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

[Martin Marprelate]

A number of other verses also make clear the difference between the moral law and the rest of it.

For the moment, may I refer you to Isaiah 1:10-17 & Amos 5:21-24. These two periscopes show that to keep the ceremonial and sacrificial laws was/is not acceptable in the absence of keeping the moral law.

When God declares in Hosea 6:6 & Matt. 9:13 that He desires mercy and not sacrifice, He is saying that the sacrificial law is not what He truly desires. He would have us keep the second table of the law by loving our neighbours.

 

[JamesL]

The Golden Rule (Mark 12:29-31) is our Lord's summary of the two tables of the Decalogue.
All those "Thou Shalt Not"s that people find so restrictive are actually based on love.

If we love God with all our heart, soul, mind etc., how can we have other gods before Him, make images of Him, take His Name in vain, not honour our parents or (dare I say it) despise the day that He has commanded us to keep?

And if we love our neighbour as ourselves, how can we steal from him, hate him, lie to him, seduce his wife or covet his goods? 'For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder,"..........and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself"' (Rom. 13:9).

It's all very simple really.

I would agree with most everything you wrote in that post. You didn't adress anything I have stated, however.

What I have said is that the entirety of the Law is what scripture calls "The Law"

Not the Big10 only. And for that matter, what Jesus specifically named as the two greatest commandments aren't even found in the Decalogue. Instead, they're from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18

And the whole law, not just a so-called "moral" portion, are summed up with these two - love fulfills the Law.

As far as the Law is concerned, a trek to Jerusalem for 3 feasts is just as big a deal as thuggery

 

[JonC]

If the argument here is that the Decalogue is given to the world, and the world is “under the Ten Commandments” (which seems to be Evan’s position), then what needs to be determined is how it and when it was given as a binding covenant to a people other than Israel. In Deuteronomy 5, Moses specifically delivers the Ten Commandments within the context of a covenant made with those brought out of Egypt (v 6) and their descendants (v 31). So this “introduction” or “summary” to God’s “decrees and laws” is part of a covenant given to and binding upon Israel (Deut. 4:44). My question then is what passage extends these commandments as a covenantal authority beyond what God described as His covenantal people (Deut. 7:6-8; 8:1)?

 

[JonC]

The “whole Law” is given to Moses beginning in verse 31, the Decalogue is a sort of constitution that informs all the rest of the detailed legislation that follows (and yes, within the Law the Ten Commandments stand out). But in Deut. 5:31 God is giving Moses not “all the commands” but literally “the whole command” or the whole substance of the law considered as a single entity (kol-hammiṣwâ is singular). Keeping the “whole command” is directed to walking in the way Yahweh commands. Here Moses is given the whole law, not just details of specific legislation (decrees and laws).

In other words, the statement that Jesus has summarized the Ten Commandments is backwards. Jesus is actually responding with the whole command from which the Decalogue is derived.

Deut. 5:30 Go and say to them, “Return to your tents.” 31 But you, stand here by me, and I will tell you the whole commandment and the statutes and the rules that you shall teach them, that they may do them in the land that I am giving them to possess.’ 32 You shall be careful therefore to do as the LORD your God has commanded you. You shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. 33 You shall walk in all the way that the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land that you shall possess. 6:1 “Now this is the commandment—the statutes and the rules—that the LORD your God commanded me to teach you, that you may do them in the land to which you are going over, to possess it, 2 that you may fear the LORD your God, you and your son and your son’s son, by keeping all his statutes and his commandments, which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be long. 3 Hear therefore, O Israel, and be careful to do them, that it may go well with you, and that you may multiply greatly, as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey. 4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

Within the topic of the OP, however, we are drifting with this argument. What is being asked is if we should use the Law in evangelism. And it depends on the context of its usage. As an example I don't think anyone would object (God's transcendence, his perfect nature, and man's fallen status are illustrated through the Law). But in terms of putting people "under the Law" (even if we conclude we are speaking of only the Ten Commandments), what needs to be shown are that people are actually under the authority of the law, or the Decalogue (which is by definition binding). I am willing to grant for arguments sake (and to stay on target) that the Ten Commandments are given before the Law and separate from the Law (a concession for the sake of argument,dismissed with prejudice). What still needs to be shown is how the world is included in this covenant.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I would agree with most everything you wrote in that post. You didn't adress anything I have stated, however.

