# What do you think of Packer's quote?



## TrustGzus

Recently I started a thread about ISTJs and evangelism. The reason I'm thinking about evangelism and especially for those of us that are introverted and talking to people is less natural for us is I'm reading Packer's book _Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God_. 

Packer writes on pp. 26-27,


> "Evangelism is the inalienable responsibility of every Christian community, and every Christian man. We are all under orders to devote ourselves to spreading the good news, and to use all our ingenuity and enterprise to bring it to the notice of the whole world. The Christian, therefore, must constantly be searching his conscience, asking himself if he is doing all that he might be doing in this field. For this also us a responsibility that cannot be shrugged off."



What do you think? Is Packer correct? Is he wrong? Is he somewhat correct but overstating his point? Something else?


----------



## NoutheticCounselor

Yes, all Christians are commanded to go and make disciples. How that is done will be different for different people.


----------



## MW

Every Christian is part of the fellowship of the gospel, Phil. 1:5, and participates towards its witness and furtherance in various ways. But "evangelism," technically, requires "preaching," which is an official calling to which an individual is set apart by the church, is responsible to the ecclesiastical oversight for the exercise of his function, and for which the individual will have to give account on the great day of judgment.

What is called the great commission requires the commissioned to "go," "teach," and "baptise." These actions do not fall within the sphere of every disciple, but only of those who are properly qualified and duly called.


----------



## arapahoepark

No offense to some here but, I agree. The reason why I say that is because some here will start getting nitpicky and start defining 'evangelism' as something only ministers do. If we were to strictly say spread the Gospel, all would be in agreement.


----------



## toddpedlar

Every Christian is called to give reason for the hope that lies within him. Every Christian is NOT called to the task of evangelism. The two are very distinct. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## OPC'n

toddpedlar said:


> Every Christian is called to give reason for the hope that lies within him. Every Christian is NOT called to the task of evangelism. The two are very distinct.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Can you explain more?


----------



## bookslover

I guess you could say that "formal evangelism" is what pastors and elders do. And "informal evangelism" - as in naturally arising everyday conversations - is what all Christians can do.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

arap said:


> No offense to some here but, I agree. The reason why I say that is because some here will start getting nitpicky and start defining 'evangelism' as something only ministers do. If we were to strictly say spread the Gospel, all would be in agreement.


I would hardly call it being "nitpicky" in a theological discussion where precision is required. I am in agreement with Rev. Winzer's statement above.


----------



## johnny

I am thankful for the many things I learn here on PB and I am in agreement with Rev Winzer and the
other Posters as they seem sound and reasonable in the light of the Bible and Gospel Commands.

My question is,,, 

Does any church body still train evangelists to be equipped and sent out to ordinary people in the community as opposed to mission fields in overseas countries? as I dont see many trained evangelists standing on street corners preaching the Gospel. (Is this a fault of our Church in general?)


----------



## earl40

Someone can correct me if I am wrong but I think Pastor Packer is one that believes all Christians are tasked with spreading The Gospel the same way as all pastors are to tasked with. As was expressed above this leads to the the mistaken idea that all Christians are "priests" which in no way is aligned with the official position as espoused in scripture especially as conveyed in _the pastoral_ epistles.


----------



## jambo

I think Packer is quite right. We are all called to be witnesses and to give a reason for the hope that lies within them. In a couple of Sundays I will be preaching on Jn 4 and the woman of Samaria. I have been struck by the fact the disciples went into town and came back with bread whilst the woman went into town and came back with people many of whom believed. I have long been convinced the work of the kingdom is advanced by ordinary individuals witnessing in their own way. Some people find sharing their faith a joy whilst others find it very difficult but the Lord in his grace enables and equips all.

In answer to Johnny's question above we as a church are seeking to encourage and support people to think of themselves as missionaries in their own families, workplaces and neighbourhood.


----------



## earl40

jambo said:


> I think Packer is quite right. We are all called to be witnesses and to give a reason for the hope that lies within them. In a couple of Sundays I will be preaching on Jn 4 and the woman of Samaria. I have been struck by the fact the disciples went into town and came back with bread whilst the woman went into town and came back with people many of whom believed. I have long been convinced the work of the kingdom is advanced by ordinary individuals witnessing in their own way. Some people find sharing their faith a joy whilst others find it very difficult but the Lord in his grace enables and equips all.
> 
> In answer to Johnny's question above we as a church are seeking to encourage and support people to think of themselves as missionaries in their own families, workplaces and neighbourhood.



Those women of Samaria did not believe until they came and heard Jesus, Who was sent to preach The Gospel which is not the official task of the laity. Been there done that in baptist churches and otherwise reformed churches, and to suggest otherwise is to lay a guilt trip on those who do not do what their pastors tell them to do. I say this humbly but forcefully because I do not expect you to do my job I am called to do and I expect you to do your job you are called to do. Being a witness to what God has done and doing our life is not The Gospel but what The Gospel does to us.


----------



## jambo

Witnessing, evangelism etc comes from the outflow of the heart. If a person seeks to speak about Christ out of guilt then it is the wrong reason. The woman of Samaria simply told others what she had seen and heard which is all that is required of any witness.


----------



## earl40

jambo said:


> Witnessing, evangelism etc comes from the outflow of the heart. If a person seeks to speak about Christ out of guilt then it is the wrong reason. The woman of Samaria simply told others what she had seen and heard which is all that is required of any witness.



I hear you and understand what you are saying. I am saying even if a lay person has it "in their heart" to preach the gospel we should send them to be taught to do so, along with all the other functions pastors do(baptizing and administering communion). I understand and sympathize with your convictions here I am simply stating that witnessing is not preaching The Gospel.


----------



## Grimmson

earl40 said:


> jambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Witnessing, evangelism etc comes from the outflow of the heart. If a person seeks to speak about Christ out of guilt then it is the wrong reason. The woman of Samaria simply told others what she had seen and heard which is all that is required of any witness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you and understand what you are saying. I am saying even if a lay person has it "in their heart" to preach the gospel we should send them to be taught to do so, along with all the other functions pastors do(baptizing and administering communion). I understand and sympathize with your convictions here I am simply stating that witnessing is not preaching The Gospel.
Click to expand...


Would you be willing to say Earl that witnessing is proclaiming the Gospel?


----------



## RamistThomist

This is more of a sociological observation than a theological conclusion. Is the willingness to make evangelism solely a ministerial category connected with how many Reformed churches are small in number?


----------



## Miss Marple

earl40 said:


> Someone can correct me if I am wrong but I think Pastor Packer is one that believes all Christians are tasked with spreading The Gospel the same way as all pastors are to tasked with. As was expressed above this leads to the the mistaken idea that all Christians are "priests" which in no way is aligned with the official position as espoused in scripture especially as conveyed in _the pastoral_ epistles.



But we are called priests, all of us, in the pastoral epistles:

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; " 1st Peter 2:9


----------



## earl40

Grimmson said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Witnessing, evangelism etc comes from the outflow of the heart. If a person seeks to speak about Christ out of guilt then it is the wrong reason. The woman of Samaria simply told others what she had seen and heard which is all that is required of any witness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you and understand what you are saying. I am saying even if a lay person has it "in their heart" to preach the gospel we should send them to be taught to do so, along with all the other functions pastors do(baptizing and administering communion). I understand and sympathize with your convictions here I am simply stating that witnessing is not preaching The Gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be willing to say Earl that witnessing is proclaiming the Gospel?
Click to expand...


Would you say the blind man who Jesus healed proclaimed The Gospel?


----------



## earl40

Miss Marple said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone can correct me if I am wrong but I think Pastor Packer is one that believes all Christians are tasked with spreading The Gospel the same way as all pastors are to tasked with. As was expressed above this leads to the the mistaken idea that all Christians are "priests" which in no way is aligned with the official position as espoused in scripture especially as conveyed in _the pastoral_ epistles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we are called priests, all of us, in the pastoral epistles:
> 
> "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; " 1st Peter 2:9
Click to expand...


That is why I used "priest" in " ". Yes we are set apart to "proclaim the praises of Him" and in this sense we are priests. Though in saying this we "priests" in the pew are sent out to witness to those what has been done in our lives to those who have yet to obtain mercy.


----------



## jambo

There is a big difference between preaching (which relatively few are called to do) and evangelising on a 1:1 basis over a cup of coffee or a discussion in the office, which everyone can do. I don't believe that evangelism is something that can be taught but rather something that can be encouraged. Evangelism is simply one hungry begger telling another hungry begger where to get bread.


