# Is the Great Commission only to Apostles?



## Mrs. Bailey

(This thought is in line with chaplinintraining's question on evangelism... but a little different, so I bring it up here, so as not to sidetrack that thread.)

I've been involved in various evangelistic outreaches and mission trips for much of my adult life (some before our family was in the "reformed" camp). They have been a great personal blessing for me and I hope most of all pleasing to the Lord. I have had the chance to share the Gospel directly, to provide mercy, to encourage missionaries in-country and to do the "behind the scenes" admin stuff that has allowed others to do these things.

Currently, and for the past 5 years, my Husband and I have lead summer trips from our church (under the PCA's missions branch) to a Native Reservation in our state.

Just recently, someone told me that the Great Commission given to the Apostles was not meant for me.... (read: unordained to baptize, woman, whatever) because it applies only to ordained ministers of the Gospel. "Missions" should only be applied to ordained church-planting operations..... 

I truly believe that it is our imperative (all believers) to always be able to share a reason for our hope, but this is so discouraging to hear. This mincing words of missions/outreach/evangelism/mercy..... It seems like a slam to every dedicated effort on growing the kingdom but a non-ordained Christian.

I go from livid to sad in my reactions to this (sometimes cycling very quickly) and I need some godly perspective. This is not about me or any hurt pride, but my desire for God to be glorified. 

I would appreciate your thoughts and scripture back ups on this issue.


----------



## rbcbob

Greetings Mrs Bailey.

Contextually the "Great Commission" was given *to* the apostles. But I quickly add that it was not *only* *for* the apostles; if that were the case the Commission would have ended with them.



> Matthew 28:16-20 16 Then *the eleven disciples* went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and *spoke to them*, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 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 the Church engages in now is the carrying out the Great Commission under that Apostolic Authority granted by Christ. As to the question of what all comes under the umbrella of that Commission we need to consult the writings of the New Testament. Therein we find who may be sent as preachers, assistants, etc.


----------



## au5t1n

I believe the Great Commission should be understood as a specific command for the Apostles, but not as a limit on who may share the gospel with others. The principle of expanding the kingdom and reaching your neighbors applies to everyone, but that doesn't mean Christ didn't intend the Great Commission for the Apostles in particular. 

It is similar to when people try to take Jesus' sending of the 72 and use the rules he gave them (e.g. take only one tunic) as rules for missionaries today. Jesus didn't intend it to be a rule for anyone but the 72. Nevertheless, the principle of depending on God for provision still applies to everyone, even if the rule to take only one tunic does not. Does that help a little?


----------



## jason d

Mrs. Bailey,

I understand your distress as this was presented to me about a year ago and saddened me deeply because a group from my church would out weekly. However, in the end I did not find the argument persuasive.

First off note that in the great commission itself Jesus says the apostles are to be, *"teaching them [the disciples the apostles make] to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."*

I would ask the opponent of this if one of the things Jesus commanded the apostles was the Great Commission (as it is called) yes, He just did, so why would the apostles only pass that down to a select group and not to all the disciples they made?

Also is the promise *"I am with you always, even to the end of the age"* from Jesus only to the disciples? Well yes, He spoke it to them but it is also a promise for us.

I would point to the examples of what followed the Great Commission mandate of Jesus and how the apostles carried it out and did it. Obviously we see the apostles evangelizing but notice the following verses:

Notice in the following passage who is left behind (no pre-trib pun intended ) and notice who preaches (emphasis mine):



> Acts 8:
> 
> 1And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and *they were all scattered abroad* throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, *except the apostles*.
> 
> 2And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
> 
> 3As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
> 
> 4Therefore they *that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word*.



--



> Acts 11:
> 
> 19Now *they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen* travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, *preaching the word* to none but unto the Jews only.
> 
> 20And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, *preaching the LORD Jesus*.
> 
> 21And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.



--

Acts 6:5 tells us that one of the first deacons was Philip but we see him involved in cross-cultural missions (emphasis mine):



> Acts 8:
> 
> 5Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and *preached Christ unto them*.
> 
> ...
> 
> Acts 8:25-40
> 
> 25And they, when they had *testified and preached the word of the Lord*, returned to Jerusalem, and *preached the gospel* in many villages of the Samaritans.
> 
> 26And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
> 
> 27And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
> 
> 28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
> 
> 29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
> 
> 30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
> 
> 31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
> 
> 32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
> 
> 33In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
> 
> 34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
> 
> 35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
> 
> 36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
> 
> 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
> 
> 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and *he baptized him*.
> 
> 39And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
> 
> 40But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he *preached* in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.



Of course those are just examples what about imperatives to all?

1 Peter is enough for me, first note the audience and the author (an apostle):



> Peter, an *apostle *of Jesus Christ,
> *To those who are elect* exiles of a the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia



and look what he tells them in 1 Peter 2:9:



> "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, *that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him* who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light."



So go, preach the gospel to every creature, proclaim the excellencies of Jesus, for He has saved us, how can we not tell of this good news?


----------



## Der Pilger

Something else to consider is Eph. 4:8-13 (NASB):



> 8Therefore it says,
> "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH,
> HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES,
> AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN."
> 
> 9(Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?
> 
> 10He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)
> 
> 11And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and *some as evangelists*, and some as pastors and teachers,
> 
> 12*for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;*
> 
> 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.



At first glance it would seem that if those who are evangelists are to equip the church "for the work of service," then that work of service must be evangelism, at least in some manner. That is their purpose: to equip the saints to do that particular work of service.

But on second thought, this might not work so well. By this logic, we would have to conclude that those who are pastors are equipping all the saints to be pastors, those who are apostles are equipping all the saints to be apostles, and so on.

So, then, the question is: What exactly is it that these "evangelists" do for the church? Perhaps the answer lies in Paul's second description of what all these gifted people do: "building up [εἰς οἰκοδομὴν] of the body of Christ." Perhaps their function is defined strictly by this second phrase that Paul uses, particularly the words "eis oikodomein," which could indicate the making of a building, i.e., the increase of the church. If that's true, then maybe Paul was saying that the evangelists' purpose was not really that of training but rather in bringing people into--building up--the church.

Just another passage to consider relating to this topic.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

v.11 lists four "gifts" to the church: apostles to establish and settle it; 

prophets to finish NT revelation and to provide in the absence of that finished writing, and in their trail simple preachers (heralds) of that same word after inscripturation; 

evangelists who were extraordinarily missionary-men and assistants to the apostles (and in present presbyterian polity, similarly gifted and church-authorized men), 

and the pastors-teachers (the elders, without distinctions).

v.12 is properly parsed in the older KJV, and infelicitously parsed in many recent translations. The "work of the ministry" is one of the three reasons listed for the "pastors-teachers" et al, in the previous verse; along with "equipping the saints" and "building up {or edifying} the body of Christ {that is the church}."


Jeremy,
If one follows the reasoning presented in your post (though I'm not persuaded of the propriety of putting one-for-one), and a more accurate reading of v.12 as I have proposed it, with the exception of the extraordinary office of apostle (and treating "prophets" as inclusive of the preachers of the gospel):1) prophets/preachers equip the saints;
2) evangelists do the work of the ministry; and
3) pastors-teachers build up the body of Christ.​As I said, I do not think either this, or your previous suggestion, properly understands the passage. All three of these functions belong specifically to the successors to the apostles, in some degree--either by direct participation as chief officers (ministers/TEs), or by fortification/support (elders/REs).


----------



## Der Pilger

Contra_Mundum said:


> v.11 lists four "gifts" to the church: apostles to establish and settle it;
> 
> prophets to finish NT revelation and to provide in the absence of that finished writing, and in their trail simple preachers (heralds) of that same word after inscripturation;
> 
> evangelists who were extraordinarily missionary-men and assistants to the apostles (and in present presbyterian polity, similarly gifted and church-authorized men),
> 
> and the pastors-teachers (the elders, without distinctions).
> 
> v.12 is properly parsed in the older KJV, and infelicitously parsed in many recent translations. The "work of the ministry" is one of the three reasons listed for the "pastors-teachers" et al, in the previous verse; along with "equipping the saints" and "building up {or edifying} the body of Christ {that is the church}."



Thanks for pointing out that distinction. The way the NASB renders it, it looks like just two functions.




> Jeremy,
> If one follows the reasoning presented in your post (though I'm not persuaded of the propriety of putting one-for-one), and a more accurate reading of v.12 as I have proposed it, with the exception of the extraordinary office of apostle (and treating "prophets" as inclusive of the preachers of the gospel):1) prophets/preachers equip the saints;
> 2) evangelists do the work of the ministry; and
> 3) pastors-teachers build up the body of Christ.​As I said, I do not think either this, or your previous suggestion, properly understands the passage. All three of these functions belong specifically to the successors to the apostles, in some degree--either by direct participation as chief officers (ministers/TEs), or by fortification/support (elders/REs).


 
I would tend to agree with this latter view you presented. I've always read the passage to mean that *all three* (or two, if you go by the NASB  ) of the functions belong to *each* of the gifted people in the preceding verse. I have not even begun to study this passage in-depth, so my thoughts on all this are tentative, but on the face of it, separating the three functions and assigning only one to each office seems forced, although your description of evangelists as "extraordinarily missionary-men and assistants to the apostles" does seem to support the idea that their predominant sphere of ministry was "the work of the ministry" with the apostles rather than "build[ing] up the body of Christ.


----------



## jambo

1. "...to the end of the age..." would indicate that it is an ongoing obligation on the church to fufil.
2. To "make disciples of all nations" would also suggest it was something that would require far more time than the apostles had left on this earth.
3. William Carey wrestled with this problem within the contemporary church. His conclusion was the great commission had not been fulfilled nor cancelled and therefore the church still had to engage in it. 

I do not believe for one minute the great commission applies to a certain category of Christians within the church but is an obligation on all Christians to be involved in the task.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Carson addresses this specifically in a chapter entitled "Ongoing Imperative for World Mission" in The Great Commission (Ed. by Martin Klauber and Scott Manetsch). He presents an alternative reading (similar to those suggested above) that would be necessary to exclude all believers other than the apostles. He is a bit more colorful, offering this directive from Jesus to the apostles concerning the making of disciples: "Teach them to obey everthing I have commanded you, except for this commandment to make disciples. Keep their grubby hands off that one, since it belongs only to you, my dear apostles." He then says that "the ludicrousness of this reading merely has to be spelled out; the laughter will take care of the rest." In addition, he refutes a number of other objections to the idea of missions today.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

It seems "obvious" to this interpreter that since the G.C. "obviously" applies to every believer _in exactly the same way,_ then its a bit of "cherry-picking" to tell everyone that they need only feel the *weight* of *obligation* with respect to the matter of making disciples, but NOT ALSO that they must feel equally the *obligation* to baptize AND teach those same persons.

I'm laughing uproariously at the thought that anyone could have missed this... Who needs the Church and the Ministry anyway? Everyone is competent to teach and to baptize--i.e. "make disciples."

Really?


The important thing to remember is that we are not to impose *obligation* further than higher authority has assigned it. This is simply the matter of the limits of church-power. If the command of Christ here applies to all in the same, undifferentiated manner, then all have the duty to complete the obligation under the _obligatory manner_ also prescribed.

That not every Christian is competent to teach or authorized to baptize (and I could go farther and say the same thing of both) should not even be debatable.


----------



## Der Pilger

Contra_Mundum said:


> It seems "obvious" to this interpreter that since the G.C. "obviously" applies to every believer _in exactly the same way,_ then its a bit of "cherry-picking" to tell everyone that they need only feel the *weight* of *obligation* with respect to the matter of making disciples, but NOT ALSO that they must feel equally the *obligation* to baptize AND teach those same persons.
> 
> I'm laughing uproariously at the thought that anyone could have missed this... Who needs the Church and the Ministry anyway? Everyone is competent to teach and to baptize--i.e. "make disciples."
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> The important thing to remember is that we are not to impose *obligation* further than higher authority has assigned it. This is simply the matter of the limits of church-power. If the command of Christ here applies to all in the same, undifferentiated manner, then all have the duty to complete the obligation under the _obligatory manner_ also prescribed.
> 
> That not every Christian is competent to teach or authorized to baptize (and I could go farther and say the same thing of both) should not even be debatable.


 
I think this is a strong point:

*"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."* (Mt. 28:19-20, NASB)

The Great Commission involves more than just communicating the gospel message; it also involves teaching and baptizing. This teaching and baptizing, if I'm not mistaken, are expressed with participles, indicating that these activities were to be going on at the same time that they were to "go ... and make disciples." It seems that many, though, are content with choosing which of these they shall do. The command of Christ does not allow for such freedom. It would be a stretch to think that after Christ said this to his disciples, they then sat down and said, "Okay, who wants to teach the gospel? You? Great. Now who wants to take on the part of baptizing?"


----------



## a mere housewife

There is the opposite danger though of being too easily assuaged by the 'it's not my responsibility to do this' to be comfortable in our lack of zeal for the lost. Proverbs says 'he that winneth souls is wise'. It wasn't speaking only to ministers when it said that. In our callings, we should desire to be part of the salvation of other people, surely -- this is why Christ came into the world, and as we are in the world to serve Him we should share the same heart?

I had a question perhaps stemming off of this -- maybe properly it should belong to another thread? Is the 'Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world' then not applicable to me, and to the average lay-person?


----------



## Der Pilger

In all honesty, I'm divided on this topic, and I am still thinking through it. I can say for sure, though, that it's vital not to go beyond the limits of Scripture. The Bible does not explicitly prohibit all Christians from communicating the gospel. At the same time, it does not explicitly command all of them to do so. What it does command us to do, though, is to love our neighbors as ourselves. Such love necessarily seeks to do what is best for the one loved. Since our neighbor's greatest need is divine reconciliation, the one who truly loves would surely want to impart the very message that can lead to that reconciliation.

Having said that, lately I have tended to lean more in the direction of limiting gospel preaching to called, trained ministers. I have seen and heard some pretty abysmal teachings and modes of presentation among those who are not theologically trained, not only with respect to the gospel but also with respect to Christian doctrine in general. The latter has led me to eschew the house-church movement, with its strongly anti-clergy leanings.


----------



## a mere housewife

> What it does command us to do, though, is to love our neighbors as ourselves. Such love necessarily seeks to do what is best for the one loved. Since our neighbor's greatest need is divine reconciliation, the one who truly loves would surely want to impart the very message that can lead to that reconciliation.



Yes, the ordinary people spread abroad by the persecution of Stephen went everywhere gossiping the Word.

Joshua, no; I didn't mean to accuse you of arguing against such a point -- only that I think it's another danger very easy to fall into.


----------



## jayce475

Pardon me, but I have difficulty seeing how laity are meant to be sticking to their positions and fully leave the ministry of God's word to ministers, and yet somehow be involved in some sort of sharing of God's word with others on a day-to-day basis and having a zeal to actively share the gospel with others. I'm rather split on this issue. On one hand, I have seen many try to teach the bible in parachurch settings like university fellowships and getting many fundamental doctrines awfully wrong, yet on the other hand if the laity are not meant to generally teach God's word, that means that whatever bible study sessions I have been having with my friends are contradictory to God's commands. Conversations I have with those around me often end up with me sharing some doctrines or the gospel itself, so am I undermining the ministry of ministers? I know that I would eventually enter full-time ministry, but circumstances prevent me from pursuing theological education for another decade or so. So until the day I become an ordained minister or at least take on deaconship, am I bound by scriptures to not doing any teaching at all? Indeed proper equipping needs to be given prior to any teaching being done and the main source of teaching and pastoral care should come mainly from ministers, but where do we draw the line. I don't mean to give the impression that I'm pushing for the position of laity teaching, just wondering if I am sinning everyday when I'm sharing with my friends and housemates the whole counsel of God.


----------



## Mrs. Bailey

(I really do need to figure out how to correctly quote  ) A mere housewife said: "There is the opposite danger though of being too easily assuaged by the 'it's not my responsibility to do this' to be comfortable in our lack of zeal for the lost. Proverbs says 'he that winneth souls is wise'. It wasn't speaking only to ministers when it said that. In our callings, we should desire to be part of the salvation of other people, surely -- this is why Christ came into the world, and as we are in the world to serve Him we should share the same heart?"

I am greatly appreciating the conversation and ALL of you who have expressed your thoughts on this. Heidi here, speaks my heart on this....

So, were any of you led to Christ by a non-ordained person? Have you been discipled or encouraged in your faith by a non-ordained person? Does that invalidate your conversion? If our efforts are not theologically precise, does that damn us and any we share Christ with? Should we stop now? Do we have false hope in this direction where we are efforting to be faithful?

And, I guess I want to ask in humble hope: those of you who are ordained by your church to preach, teach, evangelize, and baptize. Are you being faithful to your calling? Tell me how you are sharing and how the Lord has blessed your ministry, if you would. And where you see your laity in sharing your burden to teach the gospel?

Your sister,


----------



## yoyoceramic

For what it's worth

Institutes: IV VIII 11



> The Church, they say, has the noble promise that she will never be deserted by Christ her spouse, but be guided by his Spirit into all truth. But of the promises which they are wont to allege, many were given not less to private believers than to the whole Church. For although the Lord spake to the twelve apostles, when he said, "Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world," (Matth. 28: 20) and again, "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever: even the Spirit of truth," (John 14: 16, 17,) he made these promises not only to the twelve, but to each of them separately, nay, in like manner, to other disciples whom he already had received or was afterwards to receive. When they interpret these promises, which are replete with consolation, in such a way as if they were not given to any particular Christian but to the whole Church together, what else is it but to deprive Christians of the confidence which they ought thence to have derived, to animate them in their course? I deny not that the whole body of the faithful is furnished with a manifold variety of gifts and endued with a far larger and richer treasure of heavenly wisdom than each Christian apart; nor do I mean that this was said of believers in general, as implying that all possess the spirit of wisdom and knowledge in an equal degree: but we are not to give permission to the adversaries of Christ to defend a bad cause, by wresting Scripture from its proper meaning.


----------



## jason d

Contra_Mundum said:


> ...not every Christian is competent to teach or authorized to baptize (and I could go farther and say the same thing of both) should not even be debatable.


 
Do you believe that the command to "teach" is only in regards to a pastor teaching? Are not the older to teach the younger, even older women teaching the younger women in some context (obviously not preaching from the pulpit on a Sunday), a parent to teach their children, or must that only be left up to ordained ministers?

Also where in Scripture is baptism commanded only for ordained ministers?

---------- Post added at 04:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 AM ----------

I have had this discussion in person and online and have never heard a rebuttal to this still:



jason d said:


> 1 Peter is enough for me, first note the audience and the author (an apostle):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter, an *apostle *of Jesus Christ,
> *To those who are elect* exiles of a the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and look what he tells them in 1 Peter 2:9:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, *that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him* who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## buggy

Joshua said:


> I think most ideas surrounding the modern day understanding of "evangelism" is a product of several things:
> 
> 1. Revivalism - Since Finney and beyond there's this pressing for decisions, etc. that has so pervaded "evangelicalism," I believe this has trickled down to the more "Broadly Reformed" folks' understanding of what evangelism is. The ministers then impress upon the layfolk of how they ought to be "evangelizing." This pressure mounts and everyone's all of a sudden a missionary. Sure, folks may not be pressing them to say the sinners prayer, etc. but they take upon themselves the mantle of being the "ministers of reconciliation," when that responsibility, duty, and privilege are for _ministers_. They are the ones beseeching the lay folk to be reconciled unto Christ.
> 
> 2. Egalitarianism - Flowing from Revivalism, since now every Christian is a missionary _proper_, there is this idea that everyone must be a "soul winner." It doesn't matter if they can't properly articulate the Scriptures or not. It doesn't matter if they are inverts who shutter at the thought of talking to complete strangers in awkward moments of confrontation. No, "God can use it." That's not the point, however. From this, I think arises the greatest detriment that has been a result of revivalism:
> 
> 3. Misunderstanding of Calling - Christians are to be contented in their place and stations and do what it is with which they are gifted _really well_. THIS is the mark of a Christian. And, if those gifts be ministering, teaching, articulating the gospel, and they meet all the other qualifications of an elder, then the local session will recognize such, present said man to presbytery, and the rightful process will be undertaken to accomplish such. The problem with modern day thoughts of "evangelists" is a result of folks being discontent with their place and station, and wanting something different than that to which they are rightly gifted and called. They see some kind of romantic view of what _ministry_ is and aspire towards.
> 
> It is a noble thing to desire to be an officer in the Church Paul tells us. No doubt. But there is a process to getting there, and the _ministry_ belongs to _ministers_.


 
How would you then counter the Arminian-revivalist argument that Calvinism destroys evangelism and missions, since it is their habit to "encourage" laymen to go "cold" evangelism, door-to-door tracting or street preaching? 

And how about the truth re-founded by the Reformation - the priesthood of all believers?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

jason d said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...not every Christian is competent to teach or authorized to baptize (and I could go farther and say the same thing of both) should not even be debatable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that the command to "teach" is only in regards to a pastor teaching? Are not the older to teach the younger, even older women teaching the younger women in some context (obviously not preaching from the pulpit on a Sunday), a parent to teach their children, or must that only be left up to ordained ministers?
Click to expand...


