Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Do We Need To Preach The Law To Preach The Gospel?



There is a common teaching that the Law of God must be preached in order for the Gospel to be preached. In other words, that before you evangelize someone, that is, give them the Good News of Jesus Christ, and His death on the Cross for sins, and His resurrection, you must first preach the specific Laws of God to show them that they have sinned. Usually these specific Laws of God are given as the Ten Commandments.

But is this true? Do we need to preach specific Laws of God in order to preach the Gospel?

I believe the biblical answer is a definite “No”.

But first, I believe this "Law before Gospel" teaching idea has become an unbiblical tradition among many Christian teachers. Often, instead of going to the Scriptures and seeing if this Law Preaching is really commanded or required, they merely read of another teacher who has said it, and they believe it.

“Why, good old Charles Spurgeon taught that the preaching of the Law must come before the Gospel.” Or in more modern times, “Ray Comfort, the Way of the Master guy, teaches that you must give the Ten Commandments (or at least a couple of them) to somebody before you tell them the Good News.”

It’s often taught like this, “You have to give them the bad news, before you give them the good news.” Or, “If you don’t get them groveling in misery over their breaking of God’s Laws, they won’t be receptive to the Gospel. They will be flippant, thinking they don’t need salvation from anything.”

There are even several Scriptures that are sometimes used to prove the point of Law Preaching, and we’ll examine some of those. But I believe those Scriptures have been pulled out of the Bible to support this “tradition of men”, rather than the tradition coming from a good study of the New Testament.

Three biblical reasons why we are NOT called to preach the Law before we preach the Gospel.

1. All men already know in their hearts the moral law of God, and they know that they are sinners against God, and they suppress that truth in unrighteousness.

We already know from Romans 1:18 that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. In other words, every man already knows that he is ungodly and unrighteous, and that he deserves God’s wrath.

How does he know this? Well, Romans 1:19,20 goes on to say two things. That the knowledge is within them, and that the creation makes obvious the attributes, eternal power, and divine nature of God.

But Romans 1:18 says another interesting thing. It says that men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”.

They not only know they are wrath-deserving sinners, but they add to their sin by suppressing it, denying it. That’s why in verse 20 it says they are “without excuse”.

But that’s not all. The Jews, of course, in Bible times, would be very aware of the Laws of God, and the Ten Commandments. But we read in Romans 2:14-16:

“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ.”

What does it mean? Simply this: God has placed in everyone his moral law, and given men a conscience to identify when they are doing wrong, which of course they do constantly. So again, they are without excuse.

They don’t need to hear, “Thou shalt not steal.” They know in their consciences. They know the beauty and just and wonderful truth of God’s character and what He requires. But, as Romans 3 tells us, “There is none righteous, not even one...there is none who seeks for God...there is none who does good, there is not even one.”

So again, all men already know in their hearts the moral law of God, and they know that they are sinners against God, and they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

So if you’re witnessing or preaching the Good News of Jesus and the forgiveness of sins through the Cross, and somebody acts innocent and says they don’t need forgiveness because they live a pretty good life, you don’t need to prove anything to them. You can look them in the eye and say, “You know better than that. You know, just like I do, that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” And proceed to give them the Good News.

2. The Law has NO power for salvation. But the Gospel does.

In Romans 1:16, Paul says something that I believe we often forget. He says, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for IT is the power of God for salvation to every one who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” In other words, to those who know the Ten Commandments (the Jews), and to those who don’t know the Ten Commandments from a hole in the wall (but they know very well that they are in constant violation of the moral compass that God has placed in their consciences).

Why? Why is this Gospel the “power of God for salvation”?

Verse 17 tells us. Because in the Gospel is revealed the righteousness of God, the only righteousness that will save us. The righteousness that we must receive as a free gift because our own "righteousnesses are as filthy rags".

That’s why so many people have been led to Christ by the so-called Romans Road, without the preaching of the Law. Because men are reminded that all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), and that the wages of sin is death or the wrath of God, but that the free gift of God is eternal life through faith in Jesus who died on the cross (Rom. 5:6 and 6:23), and that he did it out of love, demonstrating His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8), and that whoever believes in Him (Jews who know the Ten Commandments, or Gentiles who don’t) will not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16), whoever confesses Jesus as Lord, and believes in their heart that God raised Him from the dead, shall be saved (Rom. 10:9).

