# Should we now be Evangelize and spread the Good News to those who are disillusioned?



## dudley

Article entitle "Catholics quit church in droves last year"
Published: 7 Apr 11 10:11 CET follows my introductary statement to my PB brothers.

It may be a time for the Reformed Protestant churches to reach out to any delusioned Catholic at this critical point in church history. I am sure there are many disgruntled Catholics angry with a church and a clergy that they believe has betrayed them. 

I believe the Roman Catholic priest sex abuse scandal ;revealing the horrid abuses of children by its clergy and the cover up which reaches right to the Vatican itself is the will of almighty God. I believe God wishes to show the impurities and misguided teachings of the catholic church that run contrary to Gods natural plan and what is given in scripture. 

The Catholic practice of priestly celibacy dates back to the 11th century and was done for many reasons , one so that church property would never fall into the hands of the families of its priests and clergy, other reasons have to do with the Roman catholic hang up on virginity.

The following is an article that appeared in German newspapers this week. Its title is “Catholics quit church in droves last year”
The Roman Catholic priest sex scandal has reached epidemic proportions and it is in every country. Even many people of formally Catholic Ireland especially in the southern counties have left the catholic church and are becoming Protestants. 

There are many Catholics I know in this area of the United States who are also very upset with the scandal. This might be the time God wishes us as Reformed Christians to reach out and evangelize to the Catholics who might be loosing all faith or at risk of loosing faith because of the scandal.

I think as Reformed Protestants who know we are the true church as Christ intended it to be should be reaching out individually to Catholics you know who are delusioned and inviting them to come and experience the meaning of being a Christian by welcoming them as a guest to a Sunday morning service at your local congregation be it Presbyterian or Baptist. There are also remember, 15 million former Roman Catholics in the United States who like me are now Protestant; and many like me are now Reformed Protestants and several actually many here on the PB are like me now either Presbyterian as I am or Baptist and as many others are. 

The fact is many Catholics do become Protestants and far much more so in the last 20 years. In the United states the 51% Protestant majority is held by the Protestant churches only because of the 15 million ex Roman Catholics who have become Protestant in the last 20 years. 

The Roman church continues to make stories up of Protestant conversions to catholic and they are truly not correct, the national pew survey’s in this country show very few Protestants now becoming Catholics and a majority of religious conversions are from former Roman Catholics becoming Protestants and this is on the rise even in the last 5 years. I am one of the converts from Catholicism to Protestantism in the last 5 years. 

The following Article and its statistics are supported by a voluntary tax that exists in Germany but not in may other countries. Certainly the scandal being world wide I would guess that the statistics are perhaps probably true in other countries as well as s the United States,.

There is a voluntary church tax in Germany where a percentage of your taxes go to the church you declare yourself to be a member of. ;nobody ever has to pay church tax in Germany - its a purely voluntary service.

Read the following article yourself and then decide: Is it the time that God may wish us to help bring to conversion many lost sheep and help bring them to the ranks of the elect. The divine will of God can be fostered by our actions working in unison with His .

Catholics quit church in droves last year
Published: 7 Apr 11 10:11 CET

Online: Catholics quit church in droves last year - The Local

The number of Catholics quitting the church jumped 40 percent last year to 180,000 in the wake of persistent child sex abuse scandals, a media report said Thursday.
Firefighters most trusted profession, faith in priests slides (5 Apr 11) 
Most Germans would sacrifice lifestyle to ditch nuclear energy (3 Apr 11) 
Incest trucker confesses (21 Mar 11) 
It means that for the first time in Germany, more Catholics abandoned their church than Protestants.

A survey by magazine Christ & Welt, a lift-out carried by weekly Die Zeit, revealed that 180,000 Catholics left the church in 2010, which was a rise of 40 percent on the previous year.

That compared with 150,000 leaving the country's Protestant Church (EKD).

Membership decline was concentrated in the first half of the year, when public anger over child abuse scandals was at its peak, the magazine reported.

Many Catholics had left as a “personal form of protest and expression of disgust,” Cologne vicar-general Dominik Schwaderlapp told Christ & Welt.

The magazine surveyed 27 Catholic dioceses, 24 of which provided definite figures or estimates.

Especially hard hit were the Bavarian dioceses of Augsburg, Bamberg, Eichstätt, Passau and Würzburg, where the number of people leaving the church climbed by as much as 70 percent on the previous year.

Augsburg was the diocese of controversial bishop Walter Mixa, who stepped down a year ago amid allegations that he beat children while he was head of the Schrobenhausen children’s home in Bavaria, as well as claims of sexual abuse and alcoholism.

This followed months of revelations about sexual and physical abuse within the church, starting in January 2010 when it emerged that priests at the elite Canisius College in Berlin committed dozens of assaults on pupils in the 1970s and 1980s.

More than 200 cases of such abuse at church institutions throughout the country emerged in the months that followed.

The dioceses of Trier and Rottenburg-Stuttgart, which are regarded as liberal within the church, also suffered more than 60 percent rises in the number of members quitting. The archdiocese of Cologne saw a 41 percent rise.

The Berlin and Hamburg archdiocese each suffered a relatively mild exodus, with the numbers leaving rising by less than 20 percent.

The Local/djw 


What do you think?


----------



## John Weathersby

I'd say certainly, if we've not already, it's a great time to bone up on specific apologetics. 
Proclaiming The Gospel with Evangelists Mike Gendron - Home is a great start!


----------



## Notthemama1984

Joshua said:


> Ordained ministers commissioned in the Gospel should.


----------



## AThornquist

Yes, we should evangelize and spread the good news if we are able and have the opportunity, though it looks different for different people--and that includes the entire body of Christ in good standing, not just ordained ministers.


----------



## Der Pilger

AThornquist said:


> Yes, we should evangelize and spread the good news if we are able and have the opportunity, though it looks different for different people--and that includes the entire body of Christ in good standing, not just ordained ministers.


----------



## Ivan

Obviously, Baptists don't think this way.


----------



## Der Pilger

I'd also add that disciples are to be like their master (Mt. 10:25), and that includes evangelism, since that is part of the "all that [Christ] commanded" that disciples must be taught to observe (Mt. 28:20).


----------



## Notthemama1984

T. David Gordon on the Great Commission

http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=155



> The Great Commission. The commission of our Lord, recorded in Matthew 28:18-20, has frequently been cited by those who defend the universal view of evangelistic responsibility.[6] Those who cite the commission in defending the universal view tend merely to assert that the commission defends this view; they do not argue the point. This is regrettable, because their argument would certainly contribute to the discussion if it were available, and, because the commission does not appear to be properly employed in the defense of this view.
> 
> The commission is addressed to the eleven disciples/apostles.[7] Because of this, one's understanding of the apostolate influences one's understanding of the commission. If the apostles are paradigm Christians, exemplars[8] of the Christian faith, then we are to do what they do, and everything addressed to them is addressed to us. If, on the other hand, the apostles have at least some unique functions[9] in the history of redemption, then one must always bear in mind the possibility that some things are addressed to them in terms of their unique functions. In particular, one must keep in mind that the apostles were the foundation upon which the church was established (Eph. 2:20), having some foundational responsibilities that would not be repeated. Two contextual considerations allow us to understand the commission's responsibilities to extend through the apostles to the church more generally. First, the geographic/ethnic parameters of the commission (all the nations) are so broad that the apostolate could not (and did not) complete the commission's requirement. Second, the temporal bounds of the commission appear to extend until the consummation of all things ("until the end of the age"). Thus, while the apostles are the ones to whom the commission is originally addressed, it appears that the responsibility entailed therein extends beyond the apostolate to the church of which they are the foundation.
> 
> If it is granted that the responsibility entailed in the commission extends beyond the apostolate, then one must ask a second question: is the commission addressed to the church, as a corporate entity, or to its individual members, as individual entities? Expressed differently, is the commission the responsibility of every believer, or is it the responsibility of the church, each believer playing a particular role? Rather obviously, even the wealthiest individual believers cannot go into all of the nations, so this aspect of the commission is clearly beyond the possibility of any individual believer. Further, we surely would not expect every individual believer to have or exercise the prerogative of baptizing people. Prima facie, therefore, it appears that the church as a corporate entity has the responsibility to fulfill the commission, and its individual members are responsible only to contribute to the church's overall mission.
> 
> Of what, then, does the commission consist? What does the commission require of the church? Some missions agencies and evangelists have tended to assume that the commission is directed specifically to the activities that they perform. This assumption must be challenged.
> 
> The commission itself consists of one imperative and three participles (one of these complemented by an infinitive). The imperative is the predominant idea of the commission, and the participles explain this idea more precisely. While some grammarians have spoken of an "imperatival" participle, those who do so recognize that it is a last ditch effort to describe the function of a participle in a context where there is no main verb, or where the main verb is somewhat distant from the participle.[10] In contexts where there is a main verb, the participle functions dependently, to describe further the main verb, delimiting it in a variety of ways. In our context, the main verb is the imperative μαθητεύσατε (mathēteusate) "Make disciples." Dependent upon this are the three participles, πορευθέντες (poreuthentes), βαπτίζοντες (baptizontes), and διδάσκοντες (didaskontes) (which is itself complemented by the infinitive τηρεῖν [tērein]). Thus, the "going," baptizing," and "teaching" are subordinate to the command to make disciples. A formally equivalent English translation would read, "Going, therefore, make disciples ... baptizing them ... and teaching." This matter is not terribly clear in the English translations, many of which translate the first participle as though it were an imperative, "Go." These translations then insert the word "and" between this and the imperative about disciple-making, leaving the impression that at the most, discipling is parallel in importance with going, and at worst, subordinate to it. Such translations reverse the emphasis of the original text. The original text establishes the priority of discipling, and defines the discipling by the three dependent verbs.
> 
> The discipling spoken of in Matthew 28 is specified by the three participles. The first, πορευθέντες (poreuthentes), suggests that the discipling of all the nations is not to be passive, but active.[11] The apostles, and the church, are to go among all the nations, and not to wait for the nations to come to them. The discipling is to be active, aggressive. The second participle, βαπτίζοντες (baptizontes), requires that the discipling include visible association with the church, through the initiatory rite of baptism. Perhaps by synecdoche, this participle includes all of the evangelistic activity that precedes the rite itself, since it is unlikely that this suggests the indiscriminate baptizing of people who know nothing of the gospel. The third participle, διδάσκοντες (didaskontes), is complemented by an infinitive, τηρεῖν (tērein). The discipling includes not only instruction, but instruction eventuating in obedience. Further, the obedience is comprehensive. Those who are discipled are to observe "everything, whatsoever I commanded you."
> 
> Summary of the Commission. Taken as a whole, the commission is far more comprehensive than is normally understood.[12] It consists of the aggressive, worldwide discipling of people who are initiated into the visible communion of Christ, increasingly obedient to everything he commanded. Evangelism is only an aspect of the commission; it is not its distilled essence. Obedience to the commands of Christ is the goal of the commission; not merely initial conversion. Further, this very comprehensiveness excludes the possibility that it can be fulfilled through the efforts of any particular individual. No individual within the church can possibly be responsible for fulfilling the commission, and no individual is without responsibility to contribute in some way or ways to its fulfilling. But this contribution need not consist of active involvement in evangelism. Those who are instructing others in the content of our Lord's teaching, or who are encouraging (or praying for) others to obey our Lord's teaching, are no less participants in the commission than are evangelists, whether foreign or domestic. There is nothing in the commission itself to suggest even remotely that evangelism is more important than the other aspects of discipling, and nothing in the commission suggests that each believer must do every aspect.


----------



## Der Pilger

As T. David Gordon correctly points out, not every believer can fulfill every aspect of the Great Commission. But every believer can certainly communicate the gospel message to those around them, and the second greatest commandment demands that such a crucial message be shared by those who are capable of doing so with those who so desperately need it. We would rightly frown upon any professing Christian who callously turned his back on someone in dire need, yet we are so quick to excuse the even more callous act of withholding needed revelation from the lost. Shame on us if we try to excuse such behavior.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I believe there is a big difference between "giving a reason" and evangelism. If one was approached or one came across someone who needed to hear a reason for our hope, turning their back would be terrible. On the other hand I do not believe that Joe Blow Christian should actively seek out people and evangelize. That duty is giving to specific people called by God.


----------



## jambo

Two things.

First of all we are all called to be witnesses. Some do so by preaching publicly, but most by quiet words in peoples ears. Spurgeon was a great preacher and evangelist. He founded a bible college that still operates for training men for the baptist ministry. His Sword and Trowel magazine reached thousands as well as his compassionate work of founding an orphanage. Despite having a father and grandfather who were both congregational ministers, Spurgeon paid tribute to a woman called Mary King who was a cook at the school Spurgeon attended. Spurgeon would walk into the kitchen where she prepared meals for the pupils and he would just chat to her. He said of her that she taught him all the theology he ever needed and was indebted to her teaching and influence throughout his life. In Christian circles Spurgeon is world famous whilst Mary King is largely unknown. I am quite convinced it is the unknown men and women who have never stood in a pulpit in their lives and who would consider themselves to be very ordinary individuals with very little to offer that have achieved far more in the extension of the kingdom than any other group of people. 

Don't get me wrong. The preaching of the word is the highest thing one can do, but very often it is from one to one conversations that seeds heard from the preached word are watered. Nor am I saying preaching on its own is ineffective, far from it.

Secondly the RC church is leaking people. The previous pope saw the likes of France as a missionfield whilst the Republic of Ireland which sent out more priests and nuns than any other country in the world has seen the flood reduce to a trickle whilst its disillusioned "faithful" are jumping ship. Problem is many are jumping into the sea rather than the lifeboats. Disillusioned RCs are disillusioned by religion in general. "If one religion treated us this way then so will all the other religions treat us this way" is the way RCs think.

Yet disillusioned as they are when it comes to the crunch they will fall back to mother church. I met on the doors once a guy who told me he was a communist then he qualified it by saying he was a Catholic communist. That for me sums up much of the modern RC mind. Disillusioned, cynical, doubtful, mistrusting, angry, let down, disappointed but with Catholicism so ingrained it is hard to be free from its grip.

The RC on conversion becomes a new creation, the old has gone all things are new. It is a miracle. But the miracle required is no greater than the miracle needed to convert protestants.


----------



## Der Pilger

Chaplainintraining said:


> I believe there is a big difference between "giving a reason" and evangelism. If one was approached or one came across someone who needed to hear a reason for our hope, turning their back would be terrible.



We come across people every day of our lives, though, who need to hear the gospel. They are put into our path every day--unless we live in some strange place where there are no unbelievers.



> On the other hand I do not believe that Joe Blow Christian should actively seek out people and evangelize. That duty is giving to specific people called by God.


 
I don't think that has been established. In fact I doubt that a biblical case could be made for it.

---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 PM ----------




Joshua said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As T. David Gordon correctly points out, not every believer can fulfill every aspect of the Great Commission. But every believer can certainly communicate the gospel message to those around them, and the second greatest commandment demands that such a crucial message be shared by those who are capable of doing so with those who so desperately need it.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we should all be keeping the "second greatest commandment" by means of obeying the 2nd Table of the Law, since that is to what Jesus was referring with His use of "love thy neighbour as thyself." That obedience does not equal "evangelize" as it is defined by Scripture.
Click to expand...

I must not have been clear. Let me explain again. We are obligated by the second commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. To withhold from someone the means to satisfy their greatest need--reconciliation with a holy God--is clearly a violation of that commandment. 



> We would rightly frown upon any professing Christian who callously turned his back on someone in dire need, yet we are so quick to excuse the even more callous act of withholding needed revelation from the lost. Shame on us if we try to excuse such behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Who here has promoted such a thing? No one that I can see. So unless you're just making a general statement I can't imagine why it's being brought up.
Click to expand...

It should be obvious why I'm bringing it up. To say that laypeople should not take the initiative to evangelize the lost because it is not their calling is to say that it is all right for them to withhold the gospel from the lost when it is in their power to give it to them. It's like saying, "I don't have to help that person who just got run over in the street because mercy is not my gift."


----------



## Notthemama1984

I would say that they obey that commandment by bringing them to the church. It is then the church's duty to properly explain the intricacies of the Gospel.

I also add T. David Gordon again from same article.



> Ephesians 4:11. Perhaps one of the clearest Pauline passages related to the specific question of evangelistic responsibility is Ephesians 4:11. "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers ..." The text treats evangelists as it does prophets, apostles, pastors, and teachers. There is no indication that everyone should be all of these. Further, there is no indication that evangelism is singled out among these other functions as the one function all should have. This passage does contain the difficulty that it may very well be discussing particular offices, some of which may not be perpetual. For those who understand the passage this way, the text is less germane to our discussion than other texts. By any resolution of that question, however, Paul's principle of differentiated service is affirmed.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Der Pilger said:


> It's like saying, "I don't have to help that person who just got run over in the street because mercy is not my gift."



