# To whom was the Great Commission given?



## Pergamum

-To the Apostles only?

-To the Church Universal through the Apostles?

-To the local church?


What implications does this have for missions?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

How does this fit in? I have been leading a group and teaching them how to share the gospel. This is under the care of my Pastor and Church. Does that mean I am ordained to do this? My Pastor has been present the last few times I have been teaching it.


----------



## baron

This is a question I have been thinking a lot about, also Para Church Ministries and how it ties together. That's why I purchased The Gospel Commission by Michael Horton. Hoping to get some good answers.

I thought it was as Joshua stated above, but many people seem to disagree with me on this subject.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

baron said:


> This is a question I have been thinking a lot about, also Para Church Ministries and how it ties together. That's why I purchased The Gospel Commission by Michael Horton. Hoping to get some good answers.
> 
> I thought it was as Joshua stated above, but many people seem to disagree with me on this subject.



You might enjoy this John. 
The Local Church and Evangelism by Erroll Hulse


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Joshua said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> -To the Apostles only?
> 
> -To the Church Universal through the Apostles?
> 
> -To the local church?
> 
> 
> What implications does this have for missions?
> 
> 
> 
> To the Apostles _directly_ and consequently to officers/ministers of the Gospel. Obviously _not_ to the Apostles only, since they wouldn't get to all nations to baptize them before dying themselves. Obviously _not_ to all Christians without exception since some are - by default - not authorized to be teachers and administers of Baptism. The Lord Jesus alludes to His own commission given by the Father to Himself ("All power is given unto me . . . _*Therefore*_) and subsequently gives the Apostles the authority to do what He commands them in His commission to them.Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​
Click to expand...


----------



## Pergamum

Weren't there others besides the 11 present at Christ's ascension? 

Paul speaks of many other witnesses seeing the Lord all at once and many believe this occurred in Matthew 28. In this case, is it not more proper to say that the Great Commisssion was given to the whole Church (the Apostles being the foundation of this Church)?


Also, many Landmark Baptists dogmatically assert that, "God has given the Great Commission to the local church." emphasizing the LOCAL part, but I just don't see where they draw out this particular emphasis on the local church versus the Worldwide Body of Christ.

---------- Post added at 10:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> How does this fit in? I have been leading a group and teaching them how to share the gospel. This is under the care of my Pastor and Church. Does that mean I am ordained to do this? My Pastor has been present the last few times I have been teaching it.


 
If laymen are sharing the Gospel, does this mean they are also working towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission?


----------



## Pergamum

If the Great Commisssion was given to the Church through the foundation of the Apostles, then we all fulfill it - each in our respective roles.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Pergamum said:


> To whom was the Great Commission given?



To the Apostles first and all ministers who follow.


----------



## AThornquist

Jesus spoke the Great Commission to a group, and it is to be accomplished as a group. No person can go to all nations, nor is it required of a person who accomplishes one part of the commission to fulfill all of it; another may fulfill what has yet to be accomplished. In the same way, every Christian may play a role in the Gospel Commission to the church, whether or not they are qualified to be baptizers (for example). Another saint may fill that role. What is essential is that this task be done as, by, and through the Church.


----------



## Pergamum

Chaplainintraining said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> To whom was the Great Commission given?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the Apostles first and all ministers who follow.
Click to expand...

 
The 1689 allows for others besides merely ministers to baptize; therefore, Reformed Baptists must believe the Great Commission may be fulfilled by those other than mere ministers of the Gospel. 

It is given to the Church through those it appoints.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I'm of the opinion that the Great Commission was/is given to the Church, with the officers being entrusted to carry out the primary public/corporate aspects of that commission.

For surely when a parent raises their child in the fear and admonition of the Lord they are engaging in the disciple making process. Surely when an older woman teaches a younger woman how to love her husband and children she is engaging in the disciple making process. Surely when believers teach one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs they are engaging in the disciple making process. Etc.

But that aside, congregational life is intended to aid in our discipleship. Serving each other, encouraging each other... these are incalculably important. We all in our own way contribute.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> We are to teach all truth,... evangelism emanates from the life of the Church for the enlargement of none other than the Church. Furthermore, the body of truth upon which evangelism is based is entrusted to the Church which is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). The truth, together with the authority to propagate, defend and maintain it, is vested in the Church alone and the Church alone is commissioned to evangelize by taking the teaching to all nations, and by preaching the Gospel to every creature. The converts or disciples that are made are added to the parent body by baptism and each one is subject to the discipline of the elders of that body.
> 
> Each member of the Church has a function. (Rom. 12:4, the word "office" is better translated function from the Greek word prazin; I Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 4:16.)... The whole local church is involved. All members evangelize by life and lip and support some of their number who have been recognized and set apart, not only for the oversight and the maintenance of discipline, but for the public preaching of the Word. Care is taken to fulfil the high standards of correct doctrine insisted upon by the Scriptures (Acts 20:27-32; 1 Tim. 4:16; Titus 1:9 and 2:1). Those recognized in this way lead the flock in evangelism. The work is a corporate work and the elders or leaders do not act independently but see every member as having some part to play.


The above are portions from Erroll Hulse's article 'The Local Church and Evangelism'. 

I suspect some would throw John Bunyan into the cell again for not being lawfully ordained. 

Even if this commission was only given in the presence of the 11, the command for them to teach everything and for them to tell everyone to hold fast to (observe) to everything taught in this area, I think I can conclude the great commission is for the whole Church as my denomination sees it. 



> (Mat 28:20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.



This is a commission to all with a promise that He will always be with us to the end of the world which the Apostles wouldn't be. In a sense as a body we are involved with the baptism of believers. We bring them to Christ and the Church. 



> (2Ti 2:2) And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.



I honestly believe that every regenerate man can be faithful and teach at some basic level. The gospel of reconciliation is the basic message of Christianity. It is the basic hope we have that we are commanded to give an account for in season and out of season in my estimation. This is most basic. 



> (Joh 5:24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.



The simplicity of the Gospel is something that should flow out of every believer. The Holy Spirit will be given to all and the Holy Spirit will testify of Christ. 



> (Joh 7:37) In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
> 
> (Joh 7:38) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.





> (Joh 15:26) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:



Are these promises only for the Apostles? I am willing to bet that can be argued also. 

As I have said previously. I agree with my denominations Testimony concerning this issue. 



> 6. Evangelism is the proclamation of Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord as he is offered in the Gospel. Christ laid the responsibility upon the whole Church to make this proclamation. The task is not restricted to ordained officers. Each member is to take his share of the responsibility according to the gifts God has given him.
> 
> 7. Those evangelizing should use all available means consistent with the Bible so that every person may be given the opportunity to hear, understand, and receive the Gospel. While guarding against undue pressure, we must urge men to be reconciled to God.
> 
> 8. Evangelism is not only to seek the conversion of sinners but also to build them up to become effective in the Church's continuing task.
> 
> 9. The Great Commission requires the Church to take the whole Gospel to the whole world. The Bible recognizes the legitimacy of diverse cultures. Every culture is to be transformed and made subject to Christ through redeemed men, all for the glory of God.
> 
> 10. Wherever consistent with faithfulness to God's truth, different branches of the visible church should cooperate in evangelism to strengthen their witness by demonstrating their unity in Christ.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Pergamum said:


> The 1689 allows for others besides merely ministers to baptize



I did not realize this. Does the 1689 allow for non-ministers to preach as well? I ask out of ignorance.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Chaplainintraining said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1689 allows for others besides merely ministers to baptize
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not realize this. Does the 1689 allow for non-ministers to preach as well? I ask out of ignorance.
Click to expand...


Yes, they are if they are seen fit. I will look it up for you.



> Chapter 26. 11
> 
> 11.	Although it is the duty of the elders or pastors of the churches, according to their office, to be constantly active in preaching the Word, yet such a work is not to be regarded as confined wholly to them, for the Holy Spirit may qualify others for the same work by giving them the necessary gifts. In this case, when such men are approved and called to the work by the church, they may and ought to perform it.
> 
> Act_11:19-21; 1Pe_4:10-11.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Joshua said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> To whom was the Great Commission given?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the Apostles first and all ministers who follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1689 allows for others besides merely ministers to baptize; therefore, Reformed Baptists must believe the Great Commission may be fulfilled by those other than mere ministers of the Gospel.
> 
> It is given to the Church through those it appoints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where? LBCF 28.2 says this:
> 2._____	These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ. (referencing Mat 28 and 1 Cor 4)​"Thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ" sounds like church officers to me.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I am not so sure about the ordinances (ie. sacraments). I have seen others do it under the authority of their Elders and Pastors. Not sure if that is confessional. But it was done under the authority of the Elders.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Joshua said:


> One cannot divorce the command to teach all nations from also the baptizing them. That's just shoddy exegesis.



I don't think that is being done Josh. And I think you are mistaken to make this observation. Teaching has to preceed baptism. We can speak the good news of reconciliation as I noted above. You can call it shoddy all you want but I believe you are seriously wrong if you can call it shoddy. I can evangelize based upon Christ and lead persons to Christ and His Church. His Church will thus act accordingly as I bring them to her doorstep. You can call it shoddy all you desire. You are wrong in my estimation.


----------



## Pergamum

The 1644 Baptist Confession:



> The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.






> London Baptist confession of 1689
> 
> The Church
> 
> 13. Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.
> 
> Savoy Declaration of Faith (1658)
> 
> The Church
> 
> 11. Although it be incumbent on the pastors and teachers of the churches to be instant in preaching the Word, by way of office; yet the work of preaching the Word is not so peculiarly confined to them, but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Ghost for it, and approved (being by lawful ways and means in the providence of God called thereunto) may publicly, ordinarily and constantly perform it; so that they give themselves up thereunto.




Not all misssionaries hold to a Church office, but they all should have the gifting and qualification and the commisssioning of the Church to do their task.

---------- Post added at 03:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 AM ----------




Joshua said:


> One cannot divorce the command to teach all nations from also the baptizing them. That's just shoddy exegesis. I don't mean this as a slight, but it's taking the whole thing out of context. There are no examples of "Lay Preaching" or "Proclamation of the Gospel" apart from being sent and commissioned. Despite the good intentions of much modern day evangelism, I see it as a product of egalitarianism, revivalism a la Finney, and a misunderstanding of "Ministry" proper.
> 
> That noted, I appreciate the emphasis that Mr. Hulse puts on evangelism being under the direction of the church and showing how the Gospel is not a 5 minute presentation pressing for a decision. The official ministry of reconciliation falls upon the shoulders of ministers. Lay folk should certainly be engaged in acting and speaking in the gates with Christian fervor, telling others the great things the Lord has done for them, and lovingly addressing the issues of the day while inviting others to church where they may hear the gospel preached, become disciples, and come under the authority of Christ's appointed undershepherds.


