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

[Iconoclast]

Nowhere in this lengthy post is there a word about Jesus' imminent return. Nothing about repentance.

Nowhere in this lengthy post is there a word showing Paul preached the 10 commandments to the Gentiles.

Do you understand the content of the sermon?
What was the promise spoken of?
Those who welcome the promise...what is in the heart and MIND?
In vs 39-41....what is he speaking of about being Justified?
Justified sounds like..... a legal term.. legal terms have something to do with....you guessed it...LAW.

What Law? He mentioned it in Context of...the law of Moses....
The gentiles wanted to hear "these same things"...opps...dispensational lines are coming down...

ITL...this passage does not speak of ; being born from above by direct wording, marraige, pastors, deacons,psalm 1,
Does every passage have to say everything 24/7...

If you want to keep your eyes closed you will never see anything....
let me put it another way;

explain in your own words vs 39-42

39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things,
What are the all things?


from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
what does it mean to be justified by the law of Moses? which laws?
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.
Do you know what this speaks of?
42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

What does it mean that the gentiles wanted these words to be spoken unto them?

 

[Iconoclast]

This is a "sticking point" between the typical reformed and what I hold of the D. of G.

It is as if some of note have decided that God cannot love, and Christ blood could not be shed for all humankind. That some profound theology demanded that love and blood be limited. In doing so, they must also (imo) cling to a distortion of the Scripture truth, and attempt to wrap the distortion into how to deal with the hurting.

Never will I write 100 books and have no desire to even start. The writing of books does not the truth make, and Jay Adams is wrong. Christ wept, He warned, He is not uncaring.

I am angered that people in need are being marred by those who huddle around such distortion, and offer no real help to those in need.

Even though I hold to the D. of G. (in a modified form), I agree.

There is the general love of God that sustains earthly life and living. All benefit from such love.

Yet there is also that specific love in which the Scriptures state as "We love" as a result of His "first loving us."

What is often (imo) lost is that one can truthfully say, God's love is abounding, more so to believers who are His own children.

For Jay Adams (as others of that persuasion) to state that God does not love, such a statement is making a huge doctrinal error of the character and nature of God.

There is also the human view of love equating to tolerance and intolerance, which any real father knows is just a bad equation. Love may regulate tolerance or intolerance, but love is not synonymous with either.

AGEDMAN
I started a new thread on this discussion portion, I do not think you can sustain your position upon examination, but we will see. As time permits, i will answer this there.

 

[InTheLight]

Do you understand the content of the sermon?
What was the promise spoken of?
Those who welcome the promise...what is in the heart and MIND?
In vs 39-41....what is he speaking of about being Justified?
Justified sounds like..... a legal term.. legal terms have something to do with....you guessed it...LAW.

Hmmm....

Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.


Galatians 2:16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

 

[InTheLight]

If preaching the Decalogue is the "preferred way" of evangelism in Scripture, then Paul would have preached it not just once or twice, but the majority of times. So, here are the passages where Paul preached and/or witnessed. I have not included a few times where Paul's message was not specific, such as when he simply taught "the Word of God." See what you think.

Acts 9:22--that Jesus is the Christ
13:16-41--No mention of the law or Moses.
14:3--"the word of his grace"
14:14-17--God left a witness for the lost of rain and food and gladness.
16:10--"the gospel"
16:31-32--"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
17:1-3--"Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ."
17:22-31--the sermon on the "unknown God"; all men must seek the true God and repent, because judgment is coming.
18:5--"testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ."
20:21—Paul’s message in Ephesus--"Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." And, “the kingdom of God,” v. 25.
22:1-21—to the Jews of Jerusalem in his defense: his testimony of salvation
24:10-21—Paul’s defense before Felix: mainly about the resurrection
24:25—to Felix: "And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come....
26:2-23—defense before Agrippa: His testimony, also, “22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: 23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.”
28:23—To the Jews at “Three Taverns”: "he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets."those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him."

At no time did Paul specifically use the ten commandments. When he used the law it was usually about how Christ fulfilled it and was the hope of all the prophets. So, was using the Decalogue, or even the law of Moses, Paul's "preferred method"? No, clearly not.

Game.
Set.
Match.

 

[agedman]

AGEDMAN
I started a new thread on this discussion portion, I do not think you can sustain your position upon examination, but we will see. As time permits, i will answer this there.

Did I miss that thread?

Title?

 

[evangelist6589]

Here is some more truth. Ready?

You need more time in the word. And yes your post was an example of what you have been complaining of.

Yes we all do

 

[DHK]

Is it "doctrinal error" when Scripture itself says that God hates some?

