# Question on evangelism



## Herald (Sep 11, 2005)

Since the "transforming of my mind" to the biblical view of soteriology, I have given much thought to how to finish a presentation of the gospel to an unbeliever. I can no longer lead a person in the sinners prayer. There is nothing patently unbiblical about verbalizing a persons faith in Christ. It is the false assumption that somehow regeneration occurs _because_ of the sinners prayer.* I have to admit that there are many people who have recited that prayer, believing that they are going to heaven, when in reality they are foreigners to the God's covenant of grace. There is no evidence of repentance in their lives. I grieve for them.

So I ask my Reformed brethren, how do you approach evangelism? Do you have a passion for sharing Christ with lost (Romans 10:14)? Do you plead with the lost to be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:18-21)? I trust we all do. But do any of you make a plea for some type of commitment after you have shared the gospel? Do you pray with the person? Do you ask them to verbalize their faith in Christ? Do you have a custom of doing something else? Or you do just tell them that they need to believe and repent? 

I am curious because evangelism is a command and I want to make sure that, as shepherd of God's flock, my brethren are fulfilling the command in a biblical manner.

*The _sinners prayer_ is not an accepted creedal affirmation. There is not one version that a person can pray. A typical sinners prayer could be, _"Lord Jesus, I recognize that I am sinner. I understand that you came to earth to suffer and die and to pay the penalty for my sin. I now place my faith in you and accept you as my Lord and Savior. Come into my life Lord Jesus. Thank you. Amen."_ While most sinners prayers smack of Armenianism, many Baptist Calvinists have tried to change the wording in order to be more biblical. The intention is to turn the sinners prayer into more of a verbalization of a regeneration that has already taken place. It is not patently unbiblical. The "Calvinistic" sinners prayer seeks to encourage the person who has placed their faith in Christ and call them to immediate obedience to the scriptures. 



[Edited on 9-12-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Herald (Sep 12, 2005)

*Clarification*

After reading my own post I believe I should clarify my intention. I am inquiring as to the custom and practice in the area of evangelism in other reformed churches. That is all I am seeking.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 12, 2005)

I would present the unbeliever with the facts. And the implications of the facts. There is his present state, and the consequences. There is God's Word of reconciliation, his gospel, the righteousness of God. He must believe that Word. And that believing--knowledge, assent, trust--is a forever thing, not an "I did it yesterday or years ago" thing. As the witnesser, you know (being a Christian for X years) that you are saved, _not_ because of a decision, but because _now_ you are clinging to Christ alone for salvation, and he is holding you safe. And there are implications for changing "sides" in the great warfare, that massive antithesis. Tell him there is a cost to be counted. Tell him there are those who will say, "Lord, Lord," in the last day to whom Jesus will reply: "Depart from me, I never knew you." Tell him, "the way of the transgressor is hard." Tell him Jesus said, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." "If you love me keep my commandments." "My sheep know me and they hear my voice, and they follow me." The Lord disciplines those he loves, like a Father. This man must, "buffet his body" and make it his slave. Yet, he can be sure that there is laid up for him a crown of righteousness, that the Lord, the righteous judge, will award him on that day, and not him only, but to all who love his appearing.

Tell him it is possible he will know his moment of salvation, or he may not. But it isn't important to know the day or hour. What is important is the growing realization of the reality of it. Assurance is an unstable thing anyway, always dependent on the closeness of one's walk with God. Declarations of faith, obedience, fellowship, the comfort of the Holy Spirit, *prayer*--these are objective things he can look to in the NOW to gauge his own profession, to examine himself to see if he be in the faith.

I would encourage someone to pray by way of confession of sin, and begging God to forgive and grant repentance unto life. One must start talking to God and listening to him speak through the Word, for without communication there is no relationship. A relationship between persons that does not include regular communication and intimacy is a farce. But it has to start somewhere. If the Holy Spirit is working on an elect man's heart, he is at least getting ready to hear his prayers.

I would not add on to the prayer all that stuff about assurance, confidence of being heard, etc. All that does is foster a false, easy confidence in God's good grace. The kingdom of heaven is beset with battle, and "violent men take it by storm," they force their way in.

Come to think of it, maybe better than all my words is simply the recommendation to go back to Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_ and read it over and over until his thoughts are inseperable from your own. No two gospel encounters are ever going to be alike in every respect. Some other portion or portions of God's Word is going to speak to someone's specific need.

Hope these ramblings are of some use...


----------



## BJClark (Sep 12, 2005)

I don't ask them or even push them for a confession of faith or even to say some contrite prayer that they are just mouthing to get me to shut up, as I have found over the years, many people do just that and they really don't understand they really DO need a Savior.

I just present the Gospel, sharing verses that explain salvation, then ask them to read the book of John on their own and to pray that God will show them their heart and sinfulness and need for a Savior. That is all that God asks ME to do, share the Message, which in turn opens the door for the Holy Spirit to work in their lives, as it is God who saves, not me. 

I have found that most times when I do it that way, if I know them personally, after they have taken the time to read the Bible on their own they will seek me out and ask more questions, other times I have seen them back at church, and then there are others I won't know until we get to heaven on whether or not they accepted Christ or not.

I still remember the very first person I shared Christ with, and much to my shame, I was pushy. I was a new Christian, and wanted everyone to know Christ and thought I could just force Him onto others. I have come to understand that just as I can't force myself or my friendship on others, I can't force a relationship with Christ on to them either. All I can do is make the introduction and then allow them to decide on their own if they want a relationship with Him or not.

My friend I first tried to introduce to Christ, got angry at me, and didn't speak to me for months, she didn't want to know Christ, and she didn't like that I took Him with me where ever I went. I ended up going back to her and apologizing for trying to force a relationship with Christ on her, and explained I just wanted her to know Jesus too, I wanted us to share a friendship with Him together. I didn't like leaving Him out, nor did I like leaving her out, and if I had I ignore Him when I did things with her I felt bad. She understood, because she could relate to what it was like to be friends with someone and another friend not liking them and so she couldn't spend time with them together. And with that, she decided she wanted to get to know Christ too, and realized she assumed all these things about Him that weren't true, and 20+ years later the three of us still spend some wonderful times together.

So go ahead and make the introduction, even telling them where they can find out more about Christ if they so choose, and then let them explore a relationship with Him on their own.


----------



## Herald (Sep 12, 2005)

Thanks to Bruce and Bobbi for their comments. I am grateful and appreciate your words. 

As I said in my entre' post, "I can no longer lead a person in the sinners prayer." That said, I feel compelled by a hidden sense of urgency to call the person to repentance. Was Paul not of the same thought when he said...




> 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.



The church I attend and serve at was planted by a larger Baptist church (10 miles south of us) five years ago on September 12, 2000. The leadership of our sending church is not Calvinistic by a long shot. The caricature they hold of Calvinistic churches includes a belief that evangelism is meager, if not dead. As a "convert" to Calvinism I do not have a lifetime of Reformed or Calvinistic practice to draw from. I credit the Baptist church for having a strong emphasis on evangelism. Yet I recognizing the danger of "easy believism" that was popularized by Finney and was the mainstream of evangelical thought for most of the 20th Century and now into the 21st Century. My desire is to instill in our flock a passion for the gospel and to share Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 5. I started to feel concerned that no one was commenting on my post. Not because of ego, but because I feel the issue is so important. 


[Edited on 9-12-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## rgrove (Sep 13, 2005)

Greetings Bill,

I invite people to church. When I was going into the neighborhood we just invited people to church. If they asked questions we answered. We always tried to leave our brochure which had information about our services, a statement of our beliefs, and a gospel message. We have a high view of preaching and believe that it is empowered in a special way by God in the conversion of sinners. I'm not trying say that we shouldn't do personal evangelism, but I am saying that from a Reformed perspective too much emphasis is placed on "personal evangelism" in our day. Talk to them, show them love, go out of your way to model Christ to them and ask them to come to a service. The congregation is an integral part of evangelism. Corporate prayer by the pastor is powerful evangelism. The hymns sung are an integral part. The public reading of scripture is a part of it. The preaching of God's word is of such importance words can't express it. Witnessing the ordinances of Baptism or the Lord's Supper are astonishingly good ways to communicate the gospel in a more wholistic manner than personal evangelism can ever attain to.

That being said, learn as best you can to give reason for the hope that is within you. I'm not proposing not engaging your intellect in ways to present the truth to an unbeliever, but seek to bring them into the sphere of Christ's church so that they can experience a far more full presentation of the gospel than you'll be able to present in the form of personal evangelism. 

It's difficult, but as Americans we are raised on the principles of rugged individualism and a heightened degree of personal responsibility. But you'll find that in Reformed churches there is an elevation of the importance of the church itself and it's components (preaching, prayer, ordinances, fellowship, singing, etc) in evangelism while at the same time encouraging it's people to bring their whole intellect into submission to Christ. The latter process leads to a better ability (because serious scholarship is taken more seriously than in many anti-intellectual church circles) to do personal evangelism and a better ability to reflect Christ to those around us. So our pastors train and equip us in many ways, but don't give us personal evangelism manuals and patterns to go out and employ. I expect you'll find Reformed Baptists, for example, more likely to do an outreach activity as a group than as individuals. We pray for these efforts on the part of our sister churches on a regular basis. But I don't think we've ever prayed for a sister church's implementation of a new personal evangelism program.

Well, I'm rambling I think. But is this a little more clear?

[Edited on 9-13-2005 by rgrove]


----------



## BJClark (Sep 13, 2005)

BaptistInCrisis

It sounds like what your looking for is more personal revival of the hearts of believers and non-believers, not just some words spoken to accept Christ, but a deep understanding of just how sinful we/they are.

I think a huge problem in finding this today is the fast pace of society, the mind numbing TV sets, and video games that people don't take time to really sit and think about anything. 

People don't medidate on the word, they believe since God is a God of Love and compassion He would 'never' allow them to go to Hell, I mean after all they are 'good people' at heart. 

It's like they think not breaking *some* of the Ten Commandments is what will get them to heaven. People don't even call sin, sin anymore they have renamed it as a Personality Dis-order and Many Christian Counselors buy into those names instead of addressing the issue as it really is a SIN Problem. 

And because it's a dis-order or a dis-ease they don't believe it's something that can change or be dealt with on an internal level, so they medicate in order to avoid addressing the issue. 

Maybe if our pastors would address this issue in our churches people would actually begin to understand they can't medicate sin and face the realities of our Sinfullness before God, and begin to see just how sinful we are on a personal level which would in turn draw people to repentance. 

Okay, I'm rambling here, but it seems like this plays a HUGE part in opening people's eyes to their own sin.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Sep 13, 2005)

Hi Bill

If you are asking about the presentation of the gospel, reasoning with souls, pleading and persuasion, and you want some examples of good calvinistic evangelism (baptist to boot ;-))

Then I would direct you here

http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Sound/SOUND1.html

And listen to any of Dr Masters' Sunday Evening Sermons.

