What did Jesus do?

[evangelist6589]

Finished this book tonight. Yes I have been a slow reader as of late, certainly not buying books nor reading like I once did. I would recommend this book for all whom are interested in evangelism, and doing evangelism the way Jesus did.

Ray hits the nail on the head in defending the principle of evangelism that makes use of the 10 commandments to bring about conviction for the sinner. Sadly so few churches use the law in their evangelism programs and preaching. Ray not only defends how Jesus did His evangelism, but defends what Paul, Peter, Jude, James, Stephen, and John the Baptist did as well in their evangelism. Another treat of this book is that it answers the debate that some have made up that since the Law was given to Jews only, it must not be used with gentiles in evangelism. Ray's other books that I have hardly address this issue, but this book hits the debate on the head. Clearly Rm 3:11 states that none understand and this includes Gentiles, and Paul himself says in Rm 7:7 that he would not have known what sin was without the law. Paul did not once differentiate between the Jew and Gentile in this verse and later goes on to state that the law is for everyone (Rm 3:19).

 

[JonC]

------------

 

[InTheLight]

Paul did not once differentiate between the Jew and Gentile in this verse and later goes on to state that the law is for everyone (Rm 3:19).

Gal 2:7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.

Show me a verse where Paul preaches the Law to Gentiles.


Here is Paul's gospel:

1 Cor 15:1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.


Do you see the Law in there?

 

[Don]

And the point of this thread is....?

 

[McCree79]

And the point of this thread is....?

Well, I thought he was just giving a book review, but he did put it in a debate forum.......so debate we shall

 

[McCree79]

. Another treat of this book is that it answers the debate that some have made up that since the Law was given to Jews only, it must not be used with gentiles in evangelism........ the law is for everyone (Rm 3:19).

What law? All 600+ of the Mosaic law? How does Ray decide which laws are for who?

 

[blessedwife318]

What law? All 600+ of the Mosaic law? How does Ray decide which laws are for who?

Another question is does Ray Comfort think that the Sabbath applies to today? I've never heard him ask questions about that one which shows that even he understands we are in a different time.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Gal 2:7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.

Show me a verse where Paul preaches the Law to Gentiles.


Here is Paul's gospel:

1 Cor 15:1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.


Do you see the Law in there?

No law there. I hope Evan isn't a false convert.

 

[evangelist6589]

What law? All 600+ of the Mosaic law? How does Ray decide which laws are for who?

Read the book. Its the moral law he is referring too.

 

[JonC]

Ray hits the nail on the head in defending the principle of evangelism that makes use of the 10 commandments to bring about conviction for the sinner. Sadly so few churches use the law in their evangelism programs and preaching.

Another treat of this book is that it answers the debate that some have made up that since the Law was given to Jews only, it must not be used with gentiles in evangelism.

Read the book. It’s the moral law he is referring too.

These three statements do not go together. Either you are speaking of the Law given to Jews or you are speaking of God’s eternal law based on His own nature and reflected in His works. In other words, God’s law (which Paul says is manifest to the world, which eternally preexisted the Law) is reflected in the Law because God is eternal, immutable, holy, just, etc. It is not the other way around. If you are representing Comfort correctly, then both of you need to pay attention to what Paul says here rather than molding Paul’s words into a method for evangelism.

You severely misunderstand Scripture here, brother, as evidenced by the banner at the bottom of your post. I would like to encourage you to read Romans apart from looking at a method of evangelism. I think that if you do this you will find a greater truth which will allow you to understand Scripture and the depth of our salvation in a better light. It is difficult (we all have the same issue of having to actively check our preconceptions at the door). But if you are going to preach on the street, then it is vitally important that you preach truth and not false doctrine. We will be held accountable for what we teach (James 3:1). I have to say that, by your comments here and over the past year regarding this issue, your teachings regarding the Law would fall into the category of false teaching. Many of us have tried to point you to Scripture and help you correct what throughout history has been heresy (placing Gentles under the Law was one of the first heresy’s dealt with by the Apostolic Church). I know why you believe as you do, and I agree that using the Ten Commandments may be effective in evangelism, but you have the tail wagging the dog. Restudy Romans from the standpoint of allowing Paul to dictate your beliefs rather than using your opinions of evangelism to dictate what Paul says. I think most of us here wrestle with Scripture and spend quite a bit of time taking advice, listening, working through and coming to a closer understanding of what God is saying (I’ve been on one verse for over 2 months now). I wish that for you.

