• 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!

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

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Not really. The thread is about the Ten Commandments and evangelism. Nicodemus knew the OT well. On that we can agree. But neither Jesus nor Nicodemus referred to the Ten Commandments. Jesus was not evangelizing Nicodeumus using "The Law" that is, "The Decalogue." Perhaps a case may be made for oblique references to other OT passages, but not the Ten Commandments, which is what the OP is about.
Did Nicodemus start this thread?
Who said Jesus was evangelizing him?
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Jesus was teaching this teacher truth.
He should have known these things.
He like many here look carnally in the natural.
Jesus showed him another way.
You fail to respond to my question, the OP, and the title of the thread.
You simply respond in your typical fashion of hitting dislike and disagree icons. Hmmm, fits your name doesn't it?
Now, demonstrate in the passage (chapter and verse), where Jesus refers to the Law (i.e., Decalogue), specifically, showing Nicodemus that he is a sinner in violation of one of those Ten Commandments.
That is what this thread is all about.
It is not about your rabbit trails and red herrings.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You fail to respond to my question, the OP, and the title of the thread.
You simply respond in your typical fashion of hitting dislike and disagree icons. Hmmm, fits your name doesn't it?
Now, demonstrate in the passage (chapter and verse), where Jesus refers to the Law (i.e., Decalogue), specifically, showing Nicodemus that he is a sinner in violation of one of those Ten Commandments.
That is what this thread is all about.
It is not about your rabbit trails and red herrings.
The point is.....only you are suggesting Nicodemus has anything to do with the OP.
It is you who disrupt each thread going off topic like right here.....
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
The point is.....only you are suggesting Nicodemus has anything to do with the OP.
It is you who disrupt each thread going off topic like right here.....
You are wrong. JoJ gave Christ speaking to Nicodemus as an example of evangelizing without using the Law, as have others. There are other examples in the NT as well. Go back and read through this thread. The fact that you have not conceded this point is quite enlightening.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
The point is.....only you are suggesting Nicodemus has anything to do with the OP.
It is you who disrupt each thread going off topic like right here.....
Let's try one more time Icon.
I have summarized the OP for you:

Before we dive into what Jesus did lets focus on some other characters in the Bible and examine what they did. Lets first examine John the Baptist and see what he did.

Notice that John did not preach God's love but rather preached the law and the divine wrath of God.

Next lets look at what Peter did. On the day of Pentecost his audience was made up of "devout men." Peter told these men that they were "lawless" and had violated God's law

The apostle Paul also believe in the biblical principle of Law

Next we will look at what Jesus did and how he also used the law in evangelism.


Next the Title of the thread:
What did Jesus do? A Biblical case for using the Law in evangelism
--Now we have the OP, the Title, and the last statement of the OP, which reads:
"We will look at what Jesus did and how he also used the law in evangelism."
In John 3, he didn't use the law in his conversation with Nicodemus did he?
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are wrong. JoJ gave Christ speaking to Nicodemus as an example of evangelizing without using the Law, as have others. There are other examples in the NT as well. Go back and read through this thread. The fact that you have not conceded this point is quite enlightening.

I just read the first 60 posts as well as the OP......truth eludes you once AGAIN.....
No one mentioned Nicodemus...at all in the first 60 posts...so evidently you 3 add this in later.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
I just read the first 60 posts as well as the OP......truth eludes you once AGAIN.....
No one mentioned Nicodemus...at all in the first 60 posts...so evidently you 3 add this in later.
60 posts?? A little lazy eh? We are now closing in on 250 posts! Why not just read the thread.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
DHK
You fail to respond to my question, the OP, and the title of the thread.
I have responded to the OP. earlier I answered with the samaritan woman post.....so you are mistaken again.
You simply respond in your typical fashion of hitting dislike and disagree icons

I use those things available....nothing wrong with that is there?
. Hmmm, fits your name doesn't it?

off topic
Now, demonstrate in the passage (chapter and verse), where Jesus refers to the Law (i.e., Decalogue), specifically, showing Nicodemus that he is a sinner in violation of one of those Ten Commandments.

Jesus is teaching the teacher what He did not know....pull up a chair and learn from Him.

That is what this thread is all about.