I also recommend his book, Physicians of Souls:

http://www.wakemantrust.org/Physicians.html

and Biblical Strategies for Witness

http://www.wakemantrust.org/BiblicalStrategies.html


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 13, 2005)

I think some good things have been said already. But I would not shy away from demanding a response from the hearer, especially if you're preaching. That does not mean you do the "sinners prayer." But I would make it clear, that now, they are accountable to God's Word. God has revealed his way of salvation to them, a marvelous gracious act on His part to them, and now they must respond to the invitation of Christ. They can not remain nuetral now that the way of salvation has been made known to them. They must be encouraged to close with Christ personally.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I think some good things have been said already. But I would not shy away from demanding a response from the hearer, especially if you're preaching. That does not mean you do the "sinners prayer." But I would make it clear, that now, they are accountable to God's Word. God has revealed his way of salvation to them, a marvelous gracious act on His part to them, and now they must respond to the invitation of Christ. They can not remain nuetral now that the way of salvation has been made known to them. They must be encouraged to *close with Christ* personally.



 Encouragement to "close with Christ" is a very Puritan concept in evangelism. I counted the use of that phrase 17 times in part nine _alone_ of William Guthrie's _The Christian's Great Interest_.

See also Add to the Church: The Puritan Approach to Persuading Souls by Erroll Hulse.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 13, 2005)

I cannot recommend Walt Chantry's book _Today's Gospel_ highly enough. He uses Christ's encounter with the rich young ruler as the backdrop.


----------



## crhoades (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I cannot recommend Walt Chantry's book _Today's Gospel_ highly enough. He uses Christ's encounter with the rich young ruler as the backdrop.



This tiny book had a huge impact on me as I was embracing the doctrines of grace.


----------



## rgrove (Sep 14, 2005)

Good catch. As I read my response perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I didn't mean to insinuate that the reformed tradition doesn't demand that a person exposed to the gospel doesn't need to be forced to answer the question "Who do you say that I am?". By personal evangelism I was refering to the many canned approaches that people are being taught these days.


----------



## Robin (Sep 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> BaptistInCrisis
> 
> It sounds like what your looking for is more personal revival of the hearts of believers and non-believers, not just some words spoken to accept Christ, but a deep understanding of just how sinful we/they are.
> ...



Very astute insight, BJ! 

Robin


----------



## youthevang (Sep 14, 2005)

I was just reading this thread today, I ordered Walt Chantry's book _Today's Gospel_ and afterwards, I ran into a co-worker today that had questions about Christ.

This is a topic that I have been pondering for sometime with regards to "easy believism.".


----------



## Herald (Sep 14, 2005)

_Todays Gospel_. It is a book that I will order today. It is my desire to see our flock faithful to our Lord's command by sharing a bilblical gospel of repentance.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 14, 2005)

Good day Bill!

I believe this is an important question, especially for Calvinists. I have heard Calvinists say that nothing changes in regards to evangelism when converting from an Arminian mindset. I disagree. I will argue that Biblical evangelism only makes sense with Reformed Soteriology in mind.



> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> I am curious because evangelism is a command and I want to make sure that, as shepherd of God's flock, my brethren are fulfilling the command in a biblical manner.


 
Where in scriptures is evangelism commanded? Matthew 28 is the obvious answer, but who does Jesus give that command to? He gave it to the Apostles. Back up to Matthew 10 and Jesus gives a similar commission to the Apostles, although it is effective for a short time, unlike the Matthew 28 commission effective until the end of the age. The Matthew 10 commission was specific only to the elect within national Israel, not all nations. That commission enabled those sent out to heal the sick, drive out demons, and even raise the dead. Are all Christians commissioned to do likewise? Go ahead to Matthew 28. Jesus is once again speaking to His appointed Apostles (minus Judas) and commissions them to make disciples by baptizing people from all nationalities and teaching them all that He commanded. This commission is until the end of the age. Again, are all Christians commissioned to do likewise? 
The contemporary church answer is of course. But we must ask ourselves, are all Christians to be teachers and baptizers? Are we all the same body part within the body of Christ? Are we all a hand, an ear, an eye? James exhorted the Church to let not many become teachers, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment (3:1). But wasn't he familiar with the great commission to all believers that we all must be teachers and baptizers? Of course he was, as were the Apostles. Notice that although modern preachers emphasize our duty to make disciples by quoting the great commission, the Apostles themselves in writing to the churches never mentioned it. Was it because it was not issued to the individual saints but to the Apostles?

Now before anyone screams, "Hyper-Calvinist, grab your pitchforks!" Allow me to continue, but first a disclaimer: I believe God can effectively call His people through unorthodox means. He can use Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, jealous and heartless brothers, a big fish or even a talking donkey to accomplish His good purposes. So although churches such as Rick Warren's seem to attract thousands, that does not mean his method and view of evangelism is correct and we should just ignore scripture. We cannot judge an orthodox church by it's attendance.
God's word emphasizes community, united community. There is always someone to say "Amen!" We are not all teachers, nor should every disciple try to be. The burden the contemporary church is placing on the saints is that our duty is to forget the brethren and reach the lost. On the contrary, the brethren are who we give preference to (Romans 12:10). We are to lay down our lives for the brethren (1 John 3:16). Friendship with the world is hostility toward God (James 4:4). Should we give preference to the children of the devil? Shall we lay down our lives for the goats? Should we develop friendships with the world in order to save some? 

Here is the bottom line. As individual saints, we are salt, we are light to the world, a city on a hill through our love for God and thus each other. How does the world know that Jesus is the Son of God? "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren" (1 John 3:14). "I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, _so that the world may know that You sent Me_, and loved them, even as You have loved Me" (John 17:23). As individual body parts within the church, we each play our role; our part. The hand does what the hand does, NOT what a foot does. So if you are a teacher, you teach. If you are a giver, you give. If you are a server, you serve. By all of us in united love for each other, the salt and light will be apparent to the world resulting in hatred by the sons of destruction and a longing to join from the called. *Thus the Church, founded by the Apostles, as a unified whole consisting of each part doing it's purpose will fulfill the Great Commission*. As individual saints doing their part in the body, we devote ourselves to the word of God, to Fellowship, to the Lord's Table, and to the prayers (Acts 2:42). NOT to reaching the lost. The lost elect will be reached by unity among the sheep. 
Who adds to our numbers? A "clever" marketing plan? A seeker sensitive sermon? Of course not, the Lord adds to our number, not us! By us playing God and trying to add to the church in our ways, we are doing nothing more than opening the floodgates for the wolves and Antichrists. Why would Jesus lay down guidelines to tell a tree by it's fruit and how we should confront brothers in sin that may even lead to excommunication from the church? Did he not realize that influencing people's intellect is all that is needed to make a disciple? If influencing intellect is the case then why did the Apostle Paul cast out people from the church? Did he not know that all the person had to do was say a "magic prayer"? What about boasting? If salvation is a matter of intellectual assent, then the fact that I am saved and not my coworker must mean I am smarter, or wiser, or was raised in more favorable circumstances, etc. Why not boast, I have what it takes! Flesh and blood revealed everything to me, right? We do not need to trick or deceive people into joining us only so they will run away when they are finally offended by the word. The Church shall not water down the word, she shall preach the law and it's fulfillment - Christ. The law is the tutor that will lead the lost to the savior. The Church today tries too hard due to it's disbelief in God's effectual calling.

As individual saints, we devote ourselves per Acts 2:42 while doing our gifted part in the body of Christ loving the brethren all to the glory of God so that the world will know that God sent Christ. We preach the word in season and out even though it may offend the goats, but by the grace of God it will convict the unconverted sheep to cry, "What must we do to be saved!?" To which the Church responds, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized into the Church where she will begin teaching you all that Jesus commanded.

Biblical evangelism only makes sense in the context of Reformed soteriology.


----------



## Robin (Sep 14, 2005)

Christopher!

Robin


----------



## Herald (Sep 14, 2005)

> Now before anyone screams, "Hyper-Calvinist, grab your pitchforks!"



Christopher, the least you have to worry about is pitchforks. Inquisition is not my style. But you seem to be raising the accusation yourself. I have to be honest. I have parsed your post hoping to take it differently. Unfortunately I find your post disheartening. You seem to indicate that the elect will somehow hear God's word by the church doing what it is supposed to be doing. Let me give you an example:




> As individual saints, we devote ourselves per Acts 2:42 while doing our gifted part in the body of Christ loving the brethren all to the glory of God so that the world will know that God sent Christ.



I agree that we should be devoted to prayer. No Christian would deny that. We also should "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God" (2 Timothy 2:15) by the study of God's word. We certainly are to do all of this within the confines of the church, or as you put it, "the body of Christ." So are we to conclude that unbelievers will be mystically drawn to the church? Is there something about the church that is going to appeal to the unchurched? How is the unbeliever to hear the gospel?

You cited Matthew 28 as a representative text for those who believe in evangelism. You limited the effect of Matthew 28 by saying it was written only to the Apostles. Exegesis aside, that is a weak argument. Paul said, 
"Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ." (1 Corinthians 11:1). Was not Paul an Apostle? Did he not have apostolic authority? Certainly he did! It is interesting that the preceeding verse lets us know where Paul's heart was, "just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved." (1 Corinthians 10:33) It is interesting that Paul's desire is that, "all men may be saved." No, Paul was not waxing Areminian ("all men"). Would it be that we should wish for the same thing. None of us know who the elect are. Our desire should be that all will come to faith in Christ. We know that all will not; only those who are appointed unto eternal life (Acts 13:48) will come to faith. 

But back to your emphasis on Matthew 28. I find it troublesome that you would not seek to find other passages that may at least _seem_ to indicate that Christians should be engaged in evangelism. Since you were unable, or unwilling to do so, let me help you by sharing a few. 




> 2 Timothy 4:5 5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.



euangelistis (evangelist) = bearer of good tidings; good news

May I point out that Timothy was not an Apostle. He may have been Paul's protoge, but he was not an Apostle. But Paul told him to, "do the work of an evangelist." Why? This is not complicated. He wanted Timothy to proclaim the gospel in order that people may be saved. And this admonition was not just for Timothy. Read on...




> 2 Timothy 2:2 And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.



Now what do we make of 2 Corinthians 5:18-21?




> 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 8 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.



How is the unbeliever going to be reconciled to God? 




> Romans 10:1-15 Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks thus, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart "-- that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; 13 for "Whoever will call upon the name of the LORD will be saved." 14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good things!"



apostello (sent) = sent, to send away

If God wants to use Joel Osteen, Brittany Spears or Louis Farakahn in order to bring a sinner to the place where they will hear the gospel of grace, then so be it. But no one is going to be saved who does not hear God's word. And how shall they hear it if there is no one to tell it to them? And who is going to tell it to them unless someone is sent to them? 