 

[Van]

Here is a synopses of Ray Comfort's book, "What Would Jesus Do?"

What Did Jesus Do? examines the biblical use of God's Moral Law (the Ten Commandments) in witnessing, showing that not only did Jesus use the Law evangelistically, so did Peter, Paul, James, Jude, John the Baptist, and Stephen. So did Spurgeon, Wesley, Whitefield, and many others through the ages. Each of these men of God did what Jesus did: they used the Law to reach the lost. In a day in which many crucial truths are neglected, Ray Comfort calls the Church back to the way of the Master Evangelist, to consider "What did Jesus do?" and then to go and do likewise.

 

[evangelist6589]

These three statements do not go together. Either you are speaking of the Law given to Jews or you are speaking of God’s eternal law based on His own nature and reflected in His works. In other words, God’s law (which Paul says is manifest to the world, which eternally preexisted the Law) is reflected in the Law because God is eternal, immutable, holy, just, etc. It is not the other way around. If you are representing Comfort correctly, then both of you need to pay attention to what Paul says here rather than molding Paul’s words into a method for evangelism.



You severely misunderstand Scripture here, brother, as evidenced by the banner at the bottom of your post. I would like to encourage you to read Romans apart from looking at a method of evangelism. I think that if you do this you will find a greater truth which will allow you to understand Scripture and the depth of our salvation in a better light. It is difficult (we all have the same issue of having to actively check our preconceptions at the door). But if you are going to preach on the street, then it is vitally important that you preach truth and not false doctrine. We will be held accountable for what we teach (James 3:1). I have to say that, by your comments here and over the past year regarding this issue, your teachings regarding the Law would fall into the category of false teaching. Many of us have tried to point you to Scripture and help you correct what throughout history has been heresy (placing Gentles under the Law was one of the first heresy’s dealt with by the Apostolic Church). I know why you believe as you do, and I agree that using the Ten Commandments may be effective in evangelism, but you have the tail wagging the dog. Restudy Romans from the standpoint of allowing Paul to dictate your beliefs rather than using your opinions of evangelism to dictate what Paul says. I think most of us here wrestle with Scripture and spend quite a bit of time taking advice, listening, working through and coming to a closer understanding of what God is saying (I’ve been on one verse for over 2 months now). I wish that for you.

Are you a NewCovenant theologian? You are espousing views from that camp.

 

[JamesL]

I'm still waiting to see where any scriptures make a clear delineation between "moral law" and any other part of the law, such as dietary, ceremonial....

Jesus mentioned THE law, and referenced it as THE law of Moses, or simply "Moses"

And the writer of Hebrews clearly tied THE law to the priesthood. Yes, the "moral" law was tied to the sacrificial system. And both have been set aside for something more glorious.

The whole premise of law based evangelism stems from the error of thinking Paul had individual evangelism in mind she he said that the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ

 

[JonC]

Are you a NewCovenant theologian? You are espousing views from that camp.

New Covenant Theology holds that the Old Testament Laws have been abrogated and replaced with the New Covenant. What I am saying is that there is a covenant within which the Old and New Covenants exist. The Law of Moses reflects the holy and immutable nature of God, which is eternal. But the Law cannot be broken (there are not two parts of the Law: a moral and ceremonial....there is the Law. The moral aspect of the Law illustrates an eternal law that existed before the Law was given). I think Paul makes this very clear, which is why I believe you need to reread Romans without a Ray Comfort lens. Sin was sin before the Law was ever given (it was not transgression of the Law, but it was sin). It is our sinfulness that needs to be addressed, not our transgressing the Law of Moses. If you are willing, we can work through it here (or via email if you prefer)...whatever will help. If you think of God’s covenant of redemption, His covenant with Abraham, as a wheel and the Old Covenant (the Law) as a spoke in that wheel then you may approach my view. But let's look at it. What statements in my post leads you to the conclusion that I am a New Covenant theologian?