What I have said is that the entirety of the Law is what scripture calls "The Law"

I disagree. When the Lord Jesus spoke Matt. 5:18, He obviously wasn't speaking of the dietary laws, because He abolished them just a little later (Mark 7:18-20).

Not the Big10 only. And for that matter, what Jesus specifically named as the two greatest commandments aren't even found in the Decalogue. Instead, they're from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18

And the whole law, not just a so-called "moral" portion, are summed up with these two - love fulfills the Law.

The Golden Rule has nothing to do with eating shellfish or sacrificing red heifers. Read my post again.

As far as the Law is concerned, a trek to Jerusalem for 3 feasts is just as big a deal as thuggery

Not at all. Read the Isaiah 1 and Amos 5 passages again.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If the argument here is that the Decalogue is given to the world, and the world is “under the Ten Commandments” (which seems to be Evan’s position), then what needs to be determined is how it and when it was given as a binding covenant to a people other than Israel. In Deuteronomy 5, Moses specifically delivers the Ten Commandments within the context of a covenant made with those brought out of Egypt (v 6) and their descendants (v 31). So this “introduction” or “summary” to God’s “decrees and laws” is part of a covenant given to and binding upon Israel (Deut. 4:44). My question then is what passage extends these commandments as a covenantal authority beyond what God described as His covenantal people (Deut. 7:6-8; 8:1)?

I'm just off to bed now (it's late in England), but may I suggest a consideration of Rom. 2:14-15 and 5:12-14? I think they answer your question. The Moral law was written on the hearts of all men, but since the Fall, it is smudged and defaced. When we are born again, the Moral Law is written once again on our hearts (Psalm 40:8; Heb. 8:10 etc.), just like Moses bringing a second pair of tablets down from Mt. Sinai after the first got smashed.

 

[JonC]

I'm just off to bed now (it's late in England), but may I suggest a consideration of Rom. 2:14-15 and 5:12-14? I think they answer your question. The Moral law was written on the hearts of all men, but since the Fall, it is smudged and defaced. When we are born again, the Moral Law is written once again on our hearts (Psalm 40:8; Heb. 8:10 etc.), just like Moses bringing a second pair of tablets down from Mt. Sinai after the first got smashed.

I will, brother - I'm off to dinner (my wife's birthday). But the bigger issue for me here is the inclusion of those outside Israel under this Law. Perhaps we can discuss this tomorrow.

 

[evangelist6589]

Waiting for John of Japan to reply so I can get into my "What did Jesus do?" Argument.

 

[JonC]

I'm just off to bed now (it's late in England), but may I suggest a consideration of Rom. 2:14-15 and 5:12-14? I think they answer your question. The Moral law was written on the hearts of all men, but since the Fall, it is smudged and defaced. When we are born again, the Moral Law is written once again on our hearts (Psalm 40:8; Heb. 8:10 etc.), just like Moses bringing a second pair of tablets down from Mt. Sinai after the first got smashed.

I have to leave for church, but before I go I'd like to respond to Romans 2:14-15.

Paul is not saying that Gentiles are “under the law”. Instead he is distinguishing between Jews who are under the law (literally "within the sphere of" the law) and Gentiles who are not but who have a natural moral law written in their hearts. This is not referring to placing Gentiles under the law or the Ten Commandments for salvation. It is appealing to God’s nature made known in that Creator/creation relationship. Jews and Gentiles are on equal footings because they both fall short of God’s law (while the Jew alone is under the authority of Torah…to include the Ten Commandments). The moral commands are the same, but the covenantal authority is not.

