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

[Iconoclast]

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

.
Let's take another look-

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.

??? Jesus is speaking with the demons......he cast them out!!! You are suggesting this was evangelism when demons have no redemption? Once the Demons were cast out the man was sitting, clothed and in His right mind....we only have a bit of the actual account, or interaction...
18 And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him.


19 Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee.

We are not told if any instruction was given to this man one way or another...

No mention is made of the law. Repentance is part of the message (Mark 6:12)

really? No mention of anything is given....so it is completely inconclusive...it could have been law, or perhaps something from the prophets.....but it does not say either way for sure does it?
6 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.

2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

In this account we are twice told that He went about....TEACHING!....In the synagouge there was a public reading from the law, then commentary was offered....in the villages we are told He went about teaching.....we are not told what was taught.

found online;

Luke is at least describing in detailed fashion a synagogue service on the Sabbath,15 in which, for understandable reasons, important elements such as the first part (with the Shema, prayer, and blessing) and the beginning of the second (such as the reading from the Torah) are lacking. Because he is narrating a special event within the usual run of things, he selects a moment in the middle of the second, more didactic, half of the service. He assumes that another person did the reading from the Torah. In Acts 13 Paul will begin even later, after the reading for the sermon. It is not certain that the portions of the Torah were already organized as a fixed cycle in the first century. It is probable that selection of the reading from the Prophets was still free. It is important that, despite the various types of homilies at the time, the preacher often interpreted the seder (selection from the Torah) with allusions to the haphtara (selection from the Prophets) and with the help of the so-called petichtot (chiefly citations from the Writings).16

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).

In describing the Kingdom of God.....you believe there was no mention of Kingdom rules???
2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.

Here in Lk 9...preaching the Kingdom, was equated with preaching the gospel

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.

....and even before this;
6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.

7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. I wonder how we can demonstrate to people that their works are evil? Like Jesus did......Maybe we could use the Ten Commandments???

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.

yes....and we notice right before this Jesus dealing with the 7th commandment...I guess your study ignored this?
This is one of ten!

8 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?


11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

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.”

He gives a summary of both tables of the Decalogue....but is not using the Decalogue???

 

[John of Japan]

At last, someone has interacted with my Bible study on Christ's evangelism, other than to say (believe it or not) that John 3 is not evangelistic. (See my thread on that.)

John of Japan

Let's take another look-

??? Jesus is speaking with the demons......he cast them out!!! You are suggesting this was evangelism when demons have no redemption? Once the Demons were cast out the man was sitting, clothed and in His right mind....we only have a bit of the actual account, or interaction...
18 And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him.

19 Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee.

We are not told if any instruction was given to this man one way or another...

By disagreeing as to whether or not this is evangelism, you do nothing for your side of the debate. You simply take this passage out of the equation on your side. But I believe it is evangelism for the reason given. Evangelism is giving good news, and that is what Jesus did.

really? No mention of anything is given....so it is completely inconclusive...it could have been law, or perhaps something from the prophets.....but it does not say either way for sure does it?

6 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.

2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

In this account we are twice told that He went about....TEACHING!....In the synagouge there was a public reading from the law, then commentary was offered....in the villages we are told He went about teaching.....we are not told what was taught.

"Go and teach all nations..." the Commission says. Methinks you make too big a difference between evangelism and teaching. In Japan I often had to teach individually, sometimes for up to a year, before a Japanese would trust Christ.

As for Mark 12:6, that their message is repentance is for me enough to say that they evangelized--gave good news. Surely you don't think they preached repentance without forgiveness?

At any rate, once again by removing the idea of evangelism from this passage you do not help your side of the debate in the slightest. All you are doing is disagreeing with me, not debating!

found online;

"Found online"? Is that all? No citation? First of all, that is contra BB rules and common ethics. Secondly, how do I know who wrote this? It could be a 7th Day Adventist, like the famous case of SDA stalwart Benjamin Wilkerson, whose entire booklet was included in KJV defender David Otis Fuller's book Which Bible? with nothing about the man's religion.

In describing the Kingdom of God.....you believe there was no mention of Kingdom rules???
2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.

