# Leading to Christ



## earl40

How would you answer the person who says they were lead (edit to led) to Jesus and saved by the conversation of a coworker or dorm buddy? I ask in light of Romans 10:14 which in my opinion is exclusive to preachers. In other words, does not Romans 10:14 exclude such thinking that one can believe without a preacher? I am coming to the conclusion it is almost a fools errand to speak to such thinking especially when a person thinks they came to Jesus this way.

I ask because this past Sunday a visiting Pastor laid the burden on the congregation to do His job, because he believes it is possible for the "dorm buddy" to lead people to Jesus.


----------



## timfost

We are not all called to preach but we are called to witness. Our witness certainly can and should win others to Christ.

"Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear." (1Pet. 3:1-2)

"I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you." (1Cor. 9:22b-23)

Our witness is not simply inviting people to church. We need to speak and live according to what we know and this certainly does and should win people to Christ.

Christ is our Prophet, Priest and King. We are by extension as Christians also prophets, priests and kings. A prophet's job is to speak for God. What do you speak, and what is the effect of your speech?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> We are not all called to preach but we are called to witness. Our witness certainly can and should win others to Christ.
> 
> "Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear." (1Pet. 3:1-2)
> 
> "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you." (1Cor. 9:22b-23)
> 
> Our witness is not simply inviting people to church. We need to speak and live according to what we know and this certainly does and should win people to Christ.
> 
> Christ is our Prophet, Priest and King. We are by extension as Christians also prophets, priests and kings. A prophet's job is to speak for God. What do you speak, and what is the effect of your speech?


When we witness to the lost in both word and deed, we are preaching to them about Jesus as the Messiah.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> When we witness to the lost in both word and deed, we are preaching to them about Jesus as the Messiah.



Preaching is exclusive to the officers of the church and those ordained to the office of 'preacher'. Preaching is never divorced of the means of grace; hence, if a person says to you, 'there is water', Acts 8:36, what will u do?

We cannot see any instance in scripture where the term is not connected with the office holder.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner

timfost said:


> We are not all called to preach but we are called to witness. Our witness certainly can and should win others to Christ.
> 
> "Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear." (1Pet. 3:1-2)
> 
> "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you." (1Cor. 9:22b-23)
> 
> Our witness is not simply inviting people to church. We need to speak and live according to what we know and this certainly does and should win people to Christ.
> 
> Christ is our Prophet, Priest and King. We are by extension as Christians also prophets, priests and kings. A prophet's job is to speak for God. What do you speak, and what is the effect of your speech?


Tim, I'd push back a little and say that 1 Peter 3:1-2 is calling wives to live the life, not "witness" to her husband; and that the 1 Corinthians passage is the apostle speaking of his apostolic ministry, and isn't teaching laypeople about witnessing. 

You won't find a passage instructing lay people to witness ("share the gospel") with people. The charge "ye shall be witnesses" was, again, a charge to the apostles. 

We are to give an answer to those who ask the reason for the hope that is in us. We are to invite people to come and hear Jesus, as did the woman at the well. We can tell them, "he told me everything I've ever done. The Lord has done great things for me."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Gforce9

Scott Bushey said:


> Preaching is exclusive to the officers of the church and those ordained to the office of 'preacher'. Preaching is never divorced of the means of grace; hence, if a person says to you, 'there is water', Acts 8:36, what will u do?
> 
> We cannot see any instance in scripture where the term is not connected with the office holder.



I've come to appreciate God's appointed means....always in the presence of the body and her officers.....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

earl40 said:


> How would you answer the person who says they were lead to Jesus and saved by the conversation of a coworker or dorm buddy? I ask in light of Romans 10:14 which in my opinion is exclusive to preachers. In other words, does not Romans 10:14 exclude such thinking that one can believe without a preacher? I am coming to the conclusion it is almost a fools errand to speak to such thinking especially when a person thinks they came to Jesus this way.
> 
> I ask because this past Sunday a visiting Pastor laid the burden on the congregation to do His job, because he believes it is possible for the "dorm buddy" to lead people to Jesus.


The preacher (i.e., minister of the Word) is the one God ordinarily uses to bring his Word, and the preaching of the Word is what God ordinarily uses to impart faith (faith cometh by hearing). However, God is not bound to these means. He can work in _extraordinary _ways, and implant faith, for instance, even in the womb.

We should never expect or presume upon God to work outside of his ordinary means; however, we should recognize his power and prerogative to do so, and humbly submit to his wisdom when he chooses to operate outside of those means.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

Jeri Tanner said:


> Tim, I'd push back a little and say that 1 Peter 3:1-2 is calling wives to live the life, not "witness" to her husband; and that the 1 Corinthians passage is the apostle speaking of his apostolic ministry, and isn't teaching laypeople about witnessing.
> 
> You won't find a passage instructing lay people to witness ("share the gospel") with people. The charge "ye shall be witnesses" was, again, a charge to the apostles.
> 
> We are to give an answer to those who ask the reason for the hope that is in us. We are to invite people to come and hear Jesus, as did the woman at the well. We can tell them, "he told me everything I've ever done. The Lord has done great things for me."



Jeri,

Frankly, I think you strip Christians of the office of prophet.

The verse about wives was demonstrating that people can be won to Christ _apart_ from preaching contra the OP.

We are all called to witness. Can we witness in word? Can we offer Christ? Does being ready to give a defence mean we simply say "talk to my pastor"?

Do you witness in word to your children? Grandchildren?

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum

While we repeatedly remind folks on the PB that only ordained men should preach, it would also be a good idea to remind every Christian what they CAN do towards the lost world. Perhaps it is due to modern evangelicalism, but I believe many on the PB are imbalanced in the other direction and forget that all are witnesses to Christ. I hope what is being emphasized from pulpits is the blessing that every Christian can provide to their fellow man and not merely reminders of what they cannot do. 


Romans 15:14, "14 And I myself also am persuaded about you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another."

Not all admonishing needs to be from the pulpit by an ordained minister, but all Christians are expected to do so. And part of this admonishing must be to repent and believe.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 3


----------



## Jack K

earl40 said:


> How would you answer the person who says they were lead to Jesus and saved by the conversation of a coworker or dorm buddy?



I would say it's quite common, in our experience, for God to use such conversations as part of the process of bringing people to confess faith in Jesus. It is neither necessary nor particularly helpful to try to identify one particular "gospel presentation" or witnessing event that did the trick, and the time and place this happened. The Spirit uses hearing the gospel in combination with life events (and these life events often include conversations with believers) to bring people to faith. He also uses the written Word.

If I have a friend who's interested in hearing about Jesus, I'm going to tell him about Jesus. That isn't me usurping the authority of a pastor; that's me being a good friend. Will the Spirit use those conversations as part of a process that brings my friend to faith? He might. Why should I think he wouldn't? Will I also give my friend a Bible and invite him to church? Probably, because I know the Spirit uses the Word.

If you look at the context surrounding Romans 10:14, you'll see Paul is arguing that preachers ought to be sent so the lost may hear and believe. Of course. The Spirit uses the preaching of the Word. But Paul does not go so far as to say that the only way anyone ever comes to faith is _solely_ through a gospel presentation delivered by a preacher. That's reading into the passage restrictions on the Spirit's work that Paul did not intend to address.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## timfost

Very well said Perg and Jack!


----------



## jw

earl40 said:


> How would you answer the person who says they were lead to Jesus . . .


First, I would ask them for chapter and verse where the Lord called them _lead_. I've seen the Lord call men _salt_. I've seen them called _whitewashed tombs_. I've seen a number of things, but I cannot recall an instance where the Lord called folks _lead_.

Next, I would ask -if we see no record of Christ calling folks lead- how would people surmise that Christ thought of people as lead? He didn't entrust Himself to many, because "he knew what was in man," but I am confident that is not referring to lead, or some physiologically tangible substance.

I would then ask them what led them to believe such a thing about the Lord and _lead_. What a strange road down which to be led pertaining to lead.  We weren't born "lead in our trespasses and sins," but _dead_. Are your sure your friend didn't misunderstand which word was being used?

I frankly find such an accusation baseless. Outlandish even! What manner of madness is this folly?!

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner

But Earl, I think when told something like that, I would just encourage them to get their friend (or themselves) to a good church and present themselves to the church for discipleship, explaining that that is God's appointed means.


timfost said:


> Jeri,
> 
> Frankly, I think you strip Christians of the office of prophet.
> The verse about wives was demonstrating that people can be won to Christ _apart_ from preaching contra the OP.
> 
> We are all called to witness. Can we witness in word? Can we offer Christ? Does being ready to give a defence mean we simply say "talk to my pastor"?
> 
> Do you witness in word to your children? Grandchildren?



Tim, I'm curious (and likely ignorant): where does the idea come from of the individual believer acting in a prophetic office toward outsiders from the church? Where in Scripture or in the subordinate Standards- or perhaps in Puritan thought.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JimmyH

I found salvation, like the Ethiopian eunuch, reading the Scriptures. The Stanley Brothers, a bluegrass group of bygone days, had a song called, "I Can Tell You The Time," (I can show you the place, where the Lord saved me, on that wonderful day) This is true of me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Jeri Tanner said:


> where does the idea come from of the individual believer acting in a prophetic office toward outsiders from the church? Where in Scripture or in the subordinate Standards- or perhaps in Puritan thought.



Heidelberg 32:

"But why are you called a Christian?

Because by faith I am a member of Christ and *thus a partaker of His anointing, in order that I also may confess His Name*, may present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to Him, and with a free conscience may *fight against sin* and the devil in this life, and hereafter in eternity reign with Him over all creatures."

Confessing Christ is a product of our anointing as prophets (notice the offices of prophet, priest and king are implied through this Q&A in the words "confess," "sacrifice" and "reign"). Our "fight against sin" necessarily confesses Christ to _sinners_ and calls them to repentance and faith.

Ursinus in his commentary of this Q&A says:

"The *prophetical dignity which is in Christians, is an understanding, acknowledgement and confession of the true doctrine of God* necessary for our salvation. Or, our prophetical office is, 1. Rightly to know God and his will. 2. That every one in his place and degree *profess the same, being correctly understood, faithfully, boldly and constantly*, that God may thereby be celebrated, and his truth revealed in its living force and power. '*Whosoever shall confess me before men*, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven.' (Matt. 10:32.)"

Hope this helps.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## BG

This is an interesting question. If it is the layman’s job to share the gospel, tell others of the wonderful things that Christ has done for them, in other words one beggar telling another beggar where he found bread, we have a big problem because so few churches prepare people for this task. On the other hand if it is the ministers job (alone) to go from city to city, village to village, house to house (like Christ and the Apostles did ) sharing the gospel then we have a bigger problem, because this does not seem to be happening either.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

timfost said:


> Heidelberg 32:
> 
> "But why are you called a Christian?
> 
> Because by faith I am a member of Christ and *thus a partaker of His anointing, in order that I also may confess His Name*, may present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to Him, and with a free conscience may *fight against sin* and the devil in this life, and hereafter in eternity reign with Him over all creatures."
> 
> Confessing Christ is a product of our anointing as prophets (notice the offices of prophet, priest and king are implied through this Q&A in the words "confess," "sacrifice" and "reign"). Our "fight against sin" necessarily confesses Christ to _sinners_ and calls them to repentance and faith.
> 
> Ursinus in his commentary of this Q&A says:
> 
> "The *prophetical dignity which is in Christians, is an understanding, acknowledgement and confession of the true doctrine of God* necessary for our salvation. Or, our prophetical office is, 1. Rightly to know God and his will. 2. That every one in his place and degree *profess the same, being correctly understood, faithfully, boldly and constantly*, that God may thereby be celebrated, and his truth revealed in its living force and power. '*Whosoever shall confess me before men*, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven.' (Matt. 10:32.)"
> 
> Hope this helps.


I appreciate the quotes, but don't see them speaking of the lay person's duty to share the gospel. I'm not at all saying laypeople don't speak of Christ to others. We do because we want to, we love people, and want them to know the Lord. It's the idea of it being a biblical duty to share the gospel, i.e. the plan of salvation, with people. If it's a biblical duty for every Christian to do so, then I'd still like to see where in the Bible that comes from.


----------



## timfost

Jeri Tanner said:


> I appreciate the quotes, but don't see them speaking of the lay person's duty to share the gospel. I'm not at all saying laypeople don't speak of Christ to others. We do because we want to, we love people, and want them to know the Lord. It's the idea of it being a biblical duty to share the gospel, i.e. the plan of salvation, with people. If it's a biblical duty for every Christian to do so, then I'd still like to see where in the Bible that comes from.



Unless I'm mistaken, this conversation was never about a lay-person's obligation...


----------



## BG

Psalm 96:3
James 5:19-20
Prov 11:30
Philemon 1:6


----------



## earl40

timfost said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, this conversation was never about a lay-person's obligation...



This entire thread about the obligation, and the mistaken idea you and I as laypersons are obligated to the task of evangelism. I am sorry but as alluded to previously the "ordinary" way people come top Jesus is by preaching (which Our Lord can use the preachers in the scripture BTW). Any other extraordinary way, such as a dorm buddy who thinks they "led" (this for Josh) another to Christ, speaks against Romans 10:14 which BTW is specific to all of us. To explain it away by using the word "ordinary" ignores how Our Lord ordained people to come to Jesus. I am growing weary of "every member is an evangelist" which has infected many of our so called "missional" churches.


----------



## timfost

Earl,

1. Where does scripture say that it is impossible for a lay-person to lead someone to Christ? I gave the example of wives. We have Timothy who learned from his mother and grandmother. Martin Luther certainly didn't get it from the priest. This should be enough to disprove your thesis.

2. Why have you forced evangelism under the auspices of preaching? This is very strange.

I believe that you construct artificial boundaries on the witness that you are supposed to be. What kind of light do you think we should be in this dark world?

Earl, as a Christian you are also a prophet. If you keep your mouth shut and leave evangelism to the preacher alone when you have opportunity to witness, I think you are resting on the boat to Tarshish.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## BG

26 Now two men remained in the camp, one named Eldad, and the other named Medad, and the Spirit rested on them. They were among those registered, but they had not gone out to the tent, and so they prophesied in the camp.
27 And a young man ran and told Moses, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp."
28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the assistant of Moses from his youth, said, "My lord Moses, stop them."
29 But Moses said to him, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD's people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!"
30 And Moses and the elders of Israel returned to the camp. - Numbers 11:26-30


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Bill, the whole point of the Numbers passage is that these men prophesied as prophets- the Spirit rested on them, it was an extraordinary gift. In spite of Moses' declaration, not all were given the gift of prophecy, just as Paul said: are all prophets? (No.)

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## deathtolife

_Wherever the established believer is driven, he carries the knowledge of the gospel, and makes known the preciousness of Christ in every place. Where a simple desire of doing good influences the heart, it will be found impossible to shut a man out from all opportunities of usefulness._ - Matthew Henry

With that said, I highly recommend these two books, if you ever get a chance to read them. (One is a thesis,and exegetical in nature. The other is a classic, dealing with the issue historically)

*1) Paul's Understanding of the Church's Mission: Did the Apostle Paul Expect the Early Christian Communities to Evangelize?  (Review by Kevin De Young, here )

2) Early Church Evangelism by Michael Green

*


----------



## Scott Bushey

> 2. Why have you forced evangelism under the auspices of preaching? This is very strange.



Exactly. This is the crux of the matter. People want to fit the round peg in the square hole; no one has said that since we are laypeople, that we do not play a part-we are one body-all w/ gifts, all with jobs. The body would not be the same without the pinky toe.



> Earl, as a Christian you are also a prophet.



The only prophecy today is God's word, read and that by the ordained man to make official proclamation.

Evangelism is a group effort. Preaching, however, is for the ordained. Preaching is proclamation and proclamation is prophesying. The lay-person may quote scripture, give witness and tell of the hope that is within them in the 'ministry of reconciliation', but they are not 'preaching' nor 'prophesying'.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

timfost said:


> Earl,
> 
> 1. Where does scripture say that it is impossible for a lay-person to lead someone to Christ? I gave the example of wives. We have Timothy who learned from his mother and grandmother. Martin Luther certainly didn't get it from the priest. This should be enough to disprove your thesis.
> 
> 2. Why have you forced evangelism under the auspices of preaching? This is very strange.
> 
> I believe that you construct artificial boundaries on the witness that you are supposed to be. What kind of light do you think we should be in this dark world?
> 
> Earl, as a Christian you are also a prophet. If you keep your mouth shut and leave evangelism to the preacher alone when you have opportunity to witness, I think you are resting on the boat to Tarshish.


Though not Earl , I would like to ask again, where in Scripture is the duty given to laypeople to evangelize? In the Bible, evangelism is carried out through the ordained ministry of the church. Evangelism is not speaking of Christ and inviting people to come and see and learn of Christ, which every lay-person may do and wants to do when opportunity arises. It's not helpful when you use (I think) overly- dramatic words and phrases and implications: forcing, constructing, "resting on the boat to Tarshish" (which again, was done by God's ordained minister, running from a call).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

Jeri, I agree, my point in posting it was to show that God uses all kinds of people for his work. I find it odd that we would prohibit christians from sharing the gospel. It is like telling a newly wed not to speak of their spouse. How can we not speak of the things of Christ, that is of course if we are saved (Eph 4:12). If the only one who is supposed to share the gospel is a minister, then we have a big big problem because they don’t do it ( that is a generalization a few do). Jesus and the Apostles did most of their ministry on the street, towns, city’s, houses not the synagogue. I am noticing a odd trend of the board, christians should not tell others about Christ, should not be discipled, layman should not attempt to console a friend, what is next layman should not own bibles? ** not accusing you of this just thinking out loud**

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

> If the only one who is supposed to share the gospel is a minister



Bill,
This all comes down to distinctions; the crux of the issue rests in the differences between sharing, witnessing, giving witness and actual 'preaching'. Most people blow this....The lines are very thin, but not negligible. In other words, it is important.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Simple solution: If u are a lay-person, just don't call what u are doing as 'preaching'.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner

BG said:


> Jeri, I agree, my point in posting it was to show that God uses all kinds of people for his work. I find it odd that we would prohibit christians from sharing the gospel. It is like telling a newly wed not to speak of their spouse. How can we not speak of the things of Christ, that is of course if we are saved (Eph 4:12). If the only one who is supposed to share the gospel is a minister, then we have a big big problem because they don’t do it ( that is a generalization a few do). Jesus and the Apostles did most of their ministry on the street, towns, city’s, houses not the synagogue. I am noticing a odd trend of the board, christians should not tell others about Christ, should not be discipled, layman should not attempt to console a friend, what is next layman should not own bibles? ** not accusing you of this just thinking out loud**


Bill, I think you're making a leap from the distinctions being made between office and duty, and privilege- the office and duties of the ordained ministry, and the privilege of speaking of Christ that all members of Christ's body have. You're really making a leap in your last few sentences about the odd trend you've noticed! Those who love Christ really can't help but speak of him to all who to whom they owe the duty or who the Lord brings across their path and provides an opening. But many/most churches impose a duty on laypeople to "preach" and "evangelize" that Scripture doesn't impose. 

Your problem is separate from this issue in that you're troubled at the lack of evangelism you see. I know that some churches, including the Free Church, do open-air preaching (by ordained men) with church members attending to hand out tracts. Our former church did a lot of visitation by ministers and laypeople, simply offering good tracts and inviting people to come to church. I believe that on laypeople' part, simply telling people that "the Lord has done great things for me; come Sunday and hear more about him" is powerful and "safe," in that the simplest member can do this and not be in danger of trying to say things he isn't equipped or gifted to say. Stuff like that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Pergamum said:


> While we repeatedly remind folks on the PB that only ordained men should preach, it would also be a good idea to remind every Christian what they CAN do towards the lost world. Perhaps it is due to modern evangelicalism, but I believe many on the PB are imbalanced in the other direction and forget that all are witnesses to Christ. I hope what is being emphasized from pulpits is the blessing that every Christian can provide to their fellow man and not merely reminders of what they cannot do.
> 
> 
> Romans 15:14, "14 And I myself also am persuaded about you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another."
> 
> Not all admonishing needs to be from the pulpit by an ordained minister, but all Christians are expected to do so. And part of this admonishing must be to repent and believe.


