Some here don't thinks so.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What did Jesus do? A Biblical case for using the Law in evangelism
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
Nonsense. Have you thrown sola fide out the window, disregard it completely now?
John the Baptist preached what you are teaching--a gospel of repentance.
But Paul, in an epistle which centers on the theme of salvation, taught that salvation is by faith alone.
Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God. He doesn't mention being saved by repentance in the entire 16 chapters of his epistle. Prove me wrong.
I am not disagreeing with you but would like to insert a little scripture here just for thought. Concerning that above relative to Christ, consider: NKJV But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born fn of a woman, born under the law,
I believe it to be important that Christ also was born/made under the law. Now consider what is actually said where that in bold of your quote comes from:
And before the coming of the faith, under law we were being kept, shut up to the faith about to be revealed, so that the law became our child-conductor -- to Christ, that by faith we may be declared righteous, and the faith having come, no more under a child-conductor are we, for ye are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus, Gal 3:23-26 YLT
Christ was born under the law. man was kept under the law, until the faith came and was revealed, having come. ----- What was, 'the faith," that came? Whose faith in who? This cannot not have anything about what we believe but it is what removed us from being under the law, penalty death, to being under grace, gift life, eternal.
Eternal life as in having laws to live up to or eternal life having those laws literally within us. Because of Hebrews 8:10-13
It is not what we do. It is what God the Father, does to us, for obedience of faith, that is, what the Son, born of woman born under the law, did. Because, "the faith," came we have been given the promise of the Holy Spirit Gal 3:14 the earnest of our inheritance, the redemption of the body with the law of God within us.
IMHO We are kept by the power of God, the Holy Spirit, unto our inheritance. We are under the grace of being like Jesus as resurrected.
I did not say that the epistles should not talk about salvation Of course they do!!
What they don't do is tell Christians who have already repented and believed to repent and believe. Paul's modus operandi with unsaved people is laid out by him personally in Acts 26:19ff which I took the trouble to type out for you. Why won't you believe Paul's own words? Here they are again to save you looking them up:
"Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared, first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance ......... Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing to both small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come- that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."
Notice the two-fold approach. The historical facts concerning the Lord Jesus Christ and the further fact that they were predicted in Scripture- that's the 1 Cor. 15 bit- but also- and first- the call to repentance and faith. To leave out either of these two strands when preaching to unbelievers is to fail to preach the Gospel.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Some must understand (or not?) that 'the faith' includes repentance; Acts 17:30, it includes good works; James 2:14, it includes sound doctrine; 2 Timothy 4:1ff, it includes transformation; 2 Cor. 3:18ff, and it includes obedience to Christ; John 10:27. It is not a stand alone, by itself personal subjective blind belief as some are making it to sound nor is it an innate ability within man. It, faith, does not exclude the above, they are all integrated into 'the faith'.
Jude saying to earnestly contend 'for the faith' is not limited to some personal faith but to the system of biblical teachings, 'the truth', thus it includes doctrine as well. To lay claim to 'faith alone' and divorce it from all it entails is to arrive at an unbiblical and unsound definition. This is why some reject Sola Fide because they see it as a stand alone not involving all the other parts. That is a shallow misconception of this sola.
Jude saying to earnestly contend 'for the faith' is not limited to some personal faith but to the system of biblical teachings, 'the truth', thus it includes doctrine as well. To lay claim to 'faith alone' and divorce it from all it entails is to arrive at an unbiblical and unsound definition. This is why some reject Sola Fide because they see it as a stand alone not involving all the other parts. That is a shallow misconception of this sola.
Yes, faith includes repentance. The passage you quoted demonstrates that.
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Acts 17:34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed:...
--Their salvation came through faith. It doesn't say repentance. It doesn't have to. Repentance is the other side of faith. One cannot have faith in Christ without repenting at the same time. They both lead to the same thing--a change in one's mind toward Christ.
No, it does not. If it does then salvation is by works and not by grace through faith.
If this is your "proof text" then you don't understand the Book of James.