 
Yes, the Church must not divorce baptism from teaching, but this does not mean that every individual missionary or Christian laboring in missions must do every single task. There is a diversity of gifting and calling. Thus, some women and laymen can be sent by the Church to help in the overall task of world evangelization, though every single one need not hold a Church Office.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Joshua said:


> Except if we're gonna call what the women, children, and other unauthorized folk are doing _evangelism_, then we'd better admit that we're defining _evangelism_ in a manner that's foreign from the Scriptures' use of the terminology.



I am not sure what you mean by this Josh. Your accusation of unauthorized might be incorrect in my estimation. Surely I know those who don't understand the good news have no authority to teach it. But a mother should evangelize and teach her children and those with whom she is given an access to. Tell me where someone is called unauthorized and share that with me please. See my above Post Josh. Post number 15. Thanks.


----------



## Pergamum

Josh,

Churches should screen and send out their missionaries by first commisssioning them. I've never seen a child commissioned.


----------



## Pergamum

Josh, 

You switched words on me. 

I have already fully shown that both preaching and baptism can be done confessionally by those other than church officers, and thus the Great Commission can be fulfilled by them.

---------- Post added at 03:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 AM ----------

See post 22 again.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Pergamum said:


> Churches should screen and send out their missionaries by first commisssioning them.



Then it would seem that you would change my original answer to, "To the Apostles first, and those commissioned afterwards."

Would this be fair?

I for one was lost on this point during the discussion. It seemed that the view of "every Tom, Dick, and Harry allowed to evangelize" was being espoused.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Joshua said:


> Of course a mother should teach her children, raising them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Those are Christian duties belonging to all parents. Of course we should be forward to speak of what the Lord has done for us in the marketplace, as well as be ready to give a defense of what we believe, etc. Nevertheless, those things are not Evangelism nor are they the Ministry of Reconciliation, nor are they the duties given in the Great Commission.



Wow, I have never heard such things. I believe you are gravely mistaken friend. If your denomination teaches this I am glad I am not a part of it. I find it very misguided as you probably see mine.


----------



## Pergamum

Joshua said:


> Dear Pergalicious,
> 
> I wouldn't expect you, as a beloved Baptist brother, to agree with me. I don't share your Confession in that regard.  so I haven't switched anything. I am nevertheless thrilled to be united with you in the doctrines of Justification by Faith alone, the Holy Trinity, the veracity, infallibility, and inerrancy of the Scriptures, though!


 
Likewise, you are fun to banter with and throw around the theological football.

I would seriously question your denomination about their rigidity in sending people to the ends of the earth, though. I believe that many more folks could be sent were it not for an overly rigid ecclesiology among some small Presbyterian micro-denominations. 

While the broad evangelicals are sending unqualified teenagers, I believe we have erred the other direction and some churches I know will only send out pastors or elders when many other sent/qualified/commissioned folks could help out the task of world evangelization in ways fitting with their giftings and qualifications. Our churches have so much knowledge to send abroad, and yet such restrictive hoops to make people jump through before they are seen as being denominationally fit to serve.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Josh.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I agree with Pergy.... Thanks Josh.


----------



## Pergamum

Josh, 

Section F 1:3 of your denomination's Book of Church Order states that a missionary must be an elder. This seems to be the crux of our difference. We are both, it seems, quite in accordance with our respective confessions and Book of Church order.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

And as I have noted the difference between Josh and I and the denomination I am a member of that holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith also. So I am not sure it is a Westminster Distinctive.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Is my Churches testimony against the confession Josh?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The confession was brought up by you Josh as showing a difference between you and your Baptist brother. I know you were discussing things about Evangelism in relation to office but as a member of a Presbyterian Church I wanted to know why you did that in light of my Churches understanding of Evangelism. I also believe parts of your testimony and understanding might be beyond the confession. But I am not sure. I want you to clarify it for me. In addition I believe your definition of evangelism might come up short also. So are we just bantering about words? I am not sure. I asked you to look at post 15. I don't see anything in it that is unbiblical. I could be wrong. I don't know what you think evangelism is. All I know is that you don't think others but specifically ordained men are capable of legitimately performing it. 

Please, if you would.... could you point to me your definition of evangelism? Is it not the gospel call or the call of the gospel? I believe that is the term Shaw uses. Evidently my understanding and my denominations understanding isn't unconfessional. Or is it? How did they define the gospel? And what relationship does evangelism have with the gospel? Again maybe, can you show me where only an ordained official of the Church can legitimately share with a non-Chrisitan that they need to be reconciled with Christ? Is your view of evangelism and the gospel call two different things?

One more thing... I don't believe head coverings are discussed in the Confession but the gospel is. So are the effects of it and its relationship in call toward us.


----------



## steadfast7

Joshua said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't there others besides the 11 present at Christ's ascension?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was the commission given at Christ's ascension? If Matthew 28 and Mark 16 are referencing the same giving of said commission, then it's clear Christ's words were to the Apostles:Mark 16:14 _Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. _15_ And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. _​The end of both aforementioned Gospels seem to imply that this commission was given shortly after the resurrection. I believe that _after_ giving this commission that the Lord spent many days with the Apostles teaching them about the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God (i.e. the Church) as referenced in Acts 1:4.
Click to expand...

 
There's a text critical issue on the Mark passage as it belongs to the "longer ending." 

I'd also like to throw in the fact that we all know from experience, and which is alluded to in Acts 2:46b ff "They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." This is one text that suggests that the entire church has a crucial role to play in the evangelism process. Most of us can attest to the fact that evangelism is broader than the preaching over the church pulpit. In many if not most cases, it's the work of the laity rubbing shoulders with non-Christians in the world that the Spirit integrally uses to bring people to faith. It seems for every case of someone being converted during a minister's sermon, there are 10 who were converted through a layman's witness.


----------



## JP Wallace

Pergamum said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> To whom was the Great Commission given?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the Apostles first and all ministers who follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1689 allows for others besides merely ministers to baptize; therefore, Reformed Baptists must believe the Great Commission may be fulfilled by those other than mere ministers of the Gospel.
> 
> It is given to the Church through those it appoints.
Click to expand...

 
The 1689 most certainly *does not *allow for others beside minister to baptize, I'll admit it is not without some ambiguity on this matter, but I think the most harmonious reading of paragraph 28:2not only shows that they believed baptism was to be administered by ordained men but also that the Great Commission in some sense is primarily spear-headed by ordained men. 

28:2. These holy appointments are to be administred by those only, who are qualified and thereunto called according to the commission of Christ.

The proof text for 'commission of Christ' is Matthew 28:19, and the reference to qualification and calling in connection with same is surely clear evidence that they believed (rightly or wrongly) that the commission and authorisation to baptise was for ordained and called pastors/elders/ministers.


----------



## Pergamum

Paul:



> The 1644 Baptist Confession:
> 
> 
> The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.



Are you asserting that the 1644 and 1689 are in essential disagreement on this issue?


----------



## JP Wallace

Obviously yes is the answer.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I would agree. The two Confessions (1644 and 1677 (89)) are not harmonious on this issue and the 1689 only clarifies more distinctly and lines up with the other Reformed confessions. 

And just to be honest and fair with Joshua I am going to have to state that if one looks at question 158 in the WLC the Preaching of the Word is only to be ministered by and ordained man. I do know that the Presbyterians do have lay preachers that are ordained because they have a gift to fill the pulpit. Earnest Riesinger was one man in the States that was ordained as such a man. But I also think that what is being said is primarily a position that is talking about filling the pulpit since the context of the questions around it have to do with Reading the Word of God by regular persons and from the pulpit also. (ie question 156) But I am sure I could be incorrect. Rev. Winzer would definitely be the one to ask and inform us.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just looked at Sam Waldron's Commentary on 28:2. It doesn't say they necessarily disagree. I will post it after I take a shower. He says the 89 takes a middle road between the Savoy, Westminster, and the 1644.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Okay. It is four pages long and I will summarize the best I can. He states what I stated above. 



> The first London Baptist Confession takes the position that all disciples may administer them.
> 
> The statement of the 1689 Confession is less specific than either of these positions. Yet the Confession is restrictive in a general sense, saying that 'only those who are qualified and thereunto called according the the commission of Christ' ought to administer the ordinances. Why did the writers state the matter this way? Clearly, they wished to steer a middle course between the clericalisms of the Presbyterians and the Congregationalism of the early Baptists.



He then goes on to discuss the proof texts and the wording....

He speaks about Eldership and the uses of the words that distinguish between Elder men (mature) and the office of Elder. Then he goes into the positions and ends up concluding that the Westminster's position seems to be the best interpretation of scripture. I recommend everyone read the pages. It is good. pp. 340-343 in my edition. A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. He does believe that the 1689 does take a middle position between the 1644 BCF and the WCF / Savoy. It seems to be ambiguous on purpose.


----------



## JP Wallace

I agree Martin, and with Dr. Waldron's perspective - there is ambiguity, I read it through WCF eyes I guess!


----------



## SolaScriptura

I think the problem is a myopic understanding of the "Great Commission," not a question of who can preach or administer sacraments. Jesus does not say to convert people and baptize them. He says to make disciples (how?) by baptizing and teaching them to observe all that He has commanded. The word for teach is NOT the word for preach. Of course, preaching is a form of teaching, but in Scripture teaching is NOT limited to preaching. Therefore, in the ongoing process of discipling, there is no textual or lexical basis for limiting Jesus' words to the administration of sacraments and preaching.

And given the number of times and places some form of teaching (husbands explaining things to wives, raising children, teaching via song, older teaching younger, etc) is assigned as a duty to folks other than office bearers in the life-long process of discipling/being discipled tells me that I'm right. Further, as Paul identifies his supporters as "partners" in the ministry - this tells me that Paul saw them as co-laboring in their various ways towards fulfillment of Christ's command along with him. 

Without question it is the job of the church's officers to teach people what they are to do - I'm certainly not diminishing the role of officers as a vital gift to the church to aid and direct the church in it's mission. But I say to you that if you limit the execution church's mission to those office bearers you fundamentally destroy the organic and functional unity of the body of Christ by denying the disciple-making worth and necessity of the various other forms of teaching commanded in Scripture.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Thank you for taking care of that duplicate posting!


----------



## steadfast7

the word "evangelism" doesn't occur in any English Bible that I know of, so how are we to let scripture "speak for itself" in defining this word? We are forced to define it by some other means, which is one step removed from the actual text of scripture. It needs to be defined theologically in a way that is suitable and encompasses the various semantic domains. Just because it CAN be defined narrowly as preaching and sacrament duties, does not mean its ENTIRE meaning is located in that, does it?