Here is the great trap that must be avoided. We know that God sent prophets to warn and instruct His people. Finally God the Father sent John the Baptist (arguably the last Old Testament Prophet) to prepare the way for the Lord (Jesus Christ). The gospel of the kingdom first went out to the Jews. They rejected it. In Acts 10 we read where Peter was sent to Cornelius' house to preach the gospel. Later, the church confessed that the gospel and the gift of the Holy Spirt was being offered to the gentiles. But how was the gospel to be delivered to the gospel? By preaching the word of God! 

Do not glean from my first post that I was in anyway trivializing the church. The first concern of the church is to glorify God through worship and loving of the brethren (John 14:34). But this does not relieve the church of the command to preach the gospel. No where in my post did I say that every believer needs to be a full time evangelist. But I point you back to Paul, who said, "Be imitators of me, just as I am also of Christ." So who was Paul imitating? Christ. Should we not be doing the same thing? Did Christ Jesus preach a gospel of repentance? Yes, He did. Was His example only for the Apostles? What a ridiculous question to even ask. 

Am I hot about this topic? You bet I am. I quote another statement of yours...




> Biblical evangelism only makes sense in the context of Reformed soteriology.



A truthful statement, but in context with your post it seems nothing more than a neat way to throw evangelism back into the pulpit where it should remain locked to a lecturn.

I am Reformed in my soteriology. I am a Calvinist and do not believe anyone but the elect will come to faith. But I also believe that the way the unregenerate come to faith is through the preaching of the gospel. To think the unregenerate will be attracted to the church is mind-numbing. Yes, we may invite someone to church, and they may come to faith. It happens. But is not normative (In my humble opinion). 

I have more to say, but I need to take a deep breath and have a cold beverage.

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Steve Owen (Sep 15, 2005)

Hello Bill, 
Amen brother! You are entirely right.

Just a thought on some verses that you quoted:-

*2 Corinthians 5:18-6:2 
Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg [you] on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. We then as co-workers also plead [with you] not to receive the grace of God in vain. For he says: "In an acceptable time I have heard you, and in the day of salvation I have helped you." Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation! *

Just to point out that the word _'you'_ which I have twice placed in brackets, does not occur in the Greek. It is therefore unwise to assume that Paul is speaking only to the Corinthians. He is giving an defense of his ministry in these verses, and the 'pleading' and 'imploring' that he describes was part of his ministry to *all * who would hear him.

Martin


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 15, 2005)

This previous thread is worth reviewing as it deals with much the same issues raised here.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> Christopher, the least you have to worry about is pitchforks. Inquisition is not my style. But you seem to be raising the accusation yourself. I have to be honest. I have parsed your post hoping to take it differently. Unfortunately I find your post disheartening. You seem to indicate that the elect will somehow hear God's word by the church doing what it is supposed to be doing. Let me give you an example:
> 
> ...




Good day Bill.

First off, my motive for posting was not to directly refute you, but to clarify a common misconception about our role as individual saints in evangelism. Too often are we led to believe that our mission in life is to witness to non-Christians. By all means be willing and ready to give a defense, but leave the making of disciples to the church.

Will unbelievers be mystically drawn to the church? Mystically? No, but providentially? Yes. God effectually draws all of His people to Himself. Our concern is not to attract the unchurched. In fact the church functioning biblically will be quite offensive to many, but she will not be destroyed. God will add to our number, we preach the true word (for how will they hear without a preacher?). Was Peter´s first sermon attractive? Was Steven´s? Did God still add to our number? I am not promoting hocus pocus; I am simply saying the church often tries too hard to do God´s job thus sacrificing love for the body of Christ.



> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> You cited Matthew 28 as a representative text for those who believe in evangelism. You limited the effect of Matthew 28 by saying it was written only to the Apostles. Exegesis aside, that is a weak argument. Paul said,
> "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ." (1 Corinthians 11:1). Was not Paul an Apostle? Did he not have apostolic authority? Certainly he did! It is interesting that the preceeding verse lets us know where Paul's heart was, "just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved." (1 Corinthians 10:33) It is interesting that Paul's desire is that, "all men may be saved." No, Paul was not waxing Areminian ("all men"). Would it be that we should wish for the same thing. None of us know who the elect are. Our desire should be that all will come to faith in Christ. We know that all will not; only those who are appointed unto eternal life (Acts 13:48) will come to faith.



Being an imitator of Paul is not problematic to my point. To imitate him does not mean seek to have special revelation from Christ, heal every disease, cast out demons, etc. Paul was among the pillars of the Church. He was appointed to found the church. We should be imitators of him, but that does not mean we should all seek to be an Apostle. A qualified leader of a church must be above reproach and indeed someone to imitate. 

Certainly our desire can be for all men to be saved. We cannot tell the elect from the non-elect, so the external call is for all. I am not sure why you have problems with my argument. I am not saying that we do not bother with evangelism. I do realize that people can think that is where I was going thus the Hyper-Calvinist disclaimer. _My point is centered in the difference between the call of the Church as a unified body and the call of the individual parts of that unified body._ As a Church, she preaches, she calls, she evangelizes, she baptizes and she teaches. As individuals, we devote ourselves to the right understanding of the word of God, to fellowship and breaking of bread and to the prayers. By us individuals doing this in love we will be evangelizing. Some of those individuals are teachers, some are apostles (lower case "œA" in that they are sent out to start churches), some arte evangelist, but NOT ALL. Some individual saints should refrain from teaching and should not take all the responsibility on themselves for making someone a disciple. The Church is our mother who nourishes us with the milk of god´s word.




> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> But back to your emphasis on Matthew 28. I find it troublesome that you would not seek to find other passages that may at least _seem_ to indicate that Christians should be engaged in evangelism. Since you were unable, or unwilling to do so, let me help you by sharing a few.



I did not seek to find other passages, because I was explaining how Matthew 28 is misapplied in many churches today. Again the church consists of evangelists along with Pastor-teachers and qualified overseers. Timothy was appointed into an overseer position within the church. 

_Bill, do you believe it is every individual Christian´s mission to teach an baptize?_

On the contrary the church should not just let anyone teach. However, all saints support this calling.



> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who are we to entrust these things to? Faithful men who are able to teach.

Again the church consists of teachers, but not all are a hand or an eye are they? But the hand works with the eye and the eye with the hand. They support each other.



> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> Now what do we make of 2 Corinthians 5:18-21?



We obey.




> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 8 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
> ...



As an ambassadors for Christ, shall we send a new convert to a church to refute a Gnostic heresy that is running rampant? Again, I will emphasize, that our love for each other will show the world that Jesus is from God. By our love we represent Christ, causing some to hate us and some to join us.




> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > Romans 10:1-15 Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks thus, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart "-- that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; 13 for "Whoever will call upon the name of the LORD will be saved." 14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good things!"
> ...



Bill, does the church consist of preachers and teachers? If so, use them.



> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> Here is the great trap that must be avoided. We know that God sent prophets to warn and instruct His people. Finally God the Father sent John the Baptist (arguably the last Old Testament Prophet) to prepare the way for the Lord (Jesus Christ). The gospel of the kingdom first went out to the Jews. They rejected it. In Acts 10 we read where Peter was sent to Cornelius' house to preach the gospel. Later, the church confessed that the gospel and the gift of the Holy Spirt was being offered to the gentiles. But how was the gospel to be delivered to the gospel? By preaching the word of God!



I agree. Who preaches? Who teaches? Should the Eunich guide people through Isaiah or should Philip?



> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> Do not glean from my first post that I was in anyway trivializing the church. The first concern of the church is to glorify God through worship and loving of the brethren (John 14:34). But this does not relieve the church of the command to preach the gospel. No where in my post did I say that every believer needs to be a full time evangelist. But I point you back to Paul, who said, "Be imitators of me, just as I am also of Christ." So who was Paul imitating? Christ. Should we not be doing the same thing? Did Christ Jesus preach a gospel of repentance? Yes, He did. Was His example only for the Apostles? What a ridiculous question to even ask.



I believe you took my post too personal as if I was directly refuting you. I apologize for giving such an impression. We imitate Christ, we imitate the Apostles, but does that mean we walk on water, or even segregate ourselves from the gentiles? We love the Christ and we love His Church. If you are able to teach all that Jesus commanded, then do so by the authority and appointment of your church. If you are gifted in different area, then do that in love in support of the call of God.



> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> Am I hot about this topic? You bet I am. I quote another statement of yours...



This is unfortunate.




> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > Biblical evangelism only makes sense in the context of Reformed soteriology.
> ...



Bill, disciples are made by baptizing people into the Church where she will teach and guide them in the knowledge of God's will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that they will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light (Colossians 1:9-12).

Blessings!


----------



## Herald (Sep 15, 2005)

Chris - I actually posted a long reply to your last post but deleted it. It would only serve to prolong a debate that does not deserve a life.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Sep 16, 2005)

Does not deserve a life?

I am very disappointed that no-one has rebutted ChristopherPaul... at all... but would it just be a matter of semantics to do so?

The way I read what CP is saying, he appears to absolve the believer of the duty of personal witness (aside from giving a defence), and leave it all (on a personal level) to that old chestnut 'the evangelism of holy living', and on a corporate level to the officers of the church.

If this is what you mean, CP, All I can say is



And if no-one else takes this posting to task then I will as soon as I can. CP, you may deny being a hyper-calvinist but your post can only promote hyper-calvinISM.

JH


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 16, 2005)

Is there a technical difference between preaching the gospel and witnessing for Christ? If so, let's make the distinction here:


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Is there a technical difference between preaching the gospel and witnessing for Christ? If so, let's make the distinction here:





> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> This previous thread is worth reviewing as it deals with much the same issues raised here.



As mentioned earlier, there is a previous thread that delved into the distinctions raised here between preaching and witnessing. 

Preaching is a commission given with the _authority_ of Christ to proclaim the gospel only to his ministers and not to all believers in general. 

Westminster Larger Catechism:



> Q. 158. By whom is the Word of God to be preached?
> 
> A. The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted,[1015] and also duly approved and called to that office.[1016]
> 
> ...



The Great Commission is given to those who are able to preach _and_ baptize. It is not a commission given to all but a commission given to those who are authorized to act with authority on behalf of Christ and his kingdom (ie., church officers).

On the other hand, the charge to witness a good testimony to the faith is given to all believers. Matt. 5.16, 1 Peter 3.15 and other texts require all believers to live and speak worthy of a holy calling such that others will see our good works and hear our good words and be compelled to glorify God for what they see and hear, and some will even ask us to give an account for the hope that lies within us, for which we should all be ready to respond. 