Here in Lk 9...preaching the Kingdom, was equated with preaching the gospel

I'm afraid you have an extremely different view of the Kingdom of God from the norm if you think the OT law was "kingdom rules." I took a grad course on the Kingdom of God using The Greatness of the Kingdom, solid gold by Alva McClain, and even he certainly does not teach this (or even mention it, as I recall). In his teaching a kingdom requires three things: a ruler, a realm and rulership (p. 17--See how I sourced that? It's really quite easy to do.) In the Kingdom of God, Christ is the ruler, and he fulfilled the law, but did not preach it as rules for the Kingdom.

....and even before this;
6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.

7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. I wonder how we can demonstrate to people that their works are evil? Like Jesus did......Maybe we could use the Ten Commandments???

This passage is where Christ spoke to His brothers. I don't see it as evangelistic. There is no good news given there.

yes....and we notice right before this Jesus dealing with the 7th commandment...I guess your study ignored this?
This is one of ten!

8 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

I'm beginning to think you have a very odd view of evangelism. (How much do you evangelize?) The only "good news" given here is to the woman. She already knew she was a sinner. But did Christ present salvation to her? Sorry, I don't see it.

He gives a summary of both tables of the Decalogue....but is not using the Decalogue???

Sorry, the two greatest commandments are not in the Decalogue. The first one is declared in Deut. 6:5 and repeated elsewhere in the book. The second is in Lev. 19:18. Neither of these passages are in the context of the Decalogue, and nowhere in Scripture does it say that these two passages embody the Decalogue. Rather, they embody the entire Law, not just one part of it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sorry, the two greatest commandments are not in the Decalogue. The first one is declared in Deut. 6:5 and repeated elsewhere in the book. The second is in Lev. 19:18. Neither of these passages are in the context of the Decalogue, and nowhere in Scripture does it say that these two passages embody the Decalogue. Rather, they embody the entire Law, not just one part of it.

I'm afraid I can't accept this at all. Love to God and love to one's fellow man is the epitome of the Decalogue. The whole point of our Lord's conversation with the scribe in Mark 12:28ff is that the Scribe is trying to get Jesus to say that one commandment is more important than the other (which would make all the others less important) and He is saying, in effect, "All the Decalogue is one commandment; you can't pick and choose which ones are more important" (cf. James 2:10-11).

So when the RYR comes to Him (Mark 10:17ff), He refers him to the law, specifically the Second Table of the Decalogue, loving your neighbour. The RYR thinks he keeps them all, but Jesus catches him out with Number 10. This is our Lord's use of the Decalogue. I don't say that our Lord used it invariably, but use it He did, and Evangelist and others are quite entitled by Scripture to do so themselves.

 

[agedman]

Sorry, the two greatest commandments are not in the Decalogue. The first one is declared in Deut. 6:5 and repeated elsewhere in the book. The second is in Lev. 19:18. Neither of these passages are in the context of the Decalogue, and nowhere in Scripture does it say that these two passages embody the Decalogue. Rather, they embody the entire Law, not just one part of it.

John, I agreed with all that you wrote, except this last statement.

Perhaps, you might be overstating your case, for the two commands of Christ are certainly reflective of the Decalogue.

But then, I understand that if you are making the case that Christ was not quoting the Decalogue but reflecting upon the two great emphasis of the Decalogue, then you are certainly correct.

When you state that the "two passages embody the Decalogue. Rather, they embody the entire Law, not just one part of it" perhaps there are those of us who view the matter as somewhat different in that the Decalogue embodies the intent of the entire law.

Sort of like the outline, embodies the intent of the entire writing.

So, when Christ is stating the two, He is (so to speak) giving a subtitle to the title, in which the outline follows and then the main body of work in detail.

Does that make sense?

Other than that last part, I enjoyed reading the exchange you are having. It is extremely edifying when I see this type of posts that can be mused upon and are most thoughtful.

My praise to both you and Icon for laying out the areas, and I look forward to reading more of the discussion between you!

 

[John of Japan]

John, I agreed with all that you wrote, except this last statement.

Perhaps, you might be overstating your case, for the two commands of Christ are certainly reflective of the Decalogue.

