The dialogue that takes place on blogs is one of remarkable fashion. I have been a part of major discussion and read major discussion from many blogs. Whether about racism, homosexuality, Calvinism or tithing there is room for a constructive debate. I just had a debate with some coworkers who are Christians about their stance that truth is relative. Which is easy target practice?

My point is that I provided proof text, after proof text to no avail. They still had the same mindset that was there before we started the conversation. I marveled at the fact they the held to their guns though from a scriptural standpoint they had no backing. Then I began to see the importance of the Holy Spirit in times like these. My pride and indignation started to rise because they were not getting what I was saying. I was slamming them with all that I knew but nothing was changing.

Why was I giving them proof text? Was I trying to bring my spiritual sword play to the debate in order to smash or was my heart really crying for them to understand truth. I quickly came to the conclusion I was out to smash and their heart was no where in the equation. This is a sad commentary and something that I think even those who are serious about evangelism must be mindful about. Just because you give a proof text does not solve the problem in some instances. Is it needed, yes….Does it always work, no.

1And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1 Cor. 2:1-5 ESV)

The Apostle Paul made it very clear that he did not come with superfluous wordplay but relied upon the Holy Spirit to come in and bomb where he needed. The interesting thing about it was Paul had the ability to do just that if he chose. He was smart enough where he could have killed them with philosophical rhetoric but he stayed true to his game plan which was to share the gospel. It is such a thin line I believe to stay intelligent or be intelligent in this anti-intelligent society that we live in. Where scholarship is reviled and frowned upon. But on the flipside you have the scholarly or theological astute frowning upon those who do not have the background but have a better faith integration.

So proof text gets thrown around and you have exegetical evangelicals calling revelational reverends heretics and  vis-à-vis,  when both are actually just trying to get the truth. Charles Spurgeon once said, “The word of God is like a lion. You do not have to defend it all you have to do is let it out of the cage and it will defend itself.”

Just my thoughts