Moreover, all believers are to support the work of the minister even though they are not official ambassadors of Christ. They can and should pray, invite others to church and otherwise assist the labors of ministers who are commissioned to preach the gospel.

_Evangelism_ (using the strict definition of 'public proclamation of the gospel with authority') is given to those called and commissioned by Christ for that specific purpose. _Apologetics_ (defense of the faith) and _witnessing_ (according to our place and station) is given to all believers. There is nothing hyper-Calvinistic about this distinction. It is Biblical and it is what the Puritans (who believed fervently in spreading the good news) taught, particularly in the Westminster Standards (see also the Directories for Public and Family Worship).

To quote Bruce from the earlier thread:



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> The puritans, blessed precisionists that they were, distinguished Preaching (used in the Scriptures) _as a technical term_ from all other forms of speaking. That is the distinction that I believe VH is getting at. The terminology was borrowed from the language of civil law and government. Caesar (or kings) had "heralds." These were not mailmen. They were mouthpieces, officers of the government. When they spoke _authoritatively_ they spoke with the voice of Caesar. That authoritative speech was _Caesar_ speaking. It was called "heralding" or "proclaiming". In our Bibles the words are "preach" and "preaching". They had no other authority. They could not say anything they weren't authorized to say.
> 
> Preachers are Jesus' heralds. They have an official commision (ordination) and a specific message--the gospel. No one but a herald could speak with the authority of Caesar. No one but a preacher can speak with the authority of Christ. But Joe can tell you what he heard the herald say. He can tell you what he read off the placard that the city officials nailed up after the herald read it. And Joe can tell you what the preacher said on Sunday, and that he'll be back next Sunday to say it again. And he can tell you what he read in the Bible.
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 16, 2005)

Thank you Andrew.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> As mentioned earlier, there is a previous thread that delved into the distinctions raised here between preaching and witnessing.
> 
> Preaching is a commission given with the _authority_ of Christ to proclaim the gospel only to his ministers and not to all believers in general.



Agreed.





> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> _Evangelism_ (using the strict definition of 'public proclamation of the gospel with authority') is given to those called and commissioned by Christ for that specific purpose. _Apologetics_ (defense of the faith) and _witnessing_ (according to our place and station) is given to all believers. There is nothing hyper-Calvinistic about this distinction. It is Biblical and it is what the Puritans (who believed fervently in spreading the good news) taught, particularly in the Westminster Standards (see also the Directories for Public and Family Worship).
> 
> 
> Being trained to share your faith is a GOOD THING. But your obligation, AND YOUR AUTHORITY stops right there, if you are not a minister of the gospel.



I agree.

But ChristopherPaul has said this:



> Too often are we led to believe that our mission in life is to witness to non-Christians. By all means be willing and ready to give a defense, but leave the making of disciples to the church



And I find this to be very different from the distinction you have made, Andrew.

We are either to witness, or not to witness. As I said, this could be semantics, but my reading of what CP has said is that our mission in life is NOT to witness, but just to live good little holy lives and leave the rest to the officers of the church.

By witnessing, we are not 'making disciples', we are WITNESSING! We have personal witness, and we have corporate, church witness, which includes the public proclamation of the gospel by ordained men.

Am I totally missing the point here? If so, just whack me on the head with a thick leather-bound confession and I'll be on my way...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> But ChristopherPaul has said this:
> 
> 
> ...



ChristopherPaul may wish to clarify his statement further, but I suspect what he means by critiquing the idea that "our mission in life is witness to non-Christians" is really the idea that we are all supposed to _evangelize_ (which I am again using according to the strict definition of 'public proclamation of the gospel with authority') unbelievers. So, you may be right that there is some confusion caused here by a semantic misunderstanding (if I am misunderstanding ChristopherPaul's intent I will stand corrected). 

It is commonly taught in Arminian circles today, particularly in parachurch ministries with which I am acquainted, that it is the duty of every believer (per the Great Commission) to proclaim the gospel to as many people as possible according to a particular formula prescribed for 'witnessing' to unbelievers (by that they mean, really, preaching something akin to the 'Four Spiritual Laws'). In other words, if one is at a restaurant, and one fails to 'share' the gospel with one's waitress, then one has failed in his duty as prescribed by the Great Commission. The Arminian, I think, feels compelled to make sure everyone around him is given the 'opportunity' to accept or reject the gospel and if a believer passes an unbeliever by without presenting the gospel then that unbeliever's blood may be on the believer's hands. If this is what ChristopherPaul is reacting to, then I can relate to the intent of his statement. It negates the Biblical distinction between the duties of the ordained vs. those of the laity and puts undue pressure to 'save' others on those who are not called to minister the gospel. That distinction, which I have tried to set forth previously, does not in any way take away responsibilities on the part of the laity to speak the truth in love at all times according to their place and calling, in due season, including the message of the gospel. But it does mean that the mission of the ordained ministers to preach the gospel is not the same as the mission of the laity which is to live and speak according to their calling whether or not that involves articulation of the gospel to everyone they meet.

I hope this helps to clarify. If I am off-base as to what ChristopherPaul is getting at, then my post may not be helpful, but at least I am explaining how I see the gospel duties of ministers and the laity working out vis-a-vis outreach to the lost around us. We should all care about spreading the good news and work to promote the advancement of the kingdom. But preaching/evangelizing is distinct from apologetics/witnessing and the mission of most of us is not 'woe unto us if we preach not the gospel' but rather 'man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever' (which encompasses speaking truth and the gospel message but does not make the primary mission in life of the laity to 'save' souls).

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 16, 2005)

The delusion I am in contention with is that every individual disciple is to fulfill the Matthew 28 commission "“ personally, themselves, sole mission and goal in their life. Those who are not teachers or apologists are needlessly stressed out over such misleadings simply because they are told to be a hand when they are an eye. Instead they should be encouraged to be an eye as best as they can thus helping the hand.

The commission; the ultimate duty of the Church on Christ´s authority, is to teach and baptize thus making disciples. To make a disciple, one must taught by qualified teachers appointed by the presbytery supported by the saints; the brethren. 

If one is convinced to raise their hand, walk and aisle, sign a card or say some "œmagic prayer" but is unwilling to be baptized into a church to begin learning all that Jesus commanded, thus unwilling to devote themselves to the word of God, to the brethren, the sacraments, and to the prayers, then we can only conclude that they are not regenerate even though they responded to some sort of call.

As individual saints, be us teachers, givers, servers, helpers, etc, we must not be stressed with the misguiding that we are obligated to make disciples out of everyone we come in contact with. By all means share the hope that you have, love them to Christ, invite them to church, BUT do not think that you must make them a disciple. That will come. For all we know they are regenerate before even coming to church. That should be apparent by their eagerness to learn all that Christ commanded. Or some may come, hear the word and then cry what must I do to be saved! Or some may come and conclude that we are all drunk and crazy and leave our midst.

Modern Christianity is too concerned with numbers and on-the-spot decisions over a commitment to begin learning. What we have is a mass deception. Churches are so concerned with numbers that they no longer hand anyone over to satan (1 Cor. 5) or confront a brother in sin to the point of excommunication from the assembly (Mat. 18).

People may have been convinced to make a decision but are never taught at all or even exhorted that one must be taught. In fact many are encouraged to keep living in the same way neglecting repentance. Then when that person comes across hard teachings such as from John chapter 6 or chapter 10, then as a result many of those disciples withdraw and do not walk with Him anymore. Or A division occurs among the people because of these words resulting in many saying, "œsuch teaching is insane, why listen?"


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 16, 2005)

Chris,
Not that I disagree with anything you havce said, but for the record, do you agree with what Andrew has provided or are you taking this a step further?


----------



## Herald (Sep 16, 2005)

> I am very disappointed that no-one has rebutted ChristopherPaul... at all... but would it just be a matter of semantics to do so?



Jonathan,

A long time ago, a very wise person told me, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...its a duck!" If I thought that an exegetical response would help convince Christopher, then I would have responded. I was so dismayed after reading both of his posts that I wondered if any response could sway him from his (In my humble opinion) unbiblical position. I doubt it would/will. Furthermore, I share many similar views with my Presbyterian brothers. But if the WCF is the standard by which this matter is decided, it is obvious that we are going to sharply disagree. I find disagreements of this magnitude passionately held to by both camps. If that is the case, I doubt much good comes from lobbing salvos back and forth. 

And Chris, for the record...YOU are the only one who is using Matthew 28. Many of my Baptist brethren, who share by point of view, do not use Matthew 28 as a proof text.



[Edited on 9-16-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > I am very disappointed that no-one has rebutted ChristopherPaul... at all... but would it just be a matter of semantics to do so?
> ...



Bill,
Aside from Chris' post, would you mind interacting with what Andrew has provided?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 16, 2005)

Andrew, well said.

I have met with far too many Christians who are unfairly overwhelmed because they are not a C.S. Lewis when it comes to the Sigmund Freud´s they encounter. It is known that they are a follower of Jesus, so the sons of the devil interrogate. The genuine Christian is left defenseless. Does that mean they should have been ready and well studied on polemics and theological answers to the world´s attacks?

The fact that certain Christians die believing in Christ is testimony to the irresistible grace of God. Some have no defense whatsoever to the scientific attacks against our faith. But they remain steadfast and thank God for those in the body who are gifted in such areas. Those gifted can and should thank God for those gifted in the other areas.

Geesh, I truly mean to write a short post, but I can´t seem to. If I had more time available, perhaps I would be able to condense. Apologies.
 

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by ChristopherPaul]

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by ChristopherPaul]


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> Not that I disagree with anything you havce said, but for the record, do you agree with what Andrew has provided or are you taking this a step further?



Good day Scott!

Andrew posted in between me hitting reply and submitting my post, so I missed it.

I agree with what Andrew has provided.

Cheers!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 16, 2005)

Bill:

My intent is not to upset you. You are accusing me of some high crimes.

Where am I off in my interpretation of Matthew 28?

Do you believe it is every Christian´s responsibility to teach and baptize?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Sep 16, 2005)

Bill

What with Andrew's helpful (when is he ever not?) comments, and CP's tighter definition of what he MEANS, I think I find myself, whilst not a Presbyterian, broadly in agreement with the general drift here.

The Arminian numbers-seeking philosophy is soul-destroying to the individual believer, but we also obviously avoid the extreme of hyper-calvinism by reminding ourselves that scripture shows that the Lord uses His people as instruments in His plans.

I do agree that CP's original posts did seem dismaying, but in the light of his explanations I find them less so.

With more time to think and ponder I could doubtless pick a few little holes but life's too short and besides, I have to get five more people saved by the end of the week otherwise my quota will not be met and I'll get humiliated in the Sunday Services...



kidding...


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Jonathan, I believe our mission as individual disciples will result in a witness to the world. By our love, by our unity, all men will come to the Church (John 17:23 and 1 John 3:14).