That’s the Gospel, and that’s the power of God for salvation.

3. There are no New Testament commands, nor New Testament examples for preaching the Law before the Gospel.

Now let me take a little side road first and say this: I love the laws of God. Every law that God ever spoke or inspired is a reflection of His Holy, Just and loving heart. And I want to know His heart, because I love Him. He put that in my heart, to love Him. He is my Savior, and He is my Lord. I want to know what He wants. And when I’m walking in the Spirit, I want to follow and obey Him with every fiber of my being. I can say, "Not my will, but Thine be done."

And so I agree with the Apostle Paul that the Law is good.

But you will search in vain through the Book of Acts or the New Testament Epistles for any COMMAND to preach the Law before preaching the Gospel. And you will search in vain through the Book of Acts or the New Testament Epistles for any EXAMPLE of preaching the Law before preaching the Gospel.

What you will see is an assumption by the Apostles that everyone is a sinner, and that they know it. Without exegeting the whole Book of Acts, one example will serve, especially since it specifically deals with some Gentiles. When Peter is called to preach to Cornelius, the Bible records pretty much his whole message in Acts 10 beginning at verse 34. Not a word is mentioned of the Law. But Christ is preached and Him crucified, for the forgiveness of sins.

This pattern is followed throughout the Book of Acts.

Objections

Well, let me continue with some objections. I’m not interested in human reasoning objections, but biblical ones. Let me deal with a few verses that are often used to make the claim that the Law must first be preached, and then the Gospel.

Psalm 19:7

It's usually quoted, “The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” The word “converting” sounds like salvation, but you will see in the margin, or in most translations, that the best translation is “restoring the soul” or “reviving the soul”. It’s likely not even a reference to salvation at all, but in any case, the Old Testament Psalms is not the most reliable source for a New Covenant doctrine.

Also, when the Psalmist refers to the Law of the Lord, he is not referring to the Ten Commandments or any specific laws, but to the Word of God in general, as it was then known. You will see this over and over in the Psalms. That’s why the reading of the Psalms can be so rich for us New Covenant believers who are no longer under the Old Covenant Law.

Romans 3:20

“...for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” Although it’s true that through a specific law can come the knowledge of a specific sin, that is not Paul’s point. He is contrasting the inability of the law to “justify” anyone in God’s sight. In other words, no one can be saved through the law, he points out.

The best the law could do is show how someone has specifically sinned. But as we have already pointed out, man already knows he is a sinner, a breaker of God’s law, and suppresses that truth in unrighteousness.

1 John 3:4

“...sin is lawlessness”. The argument is made that lawlessness is the breaking of laws, and that this must be preached to show that someone has sinned. This is not only a little silly in view of what we’ve already seen about the heart and conscience of man, but it's not what John was trying to get across at all.

John was contrasting the true born-again believer with the false believer and saying that the one who practices sin has an attitude of lawlessness. Not just that they break God’s laws, but that the source of that law-breaking is a heart of lawlessness, and thus an unregenerate or unsaved heart. This has nothing to do with preaching specific laws to “prepare” for the Gospel.

Romans 7:7

Paul says, “I would not have come to know sin, except through the Law, for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” But the context shows that Paul is talking about the power of the Law to pour gasoline on the fire of sin.

Certainly Paul knew sin, even before he heard the law. All men do. But he’s making the point that the command or the law itself caused the sin to rise up in him. When he heard “Do not covet”, it made him covet all the more. Such is the heart of a sinner. Nothing in this section has anything to do with evangelism, or the Gospel.

John 16:8

“And He [speaking of the Holy Spirit to come], when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment.”

This is supposed to show that the Law must be preached, because the Holy Spirit will convict of sin and judgment. But look at the next verse John 16:9:

“...concerning sin, because they do no believe in Me.” Do you see that? It’s not the Law itself that brings conviction. It’s the very Gospel itself. It’s the Good News about Jesus Christ.

And look at John 16:11, “...and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.” See that? The work of Christ on the Cross has crushed the head of the serpent, to hearken back to Genesis. Sin has been paid for on the Cross and God’s righteousness is given as a free gift to those who will believe the Gospel.

