| Author | Message | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1358 Registered: 10-2004  |
Here are a few quotes from EGW which I found to be interesting since they so clearly contradict the Bible, especially the last one.
I find that last quote so incredible, and blasphemous (as are all of them)! So according to EGW, the Gospel is the fruit of the Law! But what does the Bible tell us the fruit of the Law is?
Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4213 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jeremy, these are amazing and telling quotes. The gospel is the fruit of the law...?! Blasphemy really is the right word for these statements. I was especially struck also by these setences which immediately preceeded the "fruit of the law" sentence: "Perfection of character is attainable by every one who strives for it. This is made the very foundation of the new covenant of the gospel." Perfection of character is the foundation of the new covenant?! It's amazing how how glaring is the absence of Jesus in all these statementsóexcept as a nodding acknowledgement of His obligatory death which is like our ticket to heavenóIF we decide to go and IF we "get it right". Sigh. Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 766 Registered: 4-2000  |
Based on the following quotation from Ellen White, that I am citing from memory, are Seventh-day Adventists really Adventists? "Christ is waiting with a longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in the church, and when the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own." (Christ's Object Lessons, page 69) With such blatant, perfectionistic requirements, Jesus will NEVER return. Honest-hearted Adventists are well aware that they are not perfect. They are desperately trying to become good enough to be saved. Therefore, their future looks incredibly gloomy and uncertain. In grip of grace, Dennis Fischer | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2631 Registered: 3-2004  |
That is one quote I remember from all my SDA schooling. Did not remember the book though. Thank you God for Jesus and His perfection. I do not have to be perfect. 'Cause if you depended on me, Jesus would never come. Thank you for Jesus blood that covers all my imperfections. You are so awesome, that all I can do is say thank you Lord. Diana | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 495 Registered: 7-2004  |
During our last few months at the SDA church, the pastor did a sermon on this quote. He basically questioned what having "the character of Christ perfectly reproduced in His people" could possibly mean. He never did come up with any answer, but kind of left it up to everyone to mull over what it might mean. Actually, I thought it was a pretty good sermon that might have nudged people into questioning EGW's writings. But then again, SDA's aren't used to having things clear to them. Paul's writings are hard to understand, the IJ is hard to understand, there are so many complicated prophecies, EGW's contradictory writings are hard to understand. The clearest thing of all to the average SDA is the importance of keeping the Sabbath, but even the "how to keep it" isn't clear... | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1816 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree that those EGW quotes listed by Jeremy certainly is not the gospel. Perfectionism is opposed to the gospel. However, there is a "sense" where I can make a case for the gospel being the fruit of the law. Because, without a sense of the Law's condemnation, the gospel has no meaning. Without the smoke and fire belching forth from Mt Sinai with the awful terrors of the wrath of God, with the condemnation of the Law, then there is no sense of a need for the saving power of the gospel. A good friend of mine put together a list of quotations from several different classic authors, that illustrate how the law is needed in magnifying our need for a Saviour: "The first duty of a preacher of the Gospel is, through his revealing of the law and of sin, to rebuke and to turn into sin everything in life that does not have the Spirit and faith in Christ as its base." -Martin Luther, Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans (http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html) "...so long as people are ignorant of the nature of the law, and of their being under it--that is, under the curse and condemning power of it, by reason of their sin against it--so long they will be careless, and negligent as to be inquiring after the true knowledge of the Gospel." -John Bunyan, The Doctrine of the Law and Grace Unfolded "I say you have deprived the gospel of its ablest auxiliary when you have set aside the law. You have taken away from it the schoolmaster that is to bring men to Christ. No, it must stand, and stand in all its terrors, to drive men away from self-righteousness and constrain them to fly to Christ. They will never accept grace till they tremble before a just and holy law; therefore the law serves a most necessary and blessed purpose, and it must not be removed from its place." -Charles Spurgeon, from a sermon delivered in 1882 (http://www.the-highway.com/Spurgeon4.html) "People will never set their faces decidedly towards heaven, and live like pilgrims, until they really feel that they are in danger of hell . . . Let us expound and beat out the Ten Commandments, and show the length, and breadth, and depth, and height of their requirements. This is the way of our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount. We cannot do better than follow His plan. We may depend on it, men will never come to Jesus, and stay with Jesus, and live for Jesus, unless they really know why they are to come, and what is their need. Those whom the Spirit draws to Jesus are those whom the Spirit has convinced of