# Leading to Christ - Poll



## Ed Walsh (Dec 16, 2017)

I thought this simple three-question poll would be interesting given the discussion in the Leading to Christ thread, which has more replies than any other current exchange.

Before we take the poll, let us all agree that we do not determine theological doctrine by a poll or vote. That should help us avoid much concern and discussion that is more appropriate on the Leading to Christ thread. Agreed?

Through what agency were you first brought to the knowledge of Christ? Was it by an ordained minister? Or was it through something else, like a friend, fellow employee or a book by an unordained man or women? For instance, to my knowledge, C. S. Lewis was never ordained to the Christian ministry so he would be in the unordained category. (_please correct me if I am wrong about this so I can edit my post_)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 16, 2017)

Ed,
I believe it is almost impossible to nail down when one was regenerated and converted as this is within God's secret counsel; I voted for the ordained position, obviously.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Dec 16, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> I voted for the ordained position, obviously.



So did I. There was a once drunken man that said to me "seek and ye shall find." I could not get that out of my head for months. That started my quest, but it was not until I read a book by an evangelist that truly understood and my life changed.


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 16, 2017)

Ed,
I wasn't sure how to answer. I had an employer who would drive me back and forth to work and listen to D James Kennedy, then discuss. It seems to straddle both territories.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Dec 16, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> It seems to straddle both territories.



That's what I had in mind with option 3, which I just added. Should I make it more clear? Any suggestions?


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 16, 2017)

Ed Walsh said:


> That's what I had in mind with option 3, which I just added. Should I make it more clear? Any suggestions?



I think it is good as is. I'll be watching this with curiosity. If this were an evangelical board, I would expect 90% in the "apart from an ordained minister" category, because of the extremely weak ecclesiology and disdain for the offices.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2017)

Ed Walsh said:


> I thought this simple three-question poll would be interesting given the discussion in the Leading to Christ thread, which has the more replies than any other current exchange.
> 
> Before we take the poll, let us all agree that we do not determine theological doctrine by a poll or vote. That should help us avoid much concern and discussion that is more appropriate on the Leading to Christ thread. Agreed?
> 
> Through what agency were you first brought to the knowledge of Christ? Was it by an ordained minister? Or was it through something else, like a friend, fellow employee or a book by an unordained man or women? For instance, to my knowledge, C. S. Lewis was never ordained to the Christian ministry so he would be in the unordained category. (_please correct me if I am wrong about this so I can edit my post_)


I watched Billy Graham all through my teen years, as never attended any church, and read some CS Lewis, Mere Christianity and Screw tape letters, and was witnessed to by a man studying in College to be a SBC pastor, so would say unordained.
Would say the majority in my current church were saved by the witness of non Pastors.


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 16, 2017)

I was saved at 36 years old, as I've mentioned elsewhere, reading the Bible. The Holy Spirit enlightened the eyes of my understanding and I came to a saving knowledge of the truth of salvation through Christ Jesus.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Herald (Dec 16, 2017)

My mother was the instrument that God used to expose me to the Gospel. I head the Gospel when I was grade school age, but I'm not sure I was regenerated. I was 17 when my mother came to faith in Christ. Through her faithful, persistent witness, I finally heard the Gospel preached and became a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). It just so happens my mother came to visit us for the next two months. Praise God!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TrustGzus (Dec 16, 2017)

Mine is apart from an ordained minister. I was a teen. I was raised Roman Catholic. Trusted in the system and my own righteousness. But due to RC teachings, I believed the Bible was the Word Of God. Two other teens that had placed their trust in the finished work of Christ showed me what the Scripture said truly about my sinful state and what it says about works and the death of Christ. When they showed me what the Scripture taught, I immediately gave up trust in myself or the RCC. I had never even met a Protestant minister up to the point, heard a Protestant sermon or read a Protestant book.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 16, 2017)

Scott:

All things are ordained within God's secret counsel.

Regeneration is an inner work of God's Spirit in which we are passive and is not itself seen (John 3: likened to the wind, which we do not see). But we do see its effects (as we see the effects of the wind), chiefly, faith and repentance, i.e., conversion.

Some people have some sense of initial conversion (while many may not know when they first repented and believed), particularly if they came to repent and believe as adults.

I don't doubt that you agree with what I just said, but to say flatly that it is "almost impossible" to ascertain such seems overstatement. I was converted as a teenager and can recall being awakened and converted. The agency, of course, is that of the Holy Spirit, ordinarily through the appointed means (in some fashion).

In my case, preaching played the primary but not exclusive role (as often is the case). I am a clear three-office man, having published a thing or two in that regard. At the same time, I think it unwise overly to dichotomize these things: the Lord does customarily work through the appointed means, especially the preaching, but I see little reason to draw this too sharply.

My parents, especially my mother, played no small role in my conversion, and I would account her as the greatest spiritual influence on me. I've also been formatively influenced by a number of godly ministers and teachers. I appreciate your high view of the preacher and preaching (as I said, I am print in more than one article or review defending such), but would not want to discount other saints, including unordained ones, in shaping me spiritually (all by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who is always our true teacher).

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## BG (Dec 16, 2017)

I was not saved via a minister, my weightlifting partner preached the gospel to me until I stopped working out with him, then in the middle of the night God saved me. I had not attended church in years, but at that point I had been baptized three times.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 16, 2017)

I voted, Im not sure. It has two parts. Short version...

Part 1, regeneration. I honestly dont know at what point I had a radical, regenerating transformation. I think about this often. Was I regenerated at 5? Or 18? Im not sure. 

I can tell you when I really, truly, unashamedly _believed_ the Gospel.

It was the end of the first quarter of my bible college degree. I had 2 weeks "off" before classes started again. Aside from devouring my bible, almost literally, I wanted to read something about the cross. I went into the school bookstore (keep in mind this is a Pentecostal, militantly Arminian school), and I grabbed a book off the shelf with a captivating title. _The Death of Death in the Death of Christ_ by John Owen. I knew nothing about this fellow but the title of his book grabbed my attention. It was the only copy in the store. Yes, the one with Packer's introduction. Half way through the book, I pondered Owen's exegesis on John 3. I was standing in the middle of the campus, reading this book as I walked the concrete paths of the school, and said out loud, "Who in the world wouldn't believe this?! I believe this."

That book, no doubt, was in that bookstore just for me. And yes. Owen was an ordained minister if that helps at all.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 16, 2017)

Pastor Strange,
In the absolute, I stand on what I said. No one can actually know the actual time and date-again, absolutely or perfectly. In my case, I am pretty sure when it all happened for me, but who knows as I was in an Arminian setting for quite awhile. 

Practically speaking, one can know when we agreed to repent and ascended to certain biblical facts; that helps. However, when does conversion actually happen in time? After we ascend to those facts? What facts exactly? Do we all have to come under the same truths to be converted or did u have to only understand a few things, less than I did or more? How can one actually know this? Sure, there is definite speculation, but to know absolutely, I disagree. 

