How important is theology for evangelists?

[Guest yod]

LOL, of course we are. I think we could sit down to steak dinner any time and everything would be fine.

only if I can buy....

He simply needs to get over his misperceptions of theology and theologians. They are not the villians he keeps trying to paint them to be. I have endevored to teach him what theology is and to clear the air about some of his mischaracterizations of theologians who teach in seminaries. Whether he will listen is up to him. But I have no hard feelings at all.

And I accept that Shiloh is a theologian (a darn good one) and hates it when his profession is criticized.

My "misperceptions" are based on the reality of what theologians have done to the simplicity of the gospel, and their overwhelming rejection of a proper role for Israel and the Jews....which can ONLY be accomplished through changing the intent of the Word by fiat of theological presumption.

Do you not agree that most theologians in the world today are teaching Replacement Theology, or Word of Faith, or RCC doctrines, or some other kind of corrupted version of what the bible says in simple to understand terms? So, using the dictionary definition of Theology as "the study of God" (implying an academic pursuit) I'd say that theology has (mostly) failed christianity by cutting us off from the nourishing root.

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 17 September 2011 - 08:01 AM, said:

I have investigated all kinds of seminaries in North Caroliina, Florida, Louisiana, California, Texas, Tennessee, Massechussets and even in England, Ireland and Scotland. I am fully aware of what is out there in both the US and abroad. Again, you really don't have anything up on me when it comes to these things. You really have a made a lot of assumptions about me and the scope of my knowldge of this world, evidently.

I don't think you've looked out the window to see the fruit of all these "great" seminaries.

The fruit of seminaries??? They train missionaries who take Bibles, food, medicine and other supplies to needy people all over the world. They train people to translate Bibles in the languages of people who do not have them. They help start churches in parts of the world that do not have churches and the nearest church is often to far to travel on foot. They train people who help to build orphanges for children who have lost their parents to HIV or to local violent gang turf warfare in third world countries. They help build hospitals, and schools and even some Bible schools and they help to staff those hospitals and schools. They work with the US military to help train Chaplains who minister the troops, especially in war time. Seminiaries provide all kind of ministry assistance all over the world.

Just because some bad apples have come out of seminaries over the years, does not necessarily mean that they represent what the seminary stood for. Do you think we should fault harvard when lawyers and judges who graduated from Harvard engage in corrupt practices??? Do they represent what Harvard stands for??? So why fault seminaries when some of their graduates come out of there and end up making a mess of their ministries and bringing reproach upon Christ?? Shouldn't they be held solely responsible for their actions??

If there are so many good ones, why is the state of christianity so poor today?

So, the fact that Christians have gone astray should be laid at the doorsteps of the seminaries??? You think that is fair?? So the "Christian" down the street cheats on his wife.... "well you know, it's those seminariesand theologians that are to blame..." That is an absurd argument to make.

And you also realize that no country produced more christian theologians than Germany in the 1930s, right? Guess you see how that worked out...

That is not really a fair statement Men like Althaus, Kittel, and, most particularly, Hirsch, as well as other "theologians" manufactured a "theology customized to the justify and advance the the Nazi agenda. What you have there is not genuine theology, but an imposter. It is perversion and even a revision of the Scriptures to support anti-Semitism and to justy the final solution.

There is both sound and unsound theology. You are taking the lowest common denominator and judging the whole by it and that is simply unfair. You are trying to find the worst people in history and lumping theologians in with them.

Quote

Actually, your "case" was refuted and rather soundly at that.

hey, I admitted that I didn't understand the question and changed my answer accordingly. What more do you want?

You said "I rest my case" after I made the point that Pharisees were the theologians of their day, as if you had been vindicated. I simply pointed out that you only posted half of my sentence and conveniently left off the context of my point about the pharisees. For some reason you don't want to deal with the substance of what I said.

Quote

Not all of the pharisees were Jesus' enemies.

I never said that so don't put those words in my mouth.

I didn't put words in your mouth. You pointed to the pharisees without qualifying the fact that many of them were also Jesus' supporters and that it was only His enemies that sought to be crucified as a political enemy of the state. I simply pointed out that some like you should have made that qualification about the pharisees. But you have this need to make theologians appear as ugly as you can so find the worst people you can find and make absurd and unfair, not to mention historically inaccurate character comparsons.

