Street Corner Preaching

[Esphes45]

You know I actually enjoy street preaching. There was a church across from where I lived in the city and they used to have outdoor service in the front yard all through the summer. They might as well as been on the corner they were literally 10 feet from it. I also remember going out with an Elder in my former church as he did street preaching and we would hand out literature. To me, street preaching is the truest form of evangelism.

It is kind of disappointing that so many people on this thread had negative comments against street preaching.

[votivesoul]

"Street" preaching or evangelism, in the Bible was only effective, due to the signs and wonders that first initiated the moment wherein an apostle could then declare the Gospel.

To simply go out and pontificate isn't going to help anyone.

"The kingdom of God is not in word but in power".

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esphes45

You know I actually enjoy street preaching. There was a church across from where I lived in the city and they used to have outdoor service in the front yard all through the summer. They might as well as been on the corner they were literally 10 feet from it. I also remember going out with an Elder in my former church as he did street preaching and we would hand out literature. To me, street preaching is the truest form of evangelism.

It is kind of disappointing that so many people on this thread had negative comments against street preaching.

I feel exactly the same. The greatest moves of God in the New Testament were "street preaching". There are NO and I say again NO reported conversions in a Church building recorded in the Bible.

And yet whether there are conversions in street preaching or not it is obedience to the great commission. Only Yeshua can save souls we are just messengers. If they ALL reject him at least they would have a chance to hear.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

"Street" preaching or evangelism, in the Bible was only effective, due to the signs and wonders that first initiated the moment wherein an apostle could then declare the Gospel.

To simply go out and pontificate isn't going to help anyone.

"The kingdom of God is not in word but in power".

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.

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.

[Esaias]

What miracles did Jonah perform?

What about Ezekiel?

John the Baptist had no miracles going on, either.

Were they all just pontificating to no avail, helping no one?

[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.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What miracles did Jonah perform?

What about Ezekiel?

John the Baptist had no miracles going on, either.

Were they all just pontificating to no avail, helping no one?

None of them were preaching the Gospel, something that "street preachers" ought to inherently be doing.

The ones named above had a different mission.

[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?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

None of them were preaching the Gospel, something that "street preachers" ought to inherently be doing.

The ones named above had a different mission.

In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
(Matthew 3:1-2)

John preached, and his message was 'repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand'.

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
(Mark 1:14-15)

Jesus preached, and his message was 'the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand, repent, and believe the gospel'.

Sounds like John preached the gospel.

If what you are saying is true, then nobody except Jesus and the apostles are profitable as examples for preachers to learn from, contrary to the words 'all scripture... is profitable... for doctrine, for instruction in righteousness... that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work,' etc.

[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'.