Evangelism using the Ten Commandments

[Musicdude]

Originally Posted by Evanescence

Yeh, had a joker trying push the commandments on me once. I asked him why he was going to church on the wrong day. He said he wasn't I said he was...and fished out a calendar. I then gave him a history lesson. He rationalized and tried to BS. I pushed him again. He left with his tail between his legs....

The power of knowledge

...esp when you're 20 and just doing what you have been programmed to do...

Going to church and observing the Sabbath have nothing to do with each other.
Whether one goes to church on the Sabbath, or on any other day of the week makes no difference even to those who "keep the Sabbath holy." The only thing required to do on the Sabbath is rest. And I find church quite restful after working all week. Hanging out with friends, praising God and learning His word is not work. Of course jamming out some double-bass riffs on my drums to the praise songs does require some effort, but I would hardly call it "work."

[Musicdude]

Originally Posted by rossid

This is a long thread for only being a week old.

Did anyone bring up Ray Comfort yet?

I think I mentioned his name at least once. What about him?



And let me say once more for the record. I think WOTM is a very good technique for evangelizing. However, I don't claim that it's the only or ever the best method out there. It's the one I use, because I like it, and it works. I would rather people just go out there and spread the gospel in any way they like, as long as it's true to God's word. For most Christians, the problem isn't their method. It's their lack of evangelism of any kind. That being said, you don't really have to have a specific game plan for evangelism, but I think it helps. It helps you not be nervous, especially when evangelizing strangers. And it helps you stay on track and not get off on a rabbit trail that takes the conversation away from the gospel.

[bvc]

Originally Posted by Musicdude

There is not a scriptural example of everything we should ever do as Christians. God gave us common sense for a reason.

Irrelevant. There is scriptural example on preaching the gospel. God gave us His word, eyes to read it, and ears to hear it, for a reason.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

I don't tell them as if they didn't know. I remind them, and walk them through it objectively, asking them to evaluate their own life in accordance to God's law.

Oh, now you're 'reminding' them using a lesser written law (to another nation), of what they already know by a greater law (to all nations)? You really find that necessary? Wouldn't it be better to let the Spirit do that spiritually through the spiritual law? Do you really think man needs man to remind him and walk them through the written law objectively, asking him to evaluate his own life in accordance to God's written law? Think about the implications here.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

That is your personal preference, and opinion.

Actually that's scripture.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

You do it your way and I'll do it mine.

Right. I'll do it scripturally, you do it unscripturally.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Your personal preference of evangelism is not a convincing argument for me to change my method.

It's not mine.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Or Paul's either, for that matter, especially when the majority of scripture supporting my method came from Paul, so I don't think he would disapprove.

Where? Oh please, please, please, show me where! Paul never, ever, used the ten commandments to preach the gospel in scripture. No where. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Besides the 10 commandments are "the word" when you tell me to let the word do it's job, I would say that I already am.

using a written law Gentiles were never, and currently are not under, to convince them of their guilt of another law? That cannot, and will not, hold up in court friend.

[bvc]

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Ok, once again. I do not "have" to refer to the TC to do this, but it works really well,

Subjective.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

so you tell me why I shouldn't use it.

It's not scriptural.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Yes, there are other ways, as I already pointed out, but the other ways essentially do the exact same thing,

Not at all. The biblical way is to love and preach the gospel and let God do the rest.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

but rely on more obscure passages of scripture that your average unbeliever is not familiar with.

I didn't say to use other passages.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Very few people would argue with me if I told them the bible says "thou shalt not commit adultery." I don't have to prove to them, it's in the bible.

It was sin long before it was in the bible, ten commandments, whatever. The moral law tells them. They don't need it in writing.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

They already know it, so it saves time.

Exactly. No need to say thou shalt not.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

And it gets rid of the whole "that's your interpretation" nonsense as well.

If you don't bible thump you won't need to worry about that.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Because God's word convicts, not man's word.

