What Is the Best Single Passage to Evangelize Someone?

[Scripture More Accurately]

Hello SMA,

Frequently after some of these encounters the scripture reveals that Paul would continue in an area and preach and teach,
acts13:
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.

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.

44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

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.

49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.


acts14:
14 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.

2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.

3 Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.
and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about:

7 And there they preached the gospel.

20 Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.

21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,

22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

I think it is clear that when it says they confirmed the souls of the disciples it included teaching on the promises of God.

This is certainly true, but how does it relate to the specific issue that I raised that the record in Acts 17 has those significant omissions in it?

 

[Iconoclast]

-

This is certainly true, but how does it relate to the specific issue that I raised that the record in Acts 17 has those significant omissions in it?

-I think the account is instructive in that Paul sought to establish the truth of scripture among people who did not have a working knowledge of scripture.
God granted him wisdom to identify that they did not know God, He was unknown to them, so he begins to introduce to them God as the Creator; Sustainer, Redeemer and Judge

First we are told of His pattern, opening and alleging..like a lawyer in a courtroom...
17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

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.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

He continued, but did not cast pearls before swine, as some do not want answers, just to mock and be contentious;

32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

33 So Paul departed from among them.

34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

We are not told of all he said to these believers, but I am certain he followed his pattern as vs.1-3 speak of.

 

[Dave G]

The inspired record of Paul's message in Athens does not have Jesus by name in it nor does it directly mention the Crucifixion. Do you think that those omissions in the record are a problem?

Perhaps.
But, I know that if I were a preacher,
I'd want to:

first ) Be led of the Lord to speak all of His words that He'd want me to, and
second ) Be as thorough as possible.

In reality what would probably end up happening is much the same as I see @Iconoclast describing above.

 

[JonC]

What about doing both? Read the verse(s) as they are in Scripture and then explain them and as needed, supplement them with other verses/passages handled in the same manner.

We can do both, but we have to remember Scripture was given to the "people of God" and not to the World. The OT was specifically given to Israel. The epistles were specifically given to the NT Church. To the World the Bible is not an authority and the gospel is foolishness.

I do not find in Scripture that one must accept the Bible as God's Word in order to be saved. One believes in Christ, believes the gospel (in Scripture the gospel is specific).

So while I would use Scripture regardless (that's just me) I cannot advocate adding to it a requirement that is contrary to Scripture itself.

It is not about what I would do personally but instead about elevating my preferences over God's Word.

 

[JonC]

Perhaps.
But, I know that if I were a preacher,
I'd want to:

first ) Be led of the Lord to speak all of His words that He'd want me to, and
second ) Be as thorough as possible.

In reality what would probably end up happening is much the same as I see @Iconoclast describing above.

I have a question.

What if you accidently misquote Scripture yet communicate the truths? Does it work or is it no longer evangelism because you did not use the right words?

 

[Dave G]

What if you accidently misquote Scripture yet communicate the truths?

Then it's not God's word doing the work of "converting the soul" ( Psalms 19:7 ) and it doesn't result in a person being "gotten hold of" by His words.

For example,
I remember when I first heard the word of God in 1978, and believe me, it got a hold of me, my friend.
From then on, I look forward to every time I get to hear His words spoken aloud.

Unfortunately, it's few and far between nowadays.

Does it work or is it no longer evangelism because you did not use the right words?

Jon,
To me, the right words will always be God's words;
We can never go wrong sticking to those and those alone.

It may be evangelism to you to communicate certain truths, but to me that's not true evangelism.
True evangelism is to preach the word of God, and see who responds to it.

 

[JonC]

Then it's not God's word doing the work of "converting the soul" ( Psalms 19:7 ) and it doesn't result in a person being "gotten hold of" by His words.

For example,
I remember when I first heard the word of God in 1978, and believe me, it got a hold of me, my friend.
From then on, I look forward to every time I get to hear His words spoken aloud.

Unfortunately, it's few and far between nowadays.

Jon,
To me, the right words will always be God's words;
We can never go wrong sticking to those and those alone.

