# Are we hiding the Gospel?



## JBaldwin

The thread on lifestyle evangelism has left me thinking about evangelism, the work of an evangelist and the role of the local church in evangelization. This passage of Scripture comes to mind: 

II Corinthians 4:1-6 (esv)
_4:1 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, [1] we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants [2] for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ._

It was brought out, and I think there is _some_ justification for this position, that the preaching of the Gospel (as it applies to discipleship and baptism) is to be left in the hands of those ordained to preach. (I am still not sure I am completely convinced of this, but I'll save that for another thread.) If this is the case, then preaching of the Gospel should take place from the pulpit. 

With that in mind, every reformed church of which I have been a part (with the exception of the one to which I belong now), has almost strictly excluded the Gospel from the sermon's preached on Sunday mornings. The lost are not encouraged to come to church, and if they did, they would hear the Word of God preached, but rarely would they hear the Gospel clearly presented as it should be to a lost individual. Evangelism, it would seem, has been strictly left to the missionaries. 

In many of these same churches, there is little or no outreach, and apart from missionaries and church planters, I don't believe I have ever heard of someone within the church doing the "work of an evangelist" (as Timothy was told to do in II Timothy 4:5. What I have seen in these churches is much discipleship, but no little or no concern for the lost. The general attitude seems to be "that's the missionaries' job". 

If the role of evangelism is to be in the hands of the preacher, when is he to preach the gospel? If it is not in the hands of the preacher, then how is the gospel to go forth? Are we to treat evangelism the way some do by having gospel meetings? Are we to witness to our neighbors, bring them to Christ and then bring them to church? 

I realize that to some, I might appear to be leaning in the direction of the "revivalist" approach, but that it couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is, I believe that God chooses, but I also believe that we should be longing to see His lost sheep brought into the fold, ever longing for the kingdom of God to come in the hearts of His chosen ones.


----------



## tdowns

*Law and Gospel....*

It was my understanding, part of the Reformed tradition, was to Preach, Law and Gospel, each Sunday?


----------



## JBaldwin

While this may be the reformed tradition, it has not been the case in most of the reformed churches I have attended. Even when there is expository preaching, weeks might go by before there is a clear presentation of the gospel. The reason given for not preaching the gospel is that Sunday morning worship is for believers.


----------



## Herald

Interesting thread. It comes at the conclusion of a four week series I just preached titled, "The Gospel: Past, Present and Future." For the most part, preaching from the pulpit is for God's elect. We must assume that we are preaching to the sheep that are able to hear the voice of the Shepherd. We know that unbelievers (whether they be the children of adult members, visitors or otherwise) are present whenever the word of God is declared. There are times when the gospel is to be preached with a call to repent and believe. But even if the topic being preached on is not a gospel message, it's still a gospel message. The gospel is the infrastructure of all preaching. There is no preaching apart from the gospel. Even though the message may not touch on all aspects of soteriology, the gospel should be clearly seen in all preaching. It is this gospel that calls sinners to repentance, even if the sermon is not a specific salvation message. I cannot stress this enough. Christ is the fulcrum upon which all preaching pivots. 

As to the exegesis of the passage you cited. In verse five we see the pronouns "we" and "your." "We" is the preaching of the Apostles. "Your" is the audience. So I would stand with Matthew Winzer and state that true gospel preaching is by an ordained minster of the gospel. But this does not mean that the word of God cannot be shared one on one and result in the salvation of the hearer if met with faith. But it is within the sphere of the church that the Word is preached, the sacraments administered and the fellowship of the saints takes place. This is where the validity of a persons faith is proven true.


----------



## MW

JBaldwin said:


> While this may be the reformed tradition, it has not been the case in most of the reformed churches I have attended. Even when there is expository preaching, weeks might go by before there is a clear presentation of the gospel. The reason given for not preaching the gospel is that Sunday morning worship is for believers.



If you were to ask them for a clear explanation of the gospel they would probably take you through Romans. The irony here is that the epistle to the Romans was written to believers. Spurgon once said to a young preacher who asked him what he should preach on, that he should preach the gospel because sinners need it and saints love it.


----------



## JBaldwin

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Interesting thread. It comes at the conclusion of a four week series I just preached titled, "The Gospel: Past, Present and Future." For the most part, preaching from the pulpit is for God's elect. We must assume that we are preaching to the sheep that are able to hear the voice of the Shepherd. We know that unbelievers (whether they be the children of adult members, visitors or otherwise) are present whenever the word of God is declared. There are times when the gospel is to be preached with a call to repent and believe. But even if the topic being preached on is not a gospel message, it's still a gospel message. The gospel is the infrastructure of all preaching. There is no preaching apart from the gospel. Even though the message may not touch on all aspects of soteriology, the gospel should be clearly seen in all preaching. It is this gospel that calls sinners to repentance, even if the sermon is not a specific salvation message. I cannot stress this enough. Christ is the fulcrum upon which all preaching pivots.
> 
> As to the exegesis of the passage you cited. In verse five we see the pronouns "we" and "your." "We" is the preaching of the Apostles. "Your" is the audience. So I would stand with Matthew Winzer and state that true gospel preaching is by an ordained minster of the gospel. But this does not mean that the word of God cannot be shared one on one and result in the salvation of the hearer if met with faith. But it is within the sphere of the church that the Word is preached, the sacraments administered and the fellowship of the saints takes place. This is where the validity of a persons faith is proven true.