Truth, Law, and Spirit/spirit convicts- makes one guilty. The Law, Spirit, and spirit in man does that. Our job is to preach the gospel. Jesus did not say to go to Gentiles and quote the written law added for Israel's sin -then- tell them the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

God's word has the authority to "correct in righteousness and is able to judge the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Heb 4:12 has nothing to do with the TC.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

My words do not have that authority. If I tell someone they are a sinner, not only am I judging them, but they could care less what I think about them. But if I show them that God's word calls them a sinner, the often they will respect that, as they should.

As I said
"The biblical way is to love and preach the gospel and let God do the rest."

"Truth, Law, and Spirit/spirit convicts- makes one guilty. The Law, Spirit, and spirit in man does that. Our job is to preach the gospel. Jesus did not say to go to Gentiles and quote the written law added for Israel's sin -then- tell them the gospel of Jesus Christ."

If you use the TC to point out their sin you ARE telling someone they are a sinner. If they respect it it's because they already believe in a creator and the authority of God's word. All they need is the gospel. There's nothing wrong with saying we have sinned. That's not judging and it's not using the TC.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

I am really surprised you would ask such a question. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a basic gameplan for evangelizing. You arguing that I cannot work outside of my "1 - 3 plan of points" is a major strawman, and you know it. Every person you evangelize is different. They ask different questions, and react to the gospel differently, etc. You can have a basic gameplan, and still be flexible.
I suppose if you were a football coach, you wouldn't have a play-book but instead just make up every play off the top of your head as the game progresses?

Your game plan interferes with the Spirit. That's not wrong? How is that a strawman? That's a rock! Why do you have to use a worldly sport to justify your method?

[Musicdude]

Originally Posted by bvc

Irrelevant. There is scriptural example on preaching the gospel. God gave us His word, eyes to read it, and ears to hear it, for a reason.


Oh, now you're 'reminding' them using a lesser written law (to another nation), of what they already know by a greater law (to all nations)? You really find that necessary? Wouldn't it be better to let the Spirit do that spiritually through the spiritual law? Do you really think man needs man to remind him and walk them through the written law objectively, asking him to evaluate his own life in accordance to God's written law? Think about the implications here.

Actually that's scripture.

Right. I'll do it scripturally, you do it unscripturally.

It's not mine.

Where? Oh please, please, please, show me where! Paul never, ever, used the ten commandments to preach the gospel in scripture. No where. Sorry.

using a written law Gentiles were never, and currently are not under, to convince them of their guilt of another law? That cannot, and will not, hold up in court friend.

Most of this is not worth responding to, as I've already answered it all in the very post you are quoting. And your childish responses to my serious statments were not helping your case any.

But I will respond to this part.

Originally Posted by bvc

using a written law Gentiles were never, and currently are not under, to convince them of their guilt of another law? That cannot, and will not, hold up in court friend.

Are you getting majorly hung up on semantics here, or are you trying to tell me that God does not to this very day expect the church to love Him above all else, worship no other gods, avoid adultery, avoid lying, avoid jealousy, honor our parents, etc?

Show me one of the ten commandments God does not expect us to obey to this very day, and I'll stand corrected.





I predict you will quote the one about keeping the Sabbath holy.

[Musicdude]

Originally Posted by bvc

Subjective.

What does that even mean. If you truly want me to thoughtfully consider your responses to me, you might make them longer than one word.

It's not scriptural.

I beg to differ. The 10 commandments are very much scriptural.

Not at all. The biblical way is to love and preach the gospel and let God do the rest.

According to you. I would say my method is biblical as well. If you truly want to refute my method it's gonna take a little more effort than just saying "that's not biblical."

I didn't say to use other passages.

Oh that's right, you don't think we need to use scripture to evangelize. Just walk up and give somebody a hug, and they will be saved on the spot.

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

It was sin long before it was in the bible, ten commandments, whatever. The moral law tells them. They don't need it in writing.

Well, most of the people we will be witnessing to were not alive back then, so it really doesn't make a difference. We have the word of truth in writing now, so we might as well use it, don't ya think?

Exactly. No need to say thou shalt not.

Well, God apparently saw the need to say it, and write it as well.

If you don't bible thump you won't need to worry about that.

