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

[Iconoclast]

When will you start staying on topic?
You have not addressed Acts 13 (because you cannot).
You won't admit that John 3 is a vital part of this thread (because it demonstrates you are wrong).

I addressed acts 13.....in post 95.....and 101....your lame reply was in 109 where you talked about most every other verse except the ones in question.....

By the way in your last post about jn 3......you say that men are under God's wrath. ..........why is that?
Have they ......sinned against God's Holy law?
Does the law condemn them?

 

[DHK]

I addressed acts 13.....in post 95.....and 101....your lame reply was in 109 where you talked about most every other verse except the ones in question.....

Here is your post #95
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...e-law-in-evangelism.97706/page-5#post-2198896
--The only thing you did was quote verses out of Acts 13:14ff. You never demonstrated a thing. You still haven't shown anyone how the Law, that is, the Decalogue was used in evangelism. It was not referred to at all in Acts 13. Read the OP again. Read Acts 13:14-41 again. Note that the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments is not referred to at all.

By the way in your last post about jn 3......you say that men are under God's wrath. ..........why is that?
Have they ......sinned against God's Holy law?
Does the law condemn them?

They are under the wrath for exactly the reason given: "they have not believed in the only begotten son of God."
That has nothing to do with the Decalogue. Read the OP again. You are confused.

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is your post #95
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...e-law-in-evangelism.97706/page-5#post-2198896
--The only thing you did was quote verses out of Acts 13:14ff. You never demonstrated a thing. You still haven't shown anyone how the Law, that is, the Decalogue was used in evangelism. It was not referred to at all in Acts 13. Read the OP again. Read Acts 13:14-41 again. Note that the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments is not referred to at all.

They are under the wrath for exactly the reason given: "they have not believed in the only begotten son of God."
That has nothing to do with the Decalogue. Read the OP again. You are confused.

You are not really answering the question......why is God's wrath revealed from heaven?
Is God's wrath revealed against those who never heard of Jesus......why is it revealed against them.....what did they do?
Did they do......bad things?
Are these bad things called sin?
Sin is a transgression of the L_W?

 

[DHK]

You are not really answering the question......why is God's wrath revealed from heaven?
Is God's wrath revealed against those who never heard of Jesus......why is it revealed against them.....what did they do?
Did they do......bad things?
Are these bad things called sin?
Sin is a transgression of the L_W?

There you go down your bunny trails again. Stay on topic.
You are referring to verses in Romans chapter one and in First John chapter 3, neither of which are in Acts 13 or in John 3.
Post the verses in Acts 13 or in John 3 that refer to the Law, the Decalogue, that either Paul or Jesus in those verses referred to.
This you haven't done. You can't do. But this is what this thread is all about.

 

[Iconoclast]

There you go down your bunny trails again. Stay on topic.
You are referring to verses in Romans chapter one and in First John chapter 3, neither of which are in Acts 13 or in John 3.
Post the verses in Acts 13 or in John 3 that refer to the Law, the Decalogue, that either Paul or Jesus in those verses referred to.
This you haven't done. You can't do. But this is what this thread is all about.

I have posted them its verses 39 to 42 the whole section of the about the discussion about being justified by the law of Moses
Meanwhile I want you to answer the question about the wrath of God being revealed because if you're going to use John 3 and say that the men are under the wrath of God why are they under the wrath of God why are they condemned answer the question

 

[DHK]

I have posted them its verses 39 to 42 the whole section of the about the discussion about being justified by the law of Moses

Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
--There is the only place where the law is specifically referred to. But what is this law?
"The law of Moses" is at the very least all that is contained in the first five books of Moses, if not the OT.
This is what the Judaizers demanded of many NT believers. Take for example Acts 15:
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
--The law here and in Acts 13 refers to the whole law, all the law of Moses, not just the Decalogue. Paul makes that clear here:
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
--There is no law (Decalogue) in this sermon.

Meanwhile I want you to answer the question about the wrath of God being revealed because if you're going to use John 3 and say that the men are under the wrath of God why are they under the wrath of God why are they condemned answer the question

Quote the verse.