We testify of Christ. An accurate testimony or witness is, "œI believe Jesus is the Christ, son of the living God." Because this testimony is true, good works should already be evident and the world notices that I have a hope within me. If my testimony and my resulting works draw them, then they should be glad to join the Church (through baptism) in order to begin discipleship (through learning all that Jesus commanded).

As an individual Christian, I should stop at that. I testify to the hope I have. My devotion is to the Church, not to teaching and baptizing the lost as if I, myself am some sort of walking individual church.

One may not even know why they believe theologically, but they cannot deny that they believe, and they are eager to learn all that Jesus commanded simply because they love Jesus.

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by ChristopherPaul]


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> Bill
> 
> What with Andrew's helpful (when is he ever not?) comments, and CP's tighter definition of what he MEANS, I think I find myself, whilst not a Presbyterian, broadly in agreement with the general drift here.
> ...



LOL!

I expected the pitchforks, that is why I made the disclaimer in my original post. There is a line that we must be careful not to cross. We can be hyper-Calvinists by becoming elitists and ignoring the world, or we can be followers of Christ who are salt and light to the world through our unity and love. 

Grace!


----------



## Herald (Sep 16, 2005)

Okay, where do I go from here? Individual responses or the shotgun approach? For now, I am going to use by double ought buck shot.

First off, I am acutely aware of the Areminian view of "witnessing." Get as many decisions for Christ as you can. Fill up the roles. I distance myself from that view of evangelism.

Second, the position that unbelievers will be called via the faithful preaching/teaching of God's word within the context of the local church. I buy some of that. To the extent that a sinner will frequent a church that is preaching the gospel, CP's view is accurate. I never disagreed with that part of his premise. But it is unfair for CP to throw back at me as to whether I believe all believers are to teach and baptize. It is my position that those actions have no bearing on sharing the gospel with a lost sinner. I receive the impression from CP's posts (and I still hold to this opinion) that evangelizing is best left to those capable of teaching and baptizing. If that is his position, I sharply differ from him. 

All of us have members of our family that are unregenerate. If they were to die today they would go to hell. Add to that close friends, business associates and common acquaintances and we have a bevy of folks that we rub shoulder with who are foreign to the gospel of grace. I wonder what our approach should be to those who are closest to us who do not have faith in Christ? Do we simply invite them to church and pray the Lord uses the proclimation of His word to change them? Or do we reason with them from the scriptures, persuading (2 Cor. 5:11) them to place their faith in Christ alone? 

Remember, we are not to be wise in our estimation. I am always concerned about creating a caste system within Christianity. We are guilty of that when we divide believers into learned and unlearned. Ivory towers are often cold and inhospitable, even though they may be full of knowledge and learning. And lest I be accused of being anti-intellectual; I believe all believers should mature in their faith. This includes knowledge of the word and the history and customs of the church.

I actually began this thread with a desire to understand different Reformed traditions in regards to evangelism. I was not expecting such sharp disagreement.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 16, 2005)

> I actually began this thread with a desire to understand different Reformed traditions in regards to evangelism. I was not expecting such sharp disagreement.



Yea, we cut it straight here.............


----------



## Herald (Sep 16, 2005)

> Yea, we cut it straight here.............



Scott - straight? Sometimes it seems anyway but straight.  But I have quickly learned not to assume anything!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 16, 2005)

Bill, I appreciate your response. I am beginning to see where our conflict is. Basically the question has now become: is the gospel call, which is proclaiming Christ crucified, for all those indwelt by the Holy Spirit, hands, eyes, ears, feet, etc. while actually making disciples is for the Church alone which is made up of those indwelt by the Holy Spirit each doing their gifted part in unified love?

Hmm, I see the dichotomy and wonder where the line is from teaching to simply proclaiming. Perhaps I am being too dogmatic, we shall hopefully find out.

I certainly do not think every baby Christian should be guiding people through the scriptures as Philip did with the Eunuch, for instance. However, was Philip evangelizing to the lost or was he teaching? James did not permit many to become teachers within the church, but are we as individual saints free to teach those outside the church in order to persuade them?

I would appreciate some input.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > Yea, we cut it straight here.............
> ...



Bill,
In all seriousness, there are many things that affect one's view. Do you disagree with what has been presented thus far above? If so, straighten us out........seriously. Present your case. This is what is so blessed about this board and the community of believers that are involved. I have yet to see where when someone presents an ironclad case, that people do not respond graciously and turn from error.


----------



## Herald (Sep 16, 2005)

> Bill, I appreciate your response. I am beginning to see where our conflict is. Basically the question has now become: is the gospel call, which is proclaiming Christ crucified, for all those indwelt by the Holy Spirit, hands, eyes, ears, feet, etc. while actually making disciples is for the Church alone which is made up of those indwelt by the Holy Spirit each doing their gifted part in unified love?



Chris, lets look at Romans 15:14:




> Romans 15:14 And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able also to admonish one another.



The word for 'admonish' is "noutheteo." It means (Friberg), "admonish, warn, instruct, as giving instructions in regard to belief or behavior."

It is interesting that Paul would use this word in regards the church in Rome. Paul addressed, "my brethren." Additionally he said, "you yourselves" and "one another." Paul was not writing to teachers only, but to all the brethren in Rome. 

What was Paul telling them? That they were, "filled with all knowledge" and "able also to admonish one another." They were able to teach one another. Paul was not drawing a distinction between learned an unlearned. 

Look now at another Pauline passage where the word "noutheteo" 
is used.




> 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction , 13 and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another.



In this passage the Greek word for "instruction" is "noutheteo." Paul uses the same word in Romans 15 as he does here. The contrast is striking. In Romans 15 Paul uses it in the context of all believers being able to instruct. In 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul uses it in the context of "those who diligently labor among you." Who are these who "diligently labor?" Today they would be church leaders (elders and pastors). The only parallel between these two passages is the word "noutheteo." In actuality these two passages are contrasts. 

The point?

All Christians have the indwelling Holy Spirit and are able, to the level of their understanding and by the power of the Spirit, to "admonish" one another. If a believer can instruct another believer, why can they not share the gospel with an unbeliever? The answer? There is no good reason not to. 

Now let me touch a moment on the matter of balance. The Christian life needs a fulcrum. If we are too far to the right, we become so heavenly minded that we are no earthly good (to borrow a phrase). Our eloquence in matters pretaining to church and doctrine may be second to none. Yet we have no relevance in the world. We lose touch with the world we live in and appear to the world as holier-than-thou. But what of the far left? It is just as unbalanced. A passion for the souls of men, devoid of the power of God's word, is misplaced. An attitude of "save 'em and sign 'em up" is perversion of the grace of God. There must be a balance. I believe the bible lays the balance out clearly. I have quoted many verses in other posts that supports a passion for the lost and a command to preach the gospel. Chris has done a good job of pointing out the ecclesiastical commands of scripture. Both are relevant and necessary, but none stands independent from the other.

Scott, in response to this comment:



> Do you disagree with what has been presented thus far above? If so, straighten us out........seriously. Present your case.



I have and I am again. But my original post was not about debating ecclesiastical vs. evangelistic pros and cons. I was simply asking about different methods of evangelism in Reformed circles. In Chris' earlier post, it seemed that there was no method of evangelism outside of the pulpit. I disagree with that. If that was truly Chris' position, then we must conclude that missionaries are in error since they are not a local church. Not every missionary is able to start a church. Many of them labor among remote people groups proclaiming the gospel. Some never see the fruit of their labors. Are we to conclude that if God wanted the pygmies to be saved that they would have sought out the nearest WCF proclaiming church? 

Again, I call myself back to my comment on balance. I will concede to Chris (which is really no concession, since I have held this position for years) that some are more apt to teach than others. These are the shepherds that lovingly watch over the flock of God. But even rank-and-file members of the flock have the indwelling Holy Spirit. As such they are able to proclaim God's word, both to each other and to the lost.




> 1 John 2:20-21a 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. 21a I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it...



Now what do we do with this balance? Glorify God and enjoy Him forever. But as for me? I sure would love to glorify Him with more sinners regenerated....especially members of my family for whom I grieve. In the end it is ordained by God for His glory. In that I trust.

[Edited on 9-17-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 17, 2005)

Bill,

You write:


> I have quoted many verses in other posts that supports a passion for the lost and a command to preach the gospel.



Again, the distinction needs to be made between witnessing and preaching (proclaiming). 

Do you believe they are the same things? 

Please, in your own words, define what the great commission is?



[Edited on 9-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Herald (Sep 17, 2005)

> Do you believe they are the same things?



Scott - yes and no (man...I hate it when someone answers that way to a question that I pose). Of course, let me explain...

In the sense that witnessing is a attempt to impart knowledge of something (the persons depravity and sinfulness), and someone (the Lord Jesus Christ), then yes...witnessing is a form of teaching. But we know, from 1 Corinthians 2:14, that the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. It is hard to teach someone who is spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1). We share the gospel prayerfully, hoping that the Lord will quicken the heart of the sinner unto salvation.

Let me become a bit more practical. What actually is "witnessing?" In order to share the gospel with a sinner, does a believer have to exegete a complete biblical text, annotated, single-spaced and leather bound? No. In order to share the gospel with a sinner, can a believer share a verse? Personal testimony? An act of charity in Jesus' name that leads to a discussion about God? Handing out a gospel tract?* Yes. When we witness, we do so within our ability/knowledge and by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not our responsibility to push for a decision for Christ. God is the One who has chosen the "foolishness of preaching" as the means by which sinners are called and converted. Once regenerated, the new believer is able to be taught. The new nature is now able to receive the things of the Spirit of God. This is not possible before regeneration.

As for Matthew 28:19,20 (and Mark 16:15), I do understand that there is a specific command being given to the eleven. It is arguable that the Apostles were not able to go into "all the world" in their lifetime. I believe Acts 1:8 supports this. Were the Apostles able to reach the remotest parts of the earth? I suppose it depends on how you define "remotest part." From a literal normative approach, I take it to mean the remotest parts of the globe, not just the areas that the Apostle's feet would tread upon. I believe an exegetical argument could be made that we are also to "go" as a continuation of the command in Acts 1:8. 

Scott - but even if we disagree on the exegesis regarding witnessing, is it not something we should desire to do? This great grace which has saved us should reach a critical mass within us. To proclaim it to a lost and perishing world cannot be a great sin. It is God who will use His word to bring those He chooses into life. 

I suppose I have taken this personally, and for that I apologize. I never thought the issue of sharing ones faith in Christ was even open for debate.

*The average gospel tract is a treatise on free will. I reject most of them. Thankfully there are a few that present the gospel biblically. John Piper has an excellent "give-a-way" booklet he has published that presents the gospel in a manner which accentuates the sovereignty of God.

[Edited on 9-17-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > Do you believe they are the same things?
> ...