No. You are describing a works based salvation. This comes after one is saved. Transformation is after a person is saved. Tell me. How transformed was the life of the thief on the cross after he requested of the Lord to "Remember me..."?
In Acts 16:31, "Believe"....stands alone as a verb.
In Rom.10:13, "Call upon...stands alone as a verb.
They are commands. And if acted upon they will bring salvation to the sinner.
Faith is innate. Jesus said you must have faith as a child. Where does the child get faith from?
Let's consider one of the events out of Jesus life:
Mar 5:25 And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,
Mar 5:26 And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,
Mar 5:27 When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment.
Mar 5:28 For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.
Mar 5:29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague.
Mar 5:30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?
Mar 5:31 And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
Mar 5:32 And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing.
Mar 5:33 But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.
Mar 5:34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.
In verse 28 she said: "If I shall but touch his clothes, I shall be whole. Here she was exercising her faith in Christ as a Healer, not for salvation, but in His ability to heal. She touched him, and in verse 29:
"Staightway the fountain of her blood was dried up." She was healed.
Meanwhile, Jesus questions who touched me (vs.31)?
The woman confesses. (33)
Then in verse 34, Jesus tells her that her faith has made her whole. This time he assures her that she can go in peace and be whole of her plague. The assurance comes from a new relationship. Jesus calls this Gentile woman "Daughter" a designation only given to a saved individual.
She had not only physical healing but spiritual healing. This is not always the case in healing.
Many came but were not saved. Consider the Ten Lepers for example. Only one of them were saved.
Yes, contend for that body of faith that we have today, stored up in the Bible, summarized in the gospel.
If you deny sola fide, why not go all the way and deny all the solas? Be consistent.
I quoted around 10 verses from God's Holy Word. You must not agree with those verses. You don't like them.
You said : "God loves them. You are not to say that He doesn't love them."
I don't go around saying God hates people --but neither do I go around saying God loves each and every person who has ever lived. It is not warranted in Scripture. I am not angry if I chose to be faithful to the Word of God instead of the puny and non-authoritative word of DHK.
I believe in the "whole counsel of the Word of God" as the KJV renders it. Certain Scriptures make you feel uncomfortable. It's like you are embarrassed those passages are in the Bible.
Sure. But Evan6589 said this, indicating his method of evangelism, which is really what the subject matter is about.
Evangelist6589 said:
So far he has said nothing about what Jesus would do with evangelizing using the law.
A couple of points:
1. John the Baptist preached exclusively to the Jews.
2. Jesus' ministry was primarily to the Jews
Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."
Matt 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
So, when Evan6589 says he uses John the Baptist as a model, and John the Baptist preached a baptism of repentance for the Jews, well, that's an erroneous position to take. Furthermore, Jesus didn't preach he was coming back soon, so people should believe on him, he was already there!
John of Japan
While we approach these truths differently and perhaps only find partial agreement I was just trying to be friendly and expand the discussion , instead of rushing to where we differ.
I did not miss it
ok...thanks for clarifying
While we approach these truths differently and perhaps only find partial agreement I was just trying to be friendly and expand the discussion , instead of rushing to where we differ.
I did not miss it
[/QUOTE]
ok...thanks for clarifying
I believe in the whole counsel of God's Word as well. The Scripture you quote doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. They just are not relevant.
It is like 1Chron.26:18. How relevant is it to either this conversation or this thread:
1 Chronicles 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.
But the fact is that the scriptures you posted have the same relevancy as 1Chron.26:18. None.
The subject of this thread is "What would Jesus do" in relation to evangelism?
And Jesus would not and did not in any of the recorded gospels use the Scripture that you quoted. We know that. It is factual. The scripture you quoted is as relevant as the apocrypha as far as telling the gospel to others and evangelizing the gospel. If you are not going to address the OP or the title of the thread then why are you posting here?
DHK,
I have a doubt until he answers
we can go back or forward
A
sure...and they could have read about the actual law also, so this has no impact on this discussion.
ok
Then:
Question....what sins? Were they law breakers?
