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

Both of those examples you gave were Jews, one was even an expert in the law. Naturally, Jesus is going to use the law when addressing these people.

When Jesus encountered the Samaritan woman he didn't use the law, he promised her a wonderful life (drink of the living water and never thirst again.)



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

The story of the rich young ruler comes to mind.

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

You really need someone to disciple you so you will stop misusing scripture like this.

 

Evangelist - consider the "lawyer" of whom you provided an example. WHY did Jesus ask him what the law said?

Because that man was under the belief that the law was the way to salvation. Jesus didn't ask him what the law said to convict him of his sin; He brought his attention to the fact that the law couldn't save him.

As Rev pointed out, the rich young ruler is a prime example that negated your first paragraph. He was an arrogant, prideful young man who sought Jesus. But even more so, in this example Jesus started with the commandments, but went beyond when He told the young man to give it all to the poor and follow Him; in other words, don't just follow the commandments, but exemplify the love He has for those less fortunate.

If that doesn't translate to "God loves you," I don't know what does.

 

That's not unusual, Jews naturally thought the Law saved them, or that they had kept it, Lawyer's aside. You'd be amiss in thinking He didn't use the law to convict him of sin, as He in fact did just that.

Note Luke 10:25-37, how the lawyer asked who his neighbor is, the illustration of Christ to show how he had missed keeping it, and assuredly as 'the rest' (Eph. 2:3) this man missed the mark. This is God's way, showing how we missed the mark and fall short, convicting of sin. Therefore he did not love the Lord with all his heart, mind, and strength, nor his neighbor as himself, which is possibly why he retorted with questioning who his neighbor is. So he had not kept the law and Christ used this fact to convict him of his 'missing the mark'.

The rich young man never kept the commandments, he fell short, as have all men; Romans 3:9, 23. This was Jesus' point and why He stated for him to give up everything he had to follow Him, in other words the Christ of God was proving he had in fact not kept the commandments from his youth up. The rich man was covetous, which is idolatry Col. 3:5 and this showed he hadn't kept even the first of the commandments, Exodus 20:3-5.

 

He convicted her of the sin of adultery.

 

If that is part of our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus (some commentators think it ends with verse 15), then He has already told him that unless he is born again he will neither see nor enter the kingdom of God. In any case John 3:16 is not telling Nicodemus that God loves him. It is pointing him to the Saviour. Telling people that God loves them before they have repented and trusted in Christ merely affirms them in their sin.

I know; I was that man.

 

Not quite. Twice the woman said 'He told me all that I ever did' which was showing her conviction of sin, John 4:29, 39, which was her life of breaking God's law proving her sinfulness. Crack open that Bible.

 

Thanks for sharing that brother! God bless!

 

God doesn't just expose sin for naught, it is for the purpose of convicting and convincing one as guilty. 'He told me all that I ever did'. Convicted, He impressed her with a sense of guilt. This is what God does, and it is His way. Note Isaiah for example, he was convicted, and showed his sense of guilt when he encountered YHWH, Isaiah 6:5. Conviction exposes ones sins to their conscience. This exposing sin does not exclude conviction, that is unless a person is simply quarreling words to remain correct instead of giving credit where it is due.

 

No. First our Lord convicted the woman of sin (Verses 16-18), then she perceived Him as a prophet (v.19). Up to that point there is no evidence of any conviction of sin.

While the Law of God is written on the hearts of all men, it is smudged and defaced by sin, and the consciences of many are 'seared with a hot iron' (1 Tim 4:2), which I take to mean that their consciences have become insensitive to sin. The Law must be preached to activate such consciences. 'You who make your boast in the Law, do you dishonour God through breaking the Law?' (Rom. 2:23).

 

She was convicted of her sin, thus her twofold statement. That isn't reading a thing into the text.

But what I am seeing is this attempt to minimize the ministry of the Spirit of Christ as merely exposing her sin, in your comments. This simply isn't the case here, obviously she thought Him to be a Prophet, that much is a given, but she was also convicted of her sins which He exposed. This is you reading something out of the text that is there, as you do in your struggles to acknowledge PSA and texts that show this doctrinal truth clearly.

 

Where does scripture say this affirms that.

 

And yet both can and are true at the same time. We have a way of avoiding our internal conviction.

 

All I am saying is that I sen no reason to exclude one to the other. Not even sure why anyone would believe why that is not bared out in the passage. as you say.