Have all of us been ordained as teachers? The term is specific in the bible.........In fact, please show me where the term _witness_ is even applied to other than teachers. I am more comfortable with the term _sharing_.

Phm 1:1 Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved fellow worker 
Phm 1:2 and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house: 
Phm 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
Phm 1:4 I thank my God always when I remember you in my prayers, 
Phm 1:5 because I hear of your love and of the faith that you have toward the Lord Jesus and all the saints, 
Phm 1:6 and I pray that the *sharing* of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ.

There is an pertinent difference; there has to be, else the machine breaks down, which is exactly what has occured. Do I _share_? Absolutely!




> But we know, from 1 Corinthians 2:14, that the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. It is hard to teach someone who is spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1). We share the gospel prayerfully, hoping that the Lord will quicken the heart of the sinner unto salvation.



How is this accomplished practically? Again, does the common man _preach_? Men are saved by hearing the preached word. Can witnessing accomplish the task, I am sure of it. However, the overall goal should be to get the person to come to church, hear the _preached_ message by one of Gods ordained, called servants, subsequently attaching themselves to the local church. My heart grieves for all the sharing I have done and never followed up with these people. The command is to _make disciples_; it is contrabiblical to witness and shake hands goodbye, leaving the person to the world and a lie that he is now saved because he agreed with our message. Outside of the church, there is no hope of salvation.



> Let me become a bit more practical. What actually is "witnessing?" In order to share the gospel with a sinner, does a believer have to exegete a complete biblical text, annotated, single-spaced and leather bound? No. In order to share the gospel with a sinner, can a believer share a verse? Personal testimony? An act of charity in Jesus' name that leads to a discussion about God? Handing out a gospel tract?* Yes.



I call this being salt and light........



> When we witness, we do so within our ability/knowledge and by the power of the Holy Spirit.



Correct. However, keep in mind, the HS will not work outside of Gods command and decree's, i.e. lawfully ordained men.




> It is not our responsibility to push for a decision for Christ. God is the One who has chosen the "foolishness of preaching" as the means by which sinners are called and converted.



Key word: Preaching. Lay people are not preachers & preachers are not laypeople.



> Once regenerated, the new believer is able to be taught.



Who is responsible for that teaching?



> The new nature is now able to receive the things of the Spirit of God. This is not possible before regeneration.



Agreed.



> As for Matthew 28:19,20 (and Mark 16:15), I do understand that there is a specific command being given to the eleven.



All 11 were ordained by Christ.



> It is arguable that the Apostles were not able to go into "all the world" in their lifetime.



True, they were to pass the keys and ordain more officers for the job that Christ ordained them with.



> I believe Acts 1:8 supports this. Were the Apostles able to reach the remotest parts of the earth? I suppose it depends on how you define "remotest part." From a literal normative approach, I take it to mean the remotest parts of the globe, not just the areas that the Apostle's feet would tread upon. I believe an exegetical argument could be made that we are also to "go" as a continuation of the command in Acts 1:8.



~See above statement



> Scott - but even if we disagree on the exegesis regarding witnessing,



Having defined the terms, historically Bill, no one agree's with your interpretation.




> .......is it not something we should desire to do?



We all should share what God has done. We all should be a statement of Christ, a love letter; salt and light. We all should be able to give a reason for the hope that is in us. Lets leave the _preaching_ to the officers called and ordained by Christ.

I suggest doing a Greek study on the words #2097, 2098, 2099 and compare them to the texts. You will be surprised.

[Edited on 9-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Herald (Sep 17, 2005)

Scott - what do you make of Romans 15:14 vs. 1 Thessalonians 5:12,13? I commented on these two passages in a previous post? While the passage in Romans is not ordaining laypeople as ministers of the gospel, it seems that they are able, and expected, to teach (noutheteo). 

Interested in your interpretation.

Thanks.


----------



## Herald (Sep 17, 2005)

> How is this accomplished practically? Again, does the common man preach? Men are saved by hearing the preached word. Can witnessing accomplish the task, I am sure of it. However, the overall goal should be to get the person to come to church, hear the preached message by one of Gods ordained, called servants, subsequently attaching themselves to the local church. My heart grieves for all the sharing I have done and never followed up with these people. The command is to make disciples; it is contrabiblical to witness and shake hands goodbye, leaving the person to the world and a lie that he is now saved because he agreed with our message. Outside of the church, there is no hope of salvation.



Scott - I am not ignoring your first paragraph, but in my opinion I find this quote to be the heart of your argument (as far as I am concerned). 

I attended a well known bible institute in New York State. We were encouraged to persuade people to make decisions for Christ. A weak attempt was made to introduce these new "converts" to a solid bible teaching church. I share your grief in that area. I can literally weep for those who may think they are saved based on a verbal prayer. But that does not mean "sharing" ones faith is wrong, just because some have abused the privelege. I know you would agree with that. 

When you say, "Outside of the church, there is no hope of salvation" are you suggesting that no one can come to faith without A) Doing so within the actual brick-and-mortar building B) Doing so under the formal authority of the church C) Another explanation I do not understand? Your statement makes me question the work of missionaries. Missionaries are usually not under the formal authority of a local church (even though they are sent and supported by churches). Are they rouge evangelists?




> We all should share what God has done. We all should be a statement of Christ, a love letter; salt and light. We all should be able to give a reason for the hope that is in us. Lets leave the preaching to the officers called and ordained by Christ.



Scott, I agree...we should all be "salt and light" (to borrow your term). That is what I term "witnessing" and you term "sharing." Semantics? It seems that way. I do not question your commitment to share your faith in Christ. As far as the preaching, I agree that formal teaching of the "logos" should be from trained men. You state that this preaching should be from "officers called and ordained by Christ." I will accept your statement, even though Baptist churches may grant more latitude in this area. For example, in our church the ability to teach is not granted based on a formal church position. If there is a brother who is well trained in the word, possesses the ability, has the desire, and whose life is one of observable character, he may be given the opportunity to preach/teach.

As the rhetoric cools (mostly from my end), it seems we are more in agreement than we are apart.


----------



## turmeric (Sep 17, 2005)

I think the problem may be that some believe only in crisis-conversion, whereas the reformed seem to believe more in process-conversion. In the first instance, someone hears the gospel, believes it instantly and maybe says a prayer for the first time. In the latter, one might share one's faith with someone, that person starts to take an interest, then can start coming to church and hearing the preached Word, while learning what Christians do and how they think, i.e. discipleship. It may be that the person comes to faith at some point in this process. This doesn't mean that there are no crisis-conversions, only that they aren't the only kind. Typical "4-Spiritual-Laws" evangelism is geared toward a crisis approach. Even when such conversions occur, we are responsible to teach them to observe all that has been commanded and to be baptized.


----------



## Steve Owen (Sep 17, 2005)

I think that if we could actually get a glimpse into hell, wec would have a very different view of the importance of evangelism. Our friends, relations, maybe even children are heading in that direction. Will we wait for an 'ordained preacher' to come and minister to them? It sounds like an excuse for inactivity to me! 

Consider Acts 8:4. *'Therefore those who were scattered* [by Saul's persecution] *went everywhere preaching the word.'* These guys weren't 'ordained'; they were ordinary Christians, and pretty new ones as well. The word translated 'preach' here is _laleo_ which literally means to 'chat' or 'gossip.' They just took every opportunity to tell anyone they met about the Lord Jesus.

And look what came of that! *'Now those who were scattered by the persecution that arose over Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, preaching * [_laleo_ again] * the word to no one but the Jews only. But some of them ............ spoke to the Hellenists, preaching* [_euangelizo_, to 'tell good news']* the Lord Jesus.
And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number turned to the Lord* (Acts 11:19-20 ).

Now were these people officially ordained to do this work? Absolutely not! The apostles didn't even know it was going on at first. Look at v21. *'Then news of these things came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabus to go as far as Antioch.'*

If these people had waited to be asked about Jesus, waited until they understood their doctrine better, waited until they were ordained, the Church might never have got started. And the same thing happened in the Great Awakening. If you don't like the Wesleyans, consider the Calvinistic Methodists in Wales. Howel Harris was never ordained but he led hundreds, if not thousands, to the Lord. The C.Ms didn't do their own ordinations until about 85 years after Harris began his ministry, yet they were blessed with one revival after another.

There are hundreds of ordained ministers in the Church of England today who wouldn't know the Gospel if it bit them on the leg! Give me a non-ordained man any day, who may never have been to seminary, may not know Greek or Hebrew, but who knows by personal acquaintance what the Gospel is, and is not ashamed to preach it.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 17, 2005)

Matthew Henry on Acts 8.1:



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


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> Scott - what do you make of Romans 15:14 vs. 1 Thessalonians 5:12,13? I commented on these two passages in a previous post? While the passage in Romans is not ordaining laypeople as ministers of the gospel, it seems that they are able, and expected, to teach (noutheteo).
> 
> Interested in your interpretation.
> ...



Bill,
You are making this text (Rom 15) say what it does not intend. 

G3560
Î½Î¿Ï…Î¸ÎµÏ„ÎµÌÏ‰
noutheteoÌ„
noo-thet-eh'-o
From the same as G3559; to put in mind, that is, (by implication) to caution or reprove gently: - admonish, warn.

Do a word comparison in the Greek. This has nothing to do with _teaching_. Some of the poorer translations actually use the word teach. This is not accurate. The better interpretation intended is to warn or reprove. Do the comparison and you will see.

[Edited on 9-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Matthew Henry on Acts 8.1:
> 
> 
> ...



Andrew,
You beat me to the punch again! 

To believe that these dispersed saints were sheep without a shepherd is ludicrous. Martin, with all due respect, this thinking shows a fracture of sorts in your ecclesiology. One would normally understand this in light of Gods ordained government that is in place. Unless of course you are prepared to state that at this point there was not a structure in place, hence Christs church wasn't prevailing. believers without leadership is not a church.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 17, 2005)

> Scott - I am not ignoring your first paragraph, but in my opinion I find this quote to be the heart of your argument (as far as I am concerned).
> 
> I attended a well known bible institute in New York State. We were encouraged to persuade people to make decisions for Christ. A weak attempt was made to introduce these new "converts" to a solid bible teaching church. I share your grief in that area. I can literally weep for those who may think they are saved based on a verbal prayer. But that does not mean "sharing" ones faith is wrong, just because some have abused the privelege. I know you would agree with that.



As I have stated, we all should be ready to give the reason for the hope that is in us........



> When you say, "Outside of the church, there is no hope of salvation" are you suggesting that no one can come to faith without A) Doing so within the actual brick-and-mortar building



Of course not. A building does not a Christian make.



> B) Doing so under the formal authority of the church



Yes. Whenever I am sharing, witnessing, I represent, my local church and eldership. I can be taken up on charges by them if I say something abberant. In this, we are all under _formal_ authority.