Did the whole sacrificial system speak of atonenent being necessary for sins against God's law?
Is the LAW therefore central to this point, or do you want to just skip over it?
I have asked ITL to answer...if I answer it will deprive him of that opportunity.....so far you are just obscuring the issue as you also avoid the real questions and answers found here.
Your speculation is just that...Jesus is the end of the LAW...for righteousness. The whole point of redemptive history has to do with Jesus.
Paul made it clear the Jews misunderstood all of redemptive history, why God used Israel, and the purpose of the law;
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
So here you are forced to agree he raises the issue of the LAW...thank you .
If I am the one who offered this section of scripture...it stands to reason that I know what it means, that is why i used it in the first place....duh!
7 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
I have a doubt until he answers
ok ...lets lookbut 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.
we can go back or forward
A
sure...and they could have read about the actual law also, so this has no impact on this discussion.
Yes...He speaks of God's work among them
Ok....
ok
Then:
Question....what sins? Were they law breakers?
Did the whole sacrificial system speak of atonenent being necessary for sins against God's law?
Is the LAW therefore central to this point, or do you want to just skip over it?
I have asked ITL to answer...if I answer it will deprive him of that opportunity.....so far you are just obscuring the issue as you also avoid the real questions and answers found here.
Your speculation is just that...Jesus is the end of the LAW...for righteousness. The whole point of redemptive history has to do with Jesus.
Paul made it clear the Jews misunderstood all of redemptive history, why God used Israel, and the purpose of the law;
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
So here you are forced to agree he raises the issue of the LAW...thank you .
If I am the one who offered this section of scripture...it stands to reason that I know what it means, that is why i used it in the first place....duh!
yes....forgivness of sins of law breaking,,,yes indeed.
yes...sin is a transgression of the law...even for gentiles, thankfully God had ordained for many of them to believe also.
7 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
To look at the context one must always go back to the beginning.
Yes, and they being Jews, didn't have to be told that they were sinners, or that they had to repent of specific sins. They had lived by the law all of their lives. No man can keep the law and they, more than any other nation or person, knew it.
They lived by the law; they broke the law; they were cursed by the law, and Christ became a curse for them.
--This is what all the sacrificial system speaks about. But that is not what Paul described to them.
Paul gave them their history--a rebellious history.
Now Paul was in the synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia. These Jews were not the same Jews as the ones that were in Jerusalem just a few years ago when Christ was crucified. Thus he tells them:
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.
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.
--1. Salvation, on this day, is come to them.
--2. But they are just as guilty as those in Jerusalem were, those very ones that crucified Christ. They knew not who Christ was and rejected him. They rejected the prophets and they rejected Christ. All the Jews throughout history have done so. See Stephen's testimony in Acts 7:51.
Then he gives them a final word of judgment about not heeding this wonderful message of grace and forgiveness:
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.
--This is strong language. Look in a couple of other translations:
(ESV) "'Look, you scoffers, be astounded and perish; for I am doing a work in your days, a work that you will not believe, even if one tells it to you.'"
And a paraphrase:
(CEV) "Look, you people who make fun of God! Be amazed and disappear. I will do something today that you won't believe, even if someone tells you about it!"
--Paul had preached to them the gospel of grace, forgiveness and love. And many of them were about to reject it.
You are the one doing the eisigesis here. You originally asked the question: "What were they thinking of?"
I replied that they were thinking about the words that Paul was preaching to--just like any other normal human being would do. Isn't that what you do when you go to church, or do you think about other things?
What was in their minds, you asked? In their minds was the message that Paul was giving to them as they considered it, and later reacted to it.
What had Paul preached: Their history; John's coming; Christ's coming; the gospel, and a warning if they did not accept the gospel.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
So here you are forced to agree he raises the issue of the LAW...thank you .[/quote]
Where are you quoting from? Verses 31-33 say this:
Act 13:31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
Act 13:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
--No, he did not speak of the law to them. It was not emphasized at all.