sin. Without thorough conviction of sin, men may seem to come to Jesus and follow Him for a season, but they will soon fall away and return to the world." -J.C. Ryle, Holiness "That is the reason we have so many 'mushroom' converts, because their stony ground is not plowed up; they have not got a conviction of the Law; they are stony-ground hearers. First, then, before peace can be spoken to your hearts, you must be made to see, made to feel, made to weep over, made to bewail, your actual transgressions against the Law of God." -George Whitefield " It is a great mistake to give a man who has not been convicted of sin certain passages that were never meant for him. The Law is what he needs . . . Do not offer the consolation of the gospel until he sees and knows he is guilty before God. We must give enough of the Law to take away all self-righteousness. I pity the man who preaches only one side of the truth-always the gospel, and never the Law." -D.L. Moody "The unsaved are in no condition today for the gospel till the Law be applied to their hearts, for "by the Law is the knowledge of sin." It is a waste of time to sow seed on ground which has never been ploughed or spaded. To present the vicarious sacrifice of Christ to those whose dominant passion is to take fill of sin, is to give that which is holy to the dogs." -A.W. Pink "My grand point in preaching is to break the hard heart and to heal the broken one." - John Newton "A new and more powerful proclamation of that law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. So it always is: a low view of law always brings legalism in religion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace. Pray God that the high view may again prevail." -J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith? Stan | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 767 Registered: 4-2000 |
Sheryl, Admittedly and regrettably, I have preached many perfectionist-type sermons to receptive SDA audiences using that quote from COL, page 69. It is one of several "Ellenisms" that I still know from memory. Indeed, we can only be perfect in Christ--without any merit on our part. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1361 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, Some of those quotes are the result of a misunderstanding of the covenants. As Gentiles, we have never been under the Law of Moses. For example, a Gentile is not guilty of breaking the Sabbath day, since he has never been under the Law of Moses or the Ten Commandents. A mistake is made when the Law (Mosaic) or the Ten Commandments is equated with the universal Law of God. But I'm not sure all of those quotes you gave above, such as Luther's, are even referring to the Mosaic Law from Sinai. Paul says in Romans that the Gentiles are guilty of breaking God's Law--but he makes it clear that it is not the Mosaic Law or the Ten Commandments. He also makes it clear (and so does Jesus) that the lost will not be judged/condemned by the Mosaic Law but by Jesus Christ and His Words. But aside from all that, to say that the Gospel is the fruit of the Law is to say that the Law produces the Gospel! And that is blasphemous. The Law cannot produce anything but sin and death. When EGW says that the Law is the tree and that the Gospel is the fruit, she is putting the Law above the Gospel and above Jesus (as she does earlier in that quote also), once again exalting the Law above even God Himself. The Gospel is Jesus Christ--the Law did not "give birth" to Jesus; Jesus is the eternal Almighty God who created the Law. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on June 27, 2006) | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1819 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, I loved all those quotes above. I am thankful that as a believer, the Law has no claim on me. All those authors make excellent points, that without showing the sinner's need for a saviour by showing from the law what sinners they are, then the gospel can be presented most effectively. And, yes, since most unbelievers believe that they keep the ten commandments, they need to be shown why they don't. I see no problem using the Decalogue for that purpose, as it is a simple way to reach people on a level that can be understood. I only said that there was a "sense" in which the gospel is the fruit of the law. First of all the law was a shadow pointing to Christ. And, as those different authors show above, the fruit of preaching the law can be the salvation of sinners when they see their need for Christ. I am not trying to justify EGW's quotes, if that is what you are concerned about. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4227 Registered: 12-2003 |
Stan, I understand exactly what you are saying. I've pondered that very thought quite a bit over the past few years. And while I do believe that in many cases (such as that of Adventists) the law does function as a tool to drive people to spiritual despair and finally realize their lack of and need of Jesus, still I do not see the law as being the tool we need to use to lead unbelievers to Christ. There are a couple of reasons for my conclusion. First, as Jeremy pointed out, the law was never for Gentiles, and they will not be judged by the curse of the law in any case. The function of the law was never transferred to the Gentiles. Jesus Himself, the substance of the law's shadow, is the rule and standard for all men and women on this side of the cross. Second (and this is related to the first), nowhere did Paul preach the law when he preached to Gentiles. He did not even use the law to identify their sin. As he pointed out in Galatians, it's either one mountain or the other: Sinai or Jerusalem. All of Sinai is finished, replaced by the living Jesus. I am not criticizing the truly great theologians you quoted above for their understanding. In fact, of those you mentioned who works I have read, I know they are powerful, growing, committed Christ-followers. I would be happy to sit in their congregations any Sunday (if they had congregations today!). But I do believe that the New Covenant presents an even more real and powerful truth: Jesus and His teaching and His finished work are a standard that none of us can reachóand we need Him in order to be counted righteous. Colleen | ||