John isn’t talking about Law in this section, but about the Gospel.

And finally, let’s deal with the verse that is used most often to support preaching the Law before the Gospel:

Galatians 3:24

“Therefore the Law has become our tutor [or schoolmaster] to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.”

Here again, context is so important. Paul is not speaking here at all about individual laws which are broken and thus leading us to faith in Christ. He is speaking of a historical progression from the time of Abraham who is promised a Seed which will become the Messiah, through the time of the Old Covenant, which showed how man could not be justified by obedience to any laws, and led finally to the promised Christ, in Whom alone is salvation, through His death, to all who believe.

Speaking of Jews only, Paul says that the Old Covenant was a tutor, but not to show men they were sinful, but that they could not gain righteousness through the keeping of the Law! They already knew they were sinful, but they thought that their so-called good deeds could justify them. And since their good deeds could not justify them, they were led to the Messiah, whose righteousness was offered as a free gift, the only way any of us are saved.

Preach the Gospel, friends. Plant the Gospel, water with Gospel, and God will give the increase for His elect. That is our confidence, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

The "Law before Gospel" teaching and "Do we need to preach specific Laws of God in order to preach the Gospel? " are not the same thing. Though it may be the case that many people who teach about sin before they teach the good news share specific examples, I don't know of either Charles Spurgeon or Ray Comfort teaching that specific laws need to be taught, though I know that Ray Comfort uses the law to show people their own wickedness, much in the same way you said that you would respond to a person who said that they were sinless by quoting "all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Remember that those people are "suppressing" the Truth have been given over to darkness and their hearts have been darkened "21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" Telling people that they are sinners because they have rebelled against what is good and that they need a savior to save them from their sins and the wrath of God is certainly biblical. There is nothing wrong with giving law before gospel especially when dealing with someone who is trying to work out their salvation in a law based religion. You said something about Acts not presenting this kind of presentation of the Gospel or Cornelius not being presented with the gospel this way but you are forgetting several things. Acts doesn't go into details every time the message is preached and someone is converted and it is safe to assume that if they were telling them about Christ that they told them about the law since Christ was a Jew and also the same God who had CREATED the law, gave the law to the Jews, lived under the law perfectly, and died under the law as a lawful sacrifice for sins which are sins because they are trespasses against God's commandments which are just generally referred to as LAW. Also, Acts has a lot to do with the miraculous nature of the establishment of the Church. Cornelius met an angel before he met Peter. He was a gentile who believed in the God of the Jews and recognized the angel as an angel of the Lord and gave generously to the poor and we can assume that he was familiar with the law. The eunuch was reading from the prophets when he met Paul. The law is only a few books ahead of it and I'm pretty certain Isaiah mentions the law once or twice in case you imagine that the eunuch skipped reading the books before Isaiah. Well, I think I touched on some of the major issues and I don't really know if you will let this get through and I don't have infinite time to spend on gambling whether or not you will suppress this response in unrighteousness (: so I am not going to keep going though I would like to encourage you to delete this article before I finish typing. Well, whether you publish this or remove the article, Thank you.

Terry Rayburn said...

Anonymous (why "anonymous"? - I'll never get that - if you're a believer, I'm your loving brother - and I don't bite),

Anyway...

1. You need to understand the concept of "straw man", because you are arguing mostly with things I never wrote.

For example:

You said, "I don't know of either Charles Spurgeon or Ray Comfort teaching that specific laws need to be taught..." I, of course, never said that they DID teach specific laws, so I miss your point.

Another staw-man example:

You sorta chastised me by saying, "There is nothing wrong with giving law before gospel..." Of course I never SAID there was anything wrong with it, only that it is not REQUIRED by Scripture.

2. The simple fact is that MANY have come to Christ hearing the Gospel with no naming of "laws", instinctively knowing they were sinners -- just as many have come to Christ having heard a typical law-first, then gospel second presentation.

The key to why BOTH no-law and law-first have brought salvation to people is that it's the GOSPEL that God used to open their heart (bring regeneration) and reveal the truth of their sin and Christ-as-Savior.

The idea that preaching the law first will pry their heart open is disproved a million times a day whenever the law is preached and someone rejects the Gospel.