It may be evangelism to you to communicate certain truths, but to me that's not true evangelism.
True evangelism is to preach the word of God, and see who responds to it.

I understand what you are saying, but in my view you have a very low view of Scripture (I don't mean that to offend, just the way that you view Scripture as being limited to specific words spoken in the English language is what I would consider to be a low view).

I read Scripture in the Greek. That's just me (I do not know Hebrew well enough, but I studied Greek at the graduate level).

What if I witnessed to people using the words God actually used (the Greek words the Spirit led the Disciples to write down)? Would that be even better, even if those I am speaking to do not understand Greek?

I am a Biblicist. When it comes to doctrine, if it is not in the Bible then I do not place very much emphasis on it. I do not mean "between the words" but the actual words. I believe that God has given us all that we need to know in the words that are recorded in Scripture. But we also have spiritual truth (which is s spiritual application of those words, and something that the world will never grasp).

When it comes to words used I do believe the words God chose to have the prophets and disciples record are very important. That is why I studied Greek and Hebrew (although I do not trust my Hebrew). The words are chosen for a reason. As you probably know there are words that God chose but that do not have an English equivalent. Words are symbols and what they symbolize are ideas or truths. That is what Scripture points to when it speaks of God's Word. God's word is an expression of God, of God's own mind. In the beginning was the Word. This is not the Bible. This is the Logos. Logos means more than just "word" ("word" is not a good translation of logos...it's just the best we have).

I think you may be getting caught up in legalism (just a little) and as a result diminishing Scripture.

I also love hearing Scripture read aloud. Do you understand why the KJV, the NIV, and the NASB are all God's Word? I ask because your posts seems to lead me to the conclusion that you cannot.

 

[JonC]

-I think the account is instructive in that Paul sought to establish the truth of scripture among people who did not have a working knowledge of scripture.
God granted him wisdom to identify that they did not know God, He was unknown to them, so he begins to introduce to them God as the Creator; Sustainer, Redeemer and Judge

First we are told of His pattern, opening and alleging..like a lawyer in a courtroom...
17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

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.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

He continued, but did not cast pearls before swine, as some do not want answers, just to mock and be contentious;

32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

33 So Paul departed from among them.

34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

We are not told of all he said to these believers, but I am certain he followed his pattern as vs.1-3 speak of.

What we have in this thread is a bunch of verses taken out of context and held together by assumption. We need to have a greater appreciation and love of Scripture than this (I’m surprised you agree with the post, @Dave G , this is not consistent with what you said earlier about adhering to the Word).

Acts:17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Paul went into the synagogue (of the Jews) and as was his manner he reasoned with them out of the scriptures (which is what the Jews did in the synagogue). These are Jews. These people hold Scripture as true even as they were not Christian.

@Iconoclast links Paul reasoning in the Synagogue with verse 23 and makes an assumption of Scripture that in effect adds to Scripture.

As I said, I'm a Biblicist. @Iconoclast and @Dave G , I have to say again you seem to have a very low view of Scripture (not as an insult but in the method you use). You two say Scripture presents Paul as standing "in the midst of Mars' hill and quoting Scripture, reasoning to the men of Athens, saying ....". That is adding to the Bible and it is wrong. Paul (and most of the Apostles) went into the synagogues and reasoned from scripture....they were Jews speaking with Jews). BUT here we see a direct narrative.

This is what I believe happened:

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said,Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. 23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

I believe this because this is what the Bible says. I would not give a wheel barrel of dung for what @Iconoclast assumes could have happened. Paul was not approaching the synagogue as a courthouse or discussing from the perspective of the Law. He was reasoning with the Jews in the synagogue from Scripture. And when he spoke to the men of Athens he did what the Bible says he did. He communicated the gospel to them in a way that they (not being Jews) would understand.

The two of you can add anything you want to Scripture, but count me out. You are tampering with God's Word and it is not, IMHO, a crime that will go unpunished. Christians need to have more reverence for God and less appreciation for their own ideas. When you add to or make assumptions about Scripture this reflects a low view of God because Scripture is God's word to us (Scripture is an expression of God).