I would say it is more like saying, "I will not set the broken bones, do surgery, perform a trach, or do a host of other medical procedures because I am not a medical doctor."

I would still do the basics of applying pressure to the wound until the doctors came along. The same would be with my neighbor. I would simply apply pressure to the spiritual need until I took him to one who was an expert/pastor.


----------



## MMasztal

What I find interesting is why the RC are leaving. For me, I left the RCC because of the schizophrenic teachings/theology, but many in my family are still RC and my from own experience, I know how they put their trust in the RC “church” first rather than in Christ. The RCC is a mess, yet a home for many growing up in this tradition. The folks leaving the RCC are used to having a church home and I believe will be looking for a new one. Where we might focus our witness is showing the primacy of the person and work of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures (which are also ignored by the RCC for the most part) as opposed to the grandeur and pomp and cult of the pope of the RCC.


----------



## Der Pilger

Chaplainintraining said:


> I would say that they obey that commandment by bringing them to the church. It is then the church's duty to properly explain the intricacies of the Gospel.


But that's like this:

Man dying of a disease: "Sir, I need that pill to live"
Christian holding the pill: "I'm not qualified to hand you this, but I can take you to someone who is."
On the way, the man dies.



> I also add T. David Gordon again from same article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ephesians 4:11. Perhaps one of the clearest Pauline passages related to the specific question of evangelistic responsibility is Ephesians 4:11. "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers ..." The text treats evangelists as it does prophets, apostles, pastors, and teachers. There is no indication that everyone should be all of these. Further, there is no indication that evangelism is singled out among these other functions as the one function all should have. This passage does contain the difficulty that it may very well be discussing particular offices, some of which may not be perpetual. For those who understand the passage this way, the text is less germane to our discussion than other texts. By any resolution of that question, however, Paul's principle of differentiated service is affirmed.
Click to expand...


And evangelists, according to that passage, are sent to equip the church (v. 12)--but equip the church to do what?

---------- Post added at 09:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 AM ----------




Chaplainintraining said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like saying, "I don't have to help that person who just got run over in the street because mercy is not my gift."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say it is more like saying, "I will not set the broken bones, do surgery, perform a trach, or do a host of other medical procedures because I am not a medical doctor."
Click to expand...


Touché. But that's just it--laypeople *are* capable of performing those tasks on a spiritual level because the task is not as complicated as you're making it sound. To be sure there are profound truths underlying the gospel message, but what one actually needs to know to be saved is plain and clear, and therefore even the lay-person is capable of providing the lost adequate knowledge of the truths that must be believed for salvation. The WCF brings this out clearly:

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] *yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded,* and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that *not only the learned, but the unlearned*, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." (I.VII, emphasis added)


----------



## Notthemama1984

Der Pilger said:


> But that's like this:
> 
> Man dying of a disease: "Sir, I need that pill to live"
> Christian holding the pill: "I'm not qualified to hand you this, but I can take you to someone who is."
> On the way, the man dies.



No, in this case the man is asking for a defense of our hope. We would be wrong in not giving it to him.


Der Pilger said:


> And evangelists, according to that passage, are sent to equip the church (v. 12)--but equip the church to do what?



The prophets were not sent to equip everyone in prophesying. The apostles were note sent to equip everyone to apostelize. The pastors and teachers are not sent to equip everyone in pastoring and teaching. Why should evangelists be different? 



Der Pilger said:


> But that's just it--laypeople are capable of performing those tasks on a spiritual level because the task is not as complicated as you're making it sound.



I do understand what you are saying, but you must agree that "teaching them to obey all *everything* that I have commanded you" entails much more than a simple Gospel message? 

Also I see a big difference between helping someone who was in an accident right in front of your house and cruising the city with a police scanner trying to get to every accident before the ambulance does.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

dudley said:


> Catholics quit church in droves last year
> Published: 7 Apr 11 10:11 CET
> 
> Online: Catholics quit church in droves last year - The Local



The article and statistics are in Germany. Do you have any information about the stats here in the U.S.?


----------



## Der Pilger

Chaplainintraining said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's like this:
> 
> Man dying of a disease: "Sir, I need that pill to live"
> Christian holding the pill: "I'm not qualified to hand you this, but I can take you to someone who is."
> On the way, the man dies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, in this case the man is asking for a defense of our hope. We would be wrong in not giving it to him.
Click to expand...


The command to provide a defense of one's hope was written to Christians undergoing persecution. Therefore, I doubt it should be interpreted as how the lay-person should evangelize all the time.

But to take the analogy further: What if the man did not ask the Christian for the cure? Should the Christian walk by without providing the cure even though he can?



Der Pilger said:


> And evangelists, according to that passage, are sent to equip the church (v. 12)--but equip the church to do what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The prophets were not sent to equip everyone in prophesying. The apostles were note sent to equip everyone to apostelize. The pastors and teachers are not sent to equip everyone in pastoring and teaching. Why should evangelists be different?
Click to expand...


That's an interesting question, but I noticed you didn't answer my question. What is it that evangelists are to equip the church to do?



Der Pilger said:


> But that's just it--laypeople are capable of performing those tasks on a spiritual level because the task is not as complicated as you're making it sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do understand what you are saying, but you must agree that "teaching them to obey all *everything* that I have commanded you" entails much more than a simple Gospel message?
Click to expand...


Indeed it does. But we're talking about the presentation of the gospel, which is one part of the Great Commission. You are saying that laypeople should not and/or cannot do even that part.



> Also I see a big difference between helping someone who was in an accident right in front of your house and cruising the city with a police scanner trying to get to every accident before the ambulance does.


 
You're saying that laypeople should take a passive approach to evangelism, communicating the gospel only when they are asked about it and not going out of their way to bring the gospel to the lost. The "accidents" are all around us, though, every day. We barely have to travel one block from our homes before encountering them.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Der Pilger said:


> That's an interesting question, but I noticed you didn't answer my question. What is it that evangelists are to equip the church to do?



For the building up of the church (second half of verse 12).



Der Pilger said:


> But we're talking about the presentation of the gospel, which is one part of the Great Commission.



So are you saying one part of the Commission is for pastors, but other parts are for everyone? Can you show me exegetically where the division is?


----------



## Der Pilger

Chaplainintraining said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting question, but I noticed you didn't answer my question. What is it that evangelists are to equip the church to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the building up of the church (second half of verse 12).
Click to expand...


And for the equpping of the saints for the ministry. What do both of those tasks look like for the evangelist? I'm interested in particular details if you can provide them.



Der Pilger said:


> But we're talking about the presentation of the gospel, which is one part of the Great Commission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying one part of the Commission is for pastors, but other parts are for everyone? Can you show me exegetically where the division is?
Click to expand...

 
I've shown it by pointing out that the requirement to love our neighbor demands that we do *what we can* for those in need. I've also shown that all Christians are capable of communicating to the lost what must be known for salvation. You've responded by claiming that for laypeople this entails passively waiting for those in need to come up to them to express that need and ask for help. That is equivalent to refusing to provide someone what they urgently need unless they ask for it. That is simply horrific.

The kind of love that God requires, though, goes far beyond that. It is not reactive; it is proactive. It is not just passive but also active.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Der Pilger said:


> I've shown it by pointing out that the requirement to love our neighbor demands that we do what we can for those in need.



Simple men can get behind a pulpit and give a "message," but we would both agree this is not proper. These men have the ability and thus can do this action, but it is not proper. Only men called by God to do such should give the sermon. 

Simple men and women can say a prayer and give communion, but again we would agree this is not proper. These men and women have the ability, but does not mean they should. Only men called by God to do such should give communion.

Just because Christians can communicate the Gospel does not mean they should.

---------- Post added at 10:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 AM ----------




Der Pilger said:


> And for the equpping of the saints for the ministry. What do both of those tasks look like for the evangelist? I'm interested in particular details if you can provide them.



The first thing that comes to mind is simply the addition of more bodies to help achieve other duties of the church. I really do not have anything specific right now, but I would find it odd that every other position listed in the verse does not equip everyone to do their job, but the evangelist position would. It does not seem consistent.


----------



## Grillsy

Der Pilger said:


> the requirement to love our neighbor demands that we do what we_* can*_ for those in need.



The debate is about what we may do not what we can do.


----------



## Der Pilger

Grillsy said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> the requirement to love our neighbor demands that we do what we_* can*_ for those in need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The debate is about what we may do not what we can do.
Click to expand...

 
I know, but the question of ability was implied later in the thread when it was pointed out that the medical work should be left up to the doctor. The clear implication at that point was that ability is also an issue.


----------



## Grillsy

Der Pilger said:


> I know, but the question of ability was implied later in the thread when it was pointed out that the medical work should be left up to the doctor. The clear implication at that point was that ability is also an issue.



I thought the implication was that in order to lawfully carry out a task one must be trained and called to a specific office.


----------



## Der Pilger

Chaplainintraining said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've shown it by pointing out that the requirement to love our neighbor demands that we do what we can for those in need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple men can get behind a pulpit and give a "message," but we would both agree this is not proper. These men have the ability and thus can do this action, but it is not proper. Only men called by God to do such should give the sermon.
Click to expand...


That, of course, needs to be established. To show this, I'd think that a clear prohibition against lay evangelism must be shown to exist. I don't think one does exist. Of course, I could have overlooked it. Do you know of such a prohibition?



> Just because Christians can communicate the Gospel does not mean they should.



Again, I would disagree on the basis of the commandment to love our neighbors. The "should" most definitely comes into play when we are talking about that requirement. Love demands that we go out of our way to attempt to meet needs that we know of and are capable of addressing. If I applied your passive-approach argument to other urgent human needs, I'd have to conclude that Christians are not required to seek out and address homelessness, poverty, child abuse, alcoholism, and any other dire needs that arise (directly or indirectly) out of human sin. Instead, they should just allow those problems to exist without lifting a finger to solve them unless the suffering ones come to them for help.



Der Pilger said:


> And for the equpping of the saints for the ministry. What do both of those tasks look like for the evangelist? I'm interested in particular details if you can provide them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first thing that comes to mind is simply the addition of more bodies to help achieve other duties of the church. I really do not have anything specific right now, but I would find it odd that every other position listed in the verse does not equip everyone to do their job, but the evangelist position would. It does not seem consistent.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that Paul does not try to delineate the full scope of the roles he lists. He simply gives two general goals: to build up the body of Christ and to equip the saints for the work of ministry, with the maturity of the church being the ultimate goal. Since that's the case, I doubt we can say for sure that the evangelist's role is not to equip believers for evangelism. The passage simply doesn't tell us.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Grillsy said:


> I thought the implication was that in order to lawfully carry out a task once must be trained and called to a specific office.



That was my thought process. If it did not come across clearly, I apologize.


----------



## Der Pilger

By the way, (Mr.? LTC? 1LT? CAPT?) Boliver:

I want to thank you for your patient interaction with me. You must be used to dealing with former marines. 

I've appreciated your responses and the points you've brought up. Even though I don't agree with you, you've given me things to think about.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Der Pilger said:


> That, of course, needs to be established. To show this, I'd think that a clear prohibition against lay evangelism must be shown to exist. I don't think one does exist. Of course, I could have overlooked it. Do you know of such a prohibition?



Q. 158. By whom is the Word of God to be preached?

A. The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted,[1015] and also duly approved and called to that office.[1016]

1 Timothy 3:2, 6. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.... Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Ephesians 4:8-11. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers. Hosea 4:6. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Malachi 2:7. For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. 2 Corinthians 3:6. Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

[1016] Jeremiah 14:15. Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed. Romans 10:15. And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Hebrews 5:4. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 1 Corinthians 12:28-29. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 1 Timothy 3:10. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 1 Timothy 4:14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 1 Timothy 5:22. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.



Der Pilger said:


> Again, I would disagree on the basis of the second commandment. The "should" most definitely comes into play when we are talking about the requirement to love our neighbor. Love demands that we go out of our way to meet needs that we know of and are capable of addressing. If I applied your passive-approach argument to other urgent human needs, I'd have to conclude that Christians are not required to seek out and address homelessness, poverty, child abuse, alcoholism, and any other dire needs that arise (directly or indirectly) out of human sin. Instead, they should just allow those problems to exist without lifting a finger to solve them unless the suffering ones come to them for help.



The difference is that we do not have the offices listed as apostle, prophet, teacher, pastor, evangelist, alcoholic helper, child abuse counselor, homelessness preventer, etc.



Der Pilger said:


> Since that's the case, I doubt we can say for sure that the evangelist's role is not to equip believers for evangelism. The passage simply doesn't tell us.



I would say that I doubt we can say that it does because the term "evangelist" is sandwiched between other offices that do not equip the church in such a way that each and every Christian now has the same duty. An evangelist would teach and equip future evangelists (or those with and evangelism calling), but this teaching would not be to make everyone future evangelists.

---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 AM ----------




Der Pilger said:


> By the way, (Mr.? LTC? 1LT? CAPT?) Boliver:
> 
> I want to thank you for your patient interaction with me. You must be used to dealing with former marines.
> 
> I've appreciated your responses and the points you've brought up. Even though I don't agree with you, you've given me things to think about.



Thank you for the kind words. I am merely a 1LT. Nothing fancy. Not even a full Chaplain yet.


----------



## Andres

Der Pilger said:


> But that's like this:
> 
> Man dying of a disease: "Sir, I need that pill to live"
> Christian holding the pill: "I'm not qualified to hand you this, but I can take you to someone who is."
> On the way, the man dies.


A scenario like this does not do justice to a sovereign God. Often arminians (not that our brother Jeremy is one) often posit some analogy that the lost are people on the brink of death, therefore we must tell everyone about Jesus before they suddenly pass away. While the reality is none of us ever know when it's any of our time to die, God does indeed know and as 2 Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." While Arminians often rip this verse out of context and misapply it, it's really an encouragement to God's elect. My point is God will not allow any of His people to perish. Each person that He has chosen before the foundation of the world will come to faith in Christ in God's perfect timing.


----------



## Der Pilger

Andres said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's like this:
> 
> Man dying of a disease: "Sir, I need that pill to live"
> Christian holding the pill: "I'm not qualified to hand you this, but I can take you to someone who is."
> On the way, the man dies.
> 
> 
> 
> A scenario like this does not do justice to a sovereign God. Often arminians (not that our brother Jeremy is one) often posit some analogy that the lost are people on the brink of death, therefore we must tell everyone about Jesus before they suddenly pass away. While the reality is none of us ever know when it's any of our time to die, God does indeed know and as 2 Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." While Arminians often rip this verse out of context and misapply it, it's really an encouragement to God's elect. My point is God will not allow any of His people to perish. Each person that He has chosen before the foundation of the world will come to faith in Christ in God's perfect timing.
Click to expand...

 
My post does no injustice to a sovereign God; it merely points out our duty. The sovereignty of God does not remove our responsibility to love our neighbor—in fact, it guarantees it. God commands because He is sovereign; we must obey because we are not sovereign. Emphasizing our duties lays stress on both the creaturely responsibility laid on us as well as the sovereignty of the God who commands that duty.


----------



## Andres

Der Pilger said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's like this:
> 
> Man dying of a disease: "Sir, I need that pill to live"
> Christian holding the pill: "I'm not qualified to hand you this, but I can take you to someone who is."
> On the way, the man dies.
> 
> 
> 
> A scenario like this does not do justice to a sovereign God. Often arminians (not that our brother Jeremy is one) often posit some analogy that the lost are people on the brink of death, therefore we must tell everyone about Jesus before they suddenly pass away. While the reality is none of us ever know when it's any of our time to die, God does indeed know and as 2 Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." While Arminians often rip this verse out of context and misapply it, it's really an encouragement to God's elect. My point is God will not allow any of His people to perish. Each person that He has chosen before the foundation of the world will come to faith in Christ in God's perfect timing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My post does no injustice to a sovereign God; it merely points out our duty. The sovereignty of God does not remove our responsibility to love our neighbor—in fact, it guarantees it. God commands because He is sovereign; we must obey because we are not sovereign. Emphasizing our duties lays stress on both the creaturely responsibility laid on us as well as the sovereignty of the God who commands that duty.
Click to expand...

 
I completely understand this and I am by no means attempting to use God's sovereignty as an "escape" from the obedience of supporting evangelism, missions, etc. I was merely pointing out the flaw in the Arminians contention that if we don't tell every single person we meet about Jesus, they will die later and go to hell because we failed to share something with them.


----------



## he beholds

Der Pilger said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we should evangelize and spread the good news if we are able and have the opportunity, though it looks different for different people--and that includes the entire body of Christ in good standing, not just ordained ministers.
Click to expand...

 
double , and this from a Presbyterian.


----------



## dudley

Semper Fidelis said:


> dudley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catholics quit church in droves last year
> Published: 7 Apr 11 10:11 CET
> 
> Online: Catholics quit church in droves last year - The Local
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article and statistics are in Germany. Do you have any information about the stats here in the U.S.?
Click to expand...


Rich,

The reason the article appeared in German papers is that Germany has a voluntary church tax where you declare your church…Catholic or Lutheran ..Baptist etc….That is why they could see the dramatic loss in numbers ..but the problem is in every country and I believe there are many disillusioned Catholics as Stuart..Jambo said above “Problem is many are jumping into the sea rather than the lifeboats’ Catholics have been brainwashed to believe that the Roman church is the true church and we who are Protestants have a false and apostate religion…we of course know the opposite is true ..as they are disillusioned that can fall into total loss of faith…a simple act of inviting a family to a service in your church on a Sunday who are disgusted with the catholic priest scandal and might fall away completely may open the door to evangelizing them…And yes if you got to the national Pew surveys for the United States you will read the following….Catholicism has suffered the greatest net loss in the process of religious change. Many people who leave the Catholic Church do so for religious reasons; two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated say they left the Catholic faith because they stopped believing in its teachings, as do half of former Catholics who are now Protestant. Fewer than three-in-ten former Catholics, however, say the clergy sexual abuse scandal factored into their decision to leave Catholicism.

In contrast with other groups, those who switch from one Protestant denominational family to another (e.g., were raised Baptist and are now Methodist) tend to be more likely to do so in response to changed circumstances in their lives. Nearly four-in-ten people who have changed religious affiliation within Protestantism say they left their childhood faith, in part, because they relocated to a new community, and nearly as many say they left their former faith because they married someone from a different religious background.

This report was done in 2008.….however the statistics show many are leaving Catholicism and 15 million former Roman Catholics like myself have become Protestants. Sadly though another 15 million now have no religious faith or affiliation…..lost souls….I believe that we should be reaching out and sharing the truth and the Good news to many of these people…


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I personally share the good news of Christ's propitiating atonement as often as I can. I am not ordained. Nor will I ever be in my estimation. God has effectually used His word through the vessel of what is called my life to bring people to be reconciled to himself. It is something he seems pleased to do. And I get to go where Pastors don't usually go. As long as anyone can speak legible sentences they can share the truth of the Gospel of Christ. I believe it would be a most unloving thing to keep something as precious as this hid under a basket as our Lord says in the Gospel of Matthew.



> (Mat 5:11) Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
> 
> (Mat 5:12) Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
> 
> (Mat 5:13) Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
> 
> (Mat 5:14) Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
> 
> (Mat 5:15) Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
> 
> (Mat 5:16) Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.





> (Rom 1:16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.


----------



## he beholds

I think since the question in the OP was, "Should we now be Evangelize and spread the Good News to those who are disillusioned?"
and you responded,


Joshua said:


> Ordained ministers commissioned in the Gospel should.


is why some of us were disagreeing with you. I don't think anyone's setting up a strawman. We're just saying that more than pastors can evangelize and spread the good news.



Joshua said:


> I find it funny that the concept of people keeping someone from hearing about Christ keeps coming up when **NOBODY** has asserted such a thing. This is what is called a strawman and a caricature.


----------



## MW

Joshua said:


> I find it funny that the concept of people keeping someone from hearing about Christ keeps coming up when **NOBODY** has asserted such a thing. This is what is called a strawman and a caricature.


 
Well noted, Joshua.

A proper profession of faith includes obedience to those things which Christ has commanded to be observed. Evangelism involves the demand to "believe and be baptised." Hence Reformed Christians, while giving primacy to the Word, also include the observance of sacraments as essential to visible Christian profession.


----------



## Iconoclast

1Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus,* unto the church *of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 

2We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; 

3Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; 

4Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. 

5For our gospel came not *unto you in word only, but also in power*, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. 

6And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost. 

*7So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia*. 

*8For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing. * 9For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 

10And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

In verse 8 the believer priests are being spoken of ,or was this church made up of only ordained evangelists?
Why does this always turn into an either or? many churches and believers visit nursing homes speaking of saving faith. Some may not be equipped for such ministry, but many are.
Believers seeking to verbally engage unbelievers in the market-place about eternal concerns does not undermine the Word preached by the ordained Pastor in the assembly.
I travel to all 48 states and have not yet seen an ordained person out here {that I know of} speaking to random persons.
I am not advocating grabbing a megaphone and intruding into the pastoral realm.
I think we sin if we do not pray for opportunities to speak to the lost and steer them to faithful assemblies where the word and ordinances are practiced.

Many of us have libraries and sermons and tools that we profit from. Are we to just be over-fed sheep. 
We should obviously seek to direct those into the fellowship and over sight of faithful churches, yes. I do not think the scripture identifies sounding out the word of Lord as a criminal, or sinful activity. 
We are to occupy till he comes....I do not think that means world flight.
I do not see in scripture where we are to be confined to our house, or our fellowship only.


> B]8For *from you *sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place *your faith *to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing


----------



## Der Pilger

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I personally share the good news of Christ's propitiating atonement as often as I can. I am not ordained. Nor will I ever be in my estimation. God has effectually used His word through the vessel of what is called my life to bring people to be reconciled to himself. It is something he seems pleased to do. And I get to go where Pastors don't usually go. As long as anyone can speak legible sentences they can share the truth of the Gospel of Christ. I believe it would be a most unloving thing to keep something as precious as this hid under a basket as our Lord says in the Gospel of Matthew.



My point exactly.  Nobody can rationally say he is obeying the second great commandment if he/she withholds from desperately needy people exactly what they need.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

My own sentiments on this issue have been stated before, so I'll be brief here. I believe Ephesians 4.8-11 has been mishandled in the discussion above. The word the Apostle Paul uses (which has been translated as "equip" in some modern translations) is (transliterated) katartizw, which means "to heal, to perfect". In other words, the 5 offices listed by the Apostle (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers) have a threefold function (perfecting, ministering, edifying). Our Westminster divines evidently interpreted the verse the same in saying that the ministry, ordinances, and oracles are given God for the "gathering and perfecting" of the saints. That is to say that the 5 (or 4 according to some) offices first listed are not "equipping the saints for ministry", but are 1) gathering and perfecting the saints, 2) ministering to them the Word and Sacraments among other things, 3) thereby edifying the body of Christ. This is the view of most if not all reformation-era and puritan commentators on the passage. The view that the officers listed are to "equip the saints so that the saints can do the work of the ministry" is a later, mostly 20th century interpretation. My own view of the passage is in accord with the older commentators I have read, which without exception have held the former view. 

There is one other thing I'll say pertaining to this thread, getting back to the OP and some subsequent posts: The analogy of a medical emergency is not a good one with which to compare to the ministry of the Gospel, for it presupposes that after a person is medically healed the crisis is averted. This is not so with the preaching of the Gospel, in the sense that we are not, as Reformed Presbyterians, decisionalists. That is, the gospel is not a threshold across which we must drag or carry the lost. The Churchliness of Gospel Preaching, the Covenantal aspects of evangelism are lost in an "each one reach one" model. The goal of evangelism is to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I (Christ) have commanded you". It is not "making a decision for Christ". It is entering into a life, a Covenant community where every decision, from now until you die, is made for Christ. There is nothing in Scripture precluding any Christian from speaking to others about this life, and what the Lord has done for him in delivering him from his sins, just like Christ told the Gadarene Demoniac to do. But that is not the same as the great commission, where the authoritative word of the ambassador of Christ is accompanied by the seals of that Word--the sacraments. The ordained Gospel Preacher is an ambassador of Christ, and has the commission of Christ to proclaim that message of liberty--that is why Paul used the term "ambassador" in 2 Corinthians 5.18-20. When Church members speak about Christ, they speak from their own experience. This is not to be minimized, except when the lines become blurred between personal witness bearing and official functions. When ministers speak of Christ, they speak by way of Christ's commission, and carry the seals of that authority.


----------



## Der Pilger

Chaplainintraining said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That, of course, needs to be established. To show this, I'd think that a clear prohibition against lay evangelism must be shown to exist. I don't think one does exist. Of course, I could have overlooked it. Do you know of such a prohibition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 158. By whom is the Word of God to be preached?
> 
> A. The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted,[1015] and also duly approved and called to that office.[1016]
Click to expand...

I agree, but this has to do with pastoral ministry. The lay-person does not have the pastor's duties: We agree on that. The lay-person will not prepare sermons, be responsible for the spiritual well-being of the congregation, preach in the pulpit, labor in the Word and doctrine, administer communion, and so forth. But it is a leap to say that because of those restrictions the lay-person may not teach others at some level. If that were the case, then we would have to conclude that nobody except pastors should be doing any teaching whatsoever in the church, such as Sunday School instruction or leading a small-group Bible study.



> 1 Timothy 3:2, 6. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.... Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Ephesians 4:8-11. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers. Hosea 4:6. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Malachi 2:7. For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. 2 Corinthians 3:6. Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
> 
> [1016] Jeremiah 14:15. Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed. Romans 10:15. And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Hebrews 5:4. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 1 Corinthians 12:28-29. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 1 Timothy 3:10. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 1 Timothy 4:14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 1 Timothy 5:22. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.


All of these passages emphasize that the pastoral/leadership office is limited to those who are called to it. I agree. No problem. But restriction from being in pastoral ministry != restriction from teaching biblical truths on some level.


---------- Post added at 08:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 AM ----------



Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> My own sentiments on this issue have been stated before, so I'll be brief here. I believe Ephesians 4.8-11 has been mishandled in the discussion above. The word the Apostle Paul uses (which has been translated as "equip" in some modern translations) is (transliterated) katartizw, which means "to heal, to perfect". In other words, the 5 offices listed by the Apostle (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers) have a threefold function (perfecting, ministering, edifying). Our Westminster divines evidently interpreted the verse the same in saying that the ministry, ordinances, and oracles are given God for the "gathering and perfecting" of the saints. That is to say that the 5 (or 4 according to some) offices first listed are not "equipping the saints for ministry", but are 1) gathering and perfecting the saints, 2) ministering to them the Word and Sacraments among other things, 3) thereby edifying the body of Christ. This is the view of most if not all reformation-era and puritan commentators on the passage. The view that the officers listed are to "equip the saints so that the saints can do the work of the ministry" is a later, mostly 20th century interpretation. My own view of the passage is in accord with the older commentators I have read, which without exception have held the former view.


Interesting. I'll have to look into that.



> There is one other thing I'll say pertaining to this thread, getting back to the OP and some subsequent posts: The analogy of a medical emergency is not a good one with which to compare to the ministry of the Gospel, for it presupposes that after a person is medically healed the crisis is averted. This is not so with the preaching of the Gospel, in the sense that we are not, as Reformed Presbyterians, decisionalists. That is, the gospel is not a threshold across which we must drag or carry the lost. The Churchliness of Gospel Preaching, the Covenantal aspects of evangelism are lost in an "each one reach one" model. The goal of evangelism is to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I (Christ) have commanded you". It is not "making a decision for Christ". It is entering into a life, a Covenant community where every decision, from now until you die, is made for Christ.



All analogies break down at some point. If you expect the analogy posted earlier to give a full picture of salvation, then of course it will seem to come short because it wasn't meant to convey all that. The analogy I gave was meant to show the urgency of a dire need and, consequently, the sin involved in willfully overlooking that need. In that sense, the analogy paints an accurate picture.

---------- Post added at 09:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 AM ----------




Joshua said:


> I find it funny that the concept of people keeping someone from hearing about Christ keeps coming up when **NOBODY** has asserted such a thing. This is what is called a strawman and a caricature.


 
I never set up any straw man. I said that withholding revelation from those who desperately need it is a violation of the commandment to love them. It's an inescapable conclusion: To hold back what someone desperately needs, when it is in our power to give it, is unloving. Calling it a straw man will not eliminate that fact. Hiding the light of the gospel under a basket is patently callous.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Der Pilger said:


> Originally Posted by Chaplainintraining
> Originally Posted by Der Pilger
> I've shown it by pointing out that the requirement to love our neighbor demands that we do what we can for those in need.
> Simple men can get behind a pulpit and give a "message," but we would both agree this is not proper. These men have the ability and thus can do this action, but it is not proper. Only men called by God to do such should give the sermon.
> That, of course, needs to be established. To show this, I'd think that a clear prohibition against lay evangelism must be shown to exist. I don't think one does exist. Of course, I could have overlooked it. Do you know of such a prohibition?



This was the reason why I posted the WFC. It seemed you were stating that it had to be established that a lay-person should not preach. 

I would also add that as RPW guys, we do not wait for prohibitions. We wait for commands.


----------



## Pergamum

All, 

It appears that the OP was about jumping on the opportunity to evangelize the Catholics due to this time of disillusionment among their ranks. 

I would say this: It looks like the harvest season may be upon us.

I think there is sufficient cause to strategize and redouble our efforts towards evangelizing Catholics, both in the US and abroad.

For instance, I know of a region here where I work that is almost predominantly Catholic. They bring their idols into the church (wooden carvings) in the name of "culture" and they are wholly biblically illiterate (and almost wholly illiterate in basic reading anyway). We have had 12 villages ask us for an evangelical Gospel witness last year and we sent 2 evangelists...but the doors are still wide open. The workers are few, however, to exploit the open doors.

https://www.crosier.org/default.cfm?PID=1.35.13.1&inq_key=28880&action=detail&LibID=5686


----------



## Theoretical

[/COLOR]


Joshua said:


> I find it funny that the concept of people keeping someone from hearing about Christ keeps coming up when **NOBODY** has asserted such a thing. This is what is called a strawman and a caricature.


 


> I never set up any straw man. I said that withholding revelation from those who desperately need it is a violation of the commandment to love them. It's an inescapable conclusion: To hold back what someone desperately needs, when it is in our power to give it, is unloving. Calling it a straw man will not eliminate that fact. Hiding the light of the gospel under a basket is patently callous.


 
I have met both Josh and Rev. Ruddell and have to say that neither man is in the slightest against laity defending the hope within them to others, even when we're initiating the conversation, when it's appropriate. For example, it's not appropriate to share the Gospel on the job when we're being paid to be a plumber or lawyer or factory worker. But if a coworker asks us OR we've developed a friendship with him or her, then by all means off the clock we should be willing to discuss the hope in us and defend our faith. And our efforts need to point to inviting them to Church to hear the Word faithfully preached by our minister.

Their problem with the modern re-definition of evangelism is that it implicitly reduces the minister's tasks to the same level of defending the hope in us to others, when the preaching of the Word is the opening and closing function of the keys of the kingdom. If I'm in a position to sow seeds, then by all means I should, not out of Christian duty, but out of love for my neighbor. But I should not call what I'm doing evangelism because I'm not Preaching the Word to the lost in the congregation of the assembled visible church. I could be speaking presumptuously for them but I may be wrong.


----------



## Andres

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> There is one other thing I'll say pertaining to this thread, getting back to the OP and some subsequent posts: The analogy of a medical emergency is not a good one with which to compare to the ministry of the Gospel, for it presupposes that after a person is medically healed the crisis is averted. This is not so with the preaching of the Gospel, in the sense that we are not, as Reformed Presbyterians, decisionalists. That is, the gospel is not a threshold across which we must drag or carry the lost. The Churchliness of Gospel Preaching, the Covenantal aspects of evangelism are lost in an "each one reach one" model. The goal of evangelism is to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I (Christ) have commanded you". It is not "making a decision for Christ". It is entering into a life, a Covenant community where every decision, from now until you die, is made for Christ. There is nothing in Scripture precluding any Christian from speaking to others about this life, and what the Lord has done for him in delivering him from his sins, just like Christ told the Gadarene Demoniac to do. But that is not the same as the great commission, where the authoritative word of the ambassador of Christ is accompanied by the seals of that Word--the sacraments. The ordained Gospel Preacher is an ambassador of Christ, and has the commission of Christ to proclaim that message of liberty--that is why Paul used the term "ambassador" in 2 Corinthians 5.18-20. When Church members speak about Christ, they speak from their own experience. This is not to be minimized, except when the lines become blurred between personal witness bearing and official functions. When ministers speak of Christ, they speak by way of Christ's commission, and carry the seals of that authority.





---------- Post added at 06:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 AM ----------




Theoretical said:


> Their problem with the modern re-definition of evangelism is that it implicitly reduces the minister's tasks to the same level of defending the hope in us to others, when the preaching of the Word is the opening and closing function of the keys of the kingdom.



The above is completely true, but I think there is even more to it. I believe Josh has touched on this, but another part of the modern re-definition of evangelism is that it heaps unfounded guilt upon saints who are not telling every person they encounter about Christ. "Oh no, I didn't say anything about Christ to the guy I sat next to on the bus!" "Oh man, when I checked out at the store, I didn't even ask the cashier if she was saved! Please forgive me God!"


----------



## Der Pilger

Joshua said:


> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling it a straw man will not eliminate that fact. Hiding the light of the gospel under a basket is patently callous.
> 
> 
> 
> Simply restating the caricature doesn't make me guilty of what's being charged in said caricature
Click to expand...


The point wasn't to make you guilty. That's up to you to determine. Restating it has a good purpose. You had said that it was a straw man to bring up the issue of obeying the second commandment. It is not. The question has been whether the lay-person _should_ evangelize, whether he/she ought to. The requirement to love our neighbor makes that "should" and "ought to" very clear.



> and it also shows that you've either ignored the points I've asserted or missed them by way of accident. Either way, you certainly haven't dealt with the meaning of "evangelism" as defined by Scripture.



In all honesty, I haven't dealt with your points because you have displayed anger and have been vitriolic in this thread. I generally avoid discussing an issue with someone who displays those tendencies.

---------- Post added at 08:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 AM ----------




Andres said:


> The above is completely true, but I think there is even more to it. I believe Josh has touched on this, but another part of the modern re-definition of evangelism is that it heaps unfounded guilt upon saints who are not telling every person they encounter about Christ. "Oh no, I didn't say anything about Christ to the guy I sat next to on the bus!" "Oh man, when I checked out at the store, I didn't even ask the cashier if she was saved! Please forgive me God!"


Sorry, that doesn't work. The urgency of evangelism that I alluded to in an earlier post does not necessitate the extreme you are describing. It could lead to it, but of course that is no argument against it because a misperception or abuse of a doctrine does not constitute an argument against it. If it did, the same logic could be used against your position: "Saying that the lay-person's job is not to evangelize is wrong because it can lead to a complacent neglect of any lay outreach. 'Well, my pastor said it's his job to evangelize, so now I don't have to do anything for the Great Commission.' "

It would be pointless to respond by saying, "Well, that's because they misunderstand the teaching. It doesn't mean that they have no part whatsoever in the Great Commission," because I could say the same thing: "They suffer anxiety over not having given the gospel to everyone they meet because they misunderstand the need for everyone to evangelize. It doesn't mean that they have to reach every single person with the gospel."

And by the way, I haven't redefined evangelism. There is biblical support for my view. See the quoted passage in Iconoclast's post (post #45).


----------



## he beholds

I evangelize my children.


----------



## Der Pilger

Theoretical said:


> I have met both Josh and Rev. Ruddell and have to say that neither man is in the slightest against laity defending the hope within them to others, even when we're initiating the conversation, when it's appropriate. For example, it's not appropriate to share the Gospel on the job when we're being paid to be a plumber or lawyer or factory worker.


I agree. Committing sin in order to present the gospel is odious. That's one reason I'm against friendship evangelism: It involves insincerely forming a bond with someone as a means to an end.



> But if a coworker asks us OR we've developed a friendship with him or her, then by all means off the clock we should be willing to discuss the hope in us and defend our faith.



Besides being asked or developing a friendship, there is a third possibility: going out of our way to bring the good news to the lost.



> And our efforts need to point to inviting them to Church to hear the Word faithfully preached by our minister.


I agree. Evangelism should always be done in and through the local church.



> Their problem with the modern re-definition of evangelism is that it implicitly reduces the minister's tasks to the same level of defending the hope in us to others, when the preaching of the Word is the opening and closing function of the keys of the kingdom.


I don't think it reduces the minister's role at all. The minister's labor in the Word and doctrine far surpasses that of bringing the good news to the lost. The minister's other responsibilities, I'd add, also place his role in a different sphere than the lay-person who merely hits the street to bring the good news to the lost.


----------



## Der Pilger

Joshua said:


> Dear Friend,
> 
> Wherein have I been verbally abusive toward you or anyone else? I am sincerely asking, because I believe you're perceiving a tone that is not there. So if you're going to make the charge (and I'm okay with that since, if I _am_ guilty of it I can rectify it), please back it up and reference this statements filled with "vitriol" and "anger."


 
Okay, since you asked:



> Your words are rife with misrepresentation against your brethren because of your broad definition of "evangelize" that is not informed by the Scriptures.



You were far, far too quick to accuse me of "misrepresenting the brethren" without sufficient evidence. That shows a serious lack of patience with someone who disagrees with you. It also seemed that you were eager to create the appearance that I am working against the brethren, almost as if you were drawing a line in the sand between me and other Christians.



> What's truly regrettable are the blatant and *near-slanderous misrepresentations* that have been given in regard to the position espoused above. *Truly going for the sentimental jugular* a picture is painted of a lost person on the brink of hell and a lay Christian having their back turned saying, "Sorry. I can't help you." Hog. Wash.



(emphasis added)


----------



## earl40

Fellas I have a quick question. I work in a hospital and see many who die that do not have faith in Jesus. Do you think it would be OK for me to evangelize them knowing full well I will be about the last person they see before they enter the gates of hell? Heavens knows our "chaplains" don't and this really is a sincere question even though the way I phrased it may seem not so.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

earl40 said:


> Fellas I have a quick question. I work in a hospital and see many who die that do not have faith in Jesus. Do you think it would be OK for me to evangelize them knowing full well I will be about the last person they see before they enter the gates of hell? Heavens knows our "chaplains" don't and this really is a sincere question even though the way I phrased it may seem not so.


 
Absolutley. I believe strongly in evangelism. I think that every child of God represents Christ and should be deep in prayer over lost souls and should be a witness for Christ every chance we get.

Romans 10:13-17 ESV
13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Let them know about Christ brother. Tell them about the great things he has done.


----------



## Michael

earl40 said:


> Fellas I have a quick question. I work in a hospital and see many who die that do not have faith in Jesus. Do you think it would be OK for me to evangelize them knowing full well I will be about the last person they see before they enter the gates of hell? Heavens knows our "chaplains" don't and this really is a sincere question even though the way I phrased it may seem not so.


 
My wife is a nurse and has been in situations similar to this many times. Even with the possibility of consequences from her employer(s) who have policies against employees "imposing religious views on patients" she has consistently shared the Gospel with others. It has caused some problems actually but she's never lost her job for it. In several cases patients have benefited from her witness and expressed gratitude. Others, not so much.


----------



## earl40

Michael said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fellas I have a quick question. I work in a hospital and see many who die that do not have faith in Jesus. Do you think it would be OK for me to evangelize them knowing full well I will be about the last person they see before they enter the gates of hell? Heavens knows our "chaplains" don't and this really is a sincere question even though the way I phrased it may seem not so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife is a nurse and has been in situations similar to this many times. Even with the possibility of consequences from her employer(s) who have policies against employees "imposing religious views on patients" she has consistently shared the Gospel with others. It has caused some problems actually but she's never lost her job for it. In several cases patients have benefited from her witness and expressed gratitude. Others, not so much.
Click to expand...


As you and your wife do know no one is converted without having The Gospel preached to them and have come close to being let go for the same reasons. I do believe that the phrase "unless they are sent" is the crux of the matter. Is it Jesus or the church that sends? As a near future member of a PCA church I "get the feeling" that they would look at me like I have 3 eyes if I ask to be "sent" to evangelize our patients.


----------



## Notthemama1984

earl40 said:


> As a near future member of a PCA church I "get the feeling" that they would look at me like I have 3 eyes if I ask to be "sent" to evangelize our patients.



Maybe not so much in PCA churches, but in evangelical churches you will get the same weird look if you talk to them about the Reformed view of the 2nd commandment or that the rapture is a farse. Just because the church would give a weird look does not give theological proof one way or another on any given topic. 

With regards to "unless they are sent," I believe it is Christ who calls and the church who sends. I cannot think of any rogue Christians just going about doing whatever they wanted.


----------



## Gloria

Der Pilger said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Der Pilger said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's like this:
> 
> Man dying of a disease: "Sir, I need that pill to live"
> Christian holding the pill: "I'm not qualified to hand you this, but I can take you to someone who is."
> On the way, the man dies.
> 
> 
> 
> A scenario like this does not do justice to a sovereign God. Often arminians (not that our brother Jeremy is one) often posit some analogy that the lost are people on the brink of death, therefore we must tell everyone about Jesus before they suddenly pass away. While the reality is none of us ever know when it's any of our time to die, God does indeed know and as 2 Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." While Arminians often rip this verse out of context and misapply it, it's really an encouragement to God's elect. My point is God will not allow any of His people to perish. Each person that He has chosen before the foundation of the world will come to faith in Christ in God's perfect timing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My post does no injustice to a sovereign God; it merely points out our duty. *The sovereignty of God does not remove our responsibility *to love our neighbor—in fact, it guarantees it. God commands because He is sovereign; we must obey because we are not sovereign. Emphasizing our duties lays stress on both the creaturely responsibility laid on us as well as the sovereignty of the God who commands that duty.
Click to expand...

 
This!


----------



## jogri17

There is no New Testament office of witness... Mary, Martha, James, John, Paul, Stephen, all testified to what they saw. Often those who say only the ordained ought to evangelize use that as an excuse for their own sin of not being in the world but rather living lives of separation- the opposite of what Jesus prayed for in John 17.


----------



## MW

Sacraments? Or has Christianity been reduced to a philosophy with no observances to be obeyed?


----------



## steadfast7

Any consideration of Stephen, who basically held the office of church kitchen staff, but was powerfully used by God in the preaching of the gospel through deed, word, and death? Acts 6.


----------



## Prufrock

jogri17 said:


> There is no New Testament office of witness.



Acts 2:21-22.

I don't understand why it seems so many keep implying that those who claim Evangelism belongs to the ministry think those not in the ministry have no responsibilities whatsoever, or are "not allowed" to speak of Christ to those outside the church. This is clearly not what _anyone_ has said. Every believer has the responsibility, the _duty_, to be salt and light, to hold forth a good conversation, to live lives worthy of Christ's calling before men, to be ready to give an answer to every man, etc. No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged. What is being stated is simply that all of those things are not to be confused with _Evangelism_, which is the official proclamation of Christ by one ordained and sent for this purpose, being equipped for the same, and able to perform it according to its fullest by way of the ordained/ordinary means. When people say "Evangelism does not belong to all," _this_ is what they mean. It means all Christians will not be called to account for those whom they have not warned (as Ezek. 33) - for to do such requires that task of official _witnessing_ to be the whole course of one's life; and that is not possible for one faithfully carrying out their secular vocation in life. No one is giving Christians an excuse for anything; no one is saying Christians are not to be concerned with the lost; no one is saying Christians can't or shouldn't speak about Christ with their neighbor; etc. etc. etc.


----------



## steadfast7

Paul, I think your analysis is fine and well, but this is becoming a semantic exercise, don't you think? It's helpful that you're making the distinction because it's always good to keep exegesis primary. Biblical terminology and Christianese terms often get mashed together. But tacking on the word "official" to the words evangelism and witnessing is quite foreign to my ears, to be honest.


> Every believer has the responsibility, the duty, to be salt and light, to hold forth a good conversation, to live lives worthy of Christ's calling before men, to be ready to give an answer to every man, etc.


 This job description you've given, most people call "evangelism." The job description you've given of an "official evangelist" most people call "the pastorate." The distinctions may be there, but it's causing confusion with words that we use all the time. The disagreements are purely semantic, in my opinion.


----------



## Prufrock

Unfortunately, Dennis, I don't think it can be reduced to just a semantic exercise. Terms represent concepts, and once there is conceptual confusion on this topic, every passage in scripture which has an _Evangelistic_ thrust begins to be applied equally to all believers - and so lays a law and burden upon them which not only is not theirs to bear, but would be impossible for them to bear while faithfully carrying out their other necessary duties.


----------



## he beholds

steadfast7 said:


> Paul, I think your analysis is fine and well, but this is becoming a semantic exercise, don't you think? It's helpful that you're making the distinction because it's always good to keep exegesis primary. Biblical terminology and Christianese terms often get mashed together. But tacking on the word "official" to the words evangelism and witnessing is quite foreign to my ears, to be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> Every believer has the responsibility, the duty, to be salt and light, to hold forth a good conversation, to live lives worthy of Christ's calling before men, to be ready to give an answer to every man, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> This job description you've given, most people call "evangelism." The job description you've given of an "official evangelist" most people call "the pastorate." The distinctions may be there, but it's causing confusion with words that we use all the time. The disagreements are purely semantic, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

 


Prufrock said:


> Unfortunately, Dennis, I don't think it can be reduced to just a semantic exercise. Terms represent concepts, and once there is conceptual confusion on this topic, every passage in scripture which has an _Evangelistic_ thrust begins to be applied equally to all believers - and so lays a law and burden upon them which not only is not theirs to bear, but would be impossible for them to bear while faithfully carrying out their other necessary duties.


 
I think Dennis is on to something. What are those who say we can't evangelize people actually saying? I am not trying to pastor anyone. I thought evangelize means "bear the message of the good news." I do not see that as an object only of ordained men. I am not trying to equivocate the meaning of evangelism; I am thinking that as a Christian, I am called to share the good news. 

Maybe we who believe that all Christians are called to this have no idea what the "no" contingent on this thread is really saying. 


I have heard a Reformed sermon that stated that the Great Commission begins in the home, upon raising and discipling children. That is where we get the most natural members of the church. I did not hear this pastor saying, "But to do this, you must be ordained." So why would we be allowed to 
evangelize our children, but not others? I would think that all of the parents on this thread would certainly see that, in the very least, we are to share the good news with our children. So I don't see anyone saying that is wrong. But what are they saying? You have to realize what we who are saying "yes" to all evangelizing are saying, right?


----------



## steadfast7

Prufrock said:


> Unfortunately, Dennis, I don't think it can be reduced to just a semantic exercise. Terms represent concepts, and once there is conceptual confusion on this topic, every passage in scripture which has an _Evangelistic_ thrust begins to be applied equally to all believers - and so lays a law and burden upon them which not only is not theirs to bear, but would be impossible for them to bear while faithfully carrying out their other necessary duties.



But we agree there IS a "law and burden" to do as you say:


> Every believer has the responsibility, the duty, to be salt and light, to hold forth a good conversation, to live lives worthy of Christ's calling before men, to be ready to give an answer to every man, etc.


 Again, this is what most Christians term 'evangelism'. This is part of the Christian dialect and is widely used and should be accepted as colloquial speech. We should give people the benefit of the doubt that when they read Scripture, they can tell the difference between pulpit and personal ministry. The terms clergy vs. lay, or full time ministry vs. lay are already at our disposal to make the distinction. The only confusion that I see happening from the beginning of this thread lies in the "official vs. non-official" evangelism distinction that leads to the misunderstanding that not just believer can/should evangelize. The misunderstanding, I think, stems from the fact that this way of defining 'evangelism' is a minority position and is not accepted by the wider community hence the negative reaction. i'm not making any judgments on whether the exegesis is right or wrong, just trying to look at this debate linguistically.


----------



## Rich Koster

I recently had a chance to talk with a hospice nurse, who is a former nun. She is disillusioned with the pedophiles who were under protection and the lackluster way the leadership dealt with this issue. I read from the scriptures, to my dad, in her presence. I read aloud the prayers in the back of the 1599 Geneva Bible, also. I don't believe anyone would find that problematic. If God is calling her, I trust He will bring her into the Body of Christ.


----------



## earl40

Prufrock said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no New Testament office of witness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 2:21-22.
> 
> I don't understand why it seems so many keep implying that those who claim Evangelism belongs to the ministry think those not in the ministry have no responsibilities whatsoever, or are "not allowed" to speak of Christ to those outside the church. This is clearly not what _anyone_ has said. Every believer has the responsibility, the _duty_, to be salt and light, to hold forth a good conversation, to live lives worthy of Christ's calling before men, to be ready to give an answer to every man, etc. No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged. What is being stated is simply that all of those things are not to be confused with _Evangelism_, which is the official proclamation of Christ by one ordained and sent for this purpose, being equipped for the same, and able to perform it according to its fullest by way of the ordained/ordinary means. When people say "Evangelism does not belong to all," _this_ is what they mean. It means all Christians will not be called to account for those whom they have not warned (as Ezek. 33) - for to do such requires that task of official _witnessing_ to be the whole course of one's life; and that is not possible for one faithfully carrying out their secular vocation in life. No one is giving Christians an excuse for anything; no one is saying Christians are not to be concerned with the lost; no one is saying Christians can't or shouldn't speak about Christ with their neighbor; etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...

 
Can you understand the confusion we are having here? You appear to be saying it is OK to evangelize if one is not ordained to do so "No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged".