That makes sense. So where does preaching to the lost fit in? I do not see Paul, Peter or the others apostles always preaching the gospel in the confines of a congregation of believers.


----------



## Herald

> That makes sense. So where does preaching to the lost fit in? I do not see Paul, Peter or the others apostles always preaching the gospel in the confines of a congregation of believers.



There are times when the gospel should be preached with a call to repentance and faith. That is the decision of the preacher. But if the preacher is keeping his preaching Christ centered, then the gospel will be there every Lord's Day. It may not be a _specific_ gospel message, but the gospel _will _be there. This does not make the personal sharing of our faith with the sinner obsolete. με γενοίτο - may it never be! If the saints share and invite the sinner into church, the word of God, regardless of whether it is a salvation message or not, is able to save.


----------



## JBaldwin

Let me rephrase my question. Paul, Peter and the other apostles often preached the gospel outside the confines of the church. Why don't we do that?


----------



## Herald

JBaldwin said:


> Let me rephrase my question. Paul, Peter and the other apostles often preached the gospel outside the confines of the church. Why don't we do that?



If an ordained minister of the gospel is preaching outside the physical walls of the church (say at a nursing home), he actually is preaching within the confines of the church, or more appropriately within the auspices of his authority as an ordained minister of the church.

Should this be done more? Yes. I think it is a wonderful and effective method of preaching the gospel to the lost.


----------



## Pergamum

I have been to some churches that believe in God's soveriegnty that resemble theological lectures rather than sermons. 

These churches, too, say that it is God's job to convict of sin, and that they will give no invitation for sinners to come to Christ, they will only present the Gospel but will not give an invitation.

However, Jesus Himself invites sinners, "Come unto me..." In a zeal to not be revivalistic they have not only done away with "the invitation", they have entirely stopped being inviting at all. It is as if, for the sake of even looking like a revivalisit they have done away with the persuasive element of the sermon and it becomes more of a intellectual exercise than it does a persuasive argument to close with Christ.


As far as who can preach and who cannot, if the Gospel were restrcited from being "shared", "witnessed" to others except for the pastors, this would be a very sad situation indeed. This may not be "preaching" but many folks trace their conversion to simple "sharing" that is done by relatives and neighbors and an hour-long exposition by the preacher is not the initial encounter with the Gospel.

Again, what is the difference between witnessing, sharing, preaching, testifying, proclaiming and teaching? And how can do what? 

We often emphasize what the layman cannot do. What can he do? And what should we call it?


----------



## Pergamum

I think perhaps that a lot of the differences here are differences in emphases:

For instance, concerning evangelism, I think it is great that laymen are sharing the Gospel outside the church. We need not call this preaching. Perhaps witnessing or sharing are the best words.

Others think they we should be emphasizing that the new convert or the seeker ought to be directed into closer union with a church where they can be nurtured. The end goal is full discipleship, after all, and not merely getting the foot in the door. Amen to that.

So, when these differences of emphasis are ironed out, we really do not disagree - we just want to stress different things.


The respect for the preaching office must be maintained. Yet, every believer does have gifts of the Spirit and different callings and may be very impactful for the Gospel. While every member is not a Minister, with a Big M, there is a gifting that each Christian does have to work out in their God-given sphere - whether as mothers, employees, etc. Each one can serve ('minister') others with the Gospel in a way that fits their calling in life. The neighbor can share, the preacher preach, the evangelist proclaim. 

Some baptists churches fall to one extreme and try to make little preachers out of all the layman and then the laypeople feel guilty for not gathering in more souls to the kingdom. Some reformed, on the other hand, stress what the laypeople cannot do and are so concerned for order that sometimes ambitious out-of-the-church outreaches are not done. 




Matthew: You quote the book of Romans as being written to believers. Is this in itself a reason not to use those Roman road verses when talking to an unsaved seeker? All the letters were written to churches were they not? They are still relevant. 


Bill: What venues in today's western culture are there for preachers to actually get out there and minister to the lost? Fairs, nursing homes, funerals... where do we get into the most contact with the most lost people?



Also, can a preacher in his outreach bring laymen on a trip withhim to train and to help him minister? Is there a danger that this "helper" will "preach" even though he is not a preacher. If he wants to go, should we encourage him to stay home rather than risk the danger that he will go from "sharing" or "witnessing" to "preaching"? 