In the light of evangelism (which this thread is all about), yes it is. God loves them. And you are not God to say that He doesn't love them.

 

[DHK]

Paul's message was one of repentance, but it was also the message of the prophets and Moses. To try to separate the messages of JTB, The Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles is foolish. Repentance and faith in Christ are effectively one and the same thing. Our faith is to be a repentant faith and our repentance such as causes us to trust in Christ for forgiveness. To preach from the Law of God, specifically the Ten Commandments is the obvious way to convict men of sin and bring them to repentance.

I find it strange that every reference you quoted is either from the gospels (pre-cross), or from the Book of Acts (a church in transition). Not one of the scriptures you quoted were from the epistles (books of doctrine and not of history). I am not suggesting that one cannot obtain doctrine from the other books of the Bible, but when the doctrine of the first five books of the Bible does not correlate with the doctrine taught in the rest of the NT, that is the epistles then something is wrong. Show me "the gospel of repentance" in the epistles of Paul. Paul always emphasized salvation by faith, and not by repentance.
Why was that?

 

[DHK]

Do you understand the content of the sermon?

No doubt he does, but let me give you a more detailed answer as it appears to me that you don't seem to understand it. Besides, I like exposition.

What was the promise spoken of?

No, No, Icon. You need to go farther back than that. You need CONTEXT. Let's go back right to the beginning and see what he was speaking about in the first place.

Act 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Act 13:15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.
--Upon entering the synagogue the law and the prophets were read, as was their custom. The law simply refers to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, and the Prophets refers to the rest of the OT. Thus they could have read about the marriage of Jacob to Leah and Rachel, and then something like Hezekiah's sickness and consequent healing through Isaiah using figs. It doesn't mean the actual "Law" was involved.

Act 13:16 Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.
Act 13:17 The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it.
--From here Paul begins to give a detailed history of Israel right from the time they dwelt in Egypt onward.

Coming down to verse 22 he introduces the lineage of David and then Christ.
22 ...I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.
Act 13:23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
Act 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
--Christ is introduced but then Paul goes back and introduces John. He speaks of John's baptism of repentance.

By introducing John, he continues the history, for it was John that introduced Christ:
Act 13:25 And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.
Act 13:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
--It is Christ, and through Christ that this salvation is sent. John said "of his feet I am not worthy to loose."

Look carefully. In the next four verses is the gospel: the death, burial and resurrection of Christ:
Act 13:27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
Act 13:28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
Act 13:29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
Act 13:30 But God raised him from the dead:

Verses 31-38 speak of the resurrection and how he was seen of many before he ascended.
Then:
Act 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
--The application: It is this one who has risen from the dead that Paul is preaching to them that can forgive their sins.

What was spoken of, you ask? You answer:

Those who welcome the promise...what is in the heart and MIND?
In vs 39-41....what is he speaking of about being Justified?
Justified sounds like..... a legal term.. legal terms have something to do with....you guessed it...LAW.

Not at all!
Act 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.
Act 13:40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
Act 13:41 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.
--What was in their minds?
Paul had just spent quite a bit of time rehearsing to these Jews (in the synagogue) their entire history. Then he showed how Christ was their Messiah; how he descended from David and died for them. He made no reference to the Law. What was in their minds? Everything that Paul just explained to them. Not the law at all.
Where does justification come from?
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

What Law? He mentioned it in Context of...the law of Moses....
The gentiles wanted to hear "these same things"...opps...dispensational lines are coming down...

He started with Egypt, not Sinai. He made no mention of the Law of Moses.

ITL...this passage does not speak of ; being born from above by direct wording, marraige, pastors, deacons,psalm 1,

It speaks of salvation by faith, and he does quote Psalm 2 in verse 35.

If you want to keep your eyes closed you will never see anything....

Whose eyes are closed?

let me put it another way;

Okay.

explain in your own words vs 39-42

39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things,
What are the all things?

All things refers to every charge of guilt that may be brought against a person.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." Christ paid the penalty that we could never pay.

from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

what does it mean to be justified by the law of Moses? which laws?

He was speaking to Jews. He had just given to these Jews their history. Many Jews thought that they could be justified by the law. Paul fought against this heresy throughout most of his ministry. We see it brought to the front in Acts 15. To these Jews he makes it clear that it is not the law that justifies. In our day we also make a similar thought very clear: "it is not your good works, your religion that saves you."

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.
Do you know what this speaks of?

Do you?

Habakkuk 1:5 Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you.
--This is the verse that Paul quotes here. It is a warning against impending judgment. If they don't trust Christ by faith, judgment will come upon them. One is justified by faith and not by the works of the law.

