Featured What Is the Best Single Passage to Evangelize Someone?

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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)?

 

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.