Featured What did Jesus do? A Biblical case for using the Law in evangelism

Where do you get the notion that Peter was "evangelizing" unbelievers ??

Peter was preaching to devout Jews (Acts 2:5). Believing Jews who had been in Jerusalem since before Passover, and had agreed to have tgeir own Messiah crucified.

And further, you appealed to Matthew 5 earlier in this thread. But there Jesus was speaking to His disciples, who He called the light of the world

 

Actually, we have much more information than John did. We know about the substitutionary death of Christ and His resurrection, and these facts are the core of the Gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-8). There is so much about Christ that we know that John did not, therefore the idea that we should follow John's methods is surprisingly wrong.

But I'm glad you brought up the idea of the Biblical example. We have a number of examples in the NT of how to evangelize, but that is what they are: examples, not commands. We can learn from them, but are not mandated to follow them. Yet from all you've written, using the law is the "preferred way" of evangelizing. Why? It is not mandated, and there are many examples in the NT where the law was not used.

The mandate is the Great Commission: give the Gospel to everyone in the entire world. The Bible doesn't tell us how, leaving us free to give the Gospel in our own way. I have known of hundreds saved in America and Japan by various methods. The secret is not in the method, it is in the power of the Gospel (Rom. 1:16), the Holy Spirit (many passages) and the Word of God (Heb. 4:12). Any method that depends on God's power through these three avenues, and faithfully gives the complete Gospel, can see people saved. Now, since the Word of God is one of the avenues of power, yes, using the law can bring people to Christ. But it is not necessary and no place in the NT says that it is the "preferred method" (your words).

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken about the word in Acts 3:26. It is the Greek word poneria, meaning "only in a moral and ethical sense in the NT, of intentionally practiced ill will evil, wickedness, malice (LU 11.39); plural, for various expressions of evil-mindedness wicked ways, evil doings, malicious deeds (AC 3.26)" (Friberg's Anlex). The word used for law-breaking in the NT is parabasis (transgression), used specifically in 7 places about breaking the OT law, as in Rom. 4:15--"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."

Again you are mistaken about the word used here for "lawless." It is anomos, used 7 times in the NT, sometimes for breaking the Jewish law and sometimes for other evil, such as the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:8) and the deeds of Sodom (2 Peter 2:8), neither of which are about the Jewish Law.

But hey, let's say that anomos in Acts 2:23 is about the Jewish law. It is a reference there to a specific act against the OT law, the crucifixion of Jesus. It was not an effort to produce conviction of sin, because few of the listeners were involved in that act. And it was directed to Jews, not Gentiles. So it certainly does not amount to a method of evangelism in Acts 2:23.

You are saying that using the 10 commandments is the "preferred way" to do evangelism. But you have still not proven your point. It could only be the preferred method if the Bible says it is, and the Bible says no such thing.

Some in the NT mentioned the law, many did not, especially in the book of Acts. In particular, since we usually witness to Gentiles, you need to prove that using the Decalogue was the preferred method of reaching Gentiles in the book of Acts. But over and over Paul (and Jesus) neglected to used the law when dealing with Gentiles.

I actually specifically used the 10 Commandments once in Japan. We were having a weekly Bible study with a lost Japanese lady. When we discussed how idolatry was wrong according to the moral law of God, she got very angry at the idea her mother was sinning by worshiping her ancestors, and broke off all contact with us.

So tell me, where does the Bible teach that using the moral law with lost Gentiles is preferred?

I'll be waiting. But really, you should do your own study instead of depending on books. Try this: read through the entire NT, marking every single time someone does evangelism or talks about it. Then you will have your own method as lead by the Holy Spirit, not some book which may or may not be right.

Concerning the Ray Comfort book you mentioned, the subtitle is: "The Myth of the Modern Message." Strange. John R. Rice saw more than 200,000 come to Christ without using Ray Comfort's method (my figure from his biography). D. D. Moody is said to have seen a million come to Christ, yet in his sermons he did not use Ray Comfort's message. I have about 50 books on evangelism that do not teach the Ray Comfort message. Looks to me like Ray Comfort is just another one of those guys who comes along and says, "People, everyone but me has been doing it wrong for 100's of years. Gather round, and I'll tell you what everyone is doing wrong!"