Brother Jason,
I'm not sure why folks can't read _exactly_ what is printed in the post, and follow the reasoning of another person, except for the fact that they are accustomed to a reader-response form of interpretation of what they ingest.

Take the time to follow this:
Jesus gave a *commandment* in the Great Commission passage. He also gave form to the manner by which that commandment was to be performed. Therefore, to impose the specific obligation upon all Christians is to impose the obligatory manner as well. Therefore, if you feel the weight of the obligation to "make disciples" (whatever you think that means), then you have NO LIBERTY to set aside the manner of its performance.

If you believe Christ's *commandment* has been given directly to you, without any mitigations, then you had better be teaching the faith with full accuracy (do consider James 3:1), and you had better be baptizing. Don't you dare fail in either of these requirements. This is simply the logic of the position.

Now, I don't think that the simple belief that one has been directed to do anything actually confers the authority to perform a deed. Any more than I think a man who "believes" himself _competent_ or _authorized_ to do brain surgery is in fact legitimately so, simply because he thinks so, or thinks he sees a need to act as such.

What bearing does Titus 2:3 have on the interpretation of Mt.28:18-20? My post doesn't concern itself with the *scope* of the teaching ministry of the church! It simply addresses the question: on WHOM is the *obligation* to "make disciples" laid? The men to whom those words were precisely directed were competent (trained in the school of Jesus), and they were being _commissioned_ (ordained, authorized) to this mission. It would be proper to describe this event as a "graduation exercise."


Another point that needs to be addressed:
It has been evident throughout this thread that the language: "make disciples" has been assumed--very improperly so--to be synonymous with "share your faith" or "give your testimony" and "get a faith-profession from someone" etc. which translates (for some) into a "disciple-made." Disciples are "made," according to Mt.28:19, by baptizing and teaching; such is the relation of those participles to the main verb in the sentence.

There is also a major assumption that "sharing the gospel" equals "preaching the gospel." I'm not aware of any explicit command in Scripture to "share" the gospel, however there is a command to "preach" it. And to preach it in a strict and proper sense, one has to be a "herald," a "preacher." No one in the days of the Scripture would have confused an ordinary speaker with a herald of the potentate, regardless of the innate quality or truthfulness of the content of his speech. Passing oneself off as an official herald without authorization was an outlaw action. And folks, Christians in general aren't preachers. Preachers fill an office in the church; they are ordained, and with that ordination comes obligation.

Consider it this way: You may have a right, under specified circumstances, to perform a "citizen's arrest." But you are not generally authorized by the Power to arrest (in accord with his authorization), or to do any of the other regular functions of a policeman. Nor do you have the right to assume his uniform, badge, or equipage without being branded an impostor. The regular preaching of the gospel is an exercise of church authority in the name of Christ by one of his "officers."



Now then, for an ordinary citizen of Christ's kingdom to get involved in missions-work, or presenting Christ and his gospel, etc., can be a fine thing. But it needs to be put in its true category, namely the actions of a kingdom-citizen, performing his calling. A housewife is performing her calling when she cooks meals for the family, washes clothes, or has tea with her neighbor and opens up the Bible with her.

This is important that we understand: *There is nothing "extra-spiritual" about going on a missions-trip, nothing that puts such a participant into a "special category" of serious-religious, that is not EQUAL in service to the dishwashing done by the woman who stayed home.* When we start thinking like that, we are going down the same road that the monks went, that the whole church went in the Middle Ages, when there was "ordinary life" juxtaposed with the superior labors of the priests, monks, and nuns.

The mother at home has certain providentially appointed opportunities to teach her children the faith, to trust Christ, to believe the gospel. She has been fully equipped to fulfill the limits of her responsibility--which, incidentally, includes taking the children to church where they are acquainted with the official proclamation, and with even more competent teachers. She does not deserve EVER to be made to feel as though she has not done "enough" if she has not "shared her faith" with her neighbor even once or twice. It might not be her calling! She may not be "outgoing" and garrulous. _Being tongue-tied is not a "deed of the flesh" to be overcome by the "fruit of the Spirit"!_




jason d said:


> Also where in Scripture is baptism commanded only for ordained ministers?


It is beyond the scope of this thread to discuss the whole matter of ordination to the ministry, and what duties such appointment involves, and how the sacraments belong to the church, and not to individual Christians. 1Cor.4:1 identifies the apostles as "stewards of the mysteries." Heb.5:4-5 teaches that even Jesus was "appointed" to his office, and those who performed the Levitical office of old were appointed, and did not assume for themselves the right to exercise church-power.

If you do not understand or accept the limits of your authority within the church, but are a "Leveler" and assume that the general priesthood of all believers has abolished all distinction of order in the church, if in short ecclesiastical anarchy is preferable to all but the flimsiest drape of human authority, then you will not accept that administration of the ordinances of Christ are properly placed in the lap of Ministers of Word and Sacrament.

I'm not sure how your LBC1689 limits the "sovereign" individual in these matters, but to the degree that the principles of independency work their way out in personal as well as social/ecclesiastical settings, these sorts of tensions regularly manifest themselves.




jason d said:


> I have had this discussion in person and online and have never heard a rebuttal to this still:
> 1 Peter 1:1
> 
> 
> 
> Peter, an *apostle *of Jesus Christ,
> *To those who are elect* exiles of a the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Peter 2:9:
> 
> 
> 
> But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, *that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him* who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

1) The word you highlight, exanggeilete, is not the technical term for a herald's proclamation, "kerusso".

2) You have here, in fact, divorced this statement from the church-context in which it is set. The words of v9 are collective nouns, and not individual qualities. Further, note v5:


> Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.


This is a whole building, not individuals. Not everything that is predicable of the whole is predicable of individual parts. No more than a sink in a house is suitable to cook a turkey, is each person in the church suited to do any manner of spiritual sacrifice.

3) The text you adduce *IS*, in fact, suitable to establish a general right of any Christian to present to any who will listen the truth of Christ. But this does not at all get down to particulars, nor establish clear duties obligated upon individual Christians.



Final word:
Let it not be said that I oppose personal evangelism. Neither I, nor Josh, nor any of the others here are (so far as I know) saying that the open testimony of the truth of God's Word, or the testimony of a changed life, are bad things. But people have enough of Law for their own private callings, without added burdens of false and unscriptural expectations. They do not need "grades" of spirituality, based on "Christian-work" vs. private calling.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Der Pilger

Mrs. Bailey said:


> (I really do need to figure out how to correctly quote  )



Click on "Reply with quote" at the bottom of the post you're responding to. If you want to change any quotes after that, just remember the quote tags: the word *quote* (with brackets, [ ]) goes before the text your'e quoting, and */quote* (again with brackets, [ ] ) immediately follows it.



> So, were any of you led to Christ by a non-ordained person? Have you been discipled or encouraged in your faith by a non-ordained person? Does that invalidate your conversion?



No, since God can, and sometimes does, work in spite of the means we use. God's use of a particular person or means does not necessarily mean that we should use it. He used cruel, wicked, pagan nations to chastise/punish Israel and then later on punished those very same nations!

The correct question to ask, in my opinion, is: What are the scriptural principles for evangelism? What does God say about it? Any ministry needs to be evaluated on a biblical basis--whether it conforms to Scripture--and not on its results. I've heard too many Christians defend a particular ministry merely on the basis of the visible results it produced. For example, once someone defended Promise Keepers on the basis of the sheer numbers of people that came forward during an altar call at one of their events.


----------



## ubermadchen

Contra_Mundum said:


> Final word:
> Let it not be said that I oppose personal evangelism. Neither I, nor Josh, nor any of the others here are (so far as I know) saying that the open testimony of the truth of God's Word, or the testimony of a changed life, are bad things. But people have enough of Law for their own private callings, without added burdens of false and unscriptural expectations. They do not need "grades" of spirituality, based on "Christian-work" vs. private calling.


 
You say that you don't oppose personal evangelism but your words have thus discouraged lay people from articulating their faith with others. How can a Christian in good standing with his or her church share the gospel with someone without violating the office of the preacher? Pastors cannot be everywhere at once, but with enough sheep steeped in the Word, we can. Thus, how can a pastor expect to reach his community for the sake of the Gospel without his congregation being the feet?


----------



## jayce475

Okay, so for a start there are a few guidelines based on the responses from Josh and Rev Bruce if I understand them correctly. We ought to perform duties according to our calling and gifts. All who preach the word need to be competent and commissioned. Laity do not ordinarily take to the pulpits and perform preaching or baptism. That is not an issue, to me at least. It has also been said that the laity have a general right to proclaim God's word to all who are willing to hear. 

However, practically, where how do we draw a line? When I'm holding uni bible study groups with the permission from my pastor and confine myself to teaching only the basics of the faith, am I already crossing the line? We have less than 10 adults in our congregation for my Australian church, so any sort of a church office for anyone at all doesn't make sense for the time being. So do we all need to have at least a deaconship to be teaching? If I'm telling my friends who are in Arminian and charismatic churches the errors of Arminianism and charismatism, am I already starting to undermine the ministers of their churches? When I study the bible with my housemates every night, a good deal of teaching happens while we are discussing what we have read, so is that unbiblical? Most of my friends are still in charismatic churches and wouldn't even entertain the though of entering a conservative and cessationist church. Ideally, it would be best if they can be directly ministered to by a minister trained in sound doctrines, but where it is not possible yet, am I undermining the pastors of their charismatic churches in letting them know about the gross errors of word-faith, prosperity preaching, extra-biblical revelations and speaking in tongues? It's not an issue with my brethren from within the conservative circles, as I can redirect them back to our ministers. The issue lies with those who are in churches embracing errors, and at times heretical errors. Should I really be telling them, "Well, I have just shared with you what 1 Cor 13 means with regards to cessation. But just so that I am not undermining the pastor from your church, you should go and ask him and submit to the doctrines that he teaches."? Even for exhorting our brethren within conservative churches, where do we draw the line? If I share Ps 23 with a brother who has been having a rough patch, and go on to explain to him what it means, am I undermining the pastoral duty of the my ministers? Or is it absolutely necessary that I stop at telling him to just have a look at Ps 23 and if he does not understand any part of it, then direct him to our pastors? Methinks we need clearer guidelines. A great deal of informal teaching is also taking place on the PB by the laity, so is that unbiblical? We don't strictly need a pulpit and a congregation sitting before us before we do teaching. The effects of some posts by the laity may be read by many and others may be affected by what we say. Should we then be confining all answering of questions on the PB to those holding church office while the laity are only allowed to ask questions? 

With regards to evangelism, my Singapore church regularly holds evangelism sessions where we are led by a deacon and the whole gang of people split up into groups of two to three to knock on doors and pass tracts to residents. If there are any questions or debates, we stick to sharing the basics of the gospel, at times with the help of the tracts. We try to ensure that there is at least a person with enough maturity and understanding of the gospel in each group, but naturally most are laity. Are we doing something unscriptural? 

Okay, I'm not sure if this is out of the left field or something, but my church elder from Singapore asserts that the great commission is not for merely the apostles, as he was addressing 500 people on Galilee. This would mean tying in the GC with 1 Cor 15:6 I think. Is this interpretation problematic?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

ubermadchen said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Final word:
> Let it not be said that I oppose personal evangelism. Neither I, nor Josh, nor any of the others here are (so far as I know) saying that the open testimony of the truth of God's Word, or the testimony of a changed life, are bad things. But people have enough of Law for their own private callings, without added burdens of false and unscriptural expectations. They do not need "grades" of spirituality, based on "Christian-work" vs. private calling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that you don't oppose personal evangelism but your words have thus discouraged lay people from articulating their faith with others. How can a Christian in good standing with his or her church share the gospel with someone without violating the office of the preacher? Pastors cannot be everywhere at once, but with enough sheep steeped in the Word, we can. Thus, how can a pastor expect to reach his community for the sake of the Gospel without his congregation being the feet?
Click to expand...

 
Patricia,
With all due respect, you're making stuff up. You're putting words in my mouth. You aren't reading my words of someone who denies the _privilege_ of "articulating their faith" to any group, except what you are reading *into* them.

I haven't accused the anybody who "shares the gospel" (whatever that phrase means) of infringing on the office of the preacher. I think the congregation "steeped in the Word" is salt-and-light for sure. And I would encourage all sorts of religious conversations, and even an explanation of the gospel by anyone comfortable enough to do so, and the friendly encouragement, borne of love for the lost, to obey the summons of the gospel.

Part of that summons should be, "Why don't you come to church with me, and hear some real gospel-preaching?" Or, "Can my pastor or elder come and talk with you? God has gifted them for the task of evangelism, and he's assigned that duty to them by appointing them to that office." Why would such a scenario seem odd to us, when we would think in similar lines with respect to civil government?

If I tell a regular Christian church-goer that he's not been *commanded* by Christ to "evangelize" or "make disciples" (which are not even the same thing, though they have been spoken of here like they are identical), how have I discouraged anyone from articulating his faith with others?

That's like saying that if I don't tell people Christ has commanded them to have a "quiet time" devotional for half-an-hour in the day, every day, (*he hasn't commanded that either, by the way*) then I'm discouraging them from having personal devotions.

Telling people that they need a law so they will really be motivated to do "spiritual" activity, to be sanctified, is just another way of saying "GET in the Kingdom by grace; STAY in the Kingdom by works." If I tell someone to be happy and feel free to do their laundry for the glory of God, and not worry if he is "sharing Christ" enough; just be his-growing-in-grace-self and talk of Christ will just flow out of him naturally--how is that discouraging?

To know you don't have certain blocks to check for spirituality is usually considered "encouraging" rather than "discouraging." The fact that some Christians aren't comfortable living in the freedom of the gospel, but prefer having external controls (being in bondage again to law) is unfortunate. But the gospel isn't "new law," its "no law."

I'm not saying that there _isn't_ any law. There are the ten commandments, and all the moral obligations there ever have been, as well as certain positive commands for the New Covenant age. But "evangelism" isn't one of the general spiritual requirements that has been laid upon everyone.

Why should it seem controversial that there should be special directions for church operations and officers in the Bible? Why should you, or anyone else, feel as though they aren't being treated "respectfully" unless all the commands of Scripture are directed equally toward everyone? Doesn't this attitude take us right back to Rome, to the Medieval church, and before that to the origins of monasticism?

The Bible doesn't give us directions for organizing a bakery. But it gives us tons of material on organizing the church. And many directions spelling out the duties of the persons occupying office in that church. And several general directions (but far fewer) for the vast majority of Christians who's ordinary callings are in bakeries, auto repair shops, and homes. Their moral direction is supposed to come specially (so not excluding private reading) from the pastors who exegete the Word, and teach it to them week by week.

If believing wives are to "win their husbands without a word," but by a sanctified life, how could it be strange to say that the words of most of us will also be of less effect than lives committed to Christ? The best people to speak those words are those who are commissioned for the task. But I think that others should speak as they have opportunity.


----------



## a mere housewife

> Now then, for an ordinary citizen of Christ's kingdom to get involved in missions-work, or presenting Christ and his gospel, etc., can be a fine thing. But it needs to be put in its true category, namely the actions of a kingdom-citizen, performing his calling. A housewife is performing her calling when she cooks meals for the family, washes clothes, or has tea with her neighbor and opens up the Bible with her.
> 
> This is important that we understand: There is nothing "extra-spiritual" about going on a missions-trip, nothing that puts such a participant into a "special category" of serious-religious, that is not EQUAL in service to the dishwashing done by the woman who stayed home. When we start thinking like that, we are going down the same road that the monks went, that the whole church went in the Middle Ages, when there was "ordinary life" juxtaposed with the superior labors of the priests, monks, and nuns.



This was very helpful to me -- we've been reading Luther combating such ideas of 'uber-holy' ways of life etc.


----------



## MW

Before we even arrive at the making of disciples and baptising-teaching part of the commission, there is one extremely important word that must not be overlooked -- *GO*!

The most informative New Testament teaching on the concept of evangelism is to be found in Romans 10. Within this chapter we have the explicit rhetorical question, How shall they preach except they be *SENT*?

We also have the autobiographical account of mission in the Presbyterial address of the apostle Paul in Acts 20. He makes it quite clear that the work of mission-evangelism is a _*COURSE*_.

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.

Christian men, if you are assured that you are saved by the grace of Christ, have a well grounded belief that God has gifted you to teach and preach, have the testimony of the church as to your gifts and graces, and are ready to forsake your earthly calling in order to undertake the work of teaching and preaching -- please, talk to your pastor and eldership so that they might fulfil their responsibility of training faithful men to whom the ministry may be committed for the future.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jason d

Contra_Mundum said:


> ...This is important that we understand: *There is nothing "extra-spiritual" about going on a missions-trip, nothing that puts such a participant into a "special category" of serious-religious, that is not EQUAL in service to the dishwashing done by the woman who stayed home.* When we start thinking like that, we are going down the same road that the monks went, that the whole church went in the Middle Ages, when there was "ordinary life" juxtaposed with the superior labors of the priests, monks, and nuns.



I agree there is nothing "extra-spiritual" but I don't think the view that all have the privilege to preach the gospel means we are creating a juxtapose of any sort. No doubt some have but one doesn't necessarily equal the other. Just like I am not for any form of pragmatism in evangelism, or alter calls or revivals as other have mentioned earlier who oppose this view. Just cause those things exist don't prove or disprove a position.



Contra_Mundum said:


> jason d said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have had this discussion in person and online and have never heard a rebuttal to this still:
> 1 Peter 1:1
> 
> 
> 
> Peter, an *apostle *of Jesus Christ,
> *To those who are elect* exiles of a the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Peter 2:9:
> 
> 
> 
> But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, *that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him* who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) The word you highlight, exanggeilete, is not the technical term for a herald's proclamation, "kerusso".
> 
> 2) You have here, in fact, divorced this statement from the church-context in which it is set. The words of v9 are collective nouns, and not individual qualities. Further, note v5:
> 
> 
> 
> Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a whole building, not individuals. Not everything that is predicable of the whole is predicable of individual parts. No more than a sink in a house is suitable to cook a turkey, is each person in the church suited to do any manner of spiritual sacrifice.
> 
> 3) The text you adduce *IS*, in fact, suitable to establish a general right of any Christian to present to any who will listen the truth of Christ. But this does not at all get down to particulars, nor establish clear duties obligated upon individual Christians
Click to expand...


This is what I find as the definition for exaggello:
_1) to tell out or forth
2) to declare abroad, divulge, publish
3) to make known by praising or proclaiming, to celebrate_

(Again, I don't believe this is the same as a pastor preaching in the pulpit.)

So, in verse 9 how do you decide what is for the whole church and what for particular individuals in the church? 

*"you are a chosen race"* everyone or not?
*"a royal priesthood"* everyone or not?
*"a holy nation"* everyone or not?
*"a people for his own possession"* everyone or not?
*"you may proclaim the excellencies of Him"* not everyone according to you just ordained individuals (curious why that one is set apart from the others?) 
*"called.. out of darkness into His marvelous light."* everyone or not?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Jason,
So far as your posts seek to establish the "right" of individual testimony, let me quote myself:


> 3) The text you adduce IS, in fact, suitable to establish a general right of any Christian to present to any who will listen the truth of Christ.




I'm not going to handle this subject in a proof-texting manner. 1Pet.2:4ff is most obviously a text on worship "4 And coming to Him ... 5... offer up spiritual sacrifices." Hence, the proclamation of His excellencies is most obviously the praises of the congregation. vv11-12 take us outside the church gathered, where nothing is said explicitly about our speech, but refraining from sin and doing good works before the ungodly.

As for what nouns apply to whom, this is just abuse of the text. Since I don't think the purpose for the text is to parcel out duties to few or many, this bit of prooftexting is just nonsense. Peter is speaking to the church qua church. What the church does is not specifically the duties enumerated and described to the members.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge

Evangelism: Whose Responsibility? Ordained Servant (OPC publication)
Ordained Servant

Ever since I became a member at a reformed church, I have been coming to see the Gospel in a more holistic way.


----------



## Der Pilger

I was talking with a friend yesterday about some of the points made in this thread, namely, that trained ministers should be the ones to preach, while laypeople should communicate the gospel in a more passive, reactive way, giving a defense for the hope that lies within them to those that might ask. In other words,, those of us who are not ministers of the gospel should not take it upon ourselves to bring the gospel to the public proactively and intentionally but should limit our "sharing of the gospel" to those who ask us about it, perhaps as a result of having witnessed our godly lifestyles.

Perhaps I've misunderstood the points made in this thread, but if my understanding above is correct, then the conclusion my friend and I came to yesterday was also correct: Those laypeople among us who have been proactively bringing the gospel to the public have two choices: Become ministers (if called, of course) or quit doing evangelism intentionally.

That leads to my main question in this post, and I don't ask this out of contentiousness but rather because I want to make sure that I am not violating the will of God in this matter. Reverends Bruce and Matthew have gotten me thinking about this, and I think the Bible definitely reveals the pattern they seem to be referring to (ministers preach the gospel, laity communicate the gospel when asked but are not commanded to do so), so here is my question: In the warm weather, some others and I have been, for some time now, conducting an evangelism ministry in which we set up a table and sign in a public place, the purpose of the sign being to attract people to come to the table to take a quiz. The quiz, of course, communicates the gospel message. In doing this, we are obviously proactively bringing the gospel to the public. I also do the same type of outreach in and through my church with some other men in the church (one of them being an elder). Should we cease and desist from this?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Jeremy,
It seems to me that there is another choice that may not have occured to you:

Your gifts and willingness to "put yourself out there" may be an indicator that you are called to service in the church that is not ministerial, or official in any way, or perhaps in time as an elder or deacon. Your engagements with unbelievers should be under the oversight of your officers, and according as you are equipped for the task.