----------



## Notthemama1984

> the word "evangelism" doesn't occur in any English Bible that I know of, so how are we to let scripture "speak for itself" in defining this word? We are forced to define it by some other means, which is one step removed from the actual text of scripture. It needs to be defined theologically in a way that is suitable and encompasses the various semantic domains. Just because it CAN be defined narrowly as preaching and sacrament duties, does not mean its ENTIRE meaning is located in that, does it?




euangelizo is the Greek word which means "to spread the Gospel." The ESV translates this word as preach or preaching 36 out of 54 occurrences.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Chaplainintraining said:


> the word "evangelism" doesn't occur in any English Bible that I know of, so how are we to let scripture "speak for itself" in defining this word? We are forced to define it by some other means, which is one step removed from the actual text of scripture. It needs to be defined theologically in a way that is suitable and encompasses the various semantic domains. Just because it CAN be defined narrowly as preaching and sacrament duties, does not mean its ENTIRE meaning is located in that, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> euangelizo is the Greek word which means "to spread the Gospel." The ESV translates this word as preach or preaching 36 out of 54 occurrences.
Click to expand...


I forgot to state that this Greek word is the verb form of euangelion which is the Greek word translated "evangelist" in Acts 21:8, Ephesians 4:11, and 2 Timothy 4:5.


----------



## KMK

For those who point to the 1644 as a loophole for unordained baptism, I suggest the following article by James Renihan: Confessing the Faith in 1644 and 1689, James M. Renihan | The Reformed Reader

From the article:



> *There is no substantial theological difference between the First and Second London Confessions.* I get very much bothered when I read statements asserting or inferring that there is some kind of theological difference between these two great confessions. Most often, this is asserted by those who dislike the Covenant theology that is more explicit in the Second Confession than in the first. It is especially true of those who espouse the so-called "New Covenant" theology. But the question that I would like to ask those who assert this difference is this: On what basis do you make this assertion?
> 
> Too often, this alleged distinction is made by those who have little or no familiarity with the historical and theological backgrounds of the two confessions. Like good postmodernists, they read into the Confessions the type of theology that they hope to find there, without any serious investigation into the theological thinking of the men who wrote the Confessions. Like any other historical document, our confessions need to be subject to historical and grammatical exegesis. We cannot simply read into them what we think we may find there. Instead, we need to ask and answer the question "How did the men who first adopted this Confession understand its theology? Do their writings give support to the notion that there are significant theological differences between the two?" An examination of this kind can be a very fruitful exercise in sorting out this notion.
> 
> There are several things that we need to say. First, the method of editing these Confessions was the same. *Both are based on existing paedobaptist documents*, adapted, not to highlight differences, but to emphasize commonalities. The editors of both Confessions used the identical method. They chose the best existing paedobaptist confessions and "baptized" them. Beyond this, it is important to remember that the first Confession was actually revised to make it more palatable to the paedobaptist opposition. *Throughout the 17th century, the Calvinistic Baptists sought to demonstrate their orthodoxy to their paedobaptist counterparts.*





> Thirdly, it should also be remembered that it was the same churches, and several of the same men, who issued both of the Confessions. Seven London congregations published the 1644/46 Confession. By 1689, representatives of 4 of these churches also publicly signed the 1689 Confession. What happened to the other 3? They either ceased to exist, or had merged into the remaining churches. In addition, several key men signed both Confessions: William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, and Henry Forty, as well as the father-son duo of Benjamin and Nehemiah Coxe. *If the theology of the two Confessions is different, one would have to demonstrate that these churches and these men went through a process of theological change. But no evidence for such exists.*



Also, the forward to the 2nd Confession in 1677 says...



> And forasmuch as our method, and manner of expressing our sentiments, in this, doth vary from the former (*although the substance of the matter is the same)* we shall freely impart to you the reason and occasion thereof.



The differences contained in the 2 confessions is one of emphasis, not substance.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Joshua said:


> Dear Chaplin Ben and Potential Beer-Drinkin' Date,



I'll happily drink beer with you! If you find yourself anywhere near the DC area, let me know and I'll drop what I'm doing and work something out for us to get together.


----------



## steadfast7

Joshua said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [T]he word "evangelism" doesn't occur in any English Bible that I know of, so how are we to let scripture "speak for itself" in defining this word? We are forced to define it by some other means, which is one step removed from the actual text of scripture. It needs to be defined theologically in a way that is suitable and encompasses the various semantic domains. Just because it CAN be defined narrowly as preaching and sacrament duties, does not mean its ENTIRE meaning is located in that, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we shouldn't be limited to English translations of the Scriptures. As Boliver has already noted, the term is in the original texts of Scripture, and has its application to those _authorized_ by way of calling, commissioning, etc. It is also noteworthy that we do have an English noun equivalent as an office in the term _Evangelist_. So an _Evangelist_ would have been one who did _Evangelism_.
Click to expand...

 
'to preach' is a verb, and 'evangelist' is one who evangelizes. There is still no term "evangelism" defined scripturally. Evangelism is, in fact, a colloquial Christian term which we use to denote the activities involved in spreading the gospel. You mentioned the greek verb simply means "spread the gospel" Wonderful, it's the broader term, which we should use as the definition. Why should we insist on the narrower definition? Yes, the evangelist is one who does evangelism, but Timothy who was Pastor-Teacher, was also told to do the work of an evangelist. Interesting that Paul should say something so redundant, unless there was a distinction between preaching and evangelism. I would simply opt for the more inclusive term if there is in fact more to evangelism than pulpit preaching.


----------



## KMK

steadfast7 said:


> There is still no term "evangelism" defined scripturally. Evangelism is, in fact, a colloquial Christian term which we use to denote the activities involved in spreading the gospel.



And both sides will fight to the death to maintain their definition. That is why these discussions never seem to go anywhere. We can't agree on what 'evangelism' means.


----------



## SolaScriptura

KMK said:


> And both sides will fight to the death to maintain their definition.



Well, I for one wouldn't fight to the death over it. If someone put a gun to my head and said, "Accept my definition of evangelism... or else!" I'd say, "Suddenly your definition makes a lot of sense!"

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Notthemama1984

SolaScriptura said:


> Well, I for one wouldn't fight to the death over it. If someone put a gun to my head and said, "Accept my definition of evangelism... or else!" I'd say, "Suddenly your definition makes a lot of sense!"



Chicken!


----------



## Pergamum

KMK said:


> For those who point to the 1644 as a loophole for unordained baptism, I suggest the following article by James Renihan: Confessing the Faith in 1644 and 1689, James M. Renihan | The Reformed Reader
> 
> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no substantial theological difference between the First and Second London Confessions.* I get very much bothered when I read statements asserting or inferring that there is some kind of theological difference between these two great confessions. Most often, this is asserted by those who dislike the Covenant theology that is more explicit in the Second Confession than in the first. It is especially true of those who espouse the so-called "New Covenant" theology. But the question that I would like to ask those who assert this difference is this: On what basis do you make this assertion?
> 
> Too often, this alleged distinction is made by those who have little or no familiarity with the historical and theological backgrounds of the two confessions. Like good postmodernists, they read into the Confessions the type of theology that they hope to find there, without any serious investigation into the theological thinking of the men who wrote the Confessions. Like any other historical document, our confessions need to be subject to historical and grammatical exegesis. We cannot simply read into them what we think we may find there. Instead, we need to ask and answer the question "How did the men who first adopted this Confession understand its theology? Do their writings give support to the notion that there are significant theological differences between the two?" An examination of this kind can be a very fruitful exercise in sorting out this notion.
> 
> There are several things that we need to say. First, the method of editing these Confessions was the same. *Both are based on existing paedobaptist documents*, adapted, not to highlight differences, but to emphasize commonalities. The editors of both Confessions used the identical method. They chose the best existing paedobaptist confessions and "baptized" them. Beyond this, it is important to remember that the first Confession was actually revised to make it more palatable to the paedobaptist opposition. *Throughout the 17th century, the Calvinistic Baptists sought to demonstrate their orthodoxy to their paedobaptist counterparts.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly, it should also be remembered that it was the same churches, and several of the same men, who issued both of the Confessions. Seven London congregations published the 1644/46 Confession. By 1689, representatives of 4 of these churches also publicly signed the 1689 Confession. What happened to the other 3? They either ceased to exist, or had merged into the remaining churches. In addition, several key men signed both Confessions: William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, and Henry Forty, as well as the father-son duo of Benjamin and Nehemiah Coxe. *If the theology of the two Confessions is different, one would have to demonstrate that these churches and these men went through a process of theological change. But no evidence for such exists.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, the forward to the 2nd Confession in 1677 says...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And forasmuch as our method, and manner of expressing our sentiments, in this, doth vary from the former (*although the substance of the matter is the same)* we shall freely impart to you the reason and occasion thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The differences contained in the 2 confessions is one of emphasis, not substance.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, it seems to me that the 1644 and the 1689 state the same thing, that preaching and baptising is not tied to church office alone but is tied to calling, qualification and commissioning by the church. Therefore, the church may allow for those other than their pastors to preach or administer the ordinances. This occurs often when churches commission certain men as lay-preachers or missionaries and send them out.


----------



## KMK

Pergamum said:


> Yes, it seems to me that the 1644 and the 1689 state the same thing, that preaching and baptising is not tied to church office alone but is tied to calling, qualification and commissioning by the church. Therefore, the church may allow for those other than their pastors to preach or administer the ordinances. This occurs often when churches commission certain men as lay-preachers or missionaries and send them out.



Well said. 



> LBC 26:11 Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that* others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.*


----------



## Pergamum

About evangelistic labors:

A Pauline phrase for evangelism is often "working in the Lord." In Romans 16:6 we read of Mary, who "has worked hard for me." and Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who are "workers in the Lord" (16:12) and the beloved Persis, too, who has "worked hard in the Lord." (Romans 16:12). In Phil. 4:2-3, we read of Euodia and Synteche who had struggled at Paul's side, along with Clement and Paul's other co-workers. Also, we read of Prisca and Aquila, who were both co-workers and who explained the way of life to Apollos. 

Many of these co-workers seemed to travel with Paul and made up part of the Pauline missionary band. Thus, while the NT gives us the structure of the local church, I would also assert that the NT also gives us the descriptive pattern of what many misssionary teams will look like on the field, sent-out men and women working together to take the Gospel to an unreached area and who more freely circulate among the churches.

Working hard, or co-laboring, or being a fellow-worker, is Pauline vocabulary for taking part, in some fashion, in the same evangelistic labors as the apostle Paul. This could mean service roles, but it also could indicate evangelism in some fashion.

In most evangelical missionary church-planting teams, we see a similar structure. We usually see a church-planter who is usually ordained (and if not, surely commissioned and sent out by his home church) and then, as part of his team, other men or female missionaries making up the rest of this missionary team. They all have differing roles, but they all co-labor in the Gospel and are said to take part in the evangelistic task as they tell, witness, explain and promote the Gospel.

Several reformed baptist mission efforts I have seen, by contrast, have sent out a solitary ordained man who often became merely a relocated pastor (a white pastor with a congregation of all black African congregants or brown Asian congregants, with no clear plan to train up or turn over leadership to the indigenous believers any time soon). In general, these Reformed Baptist works I have seen first hand are a lot less effective than many of the evangelical works I have seen, though there is, admittedly, less "missiological fad-drivenness" than some of the evangelical teams I have seen.

-
Also, 

-Philip, one of the seven deacons, is also called an "evangelist" (Acts 21:8) and he preached and also baptized, and Timothy is exhorted to "perform the work of an evangelist" (II Tim. 4:5). So, I would love to hear arguments for an official church office of an "Evangelist" rather than merely possessing the personality of an evangelist or doing evangelistic work due to the gifting of God and the commissioning of a local church.

-
-
-

My conclusion: God has given the Great Commission to the whole Church through the foundational Apostles. Now, the whole Church fulfills the Great Commisssion by sending forth some of its own. Every person plays a part, but they are all involved. Thus, we see God calling ordained men as well as unordained men and women going out to help in the task of telling and teaching and baptizing all the nations, each according to their specific giftings, callings, abilities, and the commissioning of their sending churches (these sending churches also being said to help fulfill the Great Commisssion through the means of sending and supporting and praying). Our role today is similar to these apostolic bands we see travelling about in the NT (Paul's team and the others that travelled from church to church with Paul), and just as those teams incorporated a great variety of people as they co-labored in the Gospel, so too, our misssionary agencies of today are carrying on with the example first laid in the Book of Acts.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Pergamum said:


> A Pauline phrase for evangelism is often "working in the Lord."



Can I ask what this is based on? The Greek has a word for "evangelism."


----------



## Pergamum

Bolivar, 

The Greek has many words.

---------- Post added at 12:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 AM ----------

The prophetess Anna (Luke 2:36-38) prophesied and the woman of Samaria testified (John 4:28-42); "Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Isn't this the Messiah?" (v. 29) Verse 39 tells us, "Many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the woman's word, who testified, 'He told me everything I ever did.'" 

I don't recall a single instance of the word Euaggelizo connected with women. 

But they co-labored with Paul, they were also "servants" (let's not get into the deacon debate, but some are called deaconesses, or female servants, and we may take this as a role and not an official church office if you will). We see that Philip was both a deacon (office) and an evangelist (office or role I am not sure). 

Unordained men and women would be included in the disciples who “went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4), though I agree that this verse does not prove that every single person who was scattered preached but that this was a general trait of the group as a whole, possibly due to the work of the few within the group. And every Christian is commanded to "give an answer."

In Acts 4:31 we read, "And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were ALL filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness." 

Older women are to teach younger women (Titus 2:3-5), and so teaching is a permissible activity for women to do as long as it does not take an authoritative leadership role in the church over men. Thus, many women have gone out into the mission fieldk and have co-labored with ordained male church-planters, teching the women and children and taking part in "the work" just as in the Pauline phraseology. Priscilla helped her husband Aquilla teach Apollos (Acts 18:26). 

Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). And it seems that women prayed and prophesied in the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:3-16). At least in the early church their gifts had occasion to be exercised, though it is another step to prove that this is to be entirely normative for us today.

So, as the entire Church attempts to fulfill the Great Commisssion today, they send out ordained men, unordained men and women in various roles and with various giftings for the evangelization of the entire world and they all co-labor together, each exercising his specific role (and the sneding church back home as well) as they, together, fulfill the charge that they have corporately been given. Thus, though it appears that only some are to Euaggelizo, we can say that all these others are involved in evangelism in its broader definition as they work together to evangelize the world. Therefore, I would support the acceptance of both a narrower term of Evangelism and a broader acceptable definition of evangelism as well.

---------- Post added at 12:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 AM ----------


The Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon defines this word (sunergos, sunergois) as "those who helped (Paul) in spreading the Gospel." (p. 795). These people are all referred to as sunergois:

Timothy (Romans 16:21), 
Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25), 
Clement (Phil. 4:3), 
Philemon, verse 1 of his epistle,
Mark and Luke (Philemon 24), 
Priscilla (Romans 16:3), 
Euodia and Synthyche
 (Phil. 4:2-3). 

Other women Paul commends for their "labor in the Lord" are Mary, Persis, Tryphena and Tryphosa (Romans 16:6 and 12).


Any attempt to define Evangelism more narrowly also must accept that Paul defined his "work" and his "labors" broad enough to include both Timothy types and also Tryphena and Tryphosa types, and so we should not be restrictive in our encouragements for many in the church to take part in the work of evnagelism, but we should be as broad as Paul was willing to be in his inclusion of many into some sort of role in his labors.


----------



## Pergamum

God's Church is joined and knit together by what EVERY joint supplies, according to the effective working by which EVERY part does its share” (Ephesians 4:16) and as the Church fulfills the Great Commission together, every Christian has some part in that work.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Pergamum said:


> Bolivar,
> 
> The Greek has many words.



I agree it has many words (more than a thousand I would guess), but we are talking about evangelism specifically. I believe Scripture uses "evangelism" as a very specific act. Modern Christians tend to lump any ministerial act as evangelism.

I do not think it is proper to say that those who helped Paul were performing evangelism themselves. If someone was to give you 100,000 dollars for your mission work, this would be a great help, but this does not make them a missionary. 

Do other people "labor in the Lord?" Sure. But again, this does not mean they are performing evangelism.


----------



## Pergamum

Bolivar,

All of these roles help in evangelism and help towards the evangelization of the world. The Church corporately owns the Great Commisssion and we all fulfill it together, each in our particular roles. 

Defining world evangelization by strapping it merely to one descriptor of how the Gospel goes forth is unnecessarily restrictive. 

What other word would you like to use in reference to the Church's role in fulfilling the Great Commission? "Evangelism" and "missions" has usually been used to denote these tasks, and I do not object to this broader use of the term "evangelism" which includes all legitimate means of spreading the Gospel. After all, most of you Presbyterians have no problem with expanding the word baptizo to modes other than what is plainly referred to in the greek as being dipped or immersed, so why do you narrow the available terminology now?

If you have a team that is passing out tracts, even if 100% are not ordained ministers, most Christians refer to this as "evangelism" or "missions" depending on the context. I suppose you could make a big stink against this word and substitute the word "witnessing," but this task serves the goal of the Church which was given at the Great Commission and is a telling of the Good News, and thus fitting with the meaning of the term euanggelizo, Gospelling. 

The Great Commission was given to the whole Church, not merely to a select class of ordained ministers, and the whole Church fulfills the Great Commission together, each in their particular roles. This means that though, this select class of ordained ministers may have important and specific roles to play in taking the Gospel to the world, that they alone do not receive the Great Commisssion or own it, nor are they the only ones to perform it. 

Thus, it can be said that while euanggelizo and kerusso were restricted to called males, that other terms such as teaching, witnessing, prophesying, testifying were all included in the expansion of the faith in the NT and were performed by men and women both, and in this way Paul could call women and un-ordained men "co-laborers" in the Gospel. They were laboring with Paul in his evangelistic task, towards the evangelization of the world and towards the corporate fulfillment of the Great Commission.

I have already shown that Baptist may rightly believe, according to their own confessions, that preaching and the administration of the ordinances is not relegated merely to ministers, but to these officers, plus others who are called and qualified and commissioned by the church to perform these actions. We have seen that Philip the deacon was also an evangelist and both preached and baptized. And now, we see that Christ's church screens and commisssions and sends out many into the mission field, even many who are not ordained. And these all take part in fulfilling the Great Commission.

---------- Post added at 04:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 AM ----------




Joshua said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [T]he word "evangelism" doesn't occur in any English Bible that I know of, so how are we to let scripture "speak for itself" in defining this word? We are forced to define it by some other means, which is one step removed from the actual text of scripture. It needs to be defined theologically in a way that is suitable and encompasses the various semantic domains. Just because it CAN be defined narrowly as preaching and sacrament duties, does not mean its ENTIRE meaning is located in that, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we shouldn't be limited to English translations of the Scriptures. As Boliver has already noted, the term is in the original texts of Scripture, and has its application to those _authorized_ by way of calling, commissioning, etc. It is also noteworthy that we do have an English noun equivalent as an office in the term _Evangelist_. So an _Evangelist_ would have been one who did _Evangelism_.
Click to expand...

 
Joshua,

The Westminster Standards seem to indicate that there is no longer such an office as the office of an Evangelist. 



> “The Form of Presbyterial Church Government” in the Westminster Standards reads: “The officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, which are ceased. Others ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church governors, and deacons.”


----------



## Notthemama1984

Pergamum said:


> After all, most of you Presbyterians have no problem with expanding the word baptizo to modes other than what is plainly referred to in the greek as being dipped or immersed, so why do you narrow the available terminology now?



We do not expand what baptism does. We look at Scripture and what it says baptism accomplishes and go with that. You are looking at "euangelion" and expanding its definition to include all ministerial works.


----------



## Pergamum

For all those that witness and tell others about Jesus as part of the Great Commission who are not part of the official offices of the church, I suppose the term "Lay Witness" might satisfy some; but this term seems hardly appropriate for full-time missionaries who are commisssioned and sent out by the church and supported full-time.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Is it common to have a commissioned full time missionary who is not ordained?


----------



## Pergamum

Also, I would like to add that I do appreciate and respect the Church's offices of elder and deacon. We need more elder-qualified and ordained men to lead church-planting teams here in Asia. 

However, in evangelism and missions, I believe many of the reformed (especially those in several of the micro-denominations) are overly restrictive. While many evangelicals want to totally erase the gap between the minister and laity altogether, many of the reformed go the other extreme and are unneccessarily rigid in their allowances for what the unordained can do towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission. A good example is the section on missions by Josh's denomination which states that only an elder can become a missionary, thus eliminating any chance of women or non-elder men serving in orphanages, teaching literacy, helping in bible translation and literacy or evangelizing segregated muslim women.

Some remind us that only church officers may preach and administer the sacraments, and then they equate all missionary work with these two tasks alone and restrict the missionary task to merely formal preaching and ecclesiastical rule and administering of the ordinances within established churches. This is a too-narrow definition of missions. Its scope is too narrow in the tasks needed for making and teaching disciples. Also, their scope is too narrow in who can be active, and in what ways, towards the evangelization of the world. 

The Apostle Paul was pleased to incorporate a large band of people in his travels and labors and refers to many of these men and women as "fellow-workers." They did much more than merely pray for the lost and be a witness in their vocations, Paul refers to them as laboring in the Gospel, and these were commended instead of being told that "That is not our job." Would these so-called "sunergois" co-laborours, in the NT even be acceptable missionary candidates in some of our Presbyterian micro-denominations today?