 

[evangelist6589]

New Covenant Theology holds that the Old Testament Laws have been abrogated and replaced with the New Covenant. What I am saying is that there is a covenant within which the Old and New Covenants exist. The Law of Moses reflects the holy and immutable nature of God, which is eternal. But the Law cannot be broken (there are not two parts of the Law: a moral and ceremonial....there is the Law. The moral aspect of the Law illustrates an eternal law that existed before the Law was given). I think Paul makes this very clear, which is why I believe you need to reread Romans without a Ray Comfort lens. Sin was sin before the Law was ever given (it was not transgression of the Law, but it was sin). It is our sinfulness that needs to be addressed, not our transgressing the Law of Moses. If you are willing, we can work through it here (or via email if you prefer)...whatever will help. If you think of God’s covenant of redemption, His covenant with Abraham, as a wheel and the Old Covenant (the Law) as a spoke in that wheel then you may approach my view. But let's look at it. What statements in my post leads you to the conclusion that I am a New Covenant theologian?

You did not answer my question

 

[blessedwife318]

You did not answer my question

That is rich coming from you. He did answer your question BTW you just need to read and understand what he said.

 

[JamesL]

That is rich coming from you. He did answer your question BTW you just need to read and understand what he said.

Quoted because you're on ignore

 

[JonC]

You did not answer my question

I apologize, Evan, if my answer was not sufficient. I do not define my theology within covenantal schemes. I thought my explanation was sufficient, but I will try to be clearer:

1. The Law of Moses was given to a specific people, at a specific time in history, and for a specific purpose. Paul explains this when using the illustration of the Law as a guardian, or tutor.

2. The Law cannot be divided (it is not composed of a moral law which can be divorced from a ceremonial law). We can, however, look to the moral aspects of the Law as expressions of God's own nature, which is eternal and never nonapplicable to man. Paul makes this distinction very well when he explains that Gentiles (who are not under the Law) are a "law unto themselves. "Thou shalt not murder," for example, is to be obeyed because it is God's law - not because it is a commandment under the Mosaic Law (it was always a sin, even before the Law was given).

3. Sin against God predates transgressions of the Mosaic Law. Although we can transgress the law written in our hearts and exemplified throughout creation, we are not transgressors of the Mosaic Law because we were never under the Law. Our issue is our sinfulness - our sinful nature that is evident through manifested sin.

4. One cannot understand Pauline theology without realizing Paul's insistence that the Law was given to the Jews while Gentiles remained outside the Law.

5. The Old Covenant and the New Covenant are vital parts of God's redemptive plan. But this plan has its origins long before the Law and the Old Covenant is given. It is not as one dimensional as you are making it out to be (the lost are not under the Law of Moses while the saved under grace). For example, the lost were never "potential benefactors" of the blessings under the Old Covenant that Israel once was.

6. You are ignoring a much older covenant within God's redemptive plan. If I am anything, I suppose it would be an "Abrahamic Covenant theologian."

I hope this helps understand my position. I agree with John MacArthur on this one (having read him may help you understand my comments). Please feel free to ask any questions you may have - I'll try to answer to the best of my ability.

 

[blessedwife318]

I find it interesting that a dispensationalist would try to put people in the church age under the law which is of another dispensation.

 

[JonC]

I find it interesting that a dispensationalist would try to put people in the church age under the law which is of another dispensation.

Good observation. I think that it is obvious that Evan has moved on. At one time he described himself as a dispensationalist that mirrored John MacArthur’s view. But perhaps he found MacArthur’s address concerning WOTM’s usage of the Ten Commandments unsettling. MacArthur supported their efforts, but suggested that they strengthen some aspects of their doctrine. He stated that he has “no problem using the Ten Commandments as a mirror to show people their sin” but he also describes the Decalogue as “a summary of the moral content of God’s law. The law’s moral principles reflect the unchanging character of God, so they are eternal, universally applicable, and by definition unchanging.” This stands in contrast to Evan’s theology that the lost are under the Law of Moses. MacArthur has also stated that Jesus and the apostles evangelized in a completely different manner (than WOTM). I think Evan may have ditched MacArthur for Comfort, most likely his dispensationalism as well.