 

[Iconoclast]

Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
--There is the only place where the law is specifically referred to. But what is this law?
"The law of Moses" is at the very least all that is contained in the first five books of Moses, if not the OT.
This is what the Judaizers demanded of many NT believers. Take for example Acts 15:
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
--The law here and in Acts 13 refers to the whole law, all the law of Moses, not just the Decalogue. Paul makes that clear here:
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
--There is no law (Decalogue) in this sermon.

Quote the verse.

Yes.....no matter how you slice the pie......the whole law includes the Decalogue .

I know deep down you know this....it is unavoidable. Why do I say that?

Every law is an extention or expansion of the 10 commandments..

Jesus summed them up.....love to God....love toward man.

Christians are law keepers....

Now I have seen you post on this on other threads. so lets look here-

38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

In the context of being justified from all things......what is that? in vs38 they were told through this man is preached the forgiveness of sins..

How can this be?

How can a just God forgive sin?

What does it mean to be justified?

Are the "all things" sin?

Why do they need forgiveness?

What would it mean if they could be justified by the law of Moses?

What are these verses describing?

What is it that Jesus did on the cross that makes this possible?

When He accomplished redemption on the cross.....what was paid?

 

[DHK]

Yes.....no matter how you slice the pie......the whole law includes the Decalogue .

I know deep down you know this....it is unavoidable. Why do I say that?

Every law is an extention or expansion of the 10 commandments..

Jesus summed them up.....love to God....love toward man.

You are off on another rabbit trail simply because either you do not understand the OP, or do not want to stick to the OP.
Here is the OP, in part:

Notice that John did not preach God's love but rather preached the law and the divine wrath of God. When John's audience asked what they should do, he gave them things to do to apply the essence of the law (Lk 3:8-14). But perhaps the best example of John using the law to convict someone of sin was when he confronted King Herod that he was living in adultery which was a violation of the 7th commandment (Mt 14:4).

Ask Evan if you like. He is speaking of the Ten Commandments as he gives an example here of breaking the Seventh Commandment. He is not speaking of the first five books of the OT or all of the OT. He is speaking of those Ten Commandments that are found in Exodus 20.

Those commands are not found in Paul's sermon in Acts 13 nor in Jesus conversation with Nicodemus.
They did not use the "law" in their respective dialogues.
Evan follows a certain method of evangelism (WOTM), where he is taught to use the "Law" first in evangelization. Show them the 10 Commandments, how they have broken them, in order that they can see themselves a sinner. Thus the basic question here, as reflected in the title of the thread: is it necessary to use the law (Ten Commandments) in evangelization. Is this what Jesus would do?

You have either missed this basic OP, or are deliberately leading others astray.

 

[Iconoclast]

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Quote the verse.

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.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.


If these men perish.....why do they perish?

Why are men condemned already outside of belief in Christ?

What is meant by "their deeds "were evil?

The point is Jesus death was designed as a ransom and payment.
An exchange takes place.....Something is taken away/ something replaces it.
What is that?

I am saying we have broken all 10 of the Commandments by our evil deeds, Jesus kept all laws....so His righteousness is given to us.

 

[DHK]

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.


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.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.


If these men perish.....why do they perish?

Why are men condemned already outside of belief in Christ?

What is meant by "their deeds "were evil?

The point is Jesus death was designed as a ransom and payment.
An exchange takes place.....Something is taken away/ something replaces it.
What is that?

I am saying we have broken all 10 of the Commandments by our evil deeds, Jesus kept all laws....so His righteousness is given to us.

Every verse that you have quoted is in relation to Christ.
Christ is the light.
He is the light that dispels the darkness.
The greatest evil a person can do is hate Christ.
The one who rejects Christ is the one whom the wrath of God abides on.
Christ did not use the law in this conversation.

 

[Iconoclast]

You are off on another rabbit trail simply because either you do not understand the OP, or do not want to stick to the OP.
Here is the OP, in part:

Ask Evan if you like. He is speaking of the Ten Commandments as he gives an example here of breaking the Seventh Commandment. He is not speaking of the first five books of the OT or all of the OT. He is speaking of those Ten Commandments that are found in Exodus 20.