| Benevento Registered user Username: Benevento Post Number: 112 Registered: 4-2005 |
Well, folks, I just got back from one day of Washington Conf Campmeting, I went because my sister in law was there, she loves campmeeting, is going to be under ging back surgery soon and was in a lot of pain, and I wanted to see her. The Campmeeting theme was " It's All about Jesus" Sabbath morning and evening services were wonderful evangical sermons about trusting Jesus. Sabbath School was another matter, I had forgotten the emphasis on giving, and they did give although it was not as well attended as in past years they told me. SS was sprinkled with what EGW wanted, what she said and was the ususal stuff--I guess the SS leader hadn't really heard the message being promoted, or else it was a little something for everyone. The audience was thrilled with the evangical sermons and it would be easy to lose site of their real message when saved by grace is presented!! Two coments about the prayers, one minister prayed for the "enemies in our midst" (me?)and one prayed for God to remember that we are humans prone to sin!! When the Bible is about the plan of salvation and all the care and effort of heaven to bring sinners to Christ it seemed unlikely that forgetting that we are human was in much danger. The Wash. Confernece has put a lot of effort into promoting EGW so I'm skeptical of any real change. It was nice I could honestly be enthused about the main speaker!! | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1820 Registered: 3-2005 |
So the knowledge of sin by means of the law is an essential element of gospel preaching. John MacArthur explains: The covenant of law is long past, but the moral demands of the law have not diminished, having neither begun nor ended with the Mosaic Covenant. That is why preaching the moral, ethical standards of the law is still imperative in driving men to Christ. Unless men realize they are living in violation of God's law and therefore stand under His divine judgment, they will see no reason to be saved. Grace is meaningless to a person who feels no inadequacy or need of help. He sees no purpose in being saved if he does not realize he is lost. He sees no need of forgiveness by God if he does not know he has offended God. He sees no need to seek God's mercy if he is unaware he is under God's wrath.(5) Romans 3:20 Paul is very clear'...by the law is the knowledge of sin.' We are talking about witnessing to unbelievers. They aren't going to understand the nuances of the New Covenant Theology. I am a big fan of John Reisinger and New Covenant Theology. I realize that Christians are not to follow the decalogue as their rule of life. But, what is wrong with illustrating to an unbeliever in simple terms--that he can understand-- the ten commandments, illustrating to him that he is not really keeping the decalogue. I don't see anything heretical in this concept. I am coming to realize that at first as a former SDA, that I had this knee-jerk aversion to the Decalogue. But, now, I actually love reading sermons by the giants of the faith on the Decalogue. One of our FAF Bible study members has enjoyed reading Calvin on the Decalogue. Because I know the law has no power over me, I can say with David "I delight in your Law". Charles Spurgeon, and those other giants of the faith quoted above deserve our respect. Their track record at winning souls by God's sovereign grace is much better than mine. My soul is stirred when I read those quotations. God has worked mightily in the lives of these men. I want to be very careful before I criticize their theology. I believe they have a lot more to teach me, than I have to teach them. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4229 Registered: 12-2003 |
Peggy, who was the main speaker? It is wonderful to hear that they heard about trusting Jesus; I agree, though, with your skepticism. Without admitting the past and renouncing Ellen, without teaching the new covenant and explaining Jesus is their Sabbath restóthey cannot present the true gospel. Even though they may preach justification by faith, they still stumble on sanctification. They still include keeping Sabbath and the health message, etc. as part of staying saved. Many Adventist churches are preaching "saved by grace" todayóbut that message is not generally accompanied by the accompanying message that they must repent and accept Jesus death and shed blood in their place, that the law is obsolete, the new covenant has ushered in something new, the Holy Spirit has brought them to life and now they have living spiritsówithout all this, they do not have the gospel. They just have, as Jackob said so poignantly several weeks ago, a longer chain on their ball and chain, and a bit more freedom to move around. I had an appointment yesterday with a Christian, never-been-SDA physician who has had hospital privileges at Loma Linda for years. He said, shaking his head, "I was doing surgery there last week, and I was thinking, they sing the same praise songs; they talk about God's unconditional love and forgiveness; they talk about Godóbut when I pray with themóthey are so uncomfortable with the name of Jesus. They'll talk about Elijah and Elisha and anyone else, but they don't like to talk about Jesus. It is so close to the real thingóthe deception is very deep." I was truly astonished; I've heard very few never-been-Adventists who so clearly saw that problem. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1821 Registered: 3-2005 |