In my opinion, you shouldn't be (or view yourself) as a lone-ranger-operator, with no connection between the "church-work" of evangelism you are doing, and the church to which you belong. We are far, far away from being Roman in our view of the church, but historically speaking, your service to Christ is _never_ divorced from your connection to Christ in his church. When you think about it, this is even true when the church itself--acting in an ungodly way--persecutes the faithful.


But I would also say another thing, concerning the "method" you describe above:

It still looks to me like something akin to the "bait-and-switch" approach. When the folks take the "quiz," do they understand up-front that they are being *contacted* by the church? That the goal is to *confront* them with their SIN by means of the Law of God, and when they have been *convicted* to then present them the sure promise of *comfort* by the gospel, and *citizenship* in the Kingdom?

The problem with a churchless gospel is that the gospel gets divorced from the church. If a sinner only needs the gospel when he "gets saved," then the gospel ends up as little mor than the doorway, the threshold, of the way to Christ. But the gospel is the savor of life for the Christian every day. It is his comfort not only the hour he first believed, but every hour thereafter. We get gospel comfort (or should) every Sunday. If the minister/officers/church is essentially superfluous for evangelism, why is any of it important afterward?

And, of course, that is just what we've seen in Christianity of late. No more importance attached to the church. The gospel is not recognized as vital to our Christian life after the "moment of salvation," so why do we need the minister of the gospel? In this view, what we need is a man (or woman!) with talents for public speaking, charismatic (in the carnal sense), who is a good "life-coach." Oprah or Dr.Phil with a stack of Bible verses.

If you haven't read the articles linked above in Joy's post, I recommend them. They will assist your thinking in this area. Please do not be discouraged in well-doing. Continue to think about these things, and do not be afraid of "starting" a Christian conversation, for "fear" of doing "unauthorized" evangelism. Just think about it the right way, in connection to the church--visible as well as invisible--and categorically, in the way of our separate callings.

And never forget *the gospel* is an everyday, week-by-week thing for every believer.


----------



## Der Pilger

Contra_Mundum said:


> Jeremy,
> It seems to me that there is another choice that may not have occured to you:
> 
> Your gifts and willingness to "put yourself out there" may be an indicator that you are called to service in the church that is not ministerial, or official in any way, or perhaps in time as an elder or deacon. Your engagements with unbelievers should be under the oversight of your officers, and according as you are equipped for the task.



I agree completely. That's one of the main reasons why I do the outreach in the context of my church. Most of the time when that occurs, an elder is with me. I'm glad that he's out there with me, too.

But I've also applied what you said above to the other ministry (the one linked to in my sig). I had been involved in that even before I became a member at my current church, so it's actually a separate outreach. The ministry had actually been started by others and completely apart from any local church. Later, after I got involved in it and the original founders left, I made the move to bring it under my church's authority, with my pastor's agreement. 



> In my opinion, you shouldn't be (or view yourself) as a lone-ranger-operator, with no connection between the "church-work" of evangelism you are doing, and the church to which you belong. We are far, far away from being Roman in our view of the church, but historically speaking, your service to Christ is _never_ divorced from your connection to Christ in his church. When you think about it, this is even true when the church itself--acting in an ungodly way--persecutes the faithful.



I agree, Bruce. I'm totally on board with the truth and necessity of doing ministry within the context of the local church. In recent years I have developed a healthy distrust of anyone or any group that sets up on their own apart from any sending body or authority.



> But I would also say another thing, concerning the "method" you describe above:
> 
> It still looks to me like something akin to the "bait-and-switch" approach. When the folks take the "quiz," do they understand up-front that they are being *contacted* by the church? That the goal is to *confront* them with their SIN by means of the Law of God, and when they have been *convicted* to then present them the sure promise of *comfort* by the gospel, and *citizenship* in the Kingdom?



I'd say that yes, doctrinally, the quiz communicates all that up front, except perhaps for the part about being contacted by the church. The quiz focuses entirely on doctrinal content--God, sin (using the Ten Commandments), Jesus Christ, faith and repentance, so no mention is made, or is rarely made, of the specific church with which we are associated. It does come up at times, but I would not say that we make it a point to speak of it.

Incidentally, the quiz we use can be found here:
http://www.alexandriago.org/AGO%20-%20ARE%20YOU%20GOOD%20ENOUGH%20mult.%20choice%20-%20answers%20at%20end%20-%207-17-09.pdf.

I welcome any feedback you might feel like giving about it.



> The problem with a churchless gospel is that the gospel gets divorced from the church. If a sinner only needs the gospel when he "gets saved," then the gospel ends up as little mor than the doorway, the threshold, of the way to Christ. But the gospel is the savor of life for the Christian every day. It is his comfort not only the hour he first believed, but every hour thereafter. We get gospel comfort (or should) every Sunday. If the minister/officers/church is essentially superfluous for evangelism, why is any of it important afterward?



I agree. One thing that has disturbed me about so much evangelism out there is that often it consists only of seed sowing, if you will, while leaving the work of disciple-making undone. This is a bit different from what you spoke of above, but it's still related. Often many who do evangelistic outreach, as I have noticed, are content with presenting the gospel and then leaving the person with whom they spoke out in the cold, so to speak, with no follow-up. That is a tragic omission. Doing evangelism in and through the local church, I think, goes a long way toward avoiding such an omission.



> And, of course, that is just what we've seen in Christianity of late. No more importance attached to the church. The gospel is not recognized as vital to our Christian life after the "moment of salvation," so why do we need the minister of the gospel? In this view, what we need is a man (or woman!) with talents for public speaking, charismatic (in the carnal sense), who is a good "life-coach." Oprah or Dr.Phil with a stack of Bible verses.
> 
> If you haven't read the articles linked above in Joy's post, I recommend them.



I did, in fact, read a couple of them. They definitely got me thinking about the issue.

Thanks for your thoughts and insights.


----------



## jason d

I apologize if I frustrated anyone, was not my intention. Sorry, was just trying to figure out things and press some points to try to figure out why yall believe what you believe.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Jason,

I appreciated the remarks of those above who defend lay-evangelism as falling under the umbrella of the Great Commission. I have written a three-part series that examines the view of those Reformed teachers who limit evangelism to the ordained clergy, and I seek to refute this notion by examining several key passages in the NT that, in my estimation, clearly support the notion of lay-evangelism. Part 1 and Part 3 are especially relevant to this discussion. 

Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Evangelism, Part 1
Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Evangelism, Part 2
Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Evangelism, Part 3

Your servant,


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Joshua said:


> I think most ideas surrounding the modern day understanding of "evangelism" is a product of several things:
> 
> 1. Revivalism - Since Finney and beyond there's this pressing for decisions, etc. that has so pervaded "evangelicalism," I believe this has trickled down to the more "Broadly Reformed" folks' understanding of what evangelism is. The ministers then impress upon the layfolk of how they ought to be "evangelizing." This pressure mounts and everyone's all of a sudden a missionary. Sure, folks may not be pressing them to say the sinners prayer, etc. but they take upon themselves the mantle of being the "ministers of reconciliation," when that responsibility, duty, and privilege are for _ministers_. They are the ones beseeching the lay folk to be reconciled unto Christ.
> 
> 2. Egalitarianism - Flowing from Revivalism, since now every Christian is a missionary _proper_, there is this idea that everyone must be a "soul winner." It doesn't matter if they can't properly articulate the Scriptures or not. It doesn't matter if they are inverts who shutter at the thought of talking to complete strangers in awkward moments of confrontation. No, "God can use it." That's not the point, however. From this, I think arises the greatest detriment that has been a result of revivalism:
> 
> 3. Misunderstanding of Calling - Christians are to be contented in their place and stations and do what it is with which they are gifted _really well_. THIS is the mark of a Christian. And, if those gifts be ministering, teaching, articulating the gospel, and they meet all the other qualifications of an elder, then the local session will recognize such, present said man to presbytery, and the rightful process will be undertaken to accomplish such. The problem with modern day thoughts of "evangelists" is a result of folks being discontent with their place and station, and wanting something different than that to which they are rightly gifted and called. They see some kind of romantic view of what _ministry_ is and aspire towards.
> 
> It is a noble thing to desire to be an officer in the Church Paul tells us. No doubt. But there is a process to getting there, and the _ministry_ belongs to _ministers_.



I smell the genetic fallacy in the reasoning above: attempt to discredit a legitimate position by associating it with imbalances, aberrations, or extremes. In point of fact, the NT accords the ordinary rank-and-file saints the role of "ministry" and "evangelism." The kind of ministry and level of evangelism in which they engage will be conditioned and circumscribed by gift and providence. But to limit ministry and evangelism to the "ordained" clergy is patently unbiblical.

---------- Post added at 11:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> 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.



Mr. Winzer's reasoning is, I'm afraid, quite fallacious. I don't doubt his zeal for the church. I agree with his recognition of the unique place of the clergy. But I think his attempt to restrict the privilege and stewardship of "evangelism in the biblical sense of the term" to the province of clergy is quite contrary to the biblical data and reflects a kind of clericalism foreign to NT Christianity. Like flies in the ointment of the apothecary, this kind of "High Calvinism" lacks the fragrance of a full-orbed Christianity. I'm surprised that so many readers would be persuaded by such reasoning that runs contrary to the teaching of the NT.

---------- Post added at 11:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 PM ----------




Contra_Mundum said:


> v.12 is properly parsed in the older KJV, and infelicitously parsed in many recent translations. The "work of the ministry" is one of the three reasons listed for the "pastors-teachers" et al, in the previous verse; along with "equipping the saints" and "building up {or edifying} the body of Christ {that is the church}."



For a rebuttal of Reverend Buchanan's "clerical" view of Ephesians 4:12, see my article "Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Evangelism, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. The weight of NT evidence does not tip the scales in his direction. The saints, as well as the ordained minister, are granted the privilege and stewardship both to minister and to evangelize. Listen to Calvin's exposition of Acts 6:7-9:Therefore, in keeping with the teaching Luke gives here, let us learn that we constitute a true church of God when we try our best to increase the number of believers. And then _each one of us_, where we are, will apply all our effort to instructing our neighbours and leading them to the knowledge of God, _as much by our words_ as by our showing them good examples and good behaviour. That is also why holy Scripture exhorts us so often to win to God those who remain alienated from his church, for we see unbelievers as poor lost sheep. Our Lord has not given us insight into his truth for our advantage alone, _but for sharing it with others_. Because we see them as madmen casting themselves into hell, we must, to the extent we can, prevent them from doing so and procure their salvation. That, I tell you, _is the zeal all Christians must have_ if they are not to limit themselves just to the public worship of God (emphasis added). (John Calvin, ï¿½Learning, Teaching, and Living the Gospel Messageï¿½ (sermon on Acts 6.7-9) in _Sermons_ _on the Acts of the Apostles (Chapters 1-7)_[Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2008], 335-36.)​


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> Before we even arrive at the making of disciples and baptising-teaching part of the commission, there is one extremely important word that must not be overlooked -- *GO*!




This should not be looked as going to another country. It is properly translated "AS you go" or 'As you are going' Which being in the passive participle leads me to believe it could be translated as something like; 'As you are following me" It is not an action or imperative men can perform without the power of Christ leading them.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Rather than a command, evangelism is the natural inclination of true believers. A person who has been so gloriously saved, who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God, and who has seen a picture of the glories to come WILL have a desire to tell others. It will be a natural outflow of their life. The reason so many people are having to be "commanded" to evangelize, is that goats don't typically act like sheep. They have to be coerced.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Damon Rambo said:


> Rather than a command, evangelism is the natural inclination of true believers. A person who has been so gloriously saved, who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God, and who has seen a picture of the glories to come WILL have a desire to tell others. It will be a natural outflow of their life. The reason so many people are having to be "commanded" to evangelize, is that goats don't typically act like sheep. They have to be coerced.


 
Helpful observation, Damon. That is why the bulk of NT data related to lay-evangelism is descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words, the NT writers spend more time describing ordinary saints engaged in evangelism than commanding ordinary saints to evangelize. Of course, the Christian's privilege, stewardship, and responsibility may be established by _precedent_ as well as _precept_. In any case, you are correct. Those who've know and have experienced the saving power and benefits of the gospel ought to have a desire to share the gospel spoil with those in need.


----------



## MW

The view of Mr. Gonzales, (1.) gives to the church and the world an evangelism which is without divine appointment and gifting. In the New Testament the body of Christ is said to be gifted by the risen Christ; we have some gifts which relate to speech and some which relate to action. The apostle Peter explicitly distinguishes these two. If every Christian is not gifted to speak then evangelism cannot be the function of every Christian. (2.) His view also individualises evangelism so as to make it unaccountable. The great commission is a charge -- _*GO*_ -- to a group. It requires submission and sacrifice. Throughout the Acts of the Apostles we find that evangelism is carried forward by men who were set apart to the work, who answered to the church for their work, and who were willing to sacrifice earthly callings in order to fulfil their course. (3.) Finally, his view obscures the nature of the church as visible. If evangelism were the office of every Christian then individuals could be saved without the ordinary means of grace, and would fill the world with numerous believers detached from the visible church. This is contrary to the view of the New Testament, where we find evangelism also entailed the work of gathering churches, confirming saints, and making provision for office-bearers.

Dear friends, be active and diligent in using all the gifts that God has given you to further the cause of Christ, but please do not listen to people who think that flattery is the way to motivate Christians. If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body and with the mind of Christ.


----------



## AThornquist

armourbearer said:


> The view of Mr. Gonzales, (1.) gives to the church and the world an evangelism which is without divine appointment and gifting. In the New Testament the body of Christ is said to be gifted by the risen Christ; we have some gifts which relate to speech and some which relate to action. The apostle Peter explicitly distinguishes these two. If every Christian is not gifted to speak then evangelism cannot be the function of every Christian. (2.) His view also individualises evangelism so as to make it unaccountable. The great commission is a charge -- _*GO*_ -- to a group. It requires submission and sacrifice. Throughout the Acts of the Apostles we find that evangelism is carried forward by men who were set apart to the work, who answered to the church for their work, and who were willing to sacrifice earthly callings in order to fulfil their course. *(3.) Finally, his view obscures the nature of the church as visible. If evangelism were the office of every Christian then individuals could be saved without the ordinary means of grace, and would fill the world with numerous believers detached from the visible church. This is contrary to the view of the New Testament, where we find evangelism also entailed the work of gathering churches, confirming saints, and making provision for office-bearers.*



This argument (the portion in bold) doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't those who are saved by grace through faith begin attending a church and thus become a part of the visible church? In the NT there were multitudes that heard the gospel in the public and were saved. In what way were they a part of the visible church before this conversion? And the eunuch that Phillip baptized, was he not detached until he came to a city and presumably gathered with Christians? The same events would be true for a new convert today.



> Dear friends, be active and diligent in using all the gifts that God has given you to further the cause of Christ, but *please do not listen to people who think that flattery is the way to motivate Christians*. If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body and with the mind of Christ.



I'm not sure, are you suggesting that Dr. G's position is one of flattery? That is how it is easily read. If that is what you intend to say, that is an uncharitable statement.


----------



## MW

AThornquist said:


> This argument (the portion in bold) doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't those who are saved by grace through faith begin attending a church and thus become a part of the visible church? In the NT there were multitudes that heard the gospel in the public and were saved. In what way were they a part of the visible church before this conversion? And the eunuch that Phillip baptized, was he not detached until he came to a city and presumably gathered with Christians? The same events would be true for a new convert today.



They were baptised. Are those "saved" by every believer evangelism baptised? No.



AThornquist said:


> I'm not sure, are you suggesting that Dr. G's position is one of flattery? That is how it is easily read. If that is what you intend to say, that is an uncharitable statement.


 
If you must read my words a certain way in order to impute to me an uncharitable statement, charity says that you should read them another way.


----------



## AThornquist

armourbearer said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure, are you suggesting that Dr. G's position is one of flattery? That is how it is easily read. If that is what you intend to say, that is an uncharitable statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you must read my words a certain way in order to impute to me an uncharitable statement, charity says that you should read them another way.
Click to expand...

 
Which is precisely why I charitably asked what you meant and responded to what it could easily be read as. I did not assume what you meant or impute anything to your true intentions. To the question though, were you referring to Dr. G? I'm not sure who exactly you are talking about when you say, "please do not listen to people who think that flattery is the way to motivate Christians," especially when you conclude by saying "If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body and with the mind of Christ" when it can easily appear that this is contrasted with individuals evangelizing, which you contradicted in your first paragraph.


----------



## MW

AThornquist said:


> Which is precisely why I charitably asked what you meant and responded to what it could easily be read as. I did not assume what you meant or impute anything to your true intentions. To the question though, were you referring to Dr. G? I'm not sure who exactly you are talking about when you say, "please do not listen to people who think that flattery is the way to motivate Christians," especially when you conclude by saying "If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body and with the mind of Christ" when it can easily appear that this is contrasted with individuals evangelizing, which you contradicted in your first paragraph.



My words are what they are -- a general appeal to beware of something. If a particular individual's conscience is awakened by that general statement then that particular individual will need to deal with his conscience. If his conscience does not accuse him then the statement does not apply to him and he can pass it off as something which concerns others rather than himself.

Please, if you are going to deal with the words of others, treat them as you find them and try not to add things into them which are not stated. As it stands, you are the one who have brought a particular individual into the statement and therefore turned a general cautionary statement into a personal accusation.


----------



## AThornquist

armourbearer said:


> Please, if you are going to deal with the words of others, treat them as you find them and try not to add things into them which are not stated. As it stands, you are the one who have brought a particular individual into the statement and therefore turned a general cautionary statement into a personal accusation.



If you were not referring to his position, that's great. Thank you.


----------



## Edward

> My words are what they are -- a general appeal to beware of something. If a particular individual's conscience is awakened by that general statement then that particular individual will need to deal with his conscience. If his conscience does not accuse him then the statement does not apply to him and he can pass it off as something which concerns others rather than himself.


Since I've been rightly accused of uncharitable comments in the past, this is a point that I need to learn.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> The view of Mr. Gonzales, (1.) gives to the church and the world an evangelism which is without divine appointment and gifting. In the New Testament the body of Christ is said to be gifted by the risen Christ; we have some gifts which relate to speech and some which relate to action. The apostle Peter explicitly distinguishes these two. If every Christian is not gifted to speak then evangelism cannot be the function of every Christian.



Greetings, Matthew. It's been a while since we've interacted. For some reason, you keep misspelling my name. It ends with an "s" not a "z." No offense. In response to your first point, I don't argue that Christ has bestowed all gifts equally to each and every saint. In other words, I'm not an egalitarian. What I do reject is the notion that evangelism is the sole province of the ordained clergy. *The numerous passages I adduce demonstrate* Christ has gifted many laypeople with the gift of utterance and that they did in fact employ that gift in the work of evangelism. The task of the Great Commission devolves on the church as a whole, not exclusively on the clergy. Hence, your view unduly restricts the warrant Christ himself has given to his church to be a missionary agent in the world. 



armourbearer said:


> (2.) His view also individualises evangelism so as to make it unaccountable. The great commission is a charge -- _*GO*_ -- to a group. It requires submission and sacrifice. Throughout the Acts of the Apostles we find that evangelism is carried forward by men who were set apart to the work, who answered to the church for their work, and who were willing to sacrifice earthly callings in order to fulfil their course.



Poppycock! Every saint is accountable ultimately to Christ and more immediately to his church. My view endorses no sort of "lone ranger" Christianity. "Go" certainly requires submission and sacrifice, but those demands are not just directed to clergymen. Every disciple who would come after Jesus must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus. Indeed, those who fail to confess Jesus before men, will not be owned by Jesus before God (including laypeople). Moreover, throughout Acts we find that evangelism is carried forward NOT ONLY by men who were officially commissioned to the office of pastor-teacher BUT ALSO by those who did not occupy the pastoral office. Certainly, those set apart with extra-ordinary gifts may lead the way, but they are by no means the sole possessors of the privilege and stewardship of spreading the good news. This point is well-established in my articles where I expound a handful of key passages. You'll not advance your case very far until you address *the data presented that contradicts your "clerical" view. *



armourbearer said:


> (3.) Finally, his view obscures the nature of the church as visible. If evangelism were the office of every Christian then individuals could be saved without the ordinary means of grace, and would fill the world with numerous believers detached from the visible church. This is contrary to the view of the New Testament, where we find evangelism also entailed the work of gathering churches, confirming saints, and making provision for office-bearers.



