tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post7362777596480833265..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Is the Macedonian Call Normative for Missions Today?Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-46191738199489315152017-09-21T13:40:11.585-07:002017-09-21T13:40:11.585-07:00Second Paragraph.
Also, At which point would you ...Second Paragraph.<br /><br /><i>Also, At which point would you conclude a place should be moved away from because of people rejecting the gospel?</i><br /><br />A church can decide this. There is objective criteria from scripture. Has the gospel been demonstratively preached to everyone there without anyone listening? Can you not preach there at all? This will be developed further in future posts.<br /><br /><i>If over 99% of the people that you have witnessed to have rejected your gospel witness is it time to move somewhere else?</i><br /><br />Ditto my previous paragraph.<br /><br /><i>Would Jesus have moved out of the Bay Area after 30 years?</i><br /><br />He moved out of Israel after 3 years. A certain town He moved on from. Paul moved on from Athens, didn't stay there at all. I've been here thirty years, but we haven't come close to getting to everyone and I'm pastoring the people here. If no one was listening, I wouldn't stay. I think you should judge compassion more on persistence. Are people doing it? I notice most aren't today.<br /><br /><i>As far as preaching the gospel to those who don't want to hear it, a lot of people don't want to hear it at first but that's why soul winning is compared to farming because it takes time.</i><br /><br />The farming analogy has to be followed though as given in scripture. If you know you've got hard ground, you don't keep sowing seed on it. It's hard. Jesus didn't keep preaching to those who wouldn't hear (Mt 13).<br /><br /><i>You don't just preach once and then leave because people don't want to hear. You preach and build relationships and see God break through in hearts that you are shedding tears for.</i><br /><br />There is no biblical basis for building a relationship for the sake of evangelism, actually the opposite. You sow and you water with those willing to listen, but there is nothing about building a relationship with lost people to see them saved.<br /><br /><i>I must say that the way you approach soul winning seems cold hearted and merely duty oriented. To just say "you don't have to preach to people who don't want to hear you" seems cold and uncompassionate as well as unbiblical since Jesus "is not willing that any should perish..."</i><br /><br />I keep talking to whoever will listen and not close themselves off. I don't keep preaching to people who don't want to hear. That's what Jesus did too. He is love. I would say yours is sentimentalism, not love. No one can be more loving than Jesus and you don't follow His example. It's unloving to Him not to.<br /><br /><i>The tears I am talking about are not worked up tears, but rather tears of compassion because God's love is so real and Hell is so real. John R Rice once said, "If you can preach on hell and not shed tears, you are backslidden." May this be a reminder to all to preach and witness with "tears" so we can "come again with rejoicing."</i><br /><br />Scripture talks about tears. Paul warned with tears. I'm teary, crying kind of person, but I can't say that the number of tears relates to whether more listen or more are saved. Nothing teaches that in the Bible. I think someone should be affected to tears. I think it's a problem if they don't ever shed a tear. It's easy for me to say, because I cry all the time. However, I don't think my tears add one iota to the gospel.<br /><br />The "precious seed" of Psalm 126 is actual seed, as in plants. You really have no basis for allegorizing this. It's speaking to those in exile being repentant and desirous for a future where God blesses the land. I've heard this allegorized many times to make it apply to evangelism, making the seed the Word of God, but it's eisogesis.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-69123843291110823162017-09-21T13:11:15.640-07:002017-09-21T13:11:15.640-07:00Ryan,
I'm going to deal with your comment in ...Ryan,<br /><br />I'm going to deal with your comment in depth, because I think it represents, respectfully, the problem I'm talking about.<br /><br />Paragraph One<br /><br /><i>If you look at the passages surrounding the Macedonian call especially prior to it, Paul was being lead by the Holy Spirit, you even admitted it above.</i><br /><br />First, the terminology "leading of the Spirit" or "led by the Spirit" are not found in Acts, so you are inserting that into this conversation, equating what Paul received with that terminology.