Perg, just because I'm stubborn and don't know when to hush and not because I don't agree with the gist of what you're saying, I'll point out that Romans 15:14 urges Christians to admonish "one another." It's not a text having to do with evangelism or even conversation with unbelievers. It's that important distinction issue. I'll say again, Christians should all want to speak of Christ to all, and they do want to, but I just want to see Scriptural support used to make arguments for how it's done used carefully.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

We have examples of laymen sharing the gospel with others in Scripture. 

Jesus told the man he delivered from demons in Mark 5:19-20 _ And he did not permit him but said to him, "Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you." And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone marveled. _

A similar thing happened in Acts 8, as a result of persecution believers spread the word. I think it's a bit much to presume it is only talking about officers. Acts 8:3-4 _But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. _
Also Acts 11:19-20_ Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus.
_
No, laymen do not preach in an official capacity, but they do give testimony to who Christ is and what he has done for them.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Patrick,
I don't believe anyone is trying to say that laypeople shouldn't share their faith but that they should make the needed distinction and use proper terminology when extrapolating.

The passage in Acts 19, in my opinion, uses the term 'preaching'; in this, I believe, to be consistent doctrinally, one would have to believe that this preaching was done by the ordained, else they could not be considered a church without the marks that make a church a church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

I wish I had time to devote to this thread.

God has revealed his intention to bless the preaching of the Gospel by his appointed ministers. Christians who do not have this office should be zealous to _bring others to the ordinance of Christ. _If the preaching of the Gospel is a well of the water of life, they should lead others to the well.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## deathtolife

"Personal work is a very important aspect of evangelism. This method of Presenting the gospel was widely used by our Lord. In the apostolic church this work was not only done by the ministers but by the laymen as well. This fact sheds light on its phenomenal growth. If the churches of our denomination are going to do an effective work of local evangelism then the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as a whole must be roused to the need and instructed in this type of work." ( Committee on Local Evangelism , Rev. John Murray, Rev. Calvin Cummings Mr. Arthur Armour, , Rev. George Marston, and Rev. Lyle Shaw. )

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Puritan Sailor said:


> We have examples of laymen sharing the gospel with others in Scripture.
> 
> Jesus told the man he delivered from demons in Mark 5:19-20 _ And he did not permit him but said to him, "Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you." And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone marveled._


The man with the demons in Mark 5 did just what lay people are to do; we are to say, "He told me everything I've ever done, come and see for yourself; the Lord has done great things for me."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## deathtolife

The man in Mark 5 was commanded by Christ to:

*Go home to his friends 
*and tell them what great things the Lord had done for him 
_*_and how God has had compassion on him

Afterwards...

..he departed, and_ began to publish _in Decapolis (that is, 10 cities) how great things Jesus had done for him: and all _men_ did marvel.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

deathtolife said:


> The man in Mark 5 was commanded by Christ to:
> 
> *Go home to his friends
> *and tell them what great things the Lord had done for him
> _*_and how God has had compassion on him
> 
> Afterwards...
> 
> ..he departed, and_ began to publish _in Decapolis (that is, 10 cities) how great things Jesus had done for him: and all _men_ did marvel.


Well, yes. He published what great things God had done for him and how he had had compassion on him, exactly what Christ told him to do and what lay people should do. I'm not sure how you are thinking this changes anything that has been said.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Yasha,
In your citation, the word ‘work’ needs defining. I believe your defining it widely and the scriptures, narrowly. Yes, everyone has a job to do, but everyone has specific occupations. The system as a whole requires participation by all members so as to function properly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Jeri,

Are you saying that laypeople cannot offer Christ? If so, I think that you are creating categories then enforcing them. This is not the RPW or RPG, so it seems the burden of proof falls on your to prove we are _not to evangelize.
_
Again, consider how we are prophets.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

Scott Bushey said:


> The only prophecy today is God's word, read and that by the ordained man to make official proclamation.



Scott,

Heidelberg 32 contradicts this notion if I'm understanding you correctly. We confess because we partake of Christ's anointing as prophet.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Jeri Tanner said:


> the 1 Corinthians passage is the apostle speaking of his apostolic ministry, and isn't teaching laypeople about witnessing.



If you continue reading through 1 Cor. 10 he ends with this:

"Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ."

Are only elders to imitate Paul? Only ordained ministers? I fear that your assertions create unreconcilable problems with the book.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

timfost said:


> If you continue reading through Christmas 10 he ends with this:


Don't you hate autocorrect?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## timfost

Acts 8:4 says:

"Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching*** the word."

***The Greek here is εὐαγγελίζω (evangelize) in distinction from κηρύσσω (preaching). It certainly wasn't only ordained ministers who were scattered and evangelizing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tim,
I just looked at the Heidelberg-I have no idea what you are gleaning from this portion....If it is the mentioning of 'confessing His name', this does not rail against anything I have said.

I believe it may be helpful if you define what 'prophesy' is to you and how it is used in this age.

Thanks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

> "Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching*** the word."
> 
> ***The Greek here is εὐαγγελίζω (evangelize) in distinction from κηρύσσω (preaching). It certainly wasn't only ordained ministers who were scattered and evangelizing.



Tim,
I believe u have the cart in front of the horse, systematically speaking. I answered this in post 33 to Patrick.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

timfost said:


> Jeri,
> 
> Are you saying that laypeople cannot offer Christ? If so, I think that you are creating categories then enforcing them. This is not the RPW or RPG, so it seems the burden of proof falls on your to prove we are _not to evangelize.
> _
> Again, consider how we are prophets.


Tim, I guess just go back and read more carefully what's been said by not just me but Tyler, Scott, and others- there's no point in continuing to address the same conundrums with the same answers. If you disagree and believe that the Scriptures teach the duty of lay people to evangelize, the burden of proof is on you to show that. If you disagree that you haven't yet shown proof, and aren't moved to any new considerations by anything that's been said, then I'd say you're settled in your convictions about it.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Evangelist is an office:


*Acts 21:8 *

8 And the next _day_ we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was _one_ of the seven; and abode with him. 

*Ephesians 4:11 *

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, hprophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 

*2 Timothy 4:5 *

5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, smake full proof of thy ministry. 

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ac 21:8–2 Ti 4:5.


*εὐαγγελιστής.*

Except in ecclesiastical literature this is a rare word. In a non-Christian sense it is attested only on a poorly preserved inscr, from Rhodes, IG, XII, 1,675, 6, where it means “one who proclaims oracular sayings.”1

It occurs only 3 times in the NT: at Ac. 21:8 of Philip (cf. 8:4f., 12, 35, 40); at Eph. 4:11 of evangelists along with apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers; and at 2 Tm. 4:5 of Timothy (cf. 1 Th. 3:2; Phil. 2:22). The number of evangelists must have been greater than one might suppose from the number of occurrences in the NT (Phil. 4:3; 2 C. 8:18; Col. 1:7; 4:12). The NT evangelist is not one who declares oracles as among the Greeks. He is the מְבַשֵּׂד, the one who proclaims the glad tidings, the εὐαγγέλιον (R. 10:15 → 719). εὐαγγελιστής originally denotes a function rather than an office, and there can have been little difference between an apostle and an evangelist, all the apostles being evangelists (→ 733). On the other hand, not all evangelists were apostles, for direct calling by the risen Lord was an essential aspect of the apostolate. In all three NT passages the evangelists are subordinate to the apostles. Philip is a supervisor of alms (Ac. 6), not an apostle. In his missionary work in Samaria he preaches and baptises, but the baptised receive the Spirit only through the prayer of the apostles Peter and John (Ac. 8:14 f.). In Eph. 4:11 the evangelists are mentioned only after the apostles. Timothy is called a σύνεργος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ in Th. 3:2, but he is a pupil of the apostles rather than an apostle (→ 733). The evangelists continue the work of the apostles. They are not just missionaries, for, as εὐαγγέλιον is congregational as well as missionary preaching (→ 734), so the leader of the community can also be called εὐαγγελιστής (2 Tm. 4:5). His task is κηρὐύσσειν τὸν λόγον (2 Tm. 4:2).

In the early Church the evangelists were regarded as successors of the apostles. Eus. Hist. Eccl., V, 10, 2: ἦσαν εἰς ἔτι τότε πλείους εὐαγγελισταὶ τοῦ λόγου, ἔνθεον ζῆλον ἀποστολικοῦ μιμήματος συνεισφέρειν ἐπʼ αὐξήσει καὶ οἰκοδομῇ τοῦ θείου λόγου προμηθούμενοι. They lay θεμελίους τῆς πίστεως and the → ποιμένες appointed by them continue the work in the respective congregations, Eus. Hist. Eccl., III, 37, 2 f. In accordance with the development of εὐαγγέλιον (→ 735), εὐαγγελιστής has also the sense of “author of a Gospel,” Hipp. De Antichristo, 56; Tertullian Adversus Praxean, 21, 23. The two senses are found alongside one another



Gerhard Friedrich, “Εὐαγγελίζομαι, Εὐαγγέλιον, Προευαγγελίζομαι, Εὐαγγελιστής,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 736–737.


----------



## earl40

timfost said:


> Jeri,
> 
> Are you saying that laypeople cannot offer Christ? If so, I think that you are creating categories then enforcing them. This is not the RPW or RPG, so it seems the burden of proof falls on your to prove we are _not to evangelize.
> _
> Again, consider how we are prophets.



So what exactly is the duty of the Pastor that is different than the layman?


----------



## Jack K

I tell people about Jesus in everyday situations all the time. I have never considered this a burden. I realize some churches have wrongly tried to make it a burden on their members, but this does not mean talking about Jesus is a burden on everyone who does it.

This does not make me a preacher, who has a special duty to preach the Word and evangelize and to do so as an appointed representative of Christ's church.

But here's the thing: As an everyday believer, it most surely _is_ my duty to live as a man who glorifies God in my actions and words. More than that, calling this a duty is far too slight. It is also a joy and an honor to be such a person, a son of this world's Creator who therefore is appointed to bless the world.

This means it is _normal_ for God's people to talk much about him and to do so eagerly. We are not a silent people; we praise and proclaim. God's fame spills out. We see this all through Scripture, and we see God using it to bring glory to his name.

So any suggestion that I should hold back and say less about Jesus, lest I inadvertently cross the line into something that becomes "evangelism," just doesn't ring true. Of course I will tell about Jesus. Many of my friends will hear. Sometimes I will urge them to believe. How could I not? Jesus is too wonderful! If I tried to hold it in, I would burst.

Then what if a friend believes and says I led him to that point? I could get technical and say it was the Spirit's work, not mine, and that the friend probably heard about Jesus through preaching or Bible reading too. But more likely, I will just rejoice and be thankful for any role the Spirit let me have.

I will NOT act as if something has gone horribly wrong, as if it were a terrible mistake that my friend heard more about Jesus from me than he did from an ordained preacher. No, there was nothing inappropriate. God put me in that place and I said the kinds of things believers naturally say. It barely feels like a duty at all.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## earl40

Jack K said:


> I tell people about Jesus in everyday situations all the time. I have never considered this a burden. I realize some churches have wrongly tried to make it a burden on their members, but this does not mean talking about Jesus is a burden on everyone who does it.
> 
> This does not make me a preacher, who has a special duty to preach the Word and evangelize and to do so as an appointed representative of Christ's church.
> 
> But here's the thing: As an everyday believer, it most surely _is_ my duty to live as a man who glorifies God in my actions and words. More than that, calling this a duty is far too slight. It is also a joy and an honor to be such a person, a son of this world's Creator who therefore is appointed to bless the world.
> 
> This means it is _normal_ for God's people to talk much about him and to do so eagerly. We are not a silent people; we praise and proclaim. God's fame spills out. We see this all through Scripture, and we see God using it to bring glory to his name.
> 
> So any suggestion that I should hold back and say less about Jesus, lest I inadvertently cross the line into something that becomes "evangelism," just doesn't ring true. Of course I will tell about Jesus. Many of my friends will hear. Sometimes I will urge them to believe. How could I not? Jesus is too wonderful! If I tried to hold it in, I would burst.
> 
> Then what if a friend believes and says I led him to that point? I could get technical and say it was the Spirit's work, not mine, and that the friend probably heard about Jesus through preaching or Bible reading too. But more likely, I will just rejoice and be thankful for any role the Spirit let me have.
> 
> I will NOT act as if something has gone horribly wrong, as if it were a terrible mistake that my friend heard more about Jesus from me than he did from an ordained preacher. No, there was nothing inappropriate. God put me in that place and I said the kinds of things believers naturally say. It barely feels like a duty at all.



So is it a duty or not that you should evangelize? 

There once was a wise man here who wrote this "Christian friends, shine your light with all your might, testify the rich grace of God which you have received, share your faith with as many as will listen, always be ready to give an answer for the hope that you have; but please do not represent this as the activity of mission or evangelism. Unless a person has gone, been sent, and entered upon the life-course of preaching the gospel, he is not actively and personally undertaking the work of mission or evangelism in the biblical sense of the term. It is the rejection of the biblical concept of mission and evangelism which has led to the very sad state of affairs in the present day where churches are suffering from a lack of men committed to the ministry."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jack K

earl40 said:


> So is it a duty or not that you should evangelize?



It is a duty (well, it is much more than that, but if pressed we might call it a duty) to be a person who will "proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." God's people are not silent; they praise him and proclaim his glory.

This sort of life naturally results in people hearing about Jesus. We might joyfully urge our friends to believe, too. There's nothing wrong with that, nor is it an unusual or special calling. It often happens when we're the sort of people who proclaim God's glories and care about others.

I think you may be too focused on trying to narrow "evangelism" down to one single, tightly-confined definition. Words seldom work that way. If you equate "evangelism" to preaching, then it is not an everyday Christian's duty to evangelize. But if someone wants to call the non-preaching sharing about Jesus that Christians naturally do "evangelism," I'm not going to quibble about terms. I know better. I know words are fluid and usually have a range of meaning.

For that matter, you also might want to consider that all Christians do some things that are, in some ways, similar to preaching. Acts 8:4 does seems to suggest that "preaching" is another word that doesn't have just a single meaning pertaining to a particular work of ordained men. This does NOT mean there's no difference between the work of ordained men and the activities of laymen, but there is overlap in places and some similarities at times, enough that the world "preaching" itself can have slightly different meanings in different contexts.

In short, get at the ideas being expressed rather than focusing on the words used to express them, as is usually the best way to do theology.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Jack,
I don’t believe there are any lines than the ones noted, time after time on this subject here on PB; in fact, I don’t believe you could cross a line evangelizing as you are not an office holder to which that title belongs and neither am I! The distinctions are just that, ‘distinctions’ and they are there in scripture just so that we don’t delve into adopting a characteristic that comes with the office. Everyone can keep doing what they have always done- just don’t call it evangelizing or preaching. No problem on my end.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Scott Bushey said:


> Tim,
> I just looked at the Heidelberg-I have no idea what you are gleaning from this portion....If it is the mentioning of 'confessing His name', this does not rail against anything I have said.
> 
> I believe it may be helpful if you define what 'prophesy' is to you and how it is used in this age.
> 
> Thanks.



Heidelberg 31 speaks about Christ being anointed to three three offices prophet, priest and king. 32 follows by explaining how we are partakers of Christ's anointing. In the use of the words confess (prophet), sacrifice (priest) and reign (king), the catechism teaches that threse three offices belong to us as _Christians_. If there is any doubt as to this connection with these words in relation to the three offices as relating to us, Ursinus makes it clear in his commentary. 

A prophet is one who speaks for God. The prophet's job was to say "thus saith the LORD." As witnesses, we speak about what we know and what we know is from His Word. This office no longer includes extra-biblical inspiration or telling the future, etc. 

Hope that clarifies.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

As a matter of interest, encouragement, and help, "Evangelism: Whose Responsibility?" from the OPC's Ordained Servant Online journal.

"The late Rev. Charles Dennison was relentless in challenging me to found my views of the Christian's duty in evangelism and culture on the text of Scripture and the confessional understanding of that text. I am pleased that my dear friend lived to see me change my views substantially in both areas. I was already convinced of the exegetical principle, which my ordination vows required me to believe. But like the proverbial pudding, the proof was in the exegesis."

https://opc.org/os.html?issue_id=46

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tim,
In Ursinus' commentary of q31 he writes:



> The word prophet comes from the Greek ^o^aj, which means to publist
> things that are to come. In general, a prophet is a person called of God.
> to declare and explain his will to men concerning things present or future,
> which otherwise would have remained unknown, inasmuch as the truths
> which he reveals are of such a nature that men, of themselves, could never
> have attained a knowledge of them. A prophet is either a minister, or
> the head and chief of the prophets, which is Christ. Of those prophets
> which were ministerial, some were of the Old and some of the New Testa
> ment. Among the latter there were some that were generally, and others
> specially, so called.



And here, specifically to the office of prophet:



> The prophetical dignity which is in Christians, is an understanding,
> acknowledgement and confession of the true doctrine of God necessary
> for our salvation. Or, our prophetical office is, 1. Rightly to know God
> and his will. 2. That every one in his place and degree profess the same,
> being correctly understood, faithfully, boldly and constantly, that God may
> thereby be celebrated, and his truth revealed in its living force and power.
> " Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my
> Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 10 : 32.)



This confession, is akin to giving witness. It is not preaching, which is a characteristic of the office itself. All believers are to give witness-just don't call it 'preaching'. 

(P)rophet vs (p)rophet

The preaching that my pastor does is (P)rophetic. The teaching I do in my home w/ my family is (p)rophetic.


----------



## timfost

Scott Bushey said:


> This confession, is akin to giving witness. It is not preaching, which is a characteristic of the office itself. All believers are to give witness-just don't call it 'preaching'.
> 
> (P)rophet vs (p)rophet
> 
> The preaching that my pastor does is (P)rophetic. The teaching I do in my home w/ my family is (p)rophetic.



I agree. I was never advocating that all of us are preachers (sorry if that was unclear!), though I would distinguish between preaching and evangelism. One can promulgate the evangel without having the title of evangelist. See Acts 8:4. In the following verse, Phillip preached. Those scattered (v. 4) evangelized. Unfortunately, the NKJV uses "preach(ing)" in both verses.


----------



## earl40

timfost said:


> I agree. I was never advocating that all of us are preachers (sorry if that was unclear!), though I would distinguish between preaching and evangelism. One can promulgate the evangel without having the title of evangelist. See Acts 8:4. In the following verse, Phillip preached. Those scattered (v. 4) evangelized. Unfortunately, the NKJV uses "preach(ing)" in both verses.



You are assuming those that were scattered did not include Pastors and that Phillip was not one at that time. If he (Phillip) was not one, he no doubt was like Paul who was an evangelist during the early church which position has since passed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I was just going to comment that a careful reading of the passage indicates strongly that it was ordained men who did this evangelization. Chapter 8:1, 4-5
"1. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles...4-5. Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. Philip went down to the city[a] of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ."

Do you think that literally only the apostles remained in Jerusalem; that every single church member fled? No, the ones being focused on were the other leaders of the church besides the apostles; they all were scattered, the apostles alone of the leaders remained. Those scattered one went about evangelizing, and then the text narrows down from that group to Philip.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

Jeri Tanner said:


> I was just going to comment that a careful reading of the passage indicates strongly that it was ordained men who did this evangelization. Chapter 8:1, 4-5
> "1. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles...4-5. Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. Philip went down to the city[a] of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ."
> 
> Do you think that literally only the apostles remained in Jerusalem; that every single church member fled? No, the ones being focused on were the other leaders of the church besides the apostles; they all were scattered, the apostles alone of the leaders remained. Those scattered one went about evangelizing, and then the text narrows down from that group to Philip.



Again, if I were to grant your interpretation of this passage, I think you enforce something that not commanded in the way you present it.

Your argument is from silence.

The OP especially concerns me. Shouldn't we be overjoyed if someone comes to Christ through a roommate? Why should we doubt it? Because our speculative theology doesn't allow for it?

Are we allowed to tell anyone the good news? The evangel is that good news. If we promote the evangel, are we not evangelizing? Unless we are ashamed of the evangel? Are we to witness without the evangel, lest we evangelize?

It seems that we're playing word games...