What America really needs is not a new method of evangelism, but the fire of the Holy Spirit descending upon His people. We need revival, not a new method. We need to get on our knees and ask for God's power. Just yesterday the students of my college had corporate prayer, with weeping and repentance, for 45 minutes after the message of the preacher in the revival meetings for the new semester. This is what will bring revival, not a new method. We need to get on our knees and pray for revival.

 

Just a quick follow-up on the title of Ray's book, God Has a Wonderful Plan for your Life, the Myth of the Modern Message. This is a direct attack on the "Four Spiritual Laws" method of evangelism. You can see the tract here: http://crustore.org/four-laws-english/

This is a good method of evangelism. It presents the complete Gospel plainly. I have a dear friend who is a missionary to Japan who was saved when someone came up to him at Berkeley U. and asked him if he knew about the four spiritual laws, then told him, "God has a wonderful plan for your life," then led him to Christ using the tract.

Think about it. Does God have a wonderful plan for your life? Of course He does! To avoid Hell and live for Christ is a wonderful plan. To even be persecuted for the cause of Christ is a positive thing, something we should "Rejoice, and be exceeding glad" about, not be negative about (Matt. 5:10-12).

"Yeah, you should get saved, but then it's going to be rough. You need to sacrifice for the Lord, and then you might even be picked on for Christ." Really? That's a bad plan? No, it's a wonderful plan. Rejoice if you are privileged to suffer and sacrifice for Christ.

And Americans know little about suffering and sacrifice anyway. You want to know about persecution and sacrifice? Ask a Japanese believer, or someone in a Muslim country.

 

JonC

JonC

I posted this in another thread...but it helps answer your question;

on page 118-119 it is pointed out ;

in Lev 18;24-28 The transgression of the very law which God was revealing to Israel was THE SAME LAW which brought Divine punishment upon the Gentiles who occupied the land before them.
Israel and the Gentiles were under the same moral law, and they both would suffer the same penalty for the defilement which comes with violating it-eviction from the land.

 

John of Japan

In looking over this post I found several things to react to...positive and negative.

John had a message Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.... We have the same message. We are not just called to salvation by we are called into the kingdom.The Apostles preached a full message "according to the scriptures"
John preached repentance. The Apostles preached repentance. John spoke of the Reign of Heaven.
John Spoke of the Kingdom....the Apostles spoke of the Reign of Heaven....the Kingdom.
acts14;
21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,

22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

Correct...there are several ways spoken of.

There are many ways to present the truth. The poster is NOT WRONG in suggesting the valid use of the law, and in fact a case can be made for exactly what he is suggesting, although he does not seem to be quite up to it.

All men everywhere...agreed.

God has not left Himself without witness. God has not left us to our own devices as you suggest.
We are to do things in God's way......
ex25;
40 And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount.

1tim3;

14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

2tim3;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If it is not based in scripture...it has to go.

agreed

agreed

.

This is where we have a major disagreement. THE WHOLE GOSPEL......is .....GOSPEL...because fallen man is guilty before God, guilty of sin and rebellion against God, His word, His LAW.

In the first three chapters of Romans Paul labors to set this forth.....Why is he not ashamed of the "GOSPEL"?

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Fallen man is a truth suppressor, who prefers to sin and rebel against...THE LAW OF GOD


The list of sins here in Romans one...is just that......Sin against God's moral law.
All men everywhere are under God's Law.....they are fully responsible....

That is why the gospel is THIS;

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

To suggest otherwise is a distortion of the gospel and the active and passive obedience of Jesus as the perfect law keeper for His people who he is both mediator and Surety.


I will split this into another thread...pt2-

 

Hello JonC,

this is an important issue and care needs to be taken as much as we can , not to talk past each other....let me finish my thoughts with JOJ..... then I will clarify and see where we can agree and perhaps challenge each other....this is I believe a very complex issue and the cause for much confusion.
We have some agreement, but i believe we also have disagreement....but then again....this is the baptistboard,lol

 

John Of Japan,
pt2

Maybe I misunderstand......but this fragmenting of each word.......evil-mindedness wicked ways, evil doings, malicious deeds
All of these actions are SIN.....All of these things are a violation of the Decalogue. All sin and lawlessness can be traced back to the Decalogue.