> C) Another explanation I do not understand? Your statement makes me question the work of missionaries. Missionaries are usually not under the formal authority of a local church (even though they are sent and supported by churches). Are they rouge evangelists?



All missionaries are _sent_. They all are under local church authority. I have no idea where you have come up with this? Even in the baptist churches I have been part of held to this.

Thanks for your patience Bill. 

[Edited on 9-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Herald (Sep 17, 2005)

> I think the problem may be that some believe only in crisis-conversion, whereas the reformed seem to believe more in process-conversion. In the first instance, someone hears the gospel, believes it instantly and maybe says a prayer for the first time. In the latter, one might share one's faith with someone, that person starts to take an interest, then can start coming to church and hearing the preached Word, while learning what Christians do and how they think, i.e. discipleship.



Since I seem to be the only Baptist posting in this thread I suppose the "crisis-conversion" term may be directed at me? If so, let me put you at rest. When I share my faith in Christ, I do not demand an immediate response. I used to. In my 'free willy' past I would always seek to, "close the deal." But with my soteriological flaws corrected, I no longer expect an immediate response. I do leave it in the hands of God (where it belongs). If the sinner is moved by God to repent at that moment, then so be it. I do invite the person to church. While the church is intended for believers, sinners will be sitting under the conviction of the Word of God. If their conversion is secured while in the house of God, then so be it!


----------



## Herald (Sep 17, 2005)

> All missionaries are sent. They all are under local church authority. I have no idea where you have come up with this? Even in the baptist churches I have been part of held to this.



 Scott, I didn't come up with it...I'm just asking! 

You know, when I became a Calvinist (about eight years ago) I knew nothing about the Reformed faith through the eyes of the PCA or the CRC. I had heard of John Calvin and the WCF, but they were abstract to me. Being a good "free willy" Baptist, it was seldom that I heard Reformed theology or other reformers referred to in a good light. So how much of my current point of view is due to the fact that the majority of my Christian life has been in a Baptist church? Probably to the same extent that you have been PCA. But I am trying to shed the trappings of tradition when they conflict with the clear teaching of scripture. 

I have a hard time with, what appears to me, to be a church government that extracts hard demands on its members. That is my knee jerk reaction to Presbyterianism. Please do not interpret my comment as slam. I realize that many Presb. traditions and customs are foreign to me. Sometimes it seems (to me) that the WCF supercedes scripture. I know you will say this is not the case, and I want to trust you on that. It is just the way it _seems._ I am trying hard to understand. I really am. But sometimes I just don't get it 

In any event, while you and I may differ on semantics, I feel much better with you explanations. The only thing additional I would offer is that we, as the church, should seek opportunities to share our faith in Christ. Considering the depth of theological knowledge on this message board, I have no doubt that the gospel would be well presented if a sinner came asking. I suppose my admonition is that we genuinely seek these opportunities.


----------



## Steve Owen (Sep 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Matthew Henry on Acts 8.1:
> 
> 
> ...



You (and Henry, whom I much admire) may read that into the text if you wish, but it's not there. Look at Acts 8:1-3- *'They were all scattered...'* And again, *As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.'*

So there were ordained preachers in _every_ house, were there? And some of the 'ordained preachers' were women?

With the greatest respect, if your ecclesiology forces you to read your presuppositions into the plain words of Scripture, it may be time to look again at your ecclesiology.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 18, 2005)

Martin,
I'll ask again; Did these people have shepherds or not? Or did God just leave all these people to fen for themselves? If they didn't then Christs church was not prevailing as he decreed. Which is it, it cannot be both???

Just because they had _homes_ does not mean that they didn't congregate. Even the apostles gathered in the upper room after Christ was crucified for fear.

Joh 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 

Keeping in mind that all households generally had federal heads, i.e. fathers/mothers whom were responsible to teach. However, the teaching that is going on in these capacities cannot be compared with that of a worship service where lawfully ordained individuals are leading congregations.

Presuppositions??? Where, because we believe God commands a government in His church? 

[Edited on 9-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Herald (Sep 18, 2005)

> Keeping in mind that all households generally had federal heads, i.e. fathers/mothers whom were responsible to teach. However, the teaching that is going on in these capacities cannot be compared with that of a worship service where lawfully ordained individuals are leading congregations.



Scott - I would like to drill down on what you been by the teaching in a home not comparing with that of a worship service. I _think_ I know what you mean, but I am not sure.

There are many, many men that are more learned in the scriptures than the ordained pastor in their local fellowship. I dare say that there are many godly wives and mothers who are well versed in the scriptures. I have personally rubbed shoulders with the children of these families. Their biblical literacy is not in question and I would feel perfectly comfortable with them proclaiming God's truth within and outside the church. That said, I am _not_ negating the need to have trained ministers of the gospel in our pulpits and overseeing the flock of God. The dynamics involved in shepherding the flock is more complex than just proclaiming God's word. Now if you are saying that, on average, the teaching received in the home is not equal to the teaching received from the pulpit from a qualified man of God, I would be in general agreement. I just do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Edited on 9-18-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



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

It is clear that those spoken of in v. 1 as being scattered abroad and those spoken of in v. 4 as being scattered abroad and preaching are in fact the same group of people. It is not clear that those men and women who were in house churches and were arrested in v. 3 are equivalent to those spoken of in v. 1 and v. 4. If they were arrested, they were not scattered. 

I do have certain built-in presuppositions when I approach the Scriptures and one of them is the principle of non-contradiction. I believe that 1) those who were arrested were not also scattered and 2) that the _all_ spoken of in v. 4 who preached could not possibly include unordained men, women and children because that would contradict the Scriptural qualifications for the office of a preacher which require such to be male and set apart publically for the work of the ministry of the church (see here for further elaboration on the qualifications for ordination). 

I am a presbyterian and am fully persuaded by the Scriptures that the God has instituted church government jure divino which gives the function of preaching only to those who are called by God unto that office (Heb. 5.4). Preaching carries with it the authority to administer sacraments and exercise discipline; it is likewise an act of the church which declares the word of God on a commission from Christ the King. 

I make no apologies for setting forth the Scriptural and Presbyterian doctrine of the church. To do otherwise would be to bring unScriptural biases to the text and issue at hand.

[Edited on 9-18-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Herald (Sep 18, 2005)

> I am a presbyterian and am fully persuaded by the Scriptures that the God has instituted church government jure divino which gives the function of preaching only to those who are called by God unto that office (Heb. 5.4). Preaching carries with it the authority to administer sacraments and exercise discipline; it is likewise an act of the church which declares the word of God on a commission from Christ the King.



And I understand that this board was begun by Presbyterians and the Presbyterian point of view will be the majority represented. I have no problem with that. If this was a historical Baptist* board, I would expect it to have a decidely Baptistic slant. 

The heart of this thread is not about preaching (as preaching is commonly defined). It is about sharing of ones faith in Christ with sinners. One of the questions at hand is whether sharing ones faith in Christ is solely the responsibility of ordained ministers. At the risk of becoming redundant, my answer is "no." A secondary question is whether untrained (and for my Presbyterian brother, "ordained") men should have formal teaching/preaching responsibilities within the church. My answer is, "no."

*I define "historical Baptist" to be in keeping with the London and Philadelphia confessions. This is in contrast with modern day Baptists that had their roots in the post-Darby era.


[Edited on 9-18-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 18, 2005)

> And I understand that this board was begun by Presbyterians and the Presbyterian point of view will be the majority represented.



On the contrary Bill. When we started this board, Matt had just corrected his view to presbyterianism and I was still reformed baptist, but moving in that direction.



> I have no problem with that. If this was a historical Baptist* board, I would expect it to have a decidely Baptistic slant.



I don't know if I agree with this fully. The credo side of the coin has many staunch supporters here on PB; in fact a number of my mods as well as one of the admins is credo. 





> *I define "historical Baptist" to be in keeping with the London and Philadelphia confessions. This is in contrast with modern day Baptists that had their roots in the post-Darby era.



Bill,
I don't belioeve there is anyone on board that holds to the Philadelphia confession.


----------



## Herald (Sep 18, 2005)

> On the contrary Bill. When we started this board, Matt had just corrected his view to presbyterianism and I was still reformed baptist, but moving in that direction.



I stand corrected. I was basing my assumption on what appears to be a strong Presbyterian leaning (not that there is anything wrong with that). 

Scott, lets assume the board was a Presbyterian board (which you have told me it is not). In that case I would still hold to my assumption. But since it is not, I "recant" on my comment.




> I don't belioeve there is anyone on board that holds to the Philadelphia confession.



I don't know if that is true or not. The Philadelphia Confession of 1742 is almost identical to the 2nd London Confession of 1689. There are two chapters (23 & 31) that were added to the Philadelphia Confession. 

* Chapter 23 




We believe that (Acts 16:25, Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16) singing the praises of God, is a holy ordinance of Christ, and not a part of natural religion, or a moral duty only; but that it is brought under divine institution, it being enjoined on the churches of Christ to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; and that the whole church in their public assemblies, as well as private Christians, ought to (Heb. 2:12, Jam. 5:13) sing God's praises according to the best light they have received. Moreover, it was practiced in the great representative church, by (Matt.26:30, Matt. 14:26) our Lord Jesus Christ with His disciples, after He had instituted and celebrated the sacred ordinance of His Holy Supper, as commemorative token of redeeming love.

Click to expand...


 Chapter 31 





We believe that laying on of hands (with prayer) upon baptized believers, as such, is an ordinance of Christ, and ought to be submitted unto by all such persons that are admitted to partake of the Lord's Supper; and that the end of this ordinance is not fro the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, but for a farther reception of the Spirit of promise, or for addition of the graces of the Spirit, and the influences thereof; to confirm strengthen, and comfort them in Jesus Christ; it being ratified and established by the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit in the primitive times to abide in the Church, as meeting together on the first day of the week was, that being the day of worship, or Christian Sabbath, under the gospel; and as preaching the Word was, and as baptism was, and prayer was, and singing psalms was, for as the whole gospel was confirmed by signs and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost in general, so was every ordinance in like manner confirmed in particular.

Click to expand...


I have no problems with these two added chapters. I am in agreement with both confessions.


[Edited on 9-18-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]*


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 19, 2005)

Great discussion!

I was away for the weekend and come back to see a lot has gone on with this topic.

I believe a distinction needed to be made between teaching/preaching and sharing. It is good to see that has been done.