I will add, I am of the position that the ordo is logical and sometimes can be chronological; this may help in understanding how I have come to my conclusion.


----------



## BG (Dec 16, 2017)

I think it is a loaded question, I consider many ordained ministers Baptist/charismatic/Pentecostal/Mennonite as laymen. Many of these people cant possible be considered lawful ministers, self promoters, self taught, self appointed, self ordained. 

**not talking about Reformed baptists***


----------



## Jack K (Dec 16, 2017)

My parents (one of whom was a preacher). Preaching. The Scripture. The church family. All of these seem to have played a role and been used by the Spirit.

To pick just one would be to shortchange the many gospel-pointing influences in my life as a child. So I guess the only way for me to vote is "not sure."


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 16, 2017)

Scott:

As I said, I don't think that we're far off. If you mean that we cannot fully discern and fathom the secret work of God, I agree. But conversion is not secret, even if we don't know when it first happened or if its first fruits are hard to recognize.

Not sure what you mean respecting the _ordo salutis_, which sets forth the logical order with respect to the Spirit's application of salvation. If you mean that items in it may be coterminous and not chronologically divided, that's standard. No proper understanding of the ordo sees the items as necessarily chronologically separated (effectual call/regeneration, faith/repentance, justification, adoption, and definitive sanctification--if one affirms such an aspect as well as a progressive one--may well all occur at the same time). Some Reformed theologians would, in fact, insist that they all occur at the same time (and are always tied to outward means, especially preaching), though I believe that regeneration may proceed faith chronologically (I think that's been debated here before).

I do appreciate, as I said before, that PB has a high view of preaching. I do not think that that stands in competition with an appreciation of all the ways that the Lord works in a life, particularly as it would be consonant with and supportive of sound preaching. My mother's lips and life certainly supported the preaching that I was hearing.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## bookslover (Dec 16, 2017)

I was faithfully witnessed to by my late wife, Gloria, whom God used to bring me to salvation. This was very early in our relationship before we were officially a couple. She had already been a Christian for about four years at that point.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 17, 2017)

I became a Christian through my uncle and a friend who was recently converted. The church I was once at when first a Christian didn't talk much about the gospel.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 17, 2017)

Since the gospel is primarily given to the church and to be able to flawlessly define when one was actually regenerated and or converted, the chance that one was actually converted at a particular time, may have been in the context of a church setting, more likely. The fact that one's eyes were opened at a particular time (most likely outside of the church walls) can be misinterpreted as conversion when in fact, it was most likely regeneration, the person being converted when he was inside the church walls.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Dec 17, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> The fact that one's eyes were opened at a particular time (most likely outside of the church walls) can be misinterpreted as conversion when in fact, it was most likely regeneration, the person being converted when he was inside the church walls.



Hi Scott,

I am a bit confused. Don't you have regeneration and conversion reversed above?
"eyes were opened at a particular time (most likely outside of the church walls) can be misinterpreted as conversion." Isn't the eyes being opened a sign of conversion? Regeneration, being the time of the secret work of the Spirit, which is like the wind blowing-- imperceptible. How can you "misinterpret" regeneration at all since it is a secret work and its beneficiary passive.

I may be reading you wrong. I had to read it over several times.

Ed

From: Regeneration and Conversion,
by Archibald Alexander
It is not necessary to be very exact in distinguishing between regeneration and conversion, especially as the Scriptures appear to speak of both together. But, it may not be amiss to remark, that regeneration, which is the communication of spiritual life, is the act of God; conversion, which is a turning from sin to God, is our act, in consequence of the divine influence exerted on our minds.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 17, 2017)

> " Isn't the eyes being opened a sign of conversion?



No....see John 3. Regeneration happens first, the eyes opening to things of the kingdom. Conversion is the ascending to biblical truth


----------



## Ed Walsh (Dec 17, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> No....see John 3



I will do that.
Thanks


----------



## PreservedKillick (Dec 17, 2017)

I was saved through the instruction of my family, mostly my grandfather and my mother. My first 18 years of life and ten years as a believer were spent in a church that explicitly rejects an ordained ministry (Plymouth Brethren,) so I can confidently choose the "apart from an ordained minister" option.


----------



## timfost (Dec 17, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> No....see John 3. Regeneration happens first, the eyes opening to things of the kingdom. Conversion is the ascending to biblical truth



Isn't conversion more akin to repentance, i.e. turning around? Certainly that includes the knowledge of certain biblical facts (like the law of God), but I would hesitate to say that conversion _is_ "ascending" to facts. Would you agree with this?

Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 17, 2017)

Conversion falls under faith and repentance-faith preceding repentance.

Can one repent unless one knows what one is repenting of? Can one have faith in a thing or person if one has no assent to any facts about the matter?

To be converted a few things must be occurring:
1) Notitia
2) Fiducia
3) ascentia


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 17, 2017)

timfost said:


> Isn't conversion more akin to repentance, i.e. turning around? Certainly that includes the knowledge of certain biblical facts (like the law of God), but I would hesitate to say that conversion _is_ "ascending" to facts. Would you agree with this?
> 
> Thanks for clarifying.


_converslo_: *conversion*; viz., the work of the Holy Spirit according to which the intellect and the will of the sinner are turned toward God in contrition and faith. Conversion can be distinguished into:

(1) _conversio passiva sive habitualis_, passive or habitual conversion, commonly called *regeneration* (regeneratio), in which the will, passively, without any motion of its own, receives by grace alone the habit or disposition (_habitus_, q.v.) toward repentance and new life in Christ. Because the work of the _conversio passiva_ begins in God and passes to the human subject, it is also called _conversio transitiva_, transitive conversion, a conversion that passes over from one being to another.

(2) _Conversio activa sive actualis_, active or *actual conversion*, commonly called conversion (_conversio_) without modifier, in which the regenerated will actually and actively turns toward God; i.e., the human side of conversion, the actual repentance or _metanoia_. Because the _conversio activa_ is confined to the human subject, it is sometimes called _conversio intransitiva_, intransitive conversion, or conversion that does not pass over from one being to another. _Conversio activa_ is sometimes also called _regeneratio secunda_, a second or further regeneration, belonging to the renovation (_renovatio_, q.v.) of the individual.

The scholastics also define conversion in relation to its _termini_, or limits. The _terminus a quo_ (q.v.) of conversion in a formal sense is sin itself, sin as such, while in an objective sense it is the specific objects of or reasons for sinning peculiar to the individual sinner. The _terminus ad quem_ (q.v.) of conversion, formally considered, is faith in Christ; objectively considered, God, to whom the repentant return in and through Christ. *The orthodox deny* the concept of a _homo renascens_ (q.v.), or man in process of being reborn in conversion, and therefore all notion of a middle condition (_status medius_) between the two _termini _of conversion. *In other words, conversion is not a process*. Thus _conversio transitiva_ is immediately effective as _conversio intransitiva_, _conversio habitualis_ immediately resultant in _conversio actualis_. The divine work and the turning of the human heart are inseparable and are distinguished only in terms of the subject of the operation.

