Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bwoodman@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Robert H Woodman) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Soul winners Message-ID: Date: 24 Jan 91 08:21:55 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: The Ohio State University Lines: 49 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I want to respond to the comment our moderator made at the end of my post. In article bwoodman@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (That's me!) writes: >[The more common objection to "soul winner" is that it suggests >that the responsibility for someone being converted is ours >rather than God's. It could imply taking credit for something >that ultimately isn't our doing. --clh] I suppose it could. After all, Paul had to deal with this in the Corin- thian church. Some people were claiming that they belonged to Peter (Cephas), others to Apollos, others to Paul, and others to Jesus. They were identifying their membership with those who had *won* them to the Lord Jesus Christ. However, notice, please, what Paul wrote about this situation: "For when one says, 'I am of Paul,' and another, 'I am of Apollos,' are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow-workers; you are God's field, God's building." 1 Corinthians 3:4-9 (NASV) Paul and Apollos were clearly "Soul Winners." They also had a clear sense of their own insignificance in the process. We could approach the argument in one of two ways -- (1) that the term "Soul Winners" is flawed and should be done away with; or (2) that the term "Soul Winners" is accurate and useful, as long as the proper perspective of humility is kept. Personally, I *like* the term "Soul Winner," and I regard the above-cited objection to it as being "semantical smoke" when the proper Scriptural perspective is kept about the use of the term. Of course, in light of the scripture I used above, I guess I'd be just as happy being called a "Soul Farmer" or a "Soul Fisherman." :-) Robert H. Woodman -- ********************************************************************* *Bob Woodman * "A job not worth doing well is not * *INTERNET: woodman.1@osu.edu * worth doing."--Salvador Luria * *********************************************************************