A brother or sister in Christ may be alone on any given day and approached by a non-Christian. This believer should not refrain from sharing their faith, but should cease to take on discipleship outside the company of the rest of the body. If the person is truly intrigued and drawn by this persons testimony (through word and deed), then they will certainly want to learn more and accept an invitation to the church. If they mock and revile, then why cast pearls before swine? They may hate, they may wish to stone, they may wish to throw you off a cliff, or they may wish to know more. The bottom line, is we should not try so hard per se, especially when we do not have the answers. Plenty of sharing can be done without instruction on what the word of God says. Our day and age promotes individualism and pride. Too many cannot say a simple phrase as, "I do not know," or "I know of someone who can better answer your questions." Statements as these are far more effective than "winging" it yourself and most likely resulting in misguidance and confusion.

Regarding missionaries, as was already clarified they are sent under authority of a church and it is my understanding that they are sent ultimately with the mission to start more churches. Paul commissioned Titus to appoint elders in every city. Paul did not give such a mission to all believers everywhere. The importance is on establishing the overseers who are of like mind and mission - establish churches to baptize and teach thus making disciples.

Yes, there are accounts of people being saved through unorthodox means. I heard the gospel and responded due to neighbors who visited my family at my house. They refused to be part of any church (and thus we did as well), they were highly charismatic in beliefs, and often came over to teach us. I thank God for drawing me and using them, but that does not glorify those means, but God who is able to use man's wisdom to accomplish His will. Twelve years later I am still undoing some damage they did (not intentional damage on their part, but consequential damage due to their ignorance and misguidance and disobedience). My parents still refuse to go to any church and by talking with them, it shows they are without shepherds.

"As for God, His way is perfect; The word of the Lord is proven; He is a shield to all who trust in Him" (2 Samuel 22:31).

God's way is perfect. There are ways that seem right to us and that seem to work better, but God's way is always perfect and shall be strived for. May it result in smaller congregations? Perhaps, but that is not my concern. May God's way result in hatred by the world? Perhaps, but that shall not cause us to modify our convictions.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 19, 2005)

How does this all play out in the context of message boards?

Personally, I am not a teaching elder. I am not appointed to teach anyone other than my family. Yet I have instructed disciples by guiding them through scripture.

My family just left our seeker friendly independent church home of four years. I just resigned as a small group leader through that church. Looking back, I can see that I have taught wrong things to my small group and to various youth groups I have led in the past. Years ago, while I was a teenager, I even preached three sermons for two different churches, not being a member of the one and not appointed by anyone to do so in either (I was "appointed" small group leader, but with no interview of any sort) . Looking back, those churches should never have let me do such and I did not know better to restrain myself.


----------



## Herald (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> How does this all play out in the context of message boards?
> 
> Personally, I am not a teaching elder. I am not appointed to teach anyone other than my family. Yet I have instructed disciples by guiding them through scripture.
> ...



The requirement that one be ordained to teach is obstacle to many learned men who have the gift. Part of the ordination requirement is a denominational distinctive it seems. Before someone would teach at our church, they would be interviewed by the elders. We would determine whether they are qualified to teach others. We recognize three offices of the church that require ordination: pastors, elders and deacons. Small group leaders, Sunday school teachers and other assigned teachers do not require ordination. They do, however, require the approval of the elders.

Chris, as far as your personal experiences...perhaps you were unqualified (at the time) or lacked the experience to teach. If so, it was not an ordination problem (In my humble opinion). It had more to do with your ability.

Bill


----------



## Steve Owen (Sep 20, 2005)

Hi Andrew,
Whilst I am quite convinced in my own mind that Independancy is the Biblical form of church government, I am quite relaxed about Presbyterianism or Episcopacy so long as no one tries to force it on me. I'm sorry if my previous post seemed to indicate otherwise. I generally steer clear of discussions on Church government.


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



I think the most logical reading of the text is that many were scattered but some remained. There is no hint that only the ordained people fled and the rest stayed. That would seem to be a most deplorable dereliction of duty on behalf of the elders!

I made the point that those who were scattered 'gossipped' or 'chatted' the word. There is no suggestion here of formal preaching until we get to 11:20, where 'men' are specifically mentioned, although there is no hint that they were specifically ordained.

The Lord has given Elders and Deacons to His Church. It is the duty of the elders of a church to guard the pulpit. But each and every one of us has a duty to witness to his family, friends, neighbours, acquaintances and whoever he or she may meet. At the very least we can tell them, * 'Come, meet a man who told me all things that I ever did'* (John 4:29 ).

With regard to ordination, I am certainly not opposed to it, but it is God who qualifies men to the ministry. Spurgeon was never officially ordained. At its best, ordination is man catching up with God and recognizing what He has done. At its worst it is giving a spurious respectability to those who may have been taught by men, but have never learned of God.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 9-20-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 20, 2005)

Ordination comes from God through His Church. Not through autonomy and self-proclaimed rights to ministry.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 20, 2005)

> but it is God who qualifies men to the ministry.



1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 

Ordination happens practically through Gods ministers, i.e. the apostles, else who is to say who or who isn't ordained properly.


----------



## Herald (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > but it is God who qualifies men to the ministry.
> ...



Ordination does happen through other ordained ministers. But in the end, it is still God who qualifies. He may use other ordained ministers to sanction the calling, but it is still of God. 

I think we are in agreement on that....no?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Yes. As long as there is actual ordiantion precedings by actual ordained men. This silly idea that God ordained me spiritually by coming down from Heaven and anointing me for the ministry does not fly.

Then we have the issue of legal and proper ordination..........


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> The requirement that one be ordained to teach is obstacle to many learned men who have the gift. Part of the ordination requirement is a denominational distinctive it seems. Before someone would teach at our church, they would be interviewed by the elders. We would determine whether they are qualified to teach others. We recognize three offices of the church that require ordination: pastors, elders and deacons. Small group leaders, Sunday school teachers and other assigned teachers do not require ordination. They do, however, require the approval of the elders.



It is an obstacle, but a very necessary one. Too many are "œthrown" into such a position blindly. Small group leaders, Sunday School teachers and other assigned teachers may not require formal ordination, but they should require approval from those who are ordained. In my case, I was put in teaching and preaching situations even though the overseers had no idea what I actually believed.



> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> Chris, as far as your personal experiences...perhaps you were unqualified (at the time) or lacked the experience to teach. If so, it was not an ordination problem (In my humble opinion). It had more to do with your ability.
> 
> Bill



The point is not so much as whether I was able to teach or preach, but that no one even made an effort to examine my ability beforehand. As with my recent resignation as small group leader, I believe I taught orthodox doctrine and interpretation, but the point is, the church had no idea what I was teaching. One small group could be taught pelagianistic ideas, another charismatic prosperity gospels, and another Reformed teachings. The church had no idea and insisted on maintaining the stance that anyone can be a small group leader, never mind the confusion that may result.

As far as my personal ability, I had a lot put on my shoulders to be the "œexpert" at the church I just left. I had no elders to go to for consistent and sound instruction. I was alone and expected to guide all those who came to me.

The past youth groups I led was during my Arminian/dispensational days (however, at the time I had no clue what that would even mean).

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by ChristopherPaul]


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 21, 2005)

So how does this all play out in the context of message boards?

Should those who are not appointed either by formal ordination or informal appointment through those ordained, be teaching others within the context of message boards?

Specifically in regards to this message board, we all list our church with each post we submit.


----------



## Herald (Sep 21, 2005)

> Then we have the issue of legal and proper ordination..........



Legal according to whose standards? The Presbyterians have their own rules of ordination, as do Baptists. Doctrinal and polity positions aside, it is proper for both to take ordination seriously.


----------



## Herald (Sep 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> So how does this all play out in the context of message boards?
> 
> Should those who are not appointed either by formal ordination or informal appointment through those ordained, be teaching others within the context of message boards?
> ...



Chris - there reaches a point where the argument becomes ridiculous. Believers DO have the indwelling Holy Spirit. We are able to understand and interpret God's word.* There are many informal or less structured venues where God's word can be shared. The church is not "big brother", hiding behind corners waiting to smite us because we dared teach someone else. Teaching in the church is different, because what is taught in the church is sanctioned by the pastor and elders. Therefore we need to make sure all such teaching (and the teachers themselves) is approved.

*While believers have the ability to understand and interpret God's word, I would be cautious if our interpretation differs from the perponderance of church history. There is only one interpretation of scripture. If our interpretion disagrees with the consenus, we need to take a close look at our exegesis. Liberty and heresy are close cousins.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > Then we have the issue of legal and proper ordination..........
> ...



According to the bible.............Presbyterians follow the bible. Independancy is schismatic, period.


----------



## Herald (Sep 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> ...



YOUR opinion...which I do not share at all. I am not Presbyterian. I do not share Presbyterian thought on the matter. But Scott, did either of us think we would agree on this?  We're both pretty stubborn on this matter, which is fine. Your my brother in Christ and I am thankful for the areas on which we do agree.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 21, 2005)

Whats my opinion, that independancy is schismatic or that Presbyterianism is the correct biblical approach.


----------



## Herald (Sep 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Whats my opinion, that independancy is schismatic or that Presbyterianism is the correct biblical approach.



BOTH! You may say it is biblical fact, but I say the same thing about what I believe. But Scott, I am willing to have latitude in the area of denominational differences (to a point). I am not interested in a Baptist-Presbyterian war. That has been done by far greater minds than us, and the conclusions have not changed.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



yea..........I remember back when I thought along the same lines.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> ...



It appears now that a distinction has been made between teaching _within_ the church and teaching outside of the church. In one setting we are accountable and within the other we are not?

As far as we know, Origen, Augustine, Luther, Erasmus, Wesley, and Whitfield were all indwelt with the Spirit of Christ. Which Spirit of Christ was right? I am being facetious, but we must be careful in simply saying that we all have the indwelling Holy Spirit and therefore are all entrusted to teach right doctrine outside of the church´s discipline.

Again I am not talking about sharing Christ, I am talking about guiding people through scripture.

My church is listed with all my posts, would she be comfortable with that? 

You IDIOT!  (just making my point)

Does any one else have thoughts on this? I appreciate your responses Bill, I would also appreciate other's as well.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 21, 2005)

Can you say fellowship? Exhorting, encouraging, rebuking? Teachers are delegated in scripture. It is an official title; the title is given of God and confirmed via earthly witness, i.e. Gods apostles and subsequent ordained.


----------



## Steve Owen (Sep 21, 2005)

Mark 9:38-9.
*'Now John answered Him saying, "Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us." But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterwards speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us.'*

Acts 4:13.
*'Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marvelled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus.'*

Martin


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Can you say fellowship? Exhorting, encouraging, rebuking? Teachers are delegated in scripture. It is an official title; the title is given of God and confirmed via earthly witness, i.e. Gods apostles and subsequent ordained.



Was this in response to me or Bill?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



It was in response to you as comfort.................essentially stating that we here at PB are fellowshipping. Are there nuggets of wisdom to be had, absolutely. However, no one is here as an official teacher.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Mark 9:38-9.
> *'Now John answered Him saying, "Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us." But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterwards speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us.'*
> 
> ...


----------