Source:
Richard Muller. _Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology_ (p. 83).

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 17, 2017)

I cast my vote based on your using the word conversion as well, Ed. My _sound_ conversion was brought about through the ordained ministry, and it goes back to what Scott is saying. I made a profession of faith after conversations with a friend and attendance at a Baptist youth retreat. I always considered myself a Christian after that though I lost sight of it to the point that I lived like an unbeliever. But it seems a solid conversion took place years later when I heard and understood the gospel properly preached and taught, which was via ministers on the radio and online, like Piper, MacArthur and Sproul.


----------



## BFG33 (Dec 17, 2017)

I was converted by the Word of God.


----------



## timfost (Dec 17, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> *In other words, conversion is not a process*. Thus _conversio transitiva_ is immediately effective as _conversio intransitiva_, _conversio habitualis_ immediately resultant in _conversio actualis_. The divine work and the turning of the human heart are inseparable and are distinguished only in terms of the subject of the operation.
> 
> Source:
> Richard Muller. _Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology_ (p. 83).



Thanks, that's helpful. Berkhof writes about this too, though I don't think I considered this particular distinction between repentance and conversion regarding the process.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Dec 17, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Conversion falls under faith and repentance-faith preceding repentance.
> 
> Can one repent unless one knows what one is repenting of? Can one have faith in a thing or person if one has no ascent to any facts about the matter?
> 
> ...



Agreed on all fronts. I'm just wondering if it would be better to say "conversion _includes_ the ascending to biblical truth"? In other words, it is not _only_ assent but assent is a necessary element of conversion as a whole. I think we're in agreement.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 17, 2017)



Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 17, 2017)

> Seeking is not meritorious but it is necessary to properly prepare men for reception of salvation.
> 
> Effectual calling, conversion and regeneration were used as virtually synonymous terms by Edwards
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed Walsh (Dec 17, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> *In other words, conversion is not a process*.



Amen!

For a short survey (31 pages) of the Puritan's view on regeneration and conversion I have uploaded the following chapter:

Chapter 29
*The Puritans on Regeneration*
From: A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life.
By: Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 17, 2017)

What's the overall point of this thread?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 17, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> What's the overall point of this thread?


This:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/leading-to-Christ-poll.94511/


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 17, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> This:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/leading-to-Christ-poll.94511/


Ha, I know, but is there a point to be proven by the results?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Dec 18, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Ha, I know, but is there a point to be proven by the results?



One poster at least, on the Leading to Christ thread, has stated several times that it is impossible for a layman to lead someone to Christ given Paul's statement in Romans 10:14. Much discussion, pro, and con followed. This thread was a fact-finding mission to see if the poster was trying to prove too much by making the _ordinary_ way the _only_ way anyone is ever led to Christ. Below are two relevant quotes from that thread:



earl40 said:


> How would you answer the person who says they were lead (edit to led) to Jesus and saved by the conversation of a coworker or dorm buddy? I ask in light of Romans 10:14 which in my opinion is exclusive to preachers.





earl40 said:


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



This poll is an attempted reductio ad absurdum to the interpretation above by creating a dilemma between this narrow view of Rom. 10:14 and the results of this poll. For, if the poster is correct then logically one must conclude that the people that checked option 2 of the poll are not true Christians.

Hope this helps. Consider also what was said in the original post of this poll:



Ed Walsh said:


> Before we take the poll, let us all agree that we do not determine theological doctrine by a poll or vote. That should help us avoid much concern and discussion that is more appropriate on the Leading to Christ thread. Agreed?



Anyway, if you still don't see the point I think you may never understand it.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 18, 2017)

Ed Walsh said:


> This poll is an attempted reductio ad absurdum to the interpretation above by creating a dilemma between this narrow view of Rom. 10:14 and the results of this poll. For, if the poster is correct then logically one must conclude that the people that checked option 2 of the poll are not true Christians.



I can see where you believe to think like I do in that the people who think they were converted by a layman are not Christians. Allow me to state categorically this is simply incorrect. 

What I have found in every case of adult conversions is that they were always exposed to The Gospel before their awareness of their conversion took place. Look at it this way. A baby is born and is not cognitive of the events of that day. So it is like being born again. Yes many adult converts see a change in their life, but in every case they are connected to a church which administers baptism and preaches The Word.

For an example may I use RC Sproul who I have enjoyed immensely over many years. He has stated he was converted by a "dorm buddy" if I recall. I may be wrong here, though the particular detail of a dorm buddy may be replaced by someone other than a Pastor. Well RC sat under a Pastor all his life, and like many of us who grew up in a church under some, or a lot of preaching,we may not experience the earth shattering experience RC did. In my most humble opinion I believe the experience was not conversion but was Our Lord calling Him to be a pastor, which like me is a earth shattering experience, when The Lord makes and sets our path straight and well defined. I know he says he had no thoughts of the things of God before this experience, but I seriously believe his parents and pastor would probably dispute such, in that many take a certain "level of commitment" to be when they believed for the first time. I find it interesting this often happens when people are at collage age, which are very formative years in the development of what one is going to do with the rest of ones life. In other words, many mistake the idea of what and Who I am going to follow as being the moment of conversion. With some it happens earlier and others later and others never which does not mean they are not committed to an extent to follow Our Lord and His ways.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 18, 2017)

In one sense, I agree w/ Earl; most everyone, even if one had been witnessed to by someone outside of the formal church setting, the knowledge base they had was gleaned from the church or churches they had attended prior to their event. As well, no one is independent of their church home; witnesses are sent in a similar fashion the leaders are; they are extensions of the leadership-representing the leaders and the official sending in the commission.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 18, 2017)

Ed Walsh said:


> One poster at least, on the Leading to Christ thread, has stated several times that it is impossible for a layman to lead someone to Christ given Paul's statement in Romans 10:14. Much discussion, pro, and con followed. This thread was a fact-finding mission to see if the poster was trying to prove too much by making the _ordinary_ way the _only_ way anyone is ever led to Christ. Below are two relevant quotes from that thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is clear now. Thank you brother.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Dec 18, 2017)

earl40 said:


> Allow me to state categorically this is simply incorrect.



Thank you for this and the rest of your post. I think I understand better now what you have been trying to say. I did struggle a bit with your original posts trying to understand your view. It is clearer to me now.

An interesting aside. In one of Dabney's lectures, he spoke of conversions later in life. He stated that although he believed it possible, that he did not know of a single case of later life conversion where the convert was not raised in a church environment.

God bless,

Ed

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 18, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> In one sense, I agree w/ Earl; most everyone, even if one had been witnessed to by someone outside of the formal church setting, the knowledge base they had was gleaned from the church or churches they had attended prior to their event.