Those commands are not found in Paul's sermon in Acts 13 nor in Jesus conversation with Nicodemus.
They did not use the "law" in their respective dialogues.
Evan follows a certain method of evangelism (WOTM), where he is taught to use the "Law" first in evangelization. Show them the 10 Commandments, how they have broken them, in order that they can see themselves a sinner. Thus the basic question here, as reflected in the title of the thread: is it necessary to use the law (Ten Commandments) in evangelization. Is this what Jesus would do?

You have either missed this basic OP, or are deliberately leading others astray.

Every verse that you have quoted is in relation to Christ.
Christ is the light.
He is the light that dispels the darkness.
The greatest evil a person can do is hate Christ.
The one who rejects Christ is the one whom the wrath of God abides on.
Christ did not use the law in this conversation.

Answer the questions.......you do not answer to what is being discussed.
We know Christ is the light.....that is not the question.

 

[DHK]

Answer the questions.......you do not answer to what is being discussed.
We know Christ is the light.....that is not the question.

Your questions have nothing to do with the OP.
For example:
If these men perish.....why do they perish?
--They perish because they have rejected Christ.

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.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

Your questions have nothing to do with the OP.
For example:
If these men perish.....why do they perish?
--They perish because they have rejected Christ.

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.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

So what are they perishing for?....let's say they never heard of Christ so they have not rejected him.....Why do they perish? What are they guilty of?
You can do it....answer the questions....

Or are we supposed to make believe that language is not in the text...or it does not mean anything?

--They perish because they have rejected Christ.

In other words....if we do not tell men about Christ at all.....they are innocent and will not perish? Is that what you claim?

 

[Internet Theologian]

Here we go again with the lost aren't really lost but are on their way to heaven nonsense!

People who have never heard of Christ perish and its not for rejecting Christ. They were already on their way to hell in the first place.

 

[agedman]

People who have never heard of Christ perish and its not for rejecting Christ. They were already on their way to hell in the first place.

Isn't that what both DHK and ICON have already agreed?


I consider their considerable amount of words is over how to hold the following verses after John 3:18

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.​

If I am reading correctly, Icon is placing emphasis upon the fact that the people are condemned because of their deeds, and DHK is placing the condemnation as a result of unbelief. Both are correct. For the unbelief puts the evil deeds into play as demonstrating those who "loved darkness rather than light."

If I have retained Icon's thinking correctly, he is presenting his argument (as the scriptures would affirm) that the law is the demarcation of all that is right and correct. The unbelievers, because they embrace the darkness, abide as offending the law, and therefore are condemned.

If I have retained DHK's thinking correctly, he is presenting his argument (as the scriptures would affirm) that the matter of condemnation is settled not in the keeping of the law, for all have broken the law, but in belief and unbelief. That the condemnation, already predetermined to all, is detoured by belief.

Further, Icon would show that the law is important in evangelizing because it is the standard of God as the reason God condemns all. That none escape and (imo) where Icon is placing the emphasis of Nicodemus sensing the need to know more than what was presented in the frailty of the old covenant by seeking Christ's teaching. That Nicodemus knew no one could attain righteousness by the law, and sought for a more excellent way.

What DHK is showing is that in that discussion, Christ was evangelizing Nicodemus without mention of the law, because Nicodemus was already well educated in the law and there was no need to even mention the law. That immediately Christ went to the heart of the issue.

So, in effect, they are both coming at the topic from the same basic ground, but putting emphasis upon what is grass and weeds.

When fellowship with my Jewish friends, there is little need for me to present the law. They abundantly know more about the law, and all that was added to the law by various "rabies." I can't even begin to keep up.

What I tend to do is present the frailty of the law, and the grace of God in Christ as fulfilling the law. Not just as some "bridge" as the illustration would go, or some need that must be filled, but as the one in which new life is found. A whole life that is complete and reconciled to God.

My most sincere apologies to both Icon and DHK if I have not stated correctly or askew their position.

Along with accepting my offer of apology, please restate more precisely what I have mistaken as your thinking.

 

[DHK]

So what are they perishing for?....let's say they never heard of Christ so they have not rejected him.....Why do they perish? What are they guilty of?
You can do it....answer the questions....

I can answer only questions that pertain to the text, that is, the conversation between Nicodemus and Christ, or John chapter 3. Go outside of that text and you are off topic.

Or are we supposed to make believe that language is not in the text...or it does not mean anything?