<br /><br />Being led by the Spirit is not synonymous with the Holy Spirit speaking to you directly by a voice, by a dream or vision, or the like. He received direct communication. We do not. Leadership of the Spirit today is not that. You are blurring those two to the confusion of people who might listen to you. I've noticed people such as yourself doing this on purpose, where it is ambiguous to people today whether God is directly speaking to people. People like yourself give them that impression and seem to be fine with it.<br /><br /><i>We don't know how it was that the Holy Spirit was giving "thumbs down" to Paul, but he was leading him, which happens to be a characteristic of a child of God, being lead by the Holy Spirit.</i><br /><br />Acts 16 uses the terminology, "were forbidden by the Holy Ghost" and "suffered them not." Then in v. 9, He directly revealed in a vision for them to go to Macedonia. This is plain communication from the Spirit. He was telling them. You are saying that we don't know how they knew, that this could just be the leading of the Spirit, something different than something apostolic, but normative for today, since it isn't revelation or inspiration.<br /><br />Paul went immediately upon getting that vision. It's interesting that today people say that God has called them to go somewhere, essentially use the Macedonian call as their model, and they take three years to get there. Paul went immediately.<br /><br /><i>If Paul needed the Holy Spirits leading, how much more do we. He was an Apostle and if he needed leading then certainly we who are not Apostles would have a greater reason to seek God's leading.</i><br /><br />Every believer already has the leading of the Holy Spirit, because in Romans 8:14, Paul writes, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." We know that the Holy Spirit leads us by means of the already completed Word of God.<br /><br /><i>There are hundreds of places that need churches but certainly God can and will lead to a specific place, a place where he wants us.</i><br /><br />Again, aside from making the Macedonian call normative, what basis do you have for this? How do you know this is the leading of the Spirit? You don't know. It is the opposite. We know God is not revealing us anything more. We know it. This isn't what leading is.<br /><br /><i>I agree with you that a church can help guide in discerning the Lord's will, but we are to be lead by the Holy Spirit and especially for big areas like where to plant a church or what mission field to go to.</i><br /><br />This is typical thinking of so many revivalist, independent Baptists, but there is zero biblical basis for it. A church can "help," but this is separate and different than the leading of the Spirit. This is wrong. And only in the big areas? Where does that come from?<br /><br /><i>It more sense that way than just basing it ultimately on human logic.</i><br /><br />You are calling scripture, human logic. If you someone just obeys scripture, he's relying on human logic. However, if he is led by the Spirit, he gets the superior voice in the head, which is higher and better than human logic, i.e., relying on what scripture teaches. Many think that way and it is in error.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-52131861853753105482017-09-21T09:11:02.566-07:002017-09-21T09:11:02.566-07:00Kent,
If you look at the passages surrounding the...Kent,<br /><br />If you look at the passages surrounding the Macedonian call especially prior to it, Paul was being lead by the Holy Spirit, you even admitted it above. We don't know how it was that the Holy Spirit was giving "thumbs down" to Paul, but he was leading him, which happens to be a characteristic of a child of God, being lead by the Holy Spirit. If Paul needed the Holy Spirits leading, how much more do we. He was an Apostle and if he needed leading then certainly we who are not Apostles would have a greater reason to seek God's leading. There are hundreds of places that need churches but certainly God can and will lead to a specific place, a place where he wants us. I agree with you that a church can help guide in discerning the Lord's will, but we are to be lead by the Holy Spirit and especially for big areas like where to plant a church or what mission field to go to. It more sense that way than just basing it ultimately on human logic.<br /><br />Also, At which point would you conclude a place should be moved away from because of people rejecting the gospel? If over 99% of the people that you have witnessed to have rejected your gospel witness is it time to move somewhere else? Would Jesus have moved out of the Bay Area after 30 years? As far as preaching the gospel to those who don't want to hear it, a lot of people don't want to hear it at first but that's why soul winning is compared to farming because it takes time. You don't just preach once and then leave because people don't want to hear. You preach and build relationships and see God break through in hearts that you are shedding tears for. I must say that the way you approach soul winning seems cold hearted and merely duty oriented. To just say "you don't have to preach to people who don't want to hear you" seems cold and uncompassionate as well as unbiblical since Jesus "is not willing that any should perish..." The tears I am talking about are not worked up tears, but rather tears of compassion because God's love is so real and Hell is so real. John R Rice once said, "If you can preach on hell and not shed tears, you are backslidden." May this be a reminder to all to preach and witness with "tears" so we can "come again with rejoicing." <br /><br />RyanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-2651936616116220862017-09-20T09:54:10.880-07:002017-09-20T09:54:10.880-07:00Jeff,