I.e. a Gospel preacher goes to Hyde Park every week (a recognized forum where debates can occurin open air). A member of his church wants to go with him to witness. They both do the same thing pretty much, tell people about the Gospel. Is the preacher then, as he does this same activity really "preaching" and the layman really just "witnessing" or has the laymen crossed the line and committed that which was not committed unto him, namely the office of preaching?


----------



## JBaldwin

Pergamum said:


> I have been to some churches that believe in God's soveriegnty that resemble theological lectures rather than sermons.
> 
> These churches, too, say that it is God's job to convict of sin, and that they will give no invitation for sinners to come to Christ, they will only present the Gospel but will not give an invitation.
> 
> However, Jesus Himself invites sinners, "Come unto me..." In a zeal to not be revivalistic they have not only done away with "the invitation", they have entirely stopped being inviting at all. It is as if, for the sake of even looking like a revivalisit they have done away with the persuasive element of the sermon and it becomes more of a intellectual exercise than it does a persuasive argument to close with Christ.
> 
> 
> As far as who can preach and who cannot, if the Gospel were restrcited from being "shared", "witnessed" to others except for the pastors, this would be a very sad situation indeed. This may not be "preaching" but many folks trace their conversion to simple "sharing" that is done by relatives and neighbors and an hour-long exposition by the preacher is not the initial encounter with the Gospel.
> 
> Again, what is the difference between witnessing, sharing, preaching, testifying, proclaiming and teaching? And how can do what?
> 
> We often emphasize what the layman cannot do. What can he do? And what should we call it?



This is much of what is at the root of my questions. Personally, I believe the layman can and should share his faith with others as the Lord gives opportunity. We are to be ready to give an answer for the reason of the hope that is in us. I suppose we could call it witnessing to our faith or sharing the gospel. 

Since I do see in Scripture that the gospel is always connected with preaching, perhaps the actual "preaching" is to be left in the hands of the ordained, but I don't see (as I stated above) that they were only preaching in a Lord's day worship service. They were going out into the highways and byways and compeling them to come in. 


In short, evangelizing should be a combination of preaching the gospel and the layman testifying to, witnessing and sharing his faith with the lost as God gives opportunity.


----------



## JBaldwin

Pergamum, thanks, I see you pretty much said what I just did (and a little better).


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Matthew: You quote the book of Romans as being written to believers. Is this in itself a reason not to use those Roman road verses when talking to an unsaved seeker? All the letters were written to churches were they not? They are still relevant.



Certainly. The context of referring to Romans was the statement that some churches don't preach the gospel in services because those services are supposed to be for believers. I was pointing out the irony that the gospel is so clearly presented in this NT letter to a church. The gospel should be preached to believers as well as unbelievers. But of course when I say "gospel" I'm not speaking of steps one, two, and three in order to be saved. The reality is that the person and work of Jesus Christ impacts all of life. Hence the apostle's oft repeated reference to being "in Christ." Marital counsel requires the grace of Jesus Christ as equally as feelings of personal guilt.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

It is interesting, isn't it, that Hebrews 4 states that the Israelites in the desert had the Gospel preached to them. They were unbelievers.

I agree with the OP and the observation that there should be the Gospel proclaimed to believers and unbelievers. I love that Spurgeon quote. The Gospel is not news we have within our selves but must come from the outside - the announcement of the work of Christ and His Kingdom.

Not all Gospel Preaching is going to be focused around a few key areas of Scripture that spell it out as Rev. Winzer noted. The imperatives of the Scripture ought to be exposited as they occur in the preaching of the Word. I believe, though, that all imperatives need to have a "bookend" that provides the "context" for them - the "why", the underlying motivation that impels the believer - that is a reminder of their place in Christ and their adoption as Sons.

I don't agree that this is artificial for the Scripture because the various Books of the Bible were not inspired with Chapters and Verses. These have been added for ease of reference but some treat certain texts as if Romans 12-16 can be treated without any reference to what the "therefore" is referring to. Hence, I believe it is warranted, to always provide that backdrop since the lens of exposition can only focus on small portions of Scripture at times.


----------



## Augusta

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew: You quote the book of Romans as being written to believers. Is this in itself a reason not to use those Roman road verses when talking to an unsaved seeker? All the letters were written to churches were they not? They are still relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly. The context of referring to Romans was the statement that some churches don't preach the gospel in services because those services are supposed to be for believers. I was pointing out the irony that the gospel is so clearly presented in this NT letter to a church. The gospel should be preached to believers as well as unbelievers. But of course when I say "gospel" I'm not speaking of steps one, two, and three in order to be saved. The reality is that the person and work of Jesus Christ impacts all of life. Hence the apostle's oft repeated reference to being "in Christ." Marital counsel requires the grace of Jesus Christ as equally as feelings of personal guilt.
Click to expand...