Consider the following commentators as well:

“Paul saw the world as divided into two classes of people. He saw the Jews with their law given to them direct from God and written down so that all could read it. He saw the other nations, without this written law, but nonetheless with a God-implanted knowledge of right and wrong within their hearts” (William Barclay, The Letter to the Romans,53-54)

“….. Gentiles do not have the law. It was neither revealed to them nor given to them. Nevertheless, Paul insists, this difference can be exaggerated. For there is no fundamental distinction between them in the moral knowledge they have (since the requirements of the law are written on all human hearts) …..All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law. They will not be judged by a standard they have not known. They will perish because of their sin and not because of their ignorance of the law.” (John Stott, Romans, 85-86)

“The reference to the conscience also points in the direction of natural law. The conscience in Gentiles proves that they are keenly aware of moral norms that accord with the Mosaic law…..the conscience is not the origin of moral norms but passes judgment on whether one has abided by those norms….Here the purpose is to witness to the moral norms of the law. First, the commands of the law are written in their hearts, and second, the conscience also testifies to the validity of those moral norms, in that it condemns or approves the behavior practiced. We have seen that several pieces of evidence conspire to show that Paul refers to natural law in verses 14-15. (Thomas Schreiner, Romans, 124-125)

“’Law’ in Romans refers first of all to the law God gave Israel through Moses, the Torah. In verse 12 therefore, all who sin apart from the law” are Gentiles and “all who sin under the law” are Jews, for only Jews stand ‘under the law” (the Greek is literally, ‘in [the sphere of] the law’). Nevertheless, Paul alleges, the results for both groups is the same…Paul’s language resembles ancient discussions about the ‘natural law.’ Originating with the Greeks, who speculated about ‘natural law’ as a way of making certain moral norms universal, discussion of the natural law was taken up by Jews such as Philo of Alexanderia. Paul seems to be alluding to these discussions, and his purpose would then be to show that, through Gentiles have not been given God’s law in the specific form of Torah, they nevertheless have knowledge of God’s moral requirements. They may not have the Mosaic law (Torah), but they do have law – moral demands that God puts in the conscience of every human being.”(Douglas Moo, Encountering the Gook of Romans, 67-68)

“Gentiles will not be condemned for failure to conform to a law-code which was not accessible to them. ” (F.F. Bruce, Romans, 96)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Paul is not saying that Gentiles are “under the law”. Instead he is distinguishing between Jews who are under the law (literally "within the sphere of" the law) and Gentiles who are not but who have a natural moral law written in their hearts. This is not referring to placing Gentiles under the law or the Ten Commandments for salvation. It is appealing to God’s nature made known in that Creator/creation relationship. Jews and Gentiles are on equal footings because they both fall short of God’s law (while the Jew alone is under the authority of Torah…to include the Ten Commandments). The moral commands are the same, but the covenantal authority is not.

Thanks JonC,
You will note that I did not say that Gentiles are 'under the law.' However, Rom. 2:14-15 says:
'For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them.'

So the Gentiles show 'the work of the law (to ergon tou nomou) written in their hearts.' In other words, the law written on the hearts of Gentiles does its work when they, although they know nothing of the Sinaitic Law, nonetheless do what it commands. So what law is written on the hearts of Gentiles? Certainly not the sacrificial laws or the dietary laws. It is the Moral Law, summarized in the Decalogue. Everyone knows it's wrong to kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, dishonour parents, but people still do it because of their sinful nature. The point is that it is possible to reach the consciences of unsaved people by preaching the Moral Law because, deep down those people know that law and they know it's right. That is what WOTM proposes, so I understand, and to that point at least, it's absolutely right.

 

[JamesL]

So what law is written on the hearts of Gentiles? Certainly not the sacrificial laws or the dietary laws.

Why not? Paul already said in Romans 1 that men worship the creature rather than the creator. And it is in the heart of every man to know there's a God.

It is the Moral Law, summarized in the Decalogue.

