# Is the Great Commission for us today?



## Pergamum

Luther and Beza and many of the Reformers advocated the folowing:

The missionary mandate was given tothe Apostles, which they fulfilled. We have no apostles today and the Great Commission is fulfilled.



WHo advocated this? Who still advocates this? Who opposed it? What are the arguments for and against this?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I believe the command was given to the Apostles and, by extension, the Church.

I don't agree with the majority view today that it is an individual commission. Many pulpits directly teach that the Commission is fulfilled by individual Christians going out and sharing their faith and getting decisions from people.

The command, however, is to _make disciples_, which includes that they be taught everything that Christ commanded. This is a lifetime thing.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people that are self-proclaimed Evangelists here in Okinawa that talk about the people they met that made a decision for Christ. Are they in Church? No, but they are somehow believers. How can that be? This is the main defect of the Crusade mentality that we've somehow fulfilled the commission by stopping at this point.

Of course the situation is exacerbated by people who think that discipleship is a personal responsibility. Whether a man comes to Church or not is up to him after all. Sheep are supposed to take care of themselves and know where to go to be fed.

The Commission is only fulfilled when Churches take their responsibilities to disciple believers. I don't believe a man is really a believer if he refuses to be discipled and I don't believe a man is truly an Evangelist if he sees his operation as apart from a Church in which discipleship occurs.

Thus, I view Evangelism in my own life as talking to people about Christ and sharing the hope that lies within me and then _inviting them to Church_ where they can hear the Gospel regularly proclaimed. I don't feel like a man is ever truly converted if he only hears a message, makes a decision, and never finds himself in and among the people of God. The Church is the soil and, apart from the soil, there are no fertile plants.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Good points. William Carey argued that the Commission was ongoing because baptism was ongoing. And baptism is the propriety of the church, which seconds all of what you just said.


What about them verses that say the Gospel has ALREADY been preached to all nations, or their faith was known throughout the whole world?

And what about the verse about the GOspel being preached unto all nations and then the end would come?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Good points. William Carey argued that the Commission was ongoing because baptism was ongoing. And baptism is the propriety of the church, which seconds all of what you just said.
> 
> 
> What about them verses that say the Gospel has ALREADY been preached to all nations, or their faith was known throughout the whole world?


I assume you're speaking about this in reference to Romans 10. I think this is a typical problem I have with prooftexting. Within the passage, Paul is noting that the condemnation for the Jews' unbelief is not arbitrary because they have heard the Gospel but they have not responded to it. The passage fits within the larger context of explaining where Jews, according to the flesh, fit into the saving plan of God.



> And what about the verse about the GOspel being preached unto all nations and then the end would come?


I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. Might not have time to respond tonight. A brief response would be that it's compatible with the notion that Peter talks about where he notes that the Lord is not slow concerning His pomises. He witholds judgment until all the Elect have been saved and they are from all the nations.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## Guido's Brother

Another (brief) excerpt from the rough draft of my dissertation:

In conclusion, we can state that Bucer conceived of mission as being the extension and consolidation of the Kingdom of Christ through the preaching of the gospel. He believed that the Church has a responsibility to go into all the nations and bring the gospel so that more and more people are brought under the reign of Christ. He saw this primarily as the responsibility of those called to the office of minister/evangelist. Moreover, he conceived of mission as belonging to the essence (esse) of the Church. A unique feature of Bucer’s mission-concept was the involvement of the civil magistrate. De Regno Christi was addressed to Edward VI and Bucer thought that the king had a responsibility to ensure that the gospel is proclaimed, not only in his own realm, but also in others. Later in this study, we will consider whether Bucer’s mission-concept may have had any influence on Guido de Bres and the Belgic Confession.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Guido's Brother said:


> In conclusion, we can state that Bucer conceived of mission as being the extension and consolidation of the Kingdom of Christ through the preaching of the gospel. He believed that the Church has a responsibility to go into all the nations and bring the gospel so that more and more people are brought under the reign of Christ. He saw this primarily as the responsibility of those called to the office of minister/evangelist.



Does Bucer argue this in his work _De Regno Christi_? Moreover, are you saying that Bucer did not believe that the "evangelist" (of say Eph. 4:11) had expired with the apostles but was a gift that continued on in the church? If so, that quite interesting given that the majority of the reformed tradition in the 16th and 17th century didn't believe this.


----------



## Barnpreacher

SemperFideles said:


> I believe the command was given to the Apostles and, by extension, the Church.
> 
> I don't agree with the majority view today that it is an individual commission. Many pulpits directly teach that the Commission is fulfilled by individual Christians going out and sharing their faith and getting decisions from people.
> 
> The command, however, is to _make disciples_, which includes that they be taught everything that Christ commanded. This is a lifetime thing.
> 
> I can't tell you how many times I've heard people that are self-proclaimed Evangelists here in Okinawa that talk about the people they met that made a decision for Christ. Are they in Church? No, but they are somehow believers. How can that be? This is the main defect of the Crusade mentality that we've somehow fulfilled the commission by stopping at this point.
> 
> Of course the situation is exacerbated by people who think that discipleship is a personal responsibility. Whether a man comes to Church or not is up to him after all. Sheep are supposed to take care of themselves and know where to go to be fed.
> 
> The Commission is only fulfilled when Churches take their responsibilities to disciple believers. I don't believe a man is really a believer if he refuses to be discipled and I don't believe a man is truly an Evangelist if he sees his operation as apart from a Church in which discipleship occurs.
> 
> Thus, I view Evangelism in my own life as talking to people about Christ and sharing the hope that lies within me and then _inviting them to Church_ where they can hear the Gospel regularly proclaimed. I don't feel like a man is ever truly converted if he only hears a message, makes a decision, and never finds himself in and among the people of God. The Church is the soil and, apart from the soil, there are no fertile plants.


----------



## AV1611

SemperFideles said:


> I don't agree with the majority view today that it is an individual commission.



 It was given to the Church and God provides us with those who are gifted for the work i.e. Ministers of the Gospel (Presbyters).


----------



## Guido's Brother

JohnOwen007 said:


> Guido's Brother said:
> 
> 
> 
> In conclusion, we can state that Bucer conceived of mission as being the extension and consolidation of the Kingdom of Christ through the preaching of the gospel. He believed that the Church has a responsibility to go into all the nations and bring the gospel so that more and more people are brought under the reign of Christ. He saw this primarily as the responsibility of those called to the office of minister/evangelist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Bucer argue this in his work _De Regno Christi_? Moreover, are you saying that Bucer did not believe that the "evangelist" (of say Eph. 4:11) had expired with the apostles but was a gift that continued on in the church? If so, that quite interesting given that the majority of the reformed tradition in the 16th and 17th century didn't believe this.
Click to expand...


Yes and yes.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Guido's Brother said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Does Bucer argue this in his work _De Regno Christi_? Moreover, are you saying that Bucer did not believe that the "evangelist" (of say Eph. 4:11) had expired with the apostles but was a gift that continued on in the church? If so, that quite interesting given that the majority of the reformed tradition in the 16th and 17th century didn't believe this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and yes.
Click to expand...


Dear Wes, wow. Thanks for this reference brother! I look forward to ransacking Bucer. (I'm doing a ThD on Owen's view of the gospel, and this naturally entails his understanding of mission, so I'm keen to see what the rest of the reformed tradition says about mission).

God bless you. Marty.


----------



## Herald

Rich - I concur with your post. The Great Commission was given to the Apostles, and by extension the church. However I do not believe it excludes a believer from sharing his faith. What is excluded is the overwhelming guilt that is laid upon individuals if they do not make personal evangelism a top priority. Is guilt a means of grace?