I am very thankful that preaching the gospel every Sunday is the main focus at my church. We do need to hear it over and over again. And even if our service is like a theological lecture it will still have the gospel proclaimed in it. I totally agree with Rev. Winzer that the gospel is for all aspects of life and the answer to all our maladies.


----------



## Grymir

Yea, It's the hearing of the Gospel that sanctifies believers, not the 3 steps to a better marriage that is spewed forth from most of our pulpits. 

It also will drive the unbelievers out of the church or convert them. The clear preaching of the gospel helps to keep the church pure.


----------



## Herald

> Bill: What venues in today's western culture are there for preachers to actually get out there and minister to the lost? Fairs, nursing homes, funerals... where do we get into the most contact with the most lost people?
> 
> Also, can a preacher in his outreach bring laymen on a trip withhim to train and to help him minister? Is there a danger that this "helper" will "preach" even though he is not a preacher. If he wants to go, should we encourage him to stay home rather than risk the danger that he will go from "sharing" or "witnessing" to "preaching"?
> 
> I.e. a Gospel preacher goes to Hyde Park every week (a recognized forum where debates can occurin open air). A member of his church wants to go with him to witness. They both do the same thing pretty much, tell people about the Gospel. Is the preacher then, as he does this same activity really "preaching" and the layman really just "witnessing" or has the laymen crossed the line and committed that which was not committed unto him, namely the office of preaching?



Pergy, you just named some of the best venues for preaching the gospel outside of Lord's Day worship. Funerals, nursing homes, hospitals, prisons, youth camps, rescue missions, fairs, schools (when allowed) are all excellent opportunities for the ordained minister to preach. 

As to bringing trained layman - absolutely! These men may not be ordained ministers but they are under the authority of a trained minister. In that regard they are an extension of the rightful authority that the ordained minister possesses. Perhaps, because of the size of the audience, they participate in counseling after the gospel is presented. Maybe they perform acts of mercy and compassion. They may also be ordained men, such as elders or even evangelists. 

As far as the layman "crossing the line", I think that fear is dismissed by the fact that he should be trained and under the authority of an ordained minister. This does not mean that the ordained minister must be standing right over him. The gospel is not about restriction, it's about freedom. When the gospel message is held onto with a choke-hold by the ordained minister it rarely goes forth outside of the Lord's Day worship service. Folks, it really is okay to go where the sinners are. Yes, under the authority of the ordained preacher, but brining along trained men to minister under the extended authority of the minister. 

By the way, I use the term "men" in a generic fashion. If the minister is preaching in a female prison (and this does happen), it may be wise to bring some godly sisters along. Do I even need to illiterate the reasons for this? Sisters in Christ are not to preach but that does not mean they cannot provide mercy, compassion or encouragement to those seeking it.


----------



## Pergamum

Great stuff Bill. Sounds very Biblical and very practical.


A further question:


In a women's prison, can a women stand up and teach when under a man's authority. Can she give her testimony, can she share?


----------



## Amazing Grace

Here is a very good article by Tom Ascol

Christian Missionaries and Missionary Christians

Conclusion

Either go or send. But do not remain passive, uninterested bystanders in the missionary work of our Lord. Both goers and senders are needed. Both are important. Both labors must be entered into with equal commitment and seriousness.

Those of us who stay are called to be senders--for now. But, are you willing for God to call you to go in the future? Our attitudes ought to be this: willing to go, called to stay; and therefore determined to do all that we can to be as faithful in our staying as we expect those we send to be faithful in their going.

The ones who go out from us do not merely "become" our missionaries. Nor do we merely "let them go." Rather, we send them. They remain a part of us--our responsibility; our privilege to serve and love--though now in a vastly different way. They are our family--extended across the world, all for the sake of the Name.

As Christian missionaries go they do so as a part of a local church. They go for the honor and glory of Jesus Christ and with a commitment to the truth which is revealed in Him. They go to make Christ known where He is not presently known. Therefore they must go with a determination to live holy lives, to teach God's Word and to tell of His love for sinners. In dependence on God's Spirit, they go to persuade those who have been shut up in darkness to come to the Light that gives life.

When William Carey volunteered to leave England for the distant shores of India to "take the gospel to the heathen," his friend and fellow pastor, Andrew Fuller agreed to stay behind and rally support for the effort. Their lives typify, respectively, what it means to be a Christian Missionary and a Missionary Christian.

Looking back on the solemn occasion when Carey agreed to go, Fuller describes the commitment which was made.

We saw that there was a gold mine in India, but it seemed almost as deep as the center of the earth. Who will venture to explore it? "I will go down," said Mr. Carey to his brethren, "but remember that you must hold the ropes." We solemnly engaged to do so; nor while we live, shall we desert him.[2]

May such a spirit live on in a new generation of goers and senders.