I agree with what you wrote. I read it onc...Jeff,<br /><br />I agree with what you wrote. I read it once, so I didn't let it sink in maybe as much as I could, but I advocate our desire, which comes from the Word of God. The Holy Spirit working through the church. The convincing He does comes from His Word. Is it scriptural? Does someone fulfill the qualifications? I'll be writing more about the way God leads.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-39064331867332427692017-09-20T09:52:01.749-07:002017-09-20T09:52:01.749-07:00James,
Very good. I agree. I liked the word pla...James,<br /><br />Very good. I agree. I liked the word play at the end too.<br /><br />Tyler,<br /><br />Also used a word play, a different one, but thanks.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-80574919857112595862017-09-20T08:59:07.824-07:002017-09-20T08:59:07.824-07:00Since teaching through Acts 13 and considering fas...Since teaching through Acts 13 and considering fasting in the New Testament church, I've wondered if we even put too much mysticism into the "call" of Barnabas and Saul.<br /><br />1. The church at Antioch was blessed with several prophets. Perhaps more than they needed now that they were an established congregation.<br /><br />2. They were already fasting. Why? Because some of them had an idea to go beyond Antioch, namely Barnabas and Saul, who wanted to take the gospel to their homelands and further "sponsored" by the Antioch church. A decision of this magnitude called for fasting and prayer. While they fasted and prayed the Holy Spirit confirmed to them that he had put the desire in Barnabas and Saul's minds and hearts and was calling them to work (it appears he had already "called" them).<br /><br />3. This view is more realistic and consistent, I believe, than the typical idea that they were in a fervent fasting and prayer meeting and all at once heard (or were mystically shown) that the Holy Spirit had in mind for Barnabas and Saul to leave for some unknown foreign field.<br /><br />4. I conclude that the Holy Spirit can use godly men's desires, but those desires must be confirmed by "the church" before they can be validated as "a call."<br /><br />5. In fact, I believe that most/all of the Holy Spirit's leading begins with godly desire. After all, even the "call" to the pastorate begins with desire. "If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work." Then the church confirms his "call" by checking out his qualifications and putting him into service.<br /><br />I think I may have gone off topic and even forgotten all that your post brought to mind, so there could be more to my ramblings. All of these points have only been thoughts in my head up to this point. They are open to biblical correction and fine-tuning.Jeff Voegtlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13038716402776736733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-62239463905468281932017-09-20T07:52:41.439-07:002017-09-20T07:52:41.439-07:00God spoke to me, and assured me this was a very go...God spoke to me, and assured me this was a very good article . . . Tyler Robbinshttps://eccentricfundamentalist.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-62399698314606796102017-09-20T05:18:54.361-07:002017-09-20T05:18:54.361-07:00The "call" also serves as a useful tool ...The "call" also serves as a useful tool to help a man (many times a pastor) insulate himself from godly Biblical scrutiny. After all, if I'm telling you God "called me," who are you, mere man/church member, to question that divine call? I've watched these "calls" used to justify the disorder that arises from God "calling me here" one year to God "calling me away from here" a year or two later, often leaving unfinished work and confusion, something that happens here in Canada with sad regularity. Then, when the "called" man is questioned about the contradiction, he shrugs with that "His-ways-are-not-our-ways" look and says, "I don't know what to say, but I can't ignore the call." This furnishes that insulation necessary to prevent the application of Biblical wisdom to his desire (since the "call" is the desire) to see whether it is the right desire.<br /><br />Sometimes, I think we don't call out the "calls" for their contradiction and confusion enough. Thanks for the reinforcement.James Bronsveldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330385638322033748noreply@blogger.com