----------



## christiana

2 Corinthians is written to all believers everywhere and clearly says to each of us:

ch.5. v11 Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God, and I also trust are well known in your conscience.

v 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Real believers tell the lost about Christ and His eternal purpose of saving them from the wrath to come!
We must each have a passion for Christ and be about telling others of Him!
We must know the Word and what it says about salvation!
We must pray daily for the lost and make every effort to tell them of Christ!
It isnt someone else's problem. It is our problem as believers to tell what we've learned!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich - I concur with your post. The Great Commission was given to the Apostles, and by extension the church. However I do not believe it excludes a believer from sharing his faith. What is excluded is the overwhelming guilt that is laid upon individuals if they do not make personal evangelism a top priority. Is guilt a means of grace?


I assume you noted where I stated that individual believers share their faith in my post. That activity occurs, however, from derivative authority. We go out from the Church in that activity in the process of sharing. I also believe there are gradations of evangelism. By that I mean that we are meant to share the hope that lies within us that we may bring men and women into the Church where they might be converted and nurtured but not all of us can properly said to have the authority to go into a "foreign land" and appoint elders in every city they way that Paul was or the authority he gave to Timothy and Titus to do so.


christiana said:


> 2 Corinthians is written to all believers everywhere and clearly says to each of us:
> 
> ch.5. v11 Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God, and I also trust are well known in your conscience.
> 
> v 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
> 
> Real believers tell the lost about Christ and His eternal purpose of saving them from the wrath to come!
> We must each have a passion for Christ and be about telling others of Him!
> We must know the Word and what it says about salvation!
> We must pray daily for the lost and make every effort to tell them of Christ!
> It isnt someone else's problem. It is our problem as believers to tell what we've learned!



I don't think anyone is disputing the necessity laid upon believers to represent Christ in our lives and to share the Gospel with others but the sharing of the Gospel at the personal level does not fulfill the Great Commission.


----------



## christiana

Christ has said that He will build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it! Mt 16:18

He builds the church and when allowed to be the means He uses to declare His gospel we are blest!

Whatever means He uses hearts are changed one at a time by the Holy Spirit, whether by preaching ,Titus 1:3 or personal witnessing ,2 Cor 5:11

We as believers are still responsible to declare His gospel to others at whatever opportunity avails itself and whenever He so opens doors for such!

Is not all of this part of the Great Commission to be accomplished as He so directed?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

christiana said:


> Christ has said that He will build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it! Mt 16:18
> 
> He builds the church and when allowed to be the means He uses to declare His gospel we are blest!
> 
> Whatever means He uses hearts are changed one at a time by the Holy Spirit, whether by preaching ,Titus 1:3 or personal witnessing ,2 Cor 5:11
> 
> We as believers are still responsible to declare His gospel to others at whatever opportunity avails itself and whenever He so opens doors for such!
> 
> Is not all of this part of the Great Commission to be accomplished as He so directed?


You're missing the point. Those are all elements of it but it is not an individual Commission to "...make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them, and teaching them all things...." The activity of the individual is subsumed under the larger role of the Church as a whole. Our witness to the Gospel as individuals is both commanded and necessary but our individual actions are not _the_ Great Commiission and we ought not view Christ as speaking directly to us as apart from the Church.

It's quite simple for me to analogize as a military man. The Marine Corps has a Title 10 role within the Department of Defense. That law, on the books, is not meant for me to read and interpret it as being addressed directly to me, Rich, for fulfillment apart from the larger organization. By the same token, I realize that what I do every day is part of that Title 10 responsibility and that I play a part in the overall fulfillment of the mission we are mandated to perform by Law.

Extending the analogy further the way some people view the Great Commission is that I could just decide I want to form my own para-Marine Corps organization to fulfill Title 10 responsibilities. I'll meet people along the way and tell them how great it is to be a Marine. I'll even have little studies with them to teach them about our history and ethos. But, if I never get them to boot camp (or OCS) and if they do not complete it and become contributors to the mission of the Marine Corps then they are not Marines.

Also, I find this view of sanctification slightly problematic in its presentation (perhaps unintended on your part):


> Whatever means He uses hearts are changed one at a time by the Holy Spirit, whether by preaching ,Titus 1:3 or personal witnessing ,2 Cor 5:11


I think you could "tighten that up" a little bit by noting that our sanctification is not fully expressed as being _individual_. We are certainly sanctified as individuals but the Church exists to build up the _Body_. Our growth ought primarily be viewed in how it benefits all we are in union with rather than how it benefits us.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Pergamum said:


> Luther and Beza and many of the Reformers advocated the folowing:
> 
> The missionary mandate was given tothe Apostles, which they fulfilled. We have no apostles today and the Great Commission is fulfilled.
> 
> 
> 
> WHo advocated this? Who still advocates this? Who opposed it? What are the arguments for and against this?





Pergy:

Do you have any sources for this statement? Just havent seen this much


----------



## christiana

Thanks Rich, the marine analogy was good, and helpful! However, each marine has a great responsibility individually to fulfill his role! 
Rich said:


> I think you could "tighten that up" a little bit by noting that our sanctification is not fully expressed as being individual. We are certainly sanctified as individuals but the Church exists to build up the Body. Our growth ought primarily be viewed in how it benefits all we are in union with rather than how it benefits us


.

Our sanctification, before it can benefit the body, must progress through the Holy Spirit and our individual commitment to Christ and we must daily spend time in prayer and reading the Word to reach such a place of progressive sanctification in order to be an asset to the body. Now, each person, as a believer must also commit to sharing the gospel with those he is in contact with to be an active part of that body.
I guess my thoughts were that all of this is part of the Church being part of the Great Commission. I guess I dont see a difference there. Am I still missing the point?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

No, I think you're generally fine. Remember that our sanctification, though, is not something that we bring to the Body after working at it individually but, indeed, the Body itself actually builds us up even as we build it up. That said, I do not want to de-emphasize the importance of personal prayer and study but it is part of our sanctification just as Word and Sacrament are.

I just wanted to make sure to emphasize the issue that our personal sanctification is to be, in large measure, motivated in how it benefits the Church at large.

Thank you for your irenic response.


----------



## Pergamum

Amzing Grace:

David Bosch in Transforming Mission documents this. I have a leter from Lutehr that says as much too. I can dig out the refences, but maybe some brotehrs here with faster net connections can help you better.


----------



## reformedcop

Understanding that sharing our faith as individual believers is only an element of The Great Commisson, what is everybody's opinion regarding the believer taking part in "open air preaching" or handing out tracts at public event/marketplace and subsequently getting into witnessing encounters? 

I ask this question pre-supposing that the believer realizes that sharing the Gospel is done out of obediance, concern for the lost, and most of all, to Glorify God. Furthermore, he realizes that it is the power of God that does the converting and therefore should not expect a "decision" for Christ on the spot, or ever for that matter.

I ask this question because I believe that it is important for the believer to be pro-active about sharing their faith and not just wait for people to ask them about the hope that lies within us, although we should be prepared for that as well . 

I guess I am going about this question in a roundabout way. Does one have to be gifted or ordained by the church in order to take the Gospel in to the public square via open air preaching or one on one encounters?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't have a problem with "open-air" sharing of the Gospel. In Murrieta, CA I did door-to-door Evangelism with my OPC Pastor a few times. We were the only folks doing that beside the JW's and the Mormons. We actually even talked to a man who was thinking about converting to the Mormon religion for a while.

We even had a tract that the Church created.

The goal, however, was not the decision but the disciple. We wanted the men and women to come to Church.


----------



## Amazing Grace

christiana said:


> . Now, each person, as a believer must also commit to sharing the gospel with those he is in contact with to be an active part of that body.
> I guess my thoughts were that all of this is part of the Church being part of the Great Commission. I guess I dont see a difference there. Am I still missing the point?



I do not know if 'sharing the gospel' constitutes Christs mandate in this scripture.

