Evangelism with out the Law?

[John of Japan]

True, some do.

First, you know as well as I do that no man can convince another of being a sinner as this is the work of the Holy Spirit. But scripture tells us that where the OT law is absent, their own law is the testimony against them. Therefore the man you spoke with already understood in a basic way, sin - based upon their own laws. You having brought it to him from a biblical perspective was God's way of bringing him to full truth of what is sin and righteousness. As I stated this concept was something he only grasped because of the shadowy figure of men’s laws which stood against him.

But even you can't get around the law in your witnessing because as you stated "a pure heart is needed to enter a pure heaven, and only Christ can do that". Your entire point is based upon the Law, of which, is there to show us what is sin and perfection. Even the yakuza have laws, and based even upon their own twisted version they can grasp the concept of right and wrong using their laws to 'illustrate' the biblical concepts (such as breaking them and punishment for it).

No man can be saved until he knows he is lost and this can only come about if he know 'why' he is lost. If he knows why, then the gospel message will become evident to him as to why Christ not only is The Savior but 'why' he is the Only Savior.

I agree that it is only the Holy Spirit who brings conviction of sin.
Yet the law is used, whether OT or mans, to prove not only 'what' sin is but 'that' it is. As I said with respect to Paul’s argument, he would not know what sin was if it had not been for the law. And it is because he now knows what sin is that he knows he needed a saviour. This is whole crux of the gospel message. But I am sure you arleady know this so I will step out now.

You know, I agree with all of this, with this caveat: you are using several different terms for several different kinds of law: OT law, their own laws, the twisted law of the yakuza, men's law. My question is, which law is necessary for evangelism, as per the OP? My immediate reaction to the OP was that it was talking about OT law, in which case I disagree that it is needed for evangelism.

The Greek word nomoV has a very broad range of meaning, much like the English word law. It can mean anything from civil law to OT law to "principle." My BAGD lexicon has almost three whole columns on it. However, some languages (Japanese for example) distinguish the meanings with separate words.

I propose the following:
1. OT law: not needed for evangelism, but useful.
2. Civil law: not needed for evangelism, but useful.
3. Subculture law (yakuza for example): not needed for evangelism, but useful.
4. The law of conscience (God's law written in the heart, but corrupt): not needed for evangelism, but useful.
4. God's law, much stricter than even OT law as evidenced by the Sermon on the Mount: absolutely necessary for evangelism.

BTW - It sounds like God is working over there and in your ministry. That is GREAT brother, exciting!

We're praising the Lord! Japan is tough sledding, which makes the victories that much sweeter.

 

[John of Japan]

GREAT COMMISION AND PAUL
In the great commission I assume converts repented and do repent of their sin-by knowledge of the law [and if not a direct quoting of the law then at least know they have committed transgressions against God.] . All well done Christian baptisms I have seen have a time for the convert to publicly renounce sin. In witnessing men are humbled by the law you then move to the good news. I assume the apostles knew how to baptise. I know they know how Christ witnessed to the young ruler. Christ presented the law to an arrogant man. He rejected Christ but after Christ approached the man with the law. Many today would have made a false convert of the young ruler. The apostles also saw Jesus witness to Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus was humbled by his sin and and repented. Theur was no need then for talk of the law by Christ, it was time for grace.
The Great Commission would have been derived from the teaching of the disciples by the ministry of Christ who used the law and upheld it and paid for our transgression of the law.


In all the scriptures I used to support the law in evangelism most were first written by Paul.


ACTS
In Peter's sermon in Acts 2 in verse 23 murder is brought up,and verse 36 and
vs. 38 they were asked to repent for the remission of sins. One sin only listed-just the biggest in history -the murder of Christ. They were all Jews who responded at Pentacost and I feel confident they knew the law. They were humbled and convicted then by the Holy Spirit. They knew the law and were convicted so it was now time for grace.
In Acts 3 in verses 14&15&17 again they were convicted of violating the commandments in the murder of Christ.. Vs. 19 says to repent and be converted.They were already broken by the unjust murder of Christ and the offer of salvation.
Vs. 26 turn away from your iniquities.
Repent from what? -murder and sin.

I believe all these Hebrews had knowledge of law and sin.
In Acts 7:38 Stephen says one [Moses] received "living oracles" [the law]on Mount Siani.
vs. 39 Their fathers would not obey them and rejected them. They made gods and a golden calf. [the first 2 commandments broken]I In vs. 51-52 they are acused of resisting the Holy Spirit, and murdering the prophets and being betrayers and the murdere of the Just One. Vs. 53 the people are acused of receiving the law and not keeping it.