But then, I understand that if you are making the case that Christ was not quoting the Decalogue but reflecting upon the two great emphasis of the Decalogue, then you are certainly correct.

When you state that the "two passages embody the Decalogue. Rather, they embody the entire Law, not just one part of it" perhaps there are those of us who view the matter as somewhat different in that the Decalogue embodies the intent of the entire law.

Sort of like the outline, embodies the intent of the entire writing.

So, when Christ is stating the two, He is (so to speak) giving a subtitle to the title, in which the outline follows and then the main body of work in detail.

Does that make sense?

It kind of makes sense, but then I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion using grammatical-historical hermeneutics.

But I can't convince everyone, I'm sure.

Other than that last part, I enjoyed reading the exchange you are having. It is extremely edifying when I see this type of posts that can be mused upon and are most thoughtful.

My praise to both you and Icon for laying out the areas, and I look forward to reading more of the discussion between you!

Glad you are being blessed.

 

[John of Japan]

Here are four evangelism events unique to Luke. One uses the Decalogue, the others do not.

The sermon on God’s care: Luke 12:1-40—Some of the content here is similar to the Sermon on the Mount, but v. 8 about confessing Christ makes this evangelistic to me, whereas the Sermon on the Mount is specifically to disciples. Christ discusses the care and protection of God the Father for disciples doing God’s will and for even the little sparrow. He warns against the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. He interacts with a listener about covetousness in v. 15 and then tells a parable about a rich man, so it may be said that Christ used the Decalogue.

The sermon on current events: Luke 13:1-9—Here Christ masterfully uses the current tragedies of the massacred Galileans and the fallen tower to urge repentance. He does not use the law.

The narrow door: Luke 13:22-30—Jesus discusses salvation with a questioner, telling him to enter by the “narrow door.” He then warns that many think they are saved, but will face judgment. The law is not mentioned.

The parable of the Pharisee and Publican: Luke 18:9-14—This is clearly evangelistic, describing how a person can be justified by asking God for mercy. The law is not mentioned.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm afraid I can't accept this at all. Love to God and love to one's fellow man is the epitome of the Decalogue. The whole point of our Lord's conversation with the scribe in Mark 12:28ff is that the Scribe is trying to get Jesus to say that one commandment is more important than the other (which would make all the others less important) and He is saying, in effect, "All the Decalogue is one commandment; you can't pick and choose which ones are more important" (cf. James 2:10-11).

So when the RYR comes to Him (Mark 10:17ff), He refers him to the law, specifically the Second Table of the Decalogue, loving your neighbour. The RYR thinks he keeps them all, but Jesus catches him out with Number 10. This is our Lord's use of the Decalogue.

But you see, the moral law is not limited to the Decalogue, yet the whole premise of the OP is that the preferred method of evangelism is to use the Decalogue. I submit that the moral law is not so simple. So while the Decalogue certainly can be said to be about loving God and our neighbor, it is certainly not all of the picture. To equate the "two great commandments" simply with the Decalogue is simplistic, IMO.

I equate the moral law to the places in the Five Books of Moses where something is called an abomination with the Hebrew word tow`ebah, ("a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable" in the BDB lexicon), something which is disgusting and abhorrent to God (as opposed to "abomination" with the Hebrew word pigguwl, usually applied to dietary restrictions: "foul thing, refuse" in BDB). This range of moral law is far greater than just the Decalogue, the use of which John (evangelist6589).

I don't say that our Lord used it invariably, but use it He did, and Evangelist and others are quite entitled by Scripture to do so themselves.

I have not at all said that no one should use the Decalogue in evangelism. I have even given an example on this thread where I have used it myself. What I object to is the teaching that the Decalogue is the "preferred method" (John's phrase) in the NT. I think I have proved through Acts and the Gospels that it is not.

 

[agedman]

It kind of makes sense, but then I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion using grammatical-historical hermeneutics.
.

Sometimes, when one makes a cake, they only need Dr. Pepper and a good Chocolate cake mix.