Paul didn't say anything of the sort. Quote any biblical writer distinguishing, and you'll have a case. I cannot think of any

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Why not? Paul already said in Romans 1 that men worship the creature rather than the creator. And it is in the heart of every man to know there's a God.


Paul didn't say anything of the sort. Quote any biblical writer distinguishing, and you'll have a case. I cannot think of any

How about God? Will He do?

'I hate, I despise your feast days, and I do not savour your sacred assemblies. Though you offer Me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them, nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings. Take away from Me the noise of your songs, for I will not hear the melody of your stringed instruments.
But let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.'

To say that God does not distinguish between the moral law and other kinds of law simply isn't so.

 

[JonC]

Thanks JonC,
You will note that I did not say that Gentiles are 'under the law.' However, Rom. 2:14-15 says:
'For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them.'

So the Gentiles show 'the work of the law (to ergon tou nomou) written in their hearts.' In other words, the law written on the hearts of Gentiles does its work when they, although they know nothing of the Sinaitic Law, nonetheless do what it commands. So what law is written on the hearts of Gentiles? Certainly not the sacrificial laws or the dietary laws. It is the Moral Law, summarized in the Decalogue. Everyone knows it's wrong to kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, dishonour parents, but people still do it because of their sinful nature. The point is that it is possible to reach the consciences of unsaved people by preaching the Moral Law because, deep down those people know that law and they know it's right. That is what WOTM proposes, so I understand, and to that point at least, it's absolutely right.

Martin,
I agree with you. I mistakenly took your comments as a defense for Evan’s position (much of which was discussed on another thread).

Yes, of course we can use the Ten Commandments, or even the entire Law (even just the sacrificial system itself), or God's revealed nature, or this 'natural law' to explain human sin. I am absolutely not trying to say that it is inappropriate to use the Law in evangelism. What I am saying is that it is incorrect to teach that appropriate evangelism uses the Law. And it is heresy (and another gospel) to teach that the lost must be placed under the Law (using a biblical definition of "under the Law") in order that they be saved. I have no problem with WOTM, but some go too far and exceed biblical warrant.

The problem is not in the practice of using the Ten Commandments in evangelism. I understand the necessity to explain sin. I agree that the Law is useful here. But there is a problem is when error gives birth to heresy.

“Think of God’s Law as an extension cord that is plugged into the power of Heaven. The gospel is a light bulb. Without the Law, the gospel is powerless,”(Ray Comfort, What did Jesus Do?”, pg. 20)

“Once the gospel is connected to the Law, it becomes the power of God to salvation. The Law gives the gospel its light…” (Ray Comfort, What did Jesus Do?”, pg. 20)

To put it another way, God delivered to Israel through Moses the Ten Commandments within the context of a covenant (Ex. 19:1-6; Deut. 5:1-3). If they will obey his voice and keep his covenant, they shall be his treasured possession and shall be to him a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex.19: 5-6). If another nation learned of the Ten Commandments or the Law, they would be foolish to put themselves under its authority in hopes of gaining those covenantal promises as they were not promised to anyone but Israel. But they certainly could learn from the Law and see God’s moral law reflected within its commands. The Law and the Ten Commandments are useful tools, but they are not the "power" of the gospel. We cannot put people "under the Law" in order to save them, but we can use the Law to explain sin to them (to explain the sickness so that they understand the cure).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Law and the Ten Commandments are useful tools, but they are not the "power" of the gospel.

Thanks Jon. I'm not sure we're in perfect agreement, but we can certainly agree that Comfort's position as quoted by you is a considerable overstatement. I think I may have posted this before, but here are two articles from the old 1646 Baptist Confession:

XXIV.
Faith is ordinarily begotten by the preaching of the gospel, or word of Christ, without respect to any power or agency in the creature; but it being wholly passive, and dead in trespasses and sins, doth believe and is converted by no less power than that which raised Christ from the dead.
Rom. 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:28; Rom. 9:16; Ezek. 16:16; Rom. 3:12, 1:16; Eph. 1:19, Col. 2:12.