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."


21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."


8 But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


Does every believer receive these gifts? Are we all gifted teachers? Can we have every believer going around batizing?


----------



## christiana

One would have a hard time discipling without sharing the gospel of Christ, His good news of why and how He came and of the hope He offers to sinners!

All scripture is given and profitable for doctrine, reproof. correction, instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (paraphrase 2 Tim 3:16)

Of course this applies to us, as believers, does it not?
It would be a strange believer that posesses something as vital as eternal life and doesnt share with others how to obtain it! We must pray for the lost daily and be alert to open doors to share the gospel!


----------



## Amazing Grace

christiana said:


> One would have a hard time discipling without sharing the gospel of Christ, His good news of why and how He came and of the hope He offers to sinners!
> 
> All scripture is given and profitable for doctrine, reproof. correction, instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (paraphrase 2 Tim 3:16)
> 
> Of course this applies to us, as believers, does it not?
> It would be a strange believer that posesses something as vital as eternal life and doesnt share with others how to obtain it! We must pray for the lost daily and be alert to open doors to share the gospel!



But what about baptizing? Who is advocating keeping our light under a bushel? I am not.. Can we go house to house, share the gospel and throw water on them?


----------



## christiana

Mercy no! I'm credo! Guess we'd have to take them to the creek!

Taking advantage of doors open by the Lord for witnessing does not mean going door to door, though I suppose that isnt ruled out. When engaged in conversation with others we should be about our Father's business, letting others know that we are believers and why and sharing with them an opportunity to know more about Christ. This can be beneficial even with those we think to be believers! We have no way of knowing for sure what could be a benefit from such an interaction! Whatsoever we do in word or deed do all to the glory of God! The sweet aroma of Christ surrounds us and others often react to us, either positively or negatively but we share who we are when possible!


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> I believe the command was given to the Apostles and, by extension, the Church.
> 
> I don't agree with the majority view today that it is an individual commission. Many pulpits directly teach that the Commission is fulfilled by individual Christians going out and sharing their faith and getting decisions from people.



I also believe the command was given to the Apostles and, by extension, the church. Since all believers make up the church, I believe the command is given to every individual in the church.

London Baptist Confession of Faith: "The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel."

I find it puzzling that we all affirm that believers are to teach and admonish one another (Colossians 3:16), thus fulfilling the command to teach and make disciples, but when it comes to baptizing, we seek to restrict that to only the ordained when we see no such prohibition in Scripture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the command was given to the Apostles and, by extension, the Church.
> 
> I don't agree with the majority view today that it is an individual commission. Many pulpits directly teach that the Commission is fulfilled by individual Christians going out and sharing their faith and getting decisions from people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also believe the command was given to the Apostles and, by extension, the church. Since all believers make up the church, I believe the command is given to every individual in the church.
> 
> London Baptist Confession of Faith: "The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel."
> 
> I find it puzzling that we all affirm that believers are to teach and admonish one another (Colossians 3:16), thus fulfilling the command to teach and make disciples, but when it comes to baptizing, we seek to restrict that to only the ordained when we see no such prohibition in Scripture.
Click to expand...


1. You're puzzled because you're a baptist and I don't hold to the LBCF.
2. Did you notice the restriction that even the LBCF placed on baptism? Is a woman permitted to baptize?
3. I wasn't even speaking of baptism per se. Regardless of how the sacrament is administered, my initial and subsequent posts remain in force. A man is incapable of fulfilling the Great Commission apart from the Church at large.


----------



## elnwood

Rich, I was more responding to Amazing Grace because he was talking about baptism.



SemperFideles said:


> 1. You're puzzled because you're a baptist and I don't hold to the LBCF.
> 2. Did you notice the restriction that even the LBCF placed on baptism? Is a woman permitted to baptize?
> 3. I wasn't even speaking of baptism per se. Regardless of how the sacrament is administered, my initial and subsequent posts remain in force. A man is incapable of fulfilling the Great Commission apart from the Church at large.



Yes, a woman is permitted to baptize. Throughout the LBCF, "men" is used to denote both male and female.

For example:
"who will in the great day judge the secrets of all *men's* hearts by Jesus Christ"
"God had in Christ before the foundation of the world, according to the good pleasure of his will, foreordained some *men* to eternal life through Jesus Christ"
"the Gospel which is to be preached to all *men* as the ground of faith"

If you follow the logic, you would say that the gospel is to be preached only to men, God only elected men, and only men will be judged!

The term "men" is not intended to limit those who can baptize to males. The limitation, as stated in the LBCF, is that the baptizer ought to be a disciple who can preach the gospel to someone. If a person can preach the gospel to someone, they can also baptize.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> Rich, I was more responding to Amazing Grace because he was talking about baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You're puzzled because you're a baptist and I don't hold to the LBCF.
> 2. Did you notice the restriction that even the LBCF placed on baptism? Is a woman permitted to baptize?
> 3. I wasn't even speaking of baptism per se. Regardless of how the sacrament is administered, my initial and subsequent posts remain in force. A man is incapable of fulfilling the Great Commission apart from the Church at large.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a woman is permitted to baptize. Throughout the LBCF, "men" is used to denote both male and female.
> 
> For example:
> "who will in the great day judge the secrets of all *men's* hearts by Jesus Christ"
> "God had in Christ before the foundation of the world, according to the good pleasure of his will, foreordained some *men* to eternal life through Jesus Christ"
> "the Gospel which is to be preached to all *men* as the ground of faith"
> 
> If you follow the logic, you would say that the gospel is to be preached only to men, God only elected men, and only men will be judged!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this is simply silly. I was not exegeting Scripture but simply reading your Confession. I need not apply hermeneutical rules from particular passages of Scripture to be consistent in how I read another document's use of a phrase. Even within a document, only an uncareful person would conclude that the use of men is _always_ gender inclusive.



> The term "men" is not intended to limit those who can baptize to males. The limitation, as stated in the LBCF, is that the baptizer ought to be a disciple who can preach the gospel to someone. If a person can preach the gospel to someone, they can also baptize.


The manner of writing is very strange if, as you say, women are permitted to baptize in your Confession: "...being men...." The point is quite immaterial to the larger context of the thread. While I would be interested to see if your reading is, in fact, accurate, the point of the overall thread remains intact. Regardless of how a man or woman is brought into the Church, the Great Commission is not fulfilled even by the administration of baptism.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> I'm sorry but this is simply silly. I was not exegeting Scripture but simply reading your Confession. I need not apply hermeneutical rules from particular passages of Scripture to be consistent in how I read another document's use of a phrase. Even within a document, only an uncareful person would conclude that the use of men is _always_ gender inclusive.



Rich, I think you misunderstood. The three additional quotations were also from the same document (LBCF), and not from Scripture, as you seem to suppose. The LBCF consistently uses men inclusively, thus we should assume it is inclusive in the passage on baptism as well.



SemperFideles said:


> The manner of writing is very strange if, as you say, women are permitted to baptize in your Confession: "...being men...." The point is quite immaterial to the larger context of the thread. While I would be interested to see if your reading is, in fact, accurate, the point of the overall thread remains intact. Regardless of how a man or woman is brought into the Church, the Great Commission is not fulfilled even by the administration of baptism.



The confession reads "being men able to preach the gospel," not just "being men." The point is that a disciple is one who knows, and thus can preach, the gospel.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I caught that. Either way I find it to be a silly point.

By the way, the Confession for members on this board is the 1689 and not the 1644 LBCF.

The 1689 seems to group the two ordinances under those able to administer both the Lord's Supper and Baptism.

The use of the term preach in the Confession has a particular connotation that regards activity within the Church. Do Baptists actually allow women to preach within the Church?