----------



## Theoretical

earl40 said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no New Testament office of witness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 2:21-22.
> 
> I don't understand why it seems so many keep implying that those who claim Evangelism belongs to the ministry think those not in the ministry have no responsibilities whatsoever, or are "not allowed" to speak of Christ to those outside the church. This is clearly not what _anyone_ has said. Every believer has the responsibility, the _duty_, to be salt and light, to hold forth a good conversation, to live lives worthy of Christ's calling before men, to be ready to give an answer to every man, etc. No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged. What is being stated is simply that all of those things are not to be confused with _Evangelism_, which is the official proclamation of Christ by one ordained and sent for this purpose, being equipped for the same, and able to perform it according to its fullest by way of the ordained/ordinary means. When people say "Evangelism does not belong to all," _this_ is what they mean. It means all Christians will not be called to account for those whom they have not warned (as Ezek. 33) - for to do such requires that task of official _witnessing_ to be the whole course of one's life; and that is not possible for one faithfully carrying out their secular vocation in life. No one is giving Christians an excuse for anything; no one is saying Christians are not to be concerned with the lost; no one is saying Christians can't or shouldn't speak about Christ with their neighbor; etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you understand the confusion we are having here? You appear to be saying it is OK to evangelize if one is not ordained to do so "No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged".
Click to expand...


The problem is that the lay member is not invested with the authority to officially proclaim Christ and administer the sacraments. It is absolutely important for the lost to hear of their need to repent and believe in Christ from their lay friends, neighbors, and families; but the work of the pastor towards the lost is distinctly different. Our efforts may be the means used to convict someone and bring him or her to faith, but that is not the same as faithfully proclaiming the Word and someone becoming joined to the visible church. 

It may seem like mere semantics, but how many other words in Christianity are important and yet "fiddly" to an outside observer? I would also ask why it's so important that lay efforts be identified as "evangelism." 

I've spoken with a number of Reformed ministers and elders who have a high view of office and who would say that Evangelism is only a duty of an officer, and I have never once been discouraged from trying to engage the lost around me, including atheists and backslidden types. To the contrary, I've described how assertive I am in seeking to defend the faith and urge others to come to repentance and I've received nothing but encouragement for it. I do sometimes call what I or others do in this regard as "evangelism," but it's old habit rather than doctrinal principle. What the office-only view of Evangelism has done is allow me to be bold and faithful in my interactions with others, and to encourage people to come under the ministry of the Word to be evangelized. It's helped me grasp my own limits and function within a churchly, spiritually nurturing part of the Body of Christ.


----------



## earl40

Theoretical said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no New Testament office of witness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 2:21-22.
> 
> I don't understand why it seems so many keep implying that those who claim Evangelism belongs to the ministry think those not in the ministry have no responsibilities whatsoever, or are "not allowed" to speak of Christ to those outside the church. This is clearly not what _anyone_ has said. Every believer has the responsibility, the _duty_, to be salt and light, to hold forth a good conversation, to live lives worthy of Christ's calling before men, to be ready to give an answer to every man, etc. No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged. What is being stated is simply that all of those things are not to be confused with _Evangelism_, which is the official proclamation of Christ by one ordained and sent for this purpose, being equipped for the same, and able to perform it according to its fullest by way of the ordained/ordinary means. When people say "Evangelism does not belong to all," _this_ is what they mean. It means all Christians will not be called to account for those whom they have not warned (as Ezek. 33) - for to do such requires that task of official _witnessing_ to be the whole course of one's life; and that is not possible for one faithfully carrying out their secular vocation in life. No one is giving Christians an excuse for anything; no one is saying Christians are not to be concerned with the lost; no one is saying Christians can't or shouldn't speak about Christ with their neighbor; etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you understand the confusion we are having here? You appear to be saying it is OK to evangelize if one is not ordained to do so "No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that the lay member is not invested with the authority to officially proclaim Christ and administer the sacraments. It is absolutely important for the lost to hear of their need to repent and believe in Christ from their lay friends, neighbors, and families; but the work of the pastor towards the lost is distinctly different. Our efforts may be the means used to convict someone and bring him or her to faith, but that is not the same as faithfully proclaiming the Word and someone becoming joined to the visible church.
> 
> It may seem like mere semantics, but how many other words in Christianity are important and yet "fiddly" to an outside observer? I would also ask why it's so important that lay efforts be identified as "evangelism."
> 
> I've spoken with a number of Reformed ministers and elders who have a high view of office and who would say that Evangelism is only a duty of an officer, and I have never once been discouraged from trying to engage the lost around me, including atheists and backslidden types. To the contrary, I've described how assertive I am in seeking to defend the faith and urge others to come to repentance and I've received nothing but encouragement for it. I do sometimes call what I or others do in this regard as "evangelism," but it's old habit rather than doctrinal principle. What the office-only view of Evangelism has done is allow me to be bold and faithful in my interactions with others, and to encourage people to come under the ministry of the Word to be evangelized. It's helped me grasp my own limits and function within a churchly, spiritually nurturing part of the Body of Christ.
Click to expand...

 
I wish I could say your post help my confusion over this topic. I do agree that all are not called to be evangelists though from what you wrote "The problem is that the lay member is *not invested* with the authority to officially proclaim Christ and administer the sacraments. It is absolutely important for the lost to hear of their need to repent and believe in Christ *from their lay friends*".

I am really not trying to be contra here but can you understand how many can say one can not be an evangelist unless they are called by the church to do so in one breath and the next breath say "absolutely important for the lost to hear of their need to repent and believe in Christ from their lay friends".

Maybe I have the wrong idea what an evangelist is?


----------



## Theoretical

> The goal of evangelism is to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I (Christ) have commanded you". It is not "making a decision for Christ". It is entering into a life, a Covenant community where every decision, from now until you die, is made for Christ. There is nothing in Scripture precluding any Christian from speaking to others about this life, and what the Lord has done for him in delivering him from his sins, just like Christ told the Gadarene Demoniac to do. *But that is not the same as the great commission, where the authoritative word of the ambassador of Christ is accompanied by the seals of that Word--the sacraments.* The ordained Gospel Preacher is an ambassador of Christ, and has the commission of Christ to proclaim that message of liberty--that is why Paul used the term "ambassador" in 2 Corinthians 5.18-20. When Church members speak about Christ, they speak from their own experience. This is not to be minimized, except when the lines become blurred between personal witness bearing and official functions. *When ministers speak of Christ, they speak by way of Christ's commission, and carry the seals of that authority.*





> No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged. *What is being stated is simply that all of those things are not to be confused with Evangelism, which is the official proclamation of Christ by one ordained and sent for this purpose, being equipped for the same, and able to perform it according to its fullest by way of the ordained/ordinary means. *When people say "Evangelism does not belong to all," this is what they mean. It means all Christians will not be called to account for those whom they have not warned (as Ezek. 33) - *for to do such requires that task of official witnessing to be the whole course of one's life; and that is not possible for one faithfully carrying out their secular vocation in life*. No one is giving Christians an excuse for anything; no one is saying Christians are not to be concerned with the lost; no one is saying Christians can't or shouldn't speak about Christ with their neighbor; etc. etc. etc.



Earl, to address your concern in the last sentence:


> Maybe I have the wrong idea what an evangelist is?



Rev. Ruddell and Mr. Korte have sought to answer that question, and did so better than I could. I don't speak for either of them and they may disagree with some of my own views, but the point of the role of an evangelist is that it's a MUCH higher calling, with far greater responsibilities in the Kingdom, than that of simply telling others about Christ. I would seriously question the profession of a layman who scorned the opportunity to talk with a lost friend about Christ and never invited that person to hear the Word preached. But if it is the duty of a layman, then by all means most of us who have secular vocations and spend the bulk of the day in ordinary work duties and taking care of our families need to be placed under immediate church discipline for dereliction of the duty of a believer for not actively "evangelizing" as much as we possibly can.


----------



## earl40

Theoretical said:


> The goal of evangelism is to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I (Christ) have commanded you". It is not "making a decision for Christ". It is entering into a life, a Covenant community where every decision, from now until you die, is made for Christ. There is nothing in Scripture precluding any Christian from speaking to others about this life, and what the Lord has done for him in delivering him from his sins, just like Christ told the Gadarene Demoniac to do. *But that is not the same as the great commission, where the authoritative word of the ambassador of Christ is accompanied by the seals of that Word--the sacraments.* The ordained Gospel Preacher is an ambassador of Christ, and has the commission of Christ to proclaim that message of liberty--that is why Paul used the term "ambassador" in 2 Corinthians 5.18-20. When Church members speak about Christ, they speak from their own experience. This is not to be minimized, except when the lines become blurred between personal witness bearing and official functions. *When ministers speak of Christ, they speak by way of Christ's commission, and carry the seals of that authority.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged. *What is being stated is simply that all of those things are not to be confused with Evangelism, which is the official proclamation of Christ by one ordained and sent for this purpose, being equipped for the same, and able to perform it according to its fullest by way of the ordained/ordinary means. *When people say "Evangelism does not belong to all," this is what they mean. It means all Christians will not be called to account for those whom they have not warned (as Ezek. 33) - *for to do such requires that task of official witnessing to be the whole course of one's life; and that is not possible for one faithfully carrying out their secular vocation in life*. No one is giving Christians an excuse for anything; no one is saying Christians are not to be concerned with the lost; no one is saying Christians can't or shouldn't speak about Christ with their neighbor; etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earl, to address your concern in the last sentence:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I have the wrong idea what an evangelist is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rev. Ruddell and Mr. Korte have sought to answer that question, and did so better than I could. I don't speak for either of them and they may disagree with some of my own views, but the point of the role of an evangelist is that it's a MUCH higher calling, with far greater responsibilities in the Kingdom, than that of simply telling others about Christ. I would seriously question the profession of a layman who scorned the opportunity to talk with a lost friend about Christ and never invited that person to hear the Word preached. But if it is the duty of a layman, then by all means most of us who have secular vocations and spend the bulk of the day in ordinary work duties and taking care of our families need to be placed under immediate church discipline for dereliction of the duty of a believer for not actively "evangelizing" as much as we possibly can.
Click to expand...

 
I can see we totally agree on this issue and the function of an evangelist was the problem and how I misunderstood what many meant here concerning this office which would be an interesting topic all in of itself.

Thanks and blessings to you.


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> Any consideration of Stephen, who basically held the office of church kitchen staff, but was powerfully used by God in the preaching of the gospel through deed, word, and death? Acts 6.


 
Church kitchen staff? Acts 6:5, the whole multitude chose Stephen; verse 6, the apostles prayed and laid their hands on him; verse 8, Stephen did great wonders and miracles among the people. Church kitchen staff?


----------



## dudley

MMasztal said:


> What I find interesting is why the RC are leaving. For me, I left the RCC because of the schizophrenic teachings/theology, but many in my family are still RC and my from own experience, I know how they put their trust in the RC “church” first rather than in Christ. The RCC is a mess, yet a home for many growing up in this tradition. The folks leaving the RCC are used to having a church home and I believe will be looking for a new one. Where we might focus our witness is showing the primacy of the person and work of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures (which are also ignored by the RCC for the most part) as opposed to the grandeur and pomp and cult of the pope of the RCC.


 
Michael I am like you and ex roman catholic and now a Presbyterian Protestant and It is by showing the primacy of the person and work of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures (which are also ignored by the RCC for the most part) as opposed to the grandeur and pomp and cult of the pope of the RCC, the pope and the RCC in my own mind I now renounce as did the reformers and I know other ex roman catholioc' s turned protestant feel the the same repulsion about Roman cattholicism after being born again and experincing a true Protestant comnversion as I have experinced. I think others can be brought to Christ in the same way and rescued for the bodage of popery and the RCC.


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any consideration of Stephen, who basically held the office of church kitchen staff, but was powerfully used by God in the preaching of the gospel through deed, word, and death? Acts 6.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Church kitchen staff? Acts 6:5, the whole multitude chose Stephen; verse 6, the apostles prayed and laid their hands on him; verse 8, Stephen did great wonders and miracles among the people. Church kitchen staff?
Click to expand...




> 1Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenistsa arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, *“It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.* 4But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.



Note:
1. what they were "ordained" to do: ensure equal portions of food were distributed
2. in order that the apostles could teach and preach
3. they were not ordained as teaching officers in the church, nor given title of evangelist

although this was Stephen's official assignment from the church and Apostles, God used him for a powerful, but short, preaching/evangelistic ministry.

---------- Post added at 11:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------

"church kitchen staff" is my own modern rendering paralleling what they were tasked to do. No offense meant.


----------



## Prufrock

steadfast7 said:


> "church kitchen staff" is my own modern rendering paralleling what they were tasked to do. No offense meant.



I understand you may not have meant any offense. But a friendly suggestion to avoid causing any offense: if you should ever be newly introduced to a deacon, I would recommend not saying, "You must be the kitchen staff."


----------



## he beholds

Prufrock said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "church kitchen staff" is my own modern rendering paralleling what they were tasked to do. No offense meant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you may not have meant any offense. But a friendly suggestion to avoid causing any offense: if you should ever be newly introduced to a deacon, I would recommend not saying, "You must be the kitchen staff."
Click to expand...

 
I know we say they were deacons, but we sort of just guess at that, right? So this doesn't mean that Dennis thinks of deacons like this.


----------



## Pergamum

I am finding it distressing that when faced by an OP about the wide opportunity to evangelize Catholics, the thread has degraded into yet another debate about who can legitimately evangelize.


----------



## steadfast7

Ok, so "kitchen staff" is a bit of a free paraphrase of what the apostles called "serving tables." We're splitting hairs. I still stand by my understanding of the narrative (unless shown otherwise) that dishing out food was basically what they were ordained to do. BTW, I'd like to ask what offense is to be taken at this anyway? Stephen would not have been offended at being given a practical role that helped to bring Jew and Gentile together at the same table. There is nothing undignified or demeaning about being kitchen staff or waiting tables. In fact it is a great honour to be kitchen staff for the Jerusalem church. Our Lord was a carpenter, his closest friends were fishermen. May everything we do be done to the glory of God.

conclusion this digression re: Stephen ... he held an office that was specifically _distinguished from_ that of preaching/teaching - yet he preached. Sorry for the tangent, all.


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> conclusion this digression re: Stephen ... he held an office that was specifically _distinguished from_ that of preaching/teaching - yet he preached. Sorry for the tangent, all.


 
It is good that you accept he held an ordinary office. Now let's look at verse 8. As other parts of the New Testament declare, these miracles were given for the purpose of confirming the word. Hence Stephen had received an extraordinary call to preach the word.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> I am finding it distressing that when faced by an OP about the wide opportunity to evangelize Catholics, the thread has degraded into yet another debate about who can legitimately evangelize.


 
If believers are to be urged to act, they should be urged to act in faith, not doubt. The Bible sets forth a general pattern of laying down the things to be believed as a basis for exhorting to the things to be done. Conscience should be instructed and animated, not manipulated.


----------



## Pergamum

Matthew, the OP was mainly about the Ripe Harvest field towards the Catholics. Instead, it broke down into this secondary issue of who can go and why all should not evangelize. This is a classic thread hijack.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Matthew, the OP was mainly about the Ripe Harvest field towards the Catholics. Instead, it broke down into this secondary issue of who can go and why all should not evangelize. This is a classic thread hijack.


 
If one desires to see "evangelism," "who" and "how" should be first on the discussion list of topics. Or are we simply desiring to hype people up into a sentimental state in which they can feel good because they feel towards something good?


----------



## Pergamum

The original intent of the Op seems summed up by this sentence;



> It may be a time for the Reformed Protestant churches to reach out to any delusioned Catholic at this critical point in church history



Note that churches were addressed and that the main point of the OP was that this is a critical time for churches to be sending the Gospel to Catholics. Thus, Joshua hijacked the thread when he began focusing on who is NOT supposed to evangelize in general, and you have helped keep the thread away from its OP, which was originally about this strategic time in history to mobilize our churches to send people to evangelize Catholics.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> to mobilize our churches to send people to evangelize Catholics.


 
Who? "people." What people? How are they to be sent? How are they to be equipped? How are they to be held to account? If Joshua has hijacked the thread I am sure he has done it in the interests of steering it to its right destination.


----------



## dudley

Pergamum said:


> I am finding it distressing that when faced by an OP about the wide opportunity to evangelize Catholics, the thread has degraded into yet another debate about who can legitimately evangelize.