I don't even take a bible with me when evangelizing. I have all the scripture I need in my head.

Truth, Law, and Spirit/spirit convicts- makes one guilty. The Law, Spirit, and spirit in man does that. Our job is to preach the gospel. Jesus did not say to go to Gentiles and quote the written law added for Israel's sin -then- tell them the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The first part of your comment here confirms what I am saying.
They need to hear the law, to know they have broken it.
To convict a criminal without quoting the law is absurd.
Defendant: What did I do?
Judge: You know what you did was wrong, you could feel it in your conscience, right?
Defendant: Just because I felt bad about something doesn't prove that I broke any laws. What law did I break that I am about to be punished for?
Judge: I'm not telling. But I do find you guilty. Balif, take him away!
Defendant: What did I do!!! Please tell me what I did!!!

Heb 4:12 has nothing to do with the TC.

So the 10 commandments do not qualify as the "word of God?"

As I said
"The biblical way is to love and preach the gospel and let God do the rest."

As I said, I disagree that this is the "biblical way." And even if it is biblical, it's certainly not the only biblical way.
Sin is part of the gosel.

Your game plan interferes with the Spirit. That's not wrong? How is that a strawman? That's a rock!

How does my scriptural gameplan interfere with the Spirit?
Don't just make these accusations, back it up if you want me to take you seriously.

Why do you have to use a worldly sport to justify your method?

Why did Jesus use worldly farming analogies? Because it helps people to understand.

[bvc]

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Most of this is not worth responding to, as I've already answered it all in the very post you are quoting. And your childish responses to my serious statments were not helping your case any.

Wait, the fact that we have scripture on how to evangelize and that you do not follow it, and that you falsely claim Paul used the TC to evangelize, is "not worth responding to", "childish", and "not helping my case any"? Yet somehow you think I should continue the discussion? You deny the way set forth by scripture and refuse (because you cannot) to back up your claim that Paul used the WOTM method of evangelizing. That's a good scriptural definition of one on milk but you say I'm childish?

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Are you getting majorly hung up on semantics here, or are you trying to tell me that God does not to this very day expect the church to love Him above all else, worship no other gods, avoid adultery, avoid lying, avoid jealousy, honor our parents, etc?

semantics? People pull that out of their hat when they are at a loss. What God expects of the born again has nothing to do with a written law to Israel that is nullified by the law of the Spirit of life that is in Christ Jesus.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Show me one of the ten commandments God does not expect us to obey to this very day, and I'll stand corrected.

I predict you will quote the one about keeping the Sabbath holy.

Show me one of the TC God didn't expect man to obey from the heart before the TC. I predict you will quote the one about keeping the Sabbath holy, and you'd be right.

[bvc]

Originally Posted by Musicdude

What does that even mean. If you truly want me to thoughtfully consider your responses to me, you might make them longer than one word.

You don't know what subjective means? That what you said is subjective?

Originally Posted by Musicdude

I beg to differ. The 10 commandments are very much scriptural.

No it is not a scriptural way to evangelize. We are all still waiting on you to show otherwise.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

According to you. I would say my method is biblical as well. If you truly want to refute my method it's gonna take a little more effort than just saying "that's not biblical."

According to me? First of all, I'm not the only one that has shown you using scripture, and second of all, you have not proven your way to be biblical yet. In fact, you admit your way is not in scripture having to claim we are not shown everything in scripture and including evangelism. We have not 'just said it's not biblical', you have, by not showing otherwise.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Oh that's right, you don't think we need to use scripture to evangelize. Just walk up and give somebody a hug, and they will be saved on the spot.

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

I didn't say that. I use the method revealed by the NT, Jesus, and Paul. Using that method you don't just walk up to somebody and wham/bam. It takes time. It takes people knowing you care before they care what you claim to know. It takes labor of love, which means time, effort, and sacrifice. It produces many more true converts and a lot less false converts than any method similar to WOTM does. It is not only best to use the scriptural method given us, but foolish to use any other.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Well, most of the people we will be witnessing to were not alive back then, so it really doesn't make a difference. We have the word of truth in writing now, so we might as well use it, don't ya think?

