Street Corner Preaching

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

So it is useless to go out street preaching? How do you know when you go out you will NOT be used to pray for the sick or give a prophetic word to someone? I have seen both.

Useless? By no means, automatically speaking.

But the pattern in Acts deals mostly with the miraculous happening before the sermon.

The Acts 2 sermon is the result of the miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Simon Peter's Acts 3 and Acts 4 sermon is the result of the lame man at the Gate being healed.

Stephen's Acts 7 sermon is the result of the miracles he performed.

Philipp's success in Samaria was due to the miracles he performed.

Simon Peter's Acts 10 is due to the miraculous visitation of an angel.

The rest of Acts continues in much the same fashion, wherever "street preaching" takes place.

The idea of going out to preach, and then maybe getting a chance to be used by God to perform a miracle isn't the ideal way.

At the end of Mark, we see that the Lord confirmed the word the Apostles were sharing with signs.

Preaching the Gospel without signs, wonders, and diverse miracles isn't going to convince a whole lot of people that what a person is preaching is of great value to them.

When Paul went out in Phillipi and preached to the women who gathered at the riverside in Acts 16:13-15 there is no mention of any signs taking place. Yet the Lord opened the hearts of people.

True, but look at what was already occurring there. People went there because it was a common place of prayer to God. In such a place, the preaching of the Gospel would be easily welcomed.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Useless? By no means, automatically speaking.

But the pattern in Acts deals mostly with the miraculous happening before the sermon.

The Acts 2 sermon is the result of the miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Simon Peter's Acts 3 and Acts 4 sermon is the result of the lame man at the Gate being healed.

Stephen's Acts 7 sermon is the result of the miracles he performed.

Philipp's success in Samaria was due to the miracles he performed.

Simon Peter's Acts 10 is due to the miraculous visitation of an angel.

The rest of Acts continues in much the same fashion, wherever "street preaching" takes place.

The idea of going out to preach, and then maybe getting a chance to be used by God to perform a miracle isn't the ideal way.

At the end of Mark, we see that the Lord confirmed the word the Apostles were sharing with signs.

Preaching the Gospel without signs, wonders, and diverse miracles isn't going to convince a whole lot of people that what a person is preaching is of great value to them.

So, do you go out, have miracles happen, and then preach to the wonder-struck crowd?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So, do you go out, have miracles happen, and then preach to the wonder-struck crowd?

No.

But what do I have to do with anything?

A pattern in the Bible is genuine with or without me doing a thing.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

No.

But what do I have to do with anything?

A pattern in the Bible is genuine with or without me doing a thing.

I've talked to people about real estate as an investment, and have had people say it's too difficult, taxes, tenants, toilets, etc. They have every reason in the world why it doesn't work. I ask them "Have you owned real estate as an investment?" And when they say "Uh, no..." I just smile at them and change the subject.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I've talked to people about real estate as an investment, and have had people say it's too difficult, taxes, tenants, toilets, etc. They have every reason in the world why it doesn't work. I ask them "Have you owned real estate as an investment?" And when they say "Uh, no..." I just smile at them and change the subject.

So we can't talk Bible and attempt to generate understanding from it without personally doing and/or experiencing every part of it?

Get real, dude. Ever feed 5,000+ with two fish and five loaves of bread?

Guess you can't speak or teach or make any claim on that part of the Gospels, then.

The reason I am not out in the streets preaching with signs and wonders is because the Lord has not commissioned me, or commanded me, to do so. That doesn't mean anything other than that.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The Acts 2 sermon is the result of the miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

A miraculous outpouring that had no witnesses when it happened except the church. People gathered to see what was going on, and they discovered a Pentecostal meeting.

Simon Peter's Acts 3 and Acts 4 sermon is the result of the lame man at the Gate being healed.

They never preached or taught in the Temple prior to that?

Stephen's Acts 7 sermon is the result of the miracles he performed.

He was speaking because he had been arrested and was being tried for blasphemy and sedition. He was falsely accused by people who 'disputed' with him for a time. He spent his time in religious debates with opposers and unbelievers. Those debates came about because he was doing miracles and wonders 'among the people'. But PRIOR TO THAT, 'the word of God increased', meaning some kind of preaching was going on PRIOR to him doing miracles.

Philipp's success in Samaria was due to the miracles he performed.

Phillip went down to Samaria and preached Christ to them. The people gave heed to his preaching, seeing the miracles that occurred. Nothing about miracles first, then preaching. In fact, the order of Luke's narrative indicates the miracles were confirmatory of the word preached, not that the preaching was explanatory of the miracles worked.

Simon Peter's Acts 10 is due to the miraculous visitation of an angel.

An angel visited a non Christian as a result of the non Christian's prayers, not because of any anointing on Peter. Peter showed up, and preached Christ, and as a result of the preaching, a miraculous outpouring of the Spirit took place on those who heard the preaching.

The rest of Acts continues in much the same fashion, wherever "street preaching" takes place.

Acts 19, the disciples at Ephesus - preaching first, then outpouring of the Spirit.
Conversion of Paul - miraculous 'spiritual event' takes place in an unbeliever's life which results in him meeting a Christian. The Christian preaches to him, and lays hands on him and Paul gets his blindness removed and gets filled with the Holy Ghost.
Acts 13 - Paul preaching is interrupted and debated by a Jew named Elymas. Paul speaks and Elymas is blinded and carted off, and the preaching continues.
Acts 16 - Paul and company resort to a regular place of prayer, and a demon possessed woman shows up harassing them. He casts out the demon, and gets called into court over it and is able to testify.