The thread is not about Nicodemus. His name was not mentioned in the first 3 pages.
It is not about your rabbit trails and red herrings.
You lack the capacity to process this information as I pointed out earlier....so the answers go right past you, but others receive it.
You are not looking for an answer. I will answer those who want an answer. You are welcome to hold your error....I will once again let the reader decide.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
60 posts?? A little lazy eh? We are now closing in on 250 posts! Why not just read the thread.
Well DHK.....it is you then with the rabbit trail . I answered JOJ earlier, ITL is in denial like you.
My contention was it was not in the OP and 60 posts, maybe more is enough to see that.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
I have responded to the OP. earlier I answered with the samaritan woman post.....so you are mistaken again.
You avoid Scripture in the light of the OP.
I gave you Acts 13. You went as far as you could with it and then gave up.
Now we come to John 3. You go as far as you can, and now you must give up here as well. Why?
Because you know you are wrong. The only thing you can resort to now is to hurl insults and use disparaging icons.
You now complain that the conversation between Nicodemus shouldn't be in this thread as if it shouldn't be in the Bible. You can't deal with Scripture. Jesus doesn't use the Law in speaking to Nicodemus just as Paul didn't use the Law in Acts 13. You fail in both cases. You get upset and resort to a string of disagreeable and dumb icons to show your frustration.
Jesus is teaching the teacher what He did not know....pull up a chair and learn from Him.
Yes, he was a master of Israel. Jesus taught him spiritual truths. No mention is made of the Law.

The thread is not about Nicodemus. His name was not mentioned in the first 3 pages.
Read the OP; Read the title.
The thread is about the Law as it relates to evangelism. In John 3 Jesus "is evangelizing" or telling the truth of eternal life to Nicodemus.
You lack the capacity to process this information as I pointed out earlier....so the answers go right past you, but others receive it.
You are not looking for an answer. I will answer those who want an answer. You are welcome to hold your error....I will once again let the reader decide.
More ad hominems--the sign of the inability to debate. I have answered all your objections. You are simply frustrated.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
DHK

You avoid Scripture in the light of the OP.

I have dealt with it early on....

I gave you Acts 13. You went as far as you could with it and then gave up.

Actually...I offered Acts 13 in post 95......are you allergic to truth? I answered and your response avoided what i raised showing you really are not looking for an answer.
Now we come to John 3. You go as far as you can, and now you must give up here as well. Why?

Jn 3 is off topic....I do not see it as evangelism as much as correcting of a false teacher.
Because you know you are wrong
i went initially to the samaritan woman, a clear evangelistic section. An explanation was given. many liked it, you did not.
. The only thing you can resort to now is to hurl insults and use disparaging icons.

I speak honestly DHK......others like it, you do not.

monster strawman alert.....DHK again; reader beware-
You now complain that the conversation between Nicodemus shouldn't be in this thread as if it shouldn't be in the Bible

Where did I say it "should not be in the bible?" Post where I said this or repent of once again speaking a lying false witness against a believer. I said no such thing. Saying i did is a LIE.
. You can't deal with Scripture.

Not with people who do not want an answer.....when you post like this, people no longer read the thread, so you should stop.

Jesus doesn't use the Law in speaking to Nicodemus

Jesus was revealing heavenly truth which Nicodemus could not understand. Looks like you cannot welcome it either.

just as Paul didn't use the Law in Acts 13

It has been shown already, others liked it , you do not.

. You fail in both cases

You can say what you like, your comments are void of substance.
. You get upset and resort to a string of disagreeable and dumb icons to show your frustration.
Not at all.....I just comment on what I see.You do not like it, others do.
Yes, he was a master of Israel. Jesus taught him spiritual truths. No mention is made of the Law.
Do you think as THE TEACHER OF ISRAEL he might have known what the law said? Just a guess that he might have.lol
Read the OP; Read the title.
The thread is about the Law as it relates to evangelism

yes and I have offered on it several times.
. In John 3 Jesus "is evangelizing"
Nicodemus is in the covenant already...why would he need to be "evangelized'?
or telling the truth of eternal life to Nicodemus.

Whatever Nicodemus thought about it was sort of like you and your posts....wrong. Jesus corrected him.
More ad hominems--the sign of the inability to debate.

I just speak what i see...you posting falsehoods, disrupting threads, bearing false witness like you did here....Or have you found a post that i made that suggests Jn 3 should not be in the bible???? still waiting for that one.....RoflmaoRedface:(Cautious

I have answered all your objections.

RoflmaoRoflmaoRoflmao


You are simply frustrated.RoflmaoRoflmaoRoflmao
not at all friend.....nice try though.
 
Last edited:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
DHK

I have dealt with it early on....