Why do you need the word of truth in writing? You just quoted Romans 10 which says

"Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;"

quoting

"Deu 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. "

which is not referring to the written law. Yet you find it necessary to use a written law to Israel that brings death instead of the spirit of the law which gives life.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Well, God apparently saw the need to say it, and write it as well.

The written law was added......
God said it long before and does so to every man, without the written law.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

I don't even take a bible with me when evangelizing. I have all the scripture I need in my head.

You don't physically need a bible to thump it.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

The first part of your comment here confirms what I am saying.

No it doesn't because I didn't say written law, I said Law.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

They need to hear the law, to know they have broken it.

All have heard and know else God could not Judge.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

To convict a criminal without quoting the law is absurd.
Defendant: What did I do?
Judge: You know what you did was wrong, you could feel it in your conscience, right?
Defendant: Just because I felt bad about something doesn't prove that I broke any laws. What law did I break that I am about to be punished for?
Judge: I'm not telling. But I do find you guilty. Balif, take him away!
Defendant: What did I do!!! Please tell me what I did!!!

Totally inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

So the 10 commandments do not qualify as the "word of God?"

Sure they do, but Jesus is.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

As I said, I disagree that this is the "biblical way." And even if it is biblical, it's certainly not the only biblical way.

Still waiting on you to show us another way.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

How does my scriptural gameplan interfere with the Spirit?
Don't just make these accusations, back it up if you want me to take you seriously.

It's not obvious? Show me an example of mans gameplan in scripture being used by God to save.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Why did Jesus use worldly farming analogies? Because it helps people to understand.

Farming is not worldy. It is according to His design. God did not design worldy sports.

[Musicdude]

Originally Posted by bvc

Wait, the fact that we have scripture on how to evangelize and that you do not follow it, and that you falsely claim Paul used the TC to evangelize, is "not worth responding to", "childish", and "not helping my case any"? Yet somehow you think I should continue the discussion? You deny the way set forth by scripture and refuse (because you cannot) to back up your claim that Paul used the WOTM method of evangelizing. That's a good scriptural definition of one on milk but you say I'm childish?

I will look back over my previous posts in this thread, but I am pretty sure I have quoted the scriptures that I base this on. So to say that my method ignores scripture is false. You will disagree with the way I take those verses, but that doesn't make my method unscriptural.

semantics? People pull that out of their hat when they are at a loss. What God expects of the born again has nothing to do with a written law to Israel that is nullified by the law of the Spirit of life that is in Christ Jesus.

Yes, SEMANTICS. I worship and serve the EXACT same God that Israel worshipped and served. His laws are eternal. He may inscribe them on a tablet at some point in history, but as you have already agreed to, those laws existed far before that. And they will always exist. Even in eternity, when we are face to face with God, murder will still be a sin. Jealousy will still be a sin. Etc, etc, etc....
You are getting hung up on the fact that the 10 commandments were specifically given to Israel, along with their other laws. But many of the other laws were things specific to Israel as a nation. But the 10 commandments are universal. I believe that is why they are distinguished from the rest. Why do you believe they are distinguished from the rest?

Show me one of the TC God didn't expect man to obey from the heart before the TC. I predict you will quote the one about keeping the Sabbath holy, and you'd be right.

Adam and Eve knew about the Sabbath, because Adam was alive for the first Sabbath. So just because the law wasn't written at the beginning of mankind doesn't mean they didn't keep the Sabbath holy. Now it's an assumption on my part that they did, but you must admit that it's certainly possible. And that day was important to God from the very beginning, as He was the One who made it holy in the first place.

[Musicdude]

Originally Posted by bvc

You don't know what subjective means? That what you said is subjective?

I know what subjective means. I don't know what point you were trying to make by calling my statment subjective.

Originally Posted by reminder of why I said what I said

You said: "If you have to revert to the TC to do this you need to broaden your horizon a little."

I said: "Ok, once again. I do not "have" to refer to the TC to do this, but it works really well"

You said: "Subjective."