----------



## JBaldwin

Pergamum said:


> Great stuff Bill. Sounds very Biblical and very practical.
> 
> 
> A further question:
> 
> 
> In a women's prison, can a women stand up and teach when under a man's authority. Can she give her testimony, can she share?




This would be no different than a woman addressing a group of women in a woman's meeting. I think it would be very appropriate.


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, I agree. Male guards being present would be incidental it seems.


----------



## JBaldwin

Amazing Grace said:


> Here is a very good article by Tom Ascol
> 
> Christian Missionaries and Missionary Christians
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> Either go or send. But do not remain passive, uninterested bystanders in the missionary work of our Lord. Both goers and senders are needed. Both are important. Both labors must be entered into with equal commitment and seriousness.
> 
> Those of us who stay are called to be senders--for now. But, are you willing for God to call you to go in the future? Our attitudes ought to be this: willing to go, called to stay; and therefore determined to do all that we can to be as faithful in our staying as we expect those we send to be faithful in their going.
> 
> The ones who go out from us do not merely "become" our missionaries. Nor do we merely "let them go." Rather, we send them. They remain a part of us--our responsibility; our privilege to serve and love--though now in a vastly different way. They are our family--extended across the world, all for the sake of the Name.
> 
> As Christian missionaries go they do so as a part of a local church. They go for the honor and glory of Jesus Christ and with a commitment to the truth which is revealed in Him. They go to make Christ known where He is not presently known. Therefore they must go with a determination to live holy lives, to teach God's Word and to tell of His love for sinners. In dependence on God's Spirit, they go to persuade those who have been shut up in darkness to come to the Light that gives life.
> 
> When William Carey volunteered to leave England for the distant shores of India to "take the gospel to the heathen," his friend and fellow pastor, Andrew Fuller agreed to stay behind and rally support for the effort. Their lives typify, respectively, what it means to be a Christian Missionary and a Missionary Christian.
> 
> Looking back on the solemn occasion when Carey agreed to go, Fuller describes the commitment which was made.
> 
> We saw that there was a gold mine in India, but it seemed almost as deep as the center of the earth. Who will venture to explore it? "I will go down," said Mr. Carey to his brethren, "but remember that you must hold the ropes." We solemnly engaged to do so; nor while we live, shall we desert him.[2]
> 
> May such a spirit live on in a new generation of goers and senders.



You have touched on something that concerns me. First, I heartily agree with you. When we send, we need to fully back those who are sent. This is something that many churches have failed to do (and as a missionary for a few years, I often felt the brunt of neglect as well as the hearty support of those at home.), but this leads me to my point of concern, and this a general attitude that seems to creep into a lot of churches. 

This attitude? We have sent our missionaries to do the work, we pay them, we pray for them, so we can wash our hands of any other concern for the lost. As I look at missionaries in Scripture, I see them as one arm of the church reaching out to the lost. The other arm is reaching out to the local community. In other words, the church as a whole is reaching out to the lost. In reality, the heart of the church at home greatly affects the work of the missionary on the field. If the church has a heart for the lost, that will reflect itself in outreach in the community as well as support for the missionary on the field.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> Great stuff Bill. Sounds very Biblical and very practical.
> 
> 
> A further question:
> 
> 
> In a women's prison, can a women stand up and teach when under a man's authority. Can she give her testimony, can she share?



Pergy, I believe there are appropriate times for a woman to share God's blessing in her life. Personally, I would draw the line at teaching. If there is an ordained minister available (be it pastor or elder), I would expect him to preach God's word. But here is where I would extend grace. What if a womans prison would not allow a man to speak? What if a man was not allowed in but a woman was? In that case I would allow a woman to have one-on-one conversations with other women about the gospel. Why wouldn't I? 

*Matthew 25:34-40* 34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' 37 "Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40 "The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.' 

For the sake of clarity I will summarize my opinions.

1. The preaching of the gospel is to be performed by an ordained minister regardless of venue.

2. Ordained ministers should seek to bring the gospel to venues outside of the Lord's Day worship service. Nursing homes, prisons, schools, camps, fairs etc. are examples. Under no circumstances should these other venues take precedence over the Lord's Day worship service. There could be a nursing home service in between morning and evening worship, but never in replacement of it.

3. Trained lay members are able to minister, by sharing or counseling, if they are under the authority of an ordained minister.

4. Women are able to minister to other women in a non-preaching role if the circumstances would only allow women to minister, such as a womens prison. I do believe this is an extremely rare occasion and shouldn't be encountered often.

5. Believers are able to share their faith with family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, in fact they are encouraged to do so. God is able to call his elect to faith from this type of activity. We know this to be true because many of us first heard the gospel this way. It is preferable that the individual seek to bring the seeker to church to sit under the grace of God's word. It is within the church that the word of God is preached, the sacraments administered and the fellowship of the saints takes place. 

Perg, I hope this helps.


----------



## ServantofGod

JBaldwin said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a very good article by Tom Ascol
> 
> Christian Missionaries and Missionary Christians
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> Either go or send. But do not remain passive, uninterested bystanders in the missionary work of our Lord. Both goers and senders are needed. Both are important. Both labors must be entered into with equal commitment and seriousness.
> 
> Those of us who stay are called to be senders--for now. But, are you willing for God to call you to go in the future? Our attitudes ought to be this: willing to go, called to stay; and therefore determined to do all that we can to be as faithful in our staying as we expect those we send to be faithful in their going.
> 
> The ones who go out from us do not merely "become" our missionaries. Nor do we merely "let them go." Rather, we send them. They remain a part of us--our responsibility; our privilege to serve and love--though now in a vastly different way. They are our family--extended across the world, all for the sake of the Name.
> 
> As Christian missionaries go they do so as a part of a local church. They go for the honor and glory of Jesus Christ and with a commitment to the truth which is revealed in Him. They go to make Christ known where He is not presently known. Therefore they must go with a determination to live holy lives, to teach God's Word and to tell of His love for sinners. In dependence on God's Spirit, they go to persuade those who have been shut up in darkness to come to the Light that gives life.
> 
> When William Carey volunteered to leave England for the distant shores of India to "take the gospel to the heathen," his friend and fellow pastor, Andrew Fuller agreed to stay behind and rally support for the effort. Their lives typify, respectively, what it means to be a Christian Missionary and a Missionary Christian.
> 
> Looking back on the solemn occasion when Carey agreed to go, Fuller describes the commitment which was made.
> 
> We saw that there was a gold mine in India, but it seemed almost as deep as the center of the earth. Who will venture to explore it? "I will go down," said Mr. Carey to his brethren, "but remember that you must hold the ropes." We solemnly engaged to do so; nor while we live, shall we desert him.[2]
> 
> May such a spirit live on in a new generation of goers and senders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have touched on something that concerns me. First, I heartily agree with you. When we send, we need to fully back those who are sent. This is something that many churches have failed to do (and as a missionary for a few years, I often felt the brunt of neglect as well as the hearty support of those at home.), but this leads me to my point of concern, and this a general attitude that seems to creep into a lot of churches.
> 
> This attitude? We have sent our missionaries to do the work, we pay them, we pray for them, so we can wash our hands of any other concern for the lost. As I look at missionaries in Scripture, I see them as one arm of the church reaching out to the lost. The other arm is reaching out to the local community. In other words, the church as a whole is reaching out to the lost. In reality, the heart of the church at home greatly affects the work of the missionary on the field. If the church has a heart for the lost, that will reflect itself in outreach in the community as well as support for the missionary on the field.
Click to expand...


I think what has grown in our churches is the weed of shame. Most of us work 5-6 days a week with unbelievers. Who of us share the gospel to our co-workers, bosses, ect...? Who even speaks to their kids friends? That, combined with mediocre lifestyles, is bringing shame to both the gospel and the church, and Christ's name. We'd rather not have the people at the office think badly of us for speaking of Christ. 

Church outreaches are great, but we should be sharing the gospel in our work places. We as individuals I believe, are leaving it up to the church, and the "qualified" people in the church to run outreaches. That should not be so. How many people have you shared the gospel with this week? Oh, well, my church does outreach to the homeless on Wed. nights, and to pregnant singles on Friday nights, so that fills my church's quota(I certainly know myself to have that attitude). Just my


----------



## Casey

No matter the text, I think the gospel should be proclaimed regardless of the text. The gospel should _always_ be proclaimed.  The preacher has one message from a plethora of texts: Christ and him crucified. Scripture has given us a variety of ways to communicate that one message. It may not be always as clear or basic, depending on the text, but it must nevertheless be preached. Jesus himself said he was the topic of the Scriptures (Luke 24), which idea must be applied to the entire NT as well.


----------



## Pergamum

Ian: I agree to some extent. But I also don't think we should be sharing too much of anything at our work place that distracts from our work. I have met a few Christians that did shoddy work and then tried to speak about Jesus. So, I am mixed on the workplace witnessing subject.


----------



## ServantofGod

Pergamum said:


> Ian: I agree to some extent. But I also don't think we should be sharing too much of anything at our work place that distracts from our work. I have met a few Christians that did shoddy work and then tried to speak about Jesus. So, I am mixed on the workplace witnessing subject.



I agree. Ironic(maybe?) that our mouth witness in our workplace is destroyed because we don't honor Christ in the work that we do in that place(not doing the best we can).


----------



## Pergamum

Hospitality seems to be a huge way to show the love of Christ. It canbe easily exercised outside the workplace.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> Hospitality seems to be a huge way to show the love of Christ. It canbe easily exercised outside the workplace.



Yes, the LOVE of Christ, but not the gospel. There is no gospel apart from the word of God. I'm not trying to be contrary but this gets at the heart of lifestyle evangelism. Displaying the love of Christ, may earn you or I the right to share the gospel, but acts of charity are not the gospel. I'm sure you agree. I just want to be sure and make that distinction.


----------



## ServantofGod

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hospitality seems to be a huge way to show the love of Christ. It canbe easily exercised outside the workplace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the LOVE of Christ, but not the gospel. There is no gospel apart from the word of God. I'm not trying to be contrary but this gets at the heart of lifestyle evangelism. Displaying the love of Christ, may earn you or I the right to share the gospel, but acts of charity are not the gospel. I'm sure you agree. I just want to be sure and make that distinction.
Click to expand...


Is it not as important though?


----------



## cih1355

JBaldwin said:


> While this may be the reformed tradition, it has not been the case in most of the reformed churches I have attended. Even when there is expository preaching, weeks might go by before there is a clear presentation of the gospel. The reason given for not preaching the gospel is that Sunday morning worship is for believers.



Ever since I have attended my church, my pastor has preached through the books of Philippians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 John, and Ephesians. Now, my pastor is preaching through 1 Corinthians. Moreover, my pastor has preached on various topics such heaven and hell, the sufficiency of Christ, Christ's atonement, baptism, the Lord's supper, the word of God, the five points of Calvinism without calling them that or using Calvinist terminology, and so on. Not every sermon was about how a person receives salvation from God, but this was and still is frequently heard.


----------



## Pergamum

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hospitality seems to be a huge way to show the love of Christ. It canbe easily exercised outside the workplace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the LOVE of Christ, but not the gospel. There is no gospel apart from the word of God. I'm not trying to be contrary but this gets at the heart of lifestyle evangelism. Displaying the love of Christ, may earn you or I the right to share the gospel, but acts of charity are not the gospel. I'm sure you agree. I just want to be sure and make that distinction.
Click to expand...


I agree, yes, here's a few soft reactions:


Hospitality is a means of opening the avenue for reception of the Gospel. A means of modelling a Christian household too.

In the West, often times models of evangelism including approaching people out of the cold and asking them point blank, "If you died today where would you go?" That has even happened to me and I felt like telling them to buzz off! I asked them, "Why...are you planning on killing me today or something - you look fairly militant!" So, this sort of cold evangelism I am sure REALLY offends others.


But hospitality and helping others is the way to engage people in relationship. There are many important pre-evangelism steps we can take that may remove unneccessary obstacles. Many people who will never read the Bible read you and me everyday! 

We are not out to win arguments but to win people. And much of what makes someone receive our message is when they receive us. We make the Gospel (hopefully) attractive and very little of what people take away is what we tell them with our lips.


Also, the whole evangelism versus the social Gospel thing is way overdone. These two things are very hard to separate in most of the world. He help because we love. It is not the Gospel but it goes hand and hand with the gospel.


----------



## ServantofGod

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hospitality seems to be a huge way to show the love of Christ. It canbe easily exercised outside the workplace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the LOVE of Christ, but not the gospel. There is no gospel apart from the word of God. I'm not trying to be contrary but this gets at the heart of lifestyle evangelism. Displaying the love of Christ, may earn you or I the right to share the gospel, but acts of charity are not the gospel. I'm sure you agree. I just want to be sure and make that distinction.
Click to expand...


Quick thought: Being able to show the love of Christ is a result of the work of the gospel and of God's Word in our lives. If we show the love of Christ, is it not the Word being preached through our actions?


----------



## Amazing Grace

ServantofGod said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hospitality seems to be a huge way to show the love of Christ. It canbe easily exercised outside the workplace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the LOVE of Christ, but not the gospel. There is no gospel apart from the word of God. I'm not trying to be contrary but this gets at the heart of lifestyle evangelism. Displaying the love of Christ, may earn you or I the right to share the gospel, but acts of charity are not the gospel. I'm sure you agree. I just want to be sure and make that distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quick thought: Being able to show the love of Christ is a result of the work of the gospel and of God's Word in our lives. If we show the love of Christ, is it not the Word being preached through our actions?
Click to expand...


Perhaps. But it is always much easier to give a drink of water in the name of Christ vs telling a person they need to be reconciled to the Almighty. The risk of just doing what the book of James says is we are more apt to think of vindication before men,which is what james teaches, vs justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ in the Pauline corpus. There needs to be a balance wich is a grace in itself. 

Who can share this is irrelevant when you come down to it. Christ had no time for this. Read and meditate on His encounter with the woman at the well. We will neither worship on this mountain or that mountain or bless one well above the other in the kingdom of God. Nor worry about who can share the Gospel. We are called to be a light unto the world. This is for all believers.


