Hogwash! The scripture is quite clear that all of mankind is separated from God by sin, and that all of mankind has the law of God written on their heart. How and why you missed the scriptures I posted that clearly taught this is beyond me.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do you have questions about evangelism?The Way of the Master Moment Mail call Q&A
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
- Status
Hogwash! The scripture is quite clear that all of mankind is separated from God by sin, and that all of mankind has the law of God written on their heart. How and why you missed the scriptures I posted that clearly taught this is beyond me.
I apologize, John. I told you before that my patience varies inversely with my age (I don’t have as much as I did ten years ago). Let’s try again and see how far we can get together.
You will not be able to understand Romans 2 without understanding that Paul’s purpose there is to show the Jews that possession of the Law is not inherently salvific. Gentiles are described “without the Law.” Do you see the difference Paul makes between Jews under the Law and Gentiles who “do not have the Law but do instinctively the things of the Law”? I don’t know how your translation states it, but here is mine:
Romans 2:14-16 (NASB)
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
Perhaps your confusion is with the word νόμος. Paul makes a distinction between the Law (Torah) and the law written on their hearts. It wouldn’t even make sense if both instances equated to Torah, yet this is no dichotomy. They fulfill or fail the Law (the moral requirements of the Law) through God’s law.
Do you see what Paul is saying? The Gentiles are not “under the Law” as you would have it. Instead they do not have the Law, but do (or fail to do) instinctively the things of the Law. These are a “law to themselves” but in so doing they fulfill the Law. Why? Because these are written in their hearts. The Ten Commandments reflect God’s law….not meaning Torah (the Law) but God’s own nature (the law behind the Law…so to speak). Do you understand so far?
Romans 1-3 says that even the Gentiles will be condemned under the Mosaic law, and also Acts 17 the audience was Greek philosophers, yet he condemned them for violating the 1st and 2nd commandments. The Greek philosophers were not jews, and yet Paul started with creation, and then used the 10 commandments to bring conviction.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried....
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
So....what do you think made Paul say that Gentiles don't have the Law, but are a law to themselves? Was this just a weak point in Paul's ministry...an error in the Bible that you believe should be left out? This is far from the only place where Gentiles are said not to be under the Mosaic Law. Read Acts 15. Are all of those places also error in your estimation?
Here is that passage:
So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.”
Notice that nowhere in the text does Paul place the men under the Law. Nowhere does he convict them under the Ten Commandments. Perhaps you read in a book somewhere that he did (perhaps the author of that book just said it because he thought he had a biblical illiterate readership and perhaps he was right). But what Paul does is exactly what I was saying. He appeals to the Divine Nature and NOT the Mosaic Law.
SHOW ME WHERE PAUL, STARTING WITH CREATION, "USED THE TEN COMMANDMENTS TO BRING CONVICTION" IN THIS PASSAGE BECAUSE I AM STARTING TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE MAKING THINGS UP AND ALTERING SCRIPTURE TO SUIT YOUR IDEAS. The passage is printed above (in the NASB)
In short, I am accusing you of dismissing Scripture and altering the Word of God to suit your purposes. I hope that I am wrong, I pray that I am wrong, but I cannot understand how I could be given your misstatements of these passages (particularly in Acts). This goes beyond mere misunderstanding – you have concretely denied Scripture and rewritten an entire passage to suit your evangelistic ideas. My passionate response comes not from wanting to be argumentative with you but out of a deep love I have for the Word of God (which you have just trashed). I eagerly await your response in hopes that you will provide clarity to an otherwise heretical action.
Last edited by a moderator:
Evangelist - don’t just PM me that we “just disagree on this topic period.” I believe that you have crossed the line, are ignoring Scripture and altering it to suit your needs. I may very well be wrong. Show me where I am in error in accordance with Scripture and I will be graciously indebted to you. Defend what you have said with the passages that you have provided (post # 104).
Last edited by a moderator:
JonC
I respect the time and energy that you have put into these replies. You have taken Scripture and shown your position. I have never seen Evan do that, he has always run to books to make his point, so I would not hold your breath that something is going to change. But the record of this discourse is public so all can see who used Scripture and who did not.
I'm listening. Here is what you said:
And from Acts 17:
I hear what you are saying, but I cannot see how Scripture validates your remarks. Where exactly are Gentiles said to be "condemned under Mosaic Law" and where exactly does Paul use the "10 commandments to bring conviction" in Acts 17? The passages seem to state the exact opposite of your position. - Please exegete.
Last edited by a moderator:
Exegate. I'm not asking if he refers to the One True God....I'm asking you to show me where he
There is an obvious dichotomy between your understanding of evangelism and Paul's example presented in Acts 17. Show me otherwise.
And while you are at it, show me where:
Do you have questions about evangelism?The Way of the Master Moment Mail call...
Also I do not appreciate you applying psycho babble labels to me in a PM.
One more insult like that and I will suggest you debate a new opponent and post a pic of him.
Also I do not appreciate you applying psycho babble labels to me in a PM.
One more insult like that and I will suggest you debate a new opponent and post a pic of him.