Grammatical-historical hermeneutics are not to be avoided, but not to be used in a manner to avoid, either. They are a tool, like any useful tool, good for the purpose designed, not limited to the purpose designed, but when used outside of the purpose designed often abusive to the tool. Use Grammatical-historical hermeneutics as a tool to discern. I disagree that the thinking that a passage and words used in a passage can have only a single connection. That is why I presented the words of Christ in the order that I did in the last post as relating to the Decalogue and rest of the law. In doing so, (if I remember correctly) I am working more from the historical or classical which often seem to run along and mix with those of the grammatical-historical thinking. I probably and generally draw from a blend of approaches rather than being sandwiched into a single hermeneutical persuasion.

Again, this discussion is quite interesting, and I need to bow out and read what more you both will contribute.

 

[John of Japan]

Sometimes, when one makes a cake, they only need Dr. Pepper and a good Chocolate cake mix.

Grammatical-historical hermeneutics are not to be avoided, but not to be used in a manner to avoid, either. They are a tool, like any useful tool, good for the purpose designed, not limited to the purpose designed, but when used outside of the purpose designed often abusive to the tool. Use Grammatical-historical hermeneutics as a tool to discern. I disagree that the thinking that a passage and words used in a passage can have only a single connection. That is why I presented the words of Christ in the order that I did in the last post as relating to the Decalogue and rest of the law. In doing so, (if I remember correctly) I am working more from the historical or classical which often seem to run along and mix with those of the grammatical-historical thinking. I probably and generally draw from a blend of approaches rather than being sandwiched into a single hermeneutical persuasion.

Again, this discussion is quite interesting, and I need to bow out and read what more you both will contribute.

All right then, keep reading.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I equate the moral law to the places in the Five Books of Moses where something is called an abomination with the Hebrew word tow`ebah

Very interesting. I have no problem finding the Moral law in the prophets and elsewhere, but perhaps not in quite the same way you do. I'm going to think about this and come back to you tomorrow sometime.

BTW, what about sheqquts or sheqets?

 

[John of Japan]

Very interesting. I have no problem finding the Moral law in the prophets and elsewhere, but perhaps not in quite the same way you do. I'm going to think about this and come back to you tomorrow sometime.

BTW, what about sheqquts or sheqets?

Well, I have to admit here that I haven't studied those words out. I've not gone much further than what I already wrote here, but someday want to study it out extensively. The definition of the moral law has always been problematic in theology.

 

[evangelist6589]

Well, I have to admit here that I haven't studied those words out. I've not gone much further than what I already wrote here, but someday want to study it out extensively. The definition of the moral law has always been problematic in theology.

Not true. Learn more. Read the book The Law and the Gospel by Ernest Reisinger. The law is always the moral law and was even before Sanai.

 

[evangelist6589]

My goodness so many replies. JOJ I hope I am able to find your earlier posts and respond by the weekend.

 

[John of Japan]

Not true. Learn more. Read the book The Law and the Gospel by Ernest Reisinger. The law is always the moral law and was even before Sanai.

We'll agree to disagree.

 

[John of Japan]

My goodness so many replies. JOJ I hope I am able to find your earlier posts and respond by the weekend.

Okay. You obviously found a live topic!

 

[Iconoclast]

At last, someone has interacted with my Bible study on Christ's evangelism, other than to say (believe it or not) that John 3 is not evangelistic. (See my thread on that.)

By disagreeing as to whether or not this is evangelism, you do nothing for your side of the debate. You simply take this passage out of the equation on your side. But I believe it is evangelism for the reason given. Evangelism is giving good news, and that is what Jesus did.
"Go and teach all nations..." the Commission says. Methinks you make too big a difference between evangelism and teaching. In Japan I often had to teach individually, sometimes for up to a year, before a Japanese would trust Christ.

As for Mark 12:6, that their message is repentance is for me enough to say that they evangelized--gave good news. Surely you don't think they preached repentance without forgiveness?

At any rate, once again by removing the idea of evangelism from this passage you do not help your side of the debate in the slightest. All you are doing is disagreeing with me, not debating!