Thank you Pergamun, I started this thread with the only purpose in mind that the cuurent horrible scandal involving clergy of the RCC is a tremendous opportunity for many Protestants to evangelize especially among catholics who for the first time in modern history are leaving the RCC in droves....in almost every country in the west....Europe, Catholic Ireland ,the United States are the most affected..I am an ex Roman catholic who by Gods grace was made one of the elect and am now a Reformed Protestant. I am now a Presbyterian ..but when I was disallusioned with the RCC in 2006 it was Protestant friends who reached out to me and invited me to attend Sunday service with them...from that point on the rest is a story of becoming aware of the true Gospel and eventually being born again and finally making my way to make an affirmation of faith as Presbyterian...I am now a avowed Protestant because my journey had me experience as did Calvin "a true Protestant conversion" I think only an ex Roman catholic who has converted to Protestant in this manner I describe can understand what I am saying...a tremendous opportunity to bring many souls out of the bondage of popery and the RCC is open to us....God works miracles and conversions through his people...we are His people..I think the blasphemous sex scandal of RC clergy is Gods way of exposing the false teachings and apostacy of the Roman church....I believe a 2nd Protestant Reformation could be also be at hand....the Roman church is on the verge of a sucidal collapse....I think....these disalussioned catholics can be saved and with our evangelizing them at this time and with Gods grace many could also join us in the ranks of the elect and become Reformed Protestants. The Catholic has never really known a Christ centered Gospel.....I know I did not untill I became a Protestant and a Presbyterian....and it is possible if we do not evangelize them they will fall into the ranks of the non believers...I keep emphasizing here on the PB that 30 million Roman Ctholics in the United States alone have left the RCC in the last 20 years and 15 million are like me and others here on the PB now Protestants, however another 15 million now profess no religious faith at all......it is in Gods plan I believe for us to evangelize the ones he is sending our way by the events and scandal of the RC clergy.....Are we going tpo argue over who evangelizes or maybe just start inviting these questioning catholics to your church for a Sunday service ..a bible calss whatever...but don't waste precious time arguing over who should evangelize...as a Presbyterian I believe we are all ministers of the Gospel by witnessing every day...let us do it!


----------



## Pergamum

The "people" are already designated in the OP as "our churches" as I have quoted above, and thus it is already assumed that anyone sent would be sent from churches. Thus, it can rightly be said that Joshua hijacked the thread and left the main point, which was the great urgency and opportunity now for our churches to engage Catholics with the Gospel and, instead, focused on the side issue of "how" this should be done. In reality, the "how" of sending was never even fully addressed, but the more narrow sub-topic of "who shouldn't be sent" became the focus. This would be better dealt with in another thread.


----------



## dudley

Pergamum said:


> Matthew, the OP was mainly about the Ripe Harvest field towards the Catholics. Instead, it broke down into this secondary issue of who can go and why all should not evangelize. This is a classic thread hijack.


 
Amen Brother Pergamun and Ditto....

---------- Post added at 01:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 AM ----------




Pergamum said:


> The "people" are already designated in the OP as "our churches" as I have quoted above, and thus it is already assumed that anyone sent would be sent from churches. Thus, it can rightly be said that Joshua hijacked the thread and left the main point, which was the great urgency and opportunity now for our churches to engage Catholics with the Gospel and, instead, focused on the side issue of "how" this should be done. In reality, the "how" of sending was never even fully addressed, but the more narrow sub-topic of "who shouldn't be sent" became the focus. This would be better dealt with in another thread.



Amen..I started the thread with the intent and direction you have noted ..thank you my brother....


----------



## ChariotsofFire

I still have some lingering questions over this whole discussion. I'm very confused by the position of those who say that minister's should be the one's to evangelize. In all the posts, I can't figure out whether laymen are to evangelize or not. I understand the high view of the office of teaching elder, but I'm confused on the duty of of the lay person. Can someone with that point of view clarify the duty of the lay person to evangelize? Is it the duty of the lay person to share the good news of Christ? What is their duty in regard to the unregenerate man?


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> The "people" are already designated in the OP as "our churches" as I have quoted above, and thus it is already assumed that anyone sent would be sent from churches. Thus, it can rightly be said that Joshua hijacked the thread and left the main point, which was the great urgency and opportunity now for our churches to engage Catholics with the Gospel and, instead, focused on the side issue of "how" this should be done. In reality, the "how" of sending was never even fully addressed, but the more narrow sub-topic of "who shouldn't be sent" became the focus. This would be better dealt with in another thread.


 
Yes, well Joshua was right to hijack a thread and commandeer it to a safe port. If we are seeking to gain Romanists to Protestant Christianity it is certain that they will not be won over by a reductionist philosophising of Christianity but by a wholesome view of word, sacraments, and ministry. They will require "church" alternatives to practice their faith, and not merely different beliefs which enable them to opt out of church altogether.

Further, if I were the one to hijack the thread, I would also question the use of sexual abuse as an opportunity to evangelise the Roman communion. Scandal can happen in any church. If people are won over to Protestant churches through disillusionment with the Romanist churches there is a strong possibility that they can be won back to the Romanist churches when ill discipline is perceived in Protestant churches. The issues between Romanists and Protestants should be the perennial ones which resulted in the reformation. This should result in an ongoing Protest against the Church of Rome and her corruptions, in which true churches are constantly seeking to draw people away from that false church. It is not a matter of "now is the season," but "semper reformanda." It amazes me how reformed churches can use that slogan for innovation in their own churches and leave its original claim and intent unattended.


----------



## dudley

ChariotsofFire said:


> I still have some lingering questions over this whole discussion. I'm very confused by the position of those who say that minister's should be the one's to evangelize. In all the posts, I can't figure out whether laymen are to evangelize or not. I understand the high view of the office of teaching elder, but I'm confused on the duty of of the lay person. Can someone with that point of view clarify the duty of the lay person to evangelize? Is it the duty of the lay person to share the good news of Christ? What is their duty in regard to the unregenerate man?


 
If you read what I posted above about my own journey from Roman catholic to Protestant and Presbyterian you will see that I was a disallusioned catholic who was simply invited by Protestant friends to a Sunday service at their Protestant church....from there other events folowed....the conversion process for me took several years before I was born again and experinced as Calvin descibes 'a true Protestant conversion"..you people must realize we all evzangelize by simple witness to the Gospel..a simple invitation to the Sunday service led to other classes I TOOK UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF ORDAINED MINISTERS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD IS FOR ALL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE AND WITNESS THE GOSPEL AND HELP LEAD MANY DISALLUSIONED CATHOLICS TO THE RANKS OF THE ELECT AND TO PROTESTANTISM. LET THE REST BE IN NTHE HANDS OF GOD..WE ARE HIS INSTRUMENTS ......


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Dear Josh, (ChariotsofFire)
I have re-read the posts again before answering you so as to present an accurate understanding of all who have posted from the understanding that only ministers "evangelize". What we're saying is that in the Scriptures the word "evangelize" has a narrow context. This context is that which our Lord gave to His Apostles, (his extraordinary officers) and by extension and application, ordinary officers as well, especially those who labor in word and doctrine. He has given them something He has not given the rest of the folks in Church, the seals of the Kingdom, the Sacraments. These ministers have, from Christ, an authority to bind and loose--to remit and retain, to declare, ministerially and authoritatively, the Evangel of the Kingdom of God, and they are given those seals of authority for that end. As Dudley said above, it was his protestant friends that reached out to him, and invited him to Church. Note that it was his friends that did as Christ told the Gadarene Demoniac--"go and tell what great things the Lord has done for thee". They did. This engendered a willingness in Dudley to begin attending protestant services where, perhaps for the first time in his life, he heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it was proclaimed by a minister of the Gospel, trained, ordained, called, and equipped for that office (that official duty) of speaking for Christ. This Gospel preacher, along with his session and Presbytery, also possessed something Dudley's protestant friends did not have: The authoritative seals (authentication) of that preaching, and when Dudley professed faith, was admitted by those in authority into the Kingdom, the Church of Jesus Christ. 

Note that Dudley's friends were acting in a manner consistent with their position--they spoke of their experience, of what the Lord had done for them, they testified to the grace of God as they have perceived and experienced it. 
Note that the Pastor was acting in accord with his position and calling. It is no wresting of the Scripture, rather it is consistent, to say that evangelism, or Gospel Preaching, is authoritative, as well as is the administration of the Sacraments. When the minister preaches, and when he administers the sacraments, he is binding and loosing according to his office, using the keys of doctrine and discipline, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ. 

This understanding does not preclude lay-action, i.e., giving testimony to the grace of God, etc. Neither does it diminish the official acts of those officers the Lord has put into office, for by them in this age, the Lord has chosen to call His people into the fellowship of Christ, and the people who hear them are to listen for the voice of the Shepherd in that preached Word, for those ministers speak *for* Christ, and along with that preaching administer the sacraments, by which they open and shut the gates of the Kingdom.


----------



## dudley

YOU SAID AND I AGREE BROTHER MATTHEW.."The issues between Romanists and Protestants should be the perennial ones which resulted in the reformation. This should result in an ongoing Protest against the Church of Rome and her corruptions, in which true churches are constantly seeking to draw people away from that false church." HOIWEVER I WAS DISALUSIONED AND NOT QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH....IT WAS BY THE INVITATION TO ATTEND A PROTESTANT SERVICE AND LISTEN AND SEE FOR MYSELF THAT GOD THEN BEGAN TO OPEN MY OWN MIND. I DID NOT GO TO THE FIRST PROTESTANT SERVICE SAYING 'HEY I WANT TO BECOME A PROTESTANT' RC'S ARE TAUGHT THAT IT IS THE PROTESTANTS WHO ARE APOSTATE AND HAVE THE FALSE CHURCH...SO I WAS IN A STATE OF MIND BEING DISALUSIONED THAT PERHAPS THE ENTIRE CHRITIAN CHURCH AND GOSPEL WAS UNTRUE OR MISCONSTRUED..THEN I BEGAN TO SEE THAT IT WAS THE PROTESTANTS WHO RESTORED THE CHURCH AND THE GOPEL TO ITS TRUE MEANING AND AS Christ INTENDED. REREAD MY OWN BIOGRAPHY ON MY PAGE HERE ON THE PB...I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY THING MORE THAN BEING A GUIDE AND HELPING LEAD THE DISALUSIONED CATHOLIC TO THE RANKS OF THE ELECT AND PROTESTANTISM..I KNOW THERE ARE SIMILAR SCANDALS IN PROTESTSNT CHURCHES...HOWEVER THAT DOES NOT DISALUSION ME BECAUSE I KNOW I NOW I HAVE THE TRUE GOSPEL AND I AM IN THE Christ CENTERED RANKS OF PROTESTANTISM AND I WOULD NEVER RETURN TO CATHOLICISM AND HER ROMISH AND PAPIST DISTORTED GOSPEL..AND HER FALSE RITUALS AND TEACHINGS....HOWEVER I WOULD NOT HAVE DISCOVERED THE TRUTH IF I WERE NOT INVITED BY FRIENDS TO THAT FIRST SUNDAY SERVICE IN THEIR PROTESTANT CHURCH.

---------- Post added at 02:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 AM ----------




rev. Todd ruddell said:


> dear josh, (chariotsoffire)
> i have re-read the posts again before answering you so as to present an accurate understanding of all who have posted from the understanding that only ministers "evangelize". What we're saying is that in the scriptures the word "evangelize" has a narrow context. This context is that which our lord gave to his apostles, (his extraordinary officers) and by extension and application, ordinary officers as well, especially those who labor in word and doctrine. He has given them something he has not given the rest of the folks in church, the seals of the kingdom, the sacraments. These ministers have, from Christ, an authority to bind and loose--to remit and retain, to declare, ministerially and authoritatively, the evangel of the kingdom of god, and they are given those seals of authority for that end. As dudley said above, it was his protestant friends that reached out to him, and invited him to church. Note that it was his friends that did as Christ told the gadarene demoniac--"go and tell what great things the lord has done for thee". They did. This engendered a willingness in dudley to begin attending protestant services where, perhaps for the first time in his life, he heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it was proclaimed by a minister of the gospel, trained, ordained, called, and equipped for that office (that official duty) of speaking for Christ. This gospel preacher, along with his session and presbytery, also possessed something dudley's protestant friends did not have: The authoritative seals (authentication) of that preaching, and when dudley professed faith, was admitted by those in authority into the kingdom, the church of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Note that dudley's friends were acting in a manner consistent with their position--they spoke of their experience, of what the lord had done for them, they testified to the grace of god as they have perceived and experienced it.
> Note that the pastor was acting in accord with his position and calling. It is no wresting of the scripture, rather it is consistent, to say that evangelism, or gospel preaching, is authoritative, as well as is the administration of the sacraments. When the minister preaches, and when he administers the sacraments, he is binding and loosing according to his office, using the keys of doctrine and discipline, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ.
> 
> This understanding does not preclude lay-action, i.e., giving testimony to the grace of god, etc. Neither does it diminish the official acts of those officers the lord has put into office, for by them in this age, the lord has chosen to call his people into the fellowship of Christ, and the people who hear them are to listen for the voice of the shepherd in that preached word, for those ministers speak *for* Christ, and along with that preaching administer the sacraments, by which they open and shut the gates of the kingdom.



Amen and ditto Brother Todd ..you summed up exactly what I have been saying and did it well and from the rank of the ordained minister in word and sacrament...I experinced the Lords Supper in a new magnificent way as a Protestant and fully accepted Protestant Memorialism regarding communion and rejected the rc teaching of transubstantiation after I was shown through the gospel and the reformed confessions the true nature of the scarament and also the beautiful protestant docdtrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone and I realized for the first time that the bible was our only and final authority , I was able to openly renounce the pope as head of the church and for the first I realized it is Christ only who heads his church as well as the fact that God had done all of this by his magnificent grace he gave to me. At that point I said " I want to be a Protestant and a Presbyterian". I expericed "a true Protestant conversion"...took several years in the process...it is still a growing in faith process going on in me now....I think many of you can see my own groth in the Reformed Faith in the few years iIhave been here on the PB. 
I am now a stauch and avowed Protestant and Presbyterian and I would never return to the false teachings and church of Rome and Catholicism I renounce openly that church and beiev it is she who is apostate.....but I did not know that the Sunday I attended my first Protestant service....it was a small beginning that Sunday.....we can all be a small beginning at this time in history for the disaluusioned catholic.....let God handle the rest..he did with me..its called his grace..I just had to be in the company first of his true apostles and true church and the followers of the Reformed Protestant Faith....which is why I am now a Reformed Protestant!

---------- Post added at 03:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 AM ----------

Read the following story reported in Time magazine this week..tell me that there will not be many more disallusioned catholics in all countries ...the scandal of RC clergy gets worse each day....I believe God is exposing what many of us think of as "The Whore of Babylon" for what she truly is....we who are Reformed Protestants have the true Gospel and the true faith of the apostles and Jesus Christ Himself. I would never have thought that I would have the true faith as a Protestant and be a Presbyterian 10 years ago....it was Gods grace and a small beginning...by Protestant friends that led me to the truth....let us try to cooperate with God and lead many others to the Reformed Faith and Protestantism......

Just "a Game": Outrage as Shamed Belgian Priest Downplays Child Abuse
By Leo Cendrowicz / Brussels Friday, Apr. 15, 2011 

Former Bishop of Bruges Roger Vangheluwe is seen in this 2007 photo. The Vatican has sanctioned Vangheluwe, who resigned last year after admitting he had sexually abused his nephew

Peter Maenhoudt / AP
Print Email Reprints Facebook Twitter MORE
Add to my:
del.icio.us Technorati reddit Google Bookmarks Mixx StumbleUpon Blog this on:
TypePad LiveJournal Blogger MySpace 

The Belgian Catholic Church must have felt it hit a nadir last year when it had to face harrowing revelations of rampant child sex abuse among its priesthood. However, the church's reputation is now at a new low, thanks to the ill-judged comments of the disgraced former Bishop of Bruges, who in April 2010 admitted to abusing his nephew. Belgians have been left in open-mouthed disbelief after the airing of a TV interview with Roger Vangheluwe in which he glossed over his history of abusing children.

Speaking on Belgian television on Thursday evening, April 14, Vangheluwe, 74, said he had in fact abused a second nephew as well. That would have been shocking enough: last year, when Vangheluwe initially owned up to the abuse — and stepped down as bishop — the move unleashed a flood of revelations by other victims of abuse in the church. 
(See church sex-abuse scandals around the world.)

But it was no tearful confession that Belgians witnessed on Thursday. Looking relaxed and sometimes smiling, Vangheluwe described the sexual abuse as no more than "a little piece of intimacy." While he claimed to recognize that he had done wrong and said he often went to confession about it, Vangheluwe played down his actions. "I had the strong impression that my nephew didn't mind at all. On the contrary. It was not brutal sex. I never used bodily, physical violence," he said. The abuse of his first nephew, in the 1970s and '80s, he said, "started as, I would call it, a game." At the time, the boy was just 5, and the abuse would last 13 years. The abuse of the second nephew, he said, was "merely over a year." Despite this, Vangheluwe insisted, "I don't have the impression at all that I am a pedophile." Following the interview, the first nephew said through his lawyer that he did not want to comment; the identity of the second nephew is not yet known.

The interview drew almost immediate rebuke. Prime Minister Yves Leterme said Vangheluwe's remarks "go beyond the boundary of what is acceptable" and called on the Catholic Church to "assume its responsibilities." Vice Prime Minister Laurette Onkelinx said the interview was "disgusting," adding that Vangheluwe "showed a complete disdain for his victims." Justice Minister Stefaan De Clerck urged the Vatican to punish the former bishop. "It is a slap in the face of his victims and all victims," he said. And Carina Van Cauter, vice chair of the parliamentary committee investigating sexual abuse, said Vangheluwe "tried to turn his victims into culprits. He throws salt in their wounds."