----------



## ServantofGod

Amazing Grace said:


> ServantofGod said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the LOVE of Christ, but not the gospel. There is no gospel apart from the word of God. I'm not trying to be contrary but this gets at the heart of lifestyle evangelism. Displaying the love of Christ, may earn you or I the right to share the gospel, but acts of charity are not the gospel. I'm sure you agree. I just want to be sure and make that distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quick thought: Being able to show the love of Christ is a result of the work of the gospel and of God's Word in our lives. If we show the love of Christ, is it not the Word being preached through our actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps. But it is always much easier to give a drink of water in the name of Christ vs telling a person they need to be reconciled to the Almighty. The risk of just doing what the book of James says is we are more apt to think of vindication before men,which is what james teaches, vs justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ in the Pauline corpus. There needs to be a balance wich is a grace in itself.
> 
> Who can share this is irrelevant when you come down to it. Christ had no time for this. Read and meditate on His encounter with the woman at the well. We will neither worship on this mountain or that mountain or bless one well above the other in the kingdom of God. Nor worry about who can share the Gospel. We are called to be a light unto the world. This is for all believers.
Click to expand...


It is hard to find the happy median.


----------



## Amazing Grace

ServantofGod said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ServantofGod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick thought: Being able to show the love of Christ is a result of the work of the gospel and of God's Word in our lives. If we show the love of Christ, is it not the Word being preached through our actions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps. But it is always much easier to give a drink of water in the name of Christ vs telling a person they need to be reconciled to the Almighty. The risk of just doing what the book of James says is we are more apt to think of vindication before men,which is what james teaches, vs justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ in the Pauline corpus. There needs to be a balance wich is a grace in itself.
> 
> Who can share this is irrelevant when you come down to it. Christ had no time for this. Read and meditate on His encounter with the woman at the well. We will neither worship on this mountain or that mountain or bless one well above the other in the kingdom of God. Nor worry about who can share the Gospel. We are called to be a light unto the world. This is for all believers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is hard to find the happy median.
Click to expand...




That is why I said it is all of Grace. Those that God gift's with this balance are to be followed and listened to. I just do not ever want to neglect the spoken word becasue even an Atheist can do "good works" per se. I know many who work in soup kitchen's. But speaking of Christ is a whole different matter.

st francis once said, Preach the gospel, and use words if you must. It is a pithy saying that has a shred of truth, but human nature takes this to mean we can leave the cross out of our actions, and that my friend is impossible for the true believer.


----------



## jaybird0827

*Larger Catechism Q 63*



> Question 63: What are the special privileges of the visible church?
> 
> Answer: The visible church has the privilege of being under God's special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, not withstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, *the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him*.


 
Emphasis mine. We need to hear it and our children need to hear it. And that in the context of the whole counsel of God.


----------



## JBaldwin

cih1355 said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> While this may be the reformed tradition, it has not been the case in most of the reformed churches I have attended. Even when there is expository preaching, weeks might go by before there is a clear presentation of the gospel. The reason given for not preaching the gospel is that Sunday morning worship is for believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since I have attended my church, my pastor has preached through the books of Philippians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 John, and Ephesians. Now, my pastor is preaching through 1 Corinthians. Moreover, my pastor has preached on various topics such heaven and hell, the sufficiency of Christ, Christ's atonement, baptism, the Lord's supper, the word of God, the five points of Calvinism without calling them that or using Calvinist terminology, and so on. Not every sermon was about how a person receives salvation from God, but this was and still is frequently heard.
Click to expand...


When I say "clear presentation of the gospel" I mean exactly what you are describing. So when I say that I have been in churches where it is not presented, I mean just that. The pastors have handled the Word in such a way that the gospel is not clear in any form. When I am saying this, I am not speaking of my own church. In my present church, the pastor manages to bring the gospel in some form into every sermon, and it is a delight to me.


----------



## Herald

ServantofGod said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hospitality seems to be a huge way to show the love of Christ. It canbe easily exercised outside the workplace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the LOVE of Christ, but not the gospel. There is no gospel apart from the word of God. I'm not trying to be contrary but this gets at the heart of lifestyle evangelism. Displaying the love of Christ, may earn you or I the right to share the gospel, but acts of charity are not the gospel. I'm sure you agree. I just want to be sure and make that distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quick thought: Being able to show the love of Christ is a result of the work of the gospel and of God's Word in our lives. If we show the love of Christ, is it not the Word being preached through our actions?
Click to expand...


No. If you display the love of Christ, you are displaying the love of Christ. But an act of love or compassion does not include telling the person that they are sinners who are facing impending judgment and the only way to escape is through faith in Christ. The gospel _cannot _be divorced from the word of God. External acts of love, mercy or compassion are Christ-like, but they are not the gospel.


----------