My main point is once you have seen someone broken by the law
you move onto grace and the Savior. The law then has served it's purpose. If your offering Christ to an arrogant person that is feeding pearls to swine. People have to be humbled by their sin by stating God's standard and our short comings [sin] and the saving message then can convert their humble heart.


In Christ Alone

Fletcher
ww.FletcherlawandGrace.com

May we back up here? All of this explanation is fine, and I don't necessarily disagree, but please define what you mean by law. My first reaction to your OP was that you were saying we must use the OT law in evangelism, since you specifically mentioned the Ten Commandments, and my reaction to that still stands. Is OT law what you meant? Or something else?

In my answer to Alan, I listed five kinds of law. Which of these are necessary for evangelism?

I reiterate:
1. OT law: not needed for evangelism, but useful.
2. Civil law: not needed for evangelism, but useful.
3. Subculture law (yakuza for example): not needed for evangelism, but useful.
4. The law of conscience (God's law written in the heart, but corrupt): not needed for evangelism, but useful.
4. God's law, much stricter than even OT law as evidenced by the Sermon on the Mount: absolutely necessary for evangelism.

 

[Allan]

You know, I agree with all of this, with this caveat: you are using several different terms for several different kinds of law: OT law, their own laws, the twisted law of the yakuza, men's law. My question is, which law is necessary for evangelism, as per the OP? My immediate reaction to the OP was that it was talking about OT law, in which case I disagree that it is needed for evangelism.

Exactly, and that was my purpose as they are all useful and still bring us back to the origin of all laws - God and His law.

The Greek word nomoV has a very broad range of meaning, much like the English word law. It can mean anything from civil law to OT law to "principle." My BAGD lexicon has almost three whole columns on it. However, some languages (Japanese for example) distinguish the meanings with separate words.

I propose the following:
1. OT law: not needed for evangelism, but useful.
2. Civil law: not needed for evangelism, but useful.
3. Subculture law (yakuza for example): not needed for evangelism, but useful.
4. The law of conscience (God's law written in the heart, but corrupt): not needed for evangelism, but useful.
4. God's law, much stricter than even OT law as evidenced by the Sermon on the Mount: absolutely necessary for evangelism.

I agree with you brother. Now if the OP is saying the OT law is required for evangelism, I would disagree but I don't think it was being that narrow. I could be wrong though.

We're praising the Lord! Japan is tough sledding, which makes the victories that much sweeter.

Praise God, brother. That is good to hear! :godisgood:

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello John and Allan,

I'm sure you know this opening line of a book..

Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.

I feel this line is head on right and within what we are talking about. Man must see himself in light of God and the Law is what helps us do this. It is a measuring stick that can't be met other than through Christ. In other words as we look at the Law of God, we see not only who God is, but also a better picture of who we ARE NOT.

The 10 commandments are really a picture of God. They are the "10 words" of God, telling us who he is.

Now I'm going to disagree with Allan on a few things, but it is my guess that Allan and I are not far apart. It may come down to just the meaning of the words we use.

Many divide OT law into two parts. Moral law and Ceremonial Law.

John R. Rice's book, "Here Are More Questions", chapter 27 divides the Law this way.

The Moral Law is the 10 commandments. Rice and many other from that day says that one of the 10 are part of the Ceremonial Law. That view is changing among IFB today and many if not most feel all 10 are indeed the Moral Law. Rice even allows for this, but did not hold to it.

Law of Moses (aka the “Book of the Law,” or “Book of the Covenant”, “the Mosaic Law”, “The Ceremonial Law”), pertains to the Jewish nation, much like we have our own laws in our nation, and our on laws/rules in our local church, and schools what have ya. These Ceremonial Laws do not pertain to every person in the while world.

The Moral Law does pertain to all of mankind. This is true if you believe in 9 or 10 Moral Laws. These laws are what was written on the hearts of all men and also what brings guilt in men when they sin. Even when they don't know God the sense of good and bad (moral) remains in man.

The Law of God is the Moral Law. The NT does not annul the Moral Law, but broadens it. It works in mans heart in the 3 areas that I posted above.

 

[Servent]

In Gal 3 Paul said that the law was the schoolmaster that brings us to Christ.


Paul also said he did not know sin but by the law.

 

[John of Japan]

Exactly, and that was my purpose as they are all useful and still bring us back to the origin of all laws - God and His law.