My caution to the both of you is to be more careful about what is stated in the text of Scripture and perhaps less dogmatic about what you wish God would have said.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

What we have in this thread is a bunch of verses taken out of context and held together by assumption. We need to have a greater appreciation and love of Scripture than this (I’m surprised you agree with the post, @Dave G , this is not consistent with what you said earlier about adhering to the Word).

Acts:17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Paul went into the synagogue (of the Jews) and as was his manner he reasoned with them out of the scriptures (which is what the Jews did in the synagogue). These are Jews. These people hold Scripture as true even as they were not Christian.

@Iconoclast links Paul reasoning in the Synagogue with verse 23 and makes an assumption of Scripture that in effect adds to Scripture.

As I said, I'm a Biblicist. @Iconoclast and @Dave G , I have to say again you seem to have a very low view of Scripture (not as an insult but in the method you use). You two say Scripture presents Paul as standing "in the midst of Mars' hill and quoting Scripture, reasoning to the men of Athens, saying ....". That is adding to the Bible and it is wrong. Paul (and most of the Apostles) went into the synagogues and reasoned from scripture....they were Jews speaking with Jews). BUT here we see a direct narrative.

This is what I believe happened:

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said,Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. 23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

I believe this because this is what the Bible says. /QUOTE]

Jon,

Am I correct in understanding by what you have written here that you believe that these words are a verbatim record of everything that was said by Paul on that occasion in that message?

 

[Dave G]

Do you understand why the KJV, the NIV, and the NASB are all God's Word? I ask because your posts seems to lead me to the conclusion that you cannot.

Personally, I don't count the NIV as being the word of God, but that it does contain many of His words.
To me, the NASB contains many more...
but again, as I see it, it's not God's word in its entirety.

The AV is what I trust to be God's words in English, Jon.
I'm also willing to concede that any update or faithful revision of the "KJV" is God's word in my own native tongue.

The reason I phrase it as I do, is because of the manuscripts used;
The NIV is a Dynamic Equivalency translation into the English using a collated Greek text that I do not believe contains all of God's words...
The "Critical Text".
The NASB uses that same text, but utilizes Formal Equivalency for it's method of translation;
But I consider neither of them to be God's word, in its entirety, in the English.


Therefore,
if I were to ever preach, teach or quote from the Bible, I would do so using only the "KJV" or its next best cousin in the Reformation-era Bible family.
And I'm not talking about the NKJV.

 

[Dave G]

The two of you can add anything you want to Scripture, but count me out. You are tampering with God's Word and it is not, IMHO, a crime that will go unpunished.

Adding to the word of God is a serious offense to the Lord, and I would not want to be guilty of it.
Neither would I want to be guilty of subtracting from it or changing it;

That's why I use the AV and why I insist on letting God's words do the talking instead of my own;
Especially if I were to witness or to preach and teach.

In truth,
I would much rather that the Lord did the speaking to my brothers and sisters, than for me to interject with my own.
However, when it comes to explaining how I understand those words, I will of course do so with my words.

My caution to the both of you is to be more careful about what is stated in the text of Scripture and perhaps less dogmatic about what you wish God would have said.

My caution to you sir, is to stick to the word of God alone and to let it and Him do all the work.

It is my firm conviction that anything outside of quoted Scripture is man's words, and they have no power when spoken...
God's Spirit will not honor anything but His own words.

If you do not agree with that, then that is fine...
But that is what I have been convinced of for decades now, and it's only become stronger the more that I study His precious book.

This is my final reply to you in this thread, Jon.


I wish you well, and a good evening.

 

[JonC]

Jon,

Am I correct in understanding by what you have written here that you believe that these words are a verbatim record of everything that was said by Paul on that occasion in that message?

No. What I am saying is it is wrong to assume Paul said what scripture did not record. That is adding to Scripture. We know Paul reasoned through scripture in the synagogues. But Paul was what he needed to be to communicate to those God put in his path.