Peggy, I would just say that it is encouraging that you heard grace preached at an SDA campmeeting. It was clear by your double exclamation points that you were enthused about the main speaker. I praise God for that. I still believe there are genuine Christians preaching the gospel within Adventism. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1822 Registered: 3-2005 |
On another thread the topic of "Campus Crusade for Christ" came up. Apparently the late Bill Bright confessed at the end of his life that his method of evangelism using the four spiritual laws had been wrong. Ray Comfort tells the story: Over the years that I have shared my concerns about contemporary evangelism, I have been careful never to name names. However, many have guessed that on occasion I have been referring to the incredibly popular tract The Four Spiritual Laws, penned by the late Dr. Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ. More than a billion copies have been distributed in all the major languages of the world, and his approach has become the model for the modern gospel presentation. In July 2002, Kirk [Cameron] and I were invited to Orlando, Florida, to join Dr. Bright at his home for breakfast. After breakfast, we sat down in his living room and heard this warm, humble, sincere man of God (then eighty-one) confess that he had been in error. Let me use his own words from his book Heaven and Hell (published the same year) to tell you what he said to us: 'In His approximately 42 months of public ministry, there are 33 recorded instances of Jesus speaking about hell. No doubt He warned of hell thousands of times. The Bible refers to hell a total of 167 times. I wonder with what frequency this eternal subject is found in today's pulpits. I confess I have failed in my ministry to declare the reality of hell as often as I have the love of God and the benefits of a personal relationship with Christ. But Jesus spent more of His time warning His listeners of the impending judgment of hell than speaking of the joys of heaven...I have never felt the need to focus on telling people about hell. However, as a result of a steady decline in morals and spiritual vitality in today's culture and a growing indifference to the afterlife, I have come to realize the need for greater discussion of hell...I have thus come to see that silence, or even benign neglect on these subjects, is disobedience on my part. To be silent on the eternal destinations of souls is to be like a sentry failing to warn his fellow soldiers of impending attack.' Dr. Bright even took the time to use the Law lawfully, by quoting every one of the Ten Commandments, then expounding the Law by saying, 'Breaking these commandments will take us to hell without the intervening grace and mercy of Jesus Christ.' By admitting that 'benign neglect on these subjects is disobedience on my part,' Dr. Bright revealed his honest humility and his genuine love of the truth. Please, follow Dr. Bright's example and examine your evangelism methods in light of God's Word. At stake is the eternal salvation of millions of people. You don't need to throw away The Four Spiritual Laws. Simply make four important changes. First, don't tell sinners that Jesus will improve their lives with a wonderful plan. Second, don't make the unbiblical mistake of giving the cure before you've convinced them of the disease. Third, take the time to follow in the way of the Master by 'opening up' (or explaining) the Ten Commandments. And fourth, faithfully remember to include the terrible realities of Judgment Day and hell." Now, I am not saying I agree with all of the above, but I thought this was an interesting follow-up to a famous method of evangelism called the four spiritual laws. At least some clear message of the realities of hell and the law need to be presented to the sinner so he can see his need of a Saviour. Stan | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 124 Registered: 11-2005 |
Maybe I'm not really understanding this discussion clearly, but my question is if the law is an effective tool towards evangelism, then how do you later explain that the law is important, except the Sabbath part? It seems as if it should all go together, you can't just pick and choose what parts of the decalogue are still important. I understand that the law can be effective in pointing out sin in some situations, but I think for people who are generally "good", the law does very little to assist in their conversion. In fact, I think it may even hamper some people; especially people who feel they are "good people". It may give them the false idea that they don't need anyone since they are doing a fine job themselves. Also, it seems as if taking the "law approach" to win people to Christ would be potentially confusing for some, especially those who are "by the book people" (maybe because I'm seeing it from a former Adventist perspective). There are several people I've known who have become Christ-followers later in life (were never raised in the church, never knew God, etc). Everyone that has shared their conversion experience with me from this background, has had one thing in common -- they felt their lives were empty, and when they heard about God and His love for them, they longed for a sense of His presence and control in their life. This realiziation didn't come because they were really sinful people that were breaking commandments left and right, but because the Holy Spirit convicted them of their need to surrender EVERY part of them so that they could experience the peace that only a committed relationship with Christ can bring. Most people, whether a believer or not, I think know they are imperfect in some ways, and could improve in certain areas of their lives. Most people have a general understanding of ethics, and what's right and wrong. The knowledge of the law may help them strive to be better people, but not necessarily lead them to NEED Christ. It may be that the law can bring people to Christ, but so can bad experiences, or good experiences, or cultic backgrounds, or evangelical churches, or whatever. God can use anything. I just don't feel that He is bound to a "formula" way, or particular evangelistic method. If the law works, then it just happens to be one of those things that worked. But I don't think we can apply it to all circumstances. The only consistent thing I can see for successful evangelism is His drawing of us through the Spirit, and us responding to Him by letting our old self go. Grace | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 565 Registered: 7-2004  |
