Embedded Files
Signs And Speakers
"Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person."
Colossians 4:5-6
This week we had some interesting engagements at CSUF! Here you can see me talking to a Christian evangelist who was on campus with giant signs and bullhorns. We've seen and talked to these groups before, but they don't seem to care how destructive their approach is to actually sharing any type of message. I have many feelings about this group's approach, but I was blown away from my conversation with this gentleman the other day.
He shared with me his testimony and engagement in missions work in Japan, along with his repulsion to the apathy of many in the Church today. I can empathize greatly with him in how concerning the condition of the American church is, but our distinctly different understandings of God and His Gospel cannot easily escape my thoughts. In our brief discussion, I asked him whether or not he thought the sign and bullhorn might be a stumbling block for people receiving the Gospel. He replied that those who are elect will always hear the voice of the Good Shepherd and nothing could get in the way. Perhaps you could find yourself sifting through deep weeds of doctrine here, but I actually think his point can only work against himself. What I mean is this - if the elect will in fact always hear the Good Shepherd, then you would have no need to preach hellfire and damnation as people wouldn't need any fear of death to persuade them. Perhaps I'm incorrect here, but I find this argument foolish and inconsistent with the description of Jesus in the Gospel accounts.
This gentleman also claimed that God loves those "predestined to salvation" more than everyone else. I had to have him repeat it because I was so surprised by this wild assertion. I was pretty sure he was Christian, not Muslim! I'm interested in how our perceptions of God influence our engagements with the world. Many people have a demonized image of those outside the Church which causes them to behave in a way that reflects that. If only we actually read the Gospels we would clearly see that Jesus LOVED the world that HATED Him. The whole concept of the Incarnation screams lunacy if you think Christ wasn't compelled by His love for the wicked sinner. I am certainly confused by this group's "evangelism" approach, so I can only imagine the effect it has on the observing world.
My concern continues as I listen to what they are shouting in these megaphones. It's not that it was "unbiblical" in the sense that you couldn't find those words in a Bible, but rather that they never mentioned the Gospel that Jesus clearly came preaching. Jesus never preached what these people preached, and I'm so confused how we've gotten this far away from what Jesus focused His ENTIRE ministry on - the kingdom of God. Over and over, Jesus says that this is the Good News - not that we can "escape hell", but that we can experience life! There can only be life under the lordship of God, submitting to His rule, becoming conformed to Christ's image. Yes, there is a "legal" side of salvation that involves penal-substitutionary atonement, but to say that that is the Gospel is wildly missing the scope of the Gospel. Ironically, the preaching that this man was doing is arguably the greatest cause for the current apathy in the Church. People were sold a gospel of fire-insurance and that's exactly what they live like. Uncommitted people who see sanctification as legalism, discipleship as optional, and God as unloving. Please don't misunderstand me; I do believe that God can still use this approach for His good, but I think it's extremely damaging for believers and nonbelievers on multiple levels. I've heard it said, "What you catch them with is what you keep them with", and I find this very true among believers. It seems that the "rules" get changed on you when you hear the message about avoiding hell and are now expected to live a "good life" until you get to die and go to heaven. If salvation is only about being saved from the consequences of my sin and not also the sin itself, it's no wonder we have complacent communities. The Gospel is about the kingdom of God - that is, God's rule and reign in my life today, and soon over all of creation.
I had a really interesting conversation with this student who is a philosophy major! At first, he said that he was an atheist, but he quickly became an agnostic as many do (it's a much easier position to defend). Hearing that he is a philosophy major, I asked him if he was familiar with any of the philosophical arguments for the existence of God. He was, so we dialogued about a few of those before he had to take off. We camped out on Kalam's Cosmological argument for a while:
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Thus, the Universe has a cause.
He semi-reluctantly accepted premise one, saying that it was a "weak inductive premise", which is really crazy to say given that there is zero evidence of anything ever beginning to exist without a cause, but luckily, he granted it for the time. He then said that premise two is not the most reasonable or plausible understanding of our universe. Despite the overwhelming majority of the scientific field affirming a start to the universe (including brilliant atheist scientists), he said that this premise is not valid as it is still possible that the universe is cyclically expanding and contracting. Even if I grant that though, I'm not concerned about what is possible, but rather what is probable. It's possible that I was adopted by aliens from a tribe of ants who raised me in Antarctica, but it is certainly not probable (or so I think...).
While I do find this to be a rather compelling syllogism for the existence of God, there is another way of hitting at a similar concept that might be even stronger. This is called the Contingency Argument:
Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
Premise 2: The universe exists and is not necessary (it could have failed to exist).
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has an explanation and that explanation must be a necessary Being.
This argument can be harder to grasp initially; however, it is very compelling as you dive into it. The argument is based in the understanding that there are only two types of beings: contingent (meaning dependent on something else for its existence) and necessary (existing is part of its nature and essence). This states that anything that could've not existed is contingent on something necessary for its existence. The universe could have not existed, thus, an uncreated and eternal Being is the best explanation.
I hope that we talk again so I can hear his perspective on this deductive argument.
Thank you for your prayer and partnership in this ministry and training!
May we be led by God's Spirit into God's field!
With love and peace,
Ivan Penrose
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse