Posted to: Today's Christians by JCsZealot [No Comments »]
If one ever doubted the method by which the gospel should be preached, the good news shared, one needn’t look much further than Paul. Written by Luke, the book of Acts covers some useful information about Paul’s methods for spreading the Word of God. Paul was not an enigma, he was a man of reason and logic; often straight to the point with the message. Despite an abrupt and direct nature, he still managed to be disciplined and compassionate - most of the time. It is no secret that Paul was prone to frustration. If asked today, Paul might say he didn’t have tolerance for stupidity; nevertheless, his determination and passion were keys to his success, next to his faith in Christ, of course. Apart from his methods, Paul was also another example of whom God can use.
Paul wasn’t always Paul, he was once Saul. In Pilippians 3:5, Paul writes this about himself:
“…circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;”
The information contained in Acts, and other scripture, regards Saul as a persecutor of those who preached the gospel. He was present at the stoning of Stephen (i.e. Ch 8 ) and counted for his approval of it by the author of the book of Acts. While not outwardly discussed much more than that, it can be safe to assume that this was the nature of Saul’s position; that he had involvement in the deaths of believers, prior to his conversion. We can’t go so far as to call Saul, himself, a murderer; but we can throw him in with the lot, simply by association. Despite that, Saul was chosen by God.
While traveling to Damascus, the resurrected Jesus appeared to Saul in a brilliant flash of light (Ch 9). In that light, Jesus called to him and asked “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”. Dramatic, to be sure; poignant to say the least. When asked from whom the voice was coming, the reply came “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting…”. This encounter with the Lord left Saul blind for three days. In that time, he was met by a man called Ananias who had been given a vision to go and preach to Saul. Reluctantly, because most believers in the region had heard of Saul, Ananias went to him and laid hands on him; curing Saul’s blindness immediately. Saul was baptized and his mission for Christ began. There was no ceremony or elaborate scene that changed Saul’s name to Paul; it is only mentioned in Ch 13 verse 9 as “Then Saul, who was also called Paul,…”. It is believed that Saul’s name was commonly known as Paul to the Gentiles. His mission for both the Jews and the Gentiles was displayed by methods which were common to Paul.
A few of Paul’s methods with the Jews were noted as such:
Acts 9:22 “Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.”
In relation to the mind, ‘baffled’ (or some use ‘confounded’) refers to confound, confuse, stir up or ‘be in an uproar’. In relation to the mind as well, ‘prove’ refers to definitive inference, show, teach, assuredly gather and prove. So the passage is fairly plain. But what makes it interesting is that Paul was debating Jews on their own turf (until a short time prior, it was his turf as well), in the synagogue - much like Jesus did when he was a child. The Jews didn’t have a faith that was haphazardly slapped together, they were well versed in the Torah. So, to be ‘confounded’ by the likes of Paul (one of their own, in their eyes) with ‘proof’ that Jesus was the Christ could only lead to one thing - their wish for his death. Again, the same effect Jesus had.
Acts 9:28-29 “So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him.”
Acts 18:4 “Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.”
‘Boldly’ is described as being frank in utterance, or confident in spirit and demeanor, to be bold and speak boldly. ‘Debated’ includes meanings that are persistent with discussion, enquiring, questioning and reasoning. These two points in these verses speak volumes to Paul’s methods. He was confident in what he taught, speaking boldly of it. Only a fool would speak boldly of something that they possess no confidence in. While we see that today, what creates the distinction between true confidence and blowing hot air, is Paul’s ability to debate his beliefs. He questioned and reasoned, something someone really cannot do if they are not versed in their understandings. Reason, by its very nature, holds attributes which relate to the ability to rationally understand something and logically interpret and defend/debate it. It is with that which we understand Paul’s ability and level of understanding.
What makes these interesting is that the Jews, most likely, would have laughed Paul out of the synagogue if he was a quack. If he was just spouting nonsense and unable to really defend what he was saying (conversely, refute what they believed) they probably would have ignored him. At the very worst, they would have chased him out of the synagogue and made him a laughing stock - but they didn’t. Instead, Paul disturbed them so much, that they conspired to kill him (9:24, 29 etc.). Such severity only shows one thing; what Paul said wasn’t nonsense. He obviously delivered it with more than a simple understanding, enough to confound them and prove his case for Christ. Today, it’s the same thing - the stronger your case is - to those who don’t want to believe - the more aggressive they will become toward you. If your case is weak and lacking any real substance, they will treat you like a joke instead.
Acts 18:6 “But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”"
An attribute of Paul, which some may fail to realize, is that he did have a line. That is, he had a point where he felt he had spoken and debated all that he could. Paul was rational enough to accept “opposition”, he accepted differences in opinion and the scriptures show his ability to even respect it. Yet, when a debate or discussion moved into ‘abuse’ from the opposition, Paul seemed to realize that it was hopeless. Like animals, those who get cornered turn to aggression; people touched by God accept Him, those steeped in their own personal ego do not. Paul’s reaction was often a burst of frustration; a human response to the stubbornness and ignorance (that is to say; one who turns to ‘abuse’ is clearly too ignorant to carry on a discussion) of his audience. However, what Paul wants and what God wants don’t always align with each other - just like us. It is here that, if we are open to it, God gives us His support, chiding and/or confidence to be persistent. Despite his frustration, Paul ends up on that leg of his mission for another year or so.
Acts 18:9-11 “One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.” So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.”
We can draw a conclusion about Paul’s methods which we can use today. Apart from what scripture plainly says to do, we can see practical application through Paul. He was knowledgeable. He knew his opposition and their beliefs. He was confident, bold and persistent. He knew how to reason and he approached matters in logical fashion. That isn’t to say that he was schooled in “logic” as it applies to the ‘Theory of’ rather, the more simple view of ‘logic’ as it applies to ‘making sense’. With that, however, Paul had been known to use argument and ’sort-of’ logic as it applies to the theory. Consider 1 Corinthians 15:13-17:
- If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
- …if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
- …we are then found to be false witnesses about God…
- …he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
- For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.
- …if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
This is a pretty well constructed argument for the time. At that point, many accounts of Christ’s resurrection had been verified by eye-witnesses, so the resurrection itself was probably hard to contest. Today, however, some are hard-pressed to even consider the basic points of the Bible valid - so the construction of an argument, solely from Biblical text, would be difficult to convey. Bayes’ Theorem was used by Richard Swinburne, at a conference at Yale in 2002, to calculate the probability of the resurrection to 97%, but that doesn’t “prove” anything, it simply speaks to the probability. Ockham’s Razor, a principle simply stated as “all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best…” is used to muddle through scientific theory to determine the simplest solution. It can be used pro-God in many cases as God is always the ’simplest’ solution, but it’s rare that you’d get any non-believer to concede that point. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem can also be used in support of the existence of God by default (though, not necessarily the “Christian” God - merely a supreme being or ’something’). Again, you’d be hard-pressed to find any non-believer who’d be willing to concede the implication; and that is where our difficulty exists.
In all the modern theory, science, philosophy, belief and understanding it seems that God has to be conceded. If that is a point one is unwilling to allow, then there are not many directions one can go. It’s a cop-out, if you will. Most non-believers would jump at the chance to concede humans evolved from a puddle of goo, just to thumb their nose at the possibility of God. In most cases, they’re as hypocritical as they claim believers to be. This leaves us to endure the inability for anyone to disprove God - which isn’t a sound argument for a lot of people. Most need/want ‘evidence’ and the lack of evidence to their belief of His non-existence simply isn’t enough. Simply stating “God exists because no one can prove He doesn’t” isn’t a truly viable case to the majority - so we must come to that understanding. In the end, it doesn’t matter. God doesn’t want anyone to ‘concede’ Him, or submit to Him solely out of fear; rather, He wants people to choose Him willingly.
Whatever way God leads you, if you consider the methods of Paul, you’ll be on the right track. Be knowledgeable. Be confident. Be persistent. Be bold. Be faithful. When the time comes, you can proclaim 2 Timothy 4:7 “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.”