----------



## earl40

ReformedReidian said:


> This is more of a sociological observation than a theological conclusion. Is the willingness to make evangelism solely a ministerial category connected with how many Reformed churches are small in number?



And most of those saved outside of reformed churches were saved in churches who are not reformed.


----------



## Jack K

The heart of the OP's question seems to be whether or not those of us who are introverts can rightly excuse ourselves from caring for our neighbor on the basis that it's hard for us to speak up. Surely we are not all called to preach, and we may not be called to fully explain salvation or to issue the direct challenge to place faith in Christ. But we _are_ called to love. And sharing the hope we have in Christ is part of that love.

Introverts do NOT get a pass when it comes to loving others. We don't get to hide behind the idea that it just isn't part of our personality. Love always comes at a cost, with difficulty, and we are charged with working through that difficulty for the sake of Christ and our fellow man. We may do well to work alongside others who find certain aspects of sharing Christ easier, but remaining on the sidelines is not an option.

Part of the struggle with this question is the regrettable way some churches have put pressure on invididuals to turn their friends into converts by means of formulaic "witnessing." When we read something like that paragraph from Packer, this is what comes to mind for many of us. Whatever way we best love our neighbor by sharing our hope in Christ, it seldom should look like that formula. But it also must not mean uncaring silence.


----------



## KMK

London Baptist Confession:



> chapter 26; paragraph 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.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

In respect to the OP, I think that it's rather clear from what Jim Packer wrote elsewhere, as well as the whole tenor of his life and career, that he certainly believes in special office and what is committed to the office of minister, particularly the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. He is, after all, an Anglican! It is unimaginable in any respect to think that he denies special office in the church and that which it properly involves. 

I think, particularly having in mind that he is an Anglican, he would want to remind all in the church (including those in his church) that the commission of the church is given to the body as a whole, to be carried out, by sure, for those gifted and called to carry it out in the ways that God ordained for them. While only some hold special office, all are to serve in the general office of believer, which is what I think that he has in view in the OP. The OPC Book of Church Order, in its _Form of Government_, helpfully relates general and special office: "The power which Christ has committed to his church is not vested in the special officers alone, but in the whole body. All believers are endued with the Spirit and called of Christ to join in the worship, edification, and witness of the church which grows as the body of Christ fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplies, according to the working in due measure of each part. The power of believers in their general office includes the right to acknowledge and desire the exercise of the gifts and calling of the special offices" (FG 3.1).

I believe that Packer is writing in a context in which many imagine that it is up to the "professionals" or the priest-craft to evangelize and he wants to emphasize that there is a proper place for all in the body to give a gospel witness. Packer is hardly one to deny special office or the particular calling that accrues thereunto. At the same time, he wants to argue that the whole body is involved in testifying to the gospel both with lives and lips. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## earl40

Alan D. Strange said:


> In respect to the OP, I think that it's rather clear from what Jim Packer wrote elsewhere, as well as the whole tenor of his life and career, that he certainly believes in special office and what is committed to the office of minister, particularly the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. He is, after all, an Anglican! It is unimaginable in any respect to think that he denies special office in the church and that which it properly involves.
> 
> I think, particularly having in mind that he is an Anglican, he would want to remind all in the church (including those in his church) that the commission of the church is given to the body as a whole, to be carried out, by sure, for those gifted and called to carry it out in the ways that God ordained for them. While only some hold special office, all are to serve in the general office of believer, which is what I think that he has in view in the OP. The OPC Book of Church Order, in its _Form of Government_, helpfully relates general and special office: "The power which Christ has committed to his church is not vested in the special officers alone, but in the whole body. All believers are endued with the Spirit and called of Christ to join in the worship, edification, and witness of the church which grows as the body of Christ fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplies, according to the working in due measure of each part. The power of believers in their general office includes the right to acknowledge and desire the exercise of the gifts and calling of the special offices" (FG 3.1).
> 
> I believe that Packer is writing in a context in which many imagine that it is up to the "professionals" or the priest-craft to evangelize and he wants to emphasize that there is a proper place for all in the body to give a gospel witness. Packer is hardly one to deny special office or the particular calling that accrues thereunto. At the same time, he wants to argue that the whole body is involved in testifying to the gospel both with lives and lips.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan




Pastor Strange what do you think of this article on the OPC site, which I assume you have already read?

http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=158


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Earl:

I don't have time right at this point to re-read Charlie's article, though I was in general agreement with him on the office question (I think that my position, however, is a bit more nuanced than his was).

I also believe that Charlie is using a more technical, and perhaps more precise, definition of the word "evangelism," and that Jim Packer has something broader in mind, including what would come under I Peter 3:15 and the broader notion of "sharing the gospel" or "sharing Christ" with someone. I don't believe that Packer is advocating the "every member ministry" that Charlie is criticizing but wants every member of the church to be active in the general office of believer. 

Again, it would hardly be the case that Packer as an Anglican would marginalize special office and believe that everyone in the church is a teacher, ambassador, officer in the same way. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## earl40

Alan D. Strange said:


> Earl:
> 
> I don't have time right at this point to re-read Charlie's article, though I was in general agreement with him on the office question (I think that my position, however, is a bit more nuanced than his was).
> 
> I also believe that Charlie is using a more technical, and perhaps more precise, definition of the word "evangelism," and that Jim Packer has something broader in mind, including what would come under I Peter 3:15 and the broader notion of "sharing the gospel" or "sharing Christ" with someone. I don't believe that Packer is advocating the "every member ministry" that Charlie is criticizing but wants every member of the church to be active in the general office of believer.
> 
> Again, it would hardly be the case that Packer as an Anglican would marginalize special office and believe that everyone in the church is a teacher, ambassador, officer in the same way.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Thank you and I do not expect you to re-read it again like I would not re-read all of Pastor Packers words on what exactly evangelism is, and what the role of the laity is in his view. Suffice it to say I believe God uses the institution of the church and its pastors to save His children,ordinarily, and rarely does God use the un-ordained to do what is the pastors job as subscribed in scripture which I am sure you also agree with.


----------



## Ken

Absolutely!!!

We as Christian have a fiduciary responsibility as ambassadors of Christ: 

Exodus 20:7: "_7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain._"

When we put on the name of God; it is not to be in vain, we are to represent Him with all our heart, soul and strength.

Jesus instructs us:
Matthew 10:16: "_16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves._"

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## NoutheticCounselor

KMK said:


> London Baptist Confession:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chapter 26; paragraph 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.
Click to expand...


I believe that a person should be sent out by the church for things such as open air preaching, teaching classes, etc. However, your average Christian is called to witness to people in their life such as family, friends, co-workers, waitresses, etc.

The quoted chapter from the LBC does not forbid the average Christian from giving the Gospel to their neighbor or to a guy sitting next to them on a bus.


----------



## Philip

Alan D. Strange said:


> I believe that Packer is writing in a context in which many imagine that it is up to the "professionals" or the priest-craft to evangelize and he wants to emphasize that there is a proper place for all in the body to give a gospel witness. Packer is hardly one to deny special office or the particular calling that accrues thereunto. At the same time, he wants to argue that the whole body is involved in testifying to the gospel both with lives and lips.



And it should be added that this emphasis on lay involvement in the whole life, work, and mission of the church is a distinctive feature of the conservative evangelical wing of Anglicanism.


----------



## KMK

NoutheticCounselor said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> London Baptist Confession:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chapter 26; paragraph 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that a person should be sent out by the church for things such as open air preaching, teaching classes, etc. However, your average Christian is called to witness to people in their life such as family, friends, co-workers, waitresses, etc.
> 
> The quoted chapter from the LBC does not forbid the average Christian from giving the Gospel to their neighbor or to a guy sitting next to them on a bus.
Click to expand...


I simply quoted the confession to remind ourselves of what we all agree the word 'preach' means. Invariably, these discussions go nowhere because of equivocation on the word 'preach'. Since we are a Reformed discussion board we ought to discuss things, as much as possible, using Reformed definitions. When we discuss things with non-confessional people we might, of course, use the word 'preach' in many different ways, but here we should stick to the confessional definition.


----------



## timmopussycat

earl40 said:


> Someone can correct me if I am wrong but I think Pastor Packer is one that believes all Christians are tasked with spreading The Gospel the same way as all pastors are to tasked with. As was expressed above this leads to the the mistaken idea that all Christians are "priests" which in no way is aligned with the official position as espoused in scripture especially as conveyed in _the pastoral_ epistles.



As one of his former students, I think I can correctly speak for his views at the time I studied with him a couple of decades after he wrote E&SoG. He then definitely did NOT believe that all Christians are tasked in spreading the gospel in the same way as ministers. If he had he never would have accepted a position at Vancouver's Regent College which is institutionally committed to the contrary.


----------



## earl40

timmopussycat said:


> As one of his former students, I think I can correctly speak for his views at the time I studied with him a couple of decades after he wrote E&SoG. He then definitely did NOT believe that all Christians are tasked in spreading the gospel in the same way as ministers. If he had he never would have accepted a position at Vancouver's Regent College which is institutionally committed to the contrary.



I stand corrected. May I assume then that Pastor Packer would not endorse Evangelism Explosion?


----------



## earl40

KMK said:


> I simply quoted the confession to remind ourselves of what we all agree the word 'preach' means. Invariably, these discussions go nowhere because of equivocation on the word 'preach'. Since we are a Reformed discussion board we ought to discuss things, as much as possible, using Reformed definitions. When we discuss things with non-confessional people we might, of course, use the word 'preach' in many different ways, but here we should stick to the confessional definition.



Of course you cited the London *Baptist* Confession which is not the same as the WCF on the point being discussed. Of course you may realize this and one can argue which is more biblical concerning what is preaching and evangelism.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

earl40 said:


> Pastor Strange what do you think of this article on the OPC site, which I assume you have already read?
> 
> http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=158


See also the linked content noted here: http://opc.org/os.html?issue_id=46


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

earl40 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply quoted the confession to remind ourselves of what we all agree the word 'preach' means. Invariably, these discussions go nowhere because of equivocation on the word 'preach'. Since we are a Reformed discussion board we ought to discuss things, as much as possible, using Reformed definitions. When we discuss things with non-confessional people we might, of course, use the word 'preach' in many different ways, but here we should stick to the confessional definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you cited the London *Baptist* Confession which is not the same as the WCF on the point being discussed. Of course you may realize this and one can argue which is more biblical concerning what is preaching and evangelism.
Click to expand...

Earl,

Note that Ken was responding to Chris, who is covenanted with CBF, a group that affirms the LBCF, so how is his use of the LBCF implying the coyness you imply?


----------



## KMK

earl40 said:


> kmk said:
> 
> 
> 
> i simply quoted the confession to remind ourselves of what we all agree the word 'preach' means. Invariably, these discussions go nowhere because of equivocation on the word 'preach'. Since we are a reformed discussion board we ought to discuss things, as much as possible, using reformed definitions. When we discuss things with non-confessional people we might, of course, use the word 'preach' in many different ways, but here we should stick to the confessional definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course you cited the london *baptist* confession which is not the same as the wcf on the point being discussed. Of course you may realize this and one can argue which is more biblical concerning what is preaching and evangelism.
Click to expand...


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.*


----------



## earl40

KMK said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kmk said:
> 
> 
> 
> i simply quoted the confession to remind ourselves of what we all agree the word 'preach' means. Invariably, these discussions go nowhere because of equivocation on the word 'preach'. Since we are a reformed discussion board we ought to discuss things, as much as possible, using reformed definitions. When we discuss things with non-confessional people we might, of course, use the word 'preach' in many different ways, but here we should stick to the confessional definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course you cited the london *baptist* confession which is not the same as the wcf on the point being discussed. Of course you may realize this and one can argue which is more biblical concerning what is preaching and evangelism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So reformed baptist hold to the 3 forms also? I ask because I did not know this. If so can I expect only a teaching elder to preach the sermon in a reformed baptist church, unless circumstances arose for a ruling elder to fill in when a TE is unavailable? That is why I asked what "others" are.


----------



## earl40

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Note that Ken was responding to Chris, who is covenanted with CBF, a group that affirms the LBCF, so how is his use of the LBCF implying the coyness you imply?



I meant no coyness but maybe came across as such from ignorance. If so I apologize and the above post with my questions should clear up my ignorance.


----------



## earl40

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor Strange what do you think of this article on the OPC site, which I assume you have already read?
> 
> http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=158
> 
> 
> 
> See also the linked content noted here: http://opc.org/os.html?issue_id=46
Click to expand...


I think this is the minority viewpoint in the OPC, right? I know it is in the PCA churches I have attended though they are few.


----------



## KMK

earl40 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kmk said:
> 
> 
> 
> i simply quoted the confession to remind ourselves of what we all agree the word 'preach' means. Invariably, these discussions go nowhere because of equivocation on the word 'preach'. Since we are a reformed discussion board we ought to discuss things, as much as possible, using reformed definitions. When we discuss things with non-confessional people we might, of course, use the word 'preach' in many different ways, but here we should stick to the confessional definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course you cited the london *baptist* confession which is not the same as the wcf on the point being discussed. Of course you may realize this and one can argue which is more biblical concerning what is preaching and evangelism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So reformed baptist hold to the 3 forms also? I ask because I did not know this. If so can I expect only a teaching elder to preach the sermon in a reformed baptist church, unless circumstances arose for a ruling elder to fill in when a TE is unavailable? That is why I asked what "others" are.
Click to expand...


First question: No. The Westminster Larger Catechism is part of the Westminster Standards. The Three Forms of Unity are different but some Reformed Presbyterians to them. The only reason I referenced the Larger Catechism was to show that all of the Reformed used the word 'preach' in a certain way.

Second question: Not exactly. Reformed Baptists, as LBC 26:11 states, believe that it is incumbent on ministers to preach, but others who are approved and called by the church may also preach.

But, this is getting off topic. I was simply trying to aid the discussion by defining our terms here on PB.


----------



## timmopussycat

earl40 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> As one of his former students, I think I can correctly speak for his views at the time I studied with him a couple of decades after he wrote E&SoG. He then definitely did NOT believe that all Christians are tasked in spreading the gospel in the same way as ministers. If he had he never would have accepted a position at Vancouver's Regent College which is institutionally committed to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected. May I assume then that Pastor Packer would not endorse Evangelism Explosion?
Click to expand...


I don't know his stand and I don't know EE well enough to risk an informed guess.


----------



## earl40

KMK said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kmk said:
> 
> 
> 
> i simply quoted the confession to remind ourselves of what we all agree the word 'preach' means. Invariably, these discussions go nowhere because of equivocation on the word 'preach'. Since we are a reformed discussion board we ought to discuss things, as much as possible, using reformed definitions. When we discuss things with non-confessional people we might, of course, use the word 'preach' in many different ways, but here we should stick to the confessional definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course you cited the london *baptist* confession which is not the same as the wcf on the point being discussed. Of course you may realize this and one can argue which is more biblical concerning what is preaching and evangelism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So reformed baptist hold to the 3 forms also? I ask because I did not know this. If so can I expect only a teaching elder to preach the sermon in a reformed baptist church, unless circumstances arose for a ruling elder to fill in when a TE is unavailable? That is why I asked what "others" are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First question: No. The Westminster Larger Catechism is part of the Westminster Standards. The Three Forms of Unity are different but some Reformed Presbyterians to them. The only reason I referenced the Larger Catechism was to show that all of the Reformed used the word 'preach' in a certain way.
> 
> Second question: Not exactly. Reformed Baptists, as LBC 26:11 states, believe that it is incumbent on ministers to preach, but others who are approved and called by the church may also preach.
> 
> But, this is getting off topic. I was simply trying to aid the discussion by defining our terms here on PB.
Click to expand...


So can we agree that there would be a difference between a Reformed Baptist and a Reformed Presbyterian thinking concerning who should be approved to preach and evangelize. Of course I use the word preach as what pastors do on Sunday and also by preaching they are officially evangelizing those in attendance. I think as you point out it comes down to what preaching and evangelicalism are and also In my most humble opinion there is a difference in the confessions and the thinking within the LBCF and the WCF.


----------



## earl40

timmopussycat said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> As one of his former students, I think I can correctly speak for his views at the time I studied with him a couple of decades after he wrote E&SoG. He then definitely did NOT believe that all Christians are tasked in spreading the gospel in the same way as ministers. If he had he never would have accepted a position at Vancouver's Regent College which is institutionally committed to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected. May I assume then that Pastor Packer would not endorse Evangelism Explosion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know his stand and I don't know EE well enough to risk an informed guess.
Click to expand...


Well if what I read about Pastor Packer here as being true and his holding of the proper roles and offices in the church I know enough about EE to say he would not approve of EE.


----------



## KMK

earl40 said:


> So can we agree that there would be a difference between a Reformed Baptist and a Reformed Presbyterian thinking concerning who should be approved to preach and evangelize.



Not only would there be a difference between Baptists and Presbyterians but between individual churches within the two as well.


----------



## earl40

KMK said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can we agree that there would be a difference between a Reformed Baptist and a Reformed Presbyterian thinking concerning who should be approved to preach and evangelize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only would there be a difference between Baptists and Presbyterians but between individual churches within the two as well.
Click to expand...



Indeed, I see that also.


----------



## Reformed Roman

I'm late to the party but I think we all know that we are all called to be a witness to the gospel. It's sad that we pay people to go out of the nation to give the gospel and we refuse to go ourselves to give the gospel. You can talk about preaching and exposition, but there is no biblical question that we are all called to give the gospel to people.

Truth be told I'm introverted. Very introverted. I have used that as an excuse many times. Our world is full of dying people, and I ignore that many days. I firmly believe that many of us who are introverted won't and shouldn't be expected to walk up to random people giving the gospel all the time. I don't even naturally know how to start random conversation well... But it's easy to hide behind that.....

I've tried to find out of the box ways to give the gospel to people and get out of my comfort zone... It's hard but I know I am called to share the gospel. 

All things should be taken in scriptural balance. But I think we who are introverted people should examine what things we can do to share the gospel in our daily lives. 

And I think it's really obvious that Packer is just sharing our responsibility to share the gospel. I love the intellectual conversation but I think it can distract us from the fact that we should all be on mission for God. That doesn't mean we are going to be on the streets every day. But on our jobs, day to day lives, we should seek opportunities to share the gospel with life and lips


----------



## johnny

I asked this question before, and I may be off point here.

But I still do not see many trained evangelists, 
(Those chosen by God who have been through seminary) 
out on street corners preaching the gospel.


----------



## MW

johnny said:


> But I still do not see many trained evangelists,



They served with the apostles and expired when there were no apostles to appoint them. With the power to ordain elders a continuing office of evangelist would require the church to recognise bishops as a superior order over the ordinary ministry. As it is, they were out of the ordinary, which means the regular form of church government is presbyterian.


----------



## timmopussycat

MW said:


> johnny said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I still do not see many trained evangelists,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They served with the apostles and expired when there were no apostles to appoint them. With the power to ordain elders a continuing office of evangelist would require the church to recognise bishops as a superior order over the ordinary ministry. As it is, they were out of the ordinary, which means the regular form of church government is presbyterian.
Click to expand...


If an an Ephesians 4 gift to the church requires apostolic appointment, and there are no apostles today to appoint such, the necessary consequence is that all pastors and teachers in Christ's church are illegitimate.

And one should also note that Presbyterians have recognized on occasion that God has apparently called someone to that office Cf the Free Church of Scotland's 1859 ordination of layman Brownlow North.


----------



## Reformed Roman

Why is evangelizing an office if everyone is called to do it? Furthermore everyone is called to proclaim the gospel. I'm not saying you will directly go to a street corner and proclaim the gospel, but everyone is called to proclaim. Those of us who are a little less introverted don't need to be confirmed to go proclaim the gospel. I don't need to be confirmed to share it quietly, why would I need elders to appoint me to proclaim it loudly? Those type of reactions sounds like ways to avoid witnessing, all introverts have to fight to love people and share the gospel, even if some do it in different ways


----------



## Ken

_hineni_

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## KMK

Zach Rohman said:


> Why is evangelizing an office if everyone is called to do it? Furthermore everyone is called to proclaim the gospel. I'm not saying you will directly go to a street corner and proclaim the gospel, but everyone is called to proclaim. Those of us who are a little less introverted don't need to be confirmed to go proclaim the gospel. I don't need to be confirmed to share it quietly, why would I need elders to appoint me to proclaim it loudly? Those type of reactions sounds like ways to avoid witnessing, all introverts have to fight to love people and share the gospel, even if some do it in different ways



Zach,

This discussion has veered somewhat from the issue of introversion. The Reformers viewed Eph 4:11 as a list of official church offices, all of which, except for 'pastor' and perhaps 'teacher' expired with the dawning of the NT age. Many today also use the word 'evangelist' to refer to someone who is good at sharing the gospel in general as you describe. You kind of have to 'know your audience' around here whenever that word comes up.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

There are differing views of "evangelist" as to office/function, with some historic Presbyterian churches seeing this as a continuing aspect of the office of minister, along with pastor and teacher. It is most common, on this view, to see that function as expressed in those called to be missionaries, home or foreign. Some Reformed see this in a similar vein. There has not been a monolithic view on this in the Reformed and Presbyterian world. 

For the view of this, for example, in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, see here: http://www.opc.org/BCO/FG.html#Chapter_VII.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Ken

KMK said:


> This discussion has veered somewhat from the issue of introversion. The Reformers viewed Eph 4:11 as a list of official church offices, all of which, except for 'pastor' and perhaps 'teacher' *expired with the dawning of the NT age*.



Does the expiration of what Jesus gave us mean the saints are no longer perfected for ministry? The body of Christ is no longer edified, that we all have come into the unity of faith?

If these offices no longer exist are we no longer children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sight of men, and cunning craftiness?

Today, is all we need pastors and teachers to make increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love?

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Alan D. Strange said:


> There are differing views of "evangelist" as to office/function, with some historic Presbyterian churches seeing this as a continuing aspect of the office of minister, along with pastor and teacher. It is most common, on this view, to see that function as expressed in those called to be missionaries, home or foreign. Some Reformed see this in a similar vein. There has not been a monolithic view on this in the Reformed and Presbyterian world.
> 
> For the view of this, for example, in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, see here: http://www.opc.org/BCO/FG.html#Chapter_VII.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Just a note: 

John Owen's teaching on this (that evangelists have ceased) in volume 4 of his works concerning the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Puritan View). 

"Secondly, They were such as consisted in extraordinary endowments and improvements of the faculties of the souls or minds of men; such as wisdom, knowledge, utterance, and the like. Now, where these were bestowed on any in an extraordinary manner, as they were on the apostles and evangelists, they differed only in degree from them that are ordinary and still continued, but are of the same kind with them; whereof we shall treat afterward...With respect unto these ends, extraordinary officers, with extraordinary authority, power, and abilities, were requisite. Unto this end, therefore, he “gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists;” of the nature of whose offices and their gifts we have spoken before. I shall here only add, that it was necessary that these officers should have their immediate call and authority from Christ, antecedent unto all order and power in the church, for the very being of the church depended on their power of office. But this, without such an immediate power from Christ, no man can pretend unto." See Owen's Works, Volume 4 - chapters 4-6.

It was also Calvin's view (the Reformation) to a great extent. "...those whom, while inferior in rank to the apostles, were next them in office, and even acted as their substitutes" (Institutes, 4.3.4). "Those three functions were not instituted in the church to be perpetual, but only endure so long as churches were to be formed where none previously existed..." 

(It seems a bit monolithic?)


----------



## Ken

What does this look like today, in real life, considering what Paul said these people were given for in Ephesians 4:12-16?

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## Aaron637

Luke 9
49 Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.”

50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us[c] is on our side.”


Pastors should equip and teach the laity to p preach the gospel to the world. The gospel isnt difficult. This isnt catholicism where priests have a monopoly on grace.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> If an an Ephesians 4 gift to the church requires apostolic appointment and their are no apostles today to appoint such, the necessary consequence is that all pastors and teachers in Christ's church are illegitimate.



A non sequitur. Pastors and teachers are ordained in an ordinary way with the call of the people.



timmopussycat said:


> And one should also note that Presbyterians have recognized on occasion that God has apparently called someone to that office Cf the Free Church of Scotland's 1859 ordination of layman Brownlow North.



It was noted as an innovation and a peculiarity, and it created dissension. The Form of Church Government clearly states evangelists were extraordinary and have ceased. Besides, the term "Lay" distinguishes it from the biblical office.


----------



## KMK

Ken said:


> Today, is all we need pastors and teachers to make increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love?



Along with the HS and the Word of God, yes. 



> LBC 26aragraph 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*.





> The Form of Presbyterial Church Government: THE officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, *which are ceased*. Others ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church-governors, and deacons.


----------



## KMK

Aaron637 said:


> Pastors should equip and teach the laity to p preach the gospel to the world.



You are not using the word 'preach' in the same way as our Reformed forefathers. They would agree that it was their duty to equip and teach some, but not all, to be approved and called for the function of preaching.



> LBC 26: Paragraph 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.