The church also responded fiercely, with bishops lining up to condemn Vangheluwe. The Bishop of Ghent, Luc Van Looy, said he was "ashamed, shocked, upset and angry. By trivializing the abuse, Vangheluwe is deepening the indescribable suffering of victims." Josef De Kesel, Vangheluwe's successor as Bishop of Bruges, said, "It's unbelievable, and so damaging for all involved — firstly the victims, but also us, our credibility." 
(See the top 10 religion stories of 2010.)

Victims groups reacted with weary disgust. "I was angry but not surprised," says Linda Opdebeeck, president of the support group Human Rights in the Church. "[Vangheluwe] is just like the monk who abused me 30 years ago and never accepted any responsibility. Vangheluwe will never recognize what he did, never understand the gravity of his actions, even though it was legal rape." 

Gabriel Ringlet, a priest and influential Catholic figure in Belgium, says that while Vangheluwe's interview was repulsive, it also risks undermining the wider campaign against child abuse. "If we focus too much on him, we might forget the bigger problems," says Ringlet, who has urged the church to issue an unequivocal apology, punish the pedophiles and compensate victims. "The pedophilia is linked to the church's authority. When the priest suggests his abuse is part of his holy function, it is difficult for a child or parishioner to denounce him." 

Despite his admission, Vangheluwe does not face criminal prosecution, because the abuses occurred decades ago, beyond Belgium's statute of limitations for sex abuse. The Vatican had sent the former bishop to an abbey in the Loire valley in France weeks ago for "spiritual and psychological treatment" in the wake of last year's abuse admission. It's not known whether the church knew of his second victim. Vangheluwe could be stripped of his priesthood, but that was also an option following his first abuse confession — and it still hasn't happened. 
(See pictures of President Obama meeting Pope Benedict XVI.)


Nor has there been much progress in Belgium over the past year when it comes to abuse by clergy. As the scandal has escalated, the head of the Belgian Church, Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard, has been reluctant to take firm action beyond a vague expression of regret. Léonard, an archconservative who frequently conducts mass in Latin, is widely seen as being out of touch with his flock. Two weeks ago, he was targeted by custard-pie-throwing activists angry over his description of AIDS as a kind of "intrinsic justice" punishing gays. 

Dirk Jacobs, a sociology professor at Brussels Free University, says the Vatican must act forcefully now if it wants to salvage some of its credibility and moral authority in Belgium and abroad. "But it might still be seen as too little, too late," Jacobs says. "The image we have is of the church as an institution of power, foremost worried about its reputation, disconnected from the real world and with a twisted view of sexuality." However, there is little indication that the Vatican is ready for an image overhaul. And one year after he resigned in disgrace, Roger Vangheluwe appears — like the Vatican — to be in denial about the problem. 



Read more: Outrage: Former Bishop Vangheluwe Downplays Child Abuse - TIME

---------- Post added at 03:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 AM ----------

Read the following story reported in Time magazine this week..tell me that there will not be many more disallusioned catholics in all countries ...the scandal of RC clergy gets worse each day....I believe God is exposing what many of us think of as "The Whore of Babylon" for what she truly is....we who are Reformed Protestants have the true Gospel and the true faith of the apostles and Jesus Christ Himself. I would never have thought that I would have the true faith as a Protestant and be a Presbyterian 10 years ago....it was Gods grace and a small beginning...by Protestant friends that led me to the truth....let us try to cooperate with God and lead many others to the Reformed Faith and Protestantism......

Just "a Game": Outrage as Shamed Belgian Priest Downplays Child Abuse
By Leo Cendrowicz / Brussels Friday, Apr. 15, 2011 

Former Bishop of Bruges Roger Vangheluwe is seen in this 2007 photo. The Vatican has sanctioned Vangheluwe, who resigned last year after admitting he had sexually abused his nephew

Peter Maenhoudt / AP
Print Email Reprints Facebook Twitter MORE
Add to my:
del.icio.us Technorati reddit Google Bookmarks Mixx StumbleUpon Blog this on:
TypePad LiveJournal Blogger MySpace 

The Belgian Catholic Church must have felt it hit a nadir last year when it had to face harrowing revelations of rampant child sex abuse among its priesthood. However, the church's reputation is now at a new low, thanks to the ill-judged comments of the disgraced former Bishop of Bruges, who in April 2010 admitted to abusing his nephew. Belgians have been left in open-mouthed disbelief after the airing of a TV interview with Roger Vangheluwe in which he glossed over his history of abusing children.

Speaking on Belgian television on Thursday evening, April 14, Vangheluwe, 74, said he had in fact abused a second nephew as well. That would have been shocking enough: last year, when Vangheluwe initially owned up to the abuse — and stepped down as bishop — the move unleashed a flood of revelations by other victims of abuse in the church. 
(See church sex-abuse scandals around the world.)

But it was no tearful confession that Belgians witnessed on Thursday. Looking relaxed and sometimes smiling, Vangheluwe described the sexual abuse as no more than "a little piece of intimacy." While he claimed to recognize that he had done wrong and said he often went to confession about it, Vangheluwe played down his actions. "I had the strong impression that my nephew didn't mind at all. On the contrary. It was not brutal sex. I never used bodily, physical violence," he said. The abuse of his first nephew, in the 1970s and '80s, he said, "started as, I would call it, a game." At the time, the boy was just 5, and the abuse would last 13 years. The abuse of the second nephew, he said, was "merely over a year." Despite this, Vangheluwe insisted, "I don't have the impression at all that I am a pedophile." Following the interview, the first nephew said through his lawyer that he did not want to comment; the identity of the second nephew is not yet known.

The interview drew almost immediate rebuke. Prime Minister Yves Leterme said Vangheluwe's remarks "go beyond the boundary of what is acceptable" and called on the Catholic Church to "assume its responsibilities." Vice Prime Minister Laurette Onkelinx said the interview was "disgusting," adding that Vangheluwe "showed a complete disdain for his victims." Justice Minister Stefaan De Clerck urged the Vatican to punish the former bishop. "It is a slap in the face of his victims and all victims," he said. And Carina Van Cauter, vice chair of the parliamentary committee investigating sexual abuse, said Vangheluwe "tried to turn his victims into culprits. He throws salt in their wounds."

The church also responded fiercely, with bishops lining up to condemn Vangheluwe. The Bishop of Ghent, Luc Van Looy, said he was "ashamed, shocked, upset and angry. By trivializing the abuse, Vangheluwe is deepening the indescribable suffering of victims." Josef De Kesel, Vangheluwe's successor as Bishop of Bruges, said, "It's unbelievable, and so damaging for all involved — firstly the victims, but also us, our credibility." 
(See the top 10 religion stories of 2010.)

Victims groups reacted with weary disgust. "I was angry but not surprised," says Linda Opdebeeck, president of the support group Human Rights in the Church. "[Vangheluwe] is just like the monk who abused me 30 years ago and never accepted any responsibility. Vangheluwe will never recognize what he did, never understand the gravity of his actions, even though it was legal rape." 

Gabriel Ringlet, a priest and influential Catholic figure in Belgium, says that while Vangheluwe's interview was repulsive, it also risks undermining the wider campaign against child abuse. "If we focus too much on him, we might forget the bigger problems," says Ringlet, who has urged the church to issue an unequivocal apology, punish the pedophiles and compensate victims. "The pedophilia is linked to the church's authority. When the priest suggests his abuse is part of his holy function, it is difficult for a child or parishioner to denounce him." 

Despite his admission, Vangheluwe does not face criminal prosecution, because the abuses occurred decades ago, beyond Belgium's statute of limitations for sex abuse. The Vatican had sent the former bishop to an abbey in the Loire valley in France weeks ago for "spiritual and psychological treatment" in the wake of last year's abuse admission. It's not known whether the church knew of his second victim. Vangheluwe could be stripped of his priesthood, but that was also an option following his first abuse confession — and it still hasn't happened. 
(See pictures of President Obama meeting Pope Benedict XVI.)


Nor has there been much progress in Belgium over the past year when it comes to abuse by clergy. As the scandal has escalated, the head of the Belgian Church, Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard, has been reluctant to take firm action beyond a vague expression of regret. Léonard, an archconservative who frequently conducts mass in Latin, is widely seen as being out of touch with his flock. Two weeks ago, he was targeted by custard-pie-throwing activists angry over his description of AIDS as a kind of "intrinsic justice" punishing gays. 

Dirk Jacobs, a sociology professor at Brussels Free University, says the Vatican must act forcefully now if it wants to salvage some of its credibility and moral authority in Belgium and abroad. "But it might still be seen as too little, too late," Jacobs says. "The image we have is of the church as an institution of power, foremost worried about its reputation, disconnected from the real world and with a twisted view of sexuality." However, there is little indication that the Vatican is ready for an image overhaul. And one year after he resigned in disgrace, Roger Vangheluwe appears — like the Vatican — to be in denial about the problem. 



Read more: Outrage: Former Bishop Vangheluwe Downplays Child Abuse - TIME


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> conclusion this digression re: Stephen ... he held an office that was specifically _distinguished from_ that of preaching/teaching - yet he preached. Sorry for the tangent, all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is good that you accept he held an ordinary office. Now let's look at verse 8. As other parts of the New Testament declare, these miracles were given for the purpose of confirming the word. Hence Stephen had received an extraordinary call to preach the word.
Click to expand...


Granted, but keeping in mind that Stephen's call to preach was never recognized officially by the church. We don't find the Apostles ordaining him as an elder upon discovering his gifts. Perhaps, then, we can distill 3 tiers of evangelistic activity:
1. Extraordinary call - Paul, Stephen, Apostles
2. Ecclesiastical office - ordained ministers
3. lay witness

There may be differences in the execution of evangelistic activity within these tiers, but the content (gospel) remains the same.
______
as an aside, we need not be frustrated at the turns and bends that this thread is taking; this is natural in conversation and it's good for these important topics to get worked and reworked through. It is a tribute to the OP poster that his thread spawns multiple conversations. I don't think there's been moderation so far, so we're good.


----------



## earl40

dudley said:


> ChariotsofFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still have some lingering questions over this whole discussion. I'm very confused by the position of those who say that minister's should be the one's to evangelize. In all the posts, I can't figure out whether laymen are to evangelize or not. I understand the high view of the office of teaching elder, but I'm confused on the duty of of the lay person. Can someone with that point of view clarify the duty of the lay person to evangelize? Is it the duty of the lay person to share the good news of Christ? What is their duty in regard to the unregenerate man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read what I posted above about my own journey from Roman catholic to Protestant and Presbyterian you will see that I was a disallusioned catholic who was simply invited by Protestant friends to a Sunday service at their Protestant church....from there other events folowed....the conversion process for me took several years before I was born again and experinced as Calvin descibes 'a true Protestant conversion"..you people must realize we all evzangelize by simple witness to the Gospel..a simple invitation to the Sunday service led to other classes I TOOK UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF ORDAINED MINISTERS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD IS FOR ALL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE AND WITNESS THE GOSPEL AND HELP LEAD MANY DISALLUSIONED CATHOLICS TO THE RANKS OF THE ELECT AND TO PROTESTANTISM. LET THE REST BE IN NTHE HANDS OF GOD..WE ARE HIS INSTRUMENTS ......
Click to expand...

 
So could you tell me what changed in your view of Jesus and Him dying on the cross before and after your conversion? Sorry if you think this is a hijack but as an former Roman Catholic turned rabid protestant I can not stand to see "the conversion process for me took several years before I was born again and experinced as Calvin descibes 'a true Protestant conversion"".


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

earl40 said:


> dudley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChariotsofFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still have some lingering questions over this whole discussion. I'm very confused by the position of those who say that minister's should be the one's to evangelize. In all the posts, I can't figure out whether laymen are to evangelize or not. I understand the high view of the office of teaching elder, but I'm confused on the duty of of the lay person. Can someone with that point of view clarify the duty of the lay person to evangelize? Is it the duty of the lay person to share the good news of Christ? What is their duty in regard to the unregenerate man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read what I posted above about my own journey from Roman catholic to Protestant and Presbyterian you will see that I was a disallusioned catholic who was simply invited by Protestant friends to a Sunday service at their Protestant church....from there other events folowed....the conversion process for me took several years before I was born again and experinced as Calvin descibes 'a true Protestant conversion"..you people must realize we all evzangelize by simple witness to the Gospel..a simple invitation to the Sunday service led to other classes I TOOK UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF ORDAINED MINISTERS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD IS FOR ALL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE AND WITNESS THE GOSPEL AND HELP LEAD MANY DISALLUSIONED CATHOLICS TO THE RANKS OF THE ELECT AND TO PROTESTANTISM. LET THE REST BE IN NTHE HANDS OF GOD..WE ARE HIS INSTRUMENTS ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So could you tell me what changed in your view of Jesus and Him dying on the cross before and after your conversion? Sorry if you think this is a hijack but as an former Roman Catholic turned rabid protestant I can not stand to see "the conversion process for me took several years before I was born again and experinced as Calvin descibes 'a true Protestant conversion"".
Click to expand...


I am not sure his view of Jesus dying changed but what he died for probably changed. Sometimes illumination comes in spurts. Sometimes a fog can hinder a clear view for some. Maybe a cloudy sky keeps the view from being evident. But for some of us God just reveals it suddenly by his mercy and grace. It isn't so with everyone. And if you think Dudley is rabid.... You should have met me 30 years ago. LOL. I drove people nuts.


----------



## earl40

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am not sure his view of Jesus dying changed but what he died for probably changed. Sometimes illumination comes in spurts. Sometimes a fog can hinder a clear view for some. Maybe a cloudy sky keeps the view from being evident. But for some of us God just reveals it suddenly by his mercy and grace. It isn't so with everyone. And if you think Dudley is rabid.... You should have met me 30 years ago. LOL. I drove people nuts.


 
I guess what bothers me is that I have noticed that most don't pinpoint their conversion until they they grabbed Jesus like a piece of meat out of the freezer. What most do not realize is that once one has a certain amount of understanding of, Who Jesus is and what He did, that was the point of having real faith. What happens is that many, if not all, come to faith in His work and Person and have very little understanding of the content of that faith. Sort of like having a baby learning to speak English and the only word they know is no. That child can speak English though the extent of the child's language is just the word no. No offense meant to any here...just an observation of the "typical protestant mindset" as is usually articulated as "a true protestant conversion".


----------



## dudley

Pergamum said:


> All,
> 
> It appears that the OP was about jumping on the opportunity to evangelize the Catholics due to this time of disillusionment among their ranks.
> 
> I would say this: It looks like the harvest season may be upon us.
> 
> I think there is sufficient cause to strategize and redouble our efforts towards evangelizing Catholics, both in the US and abroad.
> 
> For instance, I know of a region here where I work that is almost predominantly Catholic. They bring their idols into the church (wooden carvings) in the name of "culture" and they are wholly biblically illiterate (and almost wholly illiterate in basic reading anyway). We have had 12 villages ask us for an evangelical Gospel witness last year and we sent 2 evangelists...but the doors are still wide open. The workers are few, however, to exploit the open doors.
> 
> https://www.crosier.org/default.cfm?PID=1.35.13.1&inq_key=28880&action=detail&LibID=5686



Amen and "ditto" my brother Pergamun. The Catholic has never really known a Christ centered Gospel.....I know I did not untill I became a Protestant and a Presbyterian....and it is possible if we do not evangelize them they will fall into the ranks of the non believers...


----------



## dudley

The following article is excellent if you wish to witness to a disallusioned Catholic. It is written by an ex catholic and now a Presbyterian."Becoming a Presbyterian" « Bagpipe OnlineMay 6, 2000 ... Becoming a Presbyterian. BY THE BAGPIPE STAFF. Matthew Siedhoff Guest writer. Having read Thomas Andreas' article in the last issue of the ...
Becoming a Presbyterian « Bagpipe Online - Cached

---------- Post added at 04:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 AM ----------

The harvest is ripe for witnessing to disalusioned catholics ..and not just the priest sex scandal...the caholic church is losing many people...following article is in todays Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Religion Writer Ann Rodgers chronicles the spiritual life of Southwestern Pennsylvanians. The catholic is disalusioned on many levels..form of worship..and the Gospel message and the article is written by a Jesuit Priest.

Interesting analysis of reasons Catholics become Protestants 

Monday, April 18, 2011 02:27 PM Written by Ann Rodgers 

Father Thomas Reese is a Jesuit political scientist who has devoted much of his scholarly ministry to analyzing the Catholic Church. Now he draws on data from the Pew Religious Landscape Survey to look at the many baptized Catholics who have converted to some form of Protestantism.

