Hello again, Bill :)

I appreciate you following up on my response with a respectful reply. Please know that I did see the comments you posted on another article from a few days ago, but I didn't want to establish a situation where I would have to follow you around from place to place on one topic after another. After all, I believe that if we can't connect here in a meaningful way, it won't happen by spreading it out. :) Thanks for bearing with me and considering this a bit more.

Having said that, we can never underestimate the impact of a concise explanation of the gospel. I know of several believers, including my wife, who genuinely converted to Christianity via these types of presentations. However, since 2005 I have jumped aboard a renewed emphasis on the BIBLICAL use of the Law in evangelism and an avoidance of "Decision-ism

I have no doubt that many have come to Christ during such presentations. Of course, many of those may experience more of a sense of confidence in something that had already taken place. I'm pretty sure that's how it was in my case. Unfortunately, what may seem a good thing can often become a set up for fleshly dependence. I not only experienced this in myself, I have seen this very thing take place over many years.

The formula itself became a substitute confidence in the mind of many, as the ability to express it clearly overshadowed the miraculous working of God. We strove for a better and better a handle on the "clear" gospel, and we taught others to do the same. I began to recognize this very thing applied in so many ways that it astounded me. I've also written much on what has been referred to as "decisional regeneration". Those articles are probably on the former database at this time (you can access them through the upper right-hand link).

I certainly understand the role of the Law in convincing people of their need for deliverance from bondage. I've seen many try to use it in evangelism, but I think the overwhelming lack of understanding of Law by Christianity in general only ends up helping to establish the sad state of bondage in many believers. In other words, if I really don't understand how it works ruin in the life of believers, then I may not really understand how to use it in an initial form of evangelism (that is, the good news to the lost).

You may think nearly all Americans are keenly aware of their sin, eliminating the need to convince them of it, but I have seen an increasing flippancy toward sin and/or a "because-God-is-loving-He'll-forgive-me" mentality on the part of most. People don't understand who God is (i.e., holy and just, as well as loving), who they are in His sight (i.e., transgressors of His Law - 1 Jn. 3:4 and, therefore, condemned) and why Jesus is their only hope.

It is the work of Law that makes this known, and America is saturated with Law and laws. I don't need to convince anyone of something that has already been at work. However, if I listen I can easily address the bondage that hangs over the bogus claims. I agree that those without Christ cannot understand who God really is. Despite all the claims, they don't understand his love any better than they don't understand his holiness and justice. God is only understood through the indwelling of the Spirit. The attempt to convince men of their "utter sinfulness" by threats of torture is what created the deplorable situation in the Roman Church. We only think we are doing it differently than they did. And that's why the Protestant Church has established so many of the same traits. Fear is no respecter of religious affiliation. :)

As far as your "glasses," I wasn't taking issue with your methodology here. I just don't see what you seem to see in some of the "contexts" you claim are supporting your views. That's why I used the word "eisegesis." Although you seem to have an aversion to "theological systems," I've already commented on your "systematizing" your view by appealing to passages in both Galatians and Romans in another discussion. Their contexts were different, right? If you're consistent, why do you do the very thing that you accuse me of doing as wrong?

Just because I may take issue with systems created by randomly applied Biblical cross-referencing, my aversion to theological systems is not defined by or restricted to the use of cross-references. My point regarding your cross-referenced explanation of "death to death" was not merely that you suggested something from Romans. My objection had to do with how you overruled my suggestion found in the immediate context of the Corinthian letters by appealing to a meaning based partly on Romans and partly on The Revelation. I wouldn't deny any possible similarities in meaning just because it's not in the immediate context, however I do take issue when that context takes a back seat.

I'm pretty sure I've written about this somewhere else on the site (once again, probably on the old database), but I'd like to tell you about a teacher who challenged me years ago. He was an outsider to our Bible College, brought in primarily for the college's desire to gain accreditation, but one semester's class was all I needed to shake me up. The class was Homiletics (which for those who don't know what I didn't know until that time, it has to do with the preparation and delivery of sermons, or "homilies").

In the very first class, he followed the book for our course where it described the different kinds of sermons. You know what? Almost every single sermon I had ever heard preached followed one technique: decide what your message is going to be and then find the Bible verses to back support it. Heck, even our "in context" messages pretty much followed that pattern. He simply dismissed it out of hand. Period. He claimed that the only legitimate approached to sermon making was exegetical, that is, context and only context of the letter being preached from. And that was the only approach he would accept in class.

In our attempts to create sermons in his class, we were a bunch of babbling idiots. LOL!! We were homing pigeons, for our predisposition to cross-reference kept us from letting the context speak for itself. After we gave our messages, he would ask us things like why we didn't consider some critical piece of context, or why we started off so well only to miss the point. Some expressed their sore displeasure in his methods, but some of us learned something valuable during our short class. I never saw or heard from him again after that semester (as it was my last), so there's a lot I don't know about the man. But it sure gave me a lot to consider and question.

The more I dug into context for any and every Bible study, the more I recognized the general preference of opting for a system designed to supposedly help our understanding instead of considering the writer's intent in the particular letter or book of study. Once again, it's not that what is seen from other Scripture is not valid, it's about letting the context of a letter or book be the primary reference in any consideration. Beyond that, Paul's other writings, also in their own contexts, will best aid a study of one of Paul's letters, John's other writings best help understand John's particular style in a given writing, etc.

Having said all that, you could follow exegesis to a T and still miss the truth of Christ's life in us. To do so, you'd probably have to admit that Paul was off his rocker, or a little too ethereal, since you'd have followed his intent more closely. You would still have to turn the overwhelming awe of the miraculous into godly principles rather than letting the life speak for itself.

If the "Grace/Christ" message hasn't been eradicated, besides yourself, who else would you point to - especially from past centuries - who promoted this?

Please know that I'm not trying to be a smart alec by first listing Paul, John, Jesus, Peter, and even James. Actually, my experience would show forth that John was initially more important.

I forget a lot of names, but I've discovered amazing stuff contained in the writings of Martin Luther, Augustine, Arthur Custance, J.Sidlow Baxter, Miles Stanford, Arthur Pink, Lewis Sperry Chaffer, Francis Schaeffer, Watchman Nee, T. Austin Sparks, Major Ian Thomas, Bob George, among others. I've seen Christ even in some of the Systematic Theologies I will criticize as a whole. I've also heard the voice of Christ through my wife and children and friends and even in those who seek to disprove him. It's just amazing how and when and where you might hear him. I've witnessed his life by the shadowy image that cannot help but to demand the fulfillment of what is missing.

Okay, a couple of additional questions:

1) Are you emergent?
2) What do you feel about the canonicity of the Bible? Are you satisfied with what we have in our hands today, or do you question how we got it - the seemingly man/council-centered approach to arriving at a reliable NT canon?

1) I'm familiar with the term "Emergent Church", but like other titles, it obviously means different things to different people. A few years ago, a guy who put me on his incredibly long list of Emergent Church links called me "the best kept secret of the Emergent Church". However, every search I just tried found no record of it. I think I must have lost my position. LOL I'm still listed on his web site, but then again, so is just about everybody else who is not mainstream.

2) I'm surprised you didn't do a search of my site for that. It's not hidden. Of course I question how we got it. You may jump to conclusions, but you may want to pay attention to what I do question as opposed to what I do not question. I'm not going to write it out here.

http://theshovel.net/shoveletter/2002/shadows/daddy-long-legs

My best regards to you!
Jim