----------



## Ken

KMK said:


> Ken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, is all we need pastors and teachers to make increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Along with the HS and the Word of God, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LBC 26aragraph 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*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Form of Presbyterial Church Government: THE officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, *which are ceased*. Others ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church-governors, and deacons.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, based on my relationship with my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ, it is not possible for me to personally accept this position. I have seen my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ do much more than this position claims. 

My fear is putting Jesus in too small of a box resulting in not receiving His promises because of unbelief.
Matthew 13:58: _58 And he did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief._

It is interesting that Jesus had to lead the blind man out of Bethsaida before healing him:
Mark 8:23: _23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought._

What does this say about Cessationism versus Continuationism, could this be why some experience the gifts and some do not?

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## MW

MW said:


> It was noted as an innovation and a peculiarity, and it created dissension.



I just double-checked the Proceedings of General Assembly to ensure I had recalled this correctly. The Proceedings state that Julius Rhenius (who was son of the noted missionary to India) "wished distinctly to understand the exact nature of the proposal, as, when it was formerly before the House, it was thought by some to apply to others besides Mr North." Dr. James Begg clarified, "it was distinctly to be understood that they were not dealing with general rules but with a specific case." In other words, this was a peculiar instance which did not serve as a general precedent.

However, when I stated there was dissension, it only went so far as appointing a committee to confer with Brownlow North. Those who argued it should go through presbytery in an ordinary way stated they would not divide over the Assembly's decision, and so it was carried unanimously by the Assembly. At any rate, anyone who holds the divine right of Presbyterianism has to question such an irregularity, and it appears that Dr. Begg, a strict constitutionalist, admitted this was all done because of the peculiarity of the case.


----------



## SRoper

Alan D. Strange said:


> There are differing views of "evangelist" as to office/function, with some historic Presbyterian churches seeing this as a continuing aspect of the office of minister, along with pastor and teacher.



See also the PCA BCO:



> 8-6.
> When a teaching elder is appointed to the work of an evangelist in foreign countries or where there are no other PCA churches within a reasonable distance, he is commissioned for a renewable term of twelve months to preach the Word, to administer the Sacraments, to receive and dismiss members of mission churches, and to train potential officers. By separate actions the Presbytery may in extraordinary situations commission him to examine, ordain and install ruling elders and deacons and organize churches.



We also say that elders (both teaching and ruling) "should set a worthy example to the flock entrusted to their care by their zeal to evangelize the unconverted and make disciples."


----------



## KMK

Ken said:


> Unfortunately, based on my relationship with my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ, it is not possible for me to personally accept this position. I have seen my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ do much more than this position claims.



You list the Westminster Standards as your confessional subscription. The passage I quoted from the Form of Presbyterial Church Government is a part of the Westminster Standards.


----------



## Aaron637

KMK said:


> Aaron637 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pastors should equip and teach the laity to p preach the gospel to the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not using the word 'preach' in the same way as our Reformed forefathers. They would agree that it was their duty to equip and teach some, but not all, to be approved and called for the function of preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LBC 26: Paragraph 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Why quibble over the word preach. In context i obviously wasn't talking about getting up in front of a church to preach/teach the word. I would argue the segment of the LBC is referring to teaching scripture in general not sharing the gospel or even street preaching. 

I think you're straining a gnat and trying to find issue where there really isnt one.

All Christians should be able to explain the gospel to an unbeliever. I am concerned at times how some here quote confessions as if they are infallible just like the RCC holds the early church fathers almost on parity with scripture itself.

For me, the LBC is a codified summary of what i have come to believe through prayer and study of the word. I dont go to confessions to find out what i should believe - it was compiled by mere men like u and i. Granted i respect them as brothers but not fathers - all men may err and such blind trust in tradition is what lead to the downfall of the RCC (prior to them the pharisees). Quote scripture for substantiation not confessions.


----------



## MW

Aaron637 said:


> Quote scripture for substantiation not confessions.



Romans 10:15, "And how shall they preach, except they be sent?"

1 Corinthians 1:17, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel."

The Confession is not being placed above Scripture. The Confession is being placed above your opinion. I think you will agree that your opinion is not Scripture and it is not infallible.

The saying of our Lord only showed how hypocritical it is to strain at gnats whilst swallowing camels. There was nothing against straining at gnats. People generally don't like eating bugs with their food and will take some care to remove them.


----------



## Aaron637

MW said:


> Aaron637 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote scripture for substantiation not confessions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 10:15, "And how shall they preach, except they be sent?"
> 
> 1 Corinthians 1:17, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel."
> 
> The Confession is not being placed above Scripture. The Confession is being placed above your opinion. I think you will agree that your opinion is not Scripture and it is not infallible.
> 
> The saying of our Lord only showed how hypocritical it is to strain at gnats whilst swallowing camels. There was nothing against straining at gnats. People generally don't like eating bugs with their food and will take some care to remove them.
Click to expand...


A confession is a formulation of an opinion of pastors 500 yrs ago. Also not infallible. Im not saying im infallible im saying dont quote men as substantiation.

What do u do with this scripture?

Philippians 1:15-18New King James Version (NKJV)

15 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: 16 The former[a] preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; 17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.

Paul rejoiced people were preaching the gospel. Irrespective of their motive.

Also...sorry for using the gnat analogy. Nitpicking is synonym without biblical connotations.

Ps - i didn't read the part where someone had defined the word preaching - my bad. Apologies - i would have used a different word had i have realized.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

When I say that the view on the function of evangelist (is it something that has ceased or does it continue in some sense?) is not monolithic in the Reformed and Presbyterian world, I mean just that. There have been and are various views on it, including those of Calvin, Owen, and many who agree with that position. There have also been other views, evidenced by what I cited for the OPC and what Scott has cited for the PCA. Similar sorts of things could be cited for the CRC or RCA. 

What's important to remember here in the particular outworking of church polity is that it is tertiary (whereas the doctrinal standards are secondary and the Scriptures primary). Polity was placed not in systematics at Old Princeton but in church history, with Samuel Miller serving as the first professor of ecclesiastical history and polity. So to say that it's not monolithic is to say that Reformed and Presbyterian churches have not held and articulated only one view on the matter. 

Quoting Calvin and Owen does not resolve the entire matter any more than quoting particular persons resolves the matter (which has been and continues to be differently viewed) as to whether the minister and the elder hold the same office. I rather strongly believe that they do not (this is far clearer to me, and more pertinent, than the "evangelist" question); at the same time, I recognize that this has been an issue over which good men have and do differ and I do not present it as monolithic. There has been, and is, some diversity among confessional men on this question and it does not make for the peace and unity of the churches to pretend otherwise. 


Peace,
Alan


----------



## Ken

KMK said:


> Ken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, based on my relationship with my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ, it is not possible for me to personally accept this position. I have seen my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ do much more than this position claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You list the Westminster Standards as your confessional subscription. The passage I quoted from the Form of Presbyterial Church Government is a part of the Westminster Standards.
Click to expand...


As I agree to the Westminster Standards, the Bible is my final authority; considering, I have never found sufficient scriptural evidence to support cessationism, I am not willing to put that constraint on the gifts from my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ. Concerning the Apostles, I believe the Bible is clear, these are those commissioned by Jesus Christ; concerning this, I believe Paul was commissioned by the risen Christ. I am not saying we have Apostles among us today, that would be very difficult to prove; what I am saying, is I believe, even the risen Christ can commission an Apostle if it be His will. 

I hope you do not consider this one of the "basic points of salvation history and that of fellowship "exhortive and encouraging.""? I believe we are like minded in these matters. 

Do you have definitive Biblical scriptural evidence to support cessationism?