"Found online"? Is that all? No citation? First of all, that is contra BB rules and common ethics. Secondly, how do I know who wrote this? It could be a 7th Day Adventist, like the famous case of SDA stalwart Benjamin Wilkerson, whose entire booklet was included in KJV defender David Otis Fuller's book Which Bible? with nothing about the man's religion.
I'm afraid you have an extremely different view of the Kingdom of God from the norm if you think the OT law was "kingdom rules." I took a grad course on the Kingdom of God using The Greatness of the Kingdom, solid gold by Alva McClain, and even he certainly does not teach this (or even mention it, as I recall). In his teaching a kingdom requires three things: a ruler, a realm and rulership (p. 17--See how I sourced that? It's really quite easy to do.) In the Kingdom of God, Christ is the ruler, and he fulfilled the law, but did not preach it as rules for the Kingdom.

This passage is where Christ spoke to His brothers. I don't see it as evangelistic. There is no good news given there.

I'm beginning to think you have a very odd view of evangelism. (How much do you evangelize?) The only "good news" given here is to the woman. She already knew she was a sinner. But did Christ present salvation to her? Sorry, I don't see it.

Sorry, the two greatest commandments are not in the Decalogue. The first one is declared in Deut. 6:5 and repeated elsewhere in the book. The second is in Lev. 19:18. Neither of these passages are in the context of the Decalogue, and nowhere in Scripture does it say that these two passages embody the Decalogue. Rather, they embody the entire Law, not just one part of it.

At last, someone has interacted with my Bible study on Christ's evangelism, other than to say (believe it or not) that John 3 is not evangelistic. (See my thread on that.)

By disagreeing as to whether or not this is evangelism, you do nothing for your side of the debate. You simply take this passage out of the equation on your side. But I believe it is evangelism for the reason given. Evangelism is giving good news, and that is what Jesus did.
"Go and teach all nations..." the Commission says. Methinks you make too big a difference between evangelism and teaching. In Japan I often had to teach individually, sometimes for up to a year, before a Japanese would trust Christ.

As for Mark 12:6, that their message is repentance is for me enough to say that they evangelized--gave good news. Surely you don't think they preached repentance without forgiveness?

At any rate, once again by removing the idea of evangelism from this passage you do not help your side of the debate in the slightest. All you are doing is disagreeing with me, not debating!

"Found online"? Is that all? No citation? First of all, that is contra BB rules and common ethics. Secondly, how do I know who wrote this? It could be a 7th Day Adventist, like the famous case of SDA stalwart Benjamin Wilkerson, whose entire booklet was included in KJV defender David Otis Fuller's book Which Bible? with nothing about the man's religion.
I'm afraid you have an extremely different view of the Kingdom of God from the norm if you think the OT law was "kingdom rules." I took a grad course on the Kingdom of God using The Greatness of the Kingdom, solid gold by Alva McClain, and even he certainly does not teach this (or even mention it, as I recall). In his teaching a kingdom requires three things: a ruler, a realm and rulership (p. 17--See how I sourced that? It's really quite easy to do.) In the Kingdom of God, Christ is the ruler, and he fulfilled the law, but did not preach it as rules for the Kingdom.

This passage is where Christ spoke to His brothers. I don't see it as evangelistic. There is no good news given there.

I'm beginning to think you have a very odd view of evangelism. (How much do you evangelize?) The only "good news" given here is to the woman. She already knew she was a sinner. But did Christ present salvation to her? Sorry, I don't see it.

Sorry, the two greatest commandments are not in the Decalogue. The first one is declared in Deut. 6:5 and repeated elsewhere in the book. The second is in Lev. 19:18. Neither of these passages are in the context of the Decalogue, and nowhere in Scripture does it say that these two passages embody the Decalogue. Rather, they embody the entire Law, not just one part of it.

