Featured Critique of The Way of the Master

The basis is God's what? His nature? His person? His holiness?

These things cannot be know but via revelation.

His power is evidenced by His creation.

HankD

 

This is the message of the atonement, not the gospel. The gospel is much bigger than that. Just like John the Baptist, Jesus, the Twelve, the Seventy, and Paul, we should be preaching the immediate availability of the Kingdom of God to all in Christ. From that center, we can teach of sin, righteousness the coming judgement, and the restoration of all things.

Here's some helpful commentary.

 

The gospel according to 1 Corinthians 15
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:

The gospel is the the promise of forgiveness of sins and eternal life through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

HankD

 

I can agree on this because sin is ultimately a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

 

Paul is speaking into a specific context - and that context was not evangelism, but training of the saints in some specific areas.

Jesus preached the Kingdom of God, and so did Paul. Paul was also a faithful disciple of Jesus.

Just a quick survey of Luke's writing:
Jesus taught it (Luke 4:43; 8:1; 8:10; 9:11; 13:18, 20, 28-29; 16:16; 17:20-21; 18:16-17; 18:24-25)
John the Baptist taught it (Luke 16:16 - see also Matthew 3:2 and Mark 1:15 for the direct examples)
Jesus demonstrated it (Luke 11:20)
Jesus instructed the Twelve to teach it (Luke 9:2)
Jesus instructed would be disciples to teach it (Luke 9:60, 62)
Jesus instructed the Seventy to teach and demonstrate it (Luke 10:9, 11)
The resurrected Lord taught it (Acts 1:3).
Philip preached it (Acts 8:12).
Paul preached it (Acts 14:22; 19:8; 28:23, 31)

The TRUE "way of the Master" is to faithfully teach and demonstrate the Kingdom of God.

 

"A law unto ourselves" Romans 2:14

 

You probably want to reword this. If you mean that an unredeemed sinful nature will eventually result in the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, then I can understand why you would write that.

But the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a very specific thing where one asserts that the work of God is the work of the evil one. It is a complete commitment to rebellion against God and shuts down the opportunity for the Spirit to work in one's life.

 

Wrong. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a continued rejection of God and a continued life for self and against God.

Charismatic pretenders have accused many of blasphemy of the Spirit for those showing discernment skills.

 

Oh, okay. You know it all.

You better set Jesus straight on this matter ASAP:

Matthew 12:22-32
Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, “This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”

And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

 

Baptist Believer the problem here is your interpretation skills.

 

Perhaps it is my misunderstanding of the language, but blasphemy of seems different that blasphemy against.

Is there a difference in this case?

 

OK Agreed. Absolutely. The law makes our moral bankruptcy quite evident.

HankD

 

yes, that could turn into - every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

HankD

 

Well, what's crazy about that is, even if a society did right in their own eyes, they'd still have people break their own rules.

 

Have you shared this yet? I might just be over looking it.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

While I am not one to downplay using the Law in certain situations, it isn't equally useful in all cases . By "law" I mean the stricter OT usage , the Decalogue

Here in China (actually on vacation in Portugal) my method is to , by God's grace, show to my students a life that is different. I let it be known I am a Christian. I was told specifically not to mention God in my classes, so when the topic comes I end my comments with, "but I am not supposed to talk about this." It's a balancing act between conscience and contract.

Also, I sometimes bring my Bible and have it on my desk. No law against that, or policy. A few times students have looked into it, bilingual version . Two of my students have bought the book. One of them, after getting a Gospel of John from my wife became a "Lydia" (using circumlocution). The Law was not used, per se.

 

No matter what JOJ says I am still going to use the law to convict of sin primarily in personal evangelism.