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> Tim, I'd push back a little and say that 1 Peter 3:1-2 is calling wives to live the life, not "witness" to her husband; and that the 1 Corinthians passage is the apostle speaking of his apostolic ministry, and isn't teaching laypeople about witnessing.
> 
> You won't find a passage instructing lay people to witness ("share the gospel") with people. The charge "ye shall be witnesses" was, again, a charge to the apostles.
> 
> We are to give an answer to those who ask the reason for the hope that is in us. We are to invite people to come and hear Jesus, as did the woman at the well. We can tell them, "he told me everything I've ever done. The Lord has done great things for me."


There is a difference in the Bible between witnessing on a personal basis, and witnessing as in proclaiming the scriptures to the church body .


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> Again, if I were to grant your interpretation of this passage, I think you enforce something that not commanded in the way you present it.
> 
> Your argument is from silence.
> 
> The OP especially concerns me. Shouldn't we be overjoyed if someone comes to Christ through a roommate? Why should we doubt it? Because our speculative theology doesn't allow for it?
> 
> Are we allowed to tell anyone the good news? The evangel is that good news. If we promote the evangel, are we not evangelizing? Unless we are ashamed of the evangel? Are we to witness without the evangel, lest we evangelize?
> 
> It seems that we're playing word games...


The Holy spirit works through the teaching/preaching of the Gospel, and all Christians are commissioned to give their testimony/witness when asked for it.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I've been thinking about Earl's specific question about dorm buddies (lay people) leading others to Christ, and I think this is an important point to consider: are lay people to share the gospel and witness to the point that they invite someone to pray the sinner's prayer and then afterwards rejoice with them that they have been saved- all outside the church? This is what comes to my mind when we speak of leading people to Christ. This type of witnessing is what is being urged upon congregations; that's the concern.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> I've been thinking about Earl's specific question about dorm buddies (lay people) leading others to Christ, and I think this is an important point to consider: are lay people to share the gospel and witness to the point that they invite someone to pray the sinner's prayer and then afterwards rejoice with them that they have been saved- all outside the church? This is what comes to my mind when we speak of leading people to Christ. This type of witnessing is what is being urged upon congregations; that's the concern.


That is how the Lord builds His Body, as the vast majority of the evangelism is done through the laity outside of the church building, and once saved, the pastors and elders/teachers built up those now saved.


----------



## Gforce9

It seems to me that a (small? large?) part of the disparity is the difference in premises: outcome -vs- what is right and proper. I don't doubt many have come to saving faith via laity. God has "used" them. But hasn't God set up offices and order? I think the disagreement from the "proper" side is with the end-run around how Christ has ordered His church and making that end-run normative and ordaining it right in spite of direction given......


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Gforce9 said:


> It seems to me that a (small? large?) part of the disparity is the difference in premises: outcome -vs- what is right and proper. I don't doubt many have come to saving faith via laity. God has "used" them. But hasn't God set up offices and order? I think the disagreement from the "proper" side is with the end-run around how Christ has ordered His church and making that end-run normative and ordaining it right in spite of direction given......


I think that's right. It's due to the individualistic ideals (Anabaptist kind of, in a way, or at least populist in nature) that have permeated the church. Every member a minister.


----------



## earl40

timfost said:


> The OP especially concerns me. Shouldn't we be overjoyed if someone comes to Christ through a roommate? Why should we doubt it? Because our speculative theology doesn't allow for it?



"and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

So you are telling me that the answer is a "roommate"?


----------



## timfost

Certainly we should not encourage people to say the sinner's prayer and expect an outcome akin to magic words. We should help them understand the will of God for them. This absolutely and necessarily includes the commandments. The fourth commandment requires us to diligently attend church. Our "evangelism" is never divorced from the church. As Kuiper explains, evangelism proceeds from the organized church. 

Regardless of who plants and who waters, God gives the increase.

Jeri, if you promote the gospel and are a faithful witness, I'm thankful. If it is just wording we disagree with, there is no real issue.


----------



## timfost

earl40 said:


> "and how shall they hear without a preacher?"
> 
> So you are telling me that the answer is a "roommate"?



How did Timothy hear? Is he the exception to your doctrine?

As it has already been said, preaching is the ordinary. Dabney rightly notes in another context that "The proof of a proposition does not disprove its converse."


----------



## Jeri Tanner

timfost said:


> Certainly we should not encourage people to say the sinner's prayer and expect an outcome akin to magic words. We should help them understand the will of God for them. This absolutely and necessarily includes the commandments. The fourth commandment requires us to diligently attend church. Our "evangelism" is never divorced from the church. As Kuiper explains, evangelism proceeds from the organized church.
> 
> Regardless of who plants and who waters, God gives the increase.
> 
> Jeri, if you promote the gospel and are a faithful witness, I'm thankful. If it is just wording we disagree with, there is no real issue.


Wording isn't divorced from teaching and doctrine. Words and terminology in this case have resulted in a call to duty being put upon the shoulders of lay people that I firmly believe God does not put upon our shoulders. Yes, it is a joy and privilege to speak to others, believers and unbelievers, of the glories and wonders of Christ. And I do as often (I pray!) as the Lord grants opportunity. But wording, including the terminology you are using such as individual Christians having a prophetic office toward unbelievers, can be wrong and troubling and misleading. The church is the entity with the prophetic office, as the pillar and buttress of the truth. I highly recommend reading the articles I linked to. Exegesis, exegesis, exegesis. Much love in Christ, brother!


----------



## Jack K

Jeri Tanner said:


> I've been thinking about Earl's specific question about dorm buddies (lay people) leading others to Christ, and I think this is an important point to consider: are lay people to share the gospel and witness to the point that they invite someone to pray the sinner's prayer and then afterwards rejoice with them that they have been saved- all outside the church? This is what comes to my mind when we speak of leading people to Christ. This type of witnessing is what is being urged upon congregations; that's the concern.



Jeri, you have very valid concerns about the "sinner's prayer," pronouncements of salvation based on outward acts of decision, and the pressure some congregations put on members to engage in this sort of thing. It all damages people and is out of line with the gospel. I don't like those things either.

But I think these legitimate concerns should not cause us to become silent about Jesus among our friends. We know good news, and it is natural to share it with joy... not as a pastor, but friend to friend. And we think too little of friendship, and of our position as children of the Father, if we imagine the Spirit does not use such conversations.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jack K

earl40 said:


> "and how shall they hear without a preacher?"
> 
> So you are telling me that the answer is a "roommate"?



It helps to consider context. Paul is asking, "How will peoples who've not heard the gospel be reached if no preacher is sent?"

This is a very different question than to ask, "Who, if anyone, is forbidden from telling what he knows about Jesus to his best friend?" It's hazardous to try to answer this second question using only a passage that's addressing the first one.

Certainly, today's concept of "witnessing" involves many excesses and bad ideas that should be resisted. But some people who haven't heard any good preaching do hear the truth about Christ from their roommates. Paul does not intend to condemn this in Romans 10:14. He isn't even writing about the topic of who should be forbidden to tell about Jesus friend to friend.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> I think that's right. It's due to the individualistic ideals (Anabaptist kind of, in a way, or at least populist in nature) that have permeated the church. Every member a minister.


I would think that God uses both in the salvation process, as many are saved by friendship evangelism, and then they are matured and built up in the faith.by pastors/teachers. All christian are commanded to witness for Jesus in wherever the Lord has placed them in.


----------



## Dachaser

Jack K said:


> It helps to consider context. Paul is asking, "How will peoples who've not heard the gospel be reached if no preacher is sent?"
> 
> This is a very different question than to ask, "Who, if anyone, is forbidden from telling what he knows about Jesus to his best friend?" It's hazardous to try to answer this second question using only a passage that's addressing the first one.
> 
> Certainly, today's concept of "witnessing" involves many excesses and bad ideas that should be resisted. But some people who haven't heard any good preaching do hear the truth about Christ from their roommates. Paul does not intend to condemn this in Romans 10:14. He isn't even writing about the topic of who should be forbidden to tell about Jesus friend to friend.


The minister/pastor seems to be given the mission to teach/preach and mature/build up those who have been saved by the Lord, and the laity seems to be commissioned to take the witness of Jesus out into the world.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Lots of words are being tossed around here, though I don't believe people are processing. 

Evangelism is an characteristic of an office and officer. Most believe this office to be abrogated-some denoms still use it for their ordained men who are in field ministry. The term is restricted to officers.

Commission: think of an officer in our militaries that are 'commissioned'. The great commission was given to the officers of the church. All God's people that make up the body function in the commission; some secondarily, i.e. laypeople, and primarily, i.e. officers.

I don't believe anyone has said in this thread that only officers are to speak about Christ but that we need to be consistent with our verbiage. Don't call it preaching and don't call it evangelizing. Feel free to call it what it is, sharing, witnessing, etc.

God uses His bride to distribute the means of grace every Lord's day. It is here where the gsoepl is officially disseminated. The WCF tells us that outside of the church, 'there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.'. The Divines make mention of this, because it is integral to the gospel message.

Jeri made mention of:



> Wording isn't divorced from teaching and doctrine. Words and terminology in this case have resulted in a call to duty being put upon the shoulders of lay people that I firmly believe God does not put upon our shoulders.



The above is true and the reason we have this thing is secondarily to the Arminian/dispensational error on two fronts. 
1) The idea of rushing out to give the gospel so as none fall through the cracks and 2) the idea that when the last Gentile is saved, Christ will return, i.e. the 'fulfillment of the gentiles has come in'.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Jack K said:


> It helps to consider context. Paul is asking, "How will peoples who've not heard the gospel be reached if no preacher is sent?"
> 
> This is a very different question than to ask, "Who, if anyone, is forbidden from telling what he knows about Jesus to his best friend?" It's hazardous to try to answer this second question using only a passage that's addressing the first one.
> Certainly, today's concept of "witnessing" involves many excesses and bad ideas that should be resisted. But some people who haven't heard any good preaching do hear the truth about Christ from their roommates. Paul does not intend to condemn this in Romans 10:14. He isn't even writing about the topic of who should be forbidden to tell about Jesus friend to friend.


I appreciate what you're saying here Jack, but it would be nice if those pushing back against our position wouldn't characterize us as seeking to find Scripture that 'forbids us to tell our friends about Jesus.' Surely by now that's clear. We just want the Scriptures to guide us in, hopefully, all areas. After all,
*"*What do the Scriptures principally teach?"
"The Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man."


----------



## timfost

Jeri,

I don't want to characterize you as someone who doesn't want to tell others about Jesus. I'm sorry if I've left that impression.

Would you please explain what believers should and should not say when telling others about Jesus? That would really help me understand where you're coming from.

I probably should have asked this earlier. Please forgive me for jumping in too fast.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> I would think that God uses both in the salvation process, as many are saved by friendship evangelism, and then they are matured and built up in the faith.by pastors/teachers. All christian are commanded to witness for Jesus in wherever the Lord has placed them in.



Whether He "uses" or not is not what is in question. Whether it is right, proper and orderly is in question......

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

timfost said:


> Jeri,
> 
> I don't want to characterize you as someone who doesn't want to tell others about Jesus. I'm sorry if I've left that impression.
> 
> Would you please explain what believers should and should not say when telling others about Jesus? That would really help me understand where you're coming from.
> 
> I probably should have asked this earlier. Please forgive me for jumping in too fast.


Tim, I don't know if you're being sincere... Do you really think I wish to tell what Christians should or shouldn't say when talking with unbelievers? I'm coming from the Scripture (same place as Scott, Tyler, and Earl, and MW, *wish he was here*).


----------



## timfost

Jeri Tanner said:


> Tim, I don't know if you're being sincere... Do you really think I wish to tell what Christians should or shouldn't say when talking with unbelievers? I'm coming from the Scripture (same place as Scott, Tyler, and Earl, and MW, *wish he was here*).



That's what it seemed like to me. I must be mistaken. Do you believe that we are to call people to faith and repentance? If so, our disagreement only seems to be in word choice.

I am asking you sincerely.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Again, we are speaking in one sense of terms, and the other, classifications and distinctions that come w/ those classes.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Tim, I believe the ministry of the Church is to call people to faith and repentance. That in no way means that individual Christians shouldn't speak to people. I do encourage you to read the articles I linked to.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Jeri Tanner said:


> Tim, I believe the ministry of the Church is to call people to faith and repentance. That in no way means that individual Christians shouldn't speak to people. I do encourage you to read the articles I linked to.



Thank you for clarifying.

Blessings,

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K

Jeri Tanner said:


> I appreciate what you're saying here Jack, but it would be nice if those pushing back against our position wouldn't characterize us as seeking to find Scripture that 'forbids us to tell our friends about Jesus.' Surely by now that's clear. We just want the Scriptures to guide us in, hopefully, all areas. After all,
> *"*What do the Scriptures principally teach?"
> "The Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man."



Fair enough, Jeri. You didn't say that, and I should have made it clear that not everyone concerned about "dorm room evangelism" was suggesting that. It's my job to make that clear, and I failed to do so. I'm sorry.

Those comments were in response to the opening post and a few others that did say something is wrong if a person claims to have been converted through the witness of a friend rather than the preaching of an ordained minister, and that such behavior ought to stop. Well, some excesses should stop. But I fail to see how one can say anything meaningful about Jesus to a friend without it including some truth of the gospel, even if the sharer isn't _gospel_-izing in the ordained-minister sense. And if there's gospel in it, the Spirit might use it. As I see it, if one wants to stop conversions that don't come as a direct result of preaching, under the premise that such conversions are bad, one had better stop talking about Jesus entirely.

My fundamental disagreement with the opening post is with the idea that belief must come _only_ through ordained preaching, and that reports of conversions that seem to happen through friendly sharing should concern us. I realize that post had excesses like the "sinner's prayer" in mind, but it still went too far. It makes too much of the distinction between ordained preaching and ordinary sharing. There surely is a distinction, but they also have much in common.


----------



## earl40

Jack K said:


> It helps to consider context. Paul is asking, "How will peoples who've not heard the gospel be reached if no preacher is sent?"
> 
> This is a very different question than to ask, "Who, if anyone, is forbidden from telling what he knows about Jesus to his best friend?" It's hazardous to try to answer this second question using only a passage that's addressing the first one.
> 
> Certainly, today's concept of "witnessing" involves many excesses and bad ideas that should be resisted. But some people who haven't heard any good preaching do hear the truth about Christ from their roommates. Paul does not intend to condemn this in Romans 10:14. He isn't even writing about the topic of who should be forbidden to tell about Jesus friend to friend.



Please read all the post here for none have said one is not allowed or "forbidden" to speak to another about Our Lord. Your post and the way you worded it suggests such which is unbecoming of you dear brother.


----------



## earl40

Jack K said:


> Fair enough, Jeri. You didn't say that, and I should have made it clear that not everyone concerned about "dorm room evangelism" was suggesting that. It's my job to make that clear, and I failed to do so. I'm sorry.
> 
> Those comments were in response to the opening post and a few others that did say something is wrong if a person claims to have been converted through the witness of a friend rather than the preaching of an ordained minister, and that such behavior ought to stop. Well, some excesses should stop. But I fail to see how one can say anything meaningful about Jesus to a friend without it including some truth of the gospel, even if the sharer isn't _gospel_-izing in the ordained-minister sense. And if there's gospel in it, the Spirit might use it. As I see it, if one wants to stop conversions that don't come as a direct result of preaching, under the premise that such conversions are bad, one had better stop talking about Jesus entirely.
> 
> My fundamental disagreement with the opening post is with the idea that belief must come _only_ through ordained preaching, and that reports of conversions that seem to happen through friendly sharing should concern us. I realize that post had excesses like the "sinner's prayer" in mind, but it still went too far. It makes too much of the distinction between ordained preaching and ordinary sharing. There surely is a distinction, but they also have much in common.



What I believe is that we have a fundamental difference on Paul's question in Romans which in context says it is by preaching alone. I understand your concern, though scripture teaches us how people are saved by the means of the ordained, and there are no "dorm buddies" doing the work that our Pastors do day in and day out. What is interesting is that the view I am espousing is not only scriptural but historical with exceptions of the recent past. Think about it....200 years ago and no one would be disputing what I have posted here.


----------



## TylerRay

timfost said:


> That's what it seemed like to me. I must be mistaken. Do you believe that we are to call people to faith and repentance? If so, our disagreement only seems to be in word choice.
> 
> I am asking you sincerely.


Tim,
Although you'readdressing Jeri here, I want to point out one of the problems in this conversation. I think we're talking past one another. "Talking to people about Jesus" is being equated with "calling men to faith and repentance" by those who are advocating the view that all are called to evangelize.

My contention is that all Chistians should tell people about Jesus. One way to do this is to share one's testimony of Christ's work in one's life, such as the Gadarean demonic or the Samaritan woman did. Only ministers of the Gospel, however have the charge (and thus the authority) to call men to faith and repentance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K

earl40 said:


> Please read all the post here for none have said one is not allowed or "forbidden" to speak to another about Our Lord.



Okay, I read your posts more carefully and you merely said (if I'm reading you correctly) that it was not possible for the witness of a Christian friend to result in a conversion.

I read too much between the lines. I thought this meant you were opposed to the practice of a roommate telling a friend about Jesus or, at least, opposed to urging him to believe. But you didn't actually say that. You said the friend could not end up truly believing as a result of such a conversation, without a preacher. Correct?

I figured that would mean the whole conversation was inappropriate, but I can see that isn't necessarily the case.

I still think you need to beware of exclusive statements. They are the most difficult positions to defend. Especially when you maintain that God only works in one specific way, and that it is "not possible" he sometimes works in other ways, you set yourself up to be disputed.

In this case, assuming it is good for us to talk about Jesus, I find it doesn't work to suggest we can talk truthfully about Jesus without in some sense (not the full preaching sense) communicating the gospel. And the Scripture tells me that message, and not so much the identity of the messenger, is what the Spirit uses to bring sinners to Christ. This is not a license for everyone to preach, nor a command that everyone evangelize his neighbor; it's just a recognition that preaching isn't the only way people end up hearing the gospel. Printing presses, Internet sites, neighborly chats, dorm room debates... the gospel spills out in all these places, because we are the kind of people who declare God's glory in Jesus Christ.

If you say it isn't the gospel if it doesn't come from an ordained preacher, that's a particularly narrow definition of "gospel." You can use that definition if you like, but then I think you run into problems if you say belief is impossible without hearing the "gospel" in that narrowest sense—again, you end up limiting God too much.

You're right. I don't think Romans 10:14 means it is impossible for people to believe apart from the preaching of an ordained minister. Whether or not such preaching is the primary or normal method God ordains is another question, but that is not what you claimed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Jack K said:


> Fair enough, Jeri. You didn't say that, and I should have made it clear that not everyone concerned about "dorm room evangelism" was suggesting that. It's my job to make that clear, and I failed to do so. I'm sorry.
> 
> Those comments were in response to the opening post and a few others that did say something is wrong if a person claims to have been converted through the witness of a friend rather than the preaching of an ordained minister, and that such behavior ought to stop. Well, some excesses should stop. But I fail to see how one can say anything meaningful about Jesus to a friend without it including some truth of the gospel, even if the sharer isn't _gospel_-izing in the ordained-minister sense. And if there's gospel in it, the Spirit might use it. As I see it, if one wants to stop conversions that don't come as a direct result of preaching, under the premise that such conversions are bad, one had better stop talking about Jesus entirely.
> 
> My fundamental disagreement with the opening post is with the idea that belief must come _only_ through ordained preaching, and that reports of conversions that seem to happen through friendly sharing should concern us. I realize that post had excesses like the "sinner's prayer" in mind, but it still went too far. It makes too much of the distinction between ordained preaching and ordinary sharing. There surely is a distinction, but they also have much in common.


Thanks, Jack.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

Jack K said:


> You're right. I don't think Romans 10:14 means it is impossible for people to believe apart from the preaching of an ordained minister. Whether or not such preaching is the primary or normal method God ordains is another question, but that is not what you claimed.



So may we read Rom 10:14 with it "exclusive statement" and the whole of scripture to see if one can believe through the means of a "dorm buddy"? I don't know one instance that this exception is granted, and my "narrow" thinking is formed by scripture, which also is confirmed by experience conta to many who think they were converted by unordinary means.