This was certainly true of me. I attended church with my grandmother as a child where Christ was preached; I made the VBS confession of faith and was baptized at 9. Memorized a lot of Scripture passages in those VBS programs, including Romans 10:8-14! By the time I was in my teens, my affection for the Christ I barely knew had been starved out but I had heard the gospel and could still quote (and still can) that passage of Scripture.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 19, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I think it is good as is. I'll be watching this with curiosity. If this were an evangelical board, I would expect 90% in the "apart from an ordained minister" category, because of the extremely weak ecclesiology and disdain for the offices.


Those who are evangelical bent do not put down the office of the pastor, but do not see them as being the only ones that are charged by God to be a witness for Christ.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Those who are evangelical bent do not put down the office of the pastor, but do not see them as being the only ones that are charged by God to be a witness for Christ.



You really ought to read all these posts with the idea that NO ONE has said the laity are not allowed to be a witness. No matter how you cut it if one equates a witness with preaching one has "put down" the office of the pastor.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> 1) Those who are evangelical bent do not put down the office of the pastor, but 2) do not see them as being the only ones that are charged by God to be a witness for Christ.



1) This is not entirely true. There is a whole segment of evangelicals who have "no creed, but Christ" and "no office but the priesthood of believers". 
2) This thread has been consistent with folks on both sides who acknowledge all should give a reason for the hope we have. There is no dispute about this. The question is who has the authority of God as a minister of the Word and who can rightly preach and who has the keys of the Kingdom,...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 19, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> 1) This is not entirely true. There is a whole segment of evangelicals who have "no creed, but Christ" and "no office but the priesthood of believers".
> 2) This thread has been consistent with folks on both sides who acknowledge all should give a reason for the hope we have. There is no dispute about this. The question is who has the authority of God as a minister of the Word and who can rightly preach and who has the keys of the Kingdom,...


I think that part of this might be labeling also, as think all here would agree that the pastor and Elders are to teach and build up the redeemed in their practices and doctrines, and all of us can witness for the Lord.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 19, 2017)

earl40 said:


> You really ought to read all these posts with the idea that NO ONE has said the laity are not allowed to be a witness. No matter how you cut it if one equates a witness with preaching one has "put down" the office of the pastor.


How are you defining to preach though? My understanding is when one gets in the pulpit and speaks on what the scriptures say to us and gives exhortation and application of them, but we can teach from the Bible without preaching .


----------



## earl40 (Dec 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> How are you defining to preach though? My understanding is when one gets in the pulpit and speaks on what the scriptures say to us and gives exhortation and application of them, but we can teach from the Bible without preaching .



We should define preaching by those one who are sent (Roman 10:14) to speak God's Word officially.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 19, 2017)

earl40 said:


> We should define preaching by those one who are sent (Roman 10:14) to speak God's Word officially.


Officially would be in the context then of teaching the assembly, or a gathering of the believers in Christ.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Officially would be in the context then of teaching the assembly, or a gathering of the believers in Christ.



Or proclaiming The Gospel outside the walls of our buildings. I call this preaching, and when we proclaim Jesus (Non TE's) I call that witnessing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reaganmarsh (Dec 19, 2017)

Ed Walsh said:


> Amen!
> 
> For a short survey (31 pages) of the Puritan's view on regeneration and conversion I have uploaded the following chapter:
> 
> ...



Pausing to appreciate such a fantastic book. 

Ok, everyone. As you were.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 20, 2017)

earl40 said:


> Or proclaiming The Gospel outside the walls of our buildings. I call this preaching, and when we proclaim Jesus (Non TE's) I call that witnessing.


There is also the issue of the "annoiting" that comes upon a man ordain and gifted by the Holy Spirit to deliver the scriptures to the local flock to edify and build them up in the things of the faith.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 20, 2017)

The OP is on "leading" to Christ but I see a bunch of responses about the proper definition of "preaching" --- all leading is not preaching, after all. 

We are quibbling over technical terms and ignoring the fact that many self-report that they first came to faith or believed after the witness of a layman or in a situation not inside of a church or not under the preaching of the Word by a preacher in a pulpit.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 20, 2017)

I was largely converted through listening to online sermons preached by the Rev. Ian Paisley, so technically I fit in choice #1.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 20, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> The OP is on "leading" to Christ but I see a bunch of responses about the proper definition of "preaching" --- all leading is not preaching, after all.
> 
> We are quibbling over technical terms and ignoring the fact that many self-report that they first came to faith or believed after the witness of a layman or in a situation not inside of a church or not under the preaching of the Word by a preacher in a pulpit.



I ask humbly. Where in scripture do we see self reporters reporting they came to faith via non ordinary means?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 20, 2017)

It seems a strange exclusion if we do not count the private reading of the Word or the regular witness of non-ordained Christians to be non-ordinary means, as if we are to find fault in the testimony of a believer who comes to faith through reading the Scriptures on his own.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Dec 20, 2017)

earl40 said:


> I ask humbly. Where in scripture do we see self reporters reporting they came to faith via non ordinary means?



"For how do you know, O wife, *whether you will save your husband*? Or how do you know, O husband, *whether you will save your wife*?" (1Cor. 7:16)

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

"...when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also." (2 Tim. 1:5)

"...and that *from childhood* you have known the Holy Scriptures, *which are able to make you wise for salvation* through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. 3:15)

Earl, scriptures seem to be clear against your statements. I would encourage you to study the issue more. "Ordinary" does not make other means impossible. Please read Calvin on Rom. 10:14.

Blessings,

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Dec 21, 2017)

earl40 said:


> I ask humbly. Where in scripture do we see self reporters reporting they came to faith via non ordinary means?



Since you ask... Rahab. Or what about Ruth?


----------



## BG (Dec 21, 2017)

Based on what some are saying on the two threads, Salvation is impossible unless it occurs under the preaching of an ordained reformed minister.

Should we question the salvation of those who don’t meet this standard, including pastors? Sounds like a slippery slope.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 21, 2017)

BG said:


> Based on what some are saying on the two threads, Salvation is impossible unless it occurs under the preaching of an ordained reformed minister.


I don't have time to keep interacting with the threads, Bill, but for me anyway, the main thing is, what does the Bible teach us about God's plan for the conversion of souls. The current evangelical thinking and subsequent practice about this is way out of line with what Scripture teaches (that's the proposition) and a corrective would call for strong assertions and statements. God in his mercy saves people even in our disorderly thinking and practice (Arminianism, charismaticism, individualism, and on and on) but we should seek to understand his prescribed ways and pray for times of reform. We should seek to recover the higher, Reformed view of the church and our practice in lay witnessing should simply reflect this higher view of the church.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## earl40 (Dec 21, 2017)

Jack K said:


> Since you ask... Rahab. Or what about Ruth?



May I assume you believe Rahab and Ruth had no exposure to OT prophets?


----------



## BG (Dec 21, 2017)

When Christ sent out the 72 in Luke 10, had these men all attained a bachelors, masters and passed a two day examination by a Presbytery? Could any of the Apostles have done this? Is it okay for a Pastor to Appoint men to the office of elder in order to share the gospel and do the work of the ministry? Can he do this on his own?


Is the the Gospel only effective if preached by a legitimate Minister? If so can we get a definition of what a legitimate minister is?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 21, 2017)

BG said:


> When Christ sent out the 72 in Luke 10, had these men all attained a bachelors, masters and passed a two day examination by a Presbytery?


These men were trained, ordained, commissioned, and sent by our Lord. 



BG said:


> Could any of the Apostles have done this?


Done what- commissioned and sent men? The Book of Acts seems to show men, including apostles, being commissioned and sent by the church, which sought to conform its will to God's will, and expressed God's will through its leaders.



BG said:


> Is the the Gospel only effective if preached by a legitimate Minister? If so can we get a definition of what a legitimate minister is?


I don't think we should think about all this in terms of what is effective, but rather, what do the Scriptures teach us to think and do. Many doctrinal issues are discerned not through proof texts but by good and necessary inference, which requires patience and more study.


----------



## BG (Dec 21, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> These men were trained, ordained, commissioned, and sent by our Lord.
> 
> Done what- commissioned and sent men? The Book of Acts seems to show men, including apostles, being commissioned and sent by the church, which sought to conform its will to God's will, and expressed God's will through its leaders.
> 
> I don't think we should think about all this in terms of what is effective, but rather, what do the Scriptures teach us to think and do. Many doctrinal issues are discerned not through proof texts but by good and necessary inference, which requires patience and more study.



Jeri, I’m just looking for consistency. Ideas have consequences. I understand that you don’t want to look at legitimacy or effectiveness because we know where that leads, straight to ROME. Christ trained men and sent them out Ministers are to train men in the local Church and send them out.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 21, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> It seems a strange exclusion if we do not count the private reading of the Word or the regular witness of non-ordained Christians to be non-ordinary means, as if we are to find fault in the testimony of a believer who comes to faith through reading the Scriptures on his own.



I would not include reading the scripture as a non ordinary means. For God has preached by having it written down for those who can read.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 21, 2017)

BG said:


> Jeri, I’m just looking for consistency. Ideas have consequences. I understand that you don’t want to look at legitimacy or effectiveness because we know where that leads, straight to ROME. Christ trained men and sent them out Ministers are to train men in the local Church and send them out.


Rather the church is to train ministers and send them. Is this not the Reformed view?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 21, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Rather the church is to train ministers and send them. Is this not the Reformed view?



I agree, Jeri. In the OPC (Dr. Strange, Rev. Buchanan or Rev. Keister may correct me), there are no lay folk in any theatre of operations without a minister present. It is ok to have "helpers", but the means of grace are for the dispensing by the minister alone.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG (Dec 21, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Rather the church is to train ministers and send them. Is this not the Reformed view?



Sounds great. Now can you define what you mean by church? Who is the legitimate church? Who is illegitimate?



Gforce9 said:


> I agree, Jeri. In the OPC (Dr. Strange, Rev. Buchanan or Rev. Keister may correct me), there are no lay folk in any theatre of operations without a minister present. It is ok to have "helpers", but the means of grace are for the dispensing by the minister alone.



To be clear, you are saying that if I say to a man that he should repent and turn to Jesus Christ and cry out for salvation that that can have no effect on the man but if I minister says it then something special can happen?


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 21, 2017)

BG said:


> Sounds great. Now can you define what you mean by church? Who is the legitimate church? Who is illegitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear, you are saying that if I say to a man that he should repent and turn to Jesus Christ and cry out for salvation that that can have no effect on the man but if I minister says it then something special can happen?



I have said no such thing in the previous post or in any other post. I think what "this side" (including me) is getting at is why the hard push to circumvent the way God has ordered His church? No doubt, good things have happened in spite of God's revealed will (Rahab's lying comes to mind), but should we then make lying a regular part of our lives? In the same way, God has "used" folks employing improper means for centuries. Does that mean we should be like the anti-order evangelical and everyone is a "minister". May I inform the session that I'll be preaching next week because, after all, I'm a priest, too?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Dec 21, 2017)

earl40 said:


> May I assume you believe Rahab and Ruth had no exposure to OT prophets?



All we can do is make educated guesses. I would guess Ruth may have heard some of the works of Moses, probably recited orally, from her in-laws. If so, this is the equivalent of having a Bible the home today. Rahab's report, however, seems to emphasize hearing bits about God through the grapevine. In either case, it's hard to imagine a commissioned priest or prophet showing up in their home towns.

To me, both incidents sound similar to what happens in some apparent conversions today. A person hears the truth from others, sometimes more of it and sometimes less, sometimes from highly dependable sources and sometimes from weak ones, and is moved to believe.

NOTE: If your standard for whether conversion is possible is not based on hearing the gospel from an ordained minister, but rather based on some exposure to the prophetic Word, this changes our whole discussion. The typical "dorm buddy" come-to-Jesus spiel would include bits of Scripture and perhaps even extended readings. And most people in America have at some point in their lives heard or read some part of the Bible or heard a preacher, even if they report it seemed to have little influence. If you are saying a witness-through-friends conversion is possible after all, provided there's been some exposure to the prophetic Word in the convert's lifetime, then every conversion report I've ever heard qualifies, and from a practical standpoint our disagreement is over.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 21, 2017)

timfost said:


> Isn't conversion more akin to repentance, i.e. turning around? Certainly that includes the knowledge of certain biblical facts (like the law of God), but I would hesitate to say that conversion _is_ "ascending" to facts. Would you agree with this?
> 
> Thanks for clarifying.


We are saved by the working of the Holy Spirit, by receiving Jesus as Lord through faith, and then we get to assent to all of those facts of the faith.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 21, 2017)

I hear of family members and friends sharing the Gospel with loved ones before they die, and it is received at times with great joy. We are in no place to say those people are not with the Lord because His ordained ministers were not the ones sharing it. At times we need to be careful of being too rigid.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 21, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I hear of family members and friends sharing the Gospel with loved ones before they die, and it is received at times with great joy. We are in no place to say those people are not with the Lord because His ordained ministers were not the ones sharing it. At times we need to be careful of being too rigid.


I don't see anyone being too rigid. The temptation is to view the call back to a sounder way of thinking as overly-strict or rigid. But there is great freedom within God's prescribed bounds. 

I don't suppose any would deny the scenario you just described. But if at all possible, why not a visit from a faithful minister to share the gospel at the bedside?


----------



## Herald (Dec 21, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I hear of family members and friends sharing the Gospel with loved ones before they die, and it is received at times with great joy. We are in no place to say those people are not with the Lord because His ordained ministers were not the ones sharing it. At times we need to be careful of being too rigid.



Ryan, I'll be blunt (it's my Jersey side coming out). Any Christian is able to share the Gospel with whoever is willing to listen. Preaching? Perhaps that's where some of my Reformed friends may differ, as they see preaching being the responsibility of an ordained minister of the Gospel. But no matter what you call it, communicating the gospel message does not require a pedigree beyond being a child of God. Would it be that more Christians are willing to share their faith.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 21, 2017)

Bill,
I believe u may have misunderstood Ryan as he is advocating for exactly what u are saying:



> We are in no place to say those people are not with the Lord because His ordained ministers were not the ones sharing it



No one in this thread has said otherwise.....we're just drawing lines in the sand. I have no idea why it is so difficult.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 21, 2017)

Ryan wrote:



> We are saved by the working of the Holy Spirit, by receiving Jesus as Lord through faith, and then we get to assent to all of those facts of the faith.



