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

What evidence can you give that the Decalogue itself is imprinted upon every man's heart?
The Sabbath was given only to the nation of Israel.
A day of worship set aside is not keeping the Sabbath.

In the account in Genesis there is no command to keep the Sabbath. There is only a principle that God rested the seventh day. The principle is there, that man should rest one day out of seven, but the command is not.

But that is not what the 4th Commandment demands of a person. It says that one must keep the Sabbath Day. And that command is specifically outlined in the OT. We don't do that. You are simply making an application, your own interpretation. Does the American justice system have their own interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill," except in these circumstances...And then you find abortion legal.

Agreed

 

I take the statement of Romans 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.​

Certainly, some may place the emphasis elsewhere, but it seems that with the mention of "men" there is not the indication that such were or are believers.

Agreed, because the Scriptures state:

Romans 5:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.​

The principle of the law was already established or death would not have reigned from "Adam until Moses."

Of course the American justice system has their "own interpretation" because the juries decide whether an application is made to a crime committed. Often the interpretations are made outside of the influence of the "law." So, reflection using the American justice system is frail, imo.

It is not that we keep the Decalogue as the Jews, nor in all points as a command. There are two commands given to Gentile believers in which they are to follow.

What IS the place of the Decalogue for the believer? Does the life of the believer permit desiring the wife of another?

It is my opinion that every "rule" of the Decalogue is repeated in the NT as principles to live by, and that the fruit of the Spirit is an endorsement of the principles in action.

But such is for believers. Unbelievers live condemned under the Decalogue as Romans 1 would indicate by saying that men "exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures."

 

Romans 1:18ff deals with law and with sin, mostly sin. But nowhere is there any suggestion of "sabbath-breaking. That is strictly a Jewish ordinance.

But what "law"? Was it the "Sabbath law"? I don't think so.
In Gen.9:6 we see that God institutes a law concerning capitol punishment. That was for those in the days of Noah just after the Flood. But there was still no Sabbath.

The point here is that the American justice system is based on the Law. But it is badly misinterpreted in many places. You gave your own interpretation of the fourth commandment and completely ignored how the Sabbath was to be kept according to the Scriptures. Mankind all over the world does not keep the Sabbath. There are only a few that do. I can provide you a link if you like and you can see both how interesting and difficult it is to keep the Sabbath.

Give evidence where the command for the Sabbath is repeated.

Romans one is simply saying that they have turned from the truth and now worship another God. They are committing idolatry. And so they are.

 

Romans 2:15 speaks of the 'law' being written on the hearts of gentiles. I think it is self-evident that it is not the whole of the Mosaic law, so what law is it? Bear with me. In Jer. 31:31ff, God speaks of a covenant that was broken, and a law that was not kept (v.32). What law is that? He promises to re-write that same law on the hearts of believers (v.33). So whatever law the Israelites broke, it is the same law that is written on the hearts of believers.

If you then turn to 2 Cor. 3, Paul speaks of the Corinthian Christians being, 'an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart' (v.3). So what was once written on stone tablets is now written on the heart. What was written on stone tablets was the Ten Commandments. Therefore it is this that is written on the hearts of believers.

I disagree with this, but it probably needs a new thread to discuss how the Sabbath / Lord's day needs to be kept today.

 

Which is breaking the commandment. Not the Sabbath, but if one law is offended they all are.

Perhaps I neglected to state in my post, that there are only two of the Decalogue that must be "kept" as believers, in brief we are to love God and love our neighbors (enemies included).

However, the principle of the other eight is repeated in the NT.

Focusing upon the "Sabbath" as a "principle" of singling out a day of worship is demonstrated in the NT. For example, John states, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." So, obviously, the early church had a day of worship. What day, and what manner of worship is up for interpretation. It is the principle of keeping a day of rest and worship that is important. The same with the other commandments.

The same is the focus on other of the Decalogue. Believers shouldn't commit adultery, not because it is against the law, but it is against the principled behavior as a follower of Christ, and the testimony that those of the world expect of the behavior that marks the believer. The same with stealing, lying, coveting. Interesting is that Paul says we are to covet the best gifts. Perhaps, coveting isn't bad but what one covets.