Quote

You cannot respond to the rest of what I said, and that is why you have to put up my words devoid the context that follows and why you can only post half of the sentence. If you had a case, you would not have to resort to such a dishonest tactic.

oh baloney and mustard!?

I rest my case because you admitted that the theologians of that day were the Pharisees...which I had already said and you disagreed. Which is it?

I never disagreed that they were the theologians of their day. I disagreed that they sought the death of Jesus because His theology was different than theirs. I pointed out that there were some much larger political issues in play. You need to go back and read. I immediately conceded that the Pharisees were the theologians of their day. But that concession was part of a much larger line of thought.

You said "I rest my case." After I said "The Pharisees were the theologians of their day, that is true..." You rested your case, but you chopped off what I said, which followed. You quoted only half the sentence.

What I actually said was, "The Pharisees were the theologians of their day that is true, but as someone like you who has been to Israel and has presumably studied all this out, it was not "the pharisees" who sought Jesus' death, but it was his detractors among them."

I was pointing out that you, above all people on this board should know that the Pharisees were not monolith and that it is inaccurate to view all of them through the same lense. More to the point, I was taking issue with your attempt to single out Jesus' enemies, label them as "theologians" in order to justify your disdain of modern theologians.

[traveller]

wow - this is one of the best threads on the board right now! Do you guys realize how much good stuff is coming out of this?

*trav is sittin the corner with her bucket of popcorn*

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 17 September 2011 - 08:14 AM, said:

LOL, of course we are. I think we could sit down to steak dinner any time and everything would be fine.

only if I can buy....

Any time my friend,

Quote

He simply needs to get over his misperceptions of theology and theologians. They are not the villians he keeps trying to paint them to be. I have endevored to teach him what theology is and to clear the air about some of his mischaracterizations of theologians who teach in seminaries. Whether he will listen is up to him. But I have no hard feelings at all.

And I accept that Shiloh is a theologian (a darn good one) and hates it when his profession is criticized.

I have no problem with anyone criticizing theologians when the criticism is valid, but the stuff you have said are nothing but blanket accusations even to the point of claiming that most theologians have no relationship with God. You have made a lot of assertions that stem from notions that you have held on to pertaining to theologians that are simply unfair and untrue. It would be like some one finding some crackpots who support Israel, but have weird views on Israel and Christianity and then saddling you and me with the same weird views and judging us based on what they saw from weirdos. We would be quick to point out that it is unfair for them to judge us by what they saw from those other groups.

My "misperceptions" are based on the reality of what theologians have done to the simplicity of the gospel, and their overwhelming rejection of a proper role for Israel and the Jews....which can ONLY be accomplished through changing the intent of the Word by fiat of theological presumption.

I hate that stuff too. Replacement Theology is product of a long line of really bad theology. I have found that I cannot stand Covenant Theology, Amillennialism or Preterism as all three promote Replacment Theology. I have found common ground with them in other areas. But Israel and Eschatology are two areas that I must part ways with many of them. In one sense, Repacment Theology is not even a real theology. Rather it is an under current. It is a view that sort of travels under the surface of the theological world. But not all theolog is good theology. But that does not mean that theology should be kicked to the curb as evil or useless. In fact, you can't. You cannot even witness to a person without speaking of the nature of God, His character and operations in your life or the lives of others. There is not ONE thing you can say about God that is not theological.

As for he simplicity of the Gospel. The Gospel is simple and it can and should be shared in simplicity. Having said that, the Gospel is not simplistic. In fact, if you studied nothing else, you would never mine all of the truth Scripture contains relative to that issue alone.

Do you not agree that most theologians in the world today are teaching Replacement Theology, or Word of Faith, or RCC doctrines, or some other kind of corrupted version of what the bible says in simple to understand terms?

I don't think those three views can be lumped into one basket. For the following reasons:

1. I don't consider the RCC to be representative to authentic Christianity. Their traditions are rooted in the opinions of councils and are interpreteoted retroactively into the Scriptures. That is hardly theology. Their traditions are rooted the authority of "the church" and not Scripture. In fact Scripture takes a backseat to their sacred tradtions.