You have this backwards. Men are given eyes to see (and comprehend), i.e. regeneration. Then, the assent to biblical facts and are converted; a man must know who the Lord is and what He calls men to. Repentance and faith are seeds at that point; the water is the word. I made mention of the terms assensus, fiducia and notia, earlier in this thread. It would do u well to study these doctrines.

I wrote a paper on this recently: Wisdom does not save (or does it?)

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/03/4398/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 21, 2017)

Bill, 
If I may:



> When Christ sent out the 72 in Luke 10, had these men all attained a bachelors, masters and passed a two day examination by a Presbytery? Could any of the Apostles have done this? Is it okay for a Pastor to Appoint men to the office of elder in order to share the gospel and do the work of the ministry? Can he do this on his own?



These instances were not the norm on two fronts:
1) They walked with the teacher of teachers-a better education than any man this side of heaven will ever get and
2) The times were not typical. The church was in an elementary stage at this time and things occurred in scripture that don't happen any longer.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 21, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Ryan wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is why I said the Holy Spirit first does His work in and on us, as he gives us the new heart/mind and the faith to believe unto Jesus and get saved. We agree on the order here my friend.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 21, 2017)

Herald said:


> Ryan, I'll be blunt (it's my Jersey side coming out). Any Christian is able to share the Gospel with whoever is willing to listen. Preaching? Perhaps that's where some of my Reformed friends may differ, as they see preaching being the responsibility of an ordained minister of the Gospel. But no matter what you call it, communicating the gospel message does not require a pedigree beyond being a child of God. Would it be that more Christians are willing to share their faith.


Would there be any difference between how reformed baptists and Presbyterians see this issue of who is able to give to others the Gospel message then?


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 21, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Would there be any difference between how reformed baptists and Presbyterians see this issue of who is able to give to others the Gospel message then?



The difference between independency and presbyterianism plays a significant role, me thinks. A discussion down this road would derail the thread, so I will only state it in answer to your question.


----------



## Herald (Dec 21, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Bill,
> If I may:
> 
> 
> ...



Scott, so what is your point? Should I have not shared the Gospel with the man next to me when I was waiting for my tire to be changed? I sense of a lot of dancing around in this thread and very few direct answers to direct questions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 21, 2017)

My dear brother,
Again, for the 20th time, no one is railing against anyone giving witness, sharing etc. The body/commission is made up of different body parts; the foot would not work the same without the pinky toe! No one has said anything against people being involved in Christ's commissional charge, but that we need to call things by the correct name. Distinctions are important.

I posted this in the other thread on the subject; it should explain my position:



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


----------



## Herald (Dec 21, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> My dear brother,
> Again, for the 20th time, no one is railing against anyone giving witness, sharing etc. The body/commission is made up of different body parts; the foot would not work the same without the pinky toe! No one has said anything against people being involved in Christ's commissional charge, but that we need to call things by the correct name. Distinctions are important.
> 
> I posted this in the other thread on the subject; it should explain my position:


Scott, I get you, but that's not how the thread is coming across to me. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 21, 2017)

That may be because of the posts by a certain individual is collapsing terms and when people respond, it comes across as those who seemingly are against the principle altogether, which they aren’t. I’ve been involved in both threads in question and no one has taken the position that laypeople cannot give witness.

This is not that difficult for most, but if u come out of an independent setting, it’s hard to undo what u previously have been taught- no matter how much doctrine you are given. To me, it’s rather silly.

Nothing that I do is ever independent of the church I hold membership in- especially when it comes to the gospel. Am I sent? Not in the way the leaders are; it is them that have an official call to the commission. My job is to support those arms so when they hang down, I lift them. Make the needed distinction, is all I ask.


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 21, 2017)

In this mornings reading in D.A. Carson's 'For The Love Of God' I felt his exegesis on the verse is worth considering vis a vis the topic of this thread. 

Revelation 12:11b 

"They overcame him by ... the word of their testimony." This does not mean that they frequently gave their testimonies. It means, rather, that they constantly bore testimony to Jesus Christ; in short, they constantly proclaimed the Gospel. That is what spells Satan's defeat. Keep silent, and Satan wins."

The _they_ referenced are,"the collective people of God, whether of the old covenant or of the new."

(used by permission of Crossway Publishers)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 21, 2017)

Lastly, again, as mentioned earlier, most of this comes from the idea that one component of the gospel is more important than another- which is not true. The silent prayer person may play a larger portion than my apologetical gymnastics.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 21, 2017)

The church’s testimony, the people of God, must always be seen as a testimony of the church as a whole as the gospel is given to the bride to press forward, not individuals. Hence, anything I share is an extension of the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 21, 2017)

The OP (in the Leading to Christ thread) made a proposal that in light of Scriptural evidence, we should expect evangelism to be undertaken by those ordained to the ministry. The authority of the church to call people to repentance and faith rests with them. In light of this, some correctives must be spoken about the current evangelical assumptions of lay ministry. There is no need to take anything personally, as if the conversation about Christ you had with a stranger or a friend or family is now viewed with suspicion. But everyone should seek to find out what the BIBLE teaches about these matters. It will raise your view of the church and its ordained officers and temper individualistic views of lay evangelism. It's remarkable to me how little interaction with the Scripture those who want to hold on to lay evangelism have engaged in.

Earl raised the issue whether anyone _can_ be converted strictly through lay evangelism (that's a shorthand statement that encompasses a lot of Scripture and doctrine). I don't think anyone can find an example in the Bible of people being converted through lay witness. In the Scripture, I see encouragement to look to the church and its ministers for the means of grace in both evangelism and discipleship, and no encouragement for lay evangelism or discipleship. Arminians think God would never be so unfair as to elect people to salvation, and many Calvinistic people believe he would never be so strict as to limit and prescribe how evangelism should take place.

I think my position right now is that if we have a person interested in hearing more about Christ, we should try to get that person to attend church, meet with a minister. I am thinking a lay member should realize that the authority to call on people to repent and believe resides in the church with its ordained ministers as representatives. I'm continuing to think about it.


----------



## Herald (Dec 21, 2017)

As a member of a local church I recognize the role and authority of the pastor and elders. When I share the word of God with someone am I doing so under their authority? Maybe their passive authority, but certainly not their express authority. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 21, 2017)

Why is it an assault if I say it is 'express' authority? Are they not your oversight and will they not answer to God for that leadership, given it be biblically correct or heterodox?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 21, 2017)

Herald said:


> As a member of a local church I recognize the role and authority of the pastor and elders. When I share the word of God with someone am I doing so under their authority? Maybe their passive authority, but certainly not their express authority.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


You're probably speaking to Scott, but I would say that lay members don't need to worry about that? My opinion is that they should witness as the Biblical examples of lay witness and testimony describe. There is no force of ministerial authority with that; there is the power to overcome by "the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony." 