What? How does my view "obscure the nature of the visible church"? The goal of evangelism, whether done by laypeople or pastors, is to make disciples _and incorporate those disciples into the visible church_. The "ordinary means of grace" includes the proclamation of the gospel. Are you suggesting that we limit such "ordinary means" exclusively to the Sunday sermons of pastors? If so, you ignore not only the NT data but God's providence in church history. Writes Kenneth Scott Latourette, Yale church historian,The chief agents in the expansion of Christianity appear not to have been those who made it a profession or a major part of their occupation, but men and women who earned their livelihood in some purely secular manner and spoke of their faith to those whom they met in this natural fashion (_A History of the Expansion of Christianity_ [Harper & Brothers, 1937], 1:116.). ​For what it's worth, it was an ordinary layman whom God used as the first and primary instrument to communicate the gospel to me and to bring me to Christ. And as a pastor who's heard plenty of testimonies of conversion, I can assure you that my experience is not exceptional. 



armourbearer said:


> Dear friends, be active and diligent in using all the gifts that God has given you to further the cause of Christ, but please do not listen to people who think that flattery is the way to motivate Christians. If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body and with the mind of Christ.



"Flattery"? Do you really think I'm trying to "flatter" laypeople into thinking that they have a privilege and stewardship to love their unsaved neighbor as themselves and that they should do unto that unsaved neighbor what they would want that unsaved neighbor to do for them? Is it flattery to tell God's people that they're likely to suffer persecution if they attempt to fulfill their calling as salt and light in the world? 

I do agree with your closing statement: "If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning _as a body_ [every member doing his part] and _with the mind of Christ _[which is expressed in the NT and which, contrary to your viewpoint, does not limit the work of evangelism or sharing the good news of the gospel to the ordained clergy.]" 

Dear friends, I would urge you not to be persuaded by the arguments of Reverend Winzer but by the data of the NT, which supports lay-evangelism (click *here* to see for yourself). The enemies of Calvinism charge it with promoting a version of Christianity that quenches evangelistic effort and zeal. Let's not provide them with justification to charge us with "hyper-Calvinism." For those interested, I would encourage you to be persuaded rather by the Reverend C. H. Spurgeon's address, "How to Induce our People to Win Souls," which may be found in his book _The Soul-Winner. _For those interested in a more scholarly defense of lay-evangelism, see Robert L. Plummer, _Paul's Understanding of the Church's Mission: Did the Apostle Paul Expect the Early Christian Communities to Evangelize?_ (Paternoster, 2006). 

Your servant,


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The view of Mr. Gonzales, (1.) gives to the church and the world an evangelism which is without divine appointment and gifting. In the New Testament the body of Christ is said to be gifted by the risen Christ; we have some gifts which relate to speech and some which relate to action. The apostle Peter explicitly distinguishes these two. If every Christian is not gifted to speak then evangelism cannot be the function of every Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings, Matthew. It's been a while since we've interacted. For some reason, you keep misspelling my name. It ends with an "s" not a "z." No offense.
Click to expand...


Shrugs shoulders.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> In other words, I'm not an egalitarian. What I do reject is the notion that evangelism is the sole province of the ordained clergy. *http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/...se-of-lay-ministry-and-lay-evangelism-part-3/*


*

Let's be clear. You are claiming this activity is "evangelism," yet you have no basis in Scripture for calling it such. Where you part ways with Scripture the Bible believer must part ways with you. So far as personally communicating the teachings of Christianity with others is concerned, no one has called this the exclusive province of ordained men. Your reaction is an over-reaction.

A second clarification -- you choose to use the term, "ordained clergy." "Clergy" is your description. I have only emphasised an ordained "ministry." If you are going to attack a position you should make sure it is the correct one.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:



The task of the Great Commission devolves on the church as a whole, not exclusively on the clergy. Hence, your view strips unduly restricts the warrant Christ himself has given to his church to be a missionary agent in the world.

Click to expand...


Sending, baptism, and instruction does not devolve on the church as a whole. Hence you are failing to distinguish things that differ. Every believer should be concerned to see the great commission fulfilled, but every believer is not actively participating in the duties enjoined in the great commission.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:



My view endorses no sort of "lone ranger" Christianity. "Go" certainly requires submission and sacrifice, but those demands are not just directed to clergymen. Every disciple who would come after Jesus must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus. Indeed, those who fail to confess Jesus before men, will not be owned by Jesus before God (including laypeople). Moreover, throughout Acts we find that evangelism is carried forward NOT ONLY by men who were officially commissioned to the office of pastor-teacher BUT ALSO by those who did not occupy the pastoral office. Certainly, those set apart with extra-ordinary gifts may lead the way, but they are by no means the sole possessors of the privilege and stewardship of spreading the good news.

Click to expand...


You are failing to strictly apply terms and their meanings. Those who deal with the commission in a serious exegetical way are careful to define the "going" mentioned by the Lord in contrast to the "go not" of the commission of chapter 10. There is no doubt that it is tied to the idea of "mission."

You state the ordained ministry has extra-ordinary gifts. Some attention to detail will show that ministers exercise ordinary gifts in the fulfilment of their function; and it is undoubtedly the case that these gifts are given by God to equip them for the office they are to fulfil, and have been proven by the church in a process of ordinary calling. Nothing less than the same ordinary, biblical process should be required by others who wish to exercise these "gifts."



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:



The goal of evangelism, whether done by laypeople or pastors, is to make disciples and incorporate those disciples into the visible church.

Click to expand...


Then, by your own definition, unordained people do not engage in the work of evangelism because unordained people are not authorised to add people to the church by baptism.*


----------



## Damon Rambo

Of course Matthew's (armourbearer's) position is based on Presbyterian ecclesiology. Being Baptist myself, and seeing a complete lack in the scriptures of any such hierarchial church government/authority, and believing firmly that each believer's authority is Christ Himself (we need no other mediator), I wholeheartedly reject the idea that evangelism is done only through the authority of the leadership of the Church. I myself was saved by a sovereign God, through a co-worker who evangelized me, with no sponsorship or authority granted from his church. 

The believer needs no other authority (for evangelism) than Christ Himself, and the Holy Spirit of God, who is present with all regenerate persons. The appeal that since every Christian is "not gifted to speak" so therefore "evangelism cannot be the function of every Christian" is unbelievably false and refuted by multiple scriptures. My answer for that would be the same answer God gave Moses:

Exo 4:10 But Moses said to the LORD, "Oh, my Lord, *I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant*, but I am slow of speech and of tongue." 

God's purpose is not accomplished through well spoken, polished, and perfect men. God's will is often accomplished through the weak, stuttering, and scared man or woman, who is wise enough to rely on the power of Christ, rather than their own abilities.


----------



## Mushroom

> Exo 4:10 But Moses said to the LORD, "Oh, my Lord, *I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant*, but I am slow of speech and of tongue."


Not polished or perfect, but certainly *ordained*.

You're confusing living as a witness, being ready to give an answer, with the ordained and commissioned work of evangelism.


----------



## MW

Damon Rambo said:


> I myself was saved by a sovereign God, through a co-worker who evangelized me, with no sponsorship or authority granted from his church.


 
Were you "saved," in the complete biblical sense of the word, i.e., the Lord adding you to the church, Acts 2:47? I think not; and if you took a moment to reflect on this subject with something other than a concern to validate your religious experiences you would see that the proper definition of "evangelism" is more than a matter of settling ecclesial structure but pertains to the proper means of nourishing souls unto eternal life in the now/not yet reality of Christian salvation.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Let's be clear. You are claiming this activity is "evangelism," yet you have no basis in Scripture for calling it such. Where you part ways with Scripture the Bible believer must part ways with you. So far as personally communicating the teachings of Christianity with others is concerned, no one has called this the exclusive province of ordained men. Your reaction is an over-reaction.



Yes, let's be clear--the Reverend Winzer has yet to interact with the articles I've posted. For anyone interested in the exegetical evidence supporting the notion that terminology related to "evangelism" is applied to disciples not ordained to the office of pastor or missionary, please take the time to read my post *in defense of lay-evangelism* (especially the final section entitled, "A Word About Words"). I demonstrate that folks like the Reverend Winzer, Daryl Hart, and R. Scott Clark are not competent linguists. 



armourbearer said:


> A second clarification -- you choose to use the term, "ordained clergy." "Clergy" is your description. I have only emphasised an ordained "ministry." If you are going to attack a position you should make sure it is the correct one.



Okay. How about this from the Encyclopedia Britannica: *"clergy"*- a body of _ordained ministers_ in a Christian church (emphasis added). 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> The task of the Great Commission devolves on the church as a whole, not exclusively on the clergy. Hence, your view strips unduly restricts the warrant Christ himself has given to his church to be a missionary agent in the world.





armourbearer said:


> Sending, baptism, and instruction does not devolve on the church as a whole. Hence you are failing to distinguish things that differ. Every believer should be concerned to see the great commission fulfilled, but every believer is not actively participating in the duties enjoined in the great commission.



"Making disciples," which is the one imperative of the passage and, therefore, stands at the heart of the Great Commission, is the church's task. The "clergy" or "ordained ministry" is accorded a special and unique rule in this task, but they're calling does not exhaust the task, which is given to the church as a whole. Matthew 28:19-20 must be interpreted in light of the rest of NT data related to the activity of the rank-and-file believers who were engaged in evangelizing the lost. Why are you restricting the basis of your clerical view to Matthew 29:18-20? This is certainly a key text. But it must be interpreted in keeping with _the analogy of Scripture._ Why aren't you trying to deal with the several passages I've advanced in support of lay-evangelism. 



armourbearer said:


> You are failing to strictly apply terms and their meanings. Those who deal with the commission in a serious exegetical way are careful to define the "going" mentioned by the Lord in contrast to the "go not" of the commission of chapter 10. There is no doubt that it is tied to the idea of "mission."



Matthew, I'm a trained linguist. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you're obviously not. You apparently retain the outmoded and discredited notion that certain terms can only have "technical" meanings when in fact they may also have more common or non-technical meanings. I'd recommend for starters that you read Donald Carson's_ Exegetlcal Fallacies_. 



armourbearer said:


> You state the ordained ministry has extra-ordinary gifts. Some attention to detail will show that ministers exercise ordinary gifts in the fulfilment of their function; and it is undoubtedly the case that these gifts are given by God to equip them for the office they are to fulfil, and have been proven by the church in a process of ordinary calling. Nothing less than the same ordinary, biblical process should be required by others who wish to exercise these "gifts."



I maintain that ministers have "extra-ordinary" gifts *relative to* the gifts of the rank-and-file lay-person. *Relative to* the "office" of pastor, the gifts of the pastor-teacher are ordinary. *Relative to* all disciples in general, the gifts of the pastor-teacher are extra-ordinary. But this is beside the point. The gift of utterance is not limited to the ordained minister alone: _please read and interact with the exegetical data I've advanced_. 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> The goal of evangelism, whether done by laypeople or pastors, is to make disciples _and incorporate those disciples into the visible church_.





armourbearer said:


> Then, by your own definition, unordained people do not engage in the work of evangelism because unordained people are not authorised to add people to the church by baptism.



(1) If the NT says non-ordained folks engage in evangelism, they engaged in evangelism no matter what convoluted logic you advance. (2) You seem to assume that the scope of the duty of "making disciples" is co-terminus with the scope of the duty to baptize. I would beg to differ _on the basis of the NT data_, which you have yet to address. 

Matthew, you deny the free and well-meant offer of the gospel. You restrict the privilege of stewardship of evangelism to the ordained minister (and I've met very few Reformed ministers who seem to have the time and zeal to engage in the degree of evangelism needed to build a church). And you have yet to deal with those NT texts that describe and warrant lay-evangelism (*Acts 6:7; 8:1-4; 11:19-21; **I Cor 4:16; 11:1; **Eph 6:15, 17; **Phil 1:12-18; 2:15-16; **Col 4:5-6; **1 Thes 1:8; **Heb 5:12-14; **1 Pet 2:9; 3:15*). 

It's difficult not to conclude that a rather frigid hyper-Calvinism is still alive and well. Like dead flies in the ointment of the apothecary, this brand of "Calvinism" sends forth a "stinking savor." Once again, I'm compelled to prefer Calvin's sentiments when he writes,Therefore, in keeping with the teaching Luke gives here, let us learn that we constitute a true church of God when we try our best to increase the number of believers. And then *each one of us*, where we are, will apply all our effort to instructing our neighbours and leading them to the knowledge of God, *as much by our words *as by our showing them good examples and good behaviour. That is also why holy Scripture exhorts us so often to win to God those who remain alienated from his church, for we see unbelievers as poor lost sheep. Our Lord has not given us insight into his truth for our advantage alone, *but for sharing it with others*. Because we see them as madmen casting themselves into hell, we must, to the extent we can, prevent them from doing so and procure their salvation. That, I tell you, *is the zeal all Christians must have* if they are not to limit themselves just to the public worship of God (emphasis added). (John Calvin, "Learning, Teaching, and Living the Gospel Message" (sermon on Acts 6.7-9) in _Sermons_ _on the Acts of the Apostles (Chapters 1-7)_ [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2008], 335-36.)​

---------- Post added 03-08-2010 at 12:16 AM ---------- Previous post was 03-07-2010 at 11:52 PM ----------




Brad said:


> You're confusing living as a witness, being ready to give an answer, with the ordained and commissioned work of evangelism.



Brad, 

You've just committed a linguistic "no-no." You think laypeople may "witness" or "give an answer" since apparently in your view these terms are non-technical or non-official and are, therefore, the province of the lay-person. The term "evangelism," you think, is a technical term that exclusively predicates the ordained minister's function. If you'll take the time to read *my article defending lay-evangelism*, you'll find that the term "witness" has greater claim to "official" and "technical" than does "evangelize." In point of fact, the NT writers employ both "witness" and "evangelism" terminology in both "official" and "non-official" or "non-clerical" contexts. Biblical usage, Brad, not some strand of Reformed tradition, determines meaning.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I demonstrate that folks like the Reverend Winzer, Daryl Hart, and R. Scott Clark are not competent linguists.



Thankfully even incompetent linguists have competent linguists to which we can turn, and need not slavishly follow the fancies of men who like to pretend they are linguists.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Matthew, I'm a trained linguist. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you're obviously not. You apparently retain the outmoded and discredited notion that certain terms can only have "technical" meanings when in fact they may also have more common or non-technical meanings. I'd recommend for starters that you read Donald Carson's_ Exegetlcal Fallacies_.



Carson's Exegetical Fallacies has been around for many years, and has long since been read and digested. Perhaps the good doctor might show some real scholarship and actually quote a relevant portion of it.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (1) If the NT says non-ordained folks engage in evangelism, they engaged in evangelism no matter what convoluted logic you advance.


 
But the NT doesn't say non-ordained folk engaged in evangelism; that is the crux of the matter. Dr. Gonzales can throw his weight around all he pleases, denounce people who disagree with him, insist that individuals read his articles, set himself up as an authority in all matters scholastical, etc. etc., but the fact remains, he has no biblical support for his position.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Were you "saved," in the complete biblical sense of the word, i.e., the Lord adding you to the church, Acts 2:47? I think not; and if you took a moment to reflect on this subject with something other than a concern to validate your religious experiences you would see that the proper definition of "evangelism" is more than a matter of settling ecclesial structure but pertains to the proper means of nourishing souls unto eternal life in the now/not yet reality of Christian salvation.



The "complete biblical sense of the word"? In point of fact, "saved" is used to refer to various facets of one's salvation: sometimes more broadly to include the totality of one's deliverance from sin (regeneration, conversion, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification, etc.); sometimes, however, the terminology is employed more narrowly to refer to conversion or justification. (Hence, the aorist tense or perfect tense) The average reader is sharp enough to realize that Damon was not employing the term "saved" in the fullest sense but rather in the more restrictive sense of conversion and justification. And whether it suits your fancy or not, Christ Jesus is pleased to birth some in to the kingdom and justify their souls through the means of _lay-evangelism_.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> And whether it suits your fancy or not, Christ Jesus is pleased to birth some in to the kingdom and justify their souls through the means of _lay-evangelism_.


 
Acts 2 says what it says.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> I demonstrate that folks like the Reverend Winzer, Daryl Hart, and R. Scott Clark are not competent linguists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully even incompetent linguists have competent linguists to which we can turn, and need not slavishly follow the fancies of men who like to pretend they are linguists.
Click to expand...


Then by all means make use of competent linguists! And if I've violated sound linguistic principles in my exegesis of several key NT passages vis-a-vis lay-evangelism, then address the data and arguments. 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Matthew, I'm a trained linguist. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you're obviously not. You apparently retain the outmoded and discredited notion that certain terms can only have "technical" meanings when in fact they may also have more common or non-technical meanings. I'd recommend for starters that you read Donald Carson's_ Exegetlcal Fallacies_.





armourbearer said:


> Carson's _Exegetical Fallacies_ has been around for many years, and has long since been read and digested. Perhaps the good doctor might show some real scholarship and actually quote a relevant portion of it.



I'm happy to oblige. The Reverend Winzer (as well as Daryl Hart and R. Scott Clark) commit the fallacy Carson summarizes in pages 45-48, which he labels, "False assumptions about technical meaning." Concerning this fallacy, Carson writes,In this fallacy, an interpreter falsely assumes that a word always or nearly always has a certain technical meaning--a meaning usually derived either from a subset of the evidence or from the interpreter's personal systematic theology.... One corollary of this fallacy is that some interpreters will go one stage further and reduce an entire doctrine to one word which they have understood to be a technical term" (_Exegetical Fallacies_, 45-48).​You may also want to consult James Barr's _The Semantics of Biblical Language_. 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (1) If the NT says non-ordained folks engage in evangelism, they engaged in evangelism no matter what convoluted logic you advance.


 


armourbearer said:


> But the NT doesn't say non-ordained folk engaged in evangelism; that is the crux of the matter. Dr. Gonzales can throw his weight around all he pleases, denounce people who disagree with him, insist that individuals read his articles, set himself up as an authority in all matters scholastical, etc. etc., but the fact remains, he has no biblical support for his position.



Dr. Gonzales does not wish any reader to accept his arguments on the basis of his own authority (God forbid!). Accordingly, he has repeatedly posted links to his three-part series in defense of lay-ministry and lay-evangelism where he expounds and applies the biblical data. There the reader will find several passages of Scripture that support the privilege and stewardship of lay-ministry and lay-evangelism. 

For some odd reason, the Reverend Winzer refuses to interact with these texts. Of course, I understand that ministers are busy folk and may not have time to read links. If that is what has restrained Mr. Winzer from engaging the exegetical data I present, then I'll make his work easy by posting some of the passages here. Of course, I'm not naive to think that a straightforward presentation of the data will automatically convince every gainsayer. Some are so committed to their "paradigm" that they'll place the exegetical data on their Procrustean bed in order to slice or stretch it to their liking. My hope, though, is that some readers will examine the evidence marshaled unbiasedly or will remove the glasses of "clericalism" when reading the biblical data and see for themselves what the Bible really says about lay-evangelism.


----------



## Mushroom

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing living as a witness, being ready to give an answer, with the ordained and commissioned work of evangelism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brad,
> 
> You've just committed a linguistic "no-no." You think laypeople may "witness" or "give an answer" since apparently in your view these terms are non-technical or non-official and are, therefore, the province of the lay-person. The term "evangelism," you think, is a technical term that exclusively predicates the ordained minister's function. If you'll take the time to read *my article defending lay-evangelism*, you'll find that the term "witness" has greater claim to "official" and "technical" than does "evangelize." In point of fact, the NT writers employ both "witness" and "evangelism" terminology in both "official" and "non-official" or "non-clerical" contexts. Biblical usage, Brad, not some strand of Reformed tradition, determines meaning.
Click to expand...

Welp, Dr. Bob, I find only three cases where the word εὐαγγελιστής is used in the NT, one refering to Philip (an ordained man), one exhorting Timothy (an ordained man) to carry out that work, and one describing an office. Yet I find the word μαρτυρία used 37 times in the NT, refering to witnesses of crimes, witnesses to a man's calling, witnesses to miracles, and witnesses of Christ. I'm no trained linguist, and I would dain to get into any debates with one, but I will say that the word translated witness appears to have a tad more leeway in application to unofficial capacity than the word translated evangelist. Trained or untrained, we all approach interpretations with our own presuppositions. The crux of the matter is which of those presups is biblical. That can't be proven anecdotally by individual experience. I was first 'witnessed' to (or in your terminology, evangelized) by some very warped individuals. God used that to grab this child of His by the hair and yank him out of the fire. Does that then mean that these drug addicted profligates were qualified to preach, teach, and baptise? Evangelism is the whole ball of wax, not just one aspect. And all members of the Church participate in it through their support and participation, _under the authority_ of those God has set over them, and only within the confines of the offices to which they are called. As a layman, I am not about to baptise anyone, nor administer communion, all a part of the whole of evangelism. I will be ready to give an answer, I will support my Church's efforts at evangelism with my money, prayers, and presence where asked, but I will not presume to be a teacher if I do not occupy that office.


----------



## Mushroom

> Later, the Spirit prompts him to go to Gaza where Philip preaches the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch (8:26-40). In these contexts, Philip’s activity is depicted three times with the Greek verb “to evangelize” (8:12, 35, 40). It was probably in light of Philip’s gifts and success in evangelism that he was later promoted to the more official function of “evangelist” (Acts 21:8).