Actually...I offered Acts 13 in post 95......are you allergic to truth? I answered and your response avoided what i raised showing you really are not looking for an answer.
Really? Please demonstrate from Acts 13:14-41 where Paul used the law in his sermon to convince his audience that they were sinners.
Jn 3 is off topic....I do not see it as evangelism as much as correcting of a false teacher.
John 3 is one of the most popular passages used by preachers and evangelists to witness to people. You should know that. It tells people that they "must be born again." Unless one is born again they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. That spiritual truth is not just for Nicodemus, but for every one of us.
The fact is that Jesus never used the law.
The conversation continues down through verse 16, probably the most quoted and used verse in the Bible as far as evangelism is concerned, and yet there is still no mention of the Law.
John 3:16 is the gospel in a nutshell. Let me remind you what it says:

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 continue to affirm this is irrelevant to this thread.
i went initially to the samaritan woman, a clear evangelistic section. An explanation was given. many liked it, you did not.
I haven't checked but I don't remember commenting on John chapter four.
I speak honestly DHK......others like it, you do not.
You are responding to your ridiculous overuse of disparaging icons. And you call that speaking honestly??
Where did I say it "should not be in the bible?" Post where I said this or repent of once again speaking a lying false witness against a believer. I said no such thing. Saying i did is a LIE.
John chapter three is an integral part of this discussion. Now listen again to what I said:
You keep insisting that it should not be a part of this discussion AS IF it should not be a part of the Bible. Do you understand what I said? I did not lie. If you think I did perhaps you need to study the English language more.
Jesus was revealing heavenly truth which Nicodemus could not understand. Looks like you cannot welcome it either.
Paul was revealing spiritual truth to the jailer when he said:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
Paul also revealed spiritual truth in Acts 13:14-41.
Peter revealed Spiritual truth to Cornelius in Acts 10, and also on the Day of Pentecost.
Every person who has ever been witnessed to in the world has had spiritual truth revealed to them.
That is what evangelism is all about--spiritual truth being revealed to the unsaved!!
It has been shown already, others liked it , you do not.
Again, you have yet to show where Paul used the Law in his sermon in Acts 13:14-41. Not you, not anyone else. You simply gave up and declared yourself right. Typical.
You can say what you like, your comments are void of substance.
I say what I believe to be true and you still have not refuted it. Here are the facts:
1. Jesus did not use the Law with Nicodemus.
2. Paul did not use the Law in Acts 13:14-41.
--You have not offered one iota of evidence to the contrary. Why do you carry on like this?
Do you think as THE TEACHER OF ISRAEL he might bhave known what the law said? Just a guess that he might have.
That is a red herring; one of you many bunny trails.
The important fact to note is that in the passage Jesus did not refer to the LAW in his conversation with Nicodemus. You might make a case for it when Jesus spoke with the rich young ruler, but not with Nicodemus.
yes and I have offered on it several times.
And concerning the OP, you have not demonstrated that either Acts 13 or John 3 have anything to do with the law. You have failed.
Nicodemus is in the covenant already...why would he need to be "evangelized'?
Accordingly then so was Ahab and Jezebel? Is that what you mean? What covenant?
But let's look at your belief a little closer.
Nicodemus came to Jesus. He wasn't saved, but an "unbeliever," and needed to be born again.
Nicodemus was also a member of the Sanhedrin, the very group that condemned Christ to be crucified. Had Nicodemus's life been changed, regenerated, at the time of that conversation he would have left the Sanhedrin as Saul did. Becoming a disciple of Christ and staying as a member of the Sanhedrin do not go hand in hand. If he was born again he was a "secret believer," if you believe in such a thing, and his life was not changed one iota. In fact when the Sanhedrin gathered together to condemn Christ, Nicodemus never said a word against it. So was he saved, regenerated? Doesn't sound like it!
The only time that the gospels give any evidence of spiritual life in Nicodemus is AFTER the death of Christ, when Nick and Joseph of Arimathea claim the body of Jesus and then along with some of the women take it to bury it in Joseph's sepulchre. NO, he wasn't a regenerated man. Jesus told him that that was his problem in the first place: "You must be born again."
Whatever Nicodemus thought about it was sort of like you and your posts....wrong. Jesus corrected him.
1. He did not correct him with the law, which is the point of the OP.
2. He did correct him because, though he was a teacher, he had no spiritual life in him.
I just speak what i see...you posting falsehoods, disrupting threads, bearing false witness like you did here....Or have you found a post that i made that suggests Jn 3 should not be in the bible???? still waiting for that one....
Ad hominems are not pointing out falsehoods, neither posting disparaging icons.
Even here you are leveling a false accusation against me due to a lack of understanding.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The rest that the Christian has is not in a "day" but in a "Person," that is in Christ. He alone is our rest.
Correct. We who have been saved have been placed in Christ.

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.
No disagreement up to here, mon ami.

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.
The picture the Sabbath painted by God was to show us our rest is in Christ and Christ alone. There is no rest in any other. The Sabbath was a picture of Christ. Just like the animal slain in sacrifice was a picture of Christ. So we have entered into the true Sabbath, Christ, when we our saved. So the Sabbath is given to all believers.


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?