I just read Acts 17. What verse(s) does Paul use the 10 commandments?
Because of a previous comment I asked you if there was a reason for your inability to follow the conversation. I did not mean anything negative by it, indeed I told you that we could take it slower if needed and work through the passage together. I never labeled you with anything. Personally I thought it may be Mikes Lemonade. But often it is obvious that you do not "get" what is being said.
If I were a child I would post a picture here....maybe a Leporidae.
If what you say is Scripture then I will not disagree. I have been corrected on the BB several times, and I have changed my position so as to be faithful. But your ideas are not an authority for me. I take it you just can't back up your statements but are unwilling to submit to the Word of God. I understand that, I can't respect it but I can understand it. Pride is a powerful evil that we all deal with in our lives. It is unfortunate when it takes over our ability to discern Scripture from our own ideas.
Scripture says to be able to give an answer. I am asking.
Defend
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
No. I said that if I was a child I would post a picture (maybe a Leporidae) in response to your post. I was implying that it is a childish thing to post pictures of animals on a debate/discussion forum. You inferred that I was calling you a child.
Ok, good. Let’s look at this passage and then perhaps we can move on to Acts 17 (as I’m not the only one asking). What do we know:
Paul has just concluded his discussion on unbelief and its consequences and moves forward to deal with the impartiality of God.
You begin with verse 12, which is mid-discussion. Verse 11 actually starts the explanation “For there is no partiality with God.” So what are we talking about?
Romans 2:9-10 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Paul branches out to show the impartiality of God - this is emphasized in the next chapter when Paul begins “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?”
Gentiles sin without the Mosaic Law, but Jews sin under the Law. Gentiles perish without the Mosaic Law, but Jews are judged by the Mosaic Law. It is not the hearers of the Law that are justified but the doers of the Law. Gentiles who do the Law are justified for fulfilling the Law, but this is out of the law written on their hearts.
Romans 2:12-16 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
So how can this be? For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
Gentiles, not under the Mosaic Law, do the things of the Mosaic Law as the law is written in their hearts. Do you now see how Paul bounces the Law off the law of God? If not, consider the concern over placing Gentiles under the Law of Moses (in Acts) and their ultimate decision that they could not put Gentiles under Mosaic Law.
Or do you realize Paul’s argument about the justification of Abraham. Abraham lived before the Law was delivered. Yet he was commanded to circumcise, he tithed, he did not steal…there were still commands of God to obey. Did you realize that it was centuries between Abraham’s faithful obedience to God’s law and the Law of Moses?
But Romans shows that there is a law more extensive than Torah. Of course the Ten Commandments reflects God's own holiness....but they don't encompass God's holiness. Do you understand Paul's argument here -Gentiles who are not under the Law do the things of the Law because the law is written on their hearts?
I think that ἀνόμως and νόμος are giving you problems in understanding this passage. Perhaps if you go through and substitute the Law with “Torah” and leave it as the law when speaking of those not affiliated with Torah it will be a bit clearer.
Anyway, that's my understanding of the passage. I welcome your reply/rebuttal/exegesis on how Paul places Gentiles under the Mosaic Law.
Last edited by a moderator:
Another question that I have about WOTM (just getting them in so we can talk about it after we resolve our current two issues):
How exactly is Jesus’ call to Jewish repentance any different from Paul’s evangelism (in terms of modeling contemporary witnessing methods)? I know you may say that Jesus “used the Law,” but then again Jesus was dealing with Israel (He did not “actively evangelize” non-Jews). How Jesus and Paul both communicated the Kingdom message was in dealing with people where they were. What I see, then, is not an attempt to bring someone to a place where the gospel can be shared (i.e., “under the Law”) but instead a genuine effort to bring the gospel to them.
Anyway, once you gather your thoughts on the other two questions I’d be interested in exploring this topic. Perhaps we could sum it up as “do we bring people to the gospel or do we bring the gospel to people?”….perhaps not...just an idea.
How exactly is Jesus’ call to Jewish repentance any different from Paul’s evangelism (in terms of modeling contemporary witnessing methods)? I know you may say that Jesus “used the Law,” but then again Jesus was dealing with Israel (He did not “actively evangelize” non-Jews). How Jesus and Paul both communicated the Kingdom message was in dealing with people where they were. What I see, then, is not an attempt to bring someone to a place where the gospel can be shared (i.e., “under the Law”) but instead a genuine effort to bring the gospel to them.
Anyway, once you gather your thoughts on the other two questions I’d be interested in exploring this topic. Perhaps we could sum it up as “do we bring people to the gospel or do we bring the gospel to people?”….perhaps not...just an idea.
I think that the use of the phrase "Jesus used the law" is confusing you. You are taking that statement farther than those in the WOTM.
Am I taking the statement father than Evan's version of WOTM? I will be clear, because I think that you are right and that I have left room for misunderstanding and may have exaggerated the position. I have no problem with using the 10 Commandments in evangelism. I like Ray Comforts method(even though I find issue with some of his theology) . But believing that we are to put Gentiles under the Mosaic law in order to share the gospel is wrong. Believing that Scripture teaches this is wrong.
- Status