So, since Philip, an ordained Deacon, baptised this Ethiopian, but was 'evangelising' outside of the duties of his Office (which you say is serving tables), then you do support laity performing baptisms, correct?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Brad said:


> Later, the Spirit prompts him to go to Gaza where Philip preaches the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch (8:26-40). In these contexts, Philip’s activity is depicted three times with the Greek verb “to evangelize” (8:12, 35, 40). It was probably in light of Philip’s gifts and success in evangelism that he was later promoted to the more official function of “evangelist” (Acts 21:8).
> 
> 
> 
> So, since Philip, an ordained Deacon, baptised this Ethiopian, but was 'evangelising' outside of the duties of his Office (which you say is serving tables), then you do support laity performing baptisms, correct?
Click to expand...


Brad,

One way to avoid the force of a text is to attempt to send your opponent after a red herring. Phillip was ordained to serve tables, not to give himself to the word and prayer. Yet he "evangelized" and he "baptized." These functions he preformed under the authority of the church, but he performed them _not_ as an ordained "minister of the word" but as a deacon at best. Interestingly, the Presbyterians I've met don't seem inclined to permit deacons to baptize but limit the administration of the sacrament to the ordained "minister" whom they distinguish from the "deacon." Bottom line: Stephen and Phillip were _not_ ordained as pastor-teachers or missionaries, yet they engaged in evangelism. Their particular labors are highlighted as part of a larger activity on the part of Christ's disciples in general.

---------- Post added at 01:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 AM ----------




Brad said:


> I'm no trained linguist, and I would dain to get into any debates with one, but I will say that the word translated witness appears to have a tad more leeway in application to unofficial capacity than the word translated evangelist.



Brad,

Please read the exposition of the various texts above, especially the section that reads, "A Word About Words." The term "witness" is used as much if not more often as a _technical term_ than "evangelize." Yet both terms are also used in non-technical or non-official senses. The same is true of the terminology for "preach." Make it your goal to be no more or no less restrictive in your employment of biblical terminology than the biblical writers themselves. 

Your servant,

---------- Post added at 01:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 AM ----------




Brad said:


> Later, the Spirit prompts him to go to Gaza where Philip preaches the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch (8:26-40). In these contexts, Philip’s activity is depicted three times with the Greek verb “to evangelize” (8:12, 35, 40). It was probably in light of Philip’s gifts and success in evangelism that he was later promoted to the more official function of “evangelist” (Acts 21:8).
> 
> 
> 
> So, since Philip, an ordained Deacon, baptised this Ethiopian, but was 'evangelising' outside of the duties of his Office (which you say is serving tables), then you do support laity performing baptisms, correct?
Click to expand...


Yes, on the basis of this text, I support the notion of deacons preforming baptisms (within the context and oversight of the church). Moreover, I support the notion that those who are not ordained to labor in word and doctrine may indeed evangelize. Isn't that scandalous!


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Then by all means make use of competent linguists! And if I've violated sound linguistic principles in my exegesis of several key NT passages vis-a-vis lay-evangelism, then address the data and arguments.



I have already addressed these the last time you trumpeted your articles on Puritan Board. As stated then, you failed to provide the specific link between word-ministry and "laymen." The articles contain the same content now as then; so you have still failed to make the link all this time afterwards. I would refer the reader to U. Becker's article, "Gospel," in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology," 2:110-112, for a clear exhibition of what preaching the gospel meant to the apostle Paul. At every point it is shown that preaching the gospel is a technical term with specific meaning and divinely authoritative overtones. Andrew Lincoln's Word Commentary on Eph. 4:12 suffices to show that Dr. Gonzales' exposition of the passage is not as linguistically informed as he presents it.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (_Exegetical Fallacies_, 45-48).
> [/INDENT]You may also want to consult James Barr's _The Semantics of Biblical Language_.



No person has read a systematic theology into the term nor developed an entire doctrine around it. We have simply noted what the word technically means in the writings of the New Testament. Clearly you are misapplying the fallacy. Perhaps you need to heed your own advice and read Carson's Introduction, where he discusses the Dangers of this Study; it may surprise you to learn that you have used his book in a way that he himself did not intend it to be used.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Brad said:


> I will be ready to give an answer, I will support my Church's efforts at evangelism with my money, prayers, and presence where asked, but I will not presume to be a teacher if I do not occupy that office.



What a shame! Speaking to lay-people, the author of Hebrews says, “by this time you ought to be teachers” (5:12). Imagine that! The inspired write predicates the word διδάσκαλοι of laypeople and expects them to aspire after such a role. Of course, he's not referring to an official teaching office. But he does, nevertheless, expect his readers both to understand and to articulate the gospel about the Messiah. Giving your money, prayers, and presence is certainly part of the equation. But if you're too cowardly to open your mouth and share the good tidings of salvation with those in need, then you "do not well" (2 Kings 7:9). 

This is a strand of Reformed theology that needs "reforming." Too many Reformed Christians content themselves with living a decent life, attending the "ordinary means of grace" at the gathered assembly, and giving their tithe. But they're frankly cowards when it comes to sharing the gospel with the unconverted. How contrary the demeanor of our Lord who came to "seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). May God help us all to play the man and boldly evangelize, witness, and proclaim the good news!

---------- Post added at 02:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 AM ----------




armourbearer said:


> I have already addressed these the last time you trumpeted your articles on Puritan Board. As stated then, you failed to provide the specific link between word-ministry and "laymen." The articles contain the same content now as then; so you have still failed to make the link all this time afterwards. I would refer the reader to U. Becker's article, "Gospel," in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology," 2:110-112, for a clear exhibition of what preaching the gospel meant to the apostle Paul. At every point it is shown that preaching the gospel is a technical term with specific meaning and divinely authoritative overtones. Andrew Lincoln's Word Commentary on Eph. 4:12 suffices to show that Dr. Gonzales' exposition of the passage is not as linguistically informed as he presents it.



Matthew,

I do in fact provide a link between the "word ministry" and "laymen" above and also *here*. Either you're not reading my argument or your unwilling to engage. That there are sometimes technical usages of "preaching" and "evangelizing" and "witnessing" I do not deny. But the same terminology is employed in non-technical ways to predicate the activity of non-clergy, that is, those who are not officially ordained ministers of the word. 

I am well aware of Andrew Lincoln's _minority_ interpretation of Ephesians 4:12 and, like most competent scholars today, reject it on linguistic, grammatical, and contextual grounds. For those interested in the argument that sees the "pastor/teacher equipping the saints so that the latter may engage in works of ministry, click *here. 
* 


Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> You may also want to consult James Barr's _The Semantics of Biblical Language_.





armourbearer said:


> No person has read a systematic theology into the term nor developed an entire doctrine around it. We have simply noted what the word technically means in the writings of the New Testament. Clearly you are misapplying the fallacy. Perhaps you need to heed your own advice and read Carson's Introduction, where he discusses the Dangers of this Study; it may surprise you to learn that you have used his book in a way that he himself did not intend it to be used.



Reverend Winzer, I'm quite familiar with Carson's work and use it as a textbook for our seminary. For what it's worth, Carson himself would reject your brand of clericalism and would, I'm confident, point out the obvious (to which you appear quite blind):_ the so-called technical terms for evangelism, preaching, and witness are also used to describe the activity of non-ordained individuals bearing the good tidings of the gospel to a lost and dying world_. Thankfully, Carson's allegiance is sound linguistic principles and exegesis rescues him from permitting a paradigm foreign to Scripture to overrule the plain and simple meaning of the text. I would humbly suggest that it is you who need to reread his book and jettison your unbiblical form of "Calvinism" for something more akin to NT Christianity.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I do in fact provide a link between the "word ministry" and "laymen" above and also *here*. Either you're not reading my argument or your unwilling to engage.



As noted, I have already engaged. Follow your link back to your articles and see where you have linked them on Puritan Board in the past and you will see my assessment.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I am well aware of Andrew Lincoln's _minority_ interpretation of Ephesians 4:12 and, like most competent scholars today, reject it on linguistic, grammatical, and contextual grounds.



He has provided linguistic arguments; your article does not address those arguments. Simply taking sides with what you consider to be the majority postion of "most competent sholars today" is, basically, unscholarly.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Reverend Winzer, I'm quite familiar with Carson's work and use it as a textbook for our seminary. For what it's worth, Carson himself would reject your brand of clericalism


 
That is beside the point. The point I made is that you are using Carson's Exegetical Fallacies in a way he repudiates in the Introduction to his book. If you do use this as a textbook to teach others, you are all the more responsible to ensure you are using it in a right manner.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

armourbearer said:


> As noted, I have already engaged. Follow your link back to your articles and see where you have linked them on Puritan Board in the past and you will see my assessment.


The 2009 threads are located here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/bib...ngelism-47080/?highlight=Giving+Proper+People
http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/bib...art-2-a-47236/?highlight=Giving+Proper+People
http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/bib...art-3-a-48067/?highlight=Giving+Proper+People

AMR


----------



## Herald

Is it possible to remove some of the hyperbole accompanying this discussion? I have separate questions for Matthew Winzer and Bob Gonzales.

Matthew, is it possible, that outside of those actions that are the province of the ordained minister, such as baptizing and sending (calling and equipping those to be sent), that you see a dichotomy between evangelism and evangelistic related work? In other words, you seem to be indicating that evangelism is a particular function of the ordained minister while he is functioning in that capacity; whether it be during a sermon, counseling session, or pastoral visit. Evangelistic related work would be the efforts of lay people sharing their faith in Christ with others. This sharing, while capable of being used by God (and I believe biblical and historical precedent support this claim), is not strictly defined as evangelism according to your view. Is that a fair assessment, or I am drawing a wrong conclusion of your position?

Bob, you said to Brad:



> What a shame! Speaking to lay-people, the author of Hebrews says, “by this time you ought to be teachers” (5:12). Imagine that! The inspired write predicates the word διδάσκαλοι of laypeople and expects them to aspire after such a role. Of course, he's not referring to an official teaching office. But he does, nevertheless, expect his readers both to understand and to articulate the gospel about the Messiah. Giving your money, prayers, and presence is certainly part of the equation. But if you're too cowardly to open your mouth and share the good tidings of salvation with those in need, then you "do not well" (2 Kings 7:9).



What counts as "cowardly"? What _must _a Christian do in the are of evangelism? Is evangelism an imperative for each Christian, or is it a function that a Christian can elect to participate in? In order to be honest with the reason for my question, I freely admit that I came out of a Jack Chick type of Christian background where guilt was to be heaped upon you if you missed an opportunity to share the gospel. Instead of sharing my faith out of joy, sharing became a duty; it became rote. I concur with you that believers ought to know the Gospel well enough to articulate it (Heb. 5:12). The reality is that our people are going to have different levels of understanding as well as different abilities. We want them to be bearers of the light, but what does that mean in reality? 

Some general comments: Since my eyes were opened to the doctrines of grace I have seen the sharing of the gospel in a different light. While there is _never _an excuse for willful ignorance, I came to experience a new-found liberty in my Gospel witness. My skills (or lack thereof) of persuasion didn't matter. I no longer had to "push" a person to make a "decision" for Christ. I realize this is a bit off topic. The thread was dealing with evangelism and the warrant for lay people in participating in it. But I believe my comments are somewhat related in that ordained ministers are ultimately responsible for the equipping of the saints. Part of that equipping is to impart a right understanding of the Gospel. There is no need for those under our care to feel guilt or unwarranted fear about sharing the Gospel. I know some dear saints who are not cowardly about their faith, but are desperately afraid about initiating any type of conversation that may result in confrontation. I want to encourage and comfort these saints, not bludgeon them. There are different ways that a person may share their faith in Christ. Some do have a holy boldness to speak to strangers and articulate the Gospel. You may see these type of people bringing Christ into the public square. Others may be better off sharing their faith in acts of mercy, such as visiting those in the hospital or a nursing home. Still others are gifted in working with children. Ministers can/should encourage their flock to labor in these areas according to their skills and desires. Perhaps these methods would be termed "sharing" as opposed to "evangelism." I suppose it depends on how you define evangelism. I'm getting the impression, in this thread, that evangelism is being used as both a noun and verb.


----------



## Damon Rambo

armourbearer said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I myself was saved by a sovereign God, through a co-worker who evangelized me, with no sponsorship or authority granted from his church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you "saved," in the complete biblical sense of the word, i.e., the Lord adding you to the church, Acts 2:47? I think not
Click to expand...

I KNOW so. Define what is meant in Acts 2:47, regarding "church." Their are two possible meanings. The first is, 

(LBCF 26:2)All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted. 

OR

(LBCF 2:5)Those thus called, he commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requireth of them in the world. 


I believe it is referring to the universal church; i.e. Article 2, above. Please note that it was the Lord who added them, in 2:47; not some ordained minister in some religious ceremony.

But, IF you decided it was a local church, it STILL would not prove your point, since God "added" the ones being saved to the church; therefore salvation and addition to the church are necessarily and logically separated.

And the Lord added to their number day by day /those who were being saved (ESV). 



> and if you took a moment to reflect on this subject with something other than a concern to validate your religious experiences you would see that the proper definition of "evangelism" is more than a matter of settling ecclesial structure but pertains to the proper means of nourishing souls unto eternal life in the now/not yet reality of Christian salvation.


 
No, my friend, it does not. As an evangelist, this is something that I have studied a bit. The Greek word "euangelion" is the word for gospel, and it means "good news." People are described using the noun form of the word, which means someone who tells the good news (a "good news-er").

Now, their is only one person, in all of scripture, who is called an "evangelist" (although nearly every single person in the New Testament is said to proclaim the good news). He does not "baptize" people into a particular local congregation (there is no explicit reference to this). We see him traveling around, and the one baptism that *he* explicitly does, is in the public square, far from any local church, and is in essence a "believers" baptism (no textual debates please! I have studied the passage, am aware of the variants, and have no wish to derail the thread.) Further, IMMEDIATELY afterward, he is "carried away." This man was saved; yet not a member of any local congregation.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Herald said:


> Is it possible to remove some of the hyperbole accompanying this discussion?



Yes. Forgive me. Moreover, reread the comments I made in response to Brad. They were sarcastic and unwarranted. I do believe laypeople have both a privilege and a stewardship to share the truth of the gospel with unbelievers in keeping with their level of gift and providential opportunities as I argue above. Accordingly, I don't think supporting a church financially, listening to sermons, and praying for the lost is enough. We should always be ready and eager to confess Jesus before men. Nevertheless, I had no warrant to attribute Brad's apparent failure to concede this stewardship to "cowardice" on his part. Please forgive me, Brad. 



Herald said:


> Perhaps these methods would be termed "sharing" as opposed to "evangelism." I suppose it depends on how you define evangelism. I'm getting the impression, in this thread, that evangelism is being used as both a noun and verb.



Bill, I'm not sure why we need to replace "evangelism" with "sharing." Does the NT data compel us to do so? I think I've demonstrated above that the NT predicates the terminology used for the communication of the gospel both to clergy (i.e., official ministers) and non-clergy (i.e., laity). Just as there may be a more specialized used of "Apostle" and a less-specialized, more generic use (see 2 Cor. 8), so the terms "preach," "evangelism," and "witness" may be predicated of the clergy or the non-clergy.


----------



## Herald

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible to remove some of the hyperbole accompanying this discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Forgive me. Moreover, reread the comments I made in response to Brad. They were sarcastic and unwarranted. I do believe laypeople have both a privilege and a stewardship to share the truth of the gospel with unbelievers in keeping with their level of gift and providential opportunities as I argue above. Accordingly, I don't think supporting a church financially, listening to sermons, and praying for the lost is enough. We should always be ready and eager to confess Jesus before men. Nevertheless, I had no warrant to attribute Brad's apparent failure to concede this stewardship to "cowardice" on his part. Please forgive me, Brad.
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps these methods would be termed "sharing" as opposed to "evangelism." I suppose it depends on how you define evangelism. I'm getting the impression, in this thread, that evangelism is being used as both a noun and verb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill, I'm not sure why we need to replace "evangelism" with "sharing." Does the NT data compel us to do so? I think I've demonstrated above that the NT predicates the terminology used for the communication of the gospel both to clergy (i.e., official ministers) and non-clergy (i.e., laity). Just as there may be a more specialized used of "Apostle" and a less-specialized, more generic use (see 2 Cor. 8), so the terms "preach," "evangelism," and "witness" may be predicated of the clergy or the non-clergy.
Click to expand...


Bob,

I personally use the term "evangelism." I injected the word sharing earlier in my question to Matthew. I'm waiting to read Matthew's response. Perhaps he was not intimating that a believer cannot or should be discouraged from sharing their faith in Christ, while leaving evangelizing to the ordained minister. It may be an exercise in semantics.


----------



## KMK

This discussion seems to always boil down to definitions. 

Dr. Gonzales, do you believe an evangelist is a 'minister of the word'? If not, what do you do with Eph 4:11?

Also, I don't think it is a fallacy to argue that 'lay-evangelism' as a moral obligation is a fruit of Finneyism. You obviously disagree, but it would be helpful to me if you could cite some Reformed/Puritan sources that demonstrate the universal moral obligation of evangelism. Is the universal moral obligation to do more than 'share your faith' but 'evangelize' an historical church doctrine?


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> This discussion seems to always boil down to definitions.
> 
> Dr. Gonzales, do you believe an evangelist is a 'minister of the word'? If not, what do you do with Eph 4:11?
> 
> Also, I don't think it is a fallacy to argue that 'lay-evangelism' as a moral obligation is a fruit of Finneyism. You obviously disagree, but it would be helpful to me if you could cite some Reformed/Puritan sources that demonstrate the universal moral obligation of evangelism. Is the universal moral obligation to do more than 'share your faith' but 'evangelize' an historical church doctrine?


 
Ken,

I know your question is directed at Dr. Bob, but I'd like to weigh-in on this topic.

Is there a moral obligation for "lay-evangelism"? It depends on what you mean by the term. If we are saying that each Christian has a moral imperative to share the gospel verbally with unbelievers, and that by not doing so they are being disobedient to Christ, I would have to disagree. However, there is a scriptural imperative that our very lives should be a witness of our faith.



> Matthew 5:13-16 3 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. 14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 "Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.



If someone is intrigued by our walk and manner of speech, and they inquire into them, should we shrink away from sharing with them the Gospel? Of course not! I hope that all of us are agreed on that. There is no moral or scriptural imperative _against _sharing our faith. If a Christian feels compelled to share the Gospel message with someone who is lost, should we prohibit them? If so, on what grounds? Would it be that more Christians understand the Gospel well enough to share it with others. But must they do so? Is there a compulsion from scripture to do so?


----------



## Iconoclast

Although we strive to obey the bible in it's teachings, as we all know different views of what the church is, what the passages teach ,lead different churches to much different conclusions on this topic. this can even be influenced by our eschatholgical position.

Noah moved with fear preparing an ark to the saving of His household, and yet we read this also..


> 5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;


.

Was Noah an ordained seminary man? Was it only His life and moving with fear that was a 
preacher of righteousness...or did he also verbally warn those around him?

The padeo view of Mt 28/make disciples baptising infants as the primary means of God adding to His church might effect your view of the great commision.
That is to say... attend church services , home school ,christian school, seperation from the world that some times leads to an insulation and isolation from the evil dark world leading to many raising the charge of being guilty of *world flight*
If the ordained person alone is the only person capable of evangelism,what is left for the 
"lay-person". A silent witness? waiting for someone to ask us the reason for the hope that is within us? God can use this type of ...witness in His providence as he sometimes does.
Is this the only model however?
Here is a bit of David Engelsma from a book he wrote dealing with His amillennial view of the world ,reacting against in part.Gary Demar and other postmillenial views,theonomists etc. 


> The future is not bright with the prospect of mass conversions, much less the conversion to Christ of a majority of mankind, as is the dream of postmillennialism. On the contrary, the future is dark with the certainty of departure from Christ on the part of many who once professed Him





> [Other postmillennialists, particularly the "Christian Reconstructionists," urge an unbiblical activity. They call the church to "Christianize" the world, a task that Holy Scripture nowhere assigns either to the church or to the believer. Christ calls His church to guard against becoming worldly; He does not call her to make the world Christian.


These first two quotes come from his writings jewish dreams, here is a link to his defense of amillenialism A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism
I am not saying that Prof.Engelsma would speak on behalf of all amillennial brethren but I enjoyed reading through his writings on this . I contrast it by reading the postmill men he mentions as well.
As Bill and others have noted there are many credo churches who rush off to the other extreme views, chick tracts, 4 spiritual laws, romans road, raise the hand, walk the aisle.
Radical lone ranger type of self appointed "evangelists". Do we have to go to the extremes however? Can lay evangelism be correctly done under the oversight of the church?
You also have the fundementalists who are so seperated they are one step away from being amish/mennonites... world flight would not begin to describe them.

I would be glad, even more than glad to be approached in public by an ordained minister of the word. This has never happened to me. If I were waiting to be approached by an ordained minister, i would still be waiting.
Has anyone here on the PB been approached out in a public place...randomly...ie,{not at a bible conference} by an ordained minister and evangelized?
I believe or would like to believe that most all of the ordained men here on the PB are actively serving the Lord, visiting the sick, and perhaps have a system of how they conduct evangelism. Some have and do write books, articles, blogs that can be useful in this way.
But how does your face to face evangelism look during the week?