----------



## Pergamum

Chaplainintraining said:


> Is it common to have a commissioned full time missionary who is not ordained?



http://174.121.134.66/~mtwcr/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Suggestions-for-a-MTW-Missionary-commissioning.pdf

Above is a link to a suggested MTW commissioning service (MTW is the PCA's missionary arm). I only know a few MTW-rs, but maybe someone else could give more info; it seems that MTW accepts missionary candidates who are not merely elders or deacons and sends/commissions them. This practice (of commissioning missionaries, even when they are not ordained) is also common among many baptist groups. I know a woman commissioned to work among Chinese women. She did great work and referred many new believers to an elder-qualified man for baptism and incorporation into an established church.

In general, I would love to read more about a reformed theology of missionary commissioning.


----------



## JP Wallace

1644 Confession

The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this Ordinance, the Scriptures hold forth to be a preaching Disciple, it being no where tied to a particular Church, Officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the Commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered Disciples.

1689

2. These holy appointments are to be administred by those only, who are qualified and thereunto called according to the commission of Christ.

I don't know - but that appears to be a change of emphasis....in 1644 the only qualification given is that they be commissioned disciples. In 1689 they must have (unstated) qualifications, which I believe points towards church office qualifications. Furthermore the appointments are to be administered 'only' by such...there is a real restriction, whereas in real terms in 1644 all members commissioned by the church can do it.

Pergamum wrote,

'Yes, it seems to me that the 1644 and the 1689 state the same thing, that preaching and baptising is not tied to church office alone but is tied to calling, qualification and commissioning by the church. Therefore, the church may allow for those other than their pastors to preach or administer the ordinances. This occurs often when churches commission certain men as lay-preachers or missionaries and send them out.'

But how else does the church call,' qualify' and commission men other than via church office?

So are we saying that a church could commission a woman disciple to baptise? Would she be qualified? Now if that is what the 1644 (she being a disciple commissioned (wrongly) by the church) is saying then I'll happily say it's wrong. I think allowing any disciple to baptize is a short-cut to chaos, because it won't take long for one to despise the commissioning or lack of one to start baptising left right and centre.


----------



## Pergamum

Paul,

Neither the writers of the 1644 or the 1689 would allow just anyone to baptize or preach. There is no way calling and qualification could extend to women in order to allow them to baptize or exercise ecclesiastical authority. There is a general unity of substance between these two documents.

There is a difference between church "office" and "function" and "role." For instance, one could deny that there is a presently-existing office of an Evangelist, yet still believe that many do the work of an evangelist.


----------



## JP Wallace

Well whether both documents are teaching the same thing or not, I signed up to the 1689 which can be interpreted as ordained officers and that's the interpretation I take. My first comment conceded that there was ambiguity in the 1689, I still think that is the case. And in my opinion the 1644 is unambiguous but wrong. I'm not at all convinced that these two documents mean the same thing here, the 1689 is a step in the right direction i.e. towards Westminster!

I still maintain that the all commission of Christ can only be the call and commission of ordained officers. What other call and commission has the Church the right to issue?


----------



## steadfast7

My conclusion: with all the insistence on evangelism belonging to the office of evangelist, I know no church who has this office, and no individual who holds it. The implication being that evangelism (as tied to this narrow definition) is not being done at all ... ?


----------



## Notthemama1984

Come visit our church. www.cepc.org Dr. Bob Roane is ordained and called as an Evangelist. I highly doubt we are the only church.


----------



## steadfast7

Chaplainintraining said:


> Come visit our church. www.cepc.org Dr. Bob Roane is ordained and called as an Evangelist. I highly doubt we are the only church.


 
interesting! I stand corrected. Guess I simply spent too much time in unreformed churches!


----------



## Pergamum

The Westminster Standards state that the office of Evangelist has ceased. “The Form of Presbyterial Church Government” in the Westminster Standards reads: 



> “The officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, which are ceased. Others ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church governors, and deacons.”




---------- Post added at 11:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 PM ----------




JP Wallace said:


> Well whether both documents are teaching the same thing or not, I signed up to the 1689 which can be interpreted as ordained officers and that's the interpretation I take. My first comment conceded that there was ambiguity in the 1689, I still think that is the case. And in my opinion the 1644 is unambiguous but wrong. I'm not at all convinced that these two documents mean the same thing here, the 1689 is a step in the right direction i.e. towards Westminster!
> 
> I still maintain that the all commission of Christ can only be the call and commission of ordained officers. What other call and commission has the Church the right to issue?


 
Paul,

Probably 75% of those who go out in missions, though they are commended and sent out by their churches, are not official church officers. Are you saying that this 75% (or maybe more) have no right going forth to fulfill the Great Commisssion, even though their sending church and the officers of that sending church has sent them?


----------



## Pergamum

Josh,

What if a lay-person feels a strong desire to go overseas and teach english as a means to tell people about Christ? Or, what if a lay-person desires to teach literacy to Third World Christians, or help medically if they are a nurse? Or take part in a team as a "fellow-worker" to an ordained man as they, together, seek to plant churches? Or, what is a woman goes to the Middle East to tell Muslim women about Christ? What if their church sends them out in order to do these actions with the express intent to help make disciples and fulfill the Great Commission?

About 75-80& of missionaries are non-ordained and many are non-ordainable (women). Historically, 63-65% or so of the Protestant missionary force have been women. In the past, these were called missionaries, and their understood goal was to help in the fulfillment of the Great Commission. 

If you say that the only way to fulfill the Great Commisssion is through "Evangelism" (Big-E Evangelism, defined in its narrow sense) and then restrict this action to a narrower subset of available actions such as formal preaching or administering the sacraments, then you have just severely restricted the available missions activities at the Church's disposal as it seeks to make disciples of all nations.

We either have to accept also a broader definition fo evangelism (Little-e evangelism, meaning all evangelistic activities which help to make disciples, including sharing, witnessing, teaching, but also preaching) to go with your desired terminology of Evangelism in its narrower sense, or we have to deny that Evangelism (big-E) is the only way in which the church fulfills the Great Commission, disciples also being made through testifying, teaching, witnessing, sharing and all those other Greek verbs from the NT that are associated with the spread of the Gospel but are not restricted merely to ordained men.


"Evangelism" and "Missions" have been the accepted terms for many decades now to encompass all actions by which the Church fulfills the Great Commisssion. The Great Commisssion, making disciples, is broader than merely formal preaching and giving the sacraments. But if you object to a broader definition of evangelism to encompass all "evangelistic" activities such as testifying, sharing, witnessing, teaching, then what other term should we use? And can we send out folks to perform these other actions in the name of missionary work or must we restrict all misssionary activity merely then to Big-E Evangelism in its narrowed sense of the term?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Gillespie gives his view (re calling of evangelist) in his Miscellany questions, written as some suppose as studies of questions during the Westminster Assembly.
The Presbyterian's armoury - Google Books


----------



## Pergamum

Chris, When Gillespie speaks of the "vocation" of an evangelist, does he refer to the calling to an office, or the special gifting to function in order to "do the work of" an evangelist? Also, what does he means by saying that this is partly an extraordinary office and partly an ordinary office? He says that there may be occasion yet for them to do some of their extraordinary work. Does this mean miracle-working/demon-casting/prophecy or what? Also, how many apostles would Gillespie say there were in the NT, he seems to apply the term apostle more broadly? Finally, how does Gillespie define a classis? Can a single congregation sned out a misssionary/messenger/apostle on a special misssion or delegation or must this be left up to the National Synod or regional synod, or at least the classis?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I'm not sure Gillespie would separate the two. I don't have the quote, but I think he would allow when a new country was opened up for Christianity, that the evangelist would be functional. I can't speak beyond that chapter and I think one other in the _Miscellany _as far as cessationism. I think twelve. Gillespie's church polity views are are given in his _Assertion of the Government_ and to a lesser (and with one apparent change if not reversal) in his _English Popish Ceremonies_. Presbyterians would obviously allow that in seed form a single congregation would have the full functions of polity when in extraordinary circumstances (single church on an island etc.). Also, see the debates between the Independents and Presbyterians of the Westminster Assembly in their _Grand Debate_. Sorry; that's all I got.


----------



## Pergamum

Chris, thanks a lot. I would love to hear what an English equivalent word for Classis would be.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

On classis,
Gillespie's assembly notes.
Gillespie's _Assertion_.


Pergamum said:


> Chris, thanks a lot. I would love to hear what an English equivalent word for Classis would be.


----------



## JP Wallace

Pergamum said:


> Probably 75% of those who go out in missions, though they are commended and sent out by their churches, are not official church officers. Are you saying that this 75% (or maybe more) have no right going forth to fulfill the Great Commisssion, even though their sending church and the officers of that sending church has sent them?



I am saying that no one has the authority and responsibility to carry out the functions or ordained officers but ordained officers. And I think that baptizing is among the functions to be carried out by said ordained officers. I was just reading 'Manual of Church Order' by J.L. Dagg on this subject, on pages 254-257 and he takes the same position (and he does so with what I believe is suitable humility that the strength of this case is not that which we might have with others).

"Although baptizing is not necessarily connected with preaching and teaching; yet the manner in which it is conjoined with them in the commission, appears to indicate that the connection is suitable. No separate class of officers is anywhere provided in the New Testament, for the administering of the rite, and yet, if we have reasoned correctly, the apostles were under obligation to provide for it. We are led to the conclusion, that this provision was made in the ordinary method instituted for transmitting the ministerial office.'

He begins the next section 'Apostolic Succession' with these words, 'We have seen that baptism ought to be administered by an ordained minister of the word.'.


----------



## Pergamum

Paul, 

I am within confessional boundaries as a Reformed Baptist to extend the ability to baptize not only to officers but also to those select others who are designated by the church.


----------



## JP Wallace

Pergamum,

I started off commenting on this thread by agreeing that the confessions were ambiguous to some extent on this subject so I'm not going to reject somebody even if they take the contrary view from me. 

But lest you think I'm some how going after you, I actually have no knowledge of what you do or don't do on the missionfield (I mean in reference to baptising and so forth), so nothing of what I have said was meant to apply directly to you or your situation. If you are an ordained officer of the church and commissioned by a church to go out there then I guess you can do whatever your conscience allows you to do and your church allows you to do, likewise even if you are not ordained the same rules would follow for you.

I have never claimed you or anyone else was outside the boundaries of any confession, but have merely expressed what I believe is the best interpretation of the Scriptures and the 1689 Confession, which expression is in agreement with Dr. Waldron's analysis and J.L. Dagg's analysis both cited in previous posts.


----------



## fralo4truth

This is a good discussion David. Thanks for starting it. You and I have had some good exchanges in the past, as you have some experience with those whom I used to affiliate with.

Modern day Primitive Baptists, among whom I used to be, by and large claim that the commission was given exclusively to the eleven, and that they fulfilled this commission in their lifetime based on the WORLD which then was. This of course fits in real nicely with their anti-means theology. In support, they will point out the end of Mark 16:

"And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with [them], and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. " (Mark 16:20).

The past tense 'they went forth' convinces them that the commission has been fulfilled. Therefore, we are not under the obligation today to keep it. It will be emphasized further that the miraculous powers of the eleven were to be co-extensive with the commission to preach. Since these powers have thus ceased, the commission must have ceased as well.

Appeal will often be made as well to Colossians 1:

"For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, *as [it is] in all the world*..." (v.5-6)

"If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] *which was preached to every creature* which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;" (v.23)

The gospel, say they, had already made it into the world at that time, and has already been preached to every creature.


----------



## Pergamum

Paul, thanks.


Kevin, yes, interesting.


----------



## pepper

CH Spurgeon was never ordained by any church officer. He bragged about never having a man lay hands on him. He baptized many people.


----------



## FCC

How would Aquila and Priscilla fit into this discussion? In Acts 18 Paul comes to their house and because they are of the same trade he stays with them. I do not know of them ever having been ordained and sent by the church. Later in Acts 19 Apollos shows up at Corinth, "mighty in the scriptures." He however only knows the "baptism of John." He goes on to speak boldly in the synagogue and Aquila and Priscilla take him in and "expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." Apollos does obtain a letter from the brethren, which I would interpret as being commissioned, when he desires to go into Achaia. 

I also read in Acts chapter 1 that the "disciples" were waiting for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to the number of about an hundred and twenty. I have difficulty in thinking that evangelism is restricted only to ordained elders. 

The Greek word literally means "bringer of good news." Do we not all have a duty to bring the good news of Christ's salvation to all humanity? Yet, it is also used in the list of official titles or gifts of the Spirit in Eph. 4:11. Does this mean that we could define it in two ways? One, as applying to the general body of Christ, who has they go about their daily lives let their light shine and reflect the glory of their Redeemer. Then secondly as a more defined officer of the church? As given in Eph. 4:11?


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Of course a mother should teach her children, raising them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Those are Christian duties belonging to all parents. Of course we should be forward to speak of what the Lord has done for us in the marketplace, as well as be ready to give a defense of what we believe, etc. Nevertheless, those things are not Evangelism nor are they the Ministry of Reconciliation, nor are they the duties given in the Great Commission.



Yes, but is it sharing the gospel?


----------



## elnwood

Some have said that while laypersons and women can do small-e evangelism, only those ordained can do big-E Evangelism.

In practice, what is the difference between big-E and small-e evangelism?

Or is it practiced exactly the same, and we call it big-E and small-e only by virtue of who is doing it?


----------



## Pergamum

Don,

It appears that the words _euanggelizo_ and _kerusso_ are reserved for men, and possibly only officers in the church, depending on who you ask. This seems to be the reason for the reluctance for some to say that any but church officers may "Big-E Evangelize."

However, other terms such as testify, work/labor, teach, minister, witness, prophesy, give an answer, have been given a more broad application and appear in the NT more broadly. 

Maybe we ought to do a word study of every single word associated with the expansion of the gospel (commonly referred to as evangelism) and then denote who performed these actions in the NT/


In practice, on many mission fields, we have ordained men do the preaching and administering of the ordinances, while other missionaries (women and unordained men) can teach, share, and do "little e-evangelism." We have women teaching other women, being missionary nurses, teachers, teaching literacy, helping translate, working with youth, etc....all vital roles in making disciples of all nations.

My concern is that in a zeal to guard the use of the term _euanggelizo_ and_ kerusso_, we become over-restrictive in how we define a missionary. My fear is that we would restrict the process of "disciple-making" only to official pulpit preaching and the administering of the ordinances and forget about the roles of sharing, witnessing, ministering, and laboring in the gospel in many other useful ways that are greatly needed on the mission field.....that we under-utilize gifted men and women in our congregations who would like to cross cultures, minister in a variety of ways other than official pulpit preaching and giving the ordinances, and reach the lost. Where is the place for these men and women to serve?

It is my contention that some of the "Truly Reformed" are, in fact, ecclesiastically over-restrictive when it comes to missions-sending and this is why the "broad evangelical" mission orgs are getting the job done more than the Presbyterian micro-denominations when it comes to reaching the last unreached people-groups on the earth.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Pergamum said:


> It is my contention that some of the "Truly Reformed" are, in fact, ecclesiastically over-restrictive when it comes to missions-sending and this is why the "*broad evangelical" mission orgs are getting the job done* more than the Presbyterian micro-denominations when it comes to reaching the last unreached people-groups on the earth.



Question: What do you mean by "getting the job done?"


----------



## elnwood

SolaScriptura said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my contention that some of the "Truly Reformed" are, in fact, ecclesiastically over-restrictive when it comes to missions-sending and this is why the "*broad evangelical" mission orgs are getting the job done* more than the Presbyterian micro-denominations when it comes to reaching the last unreached people-groups on the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question: What do you mean by "getting the job done?"
Click to expand...

 
Planting indigenous, self-supporting, self-governing, self-propagating evangelical churches among unreached people groups around the world.


----------



## Pergamum

Ben,

For the most part, where I am working, it is the Protestant inter-denominational mission agencies that are the ones engaging the least-reached, and planting churches in places where the church has never yet been planted. For instance, when it comes to unreached tribal peoples and peoples without bible translations, the majority of this work is done by evangelicals and inter-denominational mission agencies. In Central Asia and among the Muslim world, the southern baptists are also doing good work and engaging people-groups that have never before really been engaged by the Gospel. Except for some groups that I have reluctance recommending, such as YWAM, most of these evangelical agencies are basically sound. 

On the whole, the evangelical mission orgs are able to raise up, screen and send more people, and to more places. I believe this is due, in part, due to a looser ecclesiology and a more permissive view of what laymen can do, and lower educational requirements for missionaries (like in colonial America, the Methodist circuit-riders and the Baptists outgrew the Reformed due to reformed educational restrictions on the clergy and the slow fielding of new pastors to the frontier areas).


----------



## elnwood

Pergamum said:


> It appears that the words euanggelizo and kerusso are reserved for men, and possibly only officers in the church, depending on who you ask. This seems to be the reason for the reluctance for some to say that any but church officers may "Big-E Evangelize."



The problem is, we still haven't defined what "Big-E Evangelize" and "small-E evangelize" are and how they differ, if at all. We've gotten as far as the ordained are commissioned to "big-E Evangelize," but we still haven't defined the task.

So how does an ordained person "Evangelizing" look different than an unordained person "evangelizing"? What part of "Evangelizing" is it that an unordained person is not commissioned to do? How will my evangelism be materially different before I am ordained as opposed to after I am ordained?

I suspect that there is no difference. If so, I wonder if it makes sense to make a distinction at all.


----------



## MW

elnwood said:


> I suspect that there is no difference. If so, I wonder if it makes sense to make a distinction at all.


 
This small "e" evangelism which has been discussed obviously does not include baptism. In the New Testament we see "be baptised" as an essential part of evangelising. For that reason I doubt that the work and witness of individuals can properly be called Evangelism or evangelism. It is, at the very least, something to which a person is called by the church and is charged with the moral obligation to fulfil. It is by very nature a specified task. Perhaps most significant of all, there are two distinct groups in the New Testament -- teachers and learners, governors and governed (see especially Hebrews 5 for the former and Hebrews 13 for the latter). It is never suggested that the learner or the governed has equal right and responsibility to assume the tasks of the teacher or governor. The categorical distinction of the New Testament requires the theologian to make categorical distinctions in the way he presents the matter.


----------



## elnwood

armourbearer said:


> This small "e" evangelism which has been discussed obviously does not include baptism. In the New Testament we see "be baptised" as an essential part of evangelising.



No doubt that evangelization and baptism go hand-in-hand, but they are different concepts in Scripture.

For example, Paul writes, "οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλέν με Χριστὸς βαπτίζειν ἀλλὰ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι," "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to evangelize," in 1 Corinthians 1:17. For Paul, baptizing is not an essential part of his own evangelizing.


----------



## Pergamum

Rev. Winzer:

How about the distinction of workers and those who receive the work? Not only the apostles but several others, including women, are listed as laboring for the Gospel alongside Paul (presumably in support roles). Governors and the governed are not the only two categories that we can list.


----------



## MW

elnwood said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This small "e" evangelism which has been discussed obviously does not include baptism. In the New Testament we see "be baptised" as an essential part of evangelising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt that evangelization and baptism go hand-in-hand, but they are different concepts in Scripture.
> 
> For example, Paul writes, "οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλέν με Χριστὸς βαπτίζειν ἀλλὰ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι," "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to evangelize," in 1 Corinthians 1:17. For Paul, baptizing is not an essential part of his own evangelizing.
Click to expand...

 
This is Paul's specific mission. That he was not sent to baptise is unique to himself and cannot be argued as normative for evangelism. He was an apostle to the Gentiles. As such, he had a distinct work within the history of redemption which was not shared with others. In this way his mission was similar to that of Jesus. The baptism was undoubtedly carried on by others, just as the disciples baptised for Jesus (John 4:1-2). The norm is presented in the book of Acts. Evangelisation included baptism as the visible expression of repentance.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> How about the distinction of workers and those who receive the work? Not only the apostles but several others, including women, are listed as laboring for the Gospel alongside Paul (presumably in support roles). Governors and the governed are not the only two categories that we can list.


 
I suppose it would be the "support roles" which require definition and delineation. It would be worthwhile to study the different scenarios in which the apostle Paul spoke of his fellow-workers and helpers. Remembering that in Philippians he could refer to the whole church with its bishops and elders as participants or sharers (koinonia, communion or fellowship) with him in the gospel. Thus one who contributes financially or remembers the work prayerfully is regarded as functioning in a support role of some kind.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Notthemama1984

elnwood said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my contention that some of the "Truly Reformed" are, in fact, ecclesiastically over-restrictive when it comes to missions-sending and this is why the "*broad evangelical" mission orgs are getting the job done* more than the Presbyterian micro-denominations when it comes to reaching the last unreached people-groups on the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question: What do you mean by "getting the job done?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Planting indigenous, self-supporting, self-governing, self-propagating evangelical churches among unreached people groups around the world.
Click to expand...


I think this is an unfair comparison when you consider that broad evangelicals number in the millions (wikipedia numbers them 70-80 million) and all Reformed denoms put together will not equal a million. The evangelicals had better have more churches with more people than the Presbyterians.


----------



## Pergamum

Rev Winzer:

Yes. I usually refer to the Whole Church as fulfilling the Great Commission together. 

All have a role, but all do not have the same role.

Some support and all are to pray. 

And then, the church also sends some out. From this group of sent-out ones, there are those who can lead, preach and baptize, and then there are the other roles, which are also valuable and also referred to by most as "missions." 

Thus, ordained elder-qualified men lead in some roles, but other non-ordained men and women (designated and sent out by churches) can play crucial roles as well, co-laboring in the Gospel work.



What do you think of this definition?


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> And then, the church also sends some out. From this group of sent-out ones, there are those who can lead, preach and baptize, and then there are the other roles, which are also valuable and also referred to by most as "missions."


 
I think this is the point to be proved -- that there are other roles. If the church must take supervision of educational and maintenance roles it is obvious that she must exert a this-worldly authority in these areas. I think this would be dangerous as it would change the nature of the church.


----------



## Pergamum

Older women are told to teach younger women in the church; what if we sent older women to churches overseas to help mentor foreign women? 

That is one example of a role other than eunggelizo or baptizo that non-ordained Christians can do cross-culturally.

Also, sharing, testifying, witnessing, giving an answer, are all roles which do not seem to be exclusively restricted to the ordained class of clergy. If a church sent workers cross-culturally to do these tasks, this seems fitting with the NT example of Paul's mobile missionary band and those that co-labored with him. This is what evangelical mission orgs do.


----------



## elnwood

Chaplainintraining said:


> I think this is an unfair comparison when you consider that broad evangelicals number in the millions (wikipedia numbers them 70-80 million) and all Reformed denoms put together will not equal a million. The evangelicals had better have more churches with more people than the Presbyterians.


 
The effect of evangelism and church planting is cumulative.

Reformed churches weren't always in the extreme minority. But as evangelicals prioritized missions, evangelism, and church planting, the number of evangelical churches has grown.

I'm pretty sure evangelicals are sending more missionaries per capita as well. John Piper's church has over a hundred missionaries. My home church would be considered broadly evangelical, and it has over 10% of its membership as missionaries. We joke about our "missionary tithe."

I know some of you believe that only seminary-trained ordained ministers should be sent out as missionaries. If so, shouldn't we expect a significant percentage of our ordained ministers and seminary graduates to be going overseas?


----------



## Notthemama1984

elnwood said:


> If so, shouldn't we expect a significant percentage of our ordained ministers and seminary graduates to be going overseas?



Only if God called them to do such.

---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------




elnwood said:


> I'm pretty sure evangelicals are sending more missionaries per capita as well.



You would be surprised. The SBC sends one missionary per 3083 members whereas the PCA sends out one missionary per 568 members. That means the PCA is sending out missionaries 5 times greater than the SBC. 

Information came from:

SBC-
Amid drawdown, IMB still sending full-time missionaries
About the Southern Baptist Convention 

PCA
http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/sta...ssionaries-fielded-presbyterian-denoms-57453/
Presbyterian Church in America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Older women are told to teach younger women in the church; what if we sent older women to churches overseas to help mentor foreign women?


 
It sounds counter-intuitive. There is no "older-younger" societal tie between them. What makes Titus 2 "teaching" possible is the fact that the older women are observed to have done what the younger women are now seeking to do. The emphasis in that passage on character demonstrates that the kind of teaching requires an exemplary role model, which is something a "visiting teacher" is inept to provide.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Chaplainintraining said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> If so, shouldn't we expect a significant percentage of our ordained ministers and seminary graduates to be going overseas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if God called them to do such.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure evangelicals are sending more missionaries per capita as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would be surprised. The SBC sends one missionary per 3083 members whereas the PCA sends out one missionary per 568 members. That means the PCA is sending out missionaries 5 times greater than the SBC.
> 
> Information came from:
> 
> SBC-
> Amid drawdown, IMB still sending full-time missionaries
> About the Southern Baptist Convention
> 
> PCA
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/sta...ssionaries-fielded-presbyterian-denoms-57453/
> Presbyterian Church in America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Also if you use the 70 million number from wikipedia with the 1:568 ratio for PCA missionaries, evangelicals would need to send out over 123,000 missionaries from the USA alone. Unfortunately Perg showed that only 64,000 missionaries come from the USA (I am assuming this number includes reformed missionaries as well). So your assumption that evangelicals send out more per capita is just wrong.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Chaplainintraining said:


> The SBC sends one missionary per 3083 members



Of course if you base this ratio on the actual number of people who show up in SBC churches on a given Sunday, it would probably be closer to 1:1500.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Bill The Baptist said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SBC sends one missionary per 3083 members
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course if you base this ratio on the actual number of people who show up in SBC churches on a given Sunday, it would probably be closer to 1:1500.
Click to expand...

 
Even if you take that ratio, the PCA still sends out missionaries at a much better ratio.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Older women are told to teach younger women in the church; what if we sent older women to churches overseas to help mentor foreign women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds counter-intuitive. There is no "older-younger" societal tie between them. What makes Titus 2 "teaching" possible is the fact that the older women are observed to have done what the younger women are now seeking to do. The emphasis in that passage on character demonstrates that the kind of teaching requires an exemplary role model, which is something a "visiting teacher" is inept to provide.
Click to expand...

 
That is why we shouldn't just send "visiting teachers" but long-term cross-cultural workers who will live among the people, learn the language and customs and serve for several decades.


----------



## elnwood

Chaplainintraining said:


> You would be surprised. The SBC sends one missionary per 3083 members whereas the PCA sends out one missionary per 568 members. That means the PCA is sending out missionaries 5 times greater than the SBC.



I stand corrected. My first response was "One every 568 members? That's so low!" Imagine my response to the SBC number. I think both the PCA and SBC can do a lot better.

Within missions circles, we talk about certain churches that are "missions-minded" and those that are not. Take Bethlehem Baptist, for example. It has a weekly attendance of 4,520 on three campuses, and yet they have 164 long-term missionaries! That's about 25% of the number of long-term mission missionaries at MTW for a denomination with a membership of 300,000.
Bethlehem Baptist's missionaries

Bethlehem Baptist's ratio is not out of reach for most congregations, and it has nothing to do with it being a large church. My home church send out missionaries at twice that ratio, and our weekly attendance is 400.



Chaplainintraining said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> If so, shouldn't we expect a significant percentage of our ordained ministers and seminary graduates to be going overseas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if God called them to do such.
Click to expand...


Yes, but an important part of calling is for the church to identify and raise up leaders.

Any pastor will tell you that part of his job is to identify and raise up pastors and elders from within his congregation, and probably actively do so. But how many of them would say that they actively identify and raise up missionaries from within their congregation? Yet, our churches are tasked with raising up missionaries and sending them out (Romans 10:14-15).

I don't think Bethlehem Baptist is especially extraordinary in raising up missionaries. I don't think God is mysteriously calling missionaries especially from Minneapolis and not elsewhere.

I think John Piper and his elders have particularly taken upon themselves to:
1) Teach regularly about missions.
2) Identify potential missionaries within the congregation.
3) Mentor, train, and disciple them.
4) Send them out.
5) Support them with prayer and finances.

I think this is something that all of our churches can and should do. If you are a pastor, elder, or a leader in the church, can I get an "amen" and a commitment to do these things?


----------



## Notthemama1984

elnwood said:


> I think this is something that all of our churches can and should do. If you are a pastor, elder, or a leader in the church, can I get an "amen" and a commitment to do these things?



You will get an  from me. I think the church should be focused on missions more.

We do need to be careful though. Your post could lead one to think, "If the church doesn't teach missions, then one could miss their calling." I believe God's calling on your life is there regardless if the church teaches on that subject. For example, I surrendered to the call of chaplain and pastor, but I know I never heard a sermon on chaplaincy and cannot think of a sermon on the need for more pastors in any of the 23 years of church attendance prior to surrendering. Despite this lack of teaching, God still called me and I still answered.


----------



## elnwood

Chaplainintraining said:


> We do need to be careful though. Your post could lead one to think, "If the church doesn't teach missions, then one could miss their calling." I believe God's calling on your life is there regardless if the church teaches on that subject. For example, I surrendered to the call of chaplain and pastor, but I know I never heard a sermon on chaplaincy and cannot think of a sermon on the need for more pastors in any of the 23 years of church attendance prior to surrendering. Despite this lack of teaching, God still called me and I still answered.


 
I've actually heard a number of sermons discussing the need to raise up more godly men into eldership. It might be due to the shift of many Baptist churches from single-elder leadership to plurality of elders. Or maybe I've simply heard more sermons from the pastoral epistles.

I think what sets missions apart, though, is that a) the Bible is very specific about raising up missionaries to share the gospel where it is not known, b) the need is greater for missionaries than for pastors, and c) unlike pastors and chaplains, you don't see or hear about missionaries from week to week, and so it wouldn't necessarily be a natural thing to desire to be one. (Kids want to be firefighters because they see fire trucks.) Thus, I think churches need to be intentional about teaching about missions.

Yes, God is sovereign in whom he calls, and no one misses his calling. Yet, God is both the one who moves us towards obedience and the one who blesses the work of our hands.

When God's people are obedient to the task God lays out for the church, God will bless it. The same is true whether it be raising up leaders or evangelizing. When God's people pray for and identify potential missionaries, God will be faithful in raising them up and preparing them to be sent and evangelize. When God's people evangelize, God will bless us with converts.


----------



## Notthemama1984

elnwood said:


> unlike pastors and chaplains, you don't see or hear about missionaries from week to week



I see chaplains every week because I live in the military chaplain world, but I highly doubt the average Church goer sees chaplains on a weekly basis.

Other than that statement, I have no problem with what you said.


----------



## Notthemama1984

elnwood said:


> unlike pastors and chaplains, you don't see or hear about missionaries from week to week



I see chaplains every week because I live in the military chaplain world, but I highly doubt the average Church goer sees chaplains on a weekly basis.

Other than that statement, I have no problem with what you said.


----------



## elnwood

Chaplainintraining said:


> I see chaplains every week because I live in the military chaplain world, but I highly doubt the average Church goer sees chaplains on a weekly basis.


 
I noted in your profile that it was a Presbyterian chaplain that brought you to Reformed Theology. I assume that this day-to-day, week-to-week contact was an important part of your calling to the chaplaincy, correct?

In the same way, our churches need to teach on missions and give them exposure to that if we want God to call and send missionaries from among our congregations! (I know we agree on this, but I just wanted to say it again!  )


----------



## Notthemama1984

elnwood said:


> I noted in your profile that it was a Presbyterian chaplain that brought you to Reformed Theology. I assume that this day-to-day, week-to-week contact was an important part of your calling to the chaplaincy, correct?



Actually you would have guessed wrong. I was already in the process of becoming a baptist chaplain when i met him.


----------



## elnwood

Chaplainintraining said:


> Actually you would have guessed wrong. I was already in the process of becoming a baptist chaplain when i met him.



I'm not doing too well on guessing in this thread! How about: you were in the military where there were chaplains present when you were called?


----------



## Notthemama1984

Wrong again. I was a music minister at a local SBC church when I was called. I had never met a chaplain or knew anything about them. In fact, just a few years earlier I had told my grandmother that if the US started the draft again that I would move to Canada. So this calling was a huge surprise to everyone and completely unexpected.