There is no 'pattern' in Acts, rather there is preaching, and there is supernatural activity associated with the disciples everywhere they go. Sometimes supernatural events create an opportunity for preaching. Sometimes it follows preaching. Sometimes it occurs during the preaching. Sometimes it is absent altogether. Sometimes it takes place when and where no Christians are in the vicinity whatsoever. I think you are mistaken in your analysis.

The idea of going out to preach, and then maybe getting a chance to be used by God to perform a miracle isn't the ideal way.

The ideal way is to go forth, led by the Spirit to be in the right place at the right time to meet the right person/people, and deliver the word of the Lord, and expecting any needs for 'miracles, signs and wonders' to be supplied as needed, when needed, where needed, by the Holy Ghost

At the end of Mark, we see that the Lord confirmed the word the Apostles were sharing with signs.

The signs confirmed the word preached, not the other way around. This itself implies the 'standard' or 'normative pattern' would be that a message is preached and the miraculous accompanies the preaching in such a way as to help convince the hearers of the divine authority of the message.

Preaching the Gospel without signs, wonders, and diverse miracles isn't going to convince a whole lot of people that what a person is preaching is of great value to them.

And that says nothing about the 'ideal order of events'.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A miraculous outpouring that had no witnesses when it happened except the church. People gathered to see what was going on, and they discovered a Pentecostal meeting.

They heard the disciples speak in other tongues and heard for themselves, in their own language the "wonderful works of God". That miracle had LOTS of witnesses, and led directly into Simon Peter's sermon.

They never preached or taught in the Temple prior to that?

Acts 2 dovetails right into Acts 3 and 4, so I fail to see WHEN any of the apostles or disciples would have had a chance to preach or teach in the temple between Simon Peter's Acts 2 sermon, and the healing of the lame man at the gate Beautiful.

He was speaking because he had been arrested and was being tried for blasphemy and sedition. He was falsely accused by people who 'disputed' with him for a time. He spent his time in religious debates with opposers and unbelievers. Those debates came about because he was doing miracles and wonders 'among the people'. But PRIOR TO THAT, 'the word of God increased', meaning some kind of preaching was going on PRIOR to him doing miracles.

But was it "street preaching", or was it converted disciples going from house to house in fellowship, abiding in the Apostle's Doctrine? Or even converted disciples witnessing to and sharing the Gospel with, friends and family members?

The Word of God increasing was likely a result of the choosing of the first seven deacons, so the Apostles could get back to prayer and the Word.

But did that involve "street preaching"? It doesn't say. And after this "increase" of whatever kind, of the Word of God, we immediately read of Stephen being filled with faith and power, doing great wonders among the people (Acts 6:7).

So his ministry began with miracles (i.e. great wonders), and culminated in his Acts 7 sermon.

Phillip went down to Samaria and preached Christ to them. The people gave heed to his preaching, seeing the miracles that occurred. Nothing about miracles first, then preaching. In fact, the order of Luke's narrative indicates the miracles were confirmatory of the word preached, not that the preaching was explanatory of the miracles worked.

Acts 8:6 makes it seem to me that they first saw and heard of the miracles, then gave heed to his preaching.

The Greek grammar bears this out as well ("seeing" and "hearing" are in present infinitive active; "which he did" is in the imperfect indicative active, showing that the miracles happened before the people saw or heard anything).

An angel visited a non Christian as a result of the non Christian's prayers, not because of any anointing on Peter. Peter showed up, and preached Christ, and as a result of the preaching, a miraculous outpouring of the Spirit took place on those who heard the preaching.

Simon Peter's sermon began because of the angel visiting Cornelius, and with the vision Simon Peter experienced. To say that the anointing that was on Simon Peter had nothing to do with it is a mistake. It was because Jesus chose and anointed Simon Peter to have the keys of the Kingdom of God, that Simon Peter, and no one else, was chosen for the vision and mission to Cornelius' house.

Acts 19, the disciples at Ephesus - preaching first, then outpouring of the Spirit.

Conversion of Paul - miraculous 'spiritual event' takes place in an unbeliever's life which results in him meeting a Christian. The Christian preaches to him, and lays hands on him and Paul gets his blindness removed and gets filled with the Holy Ghost.

Acts 13 - Paul preaching is interrupted and debated by a Jew named Elymas. Paul speaks and Elymas is blinded and carted off, and the preaching continues.

Acts 16 - Paul and company resort to a regular place of prayer, and a demon possessed woman shows up harassing them. He casts out the demon, and gets called into court over it and is able to testify.

None of these above involve "street preaching", do they?

There is no 'pattern' in Acts, rather there is preaching, and there is supernatural activity associated with the disciples everywhere they go. Sometimes supernatural events create an opportunity for preaching. Sometimes it follows preaching. Sometimes it occurs during the preaching. Sometimes it is absent altogether. Sometimes it takes place when and where no Christians are in the vicinity whatsoever. I think you are mistaken in your analysis.

The ideal way is to go forth, led by the Spirit to be in the right place at the right time to meet the right person/people, and deliver the word of the Lord, and expecting any needs for 'miracles, signs and wonders' to be supplied as needed, when needed, where needed, by the Holy Ghost

The signs confirmed the word preached, not the other way around. This itself implies the 'standard' or 'normative pattern' would be that a message is preached and the miraculous accompanies the preaching in such a way as to help convince the hearers of the divine authority of the message.

And that says nothing about the 'ideal order of events'.

If taken as a whole, I can agree with you that Acts demonstrates no particular pattern as far as the whole is concerned.

But this post isn't about Acts as a whole, nor were my comments. It is about "street preaching". And any time an apostle appears to preach literally in the street, it is the direct result of something miraculous occurring.

Perhaps the only exemption is Paul's sermon on Mars Hill, but that sermon didn't produce nearly the results that other examples of "street preaching" in Acts produced, perhaps due to not being the result of an apparent miracle happening in the midst of those gathered round in the streets of Athens.