I have only been approached publicly by lay persons,and that not nearly enough. I have been approached by cults,[jw] more than by believers.

When I pray for my unsaved family members, friends , and work associates who are not church attenders I am praying that God will have them come across other believers who might be used of God to bring up the condition of their soul before our holy God.
That the believer will plant the seed of the word, or remove obstacles to them being saved.

Are you praying for the same thing? If an unsaved friend or relative of yours goes to shop for groceries and bumps into a solid believing christian...what would you like to see happen?
A silent witness saying it is a nice day,and it might rain tommorow, or a believer who can engage your friend or relative in conversation that gets to gospel conversation,and maybe an invitation to church or bible study?


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> Ken,
> 
> I know your question is directed at Dr. Bob, but I'd like to weigh-in on this topic.
> 
> Is there a moral obligation for "lay-evangelism"? *It depends on what you mean by the term. * If we are saying that each Christian has a moral imperative to share the gospel verbally with unbelievers, and that by not doing so they are being disobedient to Christ, I would have to disagree. However, there is a scriptural imperative that our very lives should be a witness of our faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 5:13-16 3 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. 14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 "Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone is intrigued by our walk and manner of speech, and they inquire into them, should we shrink away from sharing with them the Gospel? Of course not! I hope that all of us are agreed on that. There is no moral or scriptural imperative _against _sharing our faith. If a Christian feels compelled to share the Gospel message with someone who is lost, should we prohibit them? If so, on what grounds? Would it be that more Christians understand the Gospel well enough to share it with others. But must they do so? Is there a compulsion from scripture to do so?
Click to expand...

 
You have addressed one of my concerns and that is this: whenever someone argues that 'evangelism' is not a universal moral obligation, there are those who accuse him of arguing that some are morally obligated _not_ to 'be a witness of their faith'. No one on this thread is arguing that. 

Is Matt 5 'evangelism'? Is an 'evangelist' one who 'let's their light shine'? Or is an evangelist a minister of the word? Dr. Gonzales seems to say that those who view an evangelist as a minister of the word, as in Eph 4:11, have somehow hijacked the true Biblical meaning of the word. I don't get that.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I know your question is directed at Dr. Bob, but I'd like to weigh-in on this topic.
> 
> Is there a moral obligation for "lay-evangelism"? *It depends on what you mean by the term. * If we are saying that each Christian has a moral imperative to share the gospel verbally with unbelievers, and that by not doing so they are being disobedient to Christ, I would have to disagree. However, there is a scriptural imperative that our very lives should be a witness of our faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 5:13-16 3 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. 14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 "Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone is intrigued by our walk and manner of speech, and they inquire into them, should we shrink away from sharing with them the Gospel? Of course not! I hope that all of us are agreed on that. There is no moral or scriptural imperative _against _sharing our faith. If a Christian feels compelled to share the Gospel message with someone who is lost, should we prohibit them? If so, on what grounds? Would it be that more Christians understand the Gospel well enough to share it with others. But must they do so? Is there a compulsion from scripture to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have addressed one of my concerns and that is this: whenever someone argues that 'evangelism' is not a universal moral obligation, there are those who accuse him of arguing that some are morally obligated _not_ to 'be a witness of their faith'. No one on this thread is arguing that.
> 
> Is Matt 5 'evangelism'? Is an 'evangelist' one who 'let's their light shine'? Or is an evangelist a minister of the word? Dr. Gonzales seems to say that those who view an evangelist as a minister of the word, as in Eph 4:11, have somehow hijacked the true Biblical meaning of the word. I don't get that.
Click to expand...

 
Ken, is it possible to have a small "e" evangelist and big "E" evangelist? The big "E" evangelist is the actual office of evangelist; whether it be someone set apart solely for the purpose of evangelism, or a pastor/elder who is a minister of the Word of God. The small "e" would be anyone who shares the gospel. The are acting in the role of an evangelist, just as a father is acting in the role of minister of the Gospel when he proclaims the Word to his family.


----------



## KMK

I know people do, but I don't think it is wise. Are there Apostles and apostles? Are there Prophets and prophets? Are there Pastors and pastors?

According to the 'lay-evangelist' view, what is the difference between the duties of the Evangelist office holder and the duties of every Christian? If there is no difference in the duties then there is no 'office'. If there is no 'office' what happened to it?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

Ken, so if a lay person shares the gospel, what do we call that? Evangelism? Sharing? Witnessing? Nothing? See my point? I'm not arguing that a lay person holds the office of evangelist. I'm simply asking what we call it when a lay person evangelizes? Or are we going to say that's not what they're doing?


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> Ken, so if a lay person shares the gospel, what do we call that? Evangelism? Sharing? Witnessing? Nothing? See my point? I'm not arguing that a lay person holds the office of evangelist. I'm simply asking what we call it when a lay person evangelizes? Or are we going to say that's not what they're doing?


 
I get it. The problem is there is always a violent reaction when someone proposes a different term for 'a lay person sharing the gospel'. Why are people accused of 'cowardice' or 'goat-like behavior' when all they want to do is keep scriptural categories distinct and clear? 

I repeat my question: According to the 'lay-evangelist' view, what is the difference between the duties of the Evangelist office holder and the duties of every Christian?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am glad the tone of the thread has been addressed. Had I seen it earlier I would have added infractions. Thanks Bill. 

I would just like to post a passage that seems to indicate that a non ordained person preached Christ in the book of Acts.



> (Act 18:24) And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
> 
> (Act 18:25) This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
> 
> (Act 18:26) And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
> 
> (Act 18:27) And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
> 
> (Act 18:28) For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.



It seems after his mention in this passage that he goes to Corinth for his work. He is given a commendation by the brethren for reception but is that the same thing as being ordained by the Presbyters? 



> (Act 19:1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,




Paul mentions Apollos to the Corinthians a lot because it was probably his main ministering place. I don't know much about Apollos nor if he is considered an Elder or ordained man. I do know that Paul sets him up next to himself and Peter when he is charging the Corinthians to avoid their carnal divisions. Paul also says he is a minister in 1 Cor 3:5. But it isn't a signification of an Elder.



> G1249
> διάκονος
> diakonos
> dee-ak'-on-os
> Probably from διάκω diakoÌ„ (obsolete, to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, that is, (generally) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess): - deacon, minister, servant.





> G1249
> διάκονος‚
> diakonos
> Thayer Definition:
> 1) one who executes the commands of another, especially of a master, a servant, attendant, minister
> 1a) the servant of a king
> 1b) a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use
> 1c) a waiter, one who serves food and drink
> Part of Speech: noun masculine or feminine
> A Related Word by Thayer/Strongs Number: probably from an obsolete diako (to run on errands, compare G1377)
> Citing in TDNT: 2:88, 152





Damon Rambo said:


> Of course Matthew's (armourbearer's) position is based on Presbyterian ecclesiology.



BTW Damon, 
I disagree with what you said here. You have made a statement that I can't support in my experiences of the last 30 years.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken, so if a lay person shares the gospel, what do we call that? Evangelism? Sharing? Witnessing? Nothing? See my point? I'm not arguing that a lay person holds the office of evangelist. I'm simply asking what we call it when a lay person evangelizes? Or are we going to say that's not what they're doing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it. The problem is there is always a violent reaction when someone proposes a different term for 'a lay person sharing the gospel'. Why are people accused of 'cowardice' or 'goat-like behavior' when all they want to do is keep scriptural categories distinct and clear?
> 
> I repeat my question: According to the 'lay-evangelist' view, what is the difference between the duties of the Evangelist office holder and the duties of every Christian?
Click to expand...

 
Well Ken, not everyone agrees that the office of Evangelist exists today re: Eph. 4. Some say that office ceased to exist while others believe it is the duty of pastors and elders (2 Tim. 4:5). If it is the latter than we know that the office of pastor/elder has more than just evangelism as an assigned duty. Preaching/teaching, discipleship, administration of the ordinances/sacraments, spiritual oversight of the church etc. Evangelism would be just one duty of the office. What are the responsibilities of the lay person in regards to evangelism? This is what I tried to touch on earlier. Well, there is the command to live an obedient life to the glory of God (Matthew 5:16). I concede that there is no positive command for believers to share the Gospel. But neither is there a prohibition against it. I am not straying into Finneyism, I'm simply calling the activity of sharing one's faith exactly what it is: evangelism. Why is it a threat to scriptural categories to call an activity what it is? If Bob shares the Gospel with Fred, Bob is evangelizing according to the strict definition of the word. Why can't we just leave it at that without being pulled into Finneyism or hyper-Calvinism?


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken, so if a lay person shares the gospel, what do we call that? Evangelism? Sharing? Witnessing? Nothing? See my point? I'm not arguing that a lay person holds the office of evangelist. I'm simply asking what we call it when a lay person evangelizes? Or are we going to say that's not what they're doing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it. The problem is there is always a violent reaction when someone proposes a different term for 'a lay person sharing the gospel'. Why are people accused of 'cowardice' or 'goat-like behavior' when all they want to do is keep scriptural categories distinct and clear?
> 
> I repeat my question: According to the 'lay-evangelist' view, what is the difference between the duties of the Evangelist office holder and the duties of every Christian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Ken, not everyone agrees that the office of Evangelist exists today re: Eph. 4. Some say that office ceased to exist while others believe it is the duty of pastors and elders (2 Tim. 4:5). If it is the latter than we know that the office of pastor/elder has more than just evangelism as an assigned duty. Preaching/teaching, discipleship, administration of the ordinances/sacraments, spiritual oversight of the church etc. Evangelism would be just one duty of the office. What are the responsibilities of the lay person in regards to evangelism? This is what I tried to touch on earlier. Well, there is the command to live an obedient life to the glory of God (Matthew 5:16). I concede that there is no positive command for believers to share the Gospel. But neither is there a prohibition against it. I am not straying into Finneyism, I'm simply calling the activity of sharing one's faith exactly what it is: evangelism. Why is it a threat to scriptural categories to call an activity what it is? If Bob shares the Gospel with Fred, Bob is evangelizing according to the strict definition of the word. Why can't we just leave it at that without being pulled into Finneyism or hyper-Calvinism?
Click to expand...

 
Bill, in a previous post, you said...



> Ken, is it possible to have a small "e" evangelist and big "E" evangelist? The big "E" evangelist is the actual office of evangelist; whether it be someone set apart solely for the purpose of evangelism, or a pastor/elder who is a minister of the Word of God



I assumed you were arguing for an office called 'Evangelist'. If there is no longer an office called 'Evangelist' then so be it, but to my mind it is confusing when people speak of 'lay-evangelism' because it sounds like they are referring to a set of duties that is distinct from the office. I will rephrase my question: how do the duties of every Christian today differ from the duties of the now non-existent office of Evangelist? Is everyone now an evangelist? Does that mean that everyone now is an apostle and a prophet?


----------



## MW

Damon Rambo said:


> I believe it is referring to the universal church; i.e. Article 2, above. Please note that it was the Lord who added them, in 2:47; not some ordained minister in some religious ceremony.


 
Please read the passage. They were added to the church by means of being baptised by ordained ministry.


----------



## Herald

Ken,

The duties of a non-ordained Christian differ from an ordained minister (I'm combining evangelists, pastors and elders) in both scope and legality. Only an ordained minister is able to administer the ordinances/sacraments. Normally only an ordained minister can preach, although qualified lay people can do so under the authority of an ordained minister. What about evangelism? As I pointed out from 2 Timothy 4:5, ordained ministers are to do the work of an evangelist. Within the jurisdiction of the church evangelism is the responsibility of the ordained minister. 

So, what do we make of the lay person who wants to share his faith in Christ with his neighbor? I am assuming he is not prevented from doing so. Fine. I am also willing to concede he is not obligated to do so. But what if he wants to? Is this unlawful? If it's not unlawful do we not call what he is doing evangelizing? Would calling it evangelism threaten the lawful work of the ordained minister? I don't see how it would. The evangelism is being done one-on-one. I suppose we could remove the word evangelism and call it "a religious discussion centering on items of salvific importance." Ken, I'm not trying to be flippant, but I can't help but chuckle at not being able to call a duck a duck.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Matthew, is it possible, that outside of those actions that are the province of the ordained minister, such as baptizing and sending (calling and equipping those to be sent), that you see a dichotomy between evangelism and evangelistic related work? In other words, you seem to be indicating that evangelism is a particular function of the ordained minister while he is functioning in that capacity; whether it be during a sermon, counseling session, or pastoral visit. Evangelistic related work would be the efforts of lay people sharing their faith in Christ with others. This sharing, while capable of being used by God (and I believe biblical and historical precedent support this claim), is not strictly defined as evangelism according to your view. Is that a fair assessment, or I am drawing a wrong conclusion of your position?


 
Bill, thankyou for your irenic tone. From my POV the sharing of one's faith is in no sense "evangelistic related work." It is not accompanied by the call to repent and be baptised. Hence it is not evangelism. It is not performed by one who has been sent. Hence it is not evangelism. It is not something which is done by necessity. Hence it is not evangelism. It is not something which adds people to the church. Hence it is not evangelism. It is not something which carries any divine authority or is promised any divine blessing. Hence it is not evangelism.

The Bible is our rule of faith and life. It is not a mere guide which provides nice suggestions as to how to do things. It directs our faith and life, and if it is not in the Word we have no warrant for saying it is "of God."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> (Act 8:3) As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
> 
> (Act 8:4) Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching (εὐαγγελίζω) the word.



So were these people violating God's will when they evangelized?


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, is it possible, that outside of those actions that are the province of the ordained minister, such as baptizing and sending (calling and equipping those to be sent), that you see a dichotomy between evangelism and evangelistic related work? In other words, you seem to be indicating that evangelism is a particular function of the ordained minister while he is functioning in that capacity; whether it be during a sermon, counseling session, or pastoral visit. Evangelistic related work would be the efforts of lay people sharing their faith in Christ with others. This sharing, while capable of being used by God (and I believe biblical and historical precedent support this claim), is not strictly defined as evangelism according to your view. Is that a fair assessment, or I am drawing a wrong conclusion of your position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, thankyou for your irenic tone. From my POV the sharing of one's faith is in no sense "evangelistic related work." It is not accompanied by the call to repent and be baptised. Hence it is not evangelism. It is not performed by one who has been sent. Hence it is not evangelism. It is not something which is done by necessity. Hence it is not evangelism. It is not something which adds people to the church. Hence it is not evangelism. It is not something which carries any divine authority or is promised any divine blessing. Hence it is not evangelism.
> 
> The Bible is our rule of faith and life. It is not a mere guide which provides nice suggestions as to how to do things. It directs our faith and life, and if it is not in the Word we have no warrant for saying it is "of God."
Click to expand...


Matthew,

What I appreciate about your response is that it dispenses with ambiguity. Thank you.

While not advocating egalitarianism, how would you classify the work of sharing one's faith with another? Would you see God using such activity as a means of calling His elect even if such activity is either not normative or outside the scope and mandate of the church? Or could it be that such activity is useful, although it falls outside of evangelism in your view? The reason I ask these questions is because there is incontrovertible evidence that many have come to Christ through such a journey. I am one of them. Yes, I heard the Gospel preached by an ordained minister (if you consider the Assembly of God a true church). But prior to that time my mother and her friends literally hounded me with the Gospel message. I was hit square between the eyes about my sin and the need for a Savior. In my 31 years of being a Christian, I have met hundreds of people with a similar story. The first time they heard the Gospel was not in a church. Do we chalk this up to God using unordinary means in order to call His sheep?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I was converted reading a Living Bible. The only gospel I had heard up to that point was no gospel at all.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> Ken,
> 
> The duties of a non-ordained Christian differ from an ordained minister (I'm combining evangelists, pastors and elders) in both scope and legality. Only an ordained minister is able to administer the ordinances/sacraments. Normally only an ordained minister can preach, although qualified lay people can do so under the authority of an ordained minister. What about evangelism? As I pointed out from 2 Timothy 4:5, ordained ministers are to do the work of an evangelist. Within the jurisdiction of the church evangelism is the responsibility of the ordained minister.
> 
> So, what do we make of the lay person who wants to share his faith in Christ with his neighbor? I am assuming he is not prevented from doing so. Fine. I am also willing to concede he is not obligated to do so. But what if he wants to? Is this unlawful? If it's not unlawful do we not call what he is doing evangelizing? Would calling it evangelism threaten the lawful work of the ordained minister? I don't see how it would. The evangelism is being done one-on-one. I suppose we could remove the word evangelism and call it "a religious discussion centering on items of salvific importance." Ken, I'm not trying to be flippant, but I can't help but chuckle at not being able to call a duck a duck.


 
"a religious discussion centering on items of salvific importance"  We could make it an anacronym! RDCOITOSI!


----------



## MW

Randy, textually, there is no indication of unordained individuals performing the activity described. Contextually, we have an immediate example provided in the preaching of Philip, a man endowed with office by the calling of the people and the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, and who also gave evidence of an extraordinary call in the working of miracles.

Bill, we must interpret Scripture by Scripture, not by personal experience. Our experience must be interpreted and reformed by the Word. What does the Word teach about salvation? Outside of the church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. Church, ministry, sacraments are intricately tied to the doctrine of salvation in Scripture. We should not think of ourselves as ordinarily saved until we are added to the church by means of teaching and baptism through the church's ministry.


----------



## Herald

Matthew,

You wrote:



> We should not think of ourselves as ordinarily saved until we are added to the church by means of teaching and baptism through the church's ministry.



Are you saying that salvation can only occur in the church, the place where ministry, sacraments are intricately tied to the doctrine of salvation, or that is ordinarily the case, leaving open the possibility that someone can enter into the invisible church by other means? I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. I appreciate your patience.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Matthew, I also brought up Apollos near the end of page 2.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Are you saying that salvation can only occur in the church, the place where ministry, sacraments are intricately tied to the doctrine of salvation, or that is ordinarily the case, leaving open the possibility that someone can enter into the invisible church by other means? I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. I appreciate your patience.


 
Bill, yes, I used the word "ordinarily." If Scripture is our rule then we must follow Scripture in seeking salvation. What Scripture sets forth is the ordinary way of salvation. If one were to be extraordinarily saved, we, by definition, could not ordinarily know it.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Matthew, I also brought up Apollos near the end of page 2.


 
Randy, I believe you quoted the pertinent section where Apollos was (1.) taught the way of God more perfectly, and (2.) went with the recommendation of the brethren, thus providing necessary order to his work.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/no-salvation-outside-church-23367/

Just for clarification. Here is an old very short thread on the Westminster and Belgic Confession of faith. 



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> J. Van Bruggen, _The Church Says Amen: An Exposition of the Belgic Confession_, p. 163:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article says that there is no salvation outside of the Church, and it is of paramount importance to understand this correctly. It does not say that no one shall be saved outside the Church, nor does it say that there is no saved person outside the Church; rather, salvation is not outside of her. Salvation is what God gives to His Church. That is why we must seek it _there_ and not anywhere outside of the Church. Neither does this article say anywhere that whoever withdraws himself from the Church cannot be saved, but rather that this is "contrary to the ordinance of God."
Click to expand...


----------



## Damon Rambo

armourbearer said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is referring to the universal church; i.e. Article 2, above. Please note that it was the Lord who added them, in 2:47; not some ordained minister in some religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please read the passage. They were added to the church by means of being baptised by ordained ministry.
Click to expand...

 
No my friend. You re-read it. It says they were added. It says they were baptized. But it says nothing about causality. It does not say they were added BY baptism. Nor does it say the apostles added them. 

It says God was adding them.


----------



## MW

Damon Rambo said:


> No my friend. You re-read it. It says they were added. It says they were baptized. But it says nothing about causality. It does not say they were added BY baptism. Nor does it say the apostles added them.


 
prosetithei -- continued action -- "continued to add..."

tous swzomenous -- definite article with the present passive participle -- "...those who were being saved."

The statement has direct reference to what has preceded, and describes the continuation of the same. "Being saved" is therefore identified with the conversion, baptism, and incorporation into the church family of those who gladly received the word of Peter. "The Lord added them," meaning that the Lord saves souls by converting and baptising them through the agency of the church and incorporating them into the church.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I personally hold to a view that he Word of God converts by the Holy Spirit and adds to the invisible church which is from above. I know way many more who are in this situation than those who were converted under an ordained minister. I do believe in the local Church and its function in the believers life also. One can not be a Christian and deny the means of Grace God has given in my opinion, just like a baby that is born can not live with out physically being taken care of. A baby is born sucking from something. It is unable to nurture itself. There is no life outside. Just my humble opinion. 

BTW, the Apostles were ordained and sanctioned in Acts. 2. To argue against that is a theological problem in my estimation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Damon Rambo said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is referring to the universal church; i.e. Article 2, above. Please note that it was the Lord who added them, in 2:47; not some ordained minister in some religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please read the passage. They were added to the church by means of being baptised by ordained ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No my friend. You re-read it. It says they were added. It says they were baptized. But it says nothing about causality. It does not say they were added BY baptism. Nor does it say the apostles added them.
> 
> It says God was adding them.
Click to expand...

Your eisegisis is blinding you. God uses means. I could take what you are saying and move farther away and say God saved without revelation. Are you willing to go there?