You are not suggesting that the unlawful deeds of the Sodomites were not a violation of the law of God are you?

Peter addressed all who were there......It was not just those who crucifed Jesus.....it was about redemptive History unfolding before their very eyes....

Nonsense...it certainly was....Peter says it fulfilled Joel 2......this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel....
The context was certainly evangelistic;

27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.

28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.

31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.


32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.


.

He has to work on his backing up his claims , but his claim is not wrong.

Many see it as needful...this whole" preferred thing" is a side issue.

We are not told everything that was said. To suggest that the law was not mentioned is grave error.
Anytime the context is about turning from sin...that deals with law, law keeping, law breaking.


The whole context of peter's sermon was salvation is available to those who repent and believe.

Saved from what? as in mt 1:21...
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

What is SIN?

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

We can look to jn 4 to see it;
9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

In the midst of the discussion Jesus asks a question;
15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:

18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

Jesus is calling her to account for her sin and fornication.....she wanted living water, or at least to hear about it, but she was not ready for it...Jesus used her law breaking to begin to prepare her.....

JESUS did not say....{attention JOJ.....I am going to appeal to the law, and what is a lawful marraige] nevertheless He did that very thing. The word LAW was not used....but the law was indeed used.


She got the message;
28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,

29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did:


Here from A Baptist Catechism with Commentary...by W.R. Downing;

So because this unbelieving woman bristled against her sin being exposed.....that invalidates the truth of God?
can she be saved and hold on to her idolatry?

He mentions 3 helpful books......what he needs is a better grasp on what they are saying.

I am glad J.R.Rice did what he did in his day. The results and what was actually done are known to God. Raising hands, and walking the aisle is no real indication of what has taken place. I am glad he stood against some error, but he had his detractors...God alone is his judge.
I am glad he was active and doing things even if i know we did not agree on many things theologically.

)

All kinds of claims are made.....the results belong to God. Defective messages lead to defective converts. Unless the Lord is at work....it is all vanity.

I have seen a couple of the WOTM presentations.....I do not recall anything like that being said.....do you have evidence to support your claim? I saw it presented as a way...not the only way.

 

JonC

JONC...I find your language confusing...it could be because I have driven 2600 miles in the last 4 days, and am tired...but i am not clear on what you are saying here.

In LEV 18.....the gentiles were being kicked out...The Land vomited them out for sinful law breaking. The sins listed were a violation of God's law.
What law? The israelites are warned not to break the same laws as the Gentiles did.....the Gentiles were in that land first.
keep the issue simple.
All men at the white throne will need to be sinless perfectly and cannot. MM gave good teaching on the law of God.

I believe this is actual....not a reflection, but actual.
In the NT. The Law {10} are put into our hearts and minds......not just a "reflection of them"....but they in their fullness.
All sin can be traced back to the ten. All laws are based on the ten. Every Mosaic law can be found based in the ten.
all Nt law can be traced to the ten. This alone would be a thread or two all by itself.

yes they were then, and yes they are now.

From A Baptist Catechism with Commentary; by W.R. Downing

Disobedience would bring the same result;
18 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.

3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)

28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God.

 

John of Japan

This tract is false.

No it does not, no where was this method or message used at all.

let's see;
Moses goes to Pharoah;

Moses says.....Pharoah-
God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.

Law 1.....He is going to send ten plagues on the land

law2....He is going to kill all the firstborn in the land

law3....He is going to drown your army in the Red Sea

law 4.... He is going to cast your reprobate soul into hell.

I once owned a tract that had the story of Noah's ark...and on the picture it showed a life preserver on the Ark with the words....Smile...God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life....then the tract went over the genesis account and looked in vain for this message.....

We have good news that Jesus died for sinners. the love of God is only found IN CHRIST...never outside of Christ. You have no biblical warrant to say to random sinners if God loves them or not.
God loves sinners...In Christ. but this is another thread.

 

Yeah, I get it. The first book is by Reisinger, a noted Calvinist. I'm actually glad to hear about this one, since Calvinists write so few books on evangelism (J. I. Packer and James Kennedy being exceptions, though you would not agree with their methods, I'm sure). The second looks better.

But is that one quote the best you can do? And you don't even source which one said it?? Are you kidding me???

 

But this thread was about you and me. Are you backing out? Man up.

