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

Hilarious!

(Thanks for giving me license to denigrate Calvinism every chance I get with you.)

It is so, because you say so. Got it.

 

Again......jn3 teaches many things......but it is off topic from the op.
Jesus clarifies truth and announces the salvation of God Is going world worldwide. He is declaring He is the Sent one,more than that he describes the depraved condition of sin darkened men who are in unbelief.
The teacher of Israel was in the covenant but Jesus knew his heart and what he needed to be corrected on.

 

That is what the OP is about.
You and your posts denigrate nothing as you would have to understand the teaching first.....and you do not, second you barely respond to any post meaningfully.
You did sort of try to ironically in your last one or two, just have not gotten to them yet.
Clown posts from scoffers are not a high priority.
You try but as soon as an answer comes. ...you hide.

 

....................

 

I agree with all you have said. But none of that is applicable to the command:

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This is keeping the Sabbath Day, and is even more specifically defined in chapters to follow. The command is given to the nation of Israel and to them alone. We simply make applications to this command, as you have done. You don't actually keep this command.

 

Join me on my new thread so we don't get too off topic. In particular, I would like to know what you are talking about when you say "in the covenant." This phraseology is new to me and I have never found it in Scripture.

 

There is much agreement with us. However, they had to keep the Sabbath, whereas now, the Sabbath now keeps us.

This was a picture of that which was to come, Christ. What God did to the OT Jews literally, He does to us now spiritually.

 

You repeat in vain your same old mantra. You keep saying that John 3 is off topic from the OP, even though it is one of the prime passages used by evangelists and pastors for evangelists.

Remember the title of this thread: What Did Jesus Do? A Biblical Case for Using the Law in Evangelism
--This is an evangelistic passage. There is no other passage in the Bible that is used as often in evangelism as John 3:16:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
--And yet you affirm it has nothing to do with the OP. You simply affirm that because Jesus did not used the law in this passage. Thus it proves the OP wrong. It proves you wrong. That is sad. Your feelings and your pride are hurt, and yet you press on in your error.

Clarify truth? How about sharply rebuke!
John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Three times Jesus tells Nicodemus he is not born again. That is, three times he tells him he has no spiritual life in him, he is not regenerated, he is not saved, he is not part of God's family. Three times!
This is more than just clarifying truth.

 

Well, yes. We are in Christ, have fellowship with because we enter into HIS rest. It is His rest. he keeps us there. In the OT it was something they kept. In the NT Jesus keeps us and gives us rest. I think we are more in agreement here.

 

The reason why I first began debating your statement 'the Sabbath was given to only Israel' was because, in type, you're correct. But in reality, the Sabbath, the Christ, is given to all believers. I hope this clears things up, monsieur.

 

Yes, I have always believed that. Not everyone here seems to believe that.

 

DHK

,

it is.....

because a passage is used in evangelism by evangelists does not mean it always is, or was being used that way.
I have heard this verse used in an evangelistic setting also;rom
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

It is teaching something but by itself not so much....

yes he did

It speaks of the gospel going to gentiles, not jews only. Everything is connected in some way, but it would take work to explain it,
I save that for people who want an answer....

Jesus only said a few things here explaining the plan of God for gentile inclusion. He did speak of how God saves a person being born from above, but he did so to correct and instruct Nicodemus on that one aspect of salvation as he was clueless.

You would like that being you have not been able to "prove" anything....lol

what is sad is you trying to attack the brethren....

Nothing is hurt here friend, I will stay the course.....

He was clarifying truth.....not just for Nicodemas...but for those with Arminian ideas in ages to come.

Yes he should have known for sure. The fact that he did not know, shows the purpose of Jesus here....setting things right.
No need to discuss anything else if the basic building block is off.

You infer that. It does not say so. It does not look good for Nicodemus at this point, but The Spirit of God might have been bringing salvation to him on the spot. You do not know for sure as you cannot see his heart.....

