The best missionary/evangelist to the Gentiles in history did not use the Law in his efforts and that point is useless to prove my argument that using the Law is not the preferred method to evangelize....
Okey, dokey.
-
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
The best missionary/evangelist to the Gentiles in history did not use the Law in his efforts and that point is useless to prove my argument that using the Law is not the preferred method to evangelize....
Okey, dokey.
Sigh, you are not on your A game today. No we do not know that he did not use the law. We do not have an account of every time he spoke to someone.
You are on your "let's be contrary to InTheLight" game today.
Why in the world would Paul use the Jewish Law to evangelize Gentiles?
What other law should he use? Swedish law? French law? Were the ten commandments God given?
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the one who offers his own perpetual contrary posts to many others should be aware that the Law would be known, because, well, Paul preached in these places all over the world called synagogues? Proselyte Jews anyone? The Law written on the hearts of Gentiles? Perhaps some more 'bible time' to increase the 'wattage' for someone?
The difference, brother, is that Paul typically refers to the Law as Torah which is the covenantal Law associated with God's promises to Israel at a specific point (those delivered from Egypt forward, not their fathers) to chosen people and as a condition (Det. 5-6). But Paul also speaks of a law inherent in man. The difference is not in the "rules" but in the context of authority. Both Torah and Gods standard reflect Gods immutable nature.Those outside the Law may do or not do the things if the Law as God's law was in their hearts. But this had no relation to their standing in regards to God's election (they remain outside the Law and the covenant).
In terms of obedience we can look to moral aspects of the Law to understand how we should live. There are a couple of problems, however, with not making a distinction between the Law and God's moral law. First, the Bible clearly makes this distinction. Second, when we ignore this distinction we risk misapplying passages by taking what is specific as general. You are not being consistent in the way you interpret Scripture (I.e., everyone falls under the Ten Commandments as the Law vs. God electing a people as a particular possession).
So we can look to the moral commands if the Law and say "this is how we are to live" because these are God's laws reflected in these Commandments to Israel. But we cannot say that the Law or the Ten Commandments are an authority as the Law over us any more than we could say gentiles after the Law was given should have observed the dietary restrictions of the Law.
We are to obey the Ten Commandments (actually, all of those moral Commandments) not because that are our authority but because they explain God's moral law to us. The limited authority that the Law once had to Israel has passed. Now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
Last edited:
We do not agree. The 10 commandments are not the 10 suggestions. All men sin against the 10.
That the 10 are included to the Covenant nation does not change the fact that all men everywhere are under the 10.
Men in the jungle break the 10 as well as men in the city, or men who lived in Israel.
The scripture recognized idolatry among the heathens psalm 115...1 Cor 10....as well as among the Covenant people.
Murder done outside of Israel is just as wicked as that done in Israel.
I do not know how you have determined that I believe commandments are suggestions, but I can assure you that was not implied. I understand your position (thanks for the explanation) but here you have severely misunderstood mine. Perhaps this will help clarify.
All men are you under God's moral law as reflected in Torah and embodied in Christ. God is immutable, his standard of morality does not change from person to person. So we are not taking about whether or not all men are under God's moral law (they are) but whether or not this covenantal Law applies universally.
Do you deny that the Ten Commandments were given through Moses to Israel within a specific and exclusive covenant?
I understand you believe Scripture to imply these Ten Commandments as given at Creation to men. But your mistake here is twofold. First, when Paul speaks of the Law and those under the Law he is speaking of a covenant relationship (notice, there are some outside the Law). Second, God's moral Law exceeds these literal commands. What you are missing is that God Himself is revealed to Israel through the Law.
In principle we do agree, whether you recognize it or not, that God's moral law is inherent in men being created in His image. We disagree in that I believe God relates to men throughout redemptive history in covenantal terms rather than universal generalities and the Law is covenantal.
Last edited:
Question begging. Why should the law, any law, be used at all?
Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.
That's the point. Paul tells us God's law us in our hearts convicting us. People know this status because they are created in God's image (and this is evidenced at least through "secular morality" and a general search for a god even if that be an idea of human perfection). People know they sin. What they reject is the One whom they sin against.
Men are guilty and without excuse for what has been revealed to men is enough to convict. I am not opposed to using the Ten Commandments when witnessing to others, but it is not a mandate and one could argue it negates the what Paul says has been made known.
Last edited:
Just curious. How would you go about presenting the Gospel by means of the law to a first century Greek, or maybe if you are Ulfilas to a 4th century Goth? Of maybe if you are Patrick to a 5th century Celt? When you say "law" to one of these individuals, they would have no understanding whatsoever of the Jewish Decalogue. In fact, a Goth of the time may be without any law whatsoever, just tribal custom.
I'm here at my office on Sat. for just a few minutes. Back Monday.
Hello JOJJust curious. How would you go about presenting the Gospel by means of the law to a first century Greek, or maybe if you are Ulfilas to a 4th century Goth? Of maybe if you are Patrick to a 5th century Celt? When you say "law" to one of these individuals, they would have no understanding whatsoever of the Jewish Decalogue. In fact, a Goth of the time may be without any law whatsoever, just tribal custom.
I'm here at my office on Sat. for just a few minutes. Back Monday.
The same exact way as Paul in Acts 17.