----------



## Damon Rambo

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is referring to the universal church; i.e. Article 2, above. Please note that it was the Lord who added them, in 2:47; not some ordained minister in some religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please read the passage. They were added to the church by means of being baptised by ordained ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No my friend. You re-read it. It says they were added. It says they were baptized. But it says nothing about causality. It does not say they were added BY baptism. Nor does it say the apostles added them.
> 
> It says God was adding them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your eisegisis is blinding you. God uses means. I could take what you are saying and move farther away and say God saved without revelation. Are you willing to go there?
Click to expand...

 
No eisegesis at all. The eisegesis is asserting that verse 47, which says nothing at all about baptism, is talking about people being water-baptized into the Church. The text says nothing of the kind. It says God was adding to His church daily those that were being saved. So unless you believe in baptismal regeneration...

---------- Post added at 08:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> I personally hold to a view that he Word of God converts by the Holy Spirit and adds to the invisible church which is from above. I know way many more who are in this situation than those who were converted under an ordained minister.


I was saved by a non ordained co-worker witnessing to me. I never got to talk to the guy afterward (I worked construction and was moved around a lot), but a friend of mine, who was Pentecostal, took me to his church. It was the first church I had ever attended (basically: I visited a Catholic Church when I was 5). 

It was absolutely crazy. Not just tongue speaking, but tribal type "spirit" dancing, rolling around on the floor, etc. I was so put off by the experience, that I did not go to church again until I was 26 (I was raised in an atheist household: so when I saw that church, I just thought all modern churches were like that! LOL). I knew, from my own Biblical studies, that something was not right. 

So I spent several years growing in the Lord, knowledge of scriptures, etc., with no outside help (other than another friend of mine, who was also saved. We would discuss scripture for 8 or 10 hours straight sometimes.).

Finally, I was introduced to a Southern Baptist Church, through my soon to be wife, where I am still a member.



> I do believe in the local Church and its function in the believers life also. One can not be a Christian and deny the means of Grace God has given in my opinion, just like a baby that is born can not live with out physically being taken care of. A baby is born sucking from something. It is unable to nurture itself. There is no life outside. Just my humble opinion.



I would disagree with the extent of what you have said, but not the principal. It is very difficult for a believer to function outside of a local church. However, it is untrue to say that when a believer is separated from the assembly, he has no "life." Life comes from the Holy Spirit of God, not from the (local)church. 

It will, however, stunt your spiritual growth, leave you open to spiritual weakness, and even spiritual attacks, temptations, etc. 



> BTW, the Apostles were ordained and sanctioned in Acts. 2. To argue against that is a theological problem in my estimation.


 
The apostles were ordained and sanctioned long before Acts 2.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

First off it is hard to parse this. 

Are you asserting that someone can be a member of a local congregation without baptism? And are your saying this happened in the early church? I don't think you can historically nor theologically say this. Yes, I understand the numbers problem. But there were Elders and deacons set up for this problem. Yes, it was a problem. Especially in a persecuted Church. And I know about the persecuted church since I discipled a man who went to Russia as one in the Red country. Yes that is ,and or was, the hammer and cycle country. 

I do not know any Reformed or Particular Baptist guy who will tell you you are a part of a local church without baptism. Baptism into what? Christ? Yes, but it is also by a local Pastor or theologian who is ordained by a local church. Why would you desire anything else but that?

I do not believe any of those baptized in Acts 2 where baptized outside of the local providence of the church. Do you really want to continue in this? I is outside the bounds of truth in my opinion.


----------



## Herald

Damon,

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with what the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession has to say regarding church membership?



> 1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
> ( Hebrews 12:23; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:10, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32 )
> 
> 2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
> ( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 )



All those who have been saved, by the internal work of the Spirit, are invisible saints, ergo members of the invisible or universal church. It is quite possible that a person will come to faith in Christ and, like your story, not be baptized or come under the authority of the local church. If a Christian has only the internal work of the Spirit, but is not part of a local church, they are not members of the visible church (visible saints). They are not strengthening their faith by partaking of the ordinance of baptism or the Lord's Supper. They are outside of accountability, in effect a "Lone Ranger" Christian. Randy is not saying that a person cannot be saved outside the walls of local church. That happens all the time. But a person is not part of the visible church just by conversion. This is why salvation does not exist outside of the church. The church is entrusted with the oracles of God, as it were; the Gospel contained in the Word of God. There is no other entity on earth in which salvation resides except the church. Once again, it doesn't mean a person can't be saved by an itinerant preacher at the beach, but the normal (or ordinary, as Matthew Winzer quoted from the WCF) means is through the church. 

Does this make a bit more sense?


----------



## Iconoclast

Randy,
I think Damon is saying that salvation comes by new birth,Spirit baptism. He is not addressing water baptism. His point is that God added to the church[invisible] by new birth.
Water baptism followed as a public confession of those who God had already saved by indwelling them with the Spirit allowing for a saving reception of the word.
Most adults get saved before they attend a formal church service. At the point they are saved they are part of the Heavenly Jerusalem, Heb 12:22-24.
As they confess that faith publicly by obeying the command to be baptized they are accepted as members in a local assembly. The baptism in Acts 2 was credo baptism,yes.
But the actual adding to the church was accomplished by the Spirit quickening those who the Lord was adding.
Matthew's position seemed to be saying that without the means used in a local assembly,salvation cannot take place.


----------



## Damon Rambo

PuritanCovenanter said:


> First off it is hard to parse this.
> 
> Are you asserting that someone can be a member of a local congregation without baptism? And are your saying this happened in the early church? I don't think you can historically nor theologically say this. Yes, I understand the numbers problem. But there were Elders and deacons set up for this problem. Yes, it was a problem. Especially in a persecuted Church. And I know about the persecuted church since I discipled a man who went to Russia as one in the Red country. Yes that is ,and or was, the hammer and cycle country.
> 
> I do not know any Reformed or Particular Baptist guy who will tell you you are a part of a local church without baptism. Baptism into what? Christ? Yes, but it is also by a local Pastor or theologian who is ordained by a local church. Why would you desire anything else but that?
> 
> I do not believe any of those baptized in Acts 2 where baptized outside of the local providence of the church. Do you really want to continue in this? I is outside the bounds of truth in my opinion.


 
I am certainly not saying this. Sorry, this thread is derailing, and it is getting hard to stay on topic. Let me re-focus...

My contention is that it is the privilege of every believer to share the gospel; which is the definition of the noun form of "euangelion"; i.e. to be a "good news-er." Evangelism is primarily the job of normal, pew sitters, or "laity." Evangelism is nothing more than what it means: telling people of the good news of Christ. We, as the body of Christ, are to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." This commission is not given to some church government, it is given to all Christians, as the body of Christ.


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> Matthew's position seemed to be saying that without the means used in a local assembly,salvation cannot take place.


 
I am Reformed, not Arminian. "Salvation" is a comprehensive term which means more than an eternal life insurance policy. It is more than regeneration, decisional or otherwise. Once we were not a people but now are we the people of God (corporate). Christ loved the church and gave himself for her (corporate). One must be saved from independency, libertinism, etc. One must be saved to service, sacrifice, etc. No person may be ordinarily considered as saved who has not been converted, baptised, and incorporated into the visible church of Christ. If a person believes otherwise, he does not believe the Scriptures and has not taken his thoughts captive to bring them into obedience to Christ.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Herald said:


> Damon,
> 
> Out of curiosity, are you familiar with what the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession has to say regarding church membership?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
> ( Hebrews 12:23; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:10, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32 )
> 
> 2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
> ( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those who have been saved, by the internal work of the Spirit, are invisible saints, ergo members of the invisible or universal church. It is quite possible that a person will come to faith in Christ and, like your story, not be baptized or come under the authority of the local church. If a Christian has only the internal work of the Spirit, but is not part of a local church, they are not members of the visible church (visible saints).
Click to expand...

I do not wish to correct you, but that is NOT what is says, brother. It says "All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints." 

So, being part of the "visible church" has nothing to do with being a part of the local assembly (necessarily) according to the 1689 LBCF. It THEN says, that these people, who are "visible saints" should be the people who take part in local congregations.



> They are not strengthening their faith by partaking of the ordinance of baptism or the Lord's Supper. They are outside of accountability, in effect a "Lone Ranger" Christian.



I agree. However, there have been many such people in scripture; though I agree God's normal operation is through a local congregation.



> Randy is not saying that a person cannot be saved outside the walls of local church. That happens all the time. But a person is not part of the visible church just by conversion.


That is not what the LBCF says. Basically, it says that all of those who profess Christ, and whose actions do not contradict that profession, are visible saints. It then says that local churches should be made up of these visible saints: not like nowadays, where any unbeliever can come in and be a part. That is all that it is saying.



> This is why salvation does not exist outside of the church. The church is entrusted with the oracles of God, as it were; the Gospel contained in the Word of God. There is no other entity on earth in which salvation resides except the church. Once again, it doesn't mean a person can't be saved by an itinerant preacher at the beach, but the normal (or ordinary, as Matthew Winzer quoted from the WCF) means is through the church.



I disagree. The ordinary means of salvation is singular men and women sharing their faith. The work of the church is to train believers (hence the LBCF, which states that local congregations only be made up of visible saints). Train them to do what? Spread the Gospel. This is the normal biblical model: people get saved outside the church, and then are brought into local assemblies.

---------- Post added at 10:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew's position seemed to be saying that without the means used in a local assembly,salvation cannot take place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am Reformed, not Arminian. "Salvation" is a comprehensive term which means more than an eternal life insurance policy. It is more than regeneration, decisional or otherwise. One we were not a people but now are we the people of God (corporate). Christ loved the church and gave himself for her (corporate). One must be saved from independency, libertinism, etc. One must be saved to service, sacrifice, etc. No person may be ordinarily considered as saved who has not been converted, baptised, and incorporated into the visible church of Christ. If a person believes otherwise, he does not believe the Scriptures and has not taken his thoughts captive to bring them into obedience to Christ.
Click to expand...

 
Of course, as a Baptist, I disagree with you. Salvation is individual, not corporate. A believer should, when possible, participate in a local assembly, however, for the purposes of mutual edification and public worship (1689 LBCF Chapter 26, article 5).


----------



## Iconoclast

Matthew,
Each living stone is saved individually. They do not remain isolated. God places them into the body,yes. 
You are always mentioning this corporate aspect. The scripture also mentions it, Christ loved the church[corporate]and gave himself for it. That is fine. We each one of us get saved from our sins [personal,and individual sins]. Each person will give account of himself to God.
Those rejected in Mt 7:21 are told depart from me, I never knew "you". There is a point in time where an individual person is translated from death to life. It is the norm that they will become a member of a local corporate assembly.
That is God's design. I am also reformed and not an arminian. But I know God saves individuals, and add's them{the individual} to a corporate assembly Heb 12:22-24.
In 1 cor 3 it speaks of you plural, or corporately, and you singular right?


> have ye not known that ye are a sanctuary of God, and the Spirit of God doth dwell in you?





> he shall suffer loss; and himself shall be saved


There is a corporate aspect yes, but the corporate is made up of the assembly of the saved.[individuals]

---------- Post added at 12:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------

Damon,
While I agree with you that God saves individuals, it is the norm and design of God that they function in a local assembly. You just posted this;


> Of course, as a Baptist, I disagree with you. Salvation is individual, not corporate. A believer should, when possible, participate in a local assembly, however, for the purposes of mutual edification and public worship (1689 LBCF Chapter 26, article 5).


 I do not think it is just a nice idea, or as you say a believer should when possible particpate in a local assembly.
It almost sounds too casual the way this was worded. I do not think "local church membership" is optional, but commanded ,ie Heb 13:7,17. 
I am sorry if I am misunderstanding your view, or if I am not reading your post the way you intended it to be.Feel free to clarify your view .


----------



## Damon Rambo

Iconoclast said:


> Matthew,
> Each living stone is saved individually. They do not remain isolated. God places them into the body,yes.
> You are always mentioning this corporate aspect. The scripture also mentions it, Christ loved the church[corporate]and gave himself for it. That is fine. We each one of us get saved from our sins [personal,and individual sins]. Each person will give account of himself to God.
> Those rejected in Mt 7:21 are told depart from me, I never knew "you". There is a point in time where an individual person is translated from death to life. It is the norm that they will become a member of a local corporate assembly.
> That is God's design. I am also reformed and not an arminian. But I know God saves individuals, and add's them{the individual} to a corporate assembly Heb 12:22-24.
> In 1 cor 3 it speaks of you plural, or corporately, and you singular right?
> 
> 
> 
> have ye not known that ye are a sanctuary of God, and the Spirit of God doth dwell in you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he shall suffer loss; and himself shall be saved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a corporate aspect yes, but the corporate is made up of the assembly of the saved.[individuals]
> 
> ---------- Post added at 12:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------
> 
> Damon,
> While I agree with you that God saves individuals, it is the norm and design of God that they function in a local assembly. You just posted this;
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, as a Baptist, I disagree with you. Salvation is individual, not corporate. A believer should, when possible, participate in a local assembly, however, for the purposes of mutual edification and public worship (1689 LBCF Chapter 26, article 5).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not think it is just a nice idea, or as you say a believer should when possible particpate in a local assembly.
> It almost sounds too casual the way this was worded. I do not think "local church membership" is optional, but commanded ,ie Heb 13:7,17.
> I am sorry if I am misunderstanding your view, or if I am not reading your post the way you intended it to be.Feel free to clarify your view .
Click to expand...

 
Actually, I got that wording from the LBCF, brother.

How about this; "If at all possible." For instance, a missionary to a foreign country might go years without contact with a local assembly. Or if a person moves, due to a job change, and no local assembly is extant. When a person lives in a locale which does not have a local assembly which is sufficiently doctrinally sound, they should, of course, not participate with heretics.

This does not mean, though, that they are separated from "life" and certainly they are not separated from salvation. These things are separate from the local church: the local church is for public worship, instruction, and fellowship.


----------



## Iconoclast

Damon,
thanks for you example for when this might not be possible. I did not see this wording in the confession;


> 5._____ In the execution of this power wherewith he is so intrusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the world unto himself, through the ministry of his word, by his Spirit, those that are given unto him by his Father, that they may walk before him in all the ways of obedience, which he prescribeth to them in his word.5._____ In the execution of this power wherewith he is so intrusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the world unto himself, through the ministry of his word, by his Spirit, those that are given unto him by his Father, that they may walk before him in all the ways of obedience, which he prescribeth to them in his word. Those thus called, he commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requireth of them in the world.


 It reads this way;5._____ Those thus called, he" commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches", for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requireth of them in the world. 
But I see what you are getting at. I was more addressing the ordinary course of events in response to Matthew looking at the corporate nature of the body.


----------



## Mrs. Bailey

Hi again!
Hmmm. While I have greatly appreciated the debate here I was hoping for some clarity. At any rate, it seems to have lead to a .

Some have taken up their thoughts and departed with frustration, I fear. Some could uncharitably think that "a love for the lost" is not included in any of the stated confessions. I guess I'll leave that to you who have a better grasp on it than me.

As it stands, we ARE sent by our Session, through the mission sending organization arm of our denomination. So, that all being said... my understanding from reading here is that one or all of these persons are perhaps in error and being a hinderance to the proper building of the Kingdom of God through his many graces, including the Church. 

Am I interpreting the majority of the many comments correctly? 

I do, indeed, appreciate all of the thoughtful discourse.

Blessings,


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> Ken,
> 
> The duties of a non-ordained Christian differ from an ordained minister (I'm combining evangelists, pastors and elders) in both scope and legality. Only an ordained minister is able to administer the ordinances/sacraments. Normally only an ordained minister can preach, although qualified lay people can do so under the authority of an ordained minister. What about evangelism? As I pointed out from 2 Timothy 4:5, ordained ministers are to do the work of an evangelist. Within the jurisdiction of the church evangelism is the responsibility of the ordained minister.
> 
> So, what do we make of the lay person who wants to share his faith in Christ with his neighbor? I am assuming he is not prevented from doing so. Fine. I am also willing to concede he is not obligated to do so. But what if he wants to? Is this unlawful? If it's not unlawful do we not call what he is doing evangelizing? Would calling it evangelism threaten the lawful work of the ordained minister? I don't see how it would. The evangelism is being done one-on-one. I suppose we could remove the word evangelism and call it "a religious discussion centering on items of salvific importance." Ken, I'm not trying to be flippant, but I can't help but chuckle at not being able to call a duck a duck.


 
I think it boils down to this: 'lay-evangelism' advocates distinguish between the duties of the Evangelist office holder and the duties of all Christians as a difference of 'degree'. I believe it is a difference of 'kind' and, therefore, do not use the same word to describe both. The difference in 'kind' has to do with what Rev Winzer touched on earlier and that is the authority that is attached to the 'heralding' of the minister of the word. John the Baptist had the authority to demand people bring forth fruits worthy of repentance whereas my 12 year old daughter does not. 

That said, I know exactly what the word 'evangelize' means in modern parlance, just as I know what the word 'Reformed' means in modern parlance.


----------



## KMK

Damon Rambo said:


> I do not wish to correct you, but that is NOT what is says, brother. It says "All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints."
> 
> So, being part of the "visible church" has nothing to do with being a part of the local assembly (necessarily) according to the 1689 LBCF. It THEN says, that these people, who are "visible saints" should be the people who take part in local congregations.


 
Would refusing to 'take part in a local congregation' be an example of 'destroying their own profession'?


----------



## Herald

Damon,

I believe the framers of the 1689 LBC inexorably linked the first and second parts of 26.2. How does a new believer become a member of a local church? I'm not talking about becoming a member of the universal (invisible) church, but the local church. It is through baptism that they are welcomed into fellowship. It is then, and only then, that are considered part of the visible church. Now, to borrow a term from Ken, in modern parlance the term visible church is not used often among Baptists, save for Reformed Baptists, but it should be. All believers, in ordinary circumstances, are commanded to become part of local churches. Ken was right when he asked:



> Would refusing to 'take part in a local congregation' be an example of 'destroying their own profession'?



Absolutely, under ordinary circumstances. Unless a person is providentially prevented from joining a church, not taking part in a local congregation shows a disdain for God and His people. This type of behavior may be best examined over time, but the point remains that we are commanded to join with other believers.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Iconoclast said:


> Damon,
> thanks for you example for when this might not be possible. I did not see this wording in the confession;
> 
> 
> 
> 5._____ In the execution of this power wherewith he is so intrusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the world unto himself, through the ministry of his word, by his Spirit, those that are given unto him by his Father, that they may walk before him in all the ways of obedience, which he prescribeth to them in his word.5._____ In the execution of this power wherewith he is so intrusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the world unto himself, through the ministry of his word, by his Spirit, those that are given unto him by his Father, that they may walk before him in all the ways of obedience, which he prescribeth to them in his word. Those thus called, he commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requireth of them in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> It reads this way;5._____ Those thus called, he" commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches", for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requireth of them in the world.
> But I see what you are getting at. I was more addressing the ordinary course of events in response to Matthew looking at the corporate nature of the body.
Click to expand...

 
Sorry, brother. I was wrong about the exact wording here, but it is in there. Look at article 12...

"As all believers are bound to join themselves to particular churches, *when and where they have opportunity so to do*"

"having opportunity" and "being possible" I believe are synonymous.

---------- Post added at 08:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 AM ----------




KMK said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not wish to correct you, but that is NOT what is says, brother. It says "All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints."
> 
> So, being part of the "visible church" has nothing to do with being a part of the local assembly (necessarily) according to the 1689 LBCF. It THEN says, that these people, who are "visible saints" should be the people who take part in local congregations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would refusing to 'take part in a local congregation' be an example of 'destroying their own profession'?
Click to expand...

 
Refusing, yes. If you showed that particular person that they were sinning by not attending church, and yet they refused to join themselves to a local assembly, this would indeed destroy their profession.

However, this is greatly different from ignorance, or inability. God has shown me many things in His word, which I did not know were wrong until I read it in the scriptures. This is part of the sanctification process that all believers go through. Such a person, who is simply ignorant, is not sinning. In fact, since I believe in a Sovereign God, I believe God might have left that person ignorant of this fact for a reason.

Likewise, it is not sinful for a Christian to move, for whatever reason, to a place which does not have a local assembly. Nor, wwhen they do so, have they been cut off from "salvation" nor from "life."


----------



## au5t1n

This discussion has been profitable to me. Thanks everyone.