DHK, there are those who do not live by principle. No doubt. In their thinking it must be that the keeping of the "law" is in some way a comfort or mark of Spiritual maturity for them. But, you and I are convinced of a better way. There are also those that consider that the law is only a rule to break as if thumbing at the God in disbelief.

We may use the "10 commandments" as Paul states, as the head teacher uses a school master, but never as a club. It does seem that I recall hearing a preacher who spent a great amount of time berating the assembly using the law, when I thought he would have done much better teaching the principles that come from the law.

 

yes, I would much rather use 1John 3:4
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Transgressing any law of God makes one a sinner. Therefore that doesn't bind one to the Ten Commandments. We know by nature when we have offended a holy God.

 

Sabbath means 'rest'. The Sabbath is for all believers, and not just Israel.

Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed. Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, “So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.' And yet his works have been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “On the seventh day God rested from all his works.” And again in the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.” Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience, God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience.[Heb. 4:1-11]

 

Where and how did Paul mention keeping the law perfectly on Mars Hill?

For the sake of argument I'll let this stand, though Paul certainly did not put it this way.

Where did Paul mention the law on Mars Hill, much less that God came to earth to keep the law. (Was it like an earthly appearance of Zeus? says the Greek.)

I'll let this stand for the sake of the discussion. Paul didn't say it this way, but to seek God.

Where in the world is this in Paul's sermon on Mars Hill??

What Paul certainly did say and you totally missed, was that idolatry is not worshiping the true God. In evangelizing in an idolatrous culture (which I did for 33 years) one simply must oppose that idolatry.

 

John of Japan
Thanks for asking for clarification;

I had posted this;
Hello JOJ
The same exact way as Paul in Acts 17.
God our creator is Holy and His law must be kept perfectly

As we know...Paul has this opportunity to declare the gospel to these heathen philosophers.

You had asked how I would present the gospel to such persons. I said in the same "way" Paul did in Acts 17.

Did I mean I repeat exactly what Paul says word for word ? .....no.
What i did mean was here we have an example of Paul presenting The true and living God to unchurched persons.
Paul uses what he has to work with.....

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

Paul's spirit was stirred within him....why?

16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

{I must say this right up front. It might be perceived as a bit sharp or cutting, but I mean it as a constructive criticism}
Sometimes I find among you independant fundamentalist men a tendency towards a strictly literal "wooded" kind of interpretation that prevents you from seeing the Forrest for the trees.
Do I say this to be unkind, or win a debate point? No
It is keeping you from seeing what many others see easily. Let me demonstrate this-

Paul spirit was stirred by Idolatry......
Idolatry is sin.
Why is idolatry sin, what law or laws does it transgress?
How can Paul or anyone else make this assessment?
When I am out in public an a person comes to me speaking profanely, or speaking of fornication, lust, taking God's name in vain
how can any of us begin to get a handle on who is this person standing in front of me? How can this become a gospel opportunity?

In psalm 1,and psalm119 we are told that a blessed man.....is blessed because he meditates on God's law day and night.
Have you spent time to meditate on this passage?
vs. 16 informs us that Paul's spirit was wholly stirred within him.
How do we know that? Was it visible to Luke? Or does the Spirit of God supply that detail to him later on?
Did Paul relate that detail later on? However it took place the Spirit included it in the account for our learning.e point being

The point being this....we are not always given every single detail of each and everything said. We are to take what is offered and
consider it. You, DHK, and ITL in particular show no evidence of doing this at all. Instead most of your responses seem to be
oppositional 24/7....so it does not always promote edifying discussion.
In this post you say a few times.......[I will let this go for discussions sake}.that...is an attempt to do
this, but I think you need to do more of this, then less.

like this....

He mentions the law in addressing their false idolatrous idols and the false worship that the people devote to them. He speaks the truth in love.
Did he whip out 2 tablets of stone with the commandments written out and give a law lecture 101 on all ten? No.....he did not need to do that, he just used a main sin and called them to account.
These heathen were fully accountable to God, to God's law...or he could not say they were idolaters could he?