----------



## Ed Walsh

earl40 said:


> This entire thread about the obligation, and the mistaken idea you and I as laypersons are obligated to the task of evangelism. I am sorry but as alluded to previously the "ordinary" way people come to Jesus is by preaching (which Our Lord can use the preachers in the scripture BTW). Any other extraordinary way, such as a dorm buddy who thinks they "led" (this for Josh) another to Christ, speaks against Romans 10:14



Hi Earl,
I am still in the midst of reading through all the posts so if what I say has been mentioned before please understand.

Here's a question: Does your view of Romans 10:14 bar parents from "preaching" teaching the gospel to their children? What about "masters" and servants?

Deuteronomy 6:6-7
6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

Q. 29. What are the duties of masters to their servants?
A. To be meek and gentle towards them, forbearing threatening, Eph. 6:9; to instruct them in the principles of religion, Gen. 18:19; to see to their external observance of the Sabbath, Ex. 20:10; and to pay them punctually their wages, Deut. 24:15. (Fisher's Catechism)

What about the third commandment and the duty of the father or other head of the household to enforce the Sabbath? Must he do this without the gospel?

Exodus 20:10
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

BTW - I agree that laymen should never set themselves up as or proclaim himself a preacher with a congregation under him, etc. But to not share the gospel, if one is able, is going against the tenor of Scripture and all that it means to be human. What did the early Christians go the lions for? Did they say nothing? Were they supposed to say nothing? I also agree that there should be no guilt trip placed on every member of the congregation to be a "preacher." In some instances, perhaps, some people should be dissuaded from sharing the gospel. But to think that a Christian can say just about anything EXCEPT the gospel is a bit strange to me.

Luke 6:45
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Acts 4:20
For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

To think that I am forbidden from explaining the gospel to a friend or employee in the hope that God will grant repentance would be as unnatural for me as a fish out of the water.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

Ed Walsh said:


> Hi Earl,
> I am still in the midst of reading through all the posts so if what I say has been mentioned before please understand.



I understand because this thread is a tad long and many of your questions are answered in previous posts. 



Ed Walsh said:


> Here's a question: Does your view of Romans 10:14 bar parents from "preaching" teaching the gospel to their children? What about "masters" and servants?.



Notice how you use the word preaching with quotation marks. This tells me you are using it a qualified sense which is good and I approve of. This was addressed by my quote from Pastor Winzer in an earlier post which should be enlightening to all here. For to use the words Preach and evangelizing in the biblical sense is limited to Pastors alone in scripture and their duty.





Ed Walsh said:


> BTW - I agree that laymen should never set themselves up as or proclaim himself a preacher with a congregation under him, etc. But to not share the gospel, if one is able, is going against the tenor of Scripture and all that it means to be human. What did the early Christians go the lions for? Did they say nothing? Were they supposed to say nothing? I also agree that there should be no guilt trip placed on every member of the congregation to be a "preacher." In some instances, perhaps, some people should be dissuaded from sharing the gospel. But to think that a Christian can say just about anything EXCEPT the gospel is a bit strange to me.



This has been answered earlier and no one is saying that one may not share The Gospel. Though to expect God to work out salvation via unbiblical means (Romans 10:14) is in my opinion unbiblical.




Ed Walsh said:


> To think that I am forbidden from explaining the gospel to a friend or employee in the hope that God will grant repentance would be as unnatural for me as a fish out of the water.



One must jump out of the water to see how God works through the means He has prescribed in scripture, which is prescribed exclusively to the ordained Pastor.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BG

earl40 said:


> One must jump out of the water to see how God works through the means He has prescribed in scripture, which is prescribed exclusively to the ordained Pastor.



The exclusivity of the Bishopry, or the divine right of Bishops? If only the Bible was in Latin, then we would not have to worry about the rabble thinking they should minister to others. If only Rome had been willing to reform just a little we could put some of these people on the Rack 

MT 5:15
Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

PS 96:1-3
Oh sing to the LORD a new song;
sing to the LORD, all the earth!
Sing to the LORD, bless his name;
tell of his salvation from day to day.
Declare his glory among the nations,
his marvelous works among all the peoples!
For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised;

James 5:19-20

My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Prov 11:30 The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life and whoever captures souls is wise

Phm 1:6
and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Charles G. Dennison, "Evangelism and the Church" (https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=158&issue_id=46):

"Without a doubt, great differences exist within the church concerning evangelism. I have endeavored to approach the subject with reverence knowing that many recent voices of the Reformed tradition disagree with me. Therefore, my desire is to treat this subject with charity.

"Important, at the outset, is an _affirmation_ of my commitment to the evangelistic ministry of the church. On two occasions I have presented my position (once in Sewickley and once in Pittsburgh); _each time people have left to bear tales about what they thought I said. _To their way of thinking, I oppose evangelism. This is untrue. The question is not whether evangelism should be done, but how and by whom. Invariably, many who disagree with me conclude I do not believe in evangelism simply because I do not accept their personal view of it.

"In order to focus the discussion, let me enumerate my chief concerns. First is that of the church (people of God) and the Word. The people of God have been made to suffer guilt and frustration because they have been placed beneath a burden the Word never intended them to bear. Evangelicals of our day have been convinced that the individual members have an obligatory and definite evangelistic calling which involves them directly in presenting the gospel to the unregenerate. I believe this position to be unscriptural and that it has not only injured the evangelistic ministry of the church but confused the body of Christ with regard to its proper obligations.

"The second chief concern is that of church and office. Major tragedies have been created for the church because of a blurring of biblical office. In jeopardy is the biblical position on calling. The Reformation tenet, "the priesthood of all believers," has been mishandled so as to teach that the laity is welcomed to all the responsibilities of the ordained. Such a position results in disintegration not because of a simple violation of order but because of disobedience."

This quote really doesn't do justice to the entire, brief article by Charles Dennison. He goes into the historic Reformed view including the duties of lay people, and how our modern day view of evangelism has hurt the cause of the gospel's going forth; how our view of the church has disintegrated and the consequences; and more. Understanding what's being argued here does not bring restriction on the going forth of the gospel; it brings great freedom and causes that going forth to flourish.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner

earl40 said:


> How would you answer the person who says they were lead (edit to led) to Jesus and saved by the conversation of a coworker or dorm buddy? I ask in light of Romans 10:14 which in my opinion is exclusive to preachers. In other words, does not Romans 10:14 exclude such thinking that one can believe without a preacher?





Jack K said:


> It helps to consider context. Paul is asking, "How will peoples who've not heard the gospel be reached if no preacher is sent?"



So on the context of Romans 10; at first as I thought about it, the way Jack put it, that Paul is asking, "How will _peoples_ who've not heard...", put me in mind of far-flung missionary enterprises; so that we think of foreign lands in terms of needing a preacher to be sent, while the work of evangelism close to home can be done by laity and ordained ministry alike.

But Paul's context isn't talking about that. He's talking about pastors being sent, not as we think about it to far-off lands, but in the sense of being ordained and commissioned. 'Laborers sent forth for the harvest' (Luke 10:2). Paul's mission field, specifically, in Romans 10 is the Gentiles, who were both nearby and next door, and also far away.

So in my thinking, Romans 10 does claim that the right and effective hearing of the gospel does depend on a sent laborer, I.e. a sent preacher of the gospel; being sent not having to do primarily with travel, necessarily, but with commission.

Again, this is not to say that all believers including laity may not speak to others about Christ!! Edit to add: that I believe as I know do all of us, that God does use our words with others even as he uses our way of life lived out before others. We have biblical duties found in Scripture to speak to others in our households and in our church. And to those outside both institutions, we may speak in all kinds of ways to all kinds of people about Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

I'm surprised that I haven't seen much discussion on this thread of the passage that contains the clearest expression of the commission to preach the gospel. I mean that passage in Matthew 28 that we call the Great Commission. Note the language used there:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and *teach all nations, baptizing them* in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: *Teaching* *them *to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, _even_ unto the end of the world. Amen. (vv18-20)

Note that the commission involves two elements: teaching and baptizing. That is, the ministry of the Word and sacraments. If this text is to be our paradigm for evangelism (and I think most would admit that it is), then it is clear that the ones commissioned to evangelize are the ministers of the Evangel.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

Calvin on Rom. 10:14:

"No other word has he mentioned here but that which is preached, because it is the ordinary mode which the Lord has appointed for conveying his word. But were any on this account to contend that God cannot transfer to men the knowledge of himself, except by the instrumentality of preaching, *we deny that to teach this was the Apostle's intention; for he had only in view the ordinary dispensation of God, and did not intend to prescribe a law for the distribution of his grace*."

If Calvin is correct, this would moot the OP.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

timfost said:


> Calvin on Room. 10:14:
> 
> "No other word has he mentioned here but that which is preached, because it is the ordinary mode which the Lord has appointed for conveying his word. But were any on this account to contend that God cannot transfer to men the knowledge of himself, except by the instrumentality of preaching, *we deny that to teach this was the Apostle's intention; for he had only in view the ordinary dispensation of God, and did not intend to prescribe a law for the distribution of his grace*."
> 
> If Calvin is correct, this would moot the OP.



"It is true that Calvin spoke often of what we might call "lay witnessing." Although there is no such notion in the _Institutes_, many references are found throughout his sermons and commentaries.[11] But to be fair to Calvin, his position, while including the act of speaking up for Christ, was the witness of the total life of the believer rather than that of a specialized program or isolated segment of one's schedule.

"Proof that Calvin's emphasis is out of step with the contemporary evangelical understanding of evangelism is the general lack of patience among evangelicals for Calvin at this point. Evangelicals may find an occasional encouragement in Calvin's work but, admittedly, the emphasis lies elsewhere.

"As the Reformed position developed, the laity were seen under obligation to work hard, do good, attend the means of grace, give cheerfully, and pray incessantly. Such "reverent behavior," not excluding the good word for Jesus, would hopefully have effect upon one's neighbor (Heidelberg Catechism, Question 86); but the focus was upon righteous living, not aggressive evangelism. In this way, the people of God are salt, light, and a city set on a hill (Matt. 5:13-16). And what about evangelism and preaching of the gospel? In the mind of the Reformed church, that task belonged to the ordained (The Second Helvetic Confession, 18)." (From the article by Dennison I linked to above.)

I would add that commentaries are good but only insofar as they agree with Scripture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

timfost said:


> Calvin on Room. 10:14:
> 
> "No other word has he mentioned here but that which is preached, because it is the ordinary mode which the Lord has appointed for conveying his word. But were any on this account to contend that God cannot transfer to men the knowledge of himself, except by the instrumentality of preaching, *we deny that to teach this was the Apostle's intention; for he had only in view the ordinary dispensation of God, and did not intend to prescribe a law for the distribution of his grace*."
> 
> If Calvin is correct, this would moot the OP.


Right--God is not bound by his own ordinances. They are, however, ordinances. We shouldn't expect him to work apart from them (they are what he revealed he would use), but we shouldn't despise the work of God when he chooses to use extraordinary means, like those in the Middle East who are being converted through visions. Sometimes he even works apart from means altogether, as with children regenerated in the womb.

Edit: Note that Calvin doesn't address the matter of people who are not ministers evangelizing here--he only maintains that God, as the WCF puts it, "works when, and where, and how He pleases" (note that the quote from the WCF is given in the context of "elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" ).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

"But what was the laity's obligation to the unconverted? The exposition of the law of God and the Lord's Prayer in the catechisms provide the Assembly's answer. While dealing with the law of God, the Standards point out the believer's duty irrespective of the spiritual condition of those to whom the duty is due. Regarding prayer, note particularly the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 191, and the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 102. Christians are "to pray ... that ... the gospel [be] propagated throughout the world" and that "ourselves and others [be] brought into [the kingdom of grace]."

"The Assembly had within it those who advocated a modern view of evangelism and it rejected their position.[12] It faced the question of the laity's relationship to the unconverted; its answer was to do good, live circumspectly, and offer prayer."

Prayer. What did Christ tell his disciples to do about the fields white for the harvest? He told them to pray that God would send forth laborers. This is where we as lay people (and of course this charge to pray is to those in ministry as well) do the great, secret work we're called to. What does the angel in Revelation pour out of the vial when the work is completed? The prayers of the saints. This is how we co-labor in the cause of Christ. We fail to labor in tears and pleadings for this sending forth of laborers, because we think we think as lay members that we're the laborers. Our modern views on evangelism mess everything up- our prayers, our assurance regarding our duty as lay members, and our witness! because we're undermining God's appointed means of spreading the gospel. Get his appointed means right, and our interactions with unbelievers will be right. And our prayers will bear fruit.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Lots of words are being tossed around here, though I don't believe people are processing.
> 
> Evangelism is an characteristic of an office and officer. Most believe this office to be abrogated-some denoms still use it for their ordained men who are in field ministry. The term is restricted to officers.
> 
> Commission: think of an officer in our militaries that are 'commissioned'. The great commission was given to the officers of the church. All God's people that make up the body function in the commission; some secondarily, i.e. laypeople, and primarily, i.e. officers.
> 
> I don't believe anyone has said in this thread that only officers are to speak about Christ but that we need to be consistent with our verbiage. Don't call it preaching and don't call it evangelizing. Feel free to call it what it is, sharing, witnessing, etc.
> 
> God uses His bride to distribute the means of grace every Lord's day. It is here where the gsoepl is officially disseminated. The WCF tells us that outside of the church, 'there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.'. The Divines make mention of this, because it is integral to the gospel message.
> 
> Jeri made mention of:
> 
> 
> 
> The above is true and the reason we have this thing is secondarily to the Arminian/dispensational error on two fronts.
> 1) The idea of rushing out to give the gospel so as none fall through the cracks and 2) the idea that when the last Gentile is saved, Christ will return, i.e. the 'fulfillment of the gentiles has come in'.


There is the position of being called as an Evangelist, and also all Christians are commanded to evangelize for Christ, by being those who by both words and deeds are faithful witnesses to Him, living Epistles as Peter calls all of us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> Tim, I believe the ministry of the Church is to call people to faith and repentance. That in no way means that individual Christians shouldn't speak to people. I do encourage you to read the articles I linked to.


All of us as saved are to be witnesses of the Gospel by word and deed, and there are also those gifted and called as Evangelists. All are to witness, but not all gifted to do the work as an Evangelist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

earl40 said:


> So may we read Rom 10:14 with it "exclusive statement" and the whole of scripture to see if one can believe through the means of a "dorm buddy"? I don't know one instance that this exception is granted, and my "narrow" thinking is formed by scripture, which also is confirmed by experience conta to many who think they were converted by unordinary means.


Any sinner saved is ordinarily converted by the holy spirit using the Gospel message, and all of us have the privileged to be used by God to lead someone to Jesus.


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> "But what was the laity's obligation to the unconverted? The exposition of the law of God and the Lord's Prayer in the catechisms provide the Assembly's answer. While dealing with the law of God, the Standards point out the believer's duty irrespective of the spiritual condition of those to whom the duty is due. Regarding prayer, note particularly the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 191, and the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 102. Christians are "to pray ... that ... the gospel [be] propagated throughout the world" and that "ourselves and others [be] brought into [the kingdom of grace]."
> 
> "The Assembly had within it those who advocated a modern view of evangelism and it rejected their position.[12] It faced the question of the laity's relationship to the unconverted; its answer was to do good, live circumspectly, and offer prayer."
> 
> Prayer. What did Christ tell his disciples to do about the fields white for the harvest? He told them to pray that God would send forth laborers. This is where we as lay people (and of course this charge to pray is to those in ministry as well) do the great, secret work we're called to. What does the angel in Revelation pour out of the vial when the work is completed? The prayers of the saints. This is how we co-labor in the cause of Christ. We fail to labor in tears and pleadings for this sending forth of laborers, because we think we think as lay members that we're the laborers. Our modern views on evangelism mess everything up- our prayers, our assurance regarding our duty as lay members, and our witness! because we're undermining God's appointed means of spreading the gospel. Get his appointed means right, and our interactions with unbelievers will be right. And our prayers will bear fruit.


I still do not see where the scriptures themselves make such a large division between the clergy and the laity in regards to being used to evangelize the lost. i would tend to see it as the Lord using laity to witness , and the clergy to train and mature those now saved in the faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> I still do not see where the scriptures themselves make such a large division between the clergy and the laity in regards to being used to evangelize the lost. i would tend to see it as the Lord using laity to witness , and the clergy to train and mature those now saved in the faith.



This is the good expression highlighting the difference between the confessionally Reformed and pop-Evangelicalism

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey

Greg,
Agreed. God is a God of divine order; this is where systematics come in. God is a great engineer!


----------



## BG

It is the RC view also.


Gforce9 said:


> This is the good expression highlighting the difference between the confessionally Reformed and pop-Evangelicalism



The work of the ministry is to be done by the people of the church. It is not the shepherd who reproduce but it is the sheep who reproduce.


----------



## Gforce9

BG said:


> It is the RC view also.
> 
> 
> The work of the ministry is to be done by the people of the church. It is not the shepherd who reproduce but it is the sheep who reproduce.



Bill,
I believe that pastors are called "Ministers of the Gospel" for a reason. I agree the laity have a function; an important one, like prayer, financial support, hospitality,..., but as Tyler has said well, there are things entrusted to the officers alone. I am unconvinced of the popular notions of the priesthood of believers. I am open to hearing others arguments, but they had best be good ones....


----------



## TylerRay

BG said:


> It is the RC view also.
> 
> 
> The work of the ministry is to be done by the people of the church. It is not the shepherd who reproduce but it is the sheep who reproduce.


Sheep reproducing is fine, but don't leave it up to the sheep to find lost sheep!


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Tyler, I'd say that the term sheep reproducing as fitting for lay members, puts us right back in the lay evangelism mode. I wouldn't doubt that lay members 'find' more lost sheep than pastors do. I would say that the terminology we use concerning the witness of lay members should carefully accord with Scripture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

Jeri Tanner said:


> Tyler, I want to go on record as holding out that the term sheep reproducing as fitting for lay members, puts us right back in the lay evangelism mode. I wouldn't doubt that lay members 'find' more lost sheep than pastors do. I would say that the terminology we use concerning the witness of lay members should carefully accord with Scripture.


Jeri,
Sorry, I was being facetious and equivocating. By _sheep reproducing_, I was thinking of the Church growing through the growth of Christian families, contra Bill's use of the metaphor in reference to evangelism.

Happily, I haven't had any qualms with anything I've read from you on this thread. I think we're very much on the same page.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

TylerRay said:


> Jeri,
> Sorry, I was being facetious and equivocating. By _sheep reproducing_, I was thinking of the Church growing through the growth of Christian families, contra Bill's use of the metaphor in reference to evangelism.
> 
> Happily, I haven't had any qualms with anything I've read from you on this thread. I think we're very much on the same page.


Ah, I see! Sorry- my humor detector must be fogged. Wish I'd caught it, that's pretty good.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro

Perhaps much of the debate is waylaid by the 
terms used. To lead to Christ has Billy Graham connotations, it might be better if the expression was, to point to Christ. Which we all are to do by lip and life. I seem to remember that Lloyd Jones when touching on Acts8:4 stated, that on the scattering of believers they went everywhere “gossiping the gospel”,and thereby made a distinction to preaching. This is exampled with Bunyan, who stood behind two housewives who were gossiping the gospel to each other, and the arrows of the King penetrated. It is the privilege of every child of God to hold forth the word of life according to their ability, but the instituted office of a Minister of the gospel is a privilege that is not to be undermined.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K

Jeri Tanner said:


> Edit to add: that I believe as I know do all of us, that God does use our words with others even as he uses our way of life lived out before others.



Yes. This is all I've been looking for. An acknowledgment that God might use our words, so that we don't end up saying, "No, it is not possible that you were converted through a talk with your layman roommate."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

Gforce9 said:


> Bill,
> I believe that pastors are called "Ministers of the Gospel" for a reason. I agree the laity have a function; an important one, like prayer, financial support, hospitality,..., but as Tyler has said well, there are things entrusted to the officers alone. I am unconvinced of the popular notions of the priesthood of believers. I am open to hearing others arguments, but they had best be good ones....




So believers are not priests? That is an interesting thought. 



TylerRay said:


> Sheep reproducing is fine, but don't leave it up to the sheep to find lost sheep!



You believe it is the ministers job to GO and FIND the lost?


----------



## TylerRay

BG said:


> You believe it is the ministers job to GO and FIND the lost?