XXV.
The preaching of the gospel to the conversion of sinners, is absolutely free; no way requiring as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, or terrors of the law, or preceding ministry of the law, but only and alone the naked soul, a sinner and ungodly, to receive Christ crucified, dead and buried, and risen again; who is made a prince and a Saviour for such sinners as through the gospel shall be brought to believe on Him.
John 3:14,15, 1:12; Isa. 55:1; John 7:37; 1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 4:5, 5:8; Acts 5:30,31, 2:36, 1 Cor. 1:22,24.

Having said that, I am not going to criticize Evangelist for using the law. I know that when I was at University many years ago, people from the Christian Union were always telling me how much Jesus loved me and wanted me to be His friend. It never made the slightest impression on me. It was not until I understood that I was a sinner under the righteous condemnation of God that I became a Christian.

 

[JonC]

Thanks Jon. I'm not sure we're in perfect agreement, but we can certainly agree that Comfort's position as quoted by you is a considerable overstatement. I think I may have posted this before, but here are two articles from the old 1646 Baptist Confession:

XXIV.
Faith is ordinarily begotten by the preaching of the gospel, or word of Christ, without respect to any power or agency in the creature; but it being wholly passive, and dead in trespasses and sins, doth believe and is converted by no less power than that which raised Christ from the dead.
Rom. 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:28; Rom. 9:16; Ezek. 16:16; Rom. 3:12, 1:16; Eph. 1:19, Col. 2:12.

XXV.
The preaching of the gospel to the conversion of sinners, is absolutely free; no way requiring as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, or terrors of the law, or preceding ministry of the law, but only and alone the naked soul, a sinner and ungodly, to receive Christ crucified, dead and buried, and risen again; who is made a prince and a Saviour for such sinners as through the gospel shall be brought to believe on Him.
John 3:14,15, 1:12; Isa. 55:1; John 7:37; 1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 4:5, 5:8; Acts 5:30,31, 2:36, 1 Cor. 1:22,24.

Having said that, I am not going to criticize Evangelist for using the law. I know that when I was at University many years ago, people from the Christian Union were always telling me how much Jesus loved me and wanted me to be His friend. It never made the slightest impression on me. It was not until I understood that I was a sinner under the righteous condemnation of God that I became a Christian.

On this issue I believe that we are in perfect agreement.

 

[John of Japan]

Within the topic of the OP, however, we are drifting with this argument. What is being asked is if we should use the Law in evangelism.

Thank you! It didn't take long for this thread to get totally away from the OP.

I'm willing to accept for the moment and for the sake of argument that we refer to the Ten Commandments as the law that John (evan) means in saying that we should use the law for evangelism. (And there is much more to the moral law, as witness the usage of the word "abomination" in the 5 Books of Moses.)

 

[John of Japan]

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. 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). John the Baptist would have a hard time getting invited to preach in many churches these days because he was not friendly towards his audience and frankly could care less what they thought about him.

I grant all of this. But where in the world is the mandate or command that we should evangelize as did John the Baptist? His purpose in preaching was to prepare the way of the Messiah. No one on earth other than John had that mandate. The 12 did not, Paul and Barnabas did not, those who Paul and the other writers of Scripture wrote to did not.

There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture telling us to evangelize like John the Baptist did.

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 by murdering Jesus (Acts 2:23). After the law had convicted them of their sin Peter offered them grace (Acts 2:38).

You are reading your position into Scripture. Peter did not quote or even mention the Decalogue in Acts 2:23 or anywhere else in Acts 2. Rather, he quoted prophecies in Joel 2, Ps. 16, etc. His obvious goal was to prove that Jesus was the Messiah of prophecy, not that the listeners were violating the Decalogue. If we are supposed to follow Peter's example in evangelizing with the law, his sermon in Acts 2 would be the perfect place to quote the law, but Peter did not do so.