There is no mention of the law in that conversation, no mention of it at all.

In other words....if we do not tell men about Christ at all.....they are innocent and will not perish? Is that what you claim?

I never said that. In fact, previously I said that I approach different people in different ways. Sometimes I use the approach that Jesus uses here and explain to them the new birth.
Sometimes I use verse primarily out of Romans and concentrate on their sinfulness and the very reason Christ died.
Sometimes I use other verses form the gospel of John and from I John, as well as other portions of the Bible, and sometimes it is a mixture of all. It all depends on the person I am talking to. Everyone is different. There is no "law" saying that I must use the "law" in order to lead a person to Christ. Where do you find that in the Bible?

 

[John of Japan]

Here is another installment of my study of Christ's evangelism. Once again, actual Bible study disproves the ideas that using the moral law is the "preferred way" of evangelism in Scripture, and that Christ usually used the law in evangelism.

The maniac of Gadera: Mark 5:1-20, Matt. 8:28-34, Luke 8:26-39—Jesus did not actually present the Gospel, and certainly did not use the law, but cast out the man’s demons. Then he called for an act of faith: telling his people what Christ had done for him.

The mission of the 12: Matt. 9:35-11:1, Mark 6:6-13, Luke 9:1-6—They were to preach the Kingdom of God (Heaven). No mention is made of the law. Repentance is part of the message (Mark 6:12); it is the Gospel (Luke 9:6).

Jesus the Living Bread: John 6:22-59—Jesus presented Himself as the living bread, manna from Heaven. He discussed belief, but not law.

Sermon at the Feast: John 7:14-24—Not strictly an evangelistic message, but it might be said that Jesus here used the law to provoke and bring conviction of sin.

Debate with the Pharisees: John 8:12-59—Jesus claimed to be the light of the world, giving witness of Himself that he was the Son of God. The Pharisees objected. He continued talking about sin, Abraham’s seed, etc. The moral law was not mentioned, though Abraham was discussed. Christ did call the “Pharisee’s father” (the devil) a murderer and liar, but then he is not human, so it was not an evangelistic usage of the law.

Jesus and the blind man: John 9:35-41—Jesus went to the blind man He had healed after the man had been kicked out of the synagogue, and evangelized him, asking him if he believed.

Jesus answers a lawyer: Luke 10:25-37—This is definitely about salvation, since the man’s question is how to inherit eternal life. Christ gets the man to tell the two greatest commandments, loving God and your neighbor. His sermon illustration is the Good Samaritan parable. We may say that Jesus is evangelizing using the law, but not the Decalogue. From the lawyer’s answers, it looks to me like this man was already saved, and the words of Jesus were instructive more than evangelistic, since Jesus simply says at the end, “Go, and do thou likewise.”

The sermon on Jonah: Luke 11:27-36—Jesus invokes Jonah as a sign, saying that He too was going to be in the earth three days. The invitation (v. 35) is to “Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness,” so I would definitely call this evangelistic, but the moral law is not mentioned.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I can answer only questions that pertain to the text, that is, the conversation between Nicodemus and Christ, or John chapter 3. Go outside of that text and you are off topic.

There is no mention of the law in that conversation, no mention of it at all.

I never said that. In fact, previously I said that I approach different people in different ways. Sometimes I use the approach that Jesus uses here and explain to them the new birth.
Sometimes I use verse primarily out of Romans and concentrate on their sinfulness and the very reason Christ died.
Sometimes I use other verses form the gospel of John and from I John, as well as other portions of the Bible, and sometimes it is a mixture of all. It all depends on the person I am talking to. Everyone is different. There is no "law" saying that I must use the "law" in order to lead a person to Christ. Where do you find that in the Bible?

How can one preach Christ and not preach the Law? He is the embodiment of the Law.

 

[JonC]

How can one preach Christ and not preach the Law? He is the embodiment of the Law.

Fulfillment. He fulfilled the Law, but is not the embodiment of the Law. (Torah kept Israel and revealed the inability of man to achieve righteousness via works of the Law, but the old covenant exists within God's unconditional covenant through Abraham. This all points to Jesus, not the other way around).

 

[SovereignGrace]

Absolutely He is the embodiment of the Law. But if we disagree, no biggie.