Street Corner Preaching

[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.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

John did not preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He preached repentance, and the good news that the Kingdom of God was at hand. Intrinsically related, to be sure, but anything John had to say was under the auspices of the Old Covenant.

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.

No one but Jesus and the Apostles and/or other New Testament disciples are beneficial to us to preach New Testament salvation in specific terms.

Sure, we can find allusions to much New Covenant doctrine in the Old Testament, but we aren't called to be Old Testament prophets.

We are ministers "of the new covenant" (2 Corinthians 3:6).

The Holy Scriptures can of course teach us and help us learn things, and enable us to be fully equipped, but whenever a person opens their mouth to preach Jesus, while they may quote from Isaiah a la Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch, it's not because we're trying to emulate anyone from the OT anymore than Philip was seeking to emulate Isaiah, just because he quoted from him.

[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.

[Michael The Disciple]

Well yes Bro it would be ideal if we had Apostles here preaching the gospel with dramatic signs and wonders. Im all in. Nonetheless UNTIL then what should one do?

How could it be wrong to go forth in faith expecting God to do something? Most people that are saved today never got saved because they saw dramatic miracles agreed?

I prayed for a guy at work who had a bad back problem. Jesus healed him immediately! He went all around the shop telling everyone what happened! And yet.....he did not repent!

It seems like to me the reason no more get saved than do is because Christians DONT witness outside their comfort zone. I may have mentioned to you before how I was part of a street ministry back in the 70's.

I have NEVER had such awesome time of ministry. We saw great things happen. We never saw thousands of people born again but we saw some and had great times in the Lord OURSELVES in being obedient to the call to go and preach the gospel.

Sometimes there were obvious signs or the sense of being led by the Spirit. Other times the "sign or wonder" was worked in the persons heart beforehand by the drawing of the Lord before we arrived. All we needed to do was speak the message as the heart was already prepared.

Most "Christians" I have been around only know Jesus in the setting of a Church building. Many get bored and fall away after a while. I think if they were to step out in faith and preach Christ to the lost he would intervene in their lives like he did in ours. They would experience the leading of the Spirit and joy of the Lord!

So in summation yes, I pray much for YHWH to raise up Apostles to preach and minister in the Earth. But I dont feel the will of God is being done by Christians sitting in a Church building who never reach out to the lost.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Well yes Bro it would be ideal if we had Apostles here preaching the gospel with dramatic signs and wonders. Im all in. Nonetheless UNTIL then what should one do?

There are alternatives to the street preaching method. Often times untapped, of course, as the rest of your post makes clear.

How could it be wrong to go forth in faith expecting God to do something? Most people that are saved today never got saved because they saw dramatic miracles agreed?

I don't think of it as wrong, as in evil. Rather, unless something dramatic happens, most people will simply not care what some "crazy street preacher", as they will think of him, has to say, as they go to and fro down main street. But if a man goes walking and leaping and praising God right in front of everyone, all will know that a "notable miracle" has occurred, and suddenly, that "crazy street preacher" isn't so crazy, and has the ear of everyone around.

The way in which I've seen most people I know get saved was through a miracle--the miracle of a changed life. The testimony of the newly saved has been the key ingredient in the winning of many people I know, perhaps even everyone, if I could recall every story of conversion.

This, to me, is the untapped alternative. People are conditioned, as you rightly say further down, to just bring people to church, so someone else they've never met can yak at them for an hour or so. Instead, upon conversion, new converts should immediately be taught the discipline of prayer and fasting and how to testify to their friends, family, and co-workers of all that God has done for them.

What I've seen so much of, is a desire to go and burn everyone with an Acts 2:38 brand, as if that did much for anyone.

I prayed for a guy at work who had a bad back problem. Jesus healed him immediately! He went all around the shop telling everyone what happened! And yet.....he did not repent!

I've seen and heard of the same thing.

It seems like to me the reason no more get saved than do is because Christians DONT witness outside their comfort zone.

Agreed.

I may have mentioned to you before how I was part of a street ministry back in the 70's.

I have NEVER had such awesome time of ministry. We saw great things happen. We never saw thousands of people born again but we saw some and had great times in the Lord OURSELVES in being obedient to the call to go and preach the gospel.

Sometimes there were obvious signs or the sense of being led by the Spirit. Other times the "sign or wonder" was worked in the persons heart beforehand by the drawing of the Lord before we arrived. All we needed to do was speak the message as the heart was already prepared.