----------



## Pergamum

I am trying to recheck all the available data and statistics in order to be fair in my assessments:

About some missions statistics (which churches are doing missions):
Here's an article about poor PCUSA missions numbers: The Layman Online.

However, I am reminded that in Korea, the 2nd-largest sending country in the world, many of those churches have either Methodist or Presbyterian works. I need to check these statistics more because I don't know much about the Korean missions movement (except that, sorry, Koreans are often very difficult to work with).

In India and Nepal, it appears the Baptists and the Pentecostals are the most active in many areas but I am still looking for statistics. 

The IMB (Southern Baptists) field impressive numbers but also have a large number of non-active church members on its roles. If we only counted the faithful members on SBC churches, then their numbers would be even more impressive, especially if we checked out the focus of each of the teams in central asia and other muslim countries (a large number of their teams focus on the least-engaged and there are many IMB teams in places where there are no other Christian groups working).

Many of the Presbyterian micro-presbyterians seem to count home and foreign missions as the same, and this makes statistics more difficult to gather (planting a church among Americans in Atlanta Georgia is different than trying to learn the language and culture and plant a church across-cultures among an unreached-people group). Also, a large percentage of their efforts are to places that are already churched. 

Checking again, many evangelicals also clump home and foreign missions together and so it is qualitively hard to differentiate a soup kitchen ministry for American homeless versus the intentional targetting of unreached, un-engaged Muslim people-group with no indigenous church of their own. This differentation needs to be done. Most of the research that defines the terms such as "people-group" and "unreached" and "unengaged" comes from evangelicals. 


In sheer volume, the evangelical inter-denominational mission agencies dwarf the reformed efforts. Though some will say that proportionally Presbyterians may be holding their own. I am looking for further statistics, but I think I will be able to successfully show that (except for some parts of the Middle East) mission groups that are more evangelical in ecclesiology are targetting the unreached and un-engaged at higher rates than the reformed.

Also, the main centers of teaching for missiology are evangelical. Many reformed universities are almost wholly lacking in classes on missions, missiology, cross-cultural issues, etc.

For both better and worse (both the best trends and the worst trends are being shaped by the evangelicals) it can be said that modern missions is largely led by evangelicals. Thankfully, many of these evangelical missionaries are calvinistic in their soteriology even if not reformed in their ecclesiology.

---------- Post added at 03:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 AM ----------

I am trying to recheck all the available data and statistics so that I am fair in my assessments:

About some missions statistics (which churches are doing missions):
Here's an article about poor PCUSA missions numbers: The Layman Online.

However, I am reminded that in Korea, the 2nd-largest sending country in the world, many of those churches have either Methodist or Presbyterian works. I need to research more on Korean missions.

In India and Nepal, it appears the Baptists and the Pentecostals are the most active in many areas but I am still looking for statistics. 

The IMB (Southern Baptists) field impressive numbers but also have a large number of non-active church members on its roles. If we only counted the faithful members on SBC churches, then their numbers would be even more impressive, especially if we checked out the focus of each of the teams in central asia and other muslim countries (a large number of their teams focus on the least-engaged and there are many IMB teams in places where there are no other Christian groups working).

Many of the Presbyterian micro-presbyterians seem to count home and foreign missions as the same, and this makes statistics more difficult to gather. 

Checking again, many evangelicals also clump home and foreign missions together. 

Without adequate differentiations in the "types" of missions work being done, it is qualitively hard to differentiate a soup kitchen ministry for American homeless versus the intentional targetting of unreached, un-engaged Muslim people-group with no indigenous church of their own. This differentation needs to be done. 

For example: A "missions project" of giving out free soup to American homeless people is qualitatively different than a misssions effort of planting someone in an unreached group without an indigenous church or a written language and having them learn the language and culture of this unreached group. Also, planting a "truly reformed church" in an area that is already churched by other groups, even other Presbyterian groups, is not the same as planting some expression of Christianity among a totally unreached group.

Most of the research that defines the terms such as "people-group" and "unreached" and "unengaged" comes from evangelicals.


In sheer volume, the evangelical inter-denominational mission agencies dwarf the reformed efforts, especially if we count short-term misssions (which I am not, since many of these efforts are not producing a lot of positive lasting results). Though some will say that proportionally Presbyterians may be holding their own. I am looking for further statistics, but I think I will be able to successfully show that (except for some parts of the Middle East) mission groups that are more evangelical in ecclesiology are targetting the unreached and un-engaged at higher rates than the reformed.

The centers of missionary training are largely evangelical. Many reformed seminaries/universities are almost wholly lacking in courses that prepare students for cross-cultural missions. Most misssiology professors, universities and training programs are evangelical.

It can be said that for the better or the worse that the modern misssions movement is led by evangelicals, and all the best and worst trends are being shaped by them.

---------- Post added at 03:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 AM ----------




Chaplainintraining said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is something that all of our churches can and should do. If you are a pastor, elder, or a leader in the church, can I get an "amen" and a commitment to do these things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will get an  from me. I think the church should be focused on missions more.
> 
> We do need to be careful though. Your post could lead one to think, "If the church doesn't teach missions, then one could miss their calling." I believe God's calling on your life is there regardless if the church teaches on that subject. For example, I surrendered to the call of chaplain and pastor, but I know I never heard a sermon on chaplaincy and cannot think of a sermon on the need for more pastors in any of the 23 years of church attendance prior to surrendering. Despite this lack of teaching, God still called me and I still answered.
Click to expand...

 
God can work despite our disobedience, but He usually works through His People and their obedience. I believe every church is obeying if they teach a solid doctrine of Christian vocation and also teach on the need for missions, missionaries, and pastors. I don't see what else they could teach on if they covered Matt 28 and II Timothy 2:2 in their sermons. It is fairly useless to remind people that God is going to achieve His purposes with or without us; and is no excuse for us not to do our duties. If God has predestined the good works that we will walk in (Ephesians 2) then one of the works of the church is to encourage and help its members find out what those ordained good works might be.

---------- Post added at 03:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 AM ----------




elnwood said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would be surprised. The SBC sends one missionary per 3083 members whereas the PCA sends out one missionary per 568 members. That means the PCA is sending out missionaries 5 times greater than the SBC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected. My first response was "One every 568 members? That's so low!" Imagine my response to the SBC number. I think both the PCA and SBC can do a lot better.
> 
> Within missions circles, we talk about certain churches that are "missions-minded" and those that are not. Take Bethlehem Baptist, for example. It has a weekly attendance of 4,520 on three campuses, and yet they have 164 long-term missionaries! That's about 25% of the number of long-term mission missionaries at MTW for a denomination with a membership of 300,000.
> Bethlehem Baptist's missionaries
> 
> Bethlehem Baptist's ratio is not out of reach for most congregations, and it has nothing to do with it being a large church. My home church send out missionaries at twice that ratio, and our weekly attendance is 400.
> 
> 
> 
> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> If so, shouldn't we expect a significant percentage of our ordained ministers and seminary graduates to be going overseas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if God called them to do such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but an important part of calling is for the church to identify and raise up leaders.
> 
> Any pastor will tell you that part of his job is to identify and raise up pastors and elders from within his congregation, and probably actively do so. But how many of them would say that they actively identify and raise up missionaries from within their congregation? Yet, our churches are tasked with raising up missionaries and sending them out (Romans 10:14-15).
> 
> I don't think Bethlehem Baptist is especially extraordinary in raising up missionaries. I don't think God is mysteriously calling missionaries especially from Minneapolis and not elsewhere.
> 
> I think John Piper and his elders have particularly taken upon themselves to:
> 1) Teach regularly about missions.
> 2) Identify potential missionaries within the congregation.
> 3) Mentor, train, and disciple them.
> 4) Send them out.
> 5) Support them with prayer and finances.
> 
> I think this is something that all of our churches can and should do. If you are a pastor, elder, or a leader in the church, can I get an "amen" and a commitment to do these things?
Click to expand...

 
Amen.

---------- Post added at 03:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 AM ----------




elnwood said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would be surprised. The SBC sends one missionary per 3083 members whereas the PCA sends out one missionary per 568 members. That means the PCA is sending out missionaries 5 times greater than the SBC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected. My first response was "One every 568 members? That's so low!" Imagine my response to the SBC number. I think both the PCA and SBC can do a lot better.
> 
> Within missions circles, we talk about certain churches that are "missions-minded" and those that are not. Take Bethlehem Baptist, for example. It has a weekly attendance of 4,520 on three campuses, and yet they have 164 long-term missionaries! That's about 25% of the number of long-term mission missionaries at MTW for a denomination with a membership of 300,000.
> Bethlehem Baptist's missionaries
> 
> Bethlehem Baptist's ratio is not out of reach for most congregations, and it has nothing to do with it being a large church. My home church send out missionaries at twice that ratio, and our weekly attendance is 400.
> 
> 
> 
> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> If so, shouldn't we expect a significant percentage of our ordained ministers and seminary graduates to be going overseas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if God called them to do such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but an important part of calling is for the church to identify and raise up leaders.
> 
> Any pastor will tell you that part of his job is to identify and raise up pastors and elders from within his congregation, and probably actively do so. But how many of them would say that they actively identify and raise up missionaries from within their congregation? Yet, our churches are tasked with raising up missionaries and sending them out (Romans 10:14-15).
> 
> I don't think Bethlehem Baptist is especially extraordinary in raising up missionaries. I don't think God is mysteriously calling missionaries especially from Minneapolis and not elsewhere.
> 
> I think John Piper and his elders have particularly taken upon themselves to:
> 1) Teach regularly about missions.
> 2) Identify potential missionaries within the congregation.
> 3) Mentor, train, and disciple them.
> 4) Send them out.
> 5) Support them with prayer and finances.
> 
> I think this is something that all of our churches can and should do. If you are a pastor, elder, or a leader in the church, can I get an "amen" and a commitment to do these things?
Click to expand...

 
Amen.


----------



## elnwood

elnwood said:


> Some have said that while laypersons and women can do small-e evangelism, only those ordained can do big-E Evangelism.
> 
> In practice, what is the difference between big-E and small-e evangelism?
> 
> Or is it practiced exactly the same, and we call it big-E and small-e only by virtue of who is doing it?





Pergamum said:


> It appears that the words euanggelizo and kerusso are reserved for men, and possibly only officers in the church, depending on who you ask. This seems to be the reason for the reluctance for some to say that any but church officers may "Big-E Evangelize."



Let's assume for a moment that women and laymen cannot _euanggelizo_, _kerusso_, or "Big-E Evangelize," but they can "Small-e evangelize." What does that mean functionally? What are they restricted from doing? Or is the difference between Big-E and small-e purely by virtue of the office of the one doing it?


----------