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## earl40

Alan D. Strange said:


> When I say that the view on the function of evangelist (is it something that has ceased or does it continue in some sense?) is not monolithic in the Reformed and Presbyterian world, I mean just that. There have been and are various views on it, including those of Calvin, Owen, and many who agree with that position. There have also been other views, evidenced by what I cited for the OPC and what Scott has cited for the PCA. Similar sorts of things could be cited for the CRC or RCA.
> 
> What's important to remember here in the particular outworking of church polity is that it is tertiary (whereas the doctrinal standards are secondary and the Scriptures primary). Polity was placed not in systematics at Old Princeton but in church history, with Samuel Miller serving as the first professor of ecclesiastical history and polity. So to say that it's not monolithic is to say that Reformed and Presbyterian churches have not held and articulated only one view on the matter.
> 
> Quoting Calvin and Owen does not resolve the entire matter any more than quoting particular persons resolves the matter (which has been and continues to be differently viewed) as to whether the minister and the elder hold the same office. I rather strongly believe that they do not (this is far clearer to me, and more pertinent, than the "evangelist" question); at the same time, I recognize that this has been an issue over which good men have and do differ and I do not present it as monolithic. There has been, and is, some diversity among confessional men on this question and it does not make for the peace and unity of the churches to pretend otherwise.
> 
> 
> Peace,
> Alan





Alan D. Strange said:


> When I say that the view on the function of evangelist (is it something that has ceased or does it continue in some sense?) is not monolithic in the Reformed and Presbyterian world, I mean just that. There have been and are various views on it, including those of Calvin, Owen, and many who agree with that position. There have also been other views, evidenced by what I cited for the OPC and what Scott has cited for the PCA. Similar sorts of things could be cited for the CRC or RCA.
> 
> What's important to remember here in the particular outworking of church polity is that it is tertiary (whereas the doctrinal standards are secondary and the Scriptures primary). Polity was placed not in systematics at Old Princeton but in church history, with Samuel Miller serving as the first professor of ecclesiastical history and polity. So to say that it's not monolithic is to say that Reformed and Presbyterian churches have not held and articulated only one view on the matter.
> 
> Quoting Calvin and Owen does not resolve the entire matter any more than quoting particular persons resolves the matter (which has been and continues to be differently viewed) as to whether the minister and the elder hold the same office. I rather strongly believe that they do not (this is far clearer to me, and more pertinent, than the "evangelist" question); at the same time, I recognize that this has been an issue over which good men have and do differ and I do not present it as monolithic. There has been, and is, some diversity among confessional men on this question and it does not make for the peace and unity of the churches to pretend otherwise.
> 
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



I am in discussion on what an evangelist is on another forum and what I have found is that both the PCA and OPC limit the work of the evangelist to TE though the BCO in the PCA appears to endorse the layity to take on the role of an evangelist by the words highligted below.

8-3. It belongs to those in the office of elder, both severally and jointly, to
watch diligently over the flock committed to his charge, that no corruption of
doctrine or of morals enter therein. They must exercise government and
discipline, and take oversight not only of the spiritual interests of the particular
church, but also the Church generally when called thereunto. They should visit
the people at their homes, especially the sick. They should instruct the
ignorant, comfort the mourner, nourish and guard the children of the Church.
They should *set a worthy example to the flock entrusted to their care by their
zeal to evangelize the unconverted and make disciples.*

Of course I read that it is encouraging to see our elders do their job and I understand I am to "minister though I am not a Minister" via a witness to Jesus in likewise manner, though I would not take on the title of TE or evangelist or Minister as described in scripture and taught in our standards. I think the word "example" may be the "problem in that the laity many believe if they do what the TE Minister, and Evangelists does it makes them an evangelist in the same way our standards spell out. Also what I think a problem may be is that our Pastors are really too humble and do not want to claim their biblical responsibility and work upon themselves to the exclusion of the laity. For some reason this would not a problem with myself at all for even doctors who would say it is OK to practice a basic level of medicine but would balk at the idea of calling oneself a Dr. if all you do is give aspirin and place band aids on minor cuts. The same goes for the laity in that we are to witness (put on band aids) but it is not practicing evangelism in the proper sense as described in our BCO.


----------



## KMK

Ken said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, based on my relationship with my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ, it is not possible for me to personally accept this position. I have seen my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ do much more than this position claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You list the Westminster Standards as your confessional subscription. The passage I quoted from the Form of Presbyterial Church Government is a part of the Westminster Standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I agree to the Westminster Standards, the Bible is my final authority; considering, I have never found sufficient scriptural evidence to support cessationism, I am not willing to put that constraint on the gifts from my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ. Concerning the Apostles, I believe the Bible is clear, these are those commissioned by Jesus Christ; concerning this, I believe Paul was commissioned by the risen Christ. I am not saying we have Apostles among us today, that would be very difficult to prove; what I am saying, is I believe, even the risen Christ can commission an Apostle if it be His will.
> 
> I hope you do not consider this one of the "basic points of salvation history and that of fellowship "exhortive and encouraging.""? I believe we are like minded in these matters.
> 
> Do you have definitive Biblical scriptural evidence to support cessationism?
> 
> God bless you and keep you,
> Ken
Click to expand...


Ken,

If you reread my posts, you will notice that I am not arguing with you but trying to help you to understand the confessional language that is used on this discussion board. 'Preach' and 'evangelist' mean something different in the language of the confessions than it does in the world of broad evangelicalism today. 

This is the PURITAN Board. We are all puritans at heart who love the Reformed confessions. We have voluntarily submitted ourselves to, not only the confessions, but to the rules of the Puritanboard because we love to talk about puritan theology. Puritan theology is decidedly cessationist. There are many places on the internet one can go to argue in favor of continuationism. This is not one of them.

Check out this thread from the Forum Rules: http://www.puritanboard.com/f58/what-reformed-board-24779/


----------



## Ken

KMK said:


> Ken,
> 
> If you reread my posts, you will notice that I am not arguing with you but trying to help you to understand the confessional language that is used on this discussion board. 'Preach' and 'evangelist' mean something different in the language of the confessions than it does in the world of broad evangelicalism today.
> 
> This is the PURITAN Board. We are all puritans at heart who love the Reformed confessions. We have voluntarily submitted ourselves to, not only the confessions, but to the rules of the Puritanboard because we love to talk about puritan theology. Puritan theology is decidedly cessationist. There are many places on the internet one can go to argue in favor of continuationism. This is not one of them.
> 
> Check out this thread from the Forum Rules: http://www.puritanboard.com/f58/what-reformed-board-24779/



KMK,

Noted, I will refrain with this link to ponder: The WCF and the Cessation of Special Revelation -- Milne

Here is an article addressing this issue: Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology

It appears I my be just quibbling over semantics, my apologies.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## Toasty

TrustGzus said:


> Recently I started a thread about ISTJs and evangelism. The reason I'm thinking about evangelism and especially for those of us that are introverted and talking to people is less natural for us is I'm reading Packer's book _Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God_.
> 
> Packer writes on pp. 26-27,
> 
> 
> 
> "Evangelism is the inalienable responsibility of every Christian community, and every Christian man. We are all under orders to devote ourselves to spreading the good news, and to use all our ingenuity and enterprise to bring it to the notice of the whole world. The Christian, therefore, must constantly be searching his conscience, asking himself if he is doing all that he might be doing in this field. For this also us a responsibility that cannot be shrugged off."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think? Is Packer correct? Is he wrong? Is he somewhat correct but overstating his point? Something else?
Click to expand...


If he means that it is every Christian's responsibility to talk to non-Christians about how God saves His people from their sins, then I would agree with him.


----------



## Cymro

Perhaps Acts8:1-4 would be helpful to the discussion."therefore those that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word." It seems that the church at Jerusalem were dispersed by persecution to several regions,the Apostles exempted. Barnes is useful on this:- "Preaching the word,"--Greek; "evangelising",or announcing the good news of the message of mercy, or the word of God. This is not the usual word which is rendered "preach," but it means simply announcing the good news of salvation. There is no evidence,nor is there any probability, that these persons were "ordained"to preach. They were manifestly common Christians who were scattered by persecution,and the meaning is, that they communicated
to their fellow-men in conversation wherever they met them. It is not said that they set themselves up for public teachers, or that they administered baptism, or that they founded churches, but they proclaimed everywhere the news that a saviour had come. Their hearts were full of it. Out of the 
abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. It is right for all Christians to make known the truths of the gospel. When the heart is full the lips will speak, and there is no impropriety in their speaking of redemption than of anything else."


----------



## timmopussycat

Cymro said:


> Perhaps Acts8:1-4 would be helpful to the discussion."therefore those that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word." It seems that the church at Jerusalem were dispersed by persecution to several regions,the Apostles exempted. Barnes is useful on this:- "Preaching the word,"--Greek; "evangelising",or announcing the good news of the message of mercy, or the word of God. This is not the usual word which is rendered "preach," but it means simply announcing the good news of salvation. There is no evidence,nor is there any probability, that these persons were "ordained"to preach. They were manifestly common Christians who were scattered by persecution,and the meaning is, that they communicated
> to their fellow-men in conversation wherever they met them. It is not said that they set themselves up for public teachers, or that they administered baptism, or that they founded churches, but they proclaimed everywhere the news that a saviour had come. Their hearts were full of it. Out of the
> abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. It is right for all Christians to make known the truths of the gospel. When the heart is full the lips will speak, and there is no impropriety in their speaking of redemption than of anything else."