So in the context of our little sub-conversation, your "subjective" comment makes no sense, at least not to me.
You said I need to broaden my horizons if I "have" to use the TC to show someone they need repentnce. I merely pointed out that I don't "have" to use the TC, I choose to use them because they are very effective. Then you called my comment subjective.
Are you saying that it's effectiveness is subjective? Well, in my personal experience it is effective. So why shouldn't I use my experience to go on?
And it's not as though my experience is all I go on. I first based this on scripture, remember? But there are lots of correct scriptural ways to evangelize. I tried this one and it worked well, so I went with it. You fault me for that?
The great commission doesn't say go forth unto all the nations befriending them, serving them, and then if the opportunity presents it'self tell them about Jesus.

No it is not a scriptural way to evangelize. We are all still waiting on you to show otherwise.

"We're all?" I don't think you speak for everyone in this thread.

I have already shown it. The rich young ruler asked Jesus what he needed to do to be saved. Jesus immediately brought up the law.

Paul made it clear that the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to faith in Christ.
The law brings us to faith. So if you want someone to come to faith, give them the law. It will teach them that they need a Savior. That is what it was intended to do when it was written, and it works very well for that.

According to me? First of all, I'm not the only one that has shown you using scripture, and second of all, you have not proven your way to be biblical yet. In fact, you admit your way is not in scripture having to claim we are not shown everything in scripture and including evangelism. We have not 'just said it's not biblical', you have, by not showing otherwise.

Please don't misquote me. I did not "admit my way is not in scripture."
I was just refuting your illogical argument that if there was not a specific example of someone using that method in scripture that it must therefore be the wrong way. But there is an example of Jesus using this method, which is why they call it "the Way of the Master" in the first place. Because it's the way Jesus utilized.

I didn't say that. I use the method revealed by the NT, Jesus, and Paul. Using that method you don't just walk up to somebody and wham/bam. It takes time. It takes people knowing you care before they care what you claim to know. It takes labor of love, which means time, effort, and sacrifice. It produces many more true converts and a lot less false converts than any method similar to WOTM does. It is not only best to use the scriptural method given us, but foolish to use any other.

Some people don't have time to wait for you to become their friend before sharing the gospel with them. Jesus told the gospel to strangers. Why shouldn't we? And as far as acts of service and love go, I do those quite often, but I will not cite examples because I want God to have the glory not me. You make it sound as if your evangelism depends on your credibility. It doesn't. It depends on God's. That's why I use His words, not my own. But you call that bible-thumping, as if it were a bad thing to share the written gospel of God's word with the lost.

Why do you need the word of truth in writing? You just quoted Romans 10 which says

"Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;"

quoting

"Deu 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. "

which is not referring to the written law. Yet you find it necessary to use a written law to Israel that brings death instead of the spirit of the law which gives life.

You must die in order to be reborn.
Rom 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

The written law was added......
God said it long before and does so to every man, without the written law.

Then you should agree with what I am saying, becuase I am just citing the law that is already on your heart.

You don't physically need a bible to thump it.

Ok, explain to me what you are accusing me of when you say I am thumping my bible. Because I guess I am of the strange notion that knowing and using God's word was a good thing.

No it doesn't because I didn't say written law, I said Law.

So writing a law down somehow transforms it into something else?

All have heard and know else God could not Judge.

It's true that every person in existence at least has an ancestor who has heard the gospel. I'll disagree with you that someone can be saved without hearing it themself.

Totally inaccurate.

What the heck does that mean. It's 100% accurate to the point I was trying to make, about the reason I mention the law when evangelizing. If I am going to tell someone they will go to hell without Jesus, they might want to know why. That's where the law comes in. It shows them why. But you're probably too PC to bring up hell while evangelizing.

Sure they do, but Jesus is.

I'll assure you I talk about Jesus when I am evangelizing as well, so no problem there.

Still waiting on you to show us another way.

No you aren't. You are waiting to be close-minded and argue with anything I say.

It's not obvious? Show me an example of mans gameplan in scripture being used by God to save.