I believe it is their job (or part of their job) to minister the Gospel to unbelievers.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> This is the good expression highlighting the difference between the confessionally Reformed and pop-Evangelicalism


I would still like to see the scriptures used to define that just clergy are used to evangelize, as they seem to have the ministers much more working with the saints, and not the lost.


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> It is the RC view also.
> 
> 
> The work of the ministry is to be done by the people of the church. It is not the shepherd who reproduce but it is the sheep who reproduce.


The Holy Spirit uses the laity to spread the good news to the lost, and the clergy to instruct and them them once saved.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> Bill,
> I believe that pastors are called "Ministers of the Gospel" for a reason. I agree the laity have a function; an important one, like prayer, financial support, hospitality,..., but as Tyler has said well, there are things entrusted to the officers alone. I am unconvinced of the popular notions of the priesthood of believers. I am open to hearing others arguments, but they had best be good ones....


We Baptists do see the priesthood of believers are being found in the Bible though.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> I believe it is their job (or part of their job) to minister the Gospel to unbelievers.


The pastors main task seems to be to instruct andf teach and edify the saved though.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> The pastors main task seems to be to instruct andf teach and edify the saved though.


You should try proving your position from Scripture. Before you do, though, read through the rest of the thread. No sense beating a dead horse.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> The pastors main task seems to be to instruct andf teach and edify the saved though.





Dachaser said:


> I would still like to see the scriptures used to define that just clergy are used to evangelize, as they seem to have the ministers much more working with the saints, and not the lost.





Dachaser said:


> The Holy Spirit uses the laity to spread the good news to the lost, and the clergy to instruct and them them once saved.


Did you really need to post this three times?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ed Walsh

earl40 said:


> Notice how you use the word preaching with quotation marks. This tells me you are using it a qualified sense which is good and I approve of. This was addressed by my quote from Pastor Winzer in an earlier post which should be enlightening to all here. For to use the words Preach and evangelizing in the biblical sense is limited to Pastors alone in scripture and their duty.



Believe it or not, I agree with you for the most part. No one should appoint themselves a preacher or an evangelist or even a generic Bible teacher. But I have always thought it was OK to share the Gospel in a lesser capacity.

Perhaps the following story will help you understand why I am, humanly speaking, a little bias towards every man a witness. Are we not all the salt of the world?

What I am about to relate was not a matter of false expectations but rather a real-life experience in the early days of my faith. My wife and I take no credit at all for this story because we found ourselves in the midsts of a mini-revival that took place in the early 70's in my area of the Eastern USA. God was working at least in Washington New Jersey in those days.

We were involved with a church that encouraged witnessing, and we did just that. We fasted and prayed then hit the streets with Bible and tracts in hand speaking to anyone who would listen. When the dust cleared, about a year afterward, dozens of people professed faith in the Christ. My evidence that this was in many to most cases true faith is that they repented of their outward sins, joined the church, most got married and raised their children in the Lord, and are still following Jesus to this day. Over a dozen went on to become elders, deacons, and several became gospel ministers. We weren't preaching exactly, just sharing the Bible and our personal experiences as Christians. There were only about four or five of us that made the difference. Acts 17:16-17

The stories I could tell... I could write a book, but then again, if you are correct I have no business writing my memories for what we did was both wrong and pointless because useless.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> You should try proving your position from Scripture. Before you do, though, read through the rest of the thread. No sense beating a dead horse.


was the great Commission just given to officials in the local churches, or to all Christians?


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> was the great Commission just given to officials in the local churches, or to all Christians?


Read post 96.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey

I mentioned that in my post # 75


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> We Baptists do see the priesthood of believers are being found in the Bible though.


Brother, 

Let's make sure we are on the same page as related to _the priesthood of believers._ Distinguishing or implying the concept as particular to "_we Baptists_" is overly restrictive—especially given the tenor of our site—as all Reformed certainly affirm the _priesthood of believers_.

The _priesthood of believers_ necessarily means the catholic (lowercase "_c_") tradition through which certain truths are held by true believers because true believers are taught by God the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Brother,
> 
> Let's make sure we are on the same page as related to _the priesthood of believers._ Distinguishing or implying the concept as particular to "_we Baptists_" is overly restrictive—especially given the tenor of our site—as all Reformed certainly affirm the _priesthood of believers_.
> 
> The _priesthood of believers_ necessarily means the catholic (lowercase "_c_") tradition through which certain truths are held by true believers because true believers are taught by God the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture.


I agree totally with that, as was just trying to see why someone would not see that in the scripture being presented. Not meant to offend anyone, or state that only baptists held to that being true.


----------



## earl40

Ed Walsh said:


> What I am about to relate was not a matter of false expectations but rather a real-life experience in the early days of my faith. My wife and I take no credit at all for this story because we found ourselves in the midsts of a mini-revival that took place in the early 70's in my area of the Eastern USA. God was working at least in Washington New Jersey in those days.
> 
> We were involved with a church that encouraged witnessing, and we did just that. We fasted and prayed then hit the streets with Bible and tracts in hand speaking to anyone who would listen. When the dust cleared, about a year afterward, dozens of people professed faith in the Christ. My evidence that this was in many to most cases true faith is that they repented of their outward sins, joined the church, most got married and raised their children in the Lord, and are still following Jesus to this day. Over a dozen went on to become elders, deacons, and several became gospel ministers. We weren't preaching exactly, just sharing the Bible and our personal experiences as Christians. There were only about four or five of us that made the difference. Acts 17:16-17



As mentioned earlier did you only perform 1/2 of The Great Commission? If not why did you not baptize as commanded?
I ask not to confront in a way to bring offence personally to you, just to bring offence to the thought that you were doing what Our Lord commanded the apostles and Pastors by extension in TGC.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> was the great Commission just given to officials in the local churches, or to all Christians?


Have you examined the passage, Matthew 28:19-20, carefully?

Are all to _make disciples_ by _baptizing_ and _teaching_, wherein _baptizing_ and _teaching_ are participles of means—for "making disciples"—in the passage?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ed Walsh

earl40 said:


> I ask not to confront in a way to bring offence personally to you, just to bring offence to the thought that you were doing what Our Lord commanded the apostles and Pastors by extension in TGC.



In a lesser way, we were "commissioned" and trained by our pastor and sent with the blessing of the leadership. We were young and were just doing what we were told we should. 

BTW - Just have to ask. Are you a minister? If not why are you teaching us as though you were. And as you said above. No offense meant. Just curious.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

Ed Walsh said:


> In a lesser way, we were "commissioned" and trained by our pastor and sent with the blessing of the leadership. We were young and were just doing what we were told we should.
> 
> BTW - Just have to ask. Are you a minister? If not why are you teaching us as though you were. And as you said above. No offense meant. Just curious.



I am not a Minister nor am I called to be one. I am simply a rusty shard of iron trying to sharpen iron.  What I am conveying is what I have learned from other Pastors, and am grieved many Pastors wish to lay the duty of evangelism or preaching to the laity (there is no other way to pharse this BTW) which is not their calling.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> I agree totally with that, as was just trying to see why someone would not see that in the scripture being presented. Not meant to offend anyone, or state that only baptists held to that being true.


*Moderator Note:*

David,

Well if this is what you _meant_, then why not take the time to carefully craft your responses to make your meaning perspicuous? Written communication affords us the opportunity to be very clear about our intentions. Even our emotions, often not explicit as they would be in face-to-face communications, can be signaled by some careful use of emoticons in written communications herein.

Unfortunately, it is too often the case that when your posts are questioned for clarification, you offer up something along the lines of what I have just quoted: basically _walking back_ your original comments.

If you find yourself regularly having to rejoin to others, "_what I meant to say_", then my advice to you—or anyone else that this may apply—would be to carefully examine your written words before submitting them for consideration by your audience. Also, as I have previously advised you, slow down and look at the post you have just submitted before moving onward and considering if some edits (spelling, grammar, punctuation, intended meaning, etc.) need to be made to your submitted post.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ed Walsh

I just read over these pages from:
INSTITUTES OF ELENCTIC THEOLOGY
by Francis Turretin

TWENTY-THIRD QUESTION
*Of how many kinds is the call to the ministry and is an ordinary call always necessary?*
We distinguish.

At least some of what he says may add to our discussion. I hope so.
I made a PDF and uploaded it for your enjoyment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9

Ed Walsh said:


> I just read over these pages from:
> INSTITUTES OF ELENCTIC THEOLOGY
> by Francis Turretin
> 
> TWENTY-THIRD QUESTION
> *Of how many kinds is the call to the ministry and is an ordinary call always necessary?*
> We distinguish.
> 
> At least some of what he says may add to our discussion. I hope so.
> I made a PDF and uploaded it for your enjoyment.



Ed,
I hope to acquire and read Turretin. I hear he dismantled de Molina's Middle knowledge.........


----------



## Ed Walsh

Gforce9 said:


> I hear he dismantled we Molina's Middle knowledge



Here's an excerpt on middle knowledge.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Some thoughts:

Scott,

If I'm understanding you correctly, you equate evangelism with the office of evangelist. However, it does not seem to logically follow that evangelism proceeds only from the ordained. For example, we have teaching elders, but it doesn't follow that no one but teaching elders can teach _in all circumstances_. Likewise, it is difficult to logically link all evangelism to the work of an evangelist. If we love the evangel, we should present people with the evangel.

Tyler,

You mentioned that it was the job of an ordained minister to call people to faith and repentance, not the laity. But do you call your children to faith and repentance, or can you do that because they are part of the covenant? If someone asks me, "what must I do to be saved," I'm not going to say "talk to my pastor." I'm also not going to say, "my pastor would say that you need to repent and believe." I would call on them to repent and believe. Would you do the same? So I can better understand you, what would you do in this circumstance?

Jeri,

I completely understand part of your concern about modern evangelism. We should absolutely not promote religious individualism. As I affirmed before, evangelism proceeds from the organized church. I think we're in agreement on this. The article you recommended seems, at least in part, to be countering modern evangelical individualism. In that capacity, I agree with the concern.

Ed,

Thanks for providing Turretin. Wonderful stuff!
________________________

Are we to promote God's law both in public and private? If so, does God's law demand faith and repentance? Again, as those who speak for God and partake in Christ's anointing, a product of loving God's law is to encourage others to obey it. This necessarily includes calling people to faith and repentance.

Christ says:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, *teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you*..." (Matt. 28:19-20a)

Christ commanded us to "love your neighbor as yourself." Isn't it loving to call our neighbors to faith and repentance? How can we fulfill the royal law if we do not call others to obey it _in its fullness_? 

Nowhere that I'm aware of in scripture is this restricted to the ordained. Shouldn't we be _very careful_ not to teach as doctrines the commandments of men?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BG

Does the confession or the Bible teach that the means of Grace are limited to Ministers? If so can you point that out to me.


----------



## Scott Bushey

WCF:

Ch 7

VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.

The above links preaching with the distribution of the sacraments

Ch 21

V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths, and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasion; which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.

The above links preaching w/ 'due administration'. 

Ch 23

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

The above condemns a non-ordained man to assume 'to himself the administration of the word and sacraments'. This would include preaching.

Ch 27

IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospels, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither or which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.

'Minister of the word' says much. The distinction between a 'minister of the word' and one who is not a 'minister of the word' must be considered. If I read the word to my family, I am not administering the M of G, nor am I preaching to them. I am exhorting, witnessing, educating as a parent is called to do.

Ch 28

II. The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

Since the sacraments are a means of grace and can only be distributed by an ordained man, 'called thereunto', it would follow that preaching falls under the same criteria. 

From the Directory for the Publick worship of God:

Of the Preaching of the Word.

PREACHING of the word, being the power of God unto salvation, and one of the greatest and most excellent works belonging to the ministry of the gospel, should be so performed, that the workman need not be ashamed, but may save himself, and those that hear him.

It is presupposed, (according to the rules for ordination,) that the minister of Christ is in some good measure gifted for so weighty a service, by his skill in the original languages, and in such arts and sciences as are handmaids unto divinity; by his knowledge in the whole body of theology, but most of all in the holy scriptures, having his senses and heart exercised in them above the common sort of believers; and by the illumination of God’s Spirit, and other gifts of edification, which (together with reading and studying of the word) he ought still to seek by prayer, and an humble heart, resolving to admit and receive any truth not yet attained, whenever God shall make it known unto him. All which he is to make use of, and improve, in his private preparations, before he deliver in public what he hath provided.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

timfost said:


> Are we to promote God's law both in public and private? If so, does God's law demand faith and repentance? Again, as those who speak for God and partake in Christ's anointing, a product of loving God's law is to encourage others to obey it. This necessarily includes calling people to faith and repentance.
> 
> Christ says:
> 
> "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, *teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you*..." (Matt. 28:19-20a)
> 
> Christ commanded us to "love your neighbor as yourself." Isn't it loving to call our neighbors to faith and repentance? How can we fulfill the royal law if we do not call others to obey it _in its fullness_?
> 
> Nowhere that I'm aware of in scripture is this restricted to the ordained. Shouldn't we be _very careful_ not to teach as doctrines the commandments of men?



So if all are commanded to call people to faith and repentance and to obey all His commandments why are all not baptizing which is also commanded? Do you do all what Jesus commands?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey

If one looks at the scriptures systematically, applying the appropriate doctrines in the systematic fashion, aligning those doctrines as the scriptures are exegeted in a correct manner, when questionable terms come to the forefront, applying these systematic definitions will always clarify how these terms are being intended and used. For example, when we see the term preach, preacher, preaching, etc., if we apply the mentality that these terms automatically fall under a church polity, it can be clearly seen that these statements are to be interpreted along the lines of said polity; what we have otherwise, is anarchy-which is quite visible in this age. As it was mentioned earlier in this thread, go back 200 years or so and u cannot find any of these issues.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey

Definitions and terminology:

Again, I will say; this all just comes down to calling a thing what it is...everyone can keep 'keeping on', just make sure you call the thing what it truly is.


----------



## BG

To be clear you are saying that the Confession teaches that the the means of Grace are limited to ordained Ministers? No one can be saved except by the preaching of a ordained Reformed Minister? What you are saying would exclude salvation for a lot of people who were saved in bad churches. A person could never be saved in a evangelical/charismatic church, or for that matter any church that is not a true church?


----------



## Scott Bushey

As I have mentioned (as well as some others) earlier, if preaching is ever divorced from the actual means of grace and those that are lawful in it's distribution, is it ok for women to preach on street corners and if so, what if someone asks to be baptized? Did the commission ever imply that it is ok for one to solely preach, divorced from the ability to place water on recipients? 

The commission tells us to make disciples by baptizing them and to follow what Christ has said.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Another way to think of all this is the proposal that a regulative principle applies to all we seek to do and undertake for God. So that in corporate worship we don't just make it up- we seek to know from Scripture the specific things God has commanded in public worship. Outside of public worship, we know that God has also prescribed regulations, which include restrictions, in evangelism- non-ordained men don't baptize. So the ide of positive commands and also prohibitions is already there as pertains to evangelism. The duty then is to search the Scriptures to find out God's will. As Scott and others have said, the regulative principle for evangelism is found out to be, when a systematic study is done, that the preaching of the gospel and conversion of men is everywhere expected to be accomplished by ordained, sent men. The duties of lay people are also outlined and have been gone over several times in our thread. 

This is not curmudgeonly, hyper-Calvinistic meanies trying to inhibit the spread of the gospel. This is a seeking to know God's prescribed order so that the greatest fruit for the gospel may be borne. It always has to be repeated- lay people should speak warmly of Christ whenever they have an opening, should commend him to others, should tell of the great things God has done for them and invite them to come to the waters and drink, come to those who minister the message of reconciliation and hear for themselves. Whatever is done in lay witnessing, keep that distinction.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

> No one can be saved except by the preaching of a ordained Reformed Minister?



Bill,
No. I am not saying that. Surely, God uses the M of G primarily; as we can see in the confession, " The visible Church....out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." ch 25

However, when we 'share' truth (we don't preach), give witness, etc. we are speaking truth and God can use it to convert men. This is not typical, mind you as we can see in Rom's ch 10, God uses the preacher:


13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 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!

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ro 10:13–15.

But, no one has said in this thread anything contrary; ultimately, we have just pressed definitions and terminology. The commission is akin to the body local; it would not function properly without the pinky toe-we all play a part; however, technically speaking, when we refer to Matt 28, we are referring to the biblical hierarchy and how that polity functions and works it's way down to that toe, in particular.


----------



## BG

I think some times we reformed talk past each other, I know I do . There may be some semantics happening in this thread. Preaching, deacons, and ministering can all be used in different ways.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> a lot of people who were saved in bad churches. A person could never be saved in a evangelical/charismatic church, or for that matter any church that is not a true church?



Truth is truth; it doesn't matter if it is given by a full blown Arminian that reads, verbatim, from God's bible-men will be saved as God regenerates those even in aberrant settings; consider Roman Catholicism; the priest reads the gospel; God uses it to convert men-they eventually leave this aberrant setting. The same can be said of anyone who reads, witnesses, etc. Just don't call it preaching. ;P


----------



## earl40

BG said:


> To be clear you are saying that the Confession teaches that the the means of Grace are limited to ordained Ministers?



Scripture says so.



BG said:


> No one can be saved except by the preaching of a ordained Reformed Minister?



No one has limited this to reformed Pastors...even the improperly ordained may dispense the means of saving grace.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> even the improperly ordained may dispense the means of saving grace.



I have an issue with this statement, Earl. Since the means only works through the ordained, I would say what I do personally is not that; to be technically accurate. If I am reading to my daughter and she is converted under it, it is the HS distributing the means of grace, not I.


----------



## Scott Bushey

James Bannerman, in his fine work, 'The Church of Christ writes:

“The chief and highest exercise of Church power, to declare the mind of God from His Word, and to preach the Gospel to sinners, is ever represented as the work of presbyters, and never as the duty of the members” (832-833).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Wstminster LC:

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] 

[1015] 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.


----------



## TylerRay

timfost said:


> Tyler,
> 
> You mentioned that it was the job of an ordained minister to call people to faith and repentance, not the laity. But do you call your children to faith and repentance, or can you do that because they are part of the covenant? If someone asks me, "what must I do to be saved," I'm not going to say "talk to my pastor." I'm also not going to say, "my pastor would say that you need to repent and believe." I would call on them to repent and believe. Would you do the same? So I can better understand you, what would you do in this circumstance?


Tim,

First, I want to qualify that I'm in a bit of an unusual circumstance at the moment, as someone pursuing the ministry who will probably be doing some preaching (as a student/ministerial candidate) before long. I'll answer your question as though I were not on that path.

All parents have the responsibility to instruct their children in the things of God. That includes teaching them about the gospel, repentance, faith, etc. Likewise, if someone were to ask "What must I do to be saved?" I'd let him know what he must do to be saved, and direct him to a sound church. However, I don't have the authority to say, "I charge you in the name of the Lord Jesus to repent of your sins and believe the Gospel." _That's_ calling someone to faith and repentance. I don't have the authority to act in this way because I don't have the commission from Christ.

I hope you see that there is a difference between telling someone what he must do to be saved and calling him to repent and believe. _To represent Christ as a divinely sent messenger, commanding men to repent and believe _implies an authority over those people, given by a commission from the Lord of the universe. Only the ministers of the gospel have this delegated authority.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey

I HAVE already endeavoured to vindicate, against the views of Independents, the necessity, in all ordinary circumstances, of the call of the Church, expressed through her office-bearers, and by means of ordination, to complete the ministerial title. That there may be a crisis in the history of the Church, when in order to preserve the office itself it is lawful to sacrifice the outward call of the Church to the office, and to set apart men to the ministry without ordination by office-bearers, cannot be doubted. Such a crisis, perhaps, was the persecution at Jerusalem, when all except the Apostles were scattered abroad, and they went forth preaching the Gospel where they went. Certainly such a crisis was the Reformation from Popery, when, rather than acknowledge the authority of the Church of Rome, and receive ministers and ordination at her hands, it was lawful for the Reformed Churches"”if such a necessity was laid upon them"”by their own authority to revive the office of the ministry, and, without seeking ordination from those previously ordained, to set apart men to its duties.1

1 Gillespie, _Miscell. Quest. _chap. Iii. obj. 6.

I believe the best example, in relation to the above would be Calvin or Farel-maybe Bunyan.