> Although an obligation lies on the elders or pastors of the churches to be urgently preaching the Word by virtue of their office, yet the work of preaching the Word is not exclusively confined to them. Therefore others who are also gifted and qualified by the Holy Spirit for the task, and who are approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.


Even the above notes that only those approve and called by the church are permitted to preach. Ergo, a person would be restricted from baptizing unless approved and called by the Church.

This again affirms the larger point (exclusive of gender) that the Great Commission is not rooted in individual activity.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> By the way, the Confession for members on this board is the 1689 and not the 1644 LBCF.



I am aware of this, but it is worth noting that Reformed Baptists hold both the 1644 and 1689 and, unlike some, do not treat the two as if the doctrines are at odds with each other.



SemperFideles said:


> The use of the term preach in the Confession has a particular connotation that regards activity within the Church. Do Baptists actually allow women to preach within the Church?
> 
> 
> 
> Although an obligation lies on the elders or pastors of the churches to be urgently preaching the Word by virtue of their office, yet the work of preaching the Word is not exclusively confined to them. Therefore others who are also gifted and qualified by the Holy Spirit for the task, and who are approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.
> 
> 
> 
> Even the above notes that only those approve and called by the church are permitted to preach. Ergo, a person would be restricted from baptizing unless approved and called by the Church.
> 
> This again affirms the larger point (exclusive of gender) that the Great Commission is not rooted in individual activity.
Click to expand...


Rich, I believe you are not properly distinguishing between "preaching the Word" and "preaching the gospel." I believe there is a difference between being given responsibility to preach as a leader in the church in order to care for a flock and the preaching the gospel by sharing one's faith. All are called to do the latter including women, but not all are called to do the former.

When the LBCF says preaching in the paragraph on baptism, it means the latter. It is crystal clear that this preaching is not related to a particular office, but to disciples.

As noted in the following thread, it is not accepted among all Baptists that baptism ought to take place within the church. Some, such as Reformed Baptist John Gill, believe that baptism should take place outside the church service as an act that brings one into the church. Baptists, including many on this board (according to the poll), are often indifferent on whether baptism belongs in the church service as an element of worship.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/baptism-element-worship-25424/


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, I believe you are not properly distinguishing between "preaching the Word" and "preaching the gospel." I believe there is a difference between being given responsibility to preach as a leader in the church in order to care for a flock and the preaching the gospel by sharing one's faith. All are called to do the latter including women, but not all are called to do the former.
> 
> When the LBCF says preaching in the paragraph on baptism, it means the latter. It is crystal clear that this preaching is not related to a particular office, but to disciples.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How is this _crystal_ clear when the only example given within your Confession of those qualified to preach the Gospel are those called and approved by the Church? Who, precisely, is acontextualizing here Don?
> 
> Can you please demonstrate for me where the LBCF, or any other document relating to its creation, divorces the two qualifications from one another or that there is a generic qualification that does not require Church approval for its activity.
> 
> How, precisely, does a man or woman determine if they are qualified to preach and baptize according to the Confession's language?
Click to expand...


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, I believe you are not properly distinguishing between "preaching the Word" and "preaching the gospel." I believe there is a difference between being given responsibility to preach as a leader in the church in order to care for a flock and the preaching the gospel by sharing one's faith. All are called to do the latter including women, but not all are called to do the former.
> 
> When the LBCF says preaching in the paragraph on baptism, it means the latter. It is crystal clear that this preaching is not related to a particular office, but to disciples.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How is this _crystal_ clear when the only example given within your Confession of those qualified to preach the Gospel are those called and approved by the Church? Who, precisely, is acontextualizing here Don?
> 
> Can you please demonstrate for me where the LBCF, or any other document relating to its creation, divorces the two qualifications from one another or that there is a generic qualification that does not require Church approval for its activity.
> 
> How, precisely, does a man or woman determine if they are qualified to preach and baptize according to the Confession's language?
Click to expand...


I'm finding different versions of the confession (variations between the 1644 and 1646?), but section LXI in another version reads:

London Baptist Confession of 1644

_"The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this ordinance, the Scriptures hold forth to a preaching Disciple, it being no where tied to a particular church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered Disciples."
_
You seem to say that it requires church approval, but it says "no where tied to a particular church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent" and "given to them under no other consideration." If it required church approval, wouldn't that be tied to a particular church? Honestly, I think it's crystal clear, both in this version and the other version of the confession.


----------



## KMK

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich - I concur with your post. The Great Commission was given to the Apostles, and by extension the church. However I do not believe it excludes a believer from sharing his faith. What is excluded is the overwhelming guilt that is laid upon individuals if they do not make personal evangelism a top priority. Is guilt a means of grace?





You say, "However, I do not believe it excludes a believer from sharing his faith." I have heard this statement before. Are there really people out there that take the Great Commission to say that individual believers should *not* share their faith? Does anyone have examples?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, I believe you are not properly distinguishing between "preaching the Word" and "preaching the gospel." I believe there is a difference between being given responsibility to preach as a leader in the church in order to care for a flock and the preaching the gospel by sharing one's faith. All are called to do the latter including women, but not all are called to do the former.
> 
> When the LBCF says preaching in the paragraph on baptism, it means the latter. It is crystal clear that this preaching is not related to a particular office, but to disciples.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How is this _crystal_ clear when the only example given within your Confession of those qualified to preach the Gospel are those called and approved by the Church? Who, precisely, is acontextualizing here Don?
> 
> Can you please demonstrate for me where the LBCF, or any other document relating to its creation, divorces the two qualifications from one another or that there is a generic qualification that does not require Church approval for its activity.
> 
> How, precisely, does a man or woman determine if they are qualified to preach and baptize according to the Confession's language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm finding different versions of the confession (variations between the 1644 and 1646?), but section LXI in another version reads:
> 
> London Baptist Confession of 1644
> 
> _"The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this ordinance, the Scriptures hold forth to a preaching Disciple, it being no where tied to a particular church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered Disciples."
> _
> You seem to say that it requires church approval, but it says "no where tied to a particular church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent" and "given to them under no other consideration." If it required church approval, wouldn't that be tied to a particular church? Honestly, I think it's crystal clear, both in this version and the other version of the confession.
Click to expand...

Again, as noted in PM, if the 1644 and the 1689 are compatible then the only place in either document where those able to preach is found in the 1689 which I quoted and states that they have to be gifted by the Holy Spirit and identified by the Church as being able.

If you wish to claim otherwise then you have yet failed to provide anywhere in either the 1644 or the 1689 where the qualifications for those who may preach along the way are found even though the 1644 clearly states that they must be so qualified.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> Again, as noted in PM, if the 1644 and the 1689 are compatible then the only place in either document where those able to preach is found in the 1689 which I quoted and states that they have to be gifted by the Holy Spirit and identified by the Church as being able.
> 
> If you wish to claim otherwise then you have yet failed to provide anywhere in either the 1644 or the 1689 where the qualifications for those who may preach along the way are found even though the 1644 clearly states that they must be so qualified.



The 1644 is in harmony with the 1689 in that it does place qualifications on officers. In XXXVI, it states: "That being thus joined, every Church has power given them from Christ for their better well-being, to choose to themselves fitting persons into the office of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons, being qualified according to the Word, as those which Christ has appointed in His Testament, for the feeding, governing, serving, and building up of His Church, and that none other have to power to impose them, either these or any other."

But several paragraphs later is XLI, which, as I noted, does not restrict the administration of baptism in the same way it restricts church officers.

So both the 1644 and the 1689 present ordained officers as leaders of the flock, but the 1689 does not restrict baptism to this office, and the 1644 explicitly denies such a restriction. So they are in harmony.