It's not man's gameplan. I never said it was. You said that.

Farming is not worldy. It is according to His design. God did not design worldy sports.

Oh please. Are people gonna farm in heaven? No. So it's worldly.
Besides I could've used practically anything to make my point. I just happened to choose football. I could've used farming if I had wanted to. Do you think a farmer doesn't have a plan and method for doing his job?
Go try it sometime and see how well you do without a plan.

[bvc]

Originally Posted by Musicdude

I will look back over my previous posts in this thread, but I am pretty sure I have quoted the scriptures that I base this on. So to say that my method ignores scripture is false. You will disagree with the way I take those verses, but that doesn't make my method unscriptural.

You used a Jew using the TC to Jews. You have not and cannot show anyone using the TC to Gentiles. So when you do so, you use an unscriptural method. Period.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Yes, SEMANTICS. I worship and serve the EXACT same God that Israel worshipped and served. His laws are eternal. He may inscribe them on a tablet at some point in history, but as you have already agreed to, those laws existed far before that. And they will always exist. Even in eternity, when we are face to face with God, murder will still be a sin. Jealousy will still be a sin. Etc, etc, etc....
You are getting hung up on the fact that the 10 commandments were specifically given to Israel, along with their other laws. But many of the other laws were things specific to Israel as a nation. But the 10 commandments are universal. I believe that is why they are distinguished from the rest.

The TC are not and never have been universal. They were for Israel and for Israel until Christ. I cannot apologize for being 'hung up' on that truth.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Why do you believe they are distinguished from the rest?

I don't think they are. They are the preface, or outline and foundation of what follows. If you do the ten you won't be breaking the specifics that follow. Read on past the ten and you'll see all the moral fall under one of the ten.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Adam and Eve knew about the Sabbath,

We do not know that.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

because Adam was alive for the first Sabbath.

Doesn't mean he knew about it. That's pure assumption.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

So just because the law wasn't written at the beginning of mankind doesn't mean they didn't keep the Sabbath holy.

There is no record of the Sabbath until God revealed it to Moses. I think that makes it pretty clear.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Now it's an assumption on my part that they did, but you must admit that it's certainly possible.

No. I cannot admit that. I have no reason to. I don't assume anything.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

And that day was important to God from the very beginning, as He was the One who made it holy in the first place.

This has nothing to do with what man knew.

[bvc]

Originally Posted by Musicdude

The great commission doesn't say go forth unto all the nations befriending them, serving them, and then if the opportunity presents it'self tell them about Jesus.

aside from "if the opportunity presents itself" and other bad choices of words, yes, actually that is what Jesus taught us through His life. He certainly did not teach use of the TC to Gentiles. He said preach the gospel not the TC.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

"We're all?" I don't think you speak for everyone in this thread.

I didn't say I did. I just said I'm not the only one.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

I have already shown it. The rich young ruler asked Jesus what he needed to do to be saved. Jesus immediately brought up the law.

Jew to Jew.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Paul made it clear that the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to faith in Christ.
The law brings us to faith. So if you want someone to come to faith, give them the law. It will teach them that they need a Savior. That is what it was intended to do when it was written, and it works very well for that.

Us? No....Israel. The righteousness of God is revealed from faith (law) to faith (Christ). Now the righteousness of God is by faith of Christ. Galatians says the law was a schoolmaster to those under the law, until Christ. Christ has come. Jesus said those that do the truth come to the light. Now we preach Christ and Him crucified. Those that do the truth come to the light.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Please don't misquote me. I did not "admit my way is not in scripture."
I was just refuting your illogical argument that if there was not a specific example of someone using that method in scripture that it must therefore be the wrong way. But there is an example of Jesus using this method, which is why they call it "the Way of the Master" in the first place. Because it's the way Jesus utilized.

Then why didn't the disciples?

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Some people don't have time to wait for you to become their friend before sharing the gospel with them. Jesus told the gospel to strangers. Why shouldn't we?

Jesus did not walk up to people, ask if they ever lied, and when they said yes, call them lairs.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

You make it sound as if your evangelism depends on your credibility.