I agree with you brother. Now if the OP is saying the OT law is required for evangelism, I would disagree but I don't think it was being that narrow. I could be wrong though.

So we're on the same page. Now it is up to our OP author to tell us what he meant.

It's in your court, Fletcher Law. And by the way, welcome to the BB. :wavey:

 

[John of Japan]

Hello John and Allan,

I'm sure you know this opening line of a book..

I feel this line is head on right and within what we are talking about. Man must see himself in light of God and the Law is what helps us do this. It is a measuring stick that can't be met other than through Christ. In other words as we look at the Law of God, we see not only who God is, but also a better picture of who we ARE NOT.

The 10 commandments are really a picture of God. They are the "10 words" of God, telling us who he is.

Now I'm going to disagree with Allan on a few things, but it is my guess that Allan and I are not far apart. It may come down to just the meaning of the words we use.

Many divide OT law into two parts. Moral law and Ceremonial Law.

John R. Rice's book, "Here Are More Questions", chapter 27 divides the Law this way.

The Moral Law is the 10 commandments. Rice and many other from that day says that one of the 10 are part of the Ceremonial Law. That view is changing among IFB today and many if not most feel all 10 are indeed the Moral Law. Rice even allows for this, but did not hold to it.

Law of Moses (aka the “Book of the Law,” or “Book of the Covenant”, “the Mosaic Law”, “The Ceremonial Law”), pertains to the Jewish nation, much like we have our own laws in our nation, and our on laws/rules in our local church, and schools what have ya. These Ceremonial Laws do not pertain to every person in the while world.

The Moral Law does pertain to all of mankind. This is true if you believe in 9 or 10 Moral Laws. These laws are what was written on the hearts of all men and also what brings guilt in men when they sin. Even when they don't know God the sense of good and bad (moral) remains in man.

The Law of God is the Moral Law. The NT does not annul the Moral Law, but broadens it. It works in mans heart in the 3 areas that I posted above.

Well now, how could I disagree with John R. Rice?! I've heard him preach this and read it in his books, of course. :thumbs:

Here's the problem: distinguishing the moral law from the ceremonial law! Even in the Ten Commandments, we have the conundrum of the sabbath law. How do we account for the ceremonial sabbath law in with the moral law there? For my own part, I once preached a message on "The Moral Sabbath," in which I talked about the rest of God on the seventh day and how damaging a workaholic can be to his family, etc. But of course there is much connected with sabbath law that is ceremonial.

Similarly, I discovered something interesting one day not that long ago (several years). We sometimes read in the law of Moses that something is an "abomination" to God. In every case these things were very obviously in the realm of moral law. (This does not count when God told the Israelites, "This shall be an abomination to you.") This is one way I distinguish moral law from ceremonial law. :type:

 

[Revmitchell]

What does the gospel without the law look like? I have never seen any such thing.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What does the gospel without the law look like? I have never seen any such thing.

Amen. :thumbs:

 

[Fletcher Law]

"The Law of the Lord is perfect;converting the soul. the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." Psalm 19:7
1. The ten commandments are the moral law.
A soverign king gives commandments. These are the eternal laws that Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the law will go away and that he would fulfill it. Some people like to say then the sabbath commandment is passed-that Jesus never taught it-he did say the Sabbath was made for man. My reply would be that Jesus lived it and observed it as he was in the habit of going to the synagouge. And I do think the proper day is Sunday to worship established by Apostolic teaching. I think with circumstances that men, especially pastors, might need and have to establish another day to have a sabbath. I obviously do not think that sabbath observance has passed. And I am not going to add a sabbath observance post today.
2. If "the law of the Lord is perfect:converting the soul"[Psalm 19:7], why would you not use it?
3. Do you have to quote Exodus 20 in evangelism-of course not-but sinners do need to know they transgessed the laws of God to repent of sin. But why not use the law? People are usually familiar with it even most secular folks and others of world religions. I am not saying that you make that, the law only, your focus. I want to talk about grace. Groundwork must be established. But transgresion, easily shown through the law, has to be in your witness. But presenting the standard of God fouled by humans is absolute. If the person is humbled by thier sin you move to grace offered to sinners.
Everybody likes grace. But it can't be cheap grace. A great price was paid for a reason for sinners to receive it.

Thank for all of your replys. I am late to a high school football game.
I am interested in all of your ministries.
My email is Fletcher Law andGrace@yahoo.com if you would like to share about your work.

My church plant info is on FletcherLawandGrace.com

In Christ Alone!

Fletcher