God our creator is Holy and His law must be kept perfectly .
We cannot do this by our works.
God Himself came to earth to keep the law perfectly and Die AS THE God given substitute for sinners.
Everyone who believes will be saved.
Those who remain in unbelief will have to be sinless at the White Throne Judgment. .....they will go into second death.
Last edited:
No. At least not the Gentiles. There is no place in the NT where believers are commanded to keep the Sabbath.
JonC
I have answered in a post that right now is not loading from the laptop.....so I might have to save it until I get a better signal.
I will try again...it is not going to work, or it will post 6 or seven times.lol
I have answered in a post that right now is not loading from the laptop.....so I might have to save it until I get a better signal.
I will try again...it is not going to work, or it will post 6 or seven times.lol
Hebrews 4:8
JonC
Hello JONC
Ok.I find how you express your thoughts a bit confusing to me. I was on my phone before...am at a keyboard now, so I will respond more fully here to both of your morning offerings. I will show how that is suggested to me even if you have now clarified it.
Hello JONC
Ok.I find how you express your thoughts a bit confusing to me. I was on my phone before...am at a keyboard now, so I will respond more fully here to both of your morning offerings. I will show how that is suggested to me even if you have now clarified it.
Last edited:
Heb 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
There is no Sabbath here at all. You have missed the mark completely.
Here, the Bible Knowledge Commentary comments:
Our rest is Christ Himself, and our future dwelling with him whether in heaven above or on earth below.
Of course he is the Lord. He is the Lord of all creation. He is the Lord of unsaved and saved. But He does not command us to keep the Sabbath. Read Exodus 31. The Sabbath is a sign of the covenant to be kept between Jehovah and Israel and her generations forever. It was never intended as a command to be kept by the Gentiles.
Even on Mount Sinai, it is given to the Jews. Here is one command not repeated in the NT; not given to the Gentiles.
What did Jesus do? A Biblical case for using the Law in Evangelism
Before I jump into my argument let me point out that not once did Jesus give the good news of the gospel to a proud, self-righteous, and arrogant person caught up in his/her sin, so blindly willing to consider the gospel. The practice of telling people that "God Loves them" is a common one in our world today, but its not a Biblical practice. The Bible says that God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble (Jm 4:6; 1 Pt 5:5). James 4:6 ESV "But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” The proud are those that are an abomination to God Pro 16:5 ESV "Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished."
Biblical Examples
Lk 10:25-37
Notice John of Japan that the first question that the lawyer asked Jesus was how to inherit internal life. Read the text Lk 10:25-26 NIV "On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
Anyone asking a modern evangelist how to inherit eternal life will get grace and the "God has a wonderful plan for your life message." Few modern evangelists would open the law to the sinner and ask him or her what it reads. Why is that? Why have we come so far away from what the Bible teaches on how to do evangelism?
Mk 10:17-22
The rich young ruler was yet another proud, arrogant, and self-righteous sinner who came to Jesus and asked how to obtain eternal life. How did Jesus respond? Well the things he did not do was that he did not give him a message of God's grace. He didn't lead him to a sinners prayer. He didn't mention the love of God, nor did he give him a copy of the gospel tract emphasizing the wonderful plan He has for his life. These are all responses that the modern evangelist would give to someone that came to them asking how to obtain eternal life. How did Jesus respond? Quite simply he used the MORAL LAW to show how sinful this rich young ruler really was.
These are two examples of Jesus opening up the moral law with sinners that I hope you will take to heart and change your evangelism methods as a result. There are also examples of Jesus granting grace to the humble such as the case of Nicodemus among others which I will get into with my next post.
Before I jump into my argument let me point out that not once did Jesus give the good news of the gospel to a proud, self-righteous, and arrogant person caught up in his/her sin, so blindly willing to consider the gospel. The practice of telling people that "God Loves them" is a common one in our world today, but its not a Biblical practice. The Bible says that God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble (Jm 4:6; 1 Pt 5:5). James 4:6 ESV "But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” The proud are those that are an abomination to God Pro 16:5 ESV "Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished."
Biblical Examples
Lk 10:25-37
Notice John of Japan that the first question that the lawyer asked Jesus was how to inherit internal life. Read the text Lk 10:25-26 NIV "On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
Anyone asking a modern evangelist how to inherit eternal life will get grace and the "God has a wonderful plan for your life message." Few modern evangelists would open the law to the sinner and ask him or her what it reads. Why is that? Why have we come so far away from what the Bible teaches on how to do evangelism?
Mk 10:17-22
The rich young ruler was yet another proud, arrogant, and self-righteous sinner who came to Jesus and asked how to obtain eternal life. How did Jesus respond? Well the things he did not do was that he did not give him a message of God's grace. He didn't lead him to a sinners prayer. He didn't mention the love of God, nor did he give him a copy of the gospel tract emphasizing the wonderful plan He has for his life. These are all responses that the modern evangelist would give to someone that came to them asking how to obtain eternal life. How did Jesus respond? Quite simply he used the MORAL LAW to show how sinful this rich young ruler really was.
These are two examples of Jesus opening up the moral law with sinners that I hope you will take to heart and change your evangelism methods as a result. There are also examples of Jesus granting grace to the humble such as the case of Nicodemus among others which I will get into with my next post.