Paul taught them that forgiveness of sins comes through Christ, and his atoning work on the cross.
If they rejected that message judgment would come. The law was not emphasized.
You have an odd way of debate. What verse 7 is this?
Here is verse 7:
Act 13:7 Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.
--I have no idea what you are speaking about. You don't give proper references.
Yes, they believed the gospel and were saved. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. Sola fide.
Quite correct. But are you saying that there is a different Gospel for Jews and Gentiles?
Why? The Lord Jesus Christ preached that same Gospel as JTB. Compare matt 3:2 and 4:17. To be sure, JTB pointed the people to the One who was about to come, and the Lord Jesus pointed to Himself, but clearly the message was the same.
This is just totally incorrect, Obviously the whole of Matt. 25 is about His return. "Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming" (v.13). Also Luke 17:20ff and plenty more if you look for them.
You make this claim " John and Jesus preached primarily to the Jews so that means evan is wrong" but provide nothing to substantiate it. I would argue that your unsubstantiated claim is question-begging. Just because those two men preached primarily to Jews does not in any way mean evan is wrong.
*I am going to do what I hate doing and add a caveat. I do not agree with evan that his method of evangelism is the preferred way in scripture. Such claims are absurd and awkward. What does that even mean "preferred way in scripture"?
So you didn't see my scripture references I posted? You quoted them in your reply!
Besides the verses in Matthew, there is:
John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.
Acts 2:22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
I know what he means, but I can't find any preferred method, except for communicating what is contained in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. According to scripture we are supposed to use whatever works, according to the audience. 1 Cor. 9:19-24.
Doesn't make your point. I do not disagree that they preached primarily to the Jews but that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the law should be used or not used to preach the gospel.
You need to see the "Caveat" in my previous post.
Follow along...
Jesus preached primarily to the Jews.
Paul preached to the Jews first, then to the Greeks (Rom. 1:16). Paul was primarily sent to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:8)
Since most of us witness to Gentiles, if anyone in the Bible should be our model for evangelism, it should be Paul.
Paul did not use the Law to evangelize to Gentiles (that we know of).
Ergo, using the Law is not the "preferred" way to evangelize Gentiles.
It is not the preferred way, however your point is useless to prove that fact.
This is a typical anti-dispensational accusation which is a false charge. "The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is Christ; the content of faith changes in various dispensations" (Ryrie).
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--This is a basis for dispensationalism. God spoke in different ages by different means.
Man's responsibility is always to respond to God's revelation in faith according to how He has revealed Himself to man. God revealed himself To Abraham and gave to him great promises (promises that are not ours to claim). Abraham believed God and righteousness was imputed unto him.
Likewise, under the Law, a man was justified by faith (Hab.2:4). The Israelite knew the importance of the blood sacrifice. Even before the Law, both Cain and Abel came to know the importance of a blood sacrifice.
In every dispensation salvation is by God's grace through faith according to His revelation.
Both John and Jesus were pre-cross. Jesus was not going to preach the gospel defined by Paul in 1Cor.15:1-4, for he had not died, was not buried, and had not risen yet. And yet that is the gospel that we preach today, and that Paul preached. Both John and Jesus preached a message of repentance, a message based on the revelation that the people of that time had. They had to respond to that message in faith.
The references to Christ's coming given by Christ were prophetic, and therefore a non sequitor.
Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
--And if they had repented? Jesus was offering them the kingdom! But they refused both Him and the kingdom that he was offering them. It was very possible that the Kingdom could have come at that time, but it didn't. They Jews rejected it as they rejected Him.
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
It was prophetic. In Matthew 25 Jesus lays out an entire prophetic outline of eschatological events of all things that must happen before he comes. Not until you see these events happen will he come again, and no man will know at what time (the day, the hour), that he is coming. It is a future event. The Great Tribulation must first take place. He will come for his own (the nation of Israel), who in the near future will reject him. He will come in splendour and glory, which he hasn't done yet. He will restore this earth to its former glory, which hasn't happened yet.