But millions continue to be born again when the Gospel is preached to sinners who already know they're sinners, without laws being stated to them, because it's the Gospel that is the power for salvation to those who believe, and when God opens their heart, they can't NOT believe.

3. You, on the surface, seem to make a good point when you point out that some hearers in the Book of Acts were already knowers of the Law, being Jews.

However, as I point out from Romans 2, even the Gentiles have the law written on their hearts and are given a conscience (which they violate daily). So "prior knowledge" is common to all. That's why I say that everyone already knows they are a sinner, and responsible for that sin.

On that basis, I'm not sure you dealt with any of my major points, nor the discussion of common objections that I refuted.

I instinctively feel that you are just reacting, based on a TRADITION that has been repeated to you over the years, namely that the Law MUST be preached first. The Word never says such a thing.

4. You said, "I don't really know if you will let this get through....whether you publish this or remove the article, Thank you."

You obviously don't know me, nor the history of this blog regarding countering comments.

I WELCOME honest dissent, for two reasons:

(1) I'm always extremely open to biblical correction. Not bragging, it's just true. But it has to be biblical, as best I can discern it; and

(2) I welcome clearing up misunderstandings of what I may have not made clear, and clearing up unbiblical misconceptions (usually based in TRADITIONS passed on from others) that my readers sometimes have.

And so I don't "block" people, or "delete" comments, unless they are obscene, psychotic, etc.

Sola Scriptura and Carpe Gratiam, my anonymous amigo :)

Intrepid Evangelist said...

Hello brother. First, I just have a few questions on one section of this blog.

First you said:
“So if you’re witnessing or preaching the Good News of Jesus and the forgiveness of sins through the Cross, and somebody acts innocent and says they don’t need forgiveness because they live a pretty good life, you don’t need to prove anything to them. You can look them in the eye and say, “You know better than that. You know, just like I do, that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” And proceed to give them the Good News.” (end quote)

If this were to happen, how would you define to them what it means to come short of God’s glory? If you mention sin to them, how would you define sin for them and make it personal?

I also wanted to address a faulty section of pragmatism concerning your view of which evangelistic style is best.

You said:
“That’s why so many people have been led to Christ by the so-called Romans Road, without the preaching of the Law. Because men are reminded that all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), and that the wages of sin is death or the wrath of God, but that the free gift of God is eternal life through faith in Jesus who died on the cross (Rom. 5:6 and 6:23), and that he did it out of love, demonstrating His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8), and that whoever believes in Him (Jews who know the Ten Commandments, or Gentiles who don’t) will not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16), whoever confesses Jesus as Lord, and believes in their heart that God raised Him from the dead, shall be saved (Rom. 10:9).”

This is the thrust of modern-day pragmatism. To say “Use this because it works best” is not a biblical approach to the validity of a certain form of evangelism. What we desire is to discover the examples of how the Gospel was presented and the biblical principles in doing so. The model of the Roman road is not one we find repeated in Scripture and is a comparatively new approach in Christian history. Many unnecessary debates erupt from numerical comparisons when that is never a biblical determination for a truth.

Our approach to anything should never be what works best. As you noted at the end of your last comment "Sola Scriptura". That is our battle cry concerning the authority upon which all of this rests.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I look forward to your response.

God bless!

Terry Rayburn said...

Intrepid Evangelist,

1. As to your first part, if someone is suppressing the truth (of their sinfulness) in unrighteousness, and as you say "ACTS innocent", I would typically call them on their "acting", and explain to them how they don't even keep their OWN standards, let alone God's. (Try it sometime. Ask someone if they have "standards" of right and wrong in their own life. Then ask them if they've kept those standards perfectly. Unless they are squirmingly going to lie to your face, they will readily admit that they have NOT kept them. Then probe them with a question like, "If you can't even keep your OWN standards, isn't it obvious that you have not and cannot keep God's?")

Again, I'm not saying it's WRONG to bring the Law into it, only that it's not a requirement for preaching the Gospel.

And often a simple explanation of man's fallen nature and his propensity to do what he himself KNOWS is wrong is more than adequate to show him his need. And it has the advantage of exposing his depraved core itself, rather than just the violation of some law which he has already shown disrespect and negligence for.