Dr. James Renihan clearly expounds on the 1644 and 1689 confessions, stating them to be in harmony in one another and notes that in the preface to the 1689, the first LBC is referred to as having the same substance. I really don't have any more to add to what Dr. Renihan says.
Confessing the Faith in 1644 and 1689, James M. Renihan | The Reformed Reader

I have been informed that in this thread that I am perceived to have a tendency for peevishness. If any of you have perceived this in any of my posts, I deeply apologize.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Again, Don, you have failed to answer the specific question.

1. You believe this statement to only refer to qualifications on officers but it clearly states:


> Although an obligation lies on the elders or pastors of the churches to be urgently preaching the Word by virtue of their office, yet the work of preaching the Word is not exclusively confined to them. Therefore others who are also gifted and qualified by the Holy Spirit for the task, and who are approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.



This specifically states:

a. That preaching can be performed by people who are not Church Officers.
b. Provided they are qualified to do so and identified by the Church as qualified.

2. I am not arguing that the LBCF teaches that baptism is to be performed only by Church Officers. I only noted that, if, as is clear, that the Confessions are in harmony, then even the 1644 places a requirement upon those who are baptizing:



> The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men _able to preach the gospel._



a. You have failed to demonstrate conclusively that this is really gender neutral. Simply stating that every other case of men means mankind in the 1644 does not address the issue conclusively even within the document.

(i) Can you give me any historical evidence from the minutes of the 1644 or the 1689 that the writers intended to convey that women could baptize?
(ii) Can you give me any examples of men baptized by women along the way that are accepted as valid baptisms?

b. If the 1689 and the 1644 are harmonious, there is no other place in either document where who is "able to preach" is spelled out except in the 1689 portion that I quoted above. As I noted, the 1689 does not require that the person be a Church Officer in that portion but it does require that their gift be identified by the Church.

c. If you don't believe that qualification in the section of the 1689 applies to the portion about baptism in the 1644, then on what basis is the individual supposed to determine if they are qualified to preach? Is it their judgment call? Do they just suppose: "That includes me" and then baptize a person? Are you qualified to preach in the way spelled out in the 1644 passage and, consequently, may you baptize a man so that the Church you attend will accept the baptism of the man you baptized? Did you determine that on your own or did the Church tell you that you are qualified?


----------



## Pergamum

Wow..I did not expect gender issues to pop up on this thread!


I am very credo and I like Rich's verbiage of "derivitive authority"

It does appear the the Great Commission was given to the leaders of the church for the whole church. 


Therefore the "every person a missionary view" is wrong, even as the view is wrong that our only duty is to bring someone to church for the "professionals" to handle it.
The faith expands due to all of us. But everyone does not have the same role.

Most of the spread of Christianity has been through laymen and not the clergy or pastors at all. They "share" their faith based on that derivitive authority from the church.

Even women are to share that faith and they do it often better than men.

However, baptizing is one of the things given to the Apsotles and now to the church. Therefore, we must conclude that the Great Commission belongs to "the church" as in its leadership and only to every single member secondarily. Otherwsie, every single Christian could baptise new beleivers, even women. 

The only NT examples of baptizing people I see are males who were designated leaders of the churches (of course Philip a deacon baptized, but he appears to have been sent out as an evanglest to Samaria on that occasion...can anyone clarify this point).


Also, there are many verbs used when the NT speaks of sharing the Gospel. Preaching, proclaiming, teaching, heralding, etc. Women can do some of these and were said to do some of these in th NT but some of these verbs seemed reserved for elders/pastors of churchs in their official role. But, everyone of us can tell others, though we are all not called to preach from the pulput or baptise. 

I wish I had a handy list of those verbs and who did them in the NT...maybe the subject for another thread.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Wow..I did not expect gender issues to pop up on this thread!
> 
> 
> I am very credo and I like Rich's verbiage of "derivitive authority"
> 
> It does appear the the Great Commission was given to the leaders of the church for the whole church.
> 
> 
> Therefore the "every person a missionary view" is wrong, even as the view is wrong that our only duty is to bring someone to church for the "professionals" to handle it.
> The faith expands due to all of us. But everyone does not have the same role.
> 
> Most of the spread of Christianity has been through laymen and not the clergy or pastors at all. They "share" their faith based on that derivitive authority from the church.
> 
> Even women are to share that faith and they do it often better than men.
> 
> However, baptizing is one of the things given to the Apsotles and now to the church. Therefore, we must conclude that the Great Commission belongs to "the church" as in its leadership and only to every single member secondarily. Otherwsie, every single Christian could baptise new beleivers, even women.
> 
> The only NT examples of baptizing people I see are males who were designated leaders of the churches (of course Philip a deacon baptized, but he appears to have been sent out as an evanglest to Samaria on that occasion...can anyone clarify this point).
> 
> 
> Also, there are many verbs used when the NT speaks of sharing the Gospel. Preaching, proclaiming, teaching, heralding, etc. Women can do some of these and were said to do some of these in th NT but some of these verbs seemed reserved for elders/pastors of churchs in their official role. But, everyone of us can tell others, though we are all not called to preach from the pulput or baptise.
> 
> I wish I had a handy list of those verbs and who did them in the NT...maybe the subject for another thread.



I would simply extend these remarks to add that the "making disciples" in the Great Commission includes Baptism but also "teaching everything I have commanded..." and that can only be achieved within the Church even if one argues that the baptism can occur outside a proper Church service. Even if the baptism could be conducted by other disciples, it would have to be sanctioned eventually by the Church when the baptized person came to Church. If they accept all the baptisms by those who are members of the Church then they'll be extending the right hand of fellowship and all privileges that are extended to the baptized. If they do not extend that privilege then, in essence, the person has not been baptized in the eyes of the Church and the "teaching" part of the Church's role cannot begin until the person is a visible disciple.

Regarding this:


> Most of the spread of Christianity has been through laymen and not the clergy or pastors at all. They "share" their faith based on that derivitive authority from the church.


I would agree that laymen have a huge role in the number of people reached for the Gospel but Christianity does not occur outside the Church so those reached are eventually pastored inside a Church or they're really not disciples of Christ. Hence, even though laymen plant the seed and bring in many, it is the purview of the pastors to nurture and establish.

And, by the way, I completely agree that women play a huge role in the spread of the Gospel.


----------



## KMK

Pergamum said:


> Most of the spread of Christianity has been through laymen and not the clergy or pastors at all.



Can you elaborate on this?


----------



## Davidius

KMK said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the spread of Christianity has been through laymen and not the clergy or pastors at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on this?
Click to expand...


----------



## Pergamum

In the early church, before Constantine, most scholars trace the explosive spread of Christianity by laymen, tradesmen, and women who "gospelled" to their neighbors and spoke Christ in the confines of their workplace and families. There were not well organzied churches or designated leaders of these churches but laymen took the lead, met in homes and then later the catcombs and spread Christianity from the grassroots. 

ALso, self-designated men or locally designated evanglists itenerated (thus the letter of 3rd John to give oversight of this reality, which taught the early church to support the good, not even greet the bad and gives us a glimpse into how the Gospel was spreading at that time).

WHen Christianity gained in favor with Rome and Constantine approved it, then larger institutions were set up and the laity's role decreased. But the explosive first period of the church was primarily the work of laymen.


Thus, it is good that we reformed exalt the role of preaching and the role of the elders, but we would do well likewise to mobilize the laymen to evangleize too within their roles (and thus extends BEYOND just inviting people to the church). At periods where the laymen are active and spreading the faith, the church always spreads fastest and farthest.


----------



## KMK

Pergamum said:


> In the early church, before Constantine, *most scholars* trace the explosive spread of Christianity by laymen, tradesmen, and women who "gospelled" to their neighbors and spoke Christ in the confines of their workplace and families. There were not well organzied churches or designated leaders of these churches but laymen took the lead, met in homes and then later the catcombs and spread Christianity from the grassroots.