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> Some thoughts:
> 
> Scott,
> 
> If I'm understanding you correctly, you equate evangelism with the office of evangelist. However, it does not seem to logically follow that evangelism proceeds only from the ordained. For example, we have teaching elders, but it doesn't follow that no one but teaching elders can teach _in all circumstances_. Likewise, it is difficult to logically link all evangelism to the work of an evangelist. If we love the evangel, we should present people with the evangel.
> 
> Tyler,
> 
> You mentioned that it was the job of an ordained minister to call people to faith and repentance, not the laity. But do you call your children to faith and repentance, or can you do that because they are part of the covenant? If someone asks me, "what must I do to be saved," I'm not going to say "talk to my pastor." I'm also not going to say, "my pastor would say that you need to repent and believe." I would call on them to repent and believe. Would you do the same? So I can better understand you, what would you do in this circumstance?
> 
> Jeri,
> 
> I completely understand part of your concern about modern evangelism. We should absolutely not promote religious individualism. As I affirmed before, evangelism proceeds from the organized church. I think we're in agreement on this. The article you recommended seems, at least in part, to be countering modern evangelical individualism. In that capacity, I agree with the concern.
> 
> Ed,
> 
> Thanks for providing Turretin. Wonderful stuff!
> ________________________
> 
> Are we to promote God's law both in public and private? If so, does God's law demand faith and repentance? Again, as those who speak for God and partake in Christ's anointing, a product of loving God's law is to encourage others to obey it. This necessarily includes calling people to faith and repentance.
> 
> Christ says:
> 
> "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, *teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you*..." (Matt. 28:19-20a)
> 
> Christ commanded us to "love your neighbor as yourself." Isn't it loving to call our neighbors to faith and repentance? How can we fulfill the royal law if we do not call others to obey it _in its fullness_?
> 
> Nowhere that I'm aware of in scripture is this restricted to the ordained. Shouldn't we be _very careful_ not to teach as doctrines the commandments of men?


My understanding of the scriptures in this area is that the ministers/pastors are called and gifted by God to primarily preach/teach the scriptures in order to build up and mature the flock over are saved under their charge, and that while some are saved in the building during that time, the vast majority of those converted to Christ occur outide the building, when the local church goes back out unto the work and there meet and interact with the lost.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> Tim,
> 
> First, I want to qualify that I'm in a bit of an unusual circumstance at the moment, as someone pursuing the ministry who will probably be doing some preaching (as a student/ministerial candidate) before long. I'll answer your question as though I were not on that path.
> 
> All parents have the responsibility to instruct their children in the things of God. That includes teaching them about the gospel, repentance, faith, etc. Likewise, if someone were to ask "What must I do to be saved?" I'd let him know what he must do to be saved, and direct him to a sound church. However, I don't have the authority to say, "I charge you in the name of the Lord Jesus to repent of your sins and believe the Gospel." _That's_ calling someone to faith and repentance. I don't have the authority to act in this way because I don't have the commission from Christ.
> 
> I hope you see that there is a difference between telling someone what he must do to be saved and calling him to repent and believe. _To represent Christ as a divinely sent messenger, commanding men to repent and believe _implies an authority over those people, given by a commission from the Lord of the universe. Only the ministers of the gospel have this delegated authority.


If someone asks me why do I believe, per Peter, are we not then commanded to give a witness for Jesus, and that would include the Gospel and invitation to them to receive Jesus and get saved?


----------



## Dachaser

earl40 said:


> Scripture says so.
> 
> 
> 
> No one has limited this to reformed Pastors...even the improperly ordained may dispense the means of saving grace.


The power to save lost sinners resides in the scriptures and the Holy Spirit, regardless who is giving that out.


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> To be clear you are saying that the Confession teaches that the the means of Grace are limited to ordained Ministers? No one can be saved except by the preaching of a ordained Reformed Minister? What you are saying would exclude salvation for a lot of people who were saved in bad churches. A person could never be saved in a evangelical/charismatic church, or for that matter any church that is not a true church?


Salvation in this view would require one to have heard the Gospel by a Reformed ordained minister, and to have received Jesus through that party. My understanding would be that the power to save a lost sinner is through the scriptures and by the Holy Spirit. Any mister called by God, Reformed or non would have that opportunity, as would any of us if asked to give a defense of the faith.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Have you examined the passage, Matthew 28:19-20, carefully?
> 
> Are all to _make disciples_ by _baptizing_ and _teaching_, wherein _baptizing_ and _teaching_ are participles of means—for "making disciples"—in the passage?


Are you saying here that the Lord was restricting this command towards the church to those who were the called and ordained to minister the Gospel and to teach and edify the saved, the pastors and teachers ?


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> *Moderator Note:*
> 
> David,
> 
> Well if this is what you _meant_, then why not take the time to carefully craft your responses to make your meaning perspicuous? Written communication affords us the opportunity to be very clear about our intentions. Even our emotions, often not explicit as they would be in face-to-face communications, can be signaled by some careful use of emoticons in written communications herein.
> 
> Unfortunately, it is too often the case that when your posts are questioned for clarification, you offer up something along the lines of what I have just quoted: basically _walking back_ your original comments.
> 
> If you find yourself regularly having to rejoin to others, "_what I meant to say_", then my advice to you—or anyone else that this may apply—would be to carefully examine your written words before submitting them for consideration by your audience. Also, as I have previously advised you, slow down and look at the post you have just submitted before moving onward and considering if some edits (spelling, grammar, punctuation, intended meaning, etc.) need to be made to your submitted post.


Thank you, and will try to put more into practice what you have pointed out to me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

BG said:


> I think some times we reformed talk past each other, I know I do . There may be some semantics happening in this thread. Preaching, deacons, and ministering can all be used in different ways.


Bill, I don't think we're exactly talking past each other, maybe a little bit. It's a huge distinction being discussed and the blurring of it or not seeing it or even not believing there really is much of one is the issue. Modern day Reformed people think very differently than the Puritans did about evangelism. The Evangelism Explosion program is what caused broad acceptance of what is now popularly taught. Pragmatism makes lay people say, well I don't see the ministers of the church doing it, they're too busy, etc., I'll do it. We've lost the high view of the ordained ministry/the importance of the church that was worked out in the Reformation. It's not Romanist. It's the pure recovery of what Rome corrupted. Some church history can help here. Check out Dr. McMahon's Puritan Mind website for evangelism articles and resources, how the Puritans saw it. Here's one: http://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-evangelism/


----------



## Scott Bushey




----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> Are you saying here that the Lord was restricting this command towards the church to those who were the called and ordained to minister the Gospel and to teach and edify the saved, the pastors and teachers ?


David,

What do you think the passage in question is teaching based upon what I have pointed out? Please elaborate on your interpretation of the passage.


----------



## Scott Bushey

David writes:



> My understanding of the scriptures in this area is that the ministers/pastors are called and gifted by God to primarily preach/teach the scriptures in order to build up and mature the flock over are saved under their charge



These men are ordained, spiritually to the office; that office has characteristics that are integral to the office and gospel. You fail to make this biblical distinction and in your pursuit, you create unrest. God is a God of order and you destroy it with your independent mentality.



> the vast majority of those converted to Christ occur outide the buildinG



PREPOSTEROUS! UNFOUNDED. Are you sir, reading anything or are u just randomly answering things based on your personal opinion, because thats the way u come across. Painful.



> when the local church goes back out unto the work and there meet and interact with the lost.



Please show me the biblical passages relevant to this charge. Please show me one instance in scripture where 'preaching' is divorced from a church polity! Please show me where anyone involved in ministry is not officially sent. Just one, please.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Calvin on Acts 8:4 and the scattering:

"They were all scattered abroad (v. 1), not all the believers, but all the preachers, who were principally struck at, and against whom warrants were issued out to take them up."

In this assessment by Calvin, he is adopting exactly what I am saying, a systematic approach to the doctrine of biblical polity. he understand the principle and is applying it to his exegesis.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Directory for family worship:

"III. As the charge and office of interpreting the holy scriptures is a part of the ministerial calling, which none (however otherwise qualified) should take upon him in any place, but he that is duly called thereunto by God and his kirk; so in every family where there is any that can read, the holy scriptures should be read ordinarily to the family; and it is commendable, that thereafter they confer, and by way of conference make some good use of what hath been read and heard. As, for example, if any sin be reproved in the word read, use may be made thereof to make all the family circumspect and watchful against the same; or if any judgment be threatened, or mentioned to have been inflicted, in that portion of scripture which is read, use may be made to make all the family fear lest the same or a worse judgment befall them, unless they beware of the sin that procured it: and, finally, if any duty be required, or comfort held forth in a promise, use may be made to stir up themselves to employ Christ for strength to enable them for doing the commanded duty, and to apply the offered comfort. In all which the master of the family is to have the chief hand; and any member of the family may propone a question or doubt for resolution."

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## earl40

Scott Bushey said:


> I have an issue with this statement, Earl. Since the means only works through the ordained, I would say what I do personally is not that; to be technically accurate. If I am reading to my daughter and she is converted under it, it is the HS distributing the means of grace, not I.



Of course I am reading of being saved as the entire process of being saved which includes preaching and administering the sacraments.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> What do you think the passage in question is teaching based upon what I have pointed out? Please elaborate on your interpretation of the passage.


I think that all Christians have been called of God to be witnesses to be used by Him to spread the good news of Jesus, and that Ministers/elders/teachers are the ones that God set up to build up and mature the flock once saved.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> David writes:
> 
> 
> 
> These men are ordained, spiritually to the office; that office has characteristics that are integral to the office and gospel. You fail to make this biblical distinction and in your pursuit, you create unrest. God is a God of order and you destroy it with your independent mentality.
> 
> 
> 
> PREPOSTEROUS! UNFOUNDED. Are you sir, reading anything or are u just randomly answering things based on your personal opinion, because thats the way u come across. Painful.
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me the biblical passages relevant to this charge. Please show me one instance in scripture where 'preaching' is divorced from a church polity! Please show me where anyone involved in ministry is not officially sent. Just one, please.


I think that we are talking 2 different things here my Brother, as I do see the role of the pastor is to be the spiritual leader of his flock, and to mature and grow them up, but where is the scripture that states only officials of a local church can witness and tell others about Jesus as Lord?


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> I think that we are talking 2 different things here my Brother, as I do see the role of the pastor is to be the spiritual leader of his flock, and to mature and grow them up, but where is the scripture that states only officials of a local church can witness and tell others about Jesus as Lord?



Who holds the keys of the kingdom? Sister Barbara? Brother Mavis? Everyone?


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> Who holds the keys of the kingdom? Sister Barbara? Brother Mavis? Everyone?


Jesus Himself


----------



## Ed Walsh

Dachaser said:


> Jesus Himself



Technically that is incorrect. Jesus indeed owned the keys, but he gave them to the ordained ministry to use authoritatively as a gateway entrance and exit in and out of the Church.

Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 20:22-23
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Heidelberg:

83. What is the Office of the Keys? The preaching of the Holy Gospel and Christian discipline; by these two the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers and shut against unbelievers.1

[1] Matt. 16:18–19; 18:18; *Jn. 20:23; *Lk. 24:46–47; *1 Cor. 1:23–24. 

84. How is the kingdom of heaven opened and shut by the preaching of the Holy Gospel? In this way: that, according to the command of Christ, it is proclaimed and openly witnessed to believers, one and all, that as often as they accept with true faith the promise of the Gospel, all their sins are really forgiven them of God for the sake of Christ’s merits; and on the contrary, to all unbelievers and hypocrites, that the wrath of God and eternal condemnation abide on them so long as they are not converted.1 According to this testimony of the Gospel, God will judge men both in this life and in that which is to come. 

[1] Jn. 20:21–23; *Acts 10:43; *Isa. 58:1; *2 Cor. 2:15–16; *Jn. 8:24. 

85. How is the kingdom of heaven shut and opened by Christian discipline? In this way: that, according to the command of Christ, if any under the Christian name show themselves unsound either in doctrine or in life, and after several brotherly admonitions do not turn from their errors or evil ways, they are complained of to the Church or to its proper officers; and, if they neglect to hear them also, are by them denied the holy sacraments and thereby excluded from the Christian communion, and by God Himself from the kingdom of Christ; and if they promise and show real amendment, they are again received as members of Christ and His Church.1

[1] Matt. 18:15–18; 1 Cor. 5:3–5, 11; 2 Thess. 3:14–15; 2 Jn. 1:10–11.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

David,
You continue to fail to interact. Asking a question, instead of answering a question posed to you only shows you are unable to communicate. Do us all a favor and just stop bogging down the thread with empty statements.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> David,
> You continue to fail to interact. Asking a question, instead of answering a question posed to you only shows you are unable to communicate. Do us all a favor and just stop bogging down the thread with empty statements.


I am trying to answer the questions, but again, whre is it stated that only the pastors are authorized to be able to tell sinners that Jesus can save them?


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> Heidelberg:
> 
> 83. What is the Office of the Keys? The preaching of the Holy Gospel and Christian discipline; by these two the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers and shut against unbelievers.1
> 
> [1] Matt. 16:18–19; 18:18; *Jn. 20:23; *Lk. 24:46–47; *1 Cor. 1:23–24.
> 
> 84. How is the kingdom of heaven opened and shut by the preaching of the Holy Gospel? In this way: that, according to the command of Christ, it is proclaimed and openly witnessed to believers, one and all, that as often as they accept with true faith the promise of the Gospel, all their sins are really forgiven them of God for the sake of Christ’s merits; and on the contrary, to all unbelievers and hypocrites, that the wrath of God and eternal condemnation abide on them so long as they are not converted.1 According to this testimony of the Gospel, God will judge men both in this life and in that which is to come.
> 
> [1] Jn. 20:21–23; *Acts 10:43; *Isa. 58:1; *2 Cor. 2:15–16; *Jn. 8:24.
> 
> 85. How is the kingdom of heaven shut and opened by Christian discipline? In this way: that, according to the command of Christ, if any under the Christian name show themselves unsound either in doctrine or in life, and after several brotherly admonitions do not turn from their errors or evil ways, they are complained of to the Church or to its proper officers; and, if they neglect to hear them also, are by them denied the holy sacraments and thereby excluded from the Christian communion, and by God Himself from the kingdom of Christ; and if they promise and show real amendment, they are again received as members of Christ and His Church.1
> 
> [1] Matt. 18:15–18; 1 Cor. 5:3–5, 11; 2 Thess. 3:14–15; 2 Jn. 1:10–11.


this applies that passage to the saved, but my understanding is that Jesus was referring to that when the Gospel is proclaimed/preached, and sinners receive Jesus, Kingdom is open to them, but if they stay rejecting, it is still shut to them. Your passages seem to be blending that also with the Church discipline Jesus gave to us in Gospel of Matthew.


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> Bill, I don't think we're exactly talking past each other, maybe a little bit. It's a huge distinction being discussed and the blurring of it or not seeing it or even not believing there really is much of one is the issue. Modern day Reformed people think very differently than the Puritans did about evangelism. The Evangelism Explosion program is what caused broad acceptance of what is now popularly taught. Pragmatism makes lay people say, well I don't see the ministers of the church doing it, they're too busy, etc., I'll do it. We've lost the high view of the ordained ministry/the importance of the church that was worked out in the Reformation. It's not Romanist. It's the pure recovery of what Rome corrupted. Some church history can help here. Check out Dr. McMahon's Puritan Mind website for evangelism articles and resources, how the Puritans saw it. Here's one: http://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-evangelism/


The vast majority of personal salvation stories that I know of in my church did involve someone other than pastors witnessing to the person.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Have you examined the passage, Matthew 28:19-20, carefully?
> 
> Are all to _make disciples_ by _baptizing_ and _teaching_, wherein _baptizing_ and _teaching_ are participles of means—for "making disciples"—in the passage?





Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> What do you think the passage in question is teaching based upon what I have pointed out? Please elaborate on your interpretation of the passage.





Dachaser said:


> I think that all Christians have been called of God to be witnesses to be used by Him to spread the good news of Jesus, and that Ministers/elders/teachers are the ones that God set up to build up and mature the flock once saved.



David,

Please see above. My question strictly concerns Matthew 28:19-20:

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, _even _to the end of the age.” Amen

What is your interpretation of the commandment being given by Jesus in these two verses?


----------



## timfost

TylerRay said:


> Tim,
> 
> First, I want to qualify that I'm in a bit of an unusual circumstance at the moment, as someone pursuing the ministry who will probably be doing some preaching (as a student/ministerial candidate) before long. I'll answer your question as though I were not on that path.
> 
> All parents have the responsibility to instruct their children in the things of God. That includes teaching them about the gospel, repentance, faith, etc. Likewise, if someone were to ask "What must I do to be saved?" I'd let him know what he must do to be saved, and direct him to a sound church. However, I don't have the authority to say, "I charge you in the name of the Lord Jesus to repent of your sins and believe the Gospel." _That's_ calling someone to faith and repentance. I don't have the authority to act in this way because I don't have the commission from Christ.
> 
> I hope you see that there is a difference between telling someone what he must do to be saved and calling him to repent and believe. _To represent Christ as a divinely sent messenger, commanding men to repent and believe _implies an authority over those people, given by a commission from the Lord of the universe. Only the ministers of the gospel have this delegated authority.



I'm not sure as an ordained minister if I would say "I charge you to repent and believe" in those words. As a candidate for elder, I have taught and invited people to Christ publicly. in my opinion, you may be splitting hairs.

If you are encouraging people to repent and believe but don't want to label it a call to faith and repentance, I think we only differ in word choice. I can live with that. 

I still struggle to see the distinction you and Scott make about evangelism. If you are encouraging someone to faith and repentance and speaking the gospel (evangel) to them, why not call it evangelism? 

I don't have much more to say. I don't feel as concerned as I did at the beginning about the positions being projected since it seems to have more to do with word choice than anything, although to doubt someone's conversation because it wasn't in the context of preaching is still concerning to me (though I don't think you fully agree with that statement from your use of the word "ordinary"). 

Tyler, I always enjoy discussing things with you. Thanks for the interaction and blessings as you pursue the ministry!


----------



## timfost

Scott Bushey said:


> WCF:
> 
> Ch 7
> 
> VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.
> 
> The above links preaching with the distribution of the sacraments
> 
> Ch 21
> 
> V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths, and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasion; which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.
> 
> The above links preaching w/ 'due administration'.
> 
> Ch 23
> 
> III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.
> 
> The above condemns a non-ordained man to assume 'to himself the administration of the word and sacraments'. This would include preaching.
> 
> Ch 27
> 
> IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospels, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither or which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.
> 
> 'Minister of the word' says much. The distinction between a 'minister of the word' and one who is not a 'minister of the word' must be considered. If I read the word to my family, I am not administering the M of G, nor am I preaching to them. I am exhorting, witnessing, educating as a parent is called to do.
> 
> Ch 28
> 
> II. The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
> 
> Since the sacraments are a means of grace and can only be distributed by an ordained man, 'called thereunto', it would follow that preaching falls under the same criteria.
> 
> From the Directory for the Publick worship of God:
> 
> Of the Preaching of the Word.
> 
> PREACHING of the word, being the power of God unto salvation, and one of the greatest and most excellent works belonging to the ministry of the gospel, should be so performed, that the workman need not be ashamed, but may save himself, and those that hear him.
> 
> It is presupposed, (according to the rules for ordination,) that the minister of Christ is in some good measure gifted for so weighty a service, by his skill in the original languages, and in such arts and sciences as are handmaids unto divinity; by his knowledge in the whole body of theology, but most of all in the holy scriptures, having his senses and heart exercised in them above the common sort of believers; and by the illumination of God’s Spirit, and other gifts of edification, which (together with reading and studying of the word) he ought still to seek by prayer, and an humble heart, resolving to admit and receive any truth not yet attained, whenever God shall make it known unto him. All which he is to make use of, and improve, in his private preparations, before he deliver in public what he hath provided.



Scott, no disagreement here. I don't believe that preaching is the right word for laity. This is reserved for the ordained as you say. I disagree though that evangelism is reserved only for the ordained. If we promote the evangel, seek the salvation of souls (and yes, seeking to bring them under the preaching of the Word!), why not call it what it seems to be?

I plan on leaving the conversation at this unless there is any compelling reason to continue. I don't feel there are any really significant disagreements besides word choice.

Thanks for conversing!