Hello JOJ
Thanks again for responding so I will respond briefly now from my phone.
The passage in John 3 can be used in evangelism that could be used for instruction and could be used in Bible study I don't care how it's used it's a good passage and I'm not denigrating the passage. I'm just questioning how it's being used here or that it's the only way you can be used.
I agree with your point that teaching can be evangelism it doesn't have to be a formal evangelistic setting and it doesn't bother me to look at this as Jesus being evangelistic to Nicodemus. The fact is he is correcting is misunderstanding Nicodemus didn't ask him a question on it wasn't wondering about it he came for his own reasons but Jesus addressed his need so in a sense yeah that is evangelism.
Everyone needs to know the Lord but clearly he's describing how God communicates to his people by the Spirit quickening them.
As far as making a big deal over the fact that I posted something and put that I found it online but that's an accurate description of what happened I was actually reading comments on something I read on an article I read and a person a random person who called himself Eric C or Eric P whatever they called themself made the comment
I don't care. I don't care who made the comment I was looking at the content of the comment it doesn't matter in this case if he was a cult leader a new age guru or anything else
I was looking at the comment for the sake of the comment so don't get all twisted and some legalistic way about I didn't do this so I didn't do that.
For the last couple years I've been looking and studying in reference to the kingdom of God. A lot of the study and a lot of what I'm looking at takes a different view of the whole essence of what is the kingdom of God,it is here now.
how does it come to earth ,how does it spread, and how is it related to the good news that we call the gospel it .
It does have an effect on my view of evangelism and what currently passes for evangelism and I like what I'm finding out and I can going to continue to look along that line.
I have seen what you call evangelism and soul winning .
I've seen enough of it and you can kind of keep it and use it.
I'm glad it works for you I'm glad that God uses you as you go about to serve him however you think to do it.
On the other hand I think you recognize that there are many other Christians who look at the whole view of the Kingdom different than you do, evangelism different than you do,
like those who were in the Gospels when they came to Jesus they said we found another group that's doing things a little bit different than we are and Jesus basically told him yeah that's fine let them do what they do.
I do not know where you think I said the Old Testament law was Kingdom rules.
I think you have a misguided view of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were in effect at creation. The fact that they were incorporated into the most Mosaic legislation doesn't negate the fact that all men are under the Ten Commandments
All men have always been under the Ten Commandments.

 

[John of Japan]

Hello JOJ
Thanks again for responding so I will respond briefly now from my phone.
The passage in John 3 can be used in evangelism that could be used for instruction and could be used in Bible study I don't care how it's used it's a good passage and I'm not denigrating the passage. I'm just questioning how it's being used here or that it's the only way you can be used.
I agree with your point that teaching can be evangelism it doesn't have to be a formal evangelistic setting and it doesn't bother me to look at this as Jesus being evangelistic to Nicodemus. The fact is he is correcting is misunderstanding Nicodemus didn't ask him a question on it wasn't wondering about it he came for his own reasons but Jesus addressed his need so in a sense yeah that is evangelism.

Very good.

So was Nicodemus already saved or not? If so, how? I'm still waiting to find out if you are a sacramentalist.

As far as making a big deal over the fact that I posted something and put that I found it online but that's an accurate description of what happened I was actually reading comments on something I read on an article I read and a person a random person who called himself Eric C or Eric P whatever they called themself made the comment
I don't care. I don't care who made the comment I was looking at the content of the comment it doesn't matter in this case if he was a cult leader a new age guru or anything else
I was looking at the comment for the sake of the comment so don't get all twisted and some legalistic way about I didn't do this so I didn't do that.

Not sourcing something is not a small matter. It is important. Any college student knows this from Eng. 101 (which I teach here). I will count off points on a paper if a student does not source.

The reason it is so important is that it gives the reader (or debate opponent) a chance to examine the source and find out if it is (1) valid, and (2) in correct context. It is also important because it gives due credit to the writer. The person you quoted spent valuable time thinking and writing about the subject, and deserves proper credit.

You call it legalism. I call it good ethics.

What you love you all the evangelism is and soul winning I've seen of you and you can kind of keep it and use it I'm glad it works for you I'm glad that God uses you as you go about to serve him however you think to do it.

This is presumptuous. You really don't know what I think about evangelism and soul-winning. I have never given any level of systematic treatment of the subject here on the BB, much less to you.

I know where its at I saw at the Old Testament law was Kingdom rules are that I don't rule out all allures far as the kingdom goes. I think you have a misguided view of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were in effect at creation. The fact that they were incorporated into the most Mosaic legislation doesn't negate the fact that all men are under the Ten Commandments
All men have always been under the Ten Commandments.