Overall he finds that stereotypical reasons -- disagreement with church teaching on sexual morality or revulsion at the sex abuse scandal -- don't fit the reality. There are many



reasons that people leave, he writes, but the unifying factor is that they find the experience of worship in Catholic churches unsatisfying. Father Reese believes that the impending changes to the English liturgy, intended to make it more of a literal translation from the Latin, aren't likely to help this situation.

The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their "spiritual needs were not being met" in the Catholic church (71 percent) and they "found a religion they like more" (70 percent). Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith. 
In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service. And before conservatives blame the new liturgy, only 11 percent of those leaving complained that Catholicism had drifted too far from traditional practices such as the Latin Mass.

His full essay is online at the National Catholic Reporter.

He writes in conclusion:

While the hierarchy worries about literal translations of the Latin text, people are longing for liturgies that touch the heart and emotions. More creativity with the liturgy is needed, and that means more flexibility must be allowed. If you build it, they will come; if you do not, they will find it elsewhere. The changes that will go into effect this Advent will make matters worse, not better. 
Second, thanks to Pope Pius XII, Catholic scripture scholars have had decades to produce the best thinking on scripture in the world. That Catholics are leaving to join evangelical churches because of the church teaching on the Bible is a disgrace. Too few homilists explain the scriptures to their people. Few Catholics read the Bible.

The church needs a massive Bible education program. The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. If we could get Catholics to read the Sunday scripture readings each week before they come to Mass, it would be revolutionary. If you do not read and pray the scriptures, you are not an adult Christian. Catholics who become evangelicals understand this.

Finally, the Pew data shows that two-thirds of Catholics who become Protestants do so before they reach the age of 24. The church must make a preferential option for teenagers and young adults or it will continue to bleed. Programs and liturgies that cater to their needs must take precedence over the complaints of fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists.

Current religious education programs and teen groups appear to have little effect on keeping these folks Catholic, according to the Pew data, although those who attend a Catholic high school do appear to stay at a higher rate. More research is needed to find out what works and what does not.

The Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Only if we acknowledge the exodus and understand it will we be in a position to do something about it.


----------



## MW

dudley said:


> The following article is excellent if you wish to witness to a disallusioned Catholic. It is written by an ex catholic and now a Presbyterian."Becoming a Presbyterian" « Bagpipe OnlineMay 6, 2000 ... Becoming a Presbyterian. BY THE BAGPIPE STAFF. Matthew Siedhoff Guest writer. Having read Thomas Andreas' article in the last issue of the ...
> Becoming a Presbyterian « Bagpipe Online - Cached


 
Dudley, We can be thankful that substantive Christianity derived from a book like Packer's Concise Theology was the reason for the conversion. But then there is this other somewhat subjective and anecdotal evidence based on personal experience. If Protestantism is about anything it is about Jesus Christ and His saving grace. It is "His story," not "my story," that matters. So, if I may offer two words of advice about this idea of "witnessing to disillusioned Catholics," (better termed "Romanists"),

1. Let it be the witness of Jesus Christ and not personal experience.

2. Let it be the perennial subjects which are at issue between Romanist and Reformed catholicism, and not some circumstantial issue which arises from a mere sense of morality.

To which may be added a very important point which has been echoed throughout this thread,

3. Let it be such a witness as gives credence to the creed, I believe in the church.

Blessings!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

earl40 said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure his view of Jesus dying changed but what he died for probably changed. Sometimes illumination comes in spurts. Sometimes a fog can hinder a clear view for some. Maybe a cloudy sky keeps the view from being evident. But for some of us God just reveals it suddenly by his mercy and grace. It isn't so with everyone. And if you think Dudley is rabid.... You should have met me 30 years ago. LOL. I drove people nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess what bothers me is that I have noticed that most don't pinpoint their conversion until they they grabbed Jesus like a piece of meat out of the freezer. What most do not realize is that once one has a certain amount of understanding of, Who Jesus is and what He did, that was the point of having real faith. What happens is that many, if not all, come to faith in His work and Person and have very little understanding of the content of that faith. Sort of like having a baby learning to speak English and the only word they know is no. That child can speak English though the extent of the child's language is just the word no. No offense meant to any here...just an observation of the "typical protestant mindset" as is usually articulated as "a true protestant conversion".
Click to expand...


I am not understanding your observation Earl. Regeneration and Conversion might be two separate things. You do understand that I am sure. For a Roman Catholic there is such a thing as a true Protestant conversion if one turns to Christ alone by faith alone. It is a marvelous thing to behold. It is when he realizes the just shall live by faith. And that is a heavy revelation and conversion experience. It is something that one takes hold of. Faith takes hold of something and someone. If it didn't have substance to take hold of it would not be faith and there would be no conversion. The just shall live by faith is a heavy revelation. The Protestant Conversion is much different than the Roman view. Only one of them can be from God. And sometimes that is a process God does incrementally. He can draw us quickly or slowly. Luther's was a slow process. Samuel Rutherford's and others were quick. Mine was quick.


----------



## dudley

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Dear Josh, (ChariotsofFire)
> I have re-read the posts again before answering you so as to present an accurate understanding of all who have posted from the understanding that only ministers "evangelize". What we're saying is that in the Scriptures the word "evangelize" has a narrow context. This context is that which our Lord gave to His Apostles, (his extraordinary officers) and by extension and application, ordinary officers as well, especially those who labor in word and doctrine. He has given them something He has not given the rest of the folks in Church, the seals of the Kingdom, the Sacraments. These ministers have, from Christ, an authority to bind and loose--to remit and retain, to declare, ministerially and authoritatively, the Evangel of the Kingdom of God, and they are given those seals of authority for that end. As Dudley said above, it was his protestant friends that reached out to him, and invited him to Church. Note that it was his friends that did as Christ told the Gadarene Demoniac--"go and tell what great things the Lord has done for thee". They did. This engendered a willingness in Dudley to begin attending protestant services where, perhaps for the first time in his life, he heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it was proclaimed by a minister of the Gospel, trained, ordained, called, and equipped for that office (that official duty) of speaking for Christ. This Gospel preacher, along with his session and Presbytery, also possessed something Dudley's protestant friends did not have: The authoritative seals (authentication) of that preaching, and when Dudley professed faith, was admitted by those in authority into the Kingdom, the Church of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Note that Dudley's friends were acting in a manner consistent with their position--they spoke of their experience, of what the Lord had done for them, they testified to the grace of God as they have perceived and experienced it.
> Note that the Pastor was acting in accord with his position and calling. It is no wresting of the Scripture, rather it is consistent, to say that evangelism, or Gospel Preaching, is authoritative, as well as is the administration of the Sacraments. When the minister preaches, and when he administers the sacraments, he is binding and loosing according to his office, using the keys of doctrine and discipline, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ.
> 
> This understanding does not preclude lay-action, i.e., giving testimony to the grace of God, etc. Neither does it diminish the official acts of those officers the Lord has put into office, for by them in this age, the Lord has chosen to call His people into the fellowship of Christ, and the people who hear them are to listen for the voice of the Shepherd in that preached Word, for those ministers speak *for* Christ, and along with that preaching administer the sacraments, by which they open and shut the gates of the Kingdom.


 
Rev Todd, I was reading your post and I agree completely with everthing you said concernig my journey from catholicism to Protestantism and becoming a Presbyterian. However when you said the following I say Amen and "Ditto" This engendered a willingness in Dudley to begin attending protestant services where, perhaps for the first time in his life, he heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it was proclaimed by a minister of the Gospel, trained, ordained, called, and equipped for that office (that official duty) of speaking for Christ. 

I never heard the Gopel of Chrsit explained and proclaimed from the pulpit untill I became a Protestant and a Presbyterian. The catholic never knows a Christ centered Gospel and never experiences Jesus Christ as the sole mediator between God and man. Thus the catholic never experinces knowing also a personal Jesus who is his savior and redeemer. When I was a catholic we were told that we were receiving Jesus into our body and soul when we received communion, because they believe that the bread wafer becomes the actual body of Christ and the wine becomes his actual blood. However even then I never experienced the closeness I desired to my savior; something was missing. The adoration of a piece of bread also bothered me....I could never really see Jesus in the bread. Then when I became a Protestant I accepted fully the logic of Protestant Memorialism concerning the Lords Supper. I also read how Calvin said we ascend to the Savior in heaven sitting next to His Father and we receive Him in true spirit becuse of our faith in Him alone which is bestowed on me by the grace of God alone. When I receive communion now as a Protestant in the Presbyterian church I experience a bond again with Jesus my Savior that I never experienced receiving communion in the catholic curch. I believe now the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine however I receive Christ completely when I commune as a Presbyterian. Again I think only a former Roman catholic who discovered the true Gospel and true faith of the Reformed Christians and was "born again" can fully appreciate what I am saying. Rev Todd I think you do understand and I thank you for your post..what I experinced was a priveledge I believe and given me by the grace of God ...I experinced like John Calvin and many of the Protestant Reformers who also were catholics 'a true Protestant conversion" I am posting this message in hopes that my fellow PB brothers can understand why I am such a fervent believer in spreading the true Gospel to dialusioned catholics....I know I was one...and if my Protestant friends had not invited me to join them at a Sunday service I may never had discovered the beautiful Reformed faith and I may never have known Jesus my savior as I do now. I may have ended up without any faith and could have been lost...instead I was lost and was found again and converted by "Amazing Grace" and my Protestant friends were the initial instrument acting as witness for the savior and God His Father. I am thankful to God for this gift and I am so proud and thankful to be a Reformed Protestant. I hope my PB brothers can understand what I am saying...


----------



## dudley

Pergamum said:


> The original intent of the Op seems summed up by this sentence;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be a time for the Reformed Protestant churches to reach out to any delusioned Catholic at this critical point in church history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that churches were addressed and that the main point of the OP was that this is a critical time for churches to be sending the Gospel to Catholics. Thus, Joshua hijacked the thread when he began focusing on who is NOT supposed to evangelize in general, and you have helped keep the thread away from its OP, which was originally about this strategic time in history to mobilize our churches to send people to evangelize Catholics.
Click to expand...


I agree with Pergamun and I recently used the following piece from scripture with a catholic friend who is beginning to question Roman Catholicism....said to me what makes you think the catholic church is so wrong and is it because you are simply a Protestant now? I said definitely not …I saw the way to get this person to question all catholic beliefs ..once the catholic in his own mind starts to question catholic beliefs he is open to possible conversion an being born again as a Christian. That is really what happened to me...while taking with my disillusioned catholic friend said …I was reading the following from revelation in my King James version of the bible.

Revelation 22:18-21 (King James Version)
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 
20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 
21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

He then said to me that’s what the KJV says ..what does the catholic version say… I got out my old catholic study bible and sure enough it says the same….

As an ex Roman Catholic I think that Catholics tend to write off or overlook the warnings in Revelation about adding to or subtracting from the Word of God. And they do not read the bible as we Protestants do. And be sure that the above passage is never read at a Catholic mass when they are doing the liturgy of the word. They do not want the catholic to hear these words…They rely heavily on things the Popes throughout the ages have said or written and they rely on pronouncements / rulings from the Vatican both of which are "extra-Biblical" meaning they add to the Bible.


The fact is that the Catholic church doesn't believe in using the Bible solely for its guidance and direction. I think should be a reference point also in evangelizing disillusioned Catholics…and the piece from revelation opens the path to begin tearing apart all the false catholic teachings which are not biblical….by the way my catholic friend is now questioning many other things when we talk…..hopefully I will steer him to coming with me to a bible class at my Presbyterian church….that will then get him to meet the assistant pastor who is the bible class teacher. At that point the minister can take over..
..


----------



## timmopussycat

Joshua said:


> "Evangelize" has a strict and narrow meaning in Scripture and to lay such a responsibility upon more persons than the Scriptures do is to lay a burden upon the body of Christ that is not hers universally and to do great harm to the concept of "commission" and "evangelism" as taught in the Word of God.*


 
My apologies for coming late to this thread. 

It appears that Scripture assigns the responsibility of "evangelize" to more persons than church officers alone. In Acts 8:1,4 we read a "great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem and they were all scattered throughout . . . Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. . . " and "those who were scattered went about 'evangelizing' the word." From this passage, some things appear to be clear. 
1) The scattering of the Jerusalem church cannot be restricted to its leaders. The persecution is described as "great" targeted "against the church" (not just the apostles, elders or deacons) and the result was "they were all scattered."
2) More than the leaders therefore were involved in the "evangelizing" throughout Judea and Samaria and we later find men who were apparently not leaders in the Jerusalem church being "men of Cyprus and Cyrene" founding the church at Antioch (Acts 11:20).
3) This passage would therefore appear to be referring to every Tom, Dick and Harry of the Jerusalem church evangelizing those they encountered while on the run from Jerusalem.

It doesn't follow however that all would evanglize the same way. Every member evangelism should not equal every member preaching or administering sacraments. One may be gifted and recognized for formal preaching and teaching duties, another may know how to explain the gospel at only the most fundamental level and recount his or her own experience.


----------



## Pergamum

timmopussycat said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Evangelize" has a strict and narrow meaning in Scripture and to lay such a responsibility upon more persons than the Scriptures do is to lay a burden upon the body of Christ that is not hers universally and to do great harm to the concept of "commission" and "evangelism" as taught in the Word of God.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies for coming late to this thread.
> 
> It appears that Scripture assigns the responsibility of "evangelize" to more persons than church officers alone. In Acts 8:1,4 we read a "great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem and they were all scattered throughout . . . Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. . . " and "those who were scattered went about 'evangelizing' the word." From this passage, some things appear to be clear.
> 1) The scattering of the Jerusalem church cannot be restricted to its leaders. The persecution is described as "great" targeted "against the church" (not just the apostles, elders or deacons) and the result was "they were all scattered."
> 2) More than the leaders therefore were involved in the "evangelizing" throughout Judea and Samaria and we later find men who were apparently not leaders in the Jerusalem church being "men of Cyprus and Cyrene" founding the church at Antioch (Acts 11:20).
> 3) This passage would therefore appear to be referring to every Tom, Dick and Harry of the Jerusalem church evangelizing those they encountered while on the run from Jerusalem.
> 
> It doesn't follow however that all would evanglize the same way. Every member evangelism should not equal every member preaching or administering sacraments. One may be gifted and recognized for formal preaching and teaching duties, another may know how to explain the gospel at only the most fundamental level and recount his or her own experience.
Click to expand...

 
If giving, praying and supporting are counted as aspects of the work (which I think they are), and if the Great Commission was given to the apostles as the basis of the entire church, then the whole church together, through those they designate and support and pray for, are all responsible for the evanglization of Catholics. No Christian can, therefore, say, "That's not my job" but has a vital role to play.


----------



## Herald

Joshua said:


> nevertheless, for each Christian, insofar as his place and station goes, to pray for his pastor & elders, the ministry of the Word & Sacrament, be salt & light, be ready to give an answer for the hope he has, be excellent in his calling, kind, generous, and speak of the things which Christ has done for him. None of that, however, is the ministry of reconciliation which responsibility belongs to ministers of the Gospel as commissioned to them by the Lord and their proper oversight (sessions, presbyteries, etc.).


 
While the formal work of evangelism resides with ordained ministers of the gospel that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit cannot grant a person repentance and faith through another's fit witness, through reading the Word, or hearing the Word. If we were to believe that only an ordained minister is to used by God in order for a sinner to brought to life then we both esteem too highly the ministry and too little work of the Spirit.

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## au5t1n

Joshua said:


> It is a duty, nevertheless, for each Christian, insofar as his place and station goes, to pray for his pastor & elders, the ministry of the Word & Sacrament, be salt & light, be ready to give an answer for the hope he has, be excellent in his calling, kind, generous, and speak of the things which Christ has done for him.



And let me just say that anyone who is friends with Josh on Facebook knows that he is no hypocrite, but regularly puts these things into practice. Josh does not say "That's not my job" and never mention Christ. He is constantly giving thanks for blessings and talking about what Christ has done. I am not suggesting that anybody has questioned this, but I just wanted to point out that his position is not one that would lead to Christians being silent before the world.


----------



## gordo

Very interesting discussion. I always struggled with evangelism. Mainly because I saw so many people being "turned off" by poor attempts at evangelism by laypeople. Of course as said above, that does not mean you should hide your faith at all, but live it and share it in hopes of getting people interested enough to come to a service.

What are some good scriptures to share with people in this matter? I know a few Christians who take the calling of evangelism to the extreme, often with undesirable results.

Thanks!


----------



## he beholds

Joshua said:


> If one is going to assert that it was everyone without exception who went apreachin', then we would have to assert that women and children were also doing so.



I think women and children can also evangelize people. In fact, I probably evangelize my children more than anyone else does.

Edit: Ok, well, you said "apreachin'." I don't preach to my children. But I'm interacting with what the passage said: "evangelizing."


----------

