Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: arm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Soul winners Message-ID: Date: 24 Jan 91 08:53:43 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 87 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: >WE cannot win souls by ourselves, yet God has specifically instructed us >to "...preach the Gospel to all nations..." , etc. We cannot win souls of >our own accord, but we must let God use us to help win people to Him. In my mind, there is a big difference between preaching the Gospel and winning souls. For those who are into scriptural literalism, I sure would like to see some references. My guess is that we have fundamentally different conceptions of what salvation is and how it is received. On a different thread, it is VERY interesting how many people made a distinction between living the Gospel and preaching it. I never made the distinction, and I implicitly assumed that the latter was part of the former. I always thought that it was important to live all of the Gospel, and not just the parts which ask people to preach it to others. Earlier, I made the following comment: >> I have enough problems with my own salvation without having to worry about >> saving others. > >Salvation is permanent. As far as you spritual condition, it will be much >better when one attempts to do as God has intructed. I hear an unnecessary insult in your reply. How dare you make judgments on my spirituality without knowing anything about me and my own relationship with God. I guess I should not be surprised, given the responsiblity you feel you have over others' souls, including my own. If your aim was to win my soul, you're doing a bad job. I'm so angry right now, I'm going to stop before I say something that is really going to get me in trouble. What set me off was not so much the criticism, which is generic enough that I can't really argue, but the implicit self-righteousness in the criticism. Also, you're idea and my idea of what God has instructed is probably very different. All right, so I didn't stop. This brings up a whole lot of questions and frustrations that I have. I know that many of these issues have been brought up before, and my intention here is not so much to open up new threads as to give an idea of the fundamental differences that make communication especially difficult. First of all, you imply that God instructs us all to preach the Gospel and win souls for God. I accept that we should allow God to use us as his instruments, but I do not accept that we should all be the same kind of instrument (e.g. preaching the Gospel) but rather different instruments playing different notes and contributing to one glorious symphony. There is the notion of a calling, and I believe that different people are called to do different things. I have already commented on my reservations about winning souls. Second, the concept that salvation is eternal (with which I agree), and the implication that we know when we are saved, through being born again or whatever (with which I do not agree) is problematic. For me, the moment I will know whether I am saved will be on judgment day. This is the spirit in which I made my earlier comment. It makes little sense for me to talk about winning souls when the results won't come in until judgment day. It bothers me when people seek to know whether they are saved while they are still living on this earth, and it angers me when people claim superior knowledge, status, assurance, whatever, on the basis that they are "saved." Note that I am saying nothing about when God saves, but only when we know whether we are saved. Also note that I am not denying that we can experience God working in our lives. I can help someone experience God, but I do not flatter myself in saying even that I helped to save that someone. As I said before, salvation is ultimately something between God and the individual. Third, the concept of being able to gain control over someone else's soul, even with God's help, not only seems impossible, but also seems rather sinister. (E.g. "The devil has taken her soul...." or "She has been possessed by evil spirits...") In fact, for me one vision of hell is to lose control of my soul. Doesn't sin chain your soul and rob your freedom? Salvation should be freeing, not coercive. Don't ask me to win someone over to God. Ask me to bring God into his life. Ask me to help free him from the chains of sin. Ask me to love him as myself. I think that I'll stop there. (The suggestion, with only a hint of seriousness, that soul winners are doing the work of the devil, will probably get me into lots of trouble. I should have quit while I was ahead. I hope that it is taken in the spirit with which it was intended: as a challenge to "soul winners" to look more closely at what they are doing, and what God wants them to do. Hopefully, this disagreement is merely one of semantics.) >Elizabeth Alex Macalalad