This is all very well, but you have not proven any of it. And don't jump to the conclusion from this statement that I completely disagree with you. I partly agree.

But this is moot. The thread is about the evangelism of Jesus. The WOTM method insists that using the law in evangelism is necessary. I have been debating that. I think I have proven beyond doubt that using the law is not the "preferred method" of evangelism but only one method.

 

[Iconoclast]

John of Japan

So was Nicodemus already saved or not? If so, how?

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

A person is not saved unless and until the Spirit quickens them.

I'm still waiting to find out if you are a sacramentalist.

no

This is presumptuous. You really don't know what I think about evangelism and soul-winning.

By mentioning that the 4 spiritual laws tract was okay....it spoke volumes.

I have never given any level of systematic treatment of the subject here on the BB, much less to you.

But you have posted and I pay attention to what it posted.

This is all very well, but you have not proven any of it. And don't jump to the conclusion from this statement that I completely disagree with you. I partly agree.

partial agreement is good.

But this is moot. The thread is about the evangelism of Jesus. The WOTM method insists that using the law in evangelism is necessary. I have been debating that. I think I have proven beyond doubt that using the law is not the "preferred method" of evangelism but only one method.

I do not think you have proven that beyond doubt at all. I do agree it is not the only method, however I think it is the best method in our day.
We do not have Jesus walking around doing miracles and feeding multitudes now.
We have us speaking to sinners face to face. The law is needful to show their need of repenting and believing in Jesus who came to save sinners from their sins.

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

A person is not saved unless and until the Spirit quickens them.

I completely agree. And a person is also not saved unless someone tells them about Jesus (Rom. 10:13-15).

no

Very well then. With that, whether or not Nicodemus was "in the covenant" becomes irrelevant. Salvation for a Jew under the old covenant did not depend on his circumcision.

By mentioning that the 4 spiritual laws tract was okay....it spoke volumes.

This is what you said in your previous post, "What you love you (sic) all the evangelism is (sic) and soul winning I've seen of you and you can kind of keep it and use it I'm glad it works for you I'm glad that God uses you as you go about to serve him however you think to do it."
By this I know that you do not do evangelism (and are thus a disobedient Christian); of course this makes me wonder why in the world you are pontificating about evangelism on a thread about evangelism if you do not do it!!

Again, this lack of familiarity with personal evangelism explains your misunderstanding of what I said about the "Four Spiritual Laws" tract. What I pointed out was that it gives the Gospel clearly as taught in 1 Cor. 15:1-8. I did not endorse it and have said on this thread that I have never used it.

I do not think you have proven that beyond doubt at all. I do agree it is not the only method, however I think it is the best method in our day.
We do not have Jesus walking around doing miracles and feeding multitudes now.
We have us speaking to sinners face to face. The law is needful to show their need of repenting and believing in Jesus who came to save sinners from their sins.

Fine. Then disprove my point from the Scriptures. You did not deal at all with the Bible study I've posted about Paul's evangelism, and precious little about what I said about Christ's own evangelism--then of course backtracked on that: "Nicodemus might not have been saved."

 

[Iconoclast]

John of Japan

I'm afraid you have an extremely different view of the Kingdom of God from the norm if you think the OT law was "kingdom rules." I took a grad course on the Kingdom of God using The Greatness of the Kingdom, solid gold by Alva McClain, and even he certainly does not teach this (or even mention it, as I recall). In his teaching a kingdom requires three things: a ruler, a realm and rulership (p. 17--See how I sourced that? It's really quite easy to do.) In the Kingdom of God, Christ is the ruler, and he fulfilled the law, but did not preach it as rules for the Kingdom.

THIS MAN SEEMS TO HAVE ANTINOMIAN TENDENCIES.......here is a Quote from him;
Law and Grace by Alva J. McClain

• 

In response to many who were (and still are) calling the believer to go back under Law, McClain, former president of Grace Theological Seminary, wrote this excellent little book. McClain firmly believes that the Christian is no longer under the Law as a rule of life -- they cannot be sanctified by keeping the Law. Rather, the church is under grace

.