2. Word of Faith is not the product of "theologians" in the limited sense that you use that term. It is rooted in New Age positive confession practices going back to Zorasterism (sp ?). It is full of false prophets who claim to get direct revelation from God not contained in Scripture and whose prophecies never come true. While it falls under the heading of "theology," it is a very dehumanizing and wicked set of teachings.

3. Replacement Theology is one thing I speak up about on campus. I have had several debates around here on the issue and have been able to change some minds, but not all. To date, I have never lost a debate on the issue. Some people walk away mad and some walk away glad and better informed. Replacement Theology is easy to refute. But keep in mind that it is only facet to what many people believe. Not everyone who is Replacment Theologian hates Jews or in any way hates Israel i have even found supporters of Israel among replacement theologians. They support Israel more from a geo-political framework, but I am able to plant seeds nonetheless.

So, using the dictionary definition of Theology as "the study of God" (implying an academic pursuit) I'd say that theology has (mostly) failed christianity by cutting us off from the nourishing root.

This is why I say that you have to separate theology from the theologian. The study of God has not cut us off from the root at all. It is poor practiioners of theology who have done that. But theology is far more than the study of God. It applies to how we relate to God and how He relates to us and how we share that relationship with the world. It is how we apply our knowledge of God and sadly there are those who are not very good at doing that.

[Matthitjah]

wow - this is one of the best threads on the board right now! Do you guys realize how much good stuff is coming out of this?

*trav is sittin the corner with her bucket of popcorn*

YesM'

For any newbies. This is what this Forum used to be used for many years ago. It's why I loved this place so.

[OneLight]

There seems to be too much logic attributed to doing Gods will. From what I know, all it takes is to be open to the moving of the Holy Spirit and He will guide you as you talk to someone about Jesus and salvation. Scripture tells us that He will bring back to memory the words of Jesus. Allow Him to flow through you and allow the Holy Spirit to move in the heart of the listener.

[nebula]

I've been hearing many testimonies of people engaging in a different kind of evangelism - not by preaching, not by debating, not by tracts - but by offering prayer.

Either they'd verbally talk to people and ask, "Would you like prayer?" or by holding a sign "Free prayer" and let interested people come to them. All they do is pray - and a lot of times the Lord touches the person somehow - including healings!

A group of mostly young people just finished up a tour going to Ivy League schools just hanging out on the campus grounds worshiping and holding up "Free prayer" signs made out of cardboard - were never pushy on anyone but let the people who who ripe for harvest come to them. There are testimonies of salvation (a Hindu just gave his life to Jesus a couple days ago!) and healing from them.

[nebula]

Shiloh - I appreciate your perspective and what you have to say, and I believe I do understand.

However, right now the Lord is working in me to bring out my heart and bring my mind under the submission of my heart.

Can you explain a theology that is heart-based rather than mind-based?

[enoob57]

Shiloh - I appreciate your perspective and what you have to say, and I believe I do understand.

However, right now the Lord is working in me to bring out my heart and bring my mind under the submission of my heart.

Can you explain a theology that is heart-based rather than mind-based?

If your speaking of heart as your emotional base equating toward love?

I think this is error! When you go to the garden you see Christ with the heart of pleading with all that He was for another way, other than separation from His Father on the Cross=(emotion/heart/love) however! His resolved was of mind, then will, then emotion! I think this is the resolve of being with our mind we know ->yet with our will resigned toward God perfect Will ->we act and the emotion is like a wrecking ball being slung all over making a mess of things if in control... imho Love, Steven

[Fez]

Something I have learned about sharing the Word...

It is not all Gospel, and Love, and theology... (although it is..)

First thing you have to do is make a connection. You do this by assessing the person you are talking to. Find out how they tick first so that you can work of their base and not yours. Too many of us chuck Scripture at people too soon.

Find out, is the person lonely, are they having family problems, depressed? What do they like to do, are they a biker, fisherman, computer nerd, what do they do in their spare time, who do they hang with. How old are they, what is their background?

This takes discernment, which is a gift in itself. Love them no matter what.

Talk about them, and their needs and interests, and then lead them, through that conversation, to Jesus. Use what they do and know as examples as how they can change their lives through coming to Jesus.