2. You wrote, "To say 'Use this because it works best' is not a biblical approach..."

Ah-h-h but you misrepresent me rather wildly.

a. First, I never said "use this". I wouldn't presume to box someone into a particular method that may or may not be suitable to a situation.

b. Second, I never said "it works best". I simply offered the obvious truth that many have been saved through the use of this admittedly new-on-the-scene formula for explaining the Gospel.

So your charge of Pragmatism is not only wrong, but indicates that you haven't read much of what I've written, which is a shame :)

I despise Pragmatism. Yet I recognize that God in His Sovereignty makes many things "work", if His Son is in it -- if the Gospel is in it.

That Gospel is the power of God for salvation, to those who believe.

Not the Law.

Not a formula or technique.

But the Gospel itself.

Blessings,
Terry

Intrepid Evangelist said...

Thanks for the response.

You said:
“I would typically call them on their "acting", and explain to them how they don't even keep their OWN standards, let alone God's. Again, I'm not saying it's WRONG to bring the Law into it, only that it's not a requirement for preaching the Gospel.”

So if you believe that most men proclaim their own goodness (Proverbs 20:6) then why not call them out on their false acting from the start rather than assuming they know they are sinning?

While I agree that most people know elements of the Law (lying for example) is a sin they have also contorted that to justify elements of it. For example, some will propose that lying is not wrong if no one gets hurt. Thus, the use of the Decalogue reveals that it is God’s standard and not your own by which their sin is revealed. This squashes their self-justification and redefining of the sin.

You said:
“First, I never said "use this". I wouldn't presume to box someone into a particular method that may or may not be suitable to a situation.

But when you say a certain approach is not necessary (i.e. the use of the Law) then you in fact box someone into another set of methods.

Then you said:
“Second, I never said "it works best". I simply offered the obvious truth that many have been saved through the use of this admittedly new-on-the-scene formula for explaining the Gospel.”

Actually the charge of pragmatism is revealed in your phrase “obvious truth that many have been saved”. The core of pragmatism is focusing on the results for justification, which is what you have done in this sentence.

You then said:
“Yet I recognize that God in His Sovereignty makes many things "work", if His Son is in it -- if the Gospel is in it.”

God is sovereign and does use unbiblical things to accomplish His will, but this is same charge of pragmatics. We are to rely on the examples and principles in Scripture. If a method, such as the Roman Road is not found in Scripture as a method of evangelism then why would we want to use it? If it is not an example in Scripture, regardless of how many verses are used, who then is the author of such a method? Answer: man.

While you may not mean to, you have again fallen into another ditch of pragmatism: relying more on man-made methods.

I fully agree that the Law is not the power of God for salvation, it is solely the Gospel. But here again, you have confused what the Law is actually used for. Neither myself nor many others elevate the Law as the saving factor in salvation. It is simply the tool which God has given us to show His standard, to reveal and define sin, and to shut the mouth of the self-proclaiming relative moralist.

Christ saves fully, we proclaim faithfully. Christ redeems solely, we evangelize biblically. We are simply to remain obedient to what Scripture reveals and not jump on the latest method wagon just because someone can show us numbers of supposed “souls saved”.

If you have not read it already, I would love to send you Ray’s book “God has a wonderful plan for your life, the myth of the modern message”. If you would like a copy, please send me your mailing address (adam@doulostheou.com).

Have a blessed day in the Lord brother.

In Christ,
Adam

Terry Rayburn said...

Intrepid,

I can see two things:
1. You are stubborn :)
2. You enjoy arguing (in the best apologetic sense, to give the benefit of doubt).

Both of these can be very valuable in evangelizing and ministering. No one wants a wishy-washy possum who rolls up and plays dead with the least controversy.

God bless you in your ministry in that regard. Seriously.

However, both traits can cause you to swerve into what is commonly called today "spin".

For example, you were "spinning" in your original charge of Pragmatism, which I indicated by showing the straw man you spoke of was not me.

Instead of acknowledging the truth that I did NOT say "use the Romans Road" and did NOT say it was "the best" -- and perhaps even apologizing for misrepresenting me -- you continued to "spin", as though you had been correct in the first place.

This shows you as unreasonable. And I seldom continue long trying to press a point with an unreasonable person. But let me simply challenge you to deal with Point 3 of my original article:

"3. There are no New Testament commands, nor New Testament examples for preaching the Law before the Gospel."