Ah, but signs were present! There doesn't have to be hundreds of them, but they must be present, I believe, especially in such a vulnerable position as street preaching. I've seen street preachers get absolutely destroyed (not physically) because there wasn't anything backing their words.

As Paul himself made clear. There are many talkers who are puffed up hearing themselves speak. But he wanted to know their power. Imagine if Paul had gone to Corinth, not in the demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit, but in the wisdom of his own locution. What a different Bible we would have!

When Paul went to Athens, and quoted from the Greek poets and spoke eloquently, he was derided and eventually laughed out of town.

It doesn't mean I think he did anything wrong. But it does go to show that the best written and delivered sermon can fizzle in the reception, as some just aren't going to be persuaded by oratory.

Most "Christians" I have been around only know Jesus in the setting of a Church building. Many get bored and fall away after a while. I think if they were to step out in faith and preach Christ to the lost he would intervene in their lives like he did in ours. They would experience the leading of the Spirit and joy of the Lord!

Absolutely! And in so doing, we might actually learn of an apostle this way. But first must come a deconstruction, I think. Churches and saints are set in the old ways of man's tradition. Anyone who seeks to innovate or try something new often times gets marginalized or shunned. I know you've been there before. So have I. People are only willing to go so far into truth.

So in summation yes, I pray much for YHWH to raise up Apostles to preach and minister in the Earth. But I dont feel the will of God is being done by Christians sitting in a Church building who never reach out to the lost.

I agree. The church building scenario is a fiasco and a debacle rolled into one. The church building is, in my opinion, the number one hindrance to evangelism, apart from the flesh.

When I was an elder and a board member at my former church, I strongly urged for the sale of the building (the church couldn't afford it, either).

After my departure, they eventually sold the place and now rent a building, so they can still have "Sunday service". They missed it, I feel. They were willing to go to a length, but not willing to go the distance.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

There are alternatives to the street preaching method. Often times untapped, of course, as the rest of your post makes clear.



I don't think of it as wrong, as in evil. Rather, unless something dramatic happens, most people will simply not care what some "crazy street preacher", as they will think of him, has to say, as they go to and fro down main street. But if a man goes walking and leaping and praising God right in front of everyone, all will know that a "notable miracle" has occurred, and suddenly, that "crazy street preacher" isn't so crazy, and has the ear of everyone around.

The way in which I've seen most people I know get saved was through a miracle--the miracle of a changed life. The testimony of the newly saved has been the key ingredient in the winning of many people I know, perhaps even everyone, if I could recall every story of conversion.

This, to me, is the untapped alternative. People are conditioned, as you rightly say further down, to just bring people to church, so someone else they've never met can yak at them for an hour or so. Instead, upon conversion, new converts should immediately be taught the discipline of prayer and fasting and how to testify to their friends, family, and co-workers of all that God has done for them.

What I've seen so much of, is a desire to go and burn everyone with an Acts 2:38 brand, as if that did much for anyone.



I've seen and heard of the same thing.



Agreed.



Ah, but signs were present! There doesn't have to be hundreds of them, but they must be present, I believe, especially in such a vulnerable position as street preaching. I've seen street preachers get absolutely destroyed (not physically) because there wasn't anything backing their words.

As Paul himself made clear. There are many talkers who are puffed up hearing themselves speak. But he wanted to know their power. Imagine if Paul had gone to Corinth, not in the demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit, but in the wisdom of his own locution. What a different Bible we would have!

When Paul went to Athens, and quoted from the Greek poets and spoke eloquently, he was derided and eventually laughed out of town.

It doesn't mean I think he did anything wrong. But it does go to show that the best written and delivered sermon can fizzle in the reception, as some just aren't going to be persuaded by oratory.



Absolutely! And in so doing, we might actually learn of an apostle this way. But first must come a deconstruction, I think. Churches and saints are set in the old ways of man's tradition. Anyone who seeks to innovate or try something new often times gets marginalized or shunned. I know you've been there before. So have I. People are only willing to go so far into truth.



I agree. The church building scenario is a fiasco and a debacle rolled into one. The church building is, in my opinion, the number one hindrance to evangelism, apart from the flesh.

When I was an elder and a board member at my former church, I strongly urged for the sale of the building (the church couldn't afford it, either).

After my departure, they eventually sold the place and now rent a building, so they can still have "Sunday service". They missed it, I feel. They were willing to go to a length, but not willing to go the distance.

Peace and love

[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.