It's interesting to me, I haven't found a systematic theology that deals with evangelism, including lay evangelism. Does anyone know of one?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 21, 2017)

> My opinion is that they should witness as the Biblical examples of lay witness and testimony describe.



Independency. This mentality goes against the scriptures as well as the standards. Nothing a member does is divorced from their local church over sight.



> It's interesting to me, I haven't found a systematic theology that deals with evangelism, including lay evangelism. Does anyone know of one?



There isn't one...that should tell u something.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 21, 2017)

Across the world are many testimonies of people finding the Scriptures and believing through reading them even without an ordained minister around. These then tell others and some of them believe. I've even heard of small groups forming and even churches founded this way.

When we look at cases like this we should shout, "Praise God!" Instead of shouting, "Irregular, Irregular!" or saying that is cannot be so because no ordained minister was involved.

Jeri,
It is also strange that a paedobaptist who lacks a single instance of an infant being baptized would doubt that a layman may be the instrument through which a person may believe due to a lack of an explicit Scripture witness. (and of course you are ignoring the woman at the well and the demoniac and other implicit cases).


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 21, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Across the world are many testimonies of people finding the Scriptures and believing through reading them even without an ordained minister around. These then tell others and some of them believe. I've even heard of small groups forming and even churches founded this way.
> 
> When we look at cases like this we should shout, "Praise God!" Instead of shouting, "Irregular, Irregular!" or saying that is cannot be so because no ordained minister was involved.
> 
> ...


Perg, you haven't read the thread so you're bringing up things that have already been discussed (including the instructive witness and testimony of both of those Bible persons.) You can charactize this as a bunch of legalists crying "irregular" but it isn't fair to do so.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald (Dec 21, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Why is it an assault if I say it is 'express' authority? Are they not your oversight and will they not answer to God for that leadership, given it be biblically correct or heterodox?



I don't go to the pastor and elders and ask them if I have their express permission to share the good news with people. Am I under their passive authority? Yeah. Sure. Do they have the right to confront a church member if they are sharing something that is wrong and harming the church? Absolutely. Scott, you seem to think this is just a semantical argument (see post #83). I want to think that is the case.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 21, 2017)

Bill, in my opinion, if you are planning on witnessing regularly, why wouldn't you want their endorsement? We all know that there are these loose cannons out there and how could we say that these people screaming into bull horns is endorsed by their local congregations; in fact, most of these lunatics don't even have a church! As I have said, it is a given that we all are playing our parts and the church expects that of us all.

Is it semantics? Not exactly. Semantics makes it sound like just verbiage; It is a matter of biblical distinctions and as I have said, I don't see the conflict.


----------



## timfost (Dec 21, 2017)

Earl,

Is it possible that someone on their death bed can be converted through hearing the gospel without an ordained minister?

Yes or no, please.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 21, 2017)

Jeri,

I've read the whole thread. 

Your position leads to people diminishing the witness of regular Christians, as if their witness lacks power. Or as if we should not hope that any witness is effective unless it be from an ordained person.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 21, 2017)

I am very discouraged and I really wish more ordained men were out witnessing on the streets. Every other Thursday I try to go out witnessing with a friend to our downtown area. He cancelled last minute tonight, and I was by myself. People were with their families trying to have a good time and I felt like a weirdo. I was so uncomfortable and started to think that I didn't belong here, but rather, men who do this as a profession should be. I started to grow bitter, sadly.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## timfost (Dec 21, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I am very discouraged and I really wish more ordained men were out witnessing on the streets. Every other Thursday I try to go out witnessing with a friend to our downtown area. He cancelled last minute tonight, and I was by myself. People were with their families trying to have a good time and I felt like a weirdo. I was so uncomfortable and started to think that I didn't belong here, but rather, men who do this as a profession should be. I started to grow bitter, sadly.



Ryan,

As much as I think some people in this thread are playing word games, I don't think anyone is saying that you cannot go out and witness. Our witness can be prompted by people asking about our hope (1 Pet. 3:15) or unprompted as the Samaritan woman (John 4:29). 

This is certainly witnessing and is very appropriate for you or any other Christian. Why not call it evangelism? For the life of me, I can't figure why people have a problem with this word.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 21, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Jeri,
> 
> I've read the whole thread.
> 
> Your position leads to people diminishing the witness of regular Christians, as if their witness lacks power. Or as if we should not hope that any witness is effective unless it be from an ordained person.


Sorry Perg, I've gotten confused about the threads- I don't know if you've read the original thread, that one is where a lot of discussion took place about the issues you e mentioned. 

Would you like to bring up some Scripture related to the topic that hasn't already been discussed? That's where the back and forth needs to be centered, I think. I hope we all want to discern God's will from his word.


----------



## timfost (Dec 21, 2017)

Perhaps we should also get away from hard and fast definitions.

Does "lay-evangelism" have to mean a confusion of the ordained with non-ordained? Or can it be used interchangeably with the promulgation of the gospel through lay witnessing? The use of "lay" assumes _not ordained_. 

It seems the gracious thing to do would be to say "I disagree with the terminology because of x, y and z, but I agree with your meaning."

There seems to be a lot of unwillingness in these threads to hear the meaning of others. 

Let's not be "obsessed with disputes and arguments over words," slow down and hear meaning.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 21, 2017)

I think where there has been disagreement with terminology there has also been disagreement with views on practice. The two seem linked. We all agree that there is a distinction in roles between ordained ministers of the gospel and lay witness, but the disagreement is over what the Scriptures teach about these distinctions. It shouldn't be a discouraging topic, but an interesting one. To seek to know and obey God's mind on the matter should be of the utmost importance! That's how the most fruit in evangelism will be born.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 21, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Ryan wrote:


*Moderator Note:*

Scott,

It would help all concerned if you could include the quote tags of posts such that a person does not have to go searching for the full context. These tags, containing a post ID and member ID, permit the reader to just click and jump to the post being quoted.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 22, 2017)

There are several old Puritanboard threads to be found on this topic for those not thoroughly tired of it!  Here's one, and here's another, both (mercifully) short, and with some pastors weighing in and a few refreshing insights. I appreciated how these threads managed to keep a cordial tone throughout.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 22, 2017)

I have seen course materials on "lay-evangelism" and it is never about preparing a sermon or administering the sacraments or exercising ecclesiastical authority but is always about improving one's witness. BUT...many Reformed still choke on the term "evangelism" when used in conjunction with lay-people.

I believe it has a net effect of muting the witness and sharing of the gospel by people in the pews. If we ask why there are so many Arminians and so few confessional Presbyterians about, this might be one reason. The more Truly Reformed you get the more of a stickler you become about witnessing until it dries up the enthusiasm of many.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 22, 2017)

Patrick,
Thanks for the assistance.
How do I do that, exactly?