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Ed Walsh said:


> The stories I could tell... I could write a book, but then again, if you are correct I have no business writing my memories for what we did was both wrong and pointless because useless.



Ed, not pointless or useless. It's a sweet experience that I recognize myself, and is nothing to discount- you were acting in the faith and light you had, out of love and zeal for the Lord, and he used it. As I've reflected on your post here I think of a couple of places in Scripture. There may be other examples.

Luke 9
“Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you."

Philippians 1
"But I want you to know, brethren, that the things which happened to me have actually turned out for the furtherance of the gospel, so that it has become evident to the whole palace guard, and to all the rest, that my chains are in Christ; 14 and most of the brethren in the Lord, having become confident by my chains, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. 15 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: 16 The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; 17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. 18 What then?_ Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice." _

My thinking is that these are examples of unauthorized or even ill-motived ministry, which neither Christ nor Paul condemned and even expected good from it. But after these examples, the activity of those men fell from view in Scripture and as always, the thread followed and commended is that of the properly ordained ministry.

There is no doubt that the Lord does and has used many irregular such evangelical activities that you took part in. They were "for" Christ and for the apostolic ministry. It doesn't follow though that there is no better way commended in Scripture. 
*


*

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> I'm not sure as an ordained minister if I would say "I charge you to repent and believe" in those words. As a candidate for elder, I have taught and invited people to Christ publicly. in my opinion, you may be splitting hairs.
> 
> If you are encouraging people to repent and believe but don't want to label it a call to faith and repentance, I think we only differ in word choice. I can live with that.
> 
> I still struggle to see the distinction you and Scott make about evangelism. If you are encouraging someone to faith and repentance and speaking the gospel (evangel) to them, why not call it evangelism?
> 
> I don't have much more to say. I don't feel as concerned as I did at the beginning about the positions being projected since it seems to have more to do with word choice than anything, although to doubt someone's conversation because it wasn't in the context of preaching is still concerning to me (though I don't think you fully agree with that statement from your use of the word "ordinary").
> 
> Tyler, I always enjoy discussing things with you. Thanks for the interaction and blessings as you pursue the ministry!


A sinner is saved by the Gospel message, and by the working of the Holy Spirit, regardless who gave to them that good news is my understanding, as the pastor/Elders would then be called and assigned to make sure they now are trained up and matured in the faith.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Please see above. My question strictly concerns Matthew 28:19-20:
> 
> 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
> 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, _even _to the end of the age.” Amen
> 
> What is your interpretation of the commandment being given by Jesus in these two verses?


I think Jesus was charging there going forward those such as pastors and Elders to teach and build up the saved in the faith, but this to me is separate issue from actually being able to witness for Christ.


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> Scott, no disagreement here. I don't believe that preaching is the right word for laity. This is reserved for the ordained as you say. I disagree though that evangelism is reserved only for the ordained. If we promote the evangel, seek the salvation of souls (and yes, seeking to bring them under the preaching of the Word!), why not call it what it seems to be?
> 
> I plan on leaving the conversation at this unless there is any compelling reason to continue. I don't feel there are any really significant disagreements besides word choice.
> 
> Thanks for conversing!


We have small cell groups in our church, and have group leaders teach to us from the scriptures and other study materials, is that wrong thing to be doing then? I see witnessing as something all called to do, but preaching as in a Church setting reserved for ordained pastors/elders/teachers.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> I think Jesus was charging there going forward those such as pastors and Elders to teach and build up the saved in the faith, but this to me is separate issue from actually being able to witness for Christ.


David,

Again you have refused to deconstruct the passage in question. The issue is not "_witnessing_", that is, _being ready to give an answer for that which one holds dear_. The matter of providing a reason for what one believes is not in doubt, nor in dispute. It is readily apparent in this thread that not a a few are writing with little trepidation, taking due care to distinguish between the two: (1) the duty of the ordained servant, (2) the duty of the non-ordained servant.

I will not speculate about how a non-Presbyterian views the passage, but a Presbyterian should well understand that _disciples_ are those being baptized and being taught under the oversight of the lawfully ordained servant. These disciples are being made by the _commandment_ in the passage: by _baptizing_ and by _teaching_. The grammar therein seems to me unequivocal. The charge by Our Lord is given to _these kinds of men_, not to each and every person, else each and every person had better be about baptizing and teaching, else the command so given is being disobeyed.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Again you have refused to deconstruct the passage in question. The issue is not "_witnessing_", that is, _being ready to give an answer for that which one holds dear_. The matter of providing a reason for what one believes is not in doubt, nor in dispute. It is readily apparent in this thread that not a a few are writing with little trepidation, taking due care to distinguish between the two: (1) the duty of the ordained servant, (2) the duty of the non-ordained servant.
> 
> I will not speculate about how a non-Presbyterian views the passage, but a Presbyterian should well understand that _disciples_ are those being baptized and being taught under the oversight of the lawfully ordained servant. These disciples are being made by the _commandment_ in the passage: by _baptizing_ and by _teaching_. The grammar therein seems to me unequivocal. The charge by Our Lord is given to _these kinds of men_, not to each and every person, else each and every person had better be about baptizing and teaching, else the command so given is being disobeyed.


I agree with what you stated here, but my concern is when one states that only ministers/pastors can be used by God to have sinners here the good news and get saved, as all of us can have that privileged if set up by God for that opportunity.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> I agree with what you stated here, but my concern is when one states that only ministers/pastors can be used by God to have sinners here the good news and get saved, as all of us can have that privileged if set up by God for that opportunity.


What exactly in my response disagrees with what you are asserting?

Please be detailed in your answer regarding your "_concerned_" response. Otherwise, you are just stating what has been declared without dispute.

Which is to say, your frequent implied "_Amens_!" are becoming wearisome. We all _get it_, David. If you want to _Amen!_ a post select the _Amen_ button at the below right of a post. 

A _substantive discussion_ at our site _requires_ that one adds to the discussion with matters for due consideration. Merely weighing in with words that are basically "_Me, too!_" or "_I agree!_" does not move the discussion forward.


----------



## lynnie

I didn't read all the posts but I am puzzled by something. If it came up before please refer me back to it.

Don't most parents here assume that the primary means by which their children will hear the gospel and be saved is the parents? Of course the kids go to church with you on Sunday, but isn't it the daily influence of the parents that a child (one without some dramatic memory of an instant conversion experience outside the home) will attribute to their faith in and love for the Lord?

This thread seems to be severely demeaning to the God ordained role of parents in my opinion.


----------



## timfost

Lynnie,

I think there were a number of misunderstandings in this thread. Though I'm still unsettled with the OP, Tyler discussed the parents' obligation to children. I think some of the terminology is diced more than necessary, but there seems to be a general consensus to witness and lead people to Christ, though there is real aversion to calling it evangelism (I still can't really figure out why).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K

Isn't it important to separate the question of who is ordained to gospel ministry from the question of what elements must be present for conversion to happen?

Of course, I believe only some men are ordained to the gospel ministry to preach, make disciples, and baptize. It's their formal calling.

To use a familiar example, they are like a teacher in a classroom. That teacher is in charge and specifically tasked with teaching. It would be inappropriate for the teacher to give up control of the lessons to one of the students, and wrong for any student to presume to teach.

However, sometimes the "aha moment" where a student finally understands a lesson doesn't come directly from the teacher. It may happen outside the classroom in a conversation with a fellow student, or in a study group, or through a textbook, or by copying notes, or in any of several other ways that happen naturally because the students encourage each other and like to talk about what they're learning.

The teacher too should seek out students one-on-one, and should often be consulted outside of class. But the teacher isn't always present everywhere students gather, nor does he need to be. There's no magic pixie dust associated with the teacher that limits understanding of the material to those moments when the teacher is present or is speaking. There may be more clarity when the teacher is speaking, and the teacher's presence may be preferred. But the material itself sometimes works, effectively, even when the teacher is not present.

Our question is whether or not gospel ministry works in a similar way, because certainly the note-sharing and talking outside of class is going on. Might people accurately hear the gospel message even when an ordained preacher is not present, and might the Spirit use this to convert them? Or does the Spirit keep the content of the message itself powerless unless it comes from an ordained man, so that it is not possible for a conversion to happen without a preacher?

I read both Matthew 28 and Romans 10 as addressing the appointment of the teacher, not limitations on how the gospel content itself might be effective. There are still important activities limited to the teacher: formal enrollment of students (baptism), classroom teaching (preaching), discipline, and a duty to teach that's far above any duty, if you want to call it that, of one's fellow classmates.

But if we say the content of the gospel is powerless unless delivered by an ordained preacher so that it's not possible for it to work apart from him, we start to sound like Rome. Then we credit the church and its leaders with power that rightly belongs to the Spirit alone and the Word through which he speaks. The fact that some men are ordained to preach that Word does not transfer this power to the preacher himself.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## timfost

Exactly! We need to be really careful not to place the power (Spirit's work) of the gospel on the instrument (preacher's work) of the gospel. Surely God gives the increase.

I don't think anyone here is actually saying that the efficacy of the Gospel lies within the (magic?) words of the preacher, but the focus does seem to take away from the work of the Spirit in some ways as it seems to limit the way in which He can work.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> What exactly in my response disagrees with what you are asserting?
> 
> Please be detailed in your answer regarding your "_concerned_" response. Otherwise, you are just stating what has been declared without dispute.
> 
> Which is to say, your frequent implied "_Amens_!" are becoming wearisome. We all _get it_, David. If you want to _Amen!_ a post select the _Amen_ button at the below right of a post.
> 
> A _substantive discussion_ at our site _requires_ that one adds to the discussion with matters for due consideration. Merely weighing in with words that are basically "_Me, too!_" or "_I agree!_" does not move the discussion forward.


I am still looking for scriptures that plainly state that only ordained ministers or Elders are able to give forth the Gospel message to someone and that only that would qualify as a legit salvation experience, am I misunderstanding what some seem to be advocating here?


----------



## Dachaser

timfost said:


> Lynnie,
> 
> I think there were a number of misunderstandings in this thread. Though I'm still unsettled with the OP, Tyler discussed the parents' obligation to children. I think some of the terminology is diced more than necessary, but there seems to be a general consensus to witness and lead people to Christ, though there is real aversion to calling it evangelism (I still can't really figure out why).


The scriptures tell us that the Lord gifts one and calls him as an Evangelist, but that seems to to be somewhat different then when any of us witness for Jesus. there seems to be a real fear that by stating that all can be used by God to witness, that somehow waters down the ordained roles of the pastor within the church, but that seems to advocate that the primary task of the minister is to evangelize the lost, but I see that main task as feeding the local flock.


----------



## Dachaser

Jack K said:


> Isn't it important to separate the question of who is ordained to gospel ministry from the question of what elements must be present for conversion to happen?
> 
> Of course, I believe only some men are ordained to the gospel ministry to preach, make disciples, and baptize. It's their formal calling.
> 
> To use a familiar example, they are like a teacher in a classroom. That teacher is in charge and specifically tasked with teaching. It would be inappropriate for the teacher to give up control of the lessons to one of the students, and wrong for any student to presume to teach.
> 
> However, sometimes the "aha moment" where a student finally understands a lesson doesn't come directly from the teacher. It may happen outside the classroom in a conversation with a fellow student, or in a study group, or through a textbook, or by copying notes, or in any of several other ways that happen naturally because the students encourage each other and like to talk about what they're learning.
> 
> The teacher too should seek out students one-on-one, and should often be consulted outside of class. But the teacher isn't always present everywhere students gather, nor does he need to be. There's no magic pixie dust associated with the teacher that limits understanding of the material to those moments when the teacher is present or is speaking. There may be more clarity when the teacher is speaking, and the teacher's presence may be preferred. But the material itself sometimes works, effectively, even when the teacher is not present.
> 
> Our question is whether or not gospel ministry works in a similar way, because certainly the note-sharing and talking outside of class is going on. Might people accurately hear the gospel message even when an ordained preacher is not present, and might the Spirit use this to convert them? Or does the Spirit keep the content of the message itself powerless unless it comes from an ordained man, so that it is not possible for a conversion to happen without a preacher?
> 
> I read both Matthew 28 and Romans 10 as addressing the appointment of the teacher, not limitations on how the gospel content itself might be effective. There are still important activities limited to the teacher: formal enrollment of students (baptism), classroom teaching (preaching), discipline, and a duty to teach that's far above any duty, if you want to call it that, of one's fellow classmates.
> 
> But if we say the content of the gospel is powerless unless delivered by an ordained preacher so that it's not possible for it to work apart from him, we start to sound like Rome. Then we credit the church and its leaders with power that rightly belongs to the Spirit alone and the Word through which he speaks. The fact that some men are ordained to preach that Word does not transfer this power to the preacher himself.


This is a very good summary statement, as the Pastor/Minister is the one ordained by God to feed the flock, not the main body is the one that is to get involved in the outreach and witness to the lost.


----------



## earl40

Dachaser said:


> I am still looking for scriptures that plainly state that only ordained ministers or Elders are able to give forth the Gospel message to someone and that only that would qualify as a legit salvation experience, am I misunderstanding what some seem to be advocating here?



You would be better served by looking to scripture to try to find where the nonordained served as the ordained do, and the results are the same as if an ordained person did the work. BTW you will not find any scripture that supports the idea of the nonordained work doing the work of the ordained.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

lynnie said:


> I didn't read all the posts but I am puzzled by something. If it came up before please refer me back to it.
> 
> Don't most parents here assume that the primary means by which their children will hear the gospel and be saved is the parents? Of course the kids go to church with you on Sunday, but isn't it the daily influence of the parents that a child (one without some dramatic memory of an instant conversion experience outside the home) will attribute to their faith in and love for the Lord?
> 
> This thread seems to be severely demeaning to the God ordained role of parents in my opinion.





timfost said:


> Lynnie,
> 
> I think there were a number of misunderstandings in this thread. Though I'm still unsettled with the OP, Tyler discussed the parents' obligation to children. I think some of the terminology is diced more than necessary, but there seems to be a general consensus to witness and lead people to Christ, though there is real aversion to calling it evangelism (I still can't really figure out why).





timfost said:


> Exactly! We need to be really careful not to place the power (Spirit's work) of the gospel on the instrument (preacher's work) of the gospel. Surely God gives the increase.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is actually saying that the efficacy of the Gospel lies within the (magic?) words of the preacher, but the focus does seem to take away from the work of the Spirit in some ways as it seems to limit the way in which He can work.



The OP lacks balance. The relevant questions are, _how does God ordinarily work? _and _who has the charge to preach the Gospel?_ The Scriptures are clear that faith ordinarily comes by hearing, and that by the Word of God, and that by the mouth of a preacher. They are equally clear about the responsibility of parents to train up their children in the faith. What's more, they are clear that God sometimes works apart from his ordinary means.

I agree that the OP reads as though the words of a preacher have efficacy in themselves. It reminds one of the _ex opere operato _teaching of the Romish church. I mean no disrespect to my brother Earl, but his rhetoric in the OP is imbalanced.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

lynnie said:


> I didn't read all the posts but I am puzzled by something. If it came up before please refer me back to it.
> 
> Don't most parents here assume that the primary means by which their children will hear the gospel and be saved is the parents? Of course the kids go to church with you on Sunday, but isn't it the daily influence of the parents that a child (one without some dramatic memory of an instant conversion experience outside the home) will attribute to their faith in and love for the Lord?
> 
> This thread seems to be severely demeaning to the God ordained role of parents in my opinion.



I know today I am not like "most parents".  Just look back a 100 years and the most parents would be like me, and think what foolishness it would be that they usurped the Pastors role. The modern mindset of what the priesthood of every believer has basically taken the role of the TE in my opinion. To overcome this mindset one must seriously consider one may be wrong, as I did a few years ago, in that I wrongly thought like many otherwise reformed brothers and sisters.


----------



## Dachaser

earl40 said:


> You would be better served by looking to scripture to try to find where the nonordained served as the ordained do, and the results are the same as if an ordained person did the work. BTW you will not find any scripture that supports the idea of the nonordained work doing the work of the ordained.


I agree that the scriptures teach to us that the Minister/pastor has been charged to preach the scriptures to the flock, but still not seeing where only he can take the scriptures and witness to the lost.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> The OP lacks balance. The relevant questions are, _how does God ordinarily work? _and _who has the charge to preach the Gospel?_ The Scriptures are clear that faith ordinarily comes by hearing, and that by the Word of God, and that by the mouth of a preacher. They are equally clear about the responsibility of parents to train up their children in the faith. What's more, they are clear that God sometimes works apart from his ordinary means.
> 
> I agree that the OP reads as though the words of a preacher have efficacy in themselves. It reminds one of the _ex opere operato _teaching of the Romish church. I mean no disrespect to my brother Earl, but his rhetoric in the OP is imbalanced.


Anytime you would tell others about what the scriptures say concerning salvation, would that not be witnessing for the Lord?


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> Anytime you would tell others about what the scriptures say concerning salvation, would that not be witnessing for the Lord?


I don't have a problem telling someone what the Scriptures say concerning salvation, or bearing witness of the Lord. See my earlier posts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Dachaser said:


> I agree that the scriptures teach to us that the Minister/pastor has been charged to preach the scriptures to the flock, but still not seeing where only he can take the scriptures and witness to the lost.



David,

No one is saying this. Please, please, please try to read slowly and understand the previous posts. Not only will this help the flow of the thread, but it is consistent with the Christian mandate to be quick to listen and slow to speak. I don't think you intentionally misrepresent, but it seems you do not intentionally represent the thoughts of others accurately.

I say this brother to brother. I am often not quick to listen and slow to speak in my own family. One thing I have learned from this is that being quick to speak and slow to listen _never helps any situation_.

It would be far more helpful to spend time reading and understanding and write a few posts that are carefully thought out and edited rather than many two sentence responses that demonstrate a lack of care.

As I write this, I hope you know that if you ever see a lack of care in my posts, please tell me. I want my words to be helpful and I acknowledge that I need work in becoming a better listener.

Thanks in advance for hearing me.

Your brother,

Reactions: Informative 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## earl40

Dachaser said:


> I agree that the scriptures teach to us that the Minister/pastor has been charged to preach the scriptures to the flock, but still not seeing where only he can take the scriptures and witness to the lost.



Once again, and for the last time, no one is saying we, who are not TE's, may not witness to the lost. Read this 100 times "Call speaking to the lost a WITNESS and call what the Pastor does as PREACHING".


----------



## Jeri Tanner

The point of the OP that keeps getting lost was that the duty of evangelism is being pressed upon lay members from pulpits and Reformed and evangelical literature, even though the duty of evangelism does not lie, according to Scripture, with lay members. No need for anyone to argue with this post, as arguments back and forth have been made throughout the thread. Everyone has said all that can be said, I think; I just wanted to remind that this is the issue that is at the heart of the OP.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jack K

TylerRay said:


> The OP lacks balance. The relevant questions are, _how does God ordinarily work? _and _who has the charge to preach the Gospel?_ The Scriptures are clear that faith ordinarily comes by hearing, and that by the Word of God, and that by the mouth of a preacher.



I agree. I will gladly say God ordinarily works through his word in the Scriptures and the preaching of them, and that ordained men have the charge to preach the gospel. But as you point out, the OP's claims went beyond this.



Jeri Tanner said:


> The point of the OP that keeps getting lost was that the duty of evangelism is being pressed upon lay members from pulpits and Reformed and evangelical literature



Jeri, I do see that frustration with some modern teaching about evangelism was behind the opening post. And I have sympathy for that frustration. But the OP also claimed conversion was "exclusive" to the work of preachers. It said the idea that "one can believe without a preacher" is excluded. It discounted the idea that conversion outside the work of an ordained preacher was "possible." Had those hard-to-prove statements not been made, I think this conversation would have ended long ago in general agreement.


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> The point of the OP that keeps getting lost was that the duty of evangelism is being pressed upon lay members from pulpits and Reformed and evangelical literature, even though the duty of evangelism does not lie, according to Scripture, with lay members. No need for anyone to argue with this post, as arguments back and forth have been made throughout the thread. Everyone has said all that can be said, I think; I just wanted to remind that this is the issue that is at the heart of the OP.


What would be the difference between witnessing for the Lord and evangelizing for Him then?


