What did Jesus do?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by evangelist6589, May 31, 2015.

  1. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,328
    Likes Received:
    105
    Just got this book and I have been reading it as it's very interesting. I suggest you get copy of this book. Note I'd be interested in discussing this book with someone else that has a copy and also looking at the many scriptures in the book that defend the authors premise and believe me the Bible is loaded with them. NOTE not interested in a debate with people that do not have this book and will ignore all such posts. If interested in a book discussion please respond.

    Let's see if the authors views are not supported in scripture. He did say one thing which I believe to be false but only one thing so far. He said that using the moral law is the ONLY WAY to do evangelism which is not correct. I am moral law preferred but not moral law only.
     
  2. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,831
    Likes Received:
    114
  3. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,175
    Likes Received:
    610
    What Did Paul Say?

    Phillipians 1:15-18 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,
     
  4. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,907
    Likes Received:
    363
    That is true, and often ignored. I think that we judge what is being said, and even who is saying it (Paul does indicate the former as preaching Christ out of selfish ambition and to stir up trouble....these were not hypothetical). I do not know, however, that Paul is dealing with false doctrine rather than false preachers. The preachers are false because of their heart, but I get the idea that Paul would have reproached false doctrine (as he does elsewhere). Saying that the only way to convert people....or even a biblical way....is to put people under the Law is false doctrine. Saying that people are convicted through the Ten Commandments and God's moral is a different topic all together.

    Personally, if people have to rely on these books to discern the word of God in this, then there is something seriously wrong. I like Ray Comfort, but I do not see a need to own any of his books (thankfully this one is on line).
     
  5. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,907
    Likes Received:
    363
    If I make a deal with my oldest son that he can go to the movies this Saturday if he:

    1. Obeys his mother all week
    2. Does not back talk
    3. Paints the dog house

    Some would insist that my deal consists of two moral points and one special point. The moral points are applicable today (they would be right). But then they would say that my youngest also needs to be under this deal. It is true that my youngest is to obey his mother and not talk back…but it is false that it is under the deal with his older brother. They would say that my neighbor's son also falls under this deal as we all know children should obey their parents and my deal specifically states such. Again, they would be wrong.

    The fact that God’s moral law is reflected in the Old Covenant Law made with Israel does not mean that it is only applicable if one is placed under that Covenant Law (the Mosaic Law). To say otherwise is simply sloppy, lazy theology looking for the quickest and easiest answer. It is also contrary to Scripture - Not that we are still bound by those laws reflected in the Ten Commandments but that we even have the ability to place someone under the Old Covenant Law (Torah, the Mosaic Law) or that it could ever have been divided. It may seem a small issue, and perhaps it is insofar as evangelism is concerned, BUT it makes a huge difference when it comes to theology and understanding the New Testament along with God's one redemptive plan throughout history.
     
  6. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,175
    Likes Received:
    610
    Agreed.

    I skimmed several chapters and read the chapter on "What Would Paul Do?", which is apparently where Evan gets this idea that Paul used the Law in Acts 17. There is only the flimsiest mention that Paul must have meant the 1st and 2nd commandments when he referenced the Athenian gods of gold, silver, and stone.

    I quoted from Phillipians 1 because Paul is saying he has great joy when the Gospel is preached, even if the motives of the preachers are incorrect. (The incorrect motive was to get Paul in more trouble, presumably by their preaching the gospel in order to remind the authorities why Paul was in prison, and to keep him there.)

    Therefore, Paul would say so long as the gospel message was correct, it doesn't matter what the motive was. Ergo, if someone doesn't use the 10 commandments to "make someone tremble about their sin", but instead uses the Romans Road, or Friendship (or Relationship) evangelism, or Questioning evangelism, God is glorified.

    Insisting that there is a clear-cut one "best way" to do it is wrong, so this book is built on a false premise.
     
    #6 InTheLight, May 31, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2015
  7. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,175
    Likes Received:
    610
    We shall see...
     
  8. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,907
    Likes Received:
    363
    It is ironic that there is NEVER an example of the New Testament Church implementing this “best way” of doing evangelism. It is, as you indicate flat out wrong. But it sounds good, is easy to follow, and gets evangelism where it needs to go (out of false doctrine, intent and pretenses it actually is biblical in practice.....not the book, but explaining one's sin....although you don't really need to use the Ten Commandments for this). Often I believe these methods are for the biblically illiterate and un-discipled....they are short cuts to put people to witnessing (at least they may be used this way).
     
  9. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,907
    Likes Received:
    363
    I need to add this. At my former church they implemented a men’s study group. What they did was go through “Wild At Heart.” The book is - theologically - open theism, and although the author denies it, it is obvious. I agree with topics the author engages, but he slaughters Scripture in order to support his thesis. He brings up important issues (men taking responsibility for their families, being the spiritual head of the household, etc.) but his support is heresy. It is the same here. The Law was linked to the Old Covenant (not the Abrahamic Covenant), and no one is currently “under the” Old Covenant....or the Mosaic Law. The ends do not justify the means.
     
  10. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,328
    Likes Received:
    105
    Even if the talking rabbit wants to debate. :)
     
  11. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,907
    Likes Received:
    363
    And consider this, ITL,

    “It’s clear that Paul was ill-treated and stoned by his hearers because he wasn’t seeker-friendly” (pg. 74). Really….Paul was not stoned for preaching the gospel, but for not being “seeker-friendly”? Here Comfort is interpreting Scripture as if it were written to address contemporary issues. The reason that Paul was stoned was not for “not being ‘seeker-friendly,’ as evidenced by his methods in Acts 17. The reason he was stoned was for presenting the gospel in opposition to Jewish Leadership.

    Acts 14:15-19 "Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM. "In the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness." Even saying these things, with difficulty they restrained the crowds from offering sacrifice to them. But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having won over the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead.

    Just looking at Comfort’s handling of this passage (his taking the passage severely out of context for his own agenda) leaves no need to continue to his treatment of Acts 17 (it is worse, BTW….and begins on page 79).

    Ray Comfort as many redeeming qualities. He has a heart for evangelism. Unfortunately he does not have a mind for theology. He should have never authored this book. This is becoming more and more prominent in today's Church. It is a sin. It produces blind followers...disciples of men rather than of Christ.
     
    #11 JonC, May 31, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2015

Share This Page

Loading...