 

So is that your message in 2016 when you do evangelism? Do you tell people just what John did, "Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"? Last time you witnessed to someone (I'm assuming you do so regularly), did you say that to them?

If not then no, you do not believe in preaching how John did.

You'll have to do better than that. This passage is not about evangelism, but about strengthening those who are already believers.

I am not objecting to using the law in evangelism. I have done so myself (once in leading a drug gang leader to Christ) and will no doubt do so again. I am objecting to the oft-repeated statement on this thread that this is the "preferred method" of evangelism. To prove that, you or the author of the thread or someone must prove that it is the one used most often in Scripture.

Really? Are you actually suggesting that I don't believe in following the Scriptures? This is your debate point??

No, the Gospel is exactly what Paul said it is, a quote that you entirely missed:

"1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
(1 Cor. 15:1-8)

The Gospel is that Christ died for our sins (the substitutionary atonement), as proven by His burial, and that He rose again bodily from the dead, as proven by the many witnesses.

No need to shout.

 

The wicked deeds of Sodom occurred long before the Decalogue was given, therefore they could not be specific violations of the Decalogue. They were a violation of the law of God as given in the heart of all men--in other words conscience.

Well of course it was evangelistic! Why in the world would I say otherwise? My point is that Peter was not establishing a method of evangelism, because no one after him in the NT ever used the quotation from Joel.

I see it as the main issue of the thread.

Are you actually telling me that to read from the text is "grave error," that we cannot know what the text says unless we read between the lines???

Depends on how you define "law." The OP defines it as the Decalogue, nothing more and nothing less.

I totally agree.

The issue is not the definition of sin. The issue is what is the method of evangelism.

As I understand it, the method being advocated in the OP says that we must specifically present the law to the sinner when we do evangelism, and that is the "preferred method." My objection is to the idea that we must present the Decalogue in order for there to be conviction of sin. That is something the Holy Spirit does, not the evangelizer.

So do you agree with me, then, that it is not necessary to quote the law or even refer to it in order to see conviction of sin? Because that is the whole issue of this thread to me: how does conviction of sin occur? There must be conviction of sin, yes, but Jesus did not specifically quote the law, which is my impression of the demands of the OP. If John did not mean that in his OP, let him say so.

I have seen many times when deep conviction of sin occurred without a single mention of the law. I remember how a pro mah jong gambler in Japan, sitting on the floor with me in his friend's apartment, was under deep conviction of sin with very little being said by me about sin, though I did mention it. Why? The power of the Holy Spirit was manifest. And he trusted Christ as Savior.

You should read his sermons, and how he demanded repentance, but insisted on the power of the Holy Spirit in salvation. And he would agree with you that "Raising hands, and walking the aisle is no real indication of what has taken place."

I completely agree. In fact, that is the main point I wish to make in this thread: it is not the method one uses but the power of God and His Gospel.

I've watched several and not been impressed. Until I see sinners weeping under conviction and accepting Christ, I'll not be impressed. Maybe there are WOTM videos like that, but I've not seen one yet.

Frankly, much of what I know about the WOTM comes from John here on the BB. And John never talks about anyone getting saved when he does his street preaching.

 

Wait a minute. By the standard of 1 Cor. 15:1-8 it clearly presents the Gospel. What is false about it?

I really don't know what you mean by this. You must have "car lag."

Are you actually suggesting that Moses was trying to evangelize Pharoah? You certainly do have a bad case of car lag. Get a good rest and then try again.

I've also seen some really bad tracts in my day, in both Japanese and English. The most common error is to leave out the resurrection of Christ, without which there is no Gospel.

Please take your Calvinism to the proper thread.

 

Here is a wonderful quote for you that my wife and I read in devotions yesterday:

"A thousand preachers with the logic of a Paul and the eloquence of an Isaiah could not convince one man of sin. Only the Spirit can do that." (Quiet Talks on Power, by S. D. Gordon, p. 62)

 

You are quite wrong.
Today's Evangelism by Ernie Reisinger
Evangelism : How to Share the Gospel Faithfully by John MacArthur
The Gospel and Personal Evangelism by Mark Dever
Evangelism : How the Whole Church Speaks of Jesus by J. Mack Stiles
Honest Evangelism by Rico Tice