That is eactly the biblical position. These men who were scattered, and of whom there is no evidence that they were ordained in any way, engaged in "evangelising" the good news. The specific exeption who was ordained, i.e., Philip, was not included with this group but has his adventures described later.


----------



## Cymro

It has come to memory that at one time in the distant past I heard the Doctor teach
that they "gossiped the gospel"


----------



## Jeri Tanner

timmopussycat said:


> Cymro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Acts8:1-4 would be helpful to the discussion."therefore those that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word." It seems that the church at Jerusalem were dispersed by persecution to several regions,the Apostles exempted. Barnes is useful on this:- "Preaching the word,"--Greek; "evangelising",or announcing the good news of the message of mercy, or the word of God. This is not the usual word which is rendered "preach," but it means simply announcing the good news of salvation. There is no evidence,nor is there any probability, that these persons were "ordained"to preach. They were manifestly common Christians who were scattered by persecution,and the meaning is, that they communicated
> to their fellow-men in conversation wherever they met them. It is not said that they set themselves up for public teachers, or that they administered baptism, or that they founded churches, but they proclaimed everywhere the news that a saviour had come. Their hearts were full of it. Out of the
> abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. It is right for all Christians to make known the truths of the gospel. When the heart is full the lips will speak, and there is no impropriety in their speaking of redemption than of anything else."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is eactly the biblical position. These men who were scattered, and of whom there is no evidence that they were ordained in any way, engaged in "evangelising" the good news. The specific exeption who was ordained, i.e., Philip, was not included with this group but has his adventures described later.
Click to expand...


May I bring up a question about this text? The first thing I thought of when I read the Acts 8:1-4 hyperlinked text is that the very next verse does seem to link Phillip with the "all" and the "those" who were scattered and went about evangelizing. The way it is put, it seems that verse 5 hones in on Phillip doing what the people in verse 4 were doing. I am asking if this is a possible reading of the text. And then, is the text saying that every single Christian man and woman and household left Jerusalem, except for the apostles? And that they _all_ (men and women!) were going about (Gk. _dierchomai_) "evangelizing the logos"? Could the "all" in verse 1 and the "those" in verse 4 mean men of a certain type, especially since they are contrasted with the apostles who remained in Jerusalem. I agree that all Christians are to bear witness to what God has done for them, and must necessarily include in that testimony the claims of the gospel, and that we greatly joy in doing so! But I have questions about the Acts 8 text being one to use in regard to lay "witnessing". I would love any further insight on this!


----------



## earl40

Cymro said:


> Perhaps Acts8:1-4 would be helpful to the discussion."therefore those that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word." It seems that the church at Jerusalem were dispersed by persecution to several regions,the Apostles exempted. Barnes is useful on this:- "Preaching the word,"--Greek; "evangelising",or announcing the good news of the message of mercy, or the word of God. This is not the usual word which is rendered "preach," but it means simply announcing the good news of salvation. There is no evidence,nor is there any probability, that these persons were "ordained"to preach. They were manifestly common Christians who were scattered by persecution,and the meaning is, that they communicated
> to their fellow-men in conversation wherever they met them. It is not said that they set themselves up for public teachers, or that they administered baptism, or that they founded churches, but they proclaimed everywhere the news that a saviour had come. Their hearts were full of it. Out of the
> abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. It is right for all Christians to make known the truths of the gospel. When the heart is full the lips will speak, and there is no impropriety in their speaking of redemption than of anything else."



So may I humbly ask if Our Lord scattered abroad all these sheep with no Pastors or elders?


----------



## Cymro

Whilst Phillip was a deacon, it seems that he "graduated" to the office of evangelist, or rather was appointed to it. For Acts 21:8 calls him an evangelist. So he was sent to evangelise Samaria,which had already been prepared by our Lord's ministry. And as noted above, the word preach in v5 is different to that of v4, for here it means to herald or to cry forth, or to proclaim with a cry. Which would indicate the preaching mode in contrast to the gossiping or conversing the gospel by the laity. It seems that there was the whole scale persecution of the church in order to disperse the Christians, which in the providence of God was the means of spreading the gospel. One only has to look at the persecution of the
Saints in Syria and the Middle East, and their mass exodus to other nations, to identify with the scenario in Acts8. Think it not strange then that the Jerusalem church was likewise forced to flee to other regions.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The Westminster Assembly debated Acts 8 in their Grand Debate with the Congregationalists of the assembly. I have extracted several pages into a pdf for those interested in what the Presbyterians of the WA thought. The book is on sale in one of the book bundles available at Naphtali Press. http://www.naphtali.com/products-page/
See the PDF in my dropbox. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5776344/GrandDebate-Acts8.pdf


----------



## Cymro

If I might humbly reply Earl, why not? You have a number of instances where this was so. Mark6:34,"And Jesus,when He came out, saw much people, and was moved with compassion toward them , because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and He began to teach them many things." Did not our Lord teach in John 10,"the wolf catcheth them and, and scatterth the sheep?" And the great Shepherd chapter in Ez 34 portrays a similar state of a flock without pastors or shepherds. So v5"and they were scattered because there was no shepherd," and "my flock was scattered, and none did search or seek after them."


----------



## Jeri Tanner

NaphtaliPress said:


> The Westminster Assembly debated Acts 8 in their Grand Debate with the Congregationalists of the assembly. I have extracted several pages into a pdf for those interested in what the Presbyterians of the WA thought. The book is on sale in one of the book bundles available at Naphtali Press. http://www.naphtali.com/products-page/
> See the PDF in my dropbox. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5776344/GrandDebate-Acts8.pdf



That's so very helpful! Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## MW

Cymro said:


> Barnes is useful on this



James Bannerman is more precise (Church of Christ, 2:309):



> The chief and highest exercise of Church power, to declare the mind of God from His Word, and to preach the Gospel to sinners, is ever represented as the work of presbyters, and never as the duty of the members of the Church. It may be the right of the members of the Church to elect the pastor to preach the Gospel, but it is not the right, in ordinary circumstances, of the members to preach themselves, or even to ordain to the office of preaching. There is no example that can be quoted from Scripture of the private members of the Church either preaching, in the strict sense of the word, or ordaining preachers. The only instance alleged by Congregationalists in support of their theory, that it is the inherent right of every member to preach the Gospel, is the case of the persecuted disciples of Jerusalem, recorded in the eighth chapter of the Acts, where it is said: "They that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the Word." But in reference to the alleged precedent, it cannot, in the first place, be proved that the scattered disciples who preached were not pastors ordained to the work; and in the second place, although it could be proved that they were private members only, the extraordinary emergency of the Church would both explain and justify the departure from ordinary rule. As Presbyterians, we do not hold that, in an extraordinary crisis or unsettled condition of a Church, necessity may not be laid upon Christians not in office both to preach and to ordain, rather than that the ordinance of the ministry should cease. But we affirm that, in the ordinary and normal condition of the Church, there is no Scripture precedent or warrant for the members of the Church generally exercising this peculiar office, but only for pastors or elders.


----------



## timmopussycat

earl40 said:


> Cymro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Acts8:1-4 would be helpful to the discussion."therefore those that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word." It seems that the church at Jerusalem were dispersed by persecution to several regions,the Apostles exempted. Barnes is useful on this:- "Preaching the word,"--Greek; "evangelising",or announcing the good news of the message of mercy, or the word of God. This is not the usual word which is rendered "preach," but it means simply announcing the good news of salvation. There is no evidence,nor is there any probability, that these persons were "ordained"to preach. They were manifestly common Christians who were scattered by persecution,and the meaning is, that they communicated
> to their fellow-men in conversation wherever they met them. It is not said that they set themselves up for public teachers, or that they administered baptism, or that they founded churches, but they proclaimed everywhere the news that a saviour had come. Their hearts were full of it. Out of the
> abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. It is right for all Christians to make known the truths of the gospel. When the heart is full the lips will speak, and there is no impropriety in their speaking of redemption than of anything else."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So may I humbly ask if Our Lord scattered abroad all these sheep with no Pastors or elders?
Click to expand...


In the short term, yes, in the long term no. When the Jerusalem church learned that men " of Cyprus and Cyrene" who were among those "scattered because of the persecution that had arose over Stephen" had spoken the word to Hellenists at Antioch and "a great number believed and turned to the Lord" they sent Barnabas. (Acts 11:19-22) It is noteworthy that Luke's description of the men "of Cyprus and Cyrene (modern Libya)" excludes the ordained "Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch (Acts 6:5) whom one might otherwise have thought to have been involved in this work.