----------



## Kiffin

Joshua said:


> Respectfully, I don't see how my assertion is a genetic fallacy. I wasn't attempting to merely imply _guilt by association_. Rather, I spoke of abuses _which led to _what I believe is the modern (and deficient) understanding of _evangelism_. Now, had I said _The very first practice of evangelism was by Charles Finnery. Ergo, anyone who engages in something called evangelism is as bad as Charles Finney_, or if I were to say _Rock music has evil origins. Ergo, any special arrangement of notes that sounds similar to said Rock music is evil, _then I could be _rightly_ accused of a genetic fallacy. However, since I spoke of these attributes (Revivalism, Egalitarianism, and Misunderstanding/Depreciation of _Calling_) and how I think they _led to_ the modern position that pervades, I don't think one can call it a genetic fallacy _proper_.
> 
> Now insofar as "limit[ing] ministry and evangelism to the 'ordained' clergy" as being "patently unbiblical," well that's the very point begging to be proved. We disagree on the definitions of _ministry_ and _evangelism _proper. Thus, you say it in such a way that paints me as this person who would have the "[person] in the pew" be silent on all things Scriptural and Christian, never help those in need, etc. Of course, that's not true, and as has been articulated elsewhere, there _are_ biblical duties for those in the pew. But then there are also duties that belong to the ministers that are distinct to ministers which is why there classified as ministers and not lay people.
> 
> Again, I think the reason that this position is so offensive to many "laypeople" is because our individualistic and egalitarian culture has a very very very _poor_ view of _calling_. If everybody's a minister, nobody's a minister. If everyone's _sent _to preach the good news, then no one is _sent _to preach the good news. It is my belief that if the biblical doctrine of calling were rightly preached, then the salt and light of every Christian, in his respective place and station, would be quite overwhelming to the culture around him.
> 
> So I'll just leave it at that, as I'm spending too much time anyway. I believe the lay-person should be salt and light. Should let their light shine so that men will _*see*_ their good works, and glorify the Father in heaven. Should be ready to give an answer. Exercise kindness, gentleness, forgiveness, mercy, etc. But that does not equal evangelism or ministry _proper_. I'm beating the proverbial dead horse, though, so I'll stop.



This has helped me understand the argument better. Thanks.


----------



## KMK

Damon Rambo said:


> Likewise, it is not sinful for a Christian to move, for whatever reason, to a place which does not have a local assembly. Nor, wwhen they do so, have they been cut off from "salvation" nor from "life."


 
Is this what you believe Rev Winzer is arguing? 


What do you believe the LBC is saying here:



> Chapter 10, Paragraph 4. Others not elected, *although they may be called by the ministry of the Word*, and may have some common operations of the Spirit,12 yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that do not receive the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.



By whom is the outward call offered? The confession says that it is by 'the ministry of the Word'. Who are these 'ministers of the Word' by whom the outward call is offered? Is a man damned because he rejects the gospel as it is presented to him by my 12 year old daughter?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> LBCF 26.11
> 11. Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office,* yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.
> *
> Act_11:19-21; 1Pe_4:10-11.



Sounds like the 1689 also thinks men need to be approved by the Church when it comes to the ministry of the Word. I was taught to share the word of God with others by my Elders. I was also encouraged by them and recommended to do one on one discipleship. I do not baptize anyone. I will not. I have not been commissioned by the Church for such a function. I am not an Elder nor a deacon. I personally do not believe I have the gifts for such works of office.


----------



## KMK

PuritanCovenanter said:


> LBCF 26.11
> 11. Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, *and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.
> *
> Act_11:19-21; 1Pe_4:10-11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the 1689 also thinks men need to be approved by the Church when it comes to the ministry of the Word. *I was taught to share the word of God with others by my Elders. I was also encouraged by them and recommended to do one on one discipleship.* I do not baptize anyone. I will not. I have not been commissioned by the Church for such a function. I am not an Elder nor a deacon. I personally do not believe I have the gifts for such works of office.
Click to expand...

 
So you were approved and called by your church for the ministry of the Word.


----------



## Damon Rambo

KMK said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise, it is not sinful for a Christian to move, for whatever reason, to a place which does not have a local assembly. Nor, wwhen they do so, have they been cut off from "salvation" nor from "life."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what you believe Rev Winzer is arguing?
Click to expand...


If you say that there is no salvation outside of the church, that is exactly what is being said, whether it is meant or not.


> What do you believe the LBC is saying here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 10, Paragraph 4. Others not elected, *although they may be called by the ministry of the Word*, and may have some common operations of the Spirit,12 yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that do not receive the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By whom is the outward call offered? The confession says that it is by 'the ministry of the Word'. Who are these 'ministers of the Word' by whom the outward call is offered? Is a man damned because he rejects the gospel as it is presented to him by my 12 year old daughter?
Click to expand...

 
The work of the ministry: let's see I heard that somewhere...

Eph 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 
Eph 4:12 to equip *the saints* for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 

Notice that the work of the ordained men, is to equip the saints (laity) to go out and do ministry, which includes evangelism

And in regards to your other question: a man is condemned already. If your 12 year old gives him an accurate portrayal of the gospel, and that man rejects it, yes indeed sir: he has heaped up judgment to himself. Your daughter (if she is indeed regenerate) is a daughter of the King.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

It was recognized that I had some gifts and teaching ability. I was not formally ordained. I will admit that I did lead and organize some home bible studies outside of the authority of the Church in the 80's. I recognized the importance of church authority later and taught some under the authority of the Church along with a group of very good men. Of course I was in the Baptist Church at that time during the 90's. I also taught very few Sunday Schools in place of one of the Elders. I was also very involved with a Friday morning mens group at the church and shared in teaching that under the Churches authority. 

But I was taught Systematic Theology and Christian History by my RPCNA Pastor in the late 80's. That is also where I learned the importance of being under the authority of the Church for my protection as well as for others. I was taught to share the Gospel and disciple others in the early 80's in a Parachurch organization. While in that organization I was very involved with a confessing Reformed Baptist church. 

While I was a member of the PCA I was given some responsibility to teach the teens along with another friend by the RE's and the TE. Since I am Baptist I had promised to promote the peace, unity, and purity of the Church. And I did.

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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Damon Rambo said:


> The work of the ministry: let's see I heard that somewhere...
> 
> Eph 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
> Eph 4:12 to equip *the saints* for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
> 
> Notice that the work of the ordained men, is to equip the saints (laity) to go out and do ministry, which includes evangelism



I am sorry but I don't see evangelism in the passage you quote. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. At the same time even if sharing the word of God is something that is included here the confession is specific about recognized men who are approved and called by the Church to do it. 

LBCF 26.11b


> *yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.
> *


----------



## KMK

Damon Rambo said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise, it is not sinful for a Christian to move, for whatever reason, to a place which does not have a local assembly. Nor, wwhen they do so, have they been cut off from "salvation" nor from "life."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what you believe Rev Winzer is arguing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you say that there is no salvation outside of the church, that is exactly what is being said, whether it is meant or not.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you believe the LBC is saying here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 10, Paragraph 4. Others not elected, *although they may be called by the ministry of the Word*, and may have some common operations of the Spirit,12 yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that do not receive the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By whom is the outward call offered? The confession says that it is by 'the ministry of the Word'. Who are these 'ministers of the Word' by whom the outward call is offered? Is a man damned because he rejects the gospel as it is presented to him by my 12 year old daughter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The work of the ministry: let's see I heard that somewhere...
> 
> Eph 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
> Eph 4:12 to equip *the saints* for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
> 
> Notice that the work of the ordained men, is to equip the saints (laity) to go out and do ministry, which includes evangelism
Click to expand...


I notice that your version of verses 11 and 12 teaches that evangelists equip saints for the work of ministry. It doesn't say that evangelists equip _all_ of the saints to perform _all_ of the duties of church ministry. Did apostles equip every single saint to be an apostle? Did the prophets equip every single saint to be a prophet? Did shepherds equip every single saint to be a shepherd?



> And in regards to your other question: a man is condemned already. If your 12 year old gives him an accurate portrayal of the gospel, and that man rejects it, yes indeed sir: he has heaped up judgment to himself. Your daughter (if she is indeed regenerate) is a daughter of the King.


 
Just to clarify then, you believe that all saints are 'ministers of the Word'? Or only those who give an accurate portrayal of the gospel?


----------



## MW

Damon Rambo said:


> Of course, as a Baptist, I disagree with you. Salvation is individual, not corporate. A believer should, when possible, participate in a local assembly, however, for the purposes of mutual edification and public worship (1689 LBCF Chapter 26, article 5).


 
I'm not sure why you are appealing to the fact that you are a Baptist. Reformed Baptists hold the same as Prebyterians. Please read Keach's Catechism, which uses precisely the same language as the Shorter Catechism in this regard:

"Q. 92. What does God require of us, that we may escape His wrath and curse, due to us for sin? A. To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, *God requires of us* faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with *the diligent use of all the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption*."

"Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption? A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are *His ordinances*, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; *all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation*."

"Q. 96. How is the Word made effectual to salvation? A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but *especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means* of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, *through faith unto salvation*."

Concerning your idea of the Great Commission, please read Samuel Waldron's Exposition of the BCF. He states unequivocally, "Christ's command to his people to walk together in particular churches is more than simply another one of his precepts. This precept creates the structure or context in which the Great Commission (especially the third part alluded to in the Confession) is carried out" (p. 317).


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> Matthew,
> Each living stone is saved individually.


 
Anthony, this is simply wrong. No living stone is saved individually. Even the apostle Paul, with his extraordinary vision of Christ, required the ministry of Ananias and was immediately attached to the disciples.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The notion that salvation is primarily individual reveals to me a great abuse of the Scriptures. Individuals are certainly saved. Nobody is denying that but to note that the individual's salvation is at the fore of redemption is profoundly misinformed. The culmination of redemptive history is seen in the Bride of Christ being presented to Him spotless. Christ is not a polygamist with brides but has a single Bride, the Church. We are also said to abide in a vine, to be part of a sheepfold, to be parts of a Body, and to be stones in a building. Each one of these analogies sees us as parts of a whole and the Scriptures are replete that the parts can never act independently. To think as if we are independent of one another is the very rebuke of 1 Corinthians.

Assume that you told everybody you knew that you had starred in a movie and that a movie was all about you. You invited all your friends and family to the grand opening of the movie and they watched the whole movie with you. At the end, everybody is scratching their heads and asking: "You said this movie was about you?"

"Oh yes, didn't you see at 5 minutes and 20 seconds, the camera panned past a crowd and you could clearly see the back of my head."

We are privileged to be part of the drama of redemption but it is not an autobiography of how Rich got saved.

Consider these passages:

Romans 14.13
Romans 14.19
Romans 15.5-7
Romans 15.14
I Corinthians 12.25
Galatians 6.2
Ephesians 4.32
Ephesians 5.18-21
Philippians 2.1-4
Colossians 3.16
Hebrews 3.13
Hebrews 10.24, 25
James 5.16
I Peter 1.22
I John 3.23; 4.12
I Corinthians 12.4-12; I Peter 4.10, 11


----------



## Iconoclast

Matthew,
I have a strong view of the local assembly being the object of God's love. On the last day there will be the complete assembly of the body of Christ, in one place, at one time . to the praise of God's glory. We all look forward to that day and time. I am not in any way trying to undermine that.
I believe you are looking at salvation as the over-all process from COR to CoG to a point in human history where the Spirit quickens the dead sinner to new life, then progressively sanctifies that person by means of the word , prayer, and church life.
If that is how you are speaking of salvation then I am with you.
I was speaking specifically about that point in time when the Spirit quickens the sinner at regeneration/new birth. That happens at a point in time ...individually.
Jesus said to Nicodemus Except a *man* be born from above. He did not speak in this case corporatley ?
I understand that God has purposed to save a multitude in His Son and is doing so. 
It is not a bunch of stragglers ,and lone rangers that just wander around.
When an individual believes by God given faith they have life eternal. Eternal life is to know God. JN 5:24 Jn 17:3 
In ACts 15 they could have asked "except you are a member of the local church you cannot be saved" 
A saved person will become a member of a local church. I am just saying at regeneration that person is apart of the one church that has never assembled yet...that assembly will be on the last day..
I do not say why you would say this is wrong. You always look to the corporate first, that is why you wrote a few days ago about the building with no doors.
Are you thinking of the over-all process, rather than that single point in time?


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> I was speaking specifically about that point in time when the Spirit quickens the sinner at regeneration/new birth. That happens at a point in time ...individually.


 
The wind bloweth where it listeth. If this is what you are referring to, no man can know the point in time at which the Spirit mysteriously quickens a dead sinner. Nor can it be understood as regeneration/new birth in the full biblical sense of the term until the instrumentality of the Word has been brought in to effect conversion, for we are born again by the word of God. And once the word of God is brought in as the instrument we are again cast back into the arms of the church to minister that word and nourish our souls unto eternal life.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Matthew, I believe we are regenerate (born anew) by the creative act of God through His Spirit. The Word of God converts the Soul. Wouldn't it be more correct to say we are born again by God, His Spirit, and the Word. 



> (Joh 1:12) But as many as received Him, He gave them the authority to become children of God, to those who believe in His name;
> 
> (Joh 1:13) who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
> 
> (Joh 1:14) And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.





> (1Pe 1:22) Since you have purified your souls by obedience to the truth through the Spirit in sincere love for the brothers, love one another fervently from a pure heart,
> 
> (1Pe 1:23) having been born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever.





> (Joh 3:3) Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
> 
> (Joh 3:4) Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born, being old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
> 
> (Joh 3:5) Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
> 
> (Joh 3:6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
> 
> (Joh 3:7) Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
> 
> (Joh 3:8) "The wind blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know from where it comes and where it goes. So is everyone who has been born of the Spirit."



Rich,
In the next passages it seems to indicate that we are individuals who are fitly joined together into the body of Christ. We are individuals set into one body. 



> (Eph 2:11) Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh--who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made by hands in the flesh--
> 
> (Eph 2:12) that at that time you were apart from Christ, being estranged from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, not having hope and atheists in the world.
> 
> (Eph 2:13) But now in Christ Jesus, you who once were far away have come to be near by the blood of Christ.
> 
> (Eph 2:14) For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and who destroyed the dividing wall of separation,
> 
> (Eph 2:15) having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, that He might create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
> 
> (Eph 2:16) and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, putting to death the enmity in Himself.
> 
> (Eph 2:17) And having come, He preached peace to you who were far away and to those near.
> 
> (Eph 2:18) Because through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
> 
> (Eph 2:19) So then, you are no longer strangers and aliens, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
> 
> (Eph 2:20) being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,
> 
> (Eph 2:21) in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,
> 
> (Eph 2:22) in whom you also are being built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.





> (1Co 12:12) F*or just as the body is one and has many parts, but all the parts of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.*
> 
> (1Co 12:13) For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and we were all given to drink into one Spirit.
> 
> (1Co 12:14) *For in fact the body is not one part but many*.
> 
> (1Co 12:15) If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body," is it therefore not of the body?
> 
> (1Co 12:16) And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body," is it therefore not of the body?
> 
> (1Co 12:17) If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling?
> 
> (1Co 12:18) *But now God has set the parts, each one of them, in the body just as He desired.*
> 
> (1Co 12:19) And if all parts were one part, where would be the body?
> 
> (1Co 12:20) * But now indeed there are many parts, but one body.
> *
> (1Co 12:21) And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."
> 
> (1Co 12:22) But to a greater degree the parts of the body which seem weaker are necessary.
> 
> (1Co 12:23) And the parts of the body which we consider to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater propriety.
> 
> (1Co 12:24) But our presentable parts have no need. But God united the body, giving greater honor to the part being inferior,
> 
> (1Co 12:25) lest there be divisions in the body, but the parts care the same for one another.
> 
> (1Co 12:26) And if one part suffers, all the parts suffer together; or if one part is honored, all the parts rejoice together.
> 
> (1Co 12:27) *Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.*


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Matthew, I believe we are regenerate (born anew) by the creative act of God through His Spirit. The Word of God converts the Soul. Wouldn't it be more correct to say we are born again by God, His Spirit, and the Word.


 
If we are taking the term "regeneration" in the complexity with which Scripture uses it, yes, we must speak of regeneration as including effectual calling and conversion, and this is effected by Word and Spirit.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Damon Rambo said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it is referring to the universal church; i.e. Article 2, above. Please note that it was the Lord who added them, in 2:47; not some ordained minister in some religious ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please read the passage. They were added to the church by means of being baptised by ordained ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No my friend. You re-read it. It says they were added. It says they were baptized. But it says nothing about causality. It does not say they were added BY baptism. Nor does it say the apostles added them.
> 
> It says God was adding them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your eisegisis is blinding you. God uses means. I could take what you are saying and move farther away and say God saved without revelation. Are you willing to go there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No eisegesis at all. The eisegesis is asserting that verse 47, which says nothing at all about baptism, is talking about people being water-baptized into the Church. The text says nothing of the kind. It says God was adding to His church daily those that were being saved. So unless you believe in baptismal regeneration...
Click to expand...


Sorry I missed this post Damon. You must take verse 47 in context. No, I do not believe in baptismal regeneration but do believe that baptism is the means of entrance into the Church. 

vs. 47 has a strong attachment to vs. 41 also. 


> (Act 2:37) Now having heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brothers, what shall we do?"
> 
> (Act 2:38) Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> (Act 2:39) "For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all those afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
> 
> (Act 2:40) And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this crooked generation."
> 
> (Act 2:41) *Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added.*
> ....
> (Act 2:47) praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to the church daily those who were being saved.





Damon Rambo said:


> BTW, the Apostles were ordained and sanctioned in Acts. 2. To argue against that is a theological problem in my estimation.
> 
> 
> 
> The apostles were ordained and sanctioned long before Acts 2.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood my comment. I said this to point out that those who had received the means of grace in Baptism and the Word were provided that means by men who were ordained. I wasn't making reference to when they were ordained but that they were ordained men that Acts 2 tells us about.


----------



## Mushroom

> What a shame! Speaking to lay-people, the author of Hebrews says, “by this time you ought to be teachers” (5:12). Imagine that! The inspired write predicates the word διδάσκαλοι of laypeople and expects them to aspire after such a role. Of course, he's not referring to an official teaching office. But he does, nevertheless, expect his readers both to understand and to articulate the gospel about the Messiah. Giving your money, prayers, and presence is certainly part of the equation. But if you're too cowardly to open your mouth and share the good tidings of salvation with those in need, then you "do not well" (2 Kings 7:9).
> 
> This is a strand of Reformed theology that needs "reforming." Too many Reformed Christians content themselves with living a decent life, attending the "ordinary means of grace" at the gathered assembly, and giving their tithe. But they're frankly cowards when it comes to sharing the gospel with the unconverted. How contrary the demeanor of our Lord who came to "seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). May God help us all to play the man and boldly evangelize, witness, and proclaim the good news!


Dr. Bob, I know you have thought better of this statement, and I accept your apology, but not having had opportunity until now to respond, I thought I should point out a few things. 

The quote from Hebrews must be interpreted in light of James' admonition that not many should presume to be teachers. All have a calling to teach within the offices to which they are called. I am a husband and father, and I teach my wife and children as well as I can. God has blessed my feeble and faltering efforts with a wife who is amazingly theologically wise, and children who probably know the catechisms better than I do (aagh, this aging mind!). 

But I am not called or gifted to teach in the Church, both because of that aging mind, and a weakness towards impatience with imbeciles, so I know its not my place. As for cowardice, I'm sure I'm guilty of that in some way, but that is not a descriptive that comes to most people who know me when asked their impression of me. Stubborn, yes, not too fond of suffering fools gladly, assuredly. But I will say that there is not one person who knows me who does not know I am a Christian. Neither anyone I work with or for. Today I let my disabled customer know that I and my family are praying for his condition. 

But it is also true that my lack of gifts for teaching and my usually serious and quiet (some say curmudgeonly) demeanor would not be conducive for sweet sappy Chick tract-style 'witnessing'. When an individual asks me about my faith, I will tell them of the redemption God has granted me by the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of my Great and Faithful Shepherd, the Mighty and Holy Lamb of God, Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God. And then invite them to my Church, or direct them to speak further with my Pastor or one of my Ruling Elders. And I guarantee you I do that without one ounce of fear in my heart over it, except for the trepidations borne of my own stumbling ability to present it well. And that is not evangelism. It is living as a Christian in this dark world. The evangelizing is carried out by the Church through her Offices.


----------



## Herald

Damon,

The Reformed or Particular Baptist interpretation of the 1689 LBC placed the proper emphasis on the visible/invisible distinction regarding the church. It's important to note here that I am referring specifically to _Reformed _Baptists, not Calvinistic Baptists who see worth in the confession but who do not wholly subscribe to it. Reformed Baptists are a distinct and separate breed; set apart from their Calvinist-only Baptist cousins. 



> 4. _The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church_, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
> ( Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 )



Christ is the head of the church. This is a catholic truth among evangelical Christians. Christ will be presenting His church without spot or wrinkle:



> Ephesians 5:25-27 just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless.



If Christ is presenting to Himself the church in all her glory, how can it be said that salvation exists outside of the church? 

Now, are there providential circumstances that may preclude an individual from coming under the authority of a local church, and to be numbered with the visible saints? Yes. Are these reasons considered ordinary or normative? No. If providentially hindered, is the individual not a part of the universal (invisible) church? No. When Christ presents to Himself His bride, those believers who were providentially hindered from joining a local church will be present and accounted for. 

Brother Damon, the emphasis is being wrongly placed on exceptions and anecdotal accounts. Our confession takes a high view of Christ and His church. We would be in agreement with our WCF brethren in affirming that outside of the church there is no salvation. This is not a problematic statement if one understands what is meant by the church. 

Please understand that I am not discounting your personal experience. We all have a story to tell. But we must be held captive to the clear teaching of scripture on Christ and His church. When understood in the context of Christ's bride, _extra ecclesiam nulla salus _ (outside of the church there is no salvation), is both confessional and biblical. More importantly, biblical.


----------