This is our job when we declare the truth of God.
This is another example of my being critical of fundamentalist kind of comment.....the text says already-
vs18b
He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

He preached unto them Jesus......This is our job.....we are not told what he exactly what he said to them about Jesus here.....other than He rose from the dead.
Did he explain the kenosis?
Did he describe the word becoming flesh?
Did he describe the perfection of our Lord's active obedince in law keeping as our Divinely
appointed substitute, our mediator, and Surety?
We are not told, but we do not need to know other than he preached unto them Jesus...we have to speak to those in our day and declare unto them this same Jesus describing His perfections.

18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

Here you repeat your same kind of objection when I never meant this as repeat this exact account to the
unsaved we meet. I used this to show an example of how in principle took place.....

 

The rest that the Christian has is not in a "day" but in a "Person," that is in Christ. He alone is our rest.
The Sabbath was a shadow of that which was to come. The reality is Christ.

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Christ is our rest:
Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
--To enter into his rest is to enter into fellowship with him.
To keep the Sabbath literally is to to enter into a works salvation.
As I have said many times here, there is no one here that keeps that Sabbath. If you say you do you are not being honest with yourself or with others.

Hebrews chapter four does not speak of keeping the Sabbath. It contrasts the OT command of keeping the Sabbath with the NT blessing of Christ being our Sabbath; our rest. Either you go back to the OT system of the Law and keep the Sabbath, or you have a relationship with Christ and enter into his rest. Which do you have?

 

Thank you for taking the time to interact with me with this long post. Before I answer it I would like to point out that you have not answered my post #42. Again, though it is not in OP, you said in post #40 and elsewhere that using the law is the "preferred method" of evangelism. You've also not answered post #96, where I show that using the law in evangelism cannot be the "preferred method" of Paul because it is not his most used method in Acts.

So, in order to prove that we should be using the law in evangelism as the "preferred method" of Jesus, you must show that Jesus used it most of the time. Let's see if you do that.

It would be extremely hard to prove that Jesus never gave the Gospel to proud people. In fact, since He commands us to give the Gospel to "every creature," it seems pretty clear that God even wants the proud to hear about Christ.

Should we tell people the Scripture, "God is love"? Or should we hide that fact? Again, if we quote John 3:16 to someone, will they then think, "God loves the world, but not me"? Of course not. Therefore, Saturday I quoted John 3:16 to a lost sinner, then told them that God loves them. I will continue to do so. I consider the idea that we should never tell a sinner that God loves them to be a distortion of John 3:16.

It is also a distortion of the second great commandment. How could I be loving a neighbor if God might not love that same person? Yet I am commanded to do so.

Yes, and as I pointed out, we are to give the Gospel to "every creature." So if you say a certain person is proud, therefore you will not give them the Gospel, you are (1) judging them, and (2) disobeying the Great Commission.

I will certainly grant that Christ used the law to this lawyer--but He did not used the Decalogue!!! So your point is not proven.

Interesting, though, that He commends the lawyer for giving the two great commandments. Now, if we are to love God, and someone mistakenly obeys that and loves God when God doesn't really love them, then you have a weird situation. "I love God, but He doesn't love me." How does that work? We are all commanded in the Law to love God, but then He doesn't love everyone? And we are commanded to love our neighbor, but we can't tell that neighbor that God loves him because God might not love him, though I do? Really??

I will grant you that Jesus used the Law in this case, even the Decalogue.

But now you have some real problems with your position. First of all, how do you know that this man was "proud, arrogant, and self-righteous? The Bible doesn't say that, you just made it. You are judging him.

Secondly, it says plainly that Jesus loved him (v. 21). In your scenario, then, Jesus loved a "proud, arrogant, self-righteous sinner." How does that work?

I've told you that I sometimes use the Decalogue in evangelism. And yet I disagree with your idea (nowhere in Scripture) that it is the "preferred method" of Christ. You haven't proved your point. If it is the preferred method of Jesus, then most of the time Christ would have used it. But he did not use the law in many cases: to Nicodemus (John 3), preaching from Isaiah (Luke 4:16-31), etc. Until you can prove that Jesus used the law to evangelize more often than not, I'll not change my method of evangelism.