Again, Sabbath means 'rest', and we who are saved have been given Sabbath, 'rest'...
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus is choc-a-bloc full of OT references. That is why He says to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not know these things?" John 3:10). In other words, if Nic was such a great O.T. expert, he would know what the Lord Jesus is talking about instead of spluttering. "How can these things be?"
I'm not sure why you are quoting this post here. I disagree with nothing you've said. And I stick to what I said: Jesus did not quote the law (Ezek is not the Law) and He did not quote from the OT. Look in your UBS Greek NT. It puts in boldface all quotes from the OT. There are none in John 3.

The thread is about the moral law specifically, and Jesus did not refer to the moral law in dealing with Nicodemus. Simply because Jesus referred to the OT does not mean He used the moral law in witnessing to Nicodemus.
First of all, the reference to 'water and the Spirit' alludes to Ezek. 36:25-27 and Psalm 51:7-11. Nicodemus' outward law keeping cannot save him; he needs a two-fold cleansing by the Holy Spirit. Next, in verse 13, we have a reference to good ol' Agur the son of Jakeh in Proverbs 30:4. Instead of looking to Moses for his righteousness, Nic needs to look to the One who came down from heaven. Then, obviously, we have the reference to Numbers 21:9. Israel is under judgement and needs to look to the One who would shortly be made sin for all mankind. The Lord Jesus is preaching Himself as the Saviour of mankind.
Again, neither Ezekiel nor the Psalms were called "the Law" by Jews. Numbers is in the Law, true, but 21:9 is not moral law, and that is the subject of the OP.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jn 3 is off topic....I do not see it as evangelism as much as correcting of a false teacher.

...snip

Nicodemus is in the covenant already...why would he need to be "evangelized'?
Wow. I have never in my 60 years of Christian life heard this one. The idea that John 3 is not about salvation, and Nicodemus was already born again, is a completely new one to me. I'm really scratching my head here.

So then, would you say that being "born again" is not about salvation? In particular, how do you handle vv. 14-16 about Jesus being lifted up, and people believing in him receive eternal life? And that bit about being saved in v. 17, and condemned in v. 18, what in the world is that about if not eternal salvation?

I'm curious enough about this that I started a new thread with a poll. Join me there. :)
 
Last edited:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Wow. I have never in my 60 years of Christian life heard this one. The idea that John 3 is not about salvation, and Nicodemus was already born again, is a completely new one to me. I'm really scratching my head here.

So then, would you say that being "born again" is not about salvation? In particular, how do you handle vv. 14-16 about Jesus being lifted up, and people believing in him receive eternal life? And that bit about being saved in v. 17, and condemned in v. 18, what in the world is that about if not eternal salvation?
JOJ
Did I say jn3 is not about salvation?
Jesus was correcting the lack of understanding Nicodemus had. Jesus explains how salvation is the work of God, Nicodemus had an Arminian kind of misunderstanding.
Some soul winner had probably given him the Hebrew version of the 4 spiritual flaws.
Scratching your head alot......try selsun blue.
The op is about Jesus using the law in evangelism. ...not about Jesus revealing the work of God in salvation from a heavenly Divine perspective. So this jn 3 posting is off topic.

The enabling work of the Spirit is essential for anyone to get saved. That is why we do not have to try tricks,gospel puppets, clowns, and stories instead of the word preached to get an emotional decision about the facts of the gospel .

Whatever Nicodemus taught.....was confused thinking like you 3 Amigoes. .....as Paul in scripture describes the active obedience of Jesus law keeping on behalf of those He actually died for.

By the way.....Numbers 21......and Numbers 19...are in the OT.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JOJ
Did I say jn3 is not about salvation?
Jesus was correcting the lack of understanding Nicodemus had. Jesus explains how salvation is the work of God, Nicodemus had an Arminian kind of misunderstanding.
Some soul winner had probably given him the Hebrew version of the 4 spiritual flaws.
Scratching your head alot......try selsun blue.
The op is about Jesus using the law in evangelism. ...not about Jesus revealing the work of God in salvation from a heavenly Divine perspective. So this jn 3 posting is off topic.

The enabling work of the Spirit is essential for anyone to get saved. That is why we do not have to try tricks,gospel puppets, clowns, and stories instead of the word preached to get an emotional decision about the facts of the gospel .

Whatever Nicodemus taught.....was confused thinking like you 3 Amigoes. .....as Paul in scripture describes the active obedience of Jesus law keeping on behalf of those He actually died for.
Wait. So John 3 is about salvation but Jesus was not evangelizing? Really? So Nicodemus was already born again even though Jesus told him, "Ye must be born again"?

Scratching your head alot......try selsun blue.
Thanks, but I use "Head and Shoulders."
 
Top