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

Hmm. "legalistic." "smug," "narrow minded," "shallow view of Scripture."

Now that you have descended into insulting, I bid you a (very) slightly fond sayonara on this thread.

 

Folks, just for the record, Iconoclast is failing to source correctly again, since he did not give the origin of his quotes so we could evaluate them. He is quoting from this website: http://www.svchapel.org/resources/b...-theology/296-law-and-grace-by-alva-j-mcclain

Not only that, he gave the wrong person for the first quote. McClain did not say what Iconoclast said he did. It was part of a book review, for crying out loud! Then Iconoclast does give actual quotes from the book being reviewed, but only because the reviewer did so, and those quotes are mixed in with statements by the reviewer, though Iconoclast doesn't realize that apparently. But Iconoclast then puts in boldface part of those quotes. When the emphasis is not in the original, the proper way to write the source is, "Emphasis not in the original," but Iconoclast did not do that.

On the basis of quotes not by McClain, mixed in with some quotes by McClain in a book review with no context, Iconoclast has concluded that McClain is antinomian. Wow!

Any of my Eng. 101 students could do better than this!

 

Well, one does not expect college level material here on the BB (except for from a few), but basic ethical courtesy would be nice.

One thing some students and many here on the BB don't realize is that it is fairly easy to find the origin of things on the Internet. So plagiarism and sneaky quoting can be detected fairly soon if you know how.

 

Icon this was my last post to you the day before yesterday. I believe it went unanswered.
There are two passages of Scripture in question as relates to the OP. One of them was being discussed here and is still being discussed, and that is John 3 (Jesus discussion with Nicodemus).

You have recently said to John that you believe the law should be used in evangelism.

But the crux of our discussion and that following with John is there is no mention of the law in this passage. Therefore the conclusion we arrive at is that the law is not necessary when the gospel is proclaimed (evangelism). Are you ready to agree with that now?

If not, can you please show where the law (the Decalogue) is used by Jesus with Nicodemus.
(You were never able to do that with Acts 13:14-41 either).

 

You hit the nail on the head! LaughBiggrin

 

I wrote a post on this thread and it hardly seemed to get commented on. Obviously, no one has to take any notice of what I say, but here it is again in case anyone missed it.

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?"
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.

 

I did read this the first time and think I said something short in reply.

But thanks for posting it again. These points are worth being read twice.

 

Those descriptions belong to what I see of your posting to me and others.

yeah...well I already left you when I got fed up with this nonsense;
here are some examples of your "edifying statements to me"

 

Isn't Antinomianism, "The distinction between antinomian and other Christian views on moral law is that antinomians believe that obedience to the law is motivated by an internal principle flowing from belief rather than from any external compulsion," a good thing? (Quote taken from Wikipedia - admittedly not the best source but to give a general tone to the matter)

Isn't that what reformed folks are supposed to endorse, that "internal principle flowing from belief rather than from any external compulsion" is the truth?

Seems that Arminian folks endorse some opposition views to antinomianism because they must by some manner hold on to what is started by them, and can be discredited and lost by them.

 

Yes, well, I might counter with the fact that one thing you missed is the example of completely cross-cultural evangelism by Paul at Mars Hill (Acts 17:15-34), where the people knew nothing about Jewish law, but Paul did not mention nor quote the Jewish Decalogue. It would have been a perfect time to present the Jewish law to the Greeks, since Paul used as a bridge to the Gospel their idolatry including an altar to the "unknown God," but he did not.

Instead, Paul appealed to their conscience and logic to show them that the unknown God was the true one, and they were to repent and turn to Him.

 

Brother John,

Apostle Paul did say this...

People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship--and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.[Acts 17:22b,23]

It appears to me that the Apostle started out his sermon by mentioning the very first of God's great commands and how they broke it, and he went from there. Your thoughts?

 

Having ministered for decades in an idolatrous culture, I assure you that simply mentioning idolatry does not call to mind the Ten Commandments to a heathen idolater. When Paul talked about Christ in this passage:

1. At first they thought he was presenting new gods like their old ones (v. 18). They were clueless about the true God.

2. He did not say, "Idolatry is wrong." Rather, he first defined for them the true God in vv. 24-26. The typical idolater has no idea that idolatry is wrong because he has no concept of the Creator God, who is infinite and eternal. Idols are usual fairly impotent, and rarely (if ever) is an idol said to be a Creator. Shinto gods are all weak, local beings, as were the gods of the traditional Chinese religions that devolved from the worship of the monotheistic Shang Ti. Buddha is little better.

3. He did not mention the Jewish faith or law in any way, shape or form. It would have been meaningless to them.

Often in Japan when doing children's evangelism we taught them a little song, "The True God," with every verse teaching something else about God: "only one," "a God of love," etc.

 

I agree that he didn't quote them the ten, but it appears to me he first mentioned their idolatry, in that they had many gods they worshipped. He then focused upon the one true God. So, it appears to me he used the first command and use it as a springboard for the rest of his sermon.

 

Well yes. He mentioned idolatry. But he did not say, "You are breaking God's law because you are worshiping idols." So IMO he did not use the first commandment in his evangelism, particularly in the way that the OP talks about.