The men if Athens were pagan. They did not affirm scripture as an authority. Moreover Paul placed scripture as belonging to the Jew (not the pagan) and to gentiles grafted in.

It would be anti-biblical to assume Paul quoted scripture to the men of Athens in that speech on Mars Hill.

Also, the thrust of my objection is pretending that specific words must be used and that mistakenly misquoted a verse invalidates evangelism. That is a pagan view of scripture (scripture as incantation rather than God's Word).

Scripture is MUCH more important than that.

 

[JonC]

Personally, I don't count the NIV as being the word of God, but that it does contain many of His words.
To me, the NASB contains many more...
but again, as I see it, it's not God's word in its entirety.

The AV is what I trust to be God's words in English, Jon.
I'm also willing to concede that any update or faithful revision of the "KJV" is God's word in my own native tongue.

The reason I phrase it as I do, is because of the manuscripts used;
The NIV is a Dynamic Equivalency translation into the English using a collated Greek text that I do not believe contains all of God's words...
The "Critical Text".
The NASB uses that same text, but utilizes Formal Equivalency for it's method of translation;
But I consider neither of them to be God's word, in its entirety, in the English.


Therefore,
if I were to ever preach, teach or quote from the Bible, I would do so using only the "KJV" or its next best cousin in the Reformation-era Bible family.
And I'm not talking about the NKJV.

The KJV does not contain the actual words God put to pen via the Apostles and prophets either.

That goes back to my point. Using your criteria you do not have God's Word because you have a translation (which includes interpretation and summary). God never said the "Word" became flesh ("word" is not an exact representationof "logos"). God never said the "Red sea" was parted (the OT uses the words "sea of reeds").

I believe you are minimizing Scripture in an attempt to do the opposite (like Muslims who treasure the Koran they cannot read).

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

No. What I am saying is it is wrong to assume Paul said what scripture did not record. That is adding to Scripture. We know Paul reasoned through scripture in the synagogues. But Paul was what he needed to be to communicate to those God put in his path.

The men if Athens were pagan. They did not affirm scripture as an authority. Moreover Paul placed scripture as belonging to the Jew (not the pagan) and to gentiles grafted in.

It would be anti-biblical to assume Paul quoted scripture to the men of Athens in that speech on Mars Hill.

Also, the thrust of my objection is pretending that specific words must be used and that mistakenly misquoted a verse invalidates evangelism. That is a pagan view of scripture (scripture as incantation rather than God's Word).

Scripture is MUCH more important than that.

Hmm. So based strictly on whatever is recorded in Scripture about what was preached or testified on a given occasion and what is not recorded as having been preached or testified on that occasion, do you hold that the apostles only sometimes obeyed what Christ commanded them to preach and testify but other times did not obey what He commanded them to preach because the record does not show that they obeyed that command on that occasion?

 

[JonC]

My caution to you sir, is to stick to the word of God alone and to let it and Him do all the work.

I am enjoying our conversation. I have always liked disagreeing with you because you seem to be able to retain a Christ-like demeanor even in our arguments. So many cannot.

I agree except that I fo not believe you are doing this.

It seems that you agree with @Iconoclast that Paul quoted scripture on Mars Hill even though that is addition to scripture. It is based on an assumption Paul employed a certain method of evangelism (again,an addition and perhaps a denial of other passages). And it assumes tge verse speaking of tge synagogue applies to tge pagans (twisting God's Words).

So I agree that departing from scripture leads to error and that error multiplied. That is what happened in iconoclasts thread. One assumption led to another. The error could have been avoided by sticking to God's Word.

I still prefer the Greek for the NT text.

 

[JonC]

Hmm. So based strictly on whatever is recorded in Scripture about what was preached or testified on a given occasion and what is not recorded as having been preached or testified on that occasion, do you hold that the apostles only sometimes obeyed what Christ commanded them to preach and testify but other times did not obey what He commanded them to preach because the record does not show that they obeyed that command on that occasion?

I believe God had the Apostles record what God wanted them to record. We know Jesus did many more things than are recorded in scripture (the Bible says so). But it would be wrong just to make up stuff and attribute it as unrecorded scripture.