----------



## earl40 (Dec 22, 2017)

timfost said:


> Earl,
> 
> Is it possible that someone on their death bed can be converted through hearing the gospel without an ordained minister?
> 
> Yes or no, please.



Yes, if someone reads the preaching in the bible. BTW I would have no problem witnessing to a person on their deathbed.....I am blessed to do this with regularity in that I work in a hospital and for many many years. What is interesting that with my witness I have articulated The Gospel scores and scores of times, and not once have I had anyone wish to say "I used to not know Jesus but now I know Him now". What happens in my many situations of witnessing is that I usually find out if one is a brother or sister in Jesus, and the conversation goes one way or the other. If one is not a believer I have to know I am not working at my paid job to do the job of the Pastor, and must be wise knowing that to preach or witness causes many problems for my captive audience. Knowing this I share the effects of The Gospel in my life, and love all of my patients as best I can.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 22, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> I have seen course materials on "lay-evangelism" and it is never about preparing a sermon or administering the sacraments or exercising ecclesiastical authority but is always about improving one's witness. BUT...many Reformed still choke on the term "evangelism" when used in conjunction with lay-people.
> 
> I believe it has a net effect of muting the witness and sharing of the gospel by people in the pews. If we ask why there are so many Arminians and so few confessional Presbyterians about, this might be one reason. The more Truly Reformed you get the more of a stickler you become about witnessing until it dries up the enthusiasm of many.


Thankfully, none of this is true so far as what any of us has said and testified to on this thread! I and I am sure everyone else who is trying to get at what the Scriptures teach are enthusiastic about witnessing and sharing what Christ has done. I pray for opportunities. The nature of this conversation has unfortunately resulted in a lot of misunderstandings. (Last statement edited to sound more charitable.  )


----------



## Herald (Dec 22, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I am very discouraged and I really wish more ordained men were out witnessing on the streets. Every other Thursday I try to go out witnessing with a friend to our downtown area. He cancelled last minute tonight, and I was by myself. People were with their families trying to have a good time and I felt like a weirdo. I was so uncomfortable and started to think that I didn't belong here, but rather, men who do this as a profession should be. I started to grow bitter, sadly.


Ryan,

Be encouraged! A dear friend and brother in the Lord who went to bible college with me lives in Pt. St. Lucie and he regularly preaches the gospel in the open-air and outreach events. There is a work going on in your city. While I'm not much of an open-air preacher, I try and take advantage of what D. James Kennedy used to call "divine appointments". The difference for me today, as opposed to my former Baptist fundamentalist days, is I do so today without guilt. I came out of a background where people were shamed for not witnessing. To witness from bad motives is not a profitable thing. What a change good theology makes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 22, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Patrick,
> Thanks for the assistance.
> How do I do that, exactly?


If this is the question .... I look at the bottom right of the text box, click 'quote' first, then 'reply', and your text/screen name appears . I reply under that and there you go. There is also a multi quote option which is self intuitive if you try it a time or two.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 22, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> If this is the question .... I look at the bottom right of the text box, click 'quote' first, then 'reply', and your text/screen name appears . I reply under that and there you go.



Got it. Thanks, Jimmy.

However, in the quote above, I don't see any post number as Patrick described a few posts up. ??? See post 105.


----------



## BG (Dec 22, 2017)

I am now convinced that what Earl, Scott and Jeri are advocating is both biblical and confessional. However, with this knowledge comes responsibility, not just for me but for everyone on this board. I will be meeting later today with a minister, I will ask him if he has been going out from town to town and from house to house sharing the gospel, if his response is that he has not been doing that I will ask him to contact his presbytery and resign immediately. I would encourage all the members of this board to do the same please contact your minister today and find out if he is out on the street preaching the gospel every day as is his commission. I believe that we will see hundreds if not thousands of reformed ministers resign many will probably resign today as a result of this thread if they are honest men. I anticipate that many of the men on this board who are currently ministers, but who are negligent in this area, will start a new thread today asking us to pray for them because they have resigned their commission. I personally believe that this mass resignation of ministers will spark a great revival and bring glory and honor to Jesus Christ as we see only qualified men who are willing to do the work of an evangelist in our pulpits and on the street, rather than men who have no real desire to do these things. I look forward to the threads where the ministers on this board ask us to pray for them as they transition from ministry into the workforce. 

Wait a minute.....this is not going to happen. I am sure that out there lurking in the darkness is a doctrine which says that Layman are not permitted to hold their ministers accountable. I totally forgot that. I’m sure the next threads on this board will be entitled, “Why Layman are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the Presbytery” followed by, “Should Layman be permitted to own or read the Bible?” followed by “Why did we stop using Latin?”

Consistency is a cruel taskmaster but a great litmus test for hypocrisy.


----------



## timfost (Dec 22, 2017)

Earl, I'm thankful to are able to witness to people in the hospital.

Some follow-up questions if I may. You said:



earl40 said:


> Yes, if someone reads the preaching in the bible.



1. Does any portion of the Bible count as preaching or only certain portions?
2. If someone speaks of biblical doctrines without reading scripture, can the person on their deathbed be saved?
3. Since you a) count at least some portion of the Bible as preaching, b) permit this to come through the mouth of the lay-person, c) do you believe in vicarious preaching through laypeople?

Thanks!


----------



## earl40 (Dec 22, 2017)

timfost said:


> Earl, I'm thankful to are able to witness to people in the hospital.
> 
> Some follow-up questions if I may. You said:
> 
> ...



I doubt people would be saved by reading the geologies.



timfost said:


> 2. If someone speaks of biblical doctrines without reading scripture, can the person on their deathbed be saved?



Of course if one is sent.



timfost said:


> 3. Since you a) count at least some portion of the Bible as preaching, b) permit this to come through the mouth of the lay-person, c) do you believe in vicarious preaching through laypeople?



a. Of course discernment should be used depending on the knowledge of the recipient.

b. As stated I believe God can use the direct Words from scripture to "save" by a layman, though I hardly would depend on such knowing that the providential working of scripture tells us a Preacher (Pastor) is the only ones sent to do the job. People neglect the gathering to the great peril of the soul and one ought not to depend on earl (am man married to a girl named Tina) to read scripture to them at their deathbed.

c. No


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 22, 2017)

Bill,
For the life of me, I have no idea what you are so incensed about. Serioulsly. The only thing we’ve all said, repeatedly, is that we need to call a thing that which it is. No one ever said that a lay-person cannot go out to witness, share, confess biblical truth. We, as well, acknowledge that people can get saved in these scenarios. The issue that we have is when you start calling it preaching or Evangelizing.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 22, 2017)

Earl, 
I believe you may be guilty of collapsing terms. Sharing, witnessing, confessing all include the reading of scripture if that person is led. They are not preaching- they are not called of God to that office. One is an official proclamation and the other, not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Dec 22, 2017)

*Moderation*

Thread Closed. Time for everyone to take a break from this subject.


----------