42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

What does it mean that the gentiles wanted these words to be spoken unto them?

They also wanted to hear about the gospel, the saving grace of the Lord, how to be saved, how to have forgiveness of sins.

Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan

Hello JOJ

We agree much on the facts of redemptive history, as Christians we have no option.

What I would offer in response is Israel's failure to do as they Covenanted to do....This is wherethe link is found in Hebrews 12:18-24....Here is the original "Commission";
Deut.4

All very good, but I'm not sure what the relevance is to the OP.

So JOJ and others following this exchange...I believe that this is indeed what the scripture offers as the result of the NEW EXODUS,

The Church is God's design, prefigured by national Israel.

The law keeping and holy living by God's people results in a godly righteousness

Again, I don't see any relevance to the OP.

I was speaking about the original tract with Noahs ark...I think it was by Chapel library...i will see if I could find it?

Okey dokey.

JOJ.....I believe we need to stay with the scriptural model on this and not a pragmatic one.

If you think I've been advocating a pragmatic model, you have missed everything I wrote about the Holy Spirit and His power.

An examination of the NT shows that the only place the saving love of God is spoken...
is IN CHRIST.
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

When the scripture indicates clearly where the love of God is....I just stick with it....

so in the field I speak of God loving a multitude of sinners IN CHRIST.
Apart from Christ......The WRATH of God is continually abiding on them.
I am not going to remove that piece of the puzzle. It is given as part of a faithful presentation.
The love of God needs to be preached as part of God's provision for sinners who he saves.

To be apart from God is to be apart from that Love.
God is "good' to the wicked" mt 5:45....it is meant to lead them to repentance....

It is nowhere found in the book of ACTS directly....the word does not appear.
Is the love of God in the book of Acts? Yes....where is it? I N CHRIST the end of the LAW for RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Well sure...I cannot say....to a random person that God loves them, or does not love them...because in speaking of the Saving love of God...it is eternal,ie, He has set that saving love on a multitude of sinners eternally.

My message is...God is love, and yet God is Holy.
Not God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life...unless...you do not let HIM...then of course He is going to send you into unspeakable torment and flames eternally and that without mercy.

My message is that GOD LOVES SINNERS IN CHRIST...

Everyone He loves has ETERNAL LIFE

Again, I'll avoid straying from the OP and simply let you have the last word on this. I believe I made my point clearly.

A multitude of sinners are going to be drawn by Jesus through the Spirit...Have you come to Jesus yet?

Are you actually evangelizing me here??

I understand what you are saying, but I have just offered an alternative...in fact I will lift this portion of our discussion and we can make another thread.

All righty. I may or may not join you there when I see it, depending on my capricious disposition.

Of course you thought Finney was atrocious....he was...sincere, but misguided....I only offered that to demonstrate to you how your "comment" came across to me. It was not necessary as mine was not, but it gets the point across...."my CALVINISM" as you said..was not meant in a helpful or flattering way , was it? No...I did not think so.... You can speak freely to me about any aspect of what I post and I think you are quite capable of offering your biblical apologetic....so let's do that instead.

My intention was not to pick on you. It was based on the history of that particular controversy here on the BB. First they had a Cal/Arm forum. Then they deleted that and folks had it out in the Baptist debate forums. Then that got very contentious, and began to crowd out all other discussions, so that they outlawed such discussions. Then people lobbied for a new Cal/Arm forum, and that is what we have now.

So it is my custom to simply tell would-be Cal/Arm discussers to take it there. That's all I meant. Frown

Berkof is one of the best...but we differ on his pedeo understanding of the covenant and ecclesiology.

I have profited from Berkhof, chiefly as the best rep of covenant theology.

 

[John of Japan]

This is a "sticking point" between the typical reformed and what I hold of the D. of G.

It is as if some of note have decided that God cannot love, and Christ blood could not be shed for all humankind. That some profound theology demanded that love and blood be limited. In doing so, they must also (imo) cling to a distortion of the Scripture truth, and attempt to wrap the distortion into how to deal with the hurting.

Never will I write 100 books and have no desire to even start. The writing of books does not the truth make, and Jay Adams is wrong. Christ wept, He warned, He is not uncaring.

I am angered that people in need are being marred by those who huddle around such distortion, and offer no real help to those in need.

Well said.

I don't see that Jesus distinguished between the elect and non-elect when He wept over Jerusalem.

Even though I hold to the D. of G. (in a modified form), I agree.

There is the general love of God that sustains earthly life and living. All benefit from such love.