Pergamum said:


> At periods where the laymen are active and spreading the faith, the church *always* spreads fastest and farthest.



I am not disagreeing with you but could you cite some references? I would like to research these very interesting claims.


----------



## Davidius

Does Paul ever tell laypeople to evangelize? I see admonitions like "live peacably" and "be ready to answer" but not admonitions to go knocking on doors, or do anything "active," really. From Acts I was under the impression that the early church grew through the preaching of the apostles, evangelists, and other appointed ministers.


----------



## christiana

Of course! He was speaking to believers everywhere when in 2 Cor 5:20 he pleads:
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God!


----------



## etexas

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Does Paul ever tell laypeople to evangelize? I see admonitions like "live peacably" and "be ready to answer" but not admonitions to go knocking on doors, or do anything "active," really. From Acts I was under the impression that the early church grew through the preaching of the apostles, evangelists, and other appointed ministers.


Good question.....where are the PB wise ones? I would actually like a Pastoral take on David's question.


----------



## Pergamum

Acts 8:1-4 speaks of the activity of Christians scattered in the persecution spreading the Gospel all over. Dr. Mark Terry (25 of "Evangelism") claims that the majority of the witness in Acts WAS laymen evangelism.

"What is clear is that every Christian was a witness. Where there were Christians, there would be living, burning faith and before long an expanding Christian community." Stephen Neill traces this lay evangelism in A History of Christian Missions, 24.

Herbert Kane sums it up, "In those early days the church WAS mission." (Christian Missions, 65)


----------



## KMK

elnwood said:


> The 1644 is in *harmony* with the 1689 in that it does place qualifications on officers. In XXXVI, it states: "That being thus joined, every Church has power given them from Christ for their better well-being, to choose to themselves fitting persons into the office of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons, being qualified according to the Word, as those which Christ has appointed in His Testament, for the feeding, governing, serving, and building up of His Church, and that none other have to power to impose them, either these or any other."
> 
> But several paragraphs later is XLI, which, as I noted, does not restrict the administration of baptism in the same way it restricts church officers.
> 
> So both the 1644 and the 1689 present ordained officers as leaders of the flock, but the 1689 does not restrict baptism to this office, and the 1644 explicitly denies such a restriction. So they are in harmony.
> 
> Dr. James Renihan clearly expounds on the 1644 and 1689 confessions, stating them to be in *harmony* in one another and notes that in the preface to the 1689, the first LBC is referred to as having the same substance. I really don't have any more to add to what Dr. Renihan says.
> Confessing the Faith in 1644 and 1689, James M. Renihan | The Reformed Reader



I thank you for the link, Don, it is excellent and dare I say it, a must read for all Reformed Baptists, especially those who claim to hold to the 1st and not the 2nd LBC.

However, I think you are drawing different conlusions from the historical evidence than Dr. Renihan does. (Being as well connected as you are, you may be able to query Dr. Renihan yourself and find that I am totally off base) 

I could not find anywhere in his paper where he states that the 1st and 2nd are 'in harmony' with one another as you assert. He does show that they are the same 'in substance' in that the 2nd is more 'fully and distinctly' an expression of 17th century Particular Baptist beliefs. The point that Dr. Renihan seems to be making is that the two confessions do not prove, as some claim, that there were two different varieties of 17th century Particular Baptists *and* that we can use the 2nd to define the 1st but not the other way around. 

From the paper:



> Simply because the 1644 Confession does not highlight and emphasize these things does not mean that it, and the men and churches who issued it, *held a view distinct from the latter Confession*.



The 'latter confession', then being more fully and distinctly an expression of what these men believed, must have the final say. And the 2nd says...



> Chapter 26:8 A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), *for the peculiar administration of ordinances*, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.



Then chapter 26 goes on to explain a sort of 'exception' to the ordinances mentioned above...



> 26:11. Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.



However, no such exception (that I can find) exists for the ordinance of baptism or the Lord's Supper.

In addition, Dr. Renihan makes it very clear in his paper that the source document for the 2nd LBC is the WCF. As you know it is virtually a mirror image of the WCF except in those specific areas where there is disagreement and then the 2nd LBC goes to great lengths to explain those differences. But nowhere (that I can find) does the 2nd LBC go to great lengths to explain a difference with chapter 27 of the WCF...



> 27:IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.



If the 17th century Particular Baptists disagreed with the WCF on this point wouldn't they have *clearly* explained their differences?


----------



## Pergamum

IN Acts 2 God fearing Jews from all over came to Jeruslame and then seemed to spread this message back home,

In Acts 11:19-21, we see the result of their faithfulness: 

Those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord's hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

The Jerusalem church sent Barnabas to minister to the new believers (Acts 11:22-23).
How did these new beleivers come about if no one was sent before?


----------



## Pergamum

More on lay evangelism (or "witness" if you would prefer this verbage):

The Legion fella that Christ healed was told to go tell people; which he did very effectively (Luke 8 I think).




Third John was all about the travelling evangelists. Feed and house the good ones; DOn't even greet the bad ones.


----------



## christiana

etexas said:


> CarolinaCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Paul ever tell laypeople to evangelize? I see admonitions like "live peacably" and "be ready to answer" but not admonitions to go knocking on doors, or do anything "active," really. From Acts I was under the impression that the early church grew through the preaching of the apostles, evangelists, and other appointed ministers.
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.....where are the PB wise ones? I would actually like a Pastoral take on David's question.
Click to expand...



Well, I may not be a 'PB wise one' but I can read and accept what God said in His word as truth and it clearly says that we, as believers are to spread the Word of the gospel to others! That is a command!


----------



## KMK

As usual in these kinds of threads it is difficult to discuss these things because of the different definitions we all have for 'preaching', 'witnessing, 'evangelizing' etc. etc.

Let us all agree with these things...



> WLC Question 35: How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament?
> 
> Answer: Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fulness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.



'Preaching' is is a means of grace on par with Baptism and the Lord's Supper.



> WCF 25:II. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.



'Preaching' is given to 'the church' for the gathering and perfecting of the saints.



> LBC 26:11 Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.



Although those who are not bishops or pastors may 'preach', they must be 'gifted' and 'fitted' by the HS and 'approved' and 'called' by the church.

Notice, however, that I am not saying that many or all may be 'gifted' and 'fitted' or even 'commanded' to witness, or evangelize or 'share the faith' etc. (whatever those words might mean) but the Reformer's view is that when one 'preaches' they represent a specific church body and have been approved and called for that function.


----------



## christiana

This has been the subject of the last few sermons on the church and their responsibility that I've been privileged to hear! They have been very convincing, convicting and motivating! Please listen to what our responsibility is:

SermonAudio.com - Search Results


----------



## KMK

More thoughts:

In the OED, the word 'preaching' is most often associated with the word 'sermon'. For example...



> The action of the verb 'preach'; the delivery of a sermon or public religious discourse; the practice or art of delivering sermons...The delivering of a sermon; that which is preached, a sermon or discourse



and a 'sermon' is defined as a 'discourse' that is most often associated with the 'pulpit'...



> Something that is said; talk, discourse...A discourse, usually delivered from a pulpit and based upon a text of Scripture for the purpose of giving religious instruction or exhortation...



Also, the word 'keryssein' means to 'herald'. This evokes the picture of a herald who was sent by a king to a village to make a proclamation or report. The villagers would gather around and the herald would deliver his already composed message. The herald did not go from person to person, delivering the message to whomever he happened to enter into a conversation with. The whole event had an air of formality to it.

It would seem to me that 'preaching', then is a sermon, sanctioned by a church, delivered from the pulpit,and fitted by the HS as a means of grace.

With that definition of 'preaching' I don't see how all Christians are commanded to preach. If you want to argue that all Christians are commanded to 'evangelize' or 'witness' or 'share their faith' then that would be a different subject.