MW said:


> James Bannerman is more precise (Church of Christ, 2:309):
> 
> 
> 
> The chief and highest exercise of Church power, to declare the mind of God from His Word, and to preach the Gospel to sinners, is ever represented as the work of presbyters, and never as the duty of the members of the Church. It may be the right of the members of the Church to elect the pastor to preach the Gospel, but it is not the right, in ordinary circumstances, of the members to preach themselves, or even to ordain to the office of preaching. There is no example that can be quoted from Scripture of the private members of the Church either preaching, in the strict sense of the word, or ordaining preachers. The only instance alleged by Congregationalists in support of their theory, that it is the inherent right of every member to preach the Gospel, is the case of the persecuted disciples of Jerusalem, recorded in the eighth chapter of the Acts, where it is said: "They that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the Word." But in reference to the alleged precedent, it cannot, in the first place, be proved that the scattered disciples who preached were not pastors ordained to the work; and in the second place, although it could be proved that they were private members only, the extraordinary emergency of the Church would both explain and justify the departure from ordinary rule. As Presbyterians, we do not hold that, in an extraordinary crisis or unsettled condition of a Church, necessity may not be laid upon Christians not in office both to preach and to ordain, rather than that the ordinance of the ministry should cease. But we affirm that, in the ordinary and normal condition of the Church, there is no Scripture precedent or warrant for the members of the Church generally exercising this peculiar office, but only for pastors or elders.
Click to expand...


First, regular order does not come into the Acts 11 situation which was clearly irregular by Bannerman's standards of an "extraordinary emergency." Second, there is no statement that these men from Cyprus and Cyrene were ordained. If in fact they were, at least two of the four possible Acts 7 deacons who could be meant here must have been from Cyprus and Cyrene. (We know Stephen wasn't there - already deceased. We know Philip didn't get this far and Nicolaus the proselyte is excluded because he was from Antioch, not Cyprus or Cyrene.) So iit must be left an open question whether or not these men were ordained. Finally, those called by God to preach can do so, even if not yet ordained by the church, as we see routinely in cases of men in training for ordination.


----------



## Reformed Roman

MW said:


> Cymro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barnes is useful on this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Bannerman is more precise (Church of Christ, 2:309):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chief and highest exercise of Church power, to declare the mind of God from His Word, and to preach the Gospel to sinners, is ever represented as the work of presbyters, and never as the duty of the members of the Church. It may be the right of the members of the Church to elect the pastor to preach the Gospel, but it is not the right, in ordinary circumstances, of the members to preach themselves, or even to ordain to the office of preaching. There is no example that can be quoted from Scripture of the private members of the Church either preaching, in the strict sense of the word, or ordaining preachers. The only instance alleged by Congregationalists in support of their theory, that it is the inherent right of every member to preach the Gospel, is the case of the persecuted disciples of Jerusalem, recorded in the eighth chapter of the Acts, where it is said: "They that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the Word." But in reference to the alleged precedent, it cannot, in the first place, be proved that the scattered disciples who preached were not pastors ordained to the work; and in the second place, although it could be proved that they were private members only, the extraordinary emergency of the Church would both explain and justify the departure from ordinary rule. As Presbyterians, we do not hold that, in an extraordinary crisis or unsettled condition of a Church, necessity may not be laid upon Christians not in office both to preach and to ordain, rather than that the ordinance of the ministry should cease. But we affirm that, in the ordinary and normal condition of the Church, there is no Scripture precedent or warrant for the members of the Church generally exercising this peculiar office, but only for pastors or elders.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The main argument isn't that any member of the church should preach from the pulpit. That's a separate topic compared to proclaiming the gospel outside the church


----------



## toddpedlar

Zach Rohman said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cymro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barnes is useful on this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Bannerman is more precise (Church of Christ, 2:309):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chief and highest exercise of Church power, to declare the mind of God from His Word, and to preach the Gospel to sinners, is ever represented as the work of presbyters, and never as the duty of the members of the Church. It may be the right of the members of the Church to elect the pastor to preach the Gospel, but it is not the right, in ordinary circumstances, of the members to preach themselves, or even to ordain to the office of preaching. There is no example that can be quoted from Scripture of the private members of the Church either preaching, in the strict sense of the word, or ordaining preachers. The only instance alleged by Congregationalists in support of their theory, that it is the inherent right of every member to preach the Gospel, is the case of the persecuted disciples of Jerusalem, recorded in the eighth chapter of the Acts, where it is said: "They that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the Word." But in reference to the alleged precedent, it cannot, in the first place, be proved that the scattered disciples who preached were not pastors ordained to the work; and in the second place, although it could be proved that they were private members only, the extraordinary emergency of the Church would both explain and justify the departure from ordinary rule. As Presbyterians, we do not hold that, in an extraordinary crisis or unsettled condition of a Church, necessity may not be laid upon Christians not in office both to preach and to ordain, rather than that the ordinance of the ministry should cease. But we affirm that, in the ordinary and normal condition of the Church, there is no Scripture precedent or warrant for the members of the Church generally exercising this peculiar office, but only for pastors or elders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The main argument isn't that any member of the church should preach from the pulpit. That's a separate topic compared to proclaiming the gospel outside the church
Click to expand...


Would you explain to me/us the difference between preaching from the pulpit (in which, presumably, gospel truth is proclaimed) and proclaiming the gospel on a street corner?

Thanks,

Todd


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> First, regular order does not come into the Acts 11 situation which was clearly irregular by Bannerman's standards of an "extraordinary emergency."



Acts 8. If irregular, it is no standard for the regular situation of a settled church order.



timmopussycat said:


> Second, there is no statement that these men from Cyprus and Cyrene were ordained.



There is no statement that they were not ordained, and the only examples of preaching in the following narrative, which is doubtless enlarging on the succinct statement under question, is of ordained men. So the weight of testimony inclines towards Prof. Bannerman's position, and there is no testimony to support the contrary.


----------



## timmopussycat

MW said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, regular order does not come into the Acts 11 situation which was clearly irregular by Bannerman's standards of an "extraordinary emergency."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 8. If irregular, it is no standard for the regular situation of a settled church order.
Click to expand...


But if a particular aspect of irregular order is not specifically addressed when regular order is introduced, that aspect must, be assumed to continue under the regular order.



timmopussycat said:


> Second, there is no statement that these men from Cyprus and Cyrene were ordained.



There is no statement that they were not ordained, and the only examples of preaching in the following narrative, which is doubtless enlarging on the succinct statement under question, is of ordained men. So the weight of testimony inclines towards Prof. Bannerman's position, and there is no testimony to support the contrary.[/QUOTE]

"Doubtless" = begging the question: not only we are specifically told that the men from Cyprus and Cyrene "preached (i.e., evangelized) the Lord Jesus" (Acts 11:20), we don't see the verb "preaching" mentioned even once in the subsequent narrative in that chapter. As for the men who were doing the teaching in Antioch in the later part of that narrative: from what we know it seems that Saul was simply brought in by Barnabas' sole decision with no reference to a church ordination, and we don't know whether Barnabas had been ordained to any office by the Jerusalem church before they sent him out. We don't even know whether the church at Antioch had fully formed during this period since we know from other instances of a gospel reaching a city that the believers remained members of the local synogogues for as long as they could. 

When only one ordination had taken place in church history to this point, and that an ordination to waiting on tables rather than teaching, presuming that the Jerusalem church had recognized the need for ordained evangelists prior to the persecution leads one to ask the question why they would have seen the need for such an office. The apostles were already devoting themselves to prayer and teaching, and with all of them still based in Jerusalem there would have been no need for such.

Clearly not all are called to teach and preach formally within the church, lacking both the necessary God given gifting and the external call of the church. But, as has previously been noted, a man gifted for the task and with a correct understanding of the message will not be acting in love if he does not share the gospel as he has opportunity.


----------



## timmopussycat

Do you think Luke would have called it a "great persecution" if it resulted in scattering only the six remaining table servants (the only ordained persons outside the Apostles)?
Given the severity of what Saul was doing, do you think only the six were scattered?


----------



## earl40

timmopussycat said:


> Do you think Luke would have called it a "great persecution" if it resulted in scattering only the six remaining table servants (the only ordained persons outside the Apostles)?
> Given the severity of what Saul was doing, do you think only the six were scattered?



Do you think that out of the 9,120 men that were added to the church before Acts 8 that maybe The Apostles ordained other pastors that might have been scattered with the laity? Also among those that were added may have included some, if not many, of those ordained before Pentecost and