Yet there is also that specific love in which the Scriptures state as "We love" as a result of His "first loving us."

What is often (imo) lost is that one can truthfully say, God's love is abounding, more so to believers who are His own children.

For Jay Adams (as others of that persuasion) to state that God does not love, such a statement is making a huge doctrinal error of the character and nature of God.

There is also the human view of love equating to tolerance and intolerance, which any real father knows is just a bad equation. Love may regulate tolerance or intolerance, but love is not synonymous with either.

Again, well said. It seems to me that since God is love, and we are to be like Jesus, then we should show love in our lives to others. But since we cannot distinguish between the elect and non-elect, we must love all--surely Jay Adams would not tell us to hate our enemy! And if we must love all--then wait, maybe God loves all too!

 

[Rippon]

In the light of evangelism (which this thread is all about), yes it is. God loves them. And you are not God to say that He doesn't love them.

The Word of God despises your opinion --which is steeped in your tradition.
Ps. 3:5,6 : The arrogant cannot stand in your presence. You hate all who do wrong;you destroy those who tell lies. The bloodthirsty and deceitful you, Lord, detest.
Ps. 11:5 : The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.
Ps. 53:5 : But there they are, overwhelmed with dread, where there was nothing to dread. God scattered the bones of those who attacked you; you put them to shame, for God despised them.
Ps. 106:40 : Therefore the Lord was angry with his people and abhorred his inheritance.
Proverbs 3:32 : For the Lord detests the perverse but takes the upright into his confidence.
Proverbs 11:20 : The Lord detests those whose hearts are perverse, but he delights in those whose ways are blameless.
Proverbs 16:5 : The Lord detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: they will not go unpunished.
Malachi 1:2d-3a : Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated
Romans 9:12 : Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'


(All Scripture quoted is from the NIV)

 

[InTheLight]

Iconoclast said:
Do you understand the content of the sermon?

No doubt he does, but let me give you a more detailed answer as it appears to me that you don't seem to understand it. Besides, I like exposition.

Thanks, DHK. Yes, I understand the sermon. I didn't want to expound on it because it's typical of Iconoclast to go veering off down side streets of discussion and get lost in off-topic stuff.

The subject matter was:

Does the Apostle Paul use the imminent return of Christ as a reason for Gentiles to repent in his sermons, as recorded in the Bible? Answer: no.

Does the Apostle Paul use the 10 commandments in his sermons as recorded in the Bible? Answer: no.

Should this method of evangelism be the preferred method of presenting the Gospel? Answer: no.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hmmm....

Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.


Galatians 2:16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Well ITl this is a good start...you offer two good verses that are indeed on topic!

Now I would like you to look at the sermon I offered from acts 13 and explain those 4 verses to me...DHK has began an answer [some of which is correct, but I think he skirts the issue[
and discussion that I will get to, but I need to respond to Agedman for now....

Now i just saw this ,you said;

Thanks, DHK. Yes, I understand the sermon. I didn't want to expound on it because it's typical of Iconoclast to go veering off down side streets of discussion and get lost in off-topic stuff.

What you call veering off.......I call sticking to the topic and you have not answered it as of yet.
It does deal with the law .

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I find it strange that every reference you quoted is either from the gospels (pre-cross), or from the Book of Acts (a church in transition). Not one of the scriptures you quoted were from the epistles (books of doctrine and not of history). I am not suggesting that one cannot obtain doctrine from the other books of the Bible, but when the doctrine of the first five books of the Bible does not correlate with the doctrine taught in the rest of the NT, that is the epistles then something is wrong. Show me "the gospel of repentance" in the epistles of Paul. Paul always emphasized salvation by faith, and not by repentance.
Why was that?

The reason is very simple. In his letters, Paul is writing to saved people (eg. 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1 etc.). Why would he be telling them to repent and believe if they have already done so? However, he warns both the Corinthians (1 Cor. 6:9) and the Galatians (Gal. 5:21) that people who live unrighteous lives (ie. the unrepentant) will 'not inherit the kingdom of God.'

 

[Rippon]

when the doctrine of the first five books of the Bible

Do you mean Gen.--Deut? Or do you mean Matt.--Acts?

does not correlate with the doctrine taught in the rest of the NT, that is the epistles then something is wrong.

If you mean Matt.--Acts, yes, of course they correlate with the Epistles.