What are you talking about? Showing love is about God's credibility.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

It doesn't. It depends on God's. That's why I use His words, not my own. But you call that bible-thumping, as if it were a bad thing to share the written gospel of God's word with the lost.

I don't have a problem with that as long as you are showing the gospel in deed and love and not overdoing it with word only. I do wonder why you use the TC though.

That's all I have time for tonight.

[bvc]

Originally Posted by Musicdude

You must die in order to be reborn.
Rom 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

That's the point. The written law doesn't do that. So again, why do you find it necessary to use a written law?

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Then you should agree with what I am saying, becuase I am just citing the law that is already on your heart.

It's the other way around. You should agree with what I am saying, because I am just citing the law that is already on your heart.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Ok, explain to me what you are accusing me of when you say I am thumping my bible. Because I guess I am of the strange notion that knowing and using God's word was a good thing.

I think I did above, but let me know if you need more clarification. I will say again though there's not one example of anyone using the TC to preach the gospel, including Jesus (though you think so for some reason), so I can't say that's a good thing.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

So writing a law down somehow transforms it into something else?

I wouldn't say transforms it but since Jesus didn't come to do away with the law but the written law has been done away with, there's obviously a difference.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

It's true that every person in existence at least has an ancestor who has heard the gospel. I'll disagree with you that someone can be saved without hearing it themself.

I didn't say the gospel, I said the law. You continually confuse the two. You said

"They need to hear the law, to know they have broken it."

I said

"All have heard [the law] and know [the law] else God could not Judge."

This agrees with what you said

"To convict a criminal without quoting the law is absurd."

There's won't be a quoting. It won't be necessary to repeat it since they already know. This is why your example is inaccurate. It ignores clear scripture that all know the judgment of God and willfully reject Him. You think you need to tell them and show them their sin, when scripture tells you to preach the gospel, not the written law, because they already know their sin and need the light of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

I'll assure you I talk about Jesus when I am evangelizing as well, so no problem there.

Oh, but there's a big problem there! Jesus is not just the TC.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

No you aren't. You are waiting to be close-minded and argue with anything I say.

No. I'm ready to gently show you use of the TC is not the way of the gospel.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

It's not man's gameplan. I never said it was. You said that.

It's not? Scripture calls it mans covenant confirmed by God. It was added to the first covenant to Abraham because of mans sin. It was until Christ came. Christ came and nullified it. Move on to the gospel friend. Do you know the gospel?

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Oh please. Are people gonna farm in heaven?

I don't know. Maybe! Why not? Is it against God to work? Or did God say He created man to til the ground?

Originally Posted by Musicdude

No. So it's worldly.

You don't know that and then guess what? Heaven is earth! Because the earth is Heaven. Earth does not mean worldy. The fact you would think so shows your level of understanding.

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Besides I could've used practically anything to make my point. I just happened to choose football. I could've used farming if I had wanted to.

No you could not have

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Do you think a farmer doesn't have a plan and method for doing his job?

Yep. Where'd the farmer get the plan?

Originally Posted by Musicdude

Go try it sometime and see how well you do without a plan.

I'd follow God's plan according to nature. Just as man has done from the beginning. I'd do just fine with God's plan, thank you.

[Musicdude]

Originally Posted by bvc

I'd follow God's plan according to nature. Just as man has done from the beginning. I'd do just fine with God's plan, thank you.

As far as I am concerned using the law to evangelize IS God's plan for evangelism. Nothing you've said has convinced me otherwise.

And your attitude in your posts makes me want to just ignore them completely.
So I really don't care to discuss this with you anymore. Of course you are free to say whatever you want in any thread here, but I will not respond to you unless your attitude changes.

[bvc]

The only thing I've said for you to claim 'your attitude' is this
"The fact you would think so shows your level of understanding."
and I admit it's a little harsh and was wrong for me to say. I apologize. I know of nothing else I need to apologize for.

Question; was Jesus sharing the gospel with the rich young ruler? If so, please explain to me where the gospel is in what Jesus said to the rich young ruler?