 

No, you said "exact way." Biggrin

Preaching to the choir.

Actually, my method of hermeneutics is historical-grammatical, the normal evangelical way. It is by no means limited to independent fundamentalists. One text when I took grad hermeneutics was Evangelical Hermeneutics, by Robert Thomas, certainly not an independent, fundamental text.

Still looking for what you say I missed....

Still missing your point. Are you trying to say if I would just meditate on the passage I would see more between the lines and get the spiritual interpretation?

So in your view he doesn't mention the Jewish law at all, but is preaching it? Tell me if I'm missing your point.

I have no idea what you are trying to teach me here. Of course he preached Jesus. That is exactly what I advocate and do.

And once again I'll point out that you said the "exact way." I guess I should not interpret you literally. Biggrin

 

Yes, fundies seem to behave the way you describe.

Here is something I found of interest concerning Paul preaching in Acts 17;

Paul claimed that he did not use human rhetoric ("excellency of speech") and human wisdom in his preaching. In what he said ("wisdom") and how he said it ("speech"), he did not employ what man had developed or desired. Some commentators have suggested that Paul did use human logic and wisdom in his unsuccessful attempt to reach the Athenian philosophers (Acts 17:22-14), that he learned his lesson not to rely upon human methods, and that he therefore switched his tactics when he came to Corinth. However, Paul clearly pointed out that the finest mind and the most eloquent speech that men could develop, in themselves, are inadequate in the proclamation of spiritual truth.' - Called to Be Saints, Dr. Robert Gromacki, pg. 27

 

I am glad that there are times when you say I am preaching to the choir as that indicates areas of agreement.
I did say exact way and I meant that.
I did not say.....exact wording, or identical words.
Paul saw ungodly activity
Paul identified the nature of the ungodly activity...law breaking
Paul preaches Jesus.

Yes....to get the biblical truth takes more than a glance.
It takes our mind and spirit and a comprehensive understanding.

Do not Drag Jewish ceremonial laws into this.
The 10 commandments are in view....they are for all men.
The WOTM which is being discussed quite correctly uses them. It is not the only way.....but it is used everywhere .

We do not see your 4 spiritual laws tract used anywhere.

While we have some areas of agreement I am pretty sure we are not quite on the same page.
You say you preach Christ......that is essential. ...however you seem to avoid His law keeping at the heart of the gospel.
It is He who knew NO SIN......HE NEVER BROKE A LAW, we need to preach......that is all part of those verses in 1 Cor 15....where it says......according to the scriptures.

 

You are more familiar with it than I am.
I know it when I see it......like someone looking at repentance described in Thessalonians but because the word itself is not there they say it does not teach it....lol

 

By this logic I could quit a job by saying, "I quit, because this is a lousy job," and it would be exactly the same way as someone who quit by saying, "I must leave your esteemed company, as wonderful as it is."

Huh? Sorry, but what does this have to do with my post?

If you think I did that, you are not reading my posts.

It would be great if you would prove this instead of simply stating it.

But more than that, the OP is about using the moral law as the proper way to evangelize. I have showed in the book of Acts that Paul did not evangelize that way. It would be nice if someone actually interacted with that.

Huh? It's used quite often, and translated into many languages (including Japanese).--but it's not mine. I didn't write it, and have never used it or passed it out.

Huh? It's in 1 Cor. 15? Tell me why "the Scriptures" there refers to the moral law and not prophecy. My position is that it refers to prophecy.

The Greek word for "Scripture" (graphe) occurs 51 times in the NT. Many times it demonstrably does not mean the moral law. So give me your criteria for deciding it means "moral law" in 1 Cor. 15.

 

The gospel is given in 1 Cor 15:1-8 and there is no mention of the Law in those verses. Paul even goes on to say, "This is what we preach" in verse 9. No law in sight. I do see the word 'grace' several times though.

Your continued insistence that Paul preached the law or used the law in evangelism is wishful thinking. It is not recorded as happening in the Bible.