The book of Romans is Paul's exposition on justification by faith. The first three chapters clearly set up that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (3:23) and the law "speaks to those that are under the law that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God because...through the law comes the knowledge of sin" (3:19-20). I believe that the emphasis on "all" means just what it would appear to mean--everyone. Paul also makes clear that the Gentiles are judged by this same law (Rom 2:13-16). We are all condemned by the law unless we have turned to Christ and by faith have had His righteousness imputed to us. We do not live under a new covenant until we have been saved and His Spirit has been placed in us. How can we know our need for One to save us from our sins if we do not know we are a sinner? | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1823 Registered: 3-2005 |
I also want to make clear that it doesn't necessarily mean the Decalogue per se when talking about law, as I really like MacArthur's comment here: John MacArthur explains: The covenant of law is long past, but the moral demands of the law have not diminished, having neither begun nor ended with the Mosaic Covenant. That is why preaching the moral, ethical standards of the law is still imperative in driving men to Christ. Unless men realize they are living in violation of God's law and therefore stand under His divine judgment, they will see no reason to be saved. Grace is meaningless to a person who feels no inadequacy or need of help. He sees no purpose in being saved if he does not realize he is lost. He sees no need of forgiveness by God if he does not know he has offended God. He sees no need to seek God's mercy if he is unaware he is under God's wrath.(5) So, since most unbelievers even if they are not Jews at least in their minds think of the Decalogue as the Law of God. So, since they acknowledge that, then all that is necessary is to ask them if they ever stole an item--even if it was an office pen or other small item, well they still broke the law. Adultery is not just the act, but the thought as Jesus stated on the sermon on the mount. It seems that if Paul said that we should preach Christ crucified, then what was the one major purpose of the cross? To pay for the penalty of breaking the Law. When I got saved, it was that realization, that Christ payed the penalty I deserved for transgressing His holy Law. Evangelists through the centuries since the Reformation have understood the necessity of showing the sinner that they are under terrible condemnation by God's law, and they face the terible wrath of God for breaking that Law. Then the good news of the gospel is the remedy. Then after coming to faith, and being born from above, we walk not in the old way of the written code, but in the New Covenant of grace. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1824 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here is a stirring quote from a Spurgeon sermon linked here at www.the-highway.com/Spurgeon4.html "By lowering the law you weaken its power in the hands of God as a convincer of sin. "By the law is the knowledge of sin." It is the looking-glass which shows us our spots, and that is a most useful thing, though nothing but the gospel can wash them away. "My hopes of heaven were firm and bright, But since the precept came With a convincing power and light, I find how vile I am. "My guilt appearíd but small before, Till terribly I saw how perfect, holy, just, and pure, Was thine eternal law. "Then felt my soul the heavy load, My sins revivíd again, I had provokíd a dreadful God, And all my hopes were slain." It is only a pure and perfect law that the Holy Spirit can use in order to show to us our depravity and sinfulness. Lower the law and you dim the light by which man perceives his guilt. This is a very serious loss to the sinner rather than a gain, for it lessens the likelihood of his conviction and conversion." Now, if you read the entire sermon preached that day by Spurgeon, I am not going to necessarily agree with him on every point, as he did not know about New Covenant theology in his day, but the principles expounded in that magnificent sermon are very true today. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4230 Registered: 12-2003 |