We have all we need in Scripture. We don't need to add to the text.

Does that answer your question (and does that make sense)?

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

I believe God had the Apostles record what God wanted them to record. We know Jesus did many more things than are recorded in scripture (the Bible says so). But it would be wrong just to make up stuff and attribute it as unrecorded scripture.

We have all we need in Scripture. We don't need to add to the text.

Does that answer your question (and does that make sense)?

Not exactly. I am not talking about making things up. I am talking about what is a right way to interpret what is and is not included in a biblical record of evangelism. If one takes the position that only what is recorded was what was preached/testified, we would have to hold that the apostles did not obey Christ on many occasions.

That position is not tenable to me. The apostles did obey Christ and preached/testified more than what is recorded in the accounts.

I am not talking about quoting Scripture or not quoting Scripture when I say this. I am talking about content that was preached/testified but was not recorded in the various summaries of those different evangelistic encounters.

 

[JonC]

Not exactly. I am not talking about making things up. I am talking about what is a right way to interpret what is and is not included in a biblical record of evangelism. If one takes the position that only what is recorded was what was preached/testified, we would have to hold that the apostles did not obey Christ on many occasions.

That position is not tenable to me. The apostles did obey Christ and preached/testified more than what is recorded in the accounts.

I am not talking about quoting Scripture or not quoting Scripture when I say this. I am talking about content that was preached/testified but was not recorded in the various summaries of those different evangelistic encounters.

Sorry if I have been less than clear. I guess it makes more sense in my head than on the post.

What I am saying is that no passage tells us we must use the exact words of scripture to evangelize.

@Iconoclast argued that Paul quoted scripture and reasoned through scripture with tge men of Athens because that was Paul's method. There are serious problem with that claim.

First, scripture never presents tgat as Paul's method of evangelism (the assumption was based on Paul's practice of visiting synagogues to reason with tge Jews).

More importantly, however, is that Paul would be explaining the OT to those pagans. Thus is not only absent in the Bible but it does not make sense. Paul shared the gospel of Jesus Christ.


Now, to my larger point - scripture gives us what we can know for doctrine. Sure more things happened. But our authority is what God had the Apostles write down (not all that happened).

We could say Jesus turned figs into rum, but we have no grounds for saying tgat except our own fondness of rum.

That is what is often happens. People look to scripture to support what they have already decided to be true and, of course, they find the support they are looking for. It is not really there, but if you already think the ink blot is a bat you will always be able to see the bat.

That is why I say we must stick to the text of scripture. The text communicates the truths God has provided for us to know.

 

[Iconoclast]

Not exactly. I am not talking about making things up. I am talking about what is a right way to interpret what is and is not included in a biblical record of evangelism. If one takes the position that only what is recorded was what was preached/testified, we would have to hold that the apostles did not obey Christ on many occasions.

That position is not tenable to me. The apostles did obey Christ and preached/testified more than what is recorded in the accounts.

I am not talking about quoting Scripture or not quoting Scripture when I say this. I am talking about content that was preached/testified but was not recorded in the various summaries of those different evangelistic encounters.

Of course Iconoclast did not say what his words were twisted to say.
He never said Paul quoted scripture on Mars hill.
He did say Paul began to establish the truths of scripture that God is Creator, Sustainer, redeemer, and judge

A careful reading of my post would clarify the false claims being made by some.
maybe if I posted it in the greek text, our new greek expert would have read it correctly

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Of course Iconoclast did not say what his words were twisted to say.
He never said Paul quoted scripture on Mars hill.
He did say Paul began to establish the truths of scripture that God is Creator, Sustainer, redeemer, and judge

A careful reading of my post would clarify the false claims being made by some.
maybe if I posted it in the greek text, our new greek expert would have read it correctly

I never said that you said that Paul quoted Scripture on Mars Hill. I only mentioned that in my comment to clarify that whether Scripture is quoted or not is not the aspect of evangelism to which I am wanting to direct focused attention.