Here's the challenge:

Show just one or two cases under the New Covenant where we are either COMMANDED or GIVEN AN EXAMPLE of preaching the Law in order to preach the Gospel.

If you cannot show such cases, then you have to wonder if your view is not just something that has been passed on from others (Comfort, etc.).

Speaking of Ray Comfort, I thank God for his witness and work of evangelism. As you and I agreed, God does "use" all kinds of methods, and even confused messages, as long as they contain the core of the Gospel, which is Jesus Christ's death for our sins, burial, and resurrection.

But Comfort (like many others) makes the common mistake of defining "repent" as "turn from your sins".

For example, here's a quote from one of his tracts:

"To receive the gift of eternal life, we must repent (turn from our sins)..."

I've written extensively on this subject, and never will you find repentance in the Scripture as "doing" ANYTHING, including turning from sins.

Repentance is merely changing one's mind (about their sins and about Jesus). Such repentance is itself actually a gift from God.

Logically (and actually), this will RESULT in some "doing", even in some degree of "turning from sin".

But to equate the repentance with the actual turning is to very subtly make an ACTION part of the Gospel, which is unbiblical.

Yet Comfort no doubt heard that definition from someone (even a "scholar"), and you may have heard it from someone who heard it from someone, and so on.

I babble on here, mostly just to show you that you are not quite as sola scriptura as you think, and to give you some food for thought on the nature of GRACE -- totally-totally unmerited, totally-totally without ANY works of ANY kind, as a condition for salvation (though of course a RESULT of salvation in many ways).

(Continued in next comment)

Terry Rayburn said...

(Continued from previous comment)

I'll close by quoting you, in two parts, and answering a question you ask, even though I believe you asked it rhetorically, not really expecting an answer.

You wrote:

"If a method, such as the Roman Road is not found in Scripture as a method of evangelism then why would we want to use it?"

Answer: Because it contains the elements of the Gospel, and is 100% biblical, and is relatively easy to remember for many believers who want to share the Gospel. The fact that it "works" is merely a SIDENOTE, not a plea for Pragmatism.

You continued,

"If it is not an example in Scripture, regardless of how many verses are used, who then is the author of such a method? Answer: man."

There is no set "formula" in the New Covenant Scriptures for evangelizing. Every case, given or implied, of evangelism in Acts and the Epistles differs quite a bit from other cases, leaving only the common thread of "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved", in one form or another.

Although I've read most of Ray Comfort's books and materials, I seldom turn down the offer of a gift, and would appreciate a copy of the book you mentioned.

My address is 909 Ryan Dr., Clarksville, TN 37042

SIDENOTE: This is ONLY a sidenote :)

Comfort, in the title of the book you mention, misquotes the first so-called Spiritual Law (from the Four Spiritual Laws), a common error.

The First Law actually says, "God OFFERS A Wonderful Plan For Your Life",

not

"God HAS A Wonderful Plan For Your Life", which incorrectly implies some comfort for those who are not even open to Christ.

Anyway, I greatly appreciate you writing, Intrepid.

Blessings,
Terry

Intrepid Evangelist said...

Thanks for the address brother. I will send it out to you shortly.

I do, humbly, take offense at the charge that I like to "argue". Were this true one could say any blog post you have made shows you too like too argue. The element of discussion is a give and take, probing one's underlying principles to further understand where they come from and why they believe what they do. In doing so we are able to work from similar principles to find where and why we differ on topics such as these.

I think I am beginning to understand some of why you have come to the conclusions. You seem to draw a dividing line between the Old and New Testament (covenant) in how we preach Christ. While we could discuss differing views of dispensationalism, covenant theology, and the like it would not help in the understanding of the use of the Law in evangelism.

You have also taken a "red herring" approach to a side issue of the definition of repentance. While we could spend time discussing, not arguing, the biblical definition of this word that is not the point of your blog nor the reason for my comments either.

Rather than simply listing the examples in the NT, and in the OT, I pray the book you receive will help to shed some light on the issue. I would further recommend Ray's "What did Jesus do?" book as it gives additional examples as well.

Feel free to look me up on FB so we can continue this discussion. God bless!

In Christ,
Adam

Terry Rayburn said...

You like to argue.

No I don't. :)

No offense meant, amigo.