McClain teaches:

While the Law may have three elements it is wrong to divide the Law into three laws (the moral, ceremonial and the civil) in such a way that we are obligated to keep the moral but not the other two laws. Thus the Law is a unit. If one element is obligatory then all elements are obligatory. Important point!

The Law is still in existence and has several divine purposes.

"The command inwardly stimulates the attitude of rebellion in men with sinful natures. On the other hand, the penalty externally restrains the outward act of rebellion" (page 27).

"As a written Law, it was given in the form of a covenant to Israel alone" (page 31).

The Christian is not under the Law (Rom 6:14,5; Gal 5:18; I Cor. 9:20), neither for salvation nor for sanctification (chapter 7). "The Law can neither regenerate men nor make them good. Only the grace of God in Christ can do that" (page 73).

The keeping of the commandments of Christ does not mean to put ourselves back under any legalistic system of any kind (page 62). The new commandment is that we love one another as Christ loved us (John 13:34), which is fulfilled as we "walk in the Spirit" (Gal 5:16). "While we are commanded to love one another, and this love is the fulfillment of the Law, nowhere are we commanded to 'fulfill the Law'! The proper Christian formula is set forth in Romans 8:1-4.

I'm beginning to think you have a very odd view of evangelism. (How much do you evangelize?) The only "good news" given here is to the woman. She already knew she was a sinner. But did Christ present salvation to her? Sorry, I don't see it.

yes...it is sorry, but it comes with your pov.

Sorry, the two greatest commandments are not in the Decalogue. The first one is declared in Deut. 6:5 and repeated elsewhere in the book. The second is in Lev. 19:18. Neither of these passages are in the context of the Decalogue, and nowhere in Scripture does it say that these two passages embody the Decalogue. Rather, they embody the entire Law, not just one part of it.

[/QUOTE]


John of Japan

I completely agree. And a person is also not saved unless someone tells them about Jesus (Rom. 10:13-15).

In our day yes...In the Ot saints were saved by believing the promise of the seed.

Very well then. With that, whether or not Nicodemus was "in the covenant" becomes irrelevant. Salvation for a Jew under the old covenant did not depend on his circumcision.

Only those in the covenant were saved. If anyone were to be saved they needed to identify with the covenant community by taking on the sign .

This is what you said in your previous post, "What you love you (sic) all the evangelism is (sic) and soul winning I've seen of you and you can kind of keep it and use it I'm glad it works for you I'm glad that God uses you as you go about to serve him however you think to do it."

yeah, well....by that you can know I tried to give a response by voice to text in a noisy truck and it did not quite come out to well....

By this I know that you do not do evangelism (and are thus a disobedient Christian);

By this I know that you are the narrow minded dispy ,fundy, that you seemed to be by your lack of charitable judgment in your responses.

of course this makes me wonder why in the world you are pontificating about evangelism on a thread about evangelism if you do not do it!!

Having referenced your mentor Alva McClain and his antinomian stylings it is no wonder . You are free to do what you think to be evangelism , and I will do what I do.
You would not recognize what I do as evangelism as it is perhaps too comprehensive compared to your "soul winning" formulas.

Again, this lack of familiarity with personal evangelism explains your misunderstanding of what I said about the "Four Spiritual Laws" tract. What I pointed out was that it gives the Gospel clearly as taught in 1 Cor. 15:1-8.

No.... I am familiar with the tract and what you say in your smug way. You can keep it.
At first I thought I was misunderstanding you, and we were not communicating well.
Now I see what you are about. I will adjust to your posting style, No problem.

. You did not deal at all with the Bible study I've posted about Paul's evangelism, and precious little about what I said about Christ's own evangelism--then of course backtracked on that: "Nicodemus might not have been saved."

I did answer on that and showed you being selective and ignoring other sections in the gospels and acts,
The 3 of you between your dispensational errors, and shallow view of scripture are not going to see it.....but others will.

The fact is you and I cannot see anyone's heart. Nicodemus was the religious teacher like you 3, he had major misunderstandings like you 3, God alone can see his heart, like with you 3.
That I say what I do is that I do not know where Nicodemus was as far as the Spirit drawing him.