Featured Awesome new gospel tract

Not at all. It was a lazy oversight on my part and I appreciate you correcting my error. :thumbsup:

 

Many, like me, would wait to find a trash can. "Throwing out" may actually be accurate. But who knows. I don't think anyone can gage results of passing out tracts. I have not heard a personal testimony of someone being reached with a tract, but I suppose it is possible. Heck, if you work at a landfill, maybe even probable.

 

It was a bit tongue in cheek, Evan. Sorry for not putting a smiley at the end. (Except maybe for the money tract, that is simply wrong given the financial struggles of many that would venture across the tract). And I did like "Tell the Truth" BTW. It was not my favorite, and I think you read it a bit one sided, but Metzger did well on that one.

 

You are mistaking. I don't oppose using the 10 Commandments in evangelism.

 

Evan,

I apologize for the short response (other than telling you that you were mistaking and that I am not against using the Ten Commandments in evangelism, I did not have time to offer you an explanation.)

Maybe this will help you understand Metzger, and subsequently my position, a bit better:

“In Acts 17 Paul teaches the basics about the nature of God. The Lord is transcendent and immanent. He controls history and our destiny. He has a purpose for humanity. He is the Creator; we are his creatures. Paul first fixes his definition of God by positives and then negatives, teaching antithetically. He emphasizes to the conscience of his audience the difference between their concepts of god and the world and the biblical view. God is personal. He is holy….Here’s a content-filled gospel message that can be the basis for the conversation with a philosopher or a child.” (Metzger, pg 56)

Did you notice how Metzger differs from TWOTM and Ray Comfort in interpreting what Paul was doing in Acts 17? You and Comfort say he was convicting the people under the Law. Metzger disagrees. He believes that Paul was a “witness to the necessity of Christ’s suffering by “going into the nature of God’s character as just and loving.” (Metzger, pg 57).

What does Metzger speak of when he talks of the law. Is it the Law of Moses that you and Comfort insist placing Gentiles under? Well…no, oddly enough it is not. Metzger agrees with John MacArthur here by stating the “law summarized in the Ten Commandments and elaborated in the Sermon on the Mount” is what “exposes the sinful character of sin.” (Metzger, pg. 66). Metzger goes on to suggest that we can use the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, or Paul's experiences as ways of explaining the necessity of a Savior based on God's character (not the Mosaic Law).

Or perhaps consider John MacArthur’s words:

“When I use the term law, I do not necessarily mean the Levitical Law or the Ten Commandments, but rather any biblical teaching that confronts sin.” (MacArthur, Evangelism: how to Share the Gospel Faithfully, 317).

Evan, you have misunderstood Metzger. I believe this has happened because you read the book in order to gather support for your own already conceived errors (that the lost must be convicted under the Law of Moses). I understand your mistake, but if you consider what Metzger actually states in the book (which is identical to MacArthur’s conclusions - that we are not under the Law (the Ten Commandments) but we are under God’s law (which is reflected in His moral commands because they reflect His nature...His holiness) I think you will come closer to a biblical understanding. It is not a difficult doctrine, and you will end up with a consistency of Scripture that thus far has eluded your theology. No one is saying not to use the Ten Commandments. It is not necessary, but it may be very helpful to demonstrate - as Metzger puts it - the necessity of Christ’s suffering which is based on God’s character as just and loving, because the Ten Commandments are also reflective of God's law, His nature.

I hope that this helps. Good luck in your witnessing (I hope Colorado is not as hot as it is here).

 

I’ve actually enjoyed revisiting this book, thank you for bringing it up. :wavey:

Some things seem to stand out a bit more than last time (different frame of mind, I suppose). But if you are seriously engaging the book, I think that you may also be interested in Metzger’s suggestion on how to explain sin in evangelism on pages 62-67. Metzger suggests explaining our sin nature by pointing out that when we fail to love God perfectly and love each other perfectly, then we are cut off. He offers an illustration of a diseased tree bearing diseased fruit. But he bases this conviction of our sinfulness not on the Law of Moses but on God, His nature and His creatorship (and us as created beings).

Chapter 13 (How to Communicate Personally) may be of interest as well. I think that Metzger made several very relevant observations and helpful suggestions. On page 193 he states that “evangelism begins with merely being friendly and taking a genuine interest in the concerns of others. “ I have seen this missing in many attempts at evangelism (I think that sometimes people get too dependent on method). I'm not a huge fan of methods, but his "Come Home method for memorization" is an interesting (and perhaps valuable) tool as well.

Anyway, thank you for bringing this up. I took the last couple of days to re-read the book and still recommend it to others looking for a tool to help witness to others.

 

Metzger teaches evangelism from a Reformed/Calvinistic perspective . Placing people under the Law of Moses is not Reformed/Calvinistic belief. I think this is perhaps one reason.