----------



## Dachaser

Jack K said:


> I agree. I will gladly say God ordinarily works through his word in the Scriptures and the preaching of them, and that ordained men have the charge to preach the gospel. But as you point out, the OP's claims went beyond this.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeri, I do see that frustration with some modern teaching about evangelism was behind the opening post. And I have sympathy for that frustration. But the OP also claimed conversion was "exclusive" to the work of preachers. It said the idea that "one can believe without a preacher" is excluded. It discounted the idea that conversion outside the work of an ordained preacher was "possible." Had those hard-to-prove statements not been made, I think this conversation would have ended long ago in general agreement.


This is where I am having my main confusion, as it seemed to me that some have stated that only the clergy can be involved in reaching out to the Lord, and only they have the mandate to have valid conversions happening. I am not trying to be contentious here, just trying to understand what has been said.


----------



## Dachaser

earl40 said:


> Once again, and for the last time, no one is saying we, who are not TE's, may not witness to the lost. Read this 100 times "Call speaking to the lost a WITNESS and call what the Pastor does as PREACHING".


Do you hold that the laity when witnessing can see the Lord save lost sinners just the same as when the pastor preaches Christ? Are both valid conversions then?


----------



## earl40

Dachaser said:


> Do you hold that the laity when witnessing can see the Lord save lost sinners just the same as when the pastor preaches Christ? Are both valid conversions then?



Nope. Show me ANYWHERE in scripture where this happened. Allow the bible to be your guide in faith and practice.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> What would be the difference between witnessing for the Lord and evangelizing for Him then?



How about starting with defining terms to avoid this continued back and forth.

What is _evangelizing_?
What is _witnessing_?

Once you and your interlocutors are in agreement with the terms being loosely bantered about, the discussion will likely proceed and be edifying.

As a suggestion, how about we define _evangelism_, as the proclamation of the Gospel by those whom God has called, have been trained, examined, and vetted, and then commissioned thereunto.

Furthermore, let's define _witnessing_ as being ready to give an answer for the hope we have, and a defense of the faith, and a good word in season to those who need it, while affirming that these are not the teaching/preaching of the gospel.

That "_in season_" bit above is important. The phrase teaches us that the duty of witnessing is opportunistic upon circumstances that may arise, e.g., normal conversations that may present themselves, as in standing in the grocery line, casual conversations at work or play, etc. It is not grabbing an empty milk carton, ascending it, and starting to wax eloquent to the crowd in the public square.

Work for you?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## lynnie

3_8 Now the man from whom the demons had departed begged Him that he might be with Him. But Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 “Return to your own house, and tell what great things God has done for you.” And he went his way and proclaimed throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him._

I would have to say that maybe God might have somebody not ordained wax eloquent in the public square.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

lynnie said:


> 3_8 Now the man from whom the demons had departed begged Him that he might be with Him. But Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 “Return to your own house, and tell what great things God has done for you.” And he went his way and proclaimed throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him._
> 
> I would have to say that maybe God might have somebody not ordained wax eloquent in the public square.


This is exactly one of the examples of lay witnessing we've pointed to in the thread, Lynnie- as well as the Samaritan woman at the well, who witnessed to her neighbors of what Christ had done for her and invited them to come and hear for themselves. To bear witness of Christ is to testify to others what we have seen and known of him. We commend him to others, waxing eloquent as best we can.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Scott Bushey

Distinctions.....

Consider what the pulpit actually does. In this dumb age, there are churches and pastors wanting to destroy the pulpit by making them either invisible or plexiglass so as to not cause a separation, a separation that God has ordained for a purpose, between the leadership/ordained man and those that sit in the pews. Tragic! As well, the milk crate and voice amplifier does the same thing. Any man (or woman-and this is one of the potholes) that takes up a milk crate is elevating themselves above the normal person. You don't see a problem with this? Typical conversation at work or in a grocery store does not resemble this. This is the distinction many have tried to convey in this thread-but apparently, to no avail. 

I have made mention a few times, what if the person that comes to faith under your discussion asks, 'there is water-what forbids me from being baptized?', what will u do? 

Another issue I see, that irritates me to no end is the deescalating of the other components of the gospel; that being, the infrastructure. Is prayer any less important to the gospel? Mercy? Serving the person. Inviting them to church where the means of grace are actually distributed? The mentality on the street is that the only important thing is the actual proclamation and this is so sad. The prayer warriors in the back are as important as the message proclaimed, but given the temperament in this age, i.e. dispensationalism, even the reformed are giving in to this nonsense-this could be because most of our people are actually poorly trained and come out of Dispensational backgrounds and hence, still have all that, 'lets get out there before someone falls through the cracks' thinking.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Finally, I am a lay-person. I am a seminary student. I am an old guy (60 yrs old this April). I do not feel neglected being a laymen. I do not feel short changed. I know my place in the polity chain and am fine with it. It does not destroy nor hamper my witness in any way. I keep moving forward in Christ. I play a part in my church's commission. It's all good.


----------



## timfost

I had two JWs come to my house today. I told them about the Jesus of the Bible and the reason we have hope in Him. I encouraged them to believe in the Divine Man they refuse to worship (quite literally-- I asked them if I should worship Jesus and they said no, we should worship God). I told them about Thomas saying to Him "my Lord and my God." I asked if Thomas was violating the first commandment. They said they would have to study that. After some more words, I invited them to believe in the Jesus that scripture reveals.

All this to say, I think we're all in agreement that this is appropriate, even if some would call this evangelism and others witnessing.

Agree?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner

One more thought on the OP, and this is not stated great and is just offered up for reflection.

The OP reflects, in my view, the tenor of NT (and OT) teaching on the role of pastors/preachers and the Church in evangelism. We won't find, I don't believe, anything in Scripture to give reason to believe that what the OP is trying to get at is not true. The view of the means of grace found in the ordained ministry is called the ordinary means of grace, but we don't feel the weight of what that means. "Ordinary" seems a weak or insufficient word in our time; we don't recognize the boundaries that word imposes as people once did. It's an old word that dates from the early 15th century, from the Old French _ordinarie..._and directly from the Latin" _ordinarius_"- customary, regular, usual, *orderly*,"; that from _ordo_ (genitive ordinis) "row, rank, series, arrangement" (see order (n.)). When you get to _ordo_ you can more clearly see, maybe, the establishment of an order and an arrangement, which in this case we need to pay attention to. (The words "ordain" and "ordinance" also stem from _ordo.)_

If a Scriptural methodology (in this case, how evangelism is defined and practiced) is God's orderly arrangement, his means given to the church, then it is a spiritual, ordained means; and shouldn't we tremble lest we casually, even though with every good intention, actually end up despising it?

The more I reflect on it and study it, the more I think I see that Scripture gives us no encouragement to expect conversions of souls outside the ministry of the church. That's not to say it doesn't happen- but what might be the price to pay if we are zealous for something but missing God's prescribed way of going about it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

How are we defining church here? And ministry?

Is not the witness of all believers the ministry of the church?

If we can distinguish between Big-M Ministry (the ordained preacher and the sacraments), and little-m ministry (the lay-witness of all believers) then it is true that most conversions happen due to the ministry of the church. Even when one is saved reading the Scriptures alone in one's solitary room, we can praise God for the Christian publishers or the Gideons or whoever distributed that Scripture to that saved soul.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Pergamum said:


> How are we defining church here? And ministry?
> 
> Is not the witness of all believers the ministry of the church?
> 
> If we can distinguish between Big-M Ministry (the ordained preacher and the sacraments), and little-m ministry (the lay-witness of all believers) then it is true that most conversions happen due to the ministry of the church. Even when one is saved reading the Scriptures alone in one's solitary room, we can praise God for the Christian publishers or the Gideons or whoever distributed that Scripture to that saved soul.


Church as the entity given the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19); the ministry as its ordained officers.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> How about starting with defining terms to avoid this continued back and forth.
> 
> What is _evangelizing_?
> What is _witnessing_?
> 
> Once you and your interlocutors are in agreement with the terms being loosely bantered about, the discussion will likely proceed and be edifying.
> 
> As a suggestion, how about we define _evangelism_, as the proclamation of the Gospel by those whom God has called, have been trained, examined, and vetted, and then commissioned thereunto.
> 
> Furthermore, let's define _witnessing_ as being ready to give an answer for the hope we have, and a defense of the faith, and a good word in season to those who need it, while affirming that these are not the teaching/preaching of the gospel.
> 
> That "_in season_" bit above is important. The phrase teaches us that the duty of witnessing is opportunistic upon circumstances that may arise, e.g., normal conversations that may present themselves, as in standing in the grocery line, casual conversations at work or play, etc. It is not grabbing an empty milk carton, ascending it, and starting to wax eloquent to the crowd in the public square.
> 
> Work for you?


Yes it does, as that would be how I would understand the difference between those 2 terms.


----------



## Dachaser

earl40 said:


> Nope. Show me ANYWHERE in scripture where this happened. Allow the bible to be your guide in faith and practice.


Are you saying here that the only valid salvation would be under duly ordained clergy then?


----------



## Dachaser

lynnie said:


> 3_8 Now the man from whom the demons had departed begged Him that he might be with Him. But Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 “Return to your own house, and tell what great things God has done for you.” And he went his way and proclaimed throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him._
> 
> I would have to say that maybe God might have somebody not ordained wax eloquent in the public square.


There are street preachers.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Distinctions.....
> 
> Consider what the pulpit actually does. In this dumb age, there are churches and pastors wanting to destroy the pulpit by making them either invisible or plexiglass so as to not cause a separation, a separation that God has ordained for a purpose, between the leadership/ordained man and those that sit in the pews. Tragic! As well, the milk crate and voice amplifier does the same thing. Any man (or woman-and this is one of the potholes) that takes up a milk crate is elevating themselves above the normal person. You don't see a problem with this? Typical conversation at work or in a grocery store does not resemble this. This is the distinction many have tried to convey in this thread-but apparently, to no avail.
> 
> I have made mention a few times, what if the person that comes to faith under your discussion asks, 'there is water-what forbids me from being baptized?', what will u do?
> 
> Another issue I see, that irritates me to no end is the deescalating of the other components of the gospel; that being, the infrastructure. Is prayer any less important to the gospel? Mercy? Serving the person. Inviting them to church where the means of grace are actually distributed? The mentality on the street is that the only important thing is the actual proclamation and this is so sad. The prayer warriors in the back are as important as the message proclaimed, but given the temperament in this age, i.e. dispensationalism, even the reformed are giving in to this nonsense-this could be because most of our people are actually poorly trained and come out of Dispensational backgrounds and hence, still have all that, 'lets get out there before someone falls through the cracks' thinking.


Lets take your given example of us speaking to a sinner about Jesus, and that person gets saved, and then wants to be water baptized. At that point, he would be turning over to the ordained minister for that to happen.


----------



## Herald

timfost said:


> even if some would call this evangelism and others witnessing.


It is evangelizing and it is witnessing. Do more of it! Neither detracts from the role of ordained ministers.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Herald said:


> It is evangelizing and it is witnessing. Do more of it! Neither detracts from the role of ordained ministers.


It's not a question of any sort of fear or worry of detracting from the role of ministers as I think you may mean it. It's a question of what the Bible teaches and shows by example and by good and necessary inference about the duties and roles of ordained men and lay members. In that sense, one wouldn't want to distract from God's order and arrangement of things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

Jeri Tanner said:


> It's not a question of any sort of fear or worry of detracting from the role of ministers as I think you may mean it. It's a question of what the Bible teaches and shows by example and by good and necessary inference about the duties and roles of ordained men and lay members. In that sense, one wouldn't want to distract from God's order and arrangement of things.


Jeri, and a lay-person sharing the gospel is not a threat to good and necessary inference (as you put it). I had a conversation about the gospel with a gentleman while I was waiting for tires to be put on my car. Should I have avoided that conversation because of some sort of ecclesiastical censorship? When Jesus said, "Let your light shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your father who is in heaven" (Mat. 5:16), what greater work can we do than to let our conversation reflect the Lord who has so gloriously saved us? I think we can hide behind "God's order and arrangement of things". If we applied that as a formula for the whole of the Christia life we can get out of doing anything. It's not my intent to pressure others into sharing their faith. But it is very much my point to state that doing so is not unbiblical. In fact, it should be encouraged.


----------



## earl40

Herald said:


> Jeri, and a lay-person sharing the gospel is not a threat to good and necessary inference (as you put it). I had a conversation about the gospel with a gentleman while I was waiting for tires to be put on my car. Should I have avoided that conversation because of some sort of ecclesiastical censorship? When Jesus said, "Let your light shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your father who is in heaven" (Mat. 5:16), what greater work can we do than to let our conversation reflect the Lord who has so gloriously saved us? I think we can hide behind "God's order and arrangement of things". If we applied that as a formula for the whole of the Christia life we can get out of doing anything. It's not my intent to pressure others into sharing their faith. But it is very much my point to state that doing so is not unbiblical. In fact, it should be encouraged.



Bill were you "preaching" and "evangelizing" in the biblical sense as scripture defines? Or were you "witnessing" in this conversation which no one should discourage.


----------



## Herald

earl40 said:


> Bill were you "preaching" and "evangelizing" in the biblical sense as scripture defines? Or were you "witnessing" in this conversation which no one should discourage.


I didn't have a pulpit nor a congregation in front of me, so no, I wasn't preaching. I was sharing law and gospel and appealed to this man to repent of his sins and place his faith in Christ.


----------



## GRJ

I began thinking of Philip in Acts 8 with regard to this thread. He was ordained to help serving tables so the Apostles could devote themselves to ministry and prayer. It seems that Philip was not ordained specifically as a preacher; maybe the office of deacon(?) Yet he was preaching in Samaria with great effect. 
*Ac 8:12* But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 
Please correct me if I'm off the rails here, thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

One must consider the timing here. It was extraordinary. For example, I am in the Sudan and a man I am witnessing to, comes to faith. There are no churches there-period! Can I baptize him?


----------



## earl40

GRJ said:


> I began thinking of Philip in Acts 8 with regard to this thread. He was ordained to help serving tables so the Apostles could devote themselves to ministry and prayer. It seems that Philip was not ordained specifically as a preacher; maybe the office of deacon(?) Yet he was preaching in Samaria with great effect.
> *Ac 8:12* But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
> Please correct me if I'm off the rails here, thank you.



This is a good question. I have heard a couple of answers concerning this. One being that Philip was ordained later as a Pastor. The other is that The Gospel was in its infancy where the office of evangelist was still in effect, which has now passed. Either one has Philip ordained to a higher office than he started with.


----------



## earl40

Scott Bushey said:


> One must consider the timing here. It was extraordinary. For example, I am in the Sudan and a man I am witnessing to, comes to faith. There are no churches there-period! Can I baptize him?



That would indeed prevent the person from Sudan from being added to the visible church.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Ed Walsh

earl40 said:


> That would indeed prevent the person from Sudan from being added to the visible church.



I would love to post the whole context of the quote below, but that would make the post too long. So below is just one example of the teaching of Turretin on the subject of the extraordinary call to the ministry and even forming churches where there's no predecessor(s) available.

XVIII. If today believers, carried by a tempest to the most distant regions of the earth, should be shipwrecked upon the shore among barbarous people, entirely strangers to religion, and pressed by necessity should be compelled to remain there without any hope of returning to their homes, who does not confess that from the law of love they ought to teach the pagans the faith of Christ? And if many of them should perchance be converted, would it not be lawful for them to choose for themselves pastors to constitute a church and provide for its edification and instruction? Would it be better to suffer that light to be extinguished than to establish a ministry for the consolation and salvation of that people, although this could not be done according to the usual order? Thus if perchance it happens in a most severe persecution of a church or province that all the pastors are either entirely destroyed or so scattered that they cannot easily be gathered together or other pastors be obtained elsewhere; in this case would it be more advisable for the believing people to remain without a pastor and without external worship and thus suffer the light of the gospel and all religion to be extinguished than that it should be permitted them to elect and constitute some suitable private person from their own body to feed and teach them, although the received order could not be adhered to? Nay, who does not see that the glory of God and the salvation of believers demands the contrary altogether? No more can it be sought by what right and by what authority and call these things are done than it can be demanded of a citizen what call he has for opposing himself to an inrushing enemy when the leaders are treacherous; or for extinguishing a fire enveloping a house, if others fail. For the case of necessity and the salvation of the republic (which ought to be the supreme law) demands this. It is the same as if I should ask a man what right he had to obey God and to resist Satan. What call he has to procure his own and his neighbor’s salvation. Everyone knows that this is an indispensable necessity.

Turretin, F. (1992–1997). Institutes of Elenctic Theology. (J. T. Dennison Jr., Ed., G. M. Giger, Trans.) (Vol. 3, pp. 221–222). Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

Ed Walsh said:


> I would love to post the whole context of the quote below, but that would make the post too long. So below is just one example of the teaching of Turretin on the subject of the extraordinary call to the ministry and even forming churches where there's no predecessor(s) available.
> 
> XVIII. If today believers, carried by a tempest to the most distant regions of the earth, should be shipwrecked upon the shore among barbarous people, entirely strangers to religion, and pressed by necessity should be compelled to remain there without any hope of returning to their homes, who does not confess that from the law of love they ought to teach the pagans the faith of Christ? And if many of them should perchance be converted, would it not be lawful for them to choose for themselves pastors to constitute a church and provide for its edification and instruction? Would it be better to suffer that light to be extinguished than to establish a ministry for the consolation and salvation of that people, although this could not be done according to the usual order? Thus if perchance it happens in a most severe persecution of a church or province that all the pastors are either entirely destroyed or so scattered that they cannot easily be gathered together or other pastors be obtained elsewhere; in this case would it be more advisable for the believing people to remain without a pastor and without external worship and thus suffer the light of the gospel and all religion to be extinguished than that it should be permitted them to elect and constitute some suitable private person from their own body to feed and teach them, although the received order could not be adhered to? Nay, who does not see that the glory of God and the salvation of believers demands the contrary altogether? No more can it be sought by what right and by what authority and call these things are done than it can be demanded of a citizen what call he has for opposing himself to an inrushing enemy when the leaders are treacherous; or for extinguishing a fire enveloping a house, if others fail. For the case of necessity and the salvation of the republic (which ought to be the supreme law) demands this. It is the same as if I should ask a man what right he had to obey God and to resist Satan. What call he has to procure his own and his neighbor’s salvation. Everyone knows that this is an indispensable necessity.
> 
> Turretin, F. (1992–1997). Institutes of Elenctic Theology. (J. T. Dennison Jr., Ed., G. M. Giger, Trans.) (Vol. 3, pp. 221–222). Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.​



Seems like Turretin has a rather high view of the ordained. 

"And if many of them should perchance be converted, would it not be lawful for them to choose for themselves pastors to constitute a church and provide for its edification and instruction?"


----------



## TylerRay

GRJ said:


> I began thinking of Philip in Acts 8 with regard to this thread. He was ordained to help serving tables so the Apostles could devote themselves to ministry and prayer. It seems that Philip was not ordained specifically as a preacher; maybe the office of deacon(?) Yet he was preaching in Samaria with great effect.
> *Ac 8:12* But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
> Please correct me if I'm off the rails here, thank you.





earl40 said:


> This is a good question. I have heard a couple of answers concerning this. One being that Philip was ordained later as a Pastor. The other is that The Gospel was in its infancy where the office of evangelist was still in effect, which has now passed. Either one has Philip ordained to a higher office than he started with.



The Geneva Bible has this note on Acts 8:5: "Philip, who was before a deacon in Jerusalem, is made an evangelist by God in an extraordinary way."

Later (Ch. 21), we see Philip referred to as an evangelist. Note that he also baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch (8:38).

Evangelists, in the Scriptures, are an extraordinary type of minister of the Word and sacrament, confined to eras in which the church is unsettled. Philip filled this office, as well as acting as a deacon.


----------



## GRJ

TylerRay said:


> The Geneva Bible has this note on Acts 8:5: "Philip, who was before a deacon in Jerusalem, is made an evangelist by God in an extraordinary way."
> 
> Later (Ch. 21), we see Philip referred to as an evangelist. Note that he also baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch (8:38).
> 
> Evangelists, in the Scriptures, are an extraordinary type of minister of the Word and sacrament, confined to eras in which the church is unsettled. Philip filled this office, as well as acting as a deacon.



Thank you!


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

*MODERATION*

Thread Closed. Time to move on to other items of business.


----------