----------



## elnwood

KMK said:


> In addition, Dr. Renihan makes it very clear in his paper that the source document for the 2nd LBC is the WCF. As you know it is virtually a mirror image of the WCF except in those specific areas where there is disagreement and then the 2nd LBC goes to great lengths to explain those differences. But nowhere (that I can find) does the 2nd LBC go to great lengths to explain a difference with chapter 27 of the WCF...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 27:IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 17th century Particular Baptists disagreed with the WCF on this point wouldn't they have *clearly* explained their differences?
Click to expand...


If the LBCF is not a mirror image in a section of the confession, there probably was disagreement. I think the fact that the Particular Baptists omitted this portion from the WCF, plus the testimony of the 1644, is sufficient to show that there was some disagreement with the view set forth in the WCF.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Pergamum said:


> More on lay evangelism (or "witness" if you would prefer this verbage):
> 
> The Legion fella that Christ healed was told to go tell people; which he did very effectively (Luke 8 I think).



I agree with you Pergamum that lay evangelism is criticial. John Owen, for example, argued that there was a mandate on all believers to evangelise that arises from the command to do good to all people.

However, what is regularly forgotten is that the Great Commission is not a command to evangelise. It is the command to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19). And the way disciples are made is through "baptising" and "teaching".

Hence, evangelism is only a _part_ of the great commission. New converts need to be made into disciples who will persevere to the end and not be like the the two seeds in the parable of the sower who die out over time. The Bible doesn't teach once saved always saved, but the final perseverance of the saints. As Calvin said we can't be saved in the end apart from the church.

Thus, the _whole church_ is needed for the great commission because all believers have spiritual gifts that are needed for the _whole _body of Christ to be built up. The great commission is profoundly churchly.


----------



## Iconoclast

*1Thess 1*

1Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 

2We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; 

3Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; 

4Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. 

5For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. 

6And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost. 

7So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia. 

8For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing. 

9For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 

10And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

In verse 8,9, it sounds very clearly as if they were openly confessing Christ. I am sure they were doing the work of an evangelist. I did like how Rich had tied in the idea of a strong view of the local church. 
Discipleship should take place under the oversight of those who have the rule over us. How else 
could we obey ,
Hebrews 13: 7Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,
17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

elnwood said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, Dr. Renihan makes it very clear in his paper that the source document for the 2nd LBC is the WCF. As you know it is virtually a mirror image of the WCF except in those specific areas where there is disagreement and then the 2nd LBC goes to great lengths to explain those differences. But nowhere (that I can find) does the 2nd LBC go to great lengths to explain a difference with chapter 27 of the WCF...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 27:IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the 17th century Particular Baptists disagreed with the WCF on this point wouldn't they have *clearly* explained their differences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the LBCF is not a mirror image in a section of the confession, there probably was disagreement. I think the fact that the Particular Baptists omitted this portion from the WCF, plus the testimony of the 1644, is sufficient to show that there was some disagreement with the view set forth in the WCF.
Click to expand...


Don,

How can the 1644 testimony be sufficient to show disagreement with the view set forth in the WCF when the WCF had not been done yet? Remember it came in 1646. Plus the purpose of the 1644 was different than the WCF. The 1644 was written to give an answer to the charge of heresy to some who were publishing tracts accusing the Particular Baptists of anabaptist heresies and uprisings. The 1644 was not written to be a definitive confession of Particular Baptist Theology as much as it was a defense that they were not heretics.


----------



## KMK

I am still not convinced that the 1st LBC carries any weight in this matter simply because it is vague on the qualifications of the adminster of baptism. Once again, Dr. Renihan, in his article listed above, states:



> Probably the best and most detailed Confession available to them was the True Confession of 1596, a document that had been issued by men of stature like the famous commentator on the books of Moses, Henry Ainsworth. *About 50% of their Confession was taken directly from this older document*.



And the 'True Confession' seems to say that baptism should be performed by a minister of the Word:



> Article 34 That such asq God hath giuen guiftes to enterpret the Scriptures, tryed in the exercise of Prophecie, giving attendance to studie and learning, may and ought by the appointment of the Congregation, to teach publickly the vvord, vntill the people bee meet or, and God manifest men vvith able guifts and fitnes to such Office or Offices as Christ hath appointed to the publick ministerie of his church; but rno Sacraments to bee administred vntill the Pastora or Teachers bee chosen and ordeyned into their Office.



It just seems to me that the testimony of the 1st LBC does not 'clearly' show that lay-baptisms are confessionally reformed. However, I will concede that our Baptist forefathers are not as clear on the subject as are the Presbyterian forefathers.


----------



## elnwood

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Don,
> 
> How can the 1644 testimony be sufficient to show disagreement with the view set forth in the WCF when the WCF had not been done yet? Remember it came in 1646. Plus the purpose of the 1644 was different than the WCF. The 1644 was written to give an answer to the charge of heresy to some who were publishing tracts accusing the Particular Baptists of anabaptist heresies and uprisings. The 1644 was not written to be a definitive confession of Particular Baptist Theology as much as it was a defense that they were not heretics.



Sorry for the confusion. I meant the testimony of the *1689* was sufficient to show disagreement with the WCF. Besides changing the WCF to believer's baptism, the 1689 also eliminated the term "sacrament" and rewrote the section on the sacraments only being administered by lawfully ordained clergy that KMK cited.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

elnwood said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don,
> 
> How can the 1644 testimony be sufficient to show disagreement with the view set forth in the WCF when the WCF had not been done yet? Remember it came in 1646. Plus the purpose of the 1644 was different than the WCF. The 1644 was written to give an answer to the charge of heresy to some who were publishing tracts accusing the Particular Baptists of anabaptist heresies and uprisings. The 1644 was not written to be a definitive confession of Particular Baptist Theology as much as it was a defense that they were not heretics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the confusion. I meant the testimony of the *1689* was sufficient to show disagreement with the WCF. Besides changing the WCF to believer's baptism, the 1689 also eliminated the term "sacrament" and rewrote the section on the sacraments only being administered by lawfully ordained clergy that KMK cited.
Click to expand...


BTW, Here is a link to Dr. Renihan's article 'The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in its Historical and Theological Context'.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in its Historical and Theological Context

BTW, the 1689 is closer in relation to the Savoy Declaration. When comparing the two together you see it is the one that the Particular Baptist's used as a main confession to compare with.


----------



## elnwood

PuritanCovenanter said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the confusion. I meant the testimony of the *1689* was sufficient to show disagreement with the WCF. Besides changing the WCF to believer's baptism, the 1689 also eliminated the term "sacrament" and rewrote the section on the sacraments only being administered by lawfully ordained clergy that KMK cited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, Here is a link to Dr. Renihan's article 'The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in its Historical and Theological Context'.
> 
> The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in its Historical and Theological Context
> 
> BTW, the 1689 is closer in relation to the Savoy Declaration. When comparing the two together you see it is the one that the Particular Baptist's used as a main confession to compare with.
Click to expand...


Thank you for the link. It should be noted that the Savoy follows the WCF on paedobaptism, the use of the term "sacrament," and that baptism is only to be administered by lawfully ordained clergy. The 1689 departs from both the WCF and the Savoy in those portions of the confession.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Don,

Do you know the position of the PB's that framed the Confession? I would be interested in knowing? I will find out what Dr. Renihan says.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The 1689

28.2 These holy appointments are to be administered by those who are qualified and called to do so, according to the commission of Christ.1

(1) Mat_24:45-51; Luk_12:41-44; 1Co_4:1; Tit_1:5-7


2. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.



I looks like the verses that are attached for proof texts to the 1689 lead to defining leadership in the Church as the administers of the ordinances / sacraments. 