The apostle Paul also believe in the biblical principle of Law to the Proud and Grace to the humble by his statements in Rm 2:12 in that God would judge humanity by the moral law. Then in verse 15 tells his audience that the work of the law is written on their hearts (v.15).

Paul was not really discussing evangelism per se in this passage. He certainly was not mandating any one particular way of reaching people for Christ. Yet in Rom. 10 he did discuss evangelism, but did not mention the law. Instead, he spoke of people obeying the Gospel (v. 16).

But I'll bite. Where in Rom. 2 does it discuss the conviction of sin? Isn't that what your method of using the law is for, to convict of sin? Yet the Bible declares that it is the Holy Spirit's job to convince of sin, righteousness and judgement (John 16:8-11). Therefore, any usage by the soul-winner of the law in an attempt to produce conviction of sin is usurping the power of the Holy Spirit, and will be fruitless.

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

I'll be waiting. Thanks for starting this thread.

 

[Revmitchell]

If the argument here is that the Decalogue is given to the world, and the world is “under the Ten Commandments” (which seems to be Evan’s position),

Even did not say that. Just because one uses the law to show how we are sinners does not have to mean that we are saying anyone at all is under the law. I am confused how that line of thinking even came about.

 

[JonC]

Even did not say that. Just because one uses the law to show how we are sinners does not have to mean that we are saying anyone at all is under the law. I am confused how that line of thinking even came about.

My apologies. I forgot to hit the new thread reset. Anyway, I had taken what he explained to me elsewhere into this dialogue. Good catch Rev.

 

[evangelist6589]

I grant all of this. But where in the world is the mandate or command that we should evangelize as did John the Baptist? His purpose in preaching was to prepare the way of the Messiah. No one on earth other than John had that mandate. The 12 did not, Paul and Barnabas did not, those who Paul and the other writers of Scripture wrote to did not.

There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture telling us to evangelize like John the Baptist did.

And there is nothing in scripture saying that we cannot evangelize the way John the Baptist did. Frankly these Bible characters are an example and we need to learn from them.

You are reading your position into Scripture. Peter did not quote or even mention the Decalogue in Acts 2:23 or anywhere else in Acts 2. Rather, he quoted prophecies in Joel 2, Ps. 16, etc. His obvious goal was to prove that Jesus was the Messiah of prophecy, not that the listeners were violating the Decalogue. If we are supposed to follow Peter's example in evangelizing with the law, his sermon in Acts 2 would be the perfect place to quote the law, but Peter did not do so.

Well look at Acts 3:26. NIV says "wicked ways", ESV says "wickedness" and KJV says "iniquities" which I like better. The word iniquities is a direct reference to transgression of the moral law of Moses. In his Pentecost sermon Peter did make mention of the law in verses 23-24. Pay attention to the phrase "lawless hand." No there was no need to go through the 10 commandments with the Jews at Pentecost because they already knew the law, but just because it is not spelled out does not mean that we are not to use it in our evangelism.

Paul was not really discussing evangelism per se in this passage. He certainly was not mandating any one particular way of reaching people for Christ. Yet in Rom. 10 he did discuss evangelism, but did not mention the law. Instead, he spoke of people obeying the Gospel (v. 16).

But I'll bite. Where in Rom. 2 does it discuss the conviction of sin? Isn't that what your method of using the law is for, to convict of sin? Yet the Bible declares that it is the Holy Spirit's job to convince of sin, righteousness and judgement (John 16:8-11). Therefore, any usage by the soul-winner of the law in an attempt to produce conviction of sin is usurping the power of the Holy Spirit, and will be fruitless.
I'll be waiting. Thanks for starting this thread.

Wrong. The Holy Spirit is the one that convicts of sin and He uses the 10 commandments to do so in many cases. I am not saying that he only is limited to the decalog to convict of sin. I am only saying that using the 10 commandments is the preferred way to do evangelism.

Once we are complete here I will post on what Jesus did. My reference for this section will be from the book "God has a wonderful plan for your life." Jon C it is more condensed and to the point than the book "What did Jesus do?"