 

[DHK]

The Word of God despises your opinion --which is steeped in your tradition.
Ps. 3:5,6 : The arrogant cannot stand in your presence. You hate all who do wrong;you destroy those who tell lies. The bloodthirsty and deceitful you, Lord, detest.
Ps. 11:5 : The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.
Ps. 53:5 : But there they are, overwhelmed with dread, where there was nothing to dread. God scattered the bones of those who attacked you; you put them to shame, for God despised them.
Ps. 106:40 : Therefore the Lord was angry with his people and abhorred his inheritance.
Proverbs 3:32 : For the Lord detests the perverse but takes the upright into his confidence.
Proverbs 11:20 : The Lord detests those whose hearts are perverse, but he delights in those whose ways are blameless.
Proverbs 16:5 : The Lord detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: they will not go unpunished.
Malachi 1:2d-3a : Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated
Romans 9:12 : Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'

(All Scripture quoted is from the NIV)

Let's look at the OP: Partially stated it says:

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).

The Title of the thread is:
What did Jesus do? A Biblical case for using the Law in evangelism.

Going from there, lets' ask the question, "What would Paul do"? (in evangelism)

When the Philippian jailer came to him trembling and asked "What must I do to be saved,"
What did Paul answer? Did he answer as you just did??

Ps. 3:5,6 : The arrogant cannot stand in your presence. You hate all who do wrong;you destroy those who tell lies. The bloodthirsty and deceitful you, Lord, detest.
Ps. 11:5 : The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.

I don't find that approach in the Bible. Rather I find a God of love reaching down to sinners in need of a Savior. I feel sorry for you in your anger.

Paul answered:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Does the Apostle Paul use the imminent return of Christ as a reason for Gentiles to repent in his sermons, as recorded in the Bible? Answer: no.

Does the Apostle Paul use the 10 commandments in his sermons as recorded in the Bible? Answer: no.

Should this method of evangelism be the preferred method of presenting the Gospel? Answer: no.

May I remind you of the subject of this thread. 'WHAT DID JESUS DO?' You should direct your attention to that. I believe that Evangelist's mentor on evangelism is WOTM, which stands for 'Way of the Master,' the Master being the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I find it strange that every reference you quoted is either from the gospels (pre-cross), or from the Book of Acts (a church in transition). Not one of the scriptures you quoted were from the epistles (books of doctrine and not of history). I am not suggesting that one cannot obtain doctrine from the other books of the Bible, but when the doctrine of the first five books of the Bible does not correlate with the doctrine taught in the rest of the NT, that is the epistles then something is wrong. Show me "the gospel of repentance" in the epistles of Paul. Paul always emphasized salvation by faith, and not by repentance.
Why was that?

You've been shown the reason multiple times. Your argument is spurious, and rejects the sound handling of the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15), and in this case it is by ignoring the intent and audience of the epistles. This should all be 'theology 101' but you're missing it completely. You're once again arguing against the necessity of repentance in salvation via your fallacious teaching.

No doctrine changed between the Gospels and Acts to the writings contained in the epistles which is 'the faith once delivered to the saints'. This argument that it is not there is a johnny come lately doctrine which you picked up on and have taken on as your own. Whomever developed it has failed 2 Timothy 2:15. You're following suit.

 

[DHK]

The reason is very simple. In his letters, Paul is writing to saved people (eg. 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1 etc.). Why would he be telling them to repent and believe if they have already done so? However, he warns both the Corinthians (1 Cor. 6:9) and the Galatians (Gal. 5:21) that people who live unrighteous lives (ie. the unrepentant) will 'not inherit the kingdom of God.'

I have heard that answer before. It doesn't make any sense.
Paul explains the gospel very carefully to the Corinthians in 1Cor.15:1-4.
Then he explains to them the resurrection in detail. The chapter is known as the Great Resurrection chapter.
The entire book of Romans is a great treatise on soteriology or Salvation.
Why?
Because Christians need to know more about their own salvation.

We talk of our salvation, sing of our salvation, speak of our salvation not only to the unsaved but to one another.
The hymn writer put it this way:

Tell me the old, old story of unseen things above,
Of Jesus and His glory, of Jesus and His love.
Tell me the story simply, as to a little child,
For I am weak and weary, and helpless and defiled.

Refrain

Tell me the old, old story, tell me the old, old story,
Tell me the old, old story, of Jesus and His love.

Tell me the story slowly, that I may take it in,
That wonderful redemption, God’s remedy for sin.
Tell me the story often, for I forget so soon;
The early dew of morning has passed away at noon.

This old hymn of the faith was written by Katherine Hankey in 1866. Christians, true Bible-believers, love to hear that story and never get tired of it. Do you?

It is just an excuse you give that the epistles should not be talking about salvation. That is nonsense.