> (Mat 24:45) Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
> 
> (Mat 24:46) Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
> 
> (Mat 24:47) Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
> 
> (Mat 24:48) But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
> 
> (Mat 24:49) And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
> 
> (Mat 24:50) The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
> 
> (Mat 24:51) And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.





> (Luk 12:41) Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
> 
> (Luk 12:42) And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
> 
> (Luk 12:43) Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
> 
> (Luk 12:44) Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.





> (1Co 4:1) Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.





> (Tit 1:5) For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
> 
> (Tit 1:6) If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
> 
> (Tit 1:7) For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;



BTW, Here is a nice link that has all three lined up next to each other.

Comparison of Three Confessions


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Where does this quote come from?



> London Baptist Confession of Faith: "The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel."



And BTW, Women would not have been considered lawful administers of Baptism.

Never mind. I know it is the 1644.


----------



## KMK

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Where does this quote come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> London Baptist Confession of Faith: "The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; *it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration*, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel."
Click to expand...


It comes from article 41 of the 1646 LBC. Unlike Don, I think they are confessing that the 'efficiency' of baptism is not tied to any particular church or pastor. The 'True Confession' would seem to support this, but you are correct in that the case could be settled once and for all by studying the writings of those 17th century PBs.


----------



## KMK

BTW, I would like to point out...



> LBC 1646 XLI.
> 
> The person *designed* by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.



Although it says it is no where tied to a particular church officer, it does say that the person dispensing the baptism has been 'designed' by Christ for that purpose. 

The OED on 'designed'...



> Marked out, appointed, planned, purposed, intended...



So its not just that the dispenser must be a disciple, but he must be marked out from a larger group of disciples for that purpose. Whose job is it to recognize who is marked out? The church.


----------



## elnwood

KMK said:


> Although it says it is no where tied to a particular church officer, it does say that the person dispensing the baptism has been 'designed' by Christ for that purpose.
> 
> The OED on 'designed'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marked out, appointed, planned, purposed, intended...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So its not just that the dispenser must be a disciple, but he must be marked out from a larger group of disciples for that purpose. Whose job is it to recognize who is marked out? The church.
Click to expand...


Hmmm. I don't think it is necessarily proper to read every definition from the OED back into the word "designed." Why can't the word simply mean "intended" and not necessarily "marked out"? Why does it have to entail the church recognizing? God designed apples to be eaten, but surely the church doesn't have to mark out apples to be eaten.

Not to get too far off topic, but it's sort of the same argument that paedos use for baptism, that since _baptizo_ can also mean to wash, that sprinkling must also be a valid mode of baptism. I don't think a word necessarily has to mean everything in your dictionary or lexicon.


----------



## KMK

elnwood said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although it says it is no where tied to a particular church officer, it does say that the person dispensing the baptism has been 'designed' by Christ for that purpose.
> 
> The OED on 'designed'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marked out, appointed, planned, purposed, intended...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So its not just that the dispenser must be a disciple, but he must be marked out from a larger group of disciples for that purpose. Whose job is it to recognize who is marked out? The church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm. I don't think it is necessarily proper to read every definition from the OED back into the word "designed." Why can't the word simply mean "intended" and not necessarily "marked out"? Why does it have to entail the church recognizing? God designed apples to be eaten, but surely the church doesn't have to mark out apples to be eaten.
> 
> Not to get too far off topic, but it's sort of the same argument that paedos use for baptism, that since _baptizo_ can also mean to wash, that sprinkling must also be a valid mode of baptism. I don't think a word necessarily has to mean everything in your dictionary or lexicon.
Click to expand...


YIKES! 

Sorry, but I just received my OED and I can't put it down. Either way, we agree that the writers of the 1st LBC, who, according to Renihan, are mostly the same as the writers of the 2nd LBC, confessed that any one who was going to dispense the baptism must be a disciple who Christ 'designed' (intended) for that purpose.

My question is, whose responsibility, according to 17th century PBs, was it to decide which disciple was intended by Christ to dispense the baptism? Was it the baptizee? And by what criteria would a disciple be judged as to whether he was 'intended' by Christ to dispense a particular baptism? Right place at the right time? Would 17th century PBs think that my 10 year old daughter was 'intended' by Christ to baptize people? If so, what criteria did they use and where did they write them down?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is what Dr. Renihan wrote on this topic. I got permission from him through Rich Barcellos to take this off of the RBlist.



> It seems that there continues to be a misunderstanding of the 1644/46
> doctrine on the administrators of baptism.
> 
> Here is an edited
> portion of a post that I made in 1997:
> 
> The text of the 1644 edition is as follows (taken from Lumpkin, page
> 167): "The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this Ordinance, the
> Scriptures hold forth to be a preaching Disciple, it being no where tyed
> to a particular Church, Officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the
> Commission injoyning the administration, being given to them under no
> other consideration, but as considered Disciples."
> 
> The text of the 1646 edition is: "The person designed by Christ to
> dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being
> no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily
> sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as
> considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel."
> 
> The [1646] revisions came largely due to the strictures published by
> Daniel Featley in his book "The Dipper's Dip't and Plunged over Head and Heels
> . . ." Featley said "A preaching disciple, sounds as harshly as a
> Scholar Master, or a Lecturing hearer. . . ." (pg. 183). This was the
> fifth of his strictures aimed at the 1644 Confession. The Baptists
> revised their statements in response to Featley and published the 1646
> edition.
> 
> Now, notice carefully what they did in the revision. The 1644 edition
> stated that the adminstrator of baptism was to be a "preaching
> disciple." This was a reference to the individuals described in article
> 
> XLV, who later came to be known as "gifted brethren." [brief
> digression: there was a controversy between the high presbyterians and
> the Independents and Baptists over who could properly preach. The HP's
> said that only educated ordained clergy could preach. The I's and B's
> said that gifted men, tried and approved by the church, could rightly
> preach. These were the gifted brethren. Under NO circumstances was
> anyone allowed to preach who had not been tried and approved by the
> churches. They all had a very high view of the preaching office.]
> Featley criticized the expression, so they changed it by moving it to
> the end of the article "being given to them as considered disciples,
> BEING MEN ABLE TO PREACH THE GOSPEL." It is simply a more elegant way of
> saying the same thing. They did not believe or practice that any church
> member could baptize; nor did they restrict the administration of the
> ordinance to elders alone; they believed and practiced that the men who
> were recognized by the church as officers, teachers and preachers were
> allowed to baptize, but not all of the members.
> 
> To confirm this, notice the words of Hanserd Knollys, writing in his
> 1646 book "The Shining of a Flaming Fire in Zion" (page 9): "We do not
> affirm, that every common disciple may baptize, there was some mistake
> [by his opponent--JMR] in laying down our opinion. . . . Where it is
> conceived, that we hold, Whatsoever Disciple can teach the word, or make
> out Christ may Baptize, and administer the orinances. We do not do so;
> for though believing Women being baptized are Disciples, Act. 9.36. and
> can make out Christ; yea, and some of them (by their experimental
> knowledge and spiritual understanding of the way, order, & faith of the
> Gospel) may be able to instruct their teachers, Acts 18.26. Rom. 16.3.
> yet we do not hold , that a woman may preach, baptize, nor administer
> other Ordinances. Nor do we judge it meet, for any brother to baptize,
> or to administer other ordinances; unless he have received such gifts of
> the spirit, as fitteh or enableth him to preach the Gospel. And those
> gifts being first tried by, and known to the church, such a brother is
> chosen, and appointed thereunto by the suffrage of the church."
> 
> The administration of the ordinances was not tied to office, but to
> recognized preachers. Thus, the 1st LCF does not endorse the notion
> that any disciple may baptize.
> 
> This is the same doctrine as the 1677/89 LCF.
> 
> Jim Renihan


----------