I have great respect for Bill Bright admitting the limitations of the "four spiritual laws" method of evangelism. I agree wholeheartedly with him regarding the problems of emphasizing that God "has a wonderful plan for your life" that will improve your life. And I'm increasingly convicted that it is heretical to try to gloss over God's judgment. People must receive a clear call to repentance. As Dale Ratzlaff says, the gospel must work in any culture. This basic premise is what underlay the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 where the believing Jewish church leaders decided, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, not to require any of the Jewish laws for the Gentiles. The truth about Jesus did not require a knowledge or practice of Judaism in order for a Gentile to become a true Christ-follower. The gospel (and salvation) transcends even a knowledge of the law. The eternal morality of God has always existed, even before the law. Paul says in Romans 2:14-15, "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." Even without the law, although humanity suppressed the knowledge of God which has always been revealed through what has been made (Romans 1:18-20), there was in the consciences/hearts of mankind a knowledge of morality. God sent the law to convict people of how specifically sinful their lives wereóbut even "lawless" Gentiles knew when they behaved immorallyóif they didn't suppress their consciences with which God created them. Paul tailored his sermons according to his audiences. In Athens (see Acts 17:16-34 a group of philosophers disputed with him, some saying he was "advocating a foreign god" because he was "preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection." As they questioned him, Paul stood up and began his famous sermon on the unknown God. He began with their own pagan superstition and proceeded to introduce God, the REAL unknown God. As you follow his sermon, he identified God as the creator, as One not served by humanity, as One with no needs, as the One who gives "life and breath and everything else" to all men. He explains that God made the nations, determined the times and places set for them, and that He did this "so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." Further, Paul says that since we are God's offspring, we should not think He is like gold or silveróan image made by man's design. "In the past," he says, "God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." Paul never used the law to convince the Athenians of their sin. Rather, he used their own beliefs to pave the way to introduce the One True God. The important points needed for conviction were the fact of God as Creator, as sovereign Lord over all men and nations and times and places, in need of nothing and unmoved by human works. Using Creator God as the base line, he explained how their own beliefs were false, and based on this explanation of God's sovereign, eternal power and authority, he called them to repentance and warned them of judgment. Further, when Paul was in Corinth, the Jews made an attack on Paul and brought him before Gallio the proconsul. Their accusation? "This manÖis persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law." Gallio's response: "If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. But since it involves questions about words and names and your own lawósettle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things". (Acts 18:12-17) In this case, the mere mention of Jewish law left the Gentile proconsul cold. Only to the Jews was the law (as defined in the Torah) significant. Then again, in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:13-43), Paul preached in the synagogue to Jews and God-fearing but non-Christian Gentiles. In this sermon, he traced the history of Israel, walking them through the exodus, the time of the judges, the monarchy, and coming finally to Jesus "the Savior Jesus, as he promised." He spends the rest of his sermon preaching Christ. His only mention of the law was in in verse 39 where he says, Through him everyone who beleives is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." Then he warns them, using a quote from Habakuk (which would only be meaningful to a Jew), against scoffing and unbelief. He uses this quotation to warn the Jews of the coming judgment: "Look, you scoffers, wonder and perish, for I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe, even if someone told you." (Acts 13:41 from Hab 1:5). When preaching to Jews, Paul would make reference to the lawóbut even there, his focus was not to use the law to point out their sin. That was fairly self-evident. He used the law as a reminder that under it, they were completely unjustified. They were unrighteous, and they were doomed to destruction if they continued in their unbelief. Here's my point: the law (meaning the Decalogue) can be useful, as John MacArthur states in the quote above, in speaking to people who already know the Decalogue and believe it to be God's standard for them. But it is not necessary to teach the law or even to use it to point out people's depravity. Paul's focus on establishing God's identity as Creator, Sovereign, un-needing, un-impressible, All-powerful Provideróthis is the ground from which he convinced unbelievers of their depravity. Who did they think they were, ascribing their own definition to God, when God made them? And to the Jews, Paul used the law merely as a reminder of their hopeless state of being unjustified. To the Jews, Paul preached Jesus as the fulfillment of all God's promises. When Jesus Christ is the focus of our evangelism, He draws all men to Himself. God convicts people of sin. Paul and also Peter preached Jesus, whether they were speaking to Jews or to Gentiles. They called people to repentance, and they warned them of judgment. Nowhere did they preach that God had a plan for them that would make their lives betteróbut they promised that people would find righteousness and peace. The New Testament is FULL of commands to moral livingóthere really is no need to refer specifically to the law as the means of conviction of sin unless a person is already pre-disposed to think of the law as their authority. The Gospel is amazingóit is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes (Romans 1:16) for it reveals "a righteousness from GodÖthat is by faith from first to last." (Romans 1:17). It transcends culture. It can be preached with or without a hearer's knowledge of the 10 Commandments. Jesus is all sufficient. Colleen |