[Now I will post like you do to me- CAN YOU SEE HIS HEART DHK? ARE YOU GOD? ARE YOU ADDING TO THE TEXT WHAT IS NOT THERE? YOU KNOW SOMETHING NoONE ELSE KNOWS IS THAT IT?
THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD YOU KNOW? DID YOU KNOW JOHN WROTE THE GOSPEL OF JOHN?
THE HERETIC ORIGEN ONCE SAID SOMETHING SIMILAR TO YOU,DO YOU KNOW THAT?]

That was funRoflmaoCautiousRoflmao IT DOES NOT HELP THE THREAD, BUT IT DOES NOT HELP WHEN YOU DO IT EITHER...

 

Bro. Iconoclast, do you see Nicodemus as being saved when he first comes to Jesus? I think God had wrought grace upon his heart...regenerated him...and Christ finished it in him.

 

Yes...i see you edited your post to gather your thoughts......maybe you can explain how you deny election takes place before creation, before you even consider anything about Jesus and evangelism.

 

"It's a Mystery".

(And I don't deny election.)

 

What mystery?
Show how it is a mystery after it has even revealed.

 

John 3 is in no way unrelated to the OP. Jesus explains the new birth to Nicodemus without the use of the law. That is what the OP is all about.

1. Because it is used by evangelists and others in relation to salvation ought to teach you something. Take heed to their teaching. You could be wrong. It does happen.

2. You are right about Romans 4:2. It is used in an evangelistic setting. It can be a very good addition to this conversation. Thanks for bringing it up. It teaches that Abraham was justified by faith and not by works or the works of the law. It disproves that the law is necessary in evangelism, and in application has direct bearing on the title of this thread. Thanks for the extra input.

Nonsense. John 3:16 is part of the conversation with Nicodemus. Nicodemus was a Jew, a master in Israel.
In application God sent his son that whosoever believes in him would have eternal life. But Christ was still speaking to Nicodemus. The question is: Did this Israelite believe in Christ at this time?

Jesus said a few things?? That is the understatement of the day!
He explained the necessity of the new birth.
He explained why God the Father sent God the Son into the world to die for mankind.
He told us very plainly that we must believe on him in order to have eternal life.
He told us very plainly that if we don't believe on him the wrath of God already abides on us.
--Just a few clues about salvation, would't you say??

You have not demonstrated that Jesus used the Law in either John 3 or in Acts 13:14-41, and that demonstrates that your position on this matter is totally wrong.

What attack? You are wrong as demonstrated. You won't admit it.

It is true Nicodemus was confused.
Jesus told him that he must be born again.

Nicodemus answered:
John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
--He was totally confused.
And therefore Jesus taught him what it meant to be born again, regenerated, saved. And he did it all without using the law.

But the fact remains that he didn't know. And thus Jesus spends this precious time evangelizing him, showing him the truth, telling him that he must be born again, he must believe in Christ as the One that God sent to die for him (John 3:16-18),

I didn't infer anything. I said plainly that Jesus told him three times that he needed to be born again. Didn't he?

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

--I didn't infer anything. It is all Bible.

I didn't add to the text. Show me where I did.
John claims to have written this book. All the ECF believe he wrote this book. There is no question that he wrote this book.
What did Origen say about this book that has any bearing on this subject. You are off on bunny trails. That is typical for you. Can't you stay one topic??

John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
--That disciple was John. Almost all scholars are in agreement here. John took Mary home and took care of her. He is the author of this gospel.

How do we know? He said so.
John 19:35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
He recorded the events and testifies that what he wrote is true.

Again that same disciple said:
John 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
He wrote this gospel.

He also testified of Christ elsewhere:
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--This was John writing.
Enough evidence or do you still want more evidence?

 

The part I posted in green was how you post to us...lol glad you saw that it was all off topic and a rabbit trail, maybe you will stop doing the same to us.....Sneaky

 

When will you start staying on topic?
You have not addressed Acts 13 (because you cannot).
You won't admit that John 3 is a vital part of this thread (because it demonstrates you are wrong).