Council of Nicaea (325) there was no orthodoxy or, better put, it was undefined.
C. Thus, orthodoxy is an human mental evolutionary process conditioned by contemporary historical events in the social political arena and establishes itself via Might makes Right {ortho (Correct) doxy (Teaching)}.
D. By the simplest orthodox standards (First Council of Nicaea (325)), the Synoptic Jesus himself was heretical. It took a man who never knew Jesus (Paul) who created a personal systematic theology to the churches he alone founded (The Letter to the Romans being the exception).
E. Fact of the matter is, that the very disciples Jesus personally trained are continually depicted as not knowing what the hell he was talking about.
The fact that they returned to their jobs after the crucifixion disappoint points this fact out. So, by later tradition, all one needs to believe is that Jesus arose from the dead, than one is a Christian! Paul’s theology was a Jew trying to justify grace verses law or something Greeks could care less about!
F. If Peter (the so-called first Pope represents Catholicism) and Paul (the so-called reformer who was against Peter and attacks Peter and the Jesus Judaizers represent the Reform Tradition) then the plan of salvation propagated by Paul and the Hellenistic missionaries was only ONE view of what the post crucifixion theology in which it thought it could explain exactly what Jesus was up to.In this respect, we should not use the term heresies, but (as in the context of Paul verses Peter) we should talk of the many orthodoxies / many ways to salvation (however that is to be defined)!
G. We should understand the theological term adiaphora (from the Greek ἀδιάφορα "indifferent things”) means that most denominations use doctrines to created a false view of orthodoxy; they major on the minors. In other words, you need to join us! We have the real truth!Fact is (and according to the Synoptic Gospels) an understanding of salvation is personally defined and; PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS …salvation (Pre-Pauline) was NEVER OBJECTIVLY DEFINED!
So, if we were to drop 100 Synoptic Gospels or even the Gospels (all 4) on 100 remote islands inhabited by groups of literate people, we would find they could probably compose at least 50 - 75 different so-called Plans of Salvations or 50 - 75 orthodoxies.H. Most Christian sects truly believe that when Jesus comes back, he will make a bee-line straight to their denomination’s head quarters and embrace the sect’s president thanking him or her for defining orthodoxy or the holding to some subjectively defined truth. This is the subject of my post and points to the sad and confused state of Christianity today with 20,000 plus sects and growing.
I. Remember! In the Book of Acts, Christianity was defined and named, not by the believers, but by the so called pagans in Asia Minor. In this sense, the term Christian is truly a heterodox term!J. Finally, generally the more denominationally dogmatic a person is, the more ignorant the person is of the Christian tradition. In this sense, Christianity is truly a human mental evolutionary mental process. To vindicate this process, the term Holy Spirit is employed.Simply put, any belief in who or what Jesus was or is makes one a Christian (based on the original use of “Christian” in Acts by pagans). Thus, any attempt to defined who and what a “Christian” is based on the doctrinal growth of this evolutionary process as it is defined sectarianly is itself heretical!
It is simply human nature to want the biggest and the best; in this sense the Christian tradition is no different.
I am an atheist, not because I know too little, its because I know to much of the process that created the belief systems of Christianity. At this point, honesty exceeds any so-called orthodoxy!
Post a Comment