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

OK, and since you are mostly preaching to Gentiles, and since Paul was the example of preaching to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:8), can you find a Biblical example where Paul:

a.) preached repentance to the Gentiles because Jesus was coming back
b.) Used the 10 commandments
??

 

Just to be clear, when you say you preach the law, do you actually mean you quote the Decalogue to people and tell them to repent of their sins? Or something else?

If all you mean is that you talk about sin, well everyone who uses the Romans Road or similar plans do that. And depending on your definition, virtually all personal evangelists (and street preachers) call on people to repent. I know I do when I witness for Christ.

 

If John's message was sufficient for after the resurrection, why did Apollos need further teaching in Acts 18?

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

 

John of Japan

Hello JOJ, Thank you for your response. We have not really interacted much that I recall.
It looks as if we agree on some things, but I did find some of your responses a bit odd.
I will attempt to clarify where I think there is some misunderstanding and then I will also go at your post where it seems to need that kind of attention.
I have heard that Japan is a hard place to make gospel in roads but you know by experience so I can be thankful to God that you were up to the task in that place.

You can feel free to go at any of my responses as hard as you can if you need anything clariifed or feel a more intense discussion is in order. I of course will do the same toward you.
First off;

I am not "shouting". I like to use the different colors, and font sizes to highlight something that is central to the discussion. I do it if someone agrees with my pov, or does not agree.

As you tried to explain to [evan] there are different ways to speak with people.
I agree with that. That being said I believe I have a different message and approach than you do for several reasons. I travel everyday and see many new faces daily and have learned to adapt to that reality.
Many times I come across unchurched persons. I will often give a brief over view of Redemptive History......creation, the fall, Covenant promise ,Israel as a nation, The Exodus,The 10 commandments,Israel's rebellion, the promised Messiah to come, The incarnation, The trumphal entry, the King coming to Zion,the Cross, the Blood,the resurrection, ascension, and coming again, Judgment to come, eternal state.

I do not always do each part, I add or take away depending on the person,and if I see or sense conviction.....I might for example highlight The passover....when I see the blood I will pass over you...or the first Exodus with Moses, and the second Exodus In Christ.

When the conversation gets to salvation, I explain that, and then explain God calls people into His Kingdom, they are translated from darkness to light, then speak of Kingdom responsibilities here and now. I do this as often as I can and with as many people as the Lord allows.

This all depends on the response and the time for such interaction.
In a restaurant setting, I will sometimes draw out a timeline with the cross central to it.

Well I do not eat locusts and honey, but i do what i can.

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.

Of course this deals with strengthening believers.....but the Kingdom is central to this teaching that took place .

You seen to be a dispensational fundamentalist...is that correct? I say this because of reading you previous posts you like others fragment scripture more than is needful.

What do I mean by that? 1 chapter earlier we see the kind of teaching and preaching that was going on.
38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;

41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

So....The elements are present here. That does not require every passage to stress the same truths does it? This passage does not say they need to be born again, but we can figure that was explained or taught by the Apostles, can't we?

Agreed

I believe it is foundational to the gospel.

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/regulative-principle-worship/

I did not say that did I? What I am speaking of is the regulative principle.
In the public worship of God, specific requirements are made, and we are not free either to ignore them or to add to them. Typical by way of formulation are the words of Calvin: “God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his Word” (“The Necessity of Reforming the Church”); and the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689: “The acceptable way of worshiping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures” (22.1).

These historic "facts" of the gospel are not the Gospel.
Paul tells them ....He PREACHED to them, He says "if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you"...in vs 3, and vs 4........according to the SCRIPTURES.... Notice...not just 3 facts as important as those facts are....but those facts...ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES.... That would include all the promises and Covenant realities that you apparently do not mention ???

My problem with your response is how you seem to make as if the NT comes to us in a vacuum, and there is no continuity between OT / NT.

You do not want that to be your position do you? What promises were believing Gentiles grafted into in Romans 11.....were there two Olive trees or ONE?

 

JonC and JOJ,

I believe man was given the ten commandments before they were written in stone upon MT Sinai.
I do not think they were an after thought. So Jonc that answers your statement about rebellion against God...yes..it always was rebellion against the 10 commandmnents.

 

John of Japan

I am capable of making poor statements without car lag...or truck lag,lol

No...but if the 4 spiritual laws are correct as written, Moses becomes the villian in the story as he did not share the love of God with Pharoah....

What and How was the Love of God extended to Pharoah, and then His soldiers in the red sea?

David is another villain cuting of Goliaths head? What was that wonderful plan for Goliath?

the tract was very good ause it was biblically acurate.

Well JOJ...what do you mean by this?
here is what I posted;
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.

I speak and post truth and you recognize it as Calvinism? I did not mention Calvinism at all.
When you suggest the 4 spiritual laws, I did not ask you to take your Finneyism to another thread did I?

What is your gripe with Calvinism, which simply looks at all 66 books as revealed, God's Eternal covenant made known to the Church EPH 3:9-11

 

You are not speaking the truth here.
Produce the "Four Spiritual Laws" or a link to them.
Then produce an accurate link to what Finney believed and demonstrate how the two are the same.

BTW, do you believe in Purgatory, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, etc. like your Augustinian forefathers do?
The logic of "guilty by association" is a fallacy. Just as I painted you as a follower of Augustine in all things because you follow him in some things, you paint others of following certain people because they have similar but not the same beliefs. The RCC believes the trinity and so do I. That doesn't make me a Catholic. But this is the kind of logic you are using.

 

Of course Gentiles have sinned. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

You said you preach repentance because Jesus is coming (similar to John the Baptist.) But John the Baptist preached to Jews.

The apostle Paul preached to Gentiles. He did not preach "repent because Jesus is coming soon" nor did he use the ten commandments. Yet you say your technique is the Biblical model. So please show us where Paul preached repentance because Jesus was returning and also show us where he used the 10 commandments.

 

Haven't gotten it yet, will order this weekend. Thanks for the reminder.

 

I posted this only because I saw someone who disagreed with it. Really? You ask relevant questions, assert nothing, and someone gives you a disagreeable rating? Good grief.

 

...yes, some of us don't need a long drawn out assertion to read between the lines and see the falsehood and error. Repentance is demanded of all men, Jew and Gentile. There is one Gospel, not two. It is the same for all.

 

Look Here:

Paul preached repentance because there is coming a day when Christ will judge the world in righteousness. Whether you like implication or not it is a fact of life and certainly part of this passage. What is clearly implied here is that repentance is necessary, the need for it is due to a future judgment based on His righteousness. So how do we know what His righteousness looks like or what that judgment will be like? The law is how we know.

Paul said the law was the very thing to bring us to Christ. It is only after our conversion that we are not held to the law anymore:

You cannot come to salvation by simply agreeing to follow Jesus. The preaching of the cross was ;primary to Paul's gospel:

If you bring the cross into the equation you must bring into this same conversation why Jesus went to the cross:

Once the cross is discussed so must the suffering of Christ, the shed blood of Christ, the sins that caused the need for that blood to be shed. It is impossible to share the true gospel without inclusion of these things. Without them there is no gospel.

Further, why would we come to Jesus for the removal of our sin and yet have no intention to repent of them? That is absurd, contrary, contradictory, and just plain odd. Such a message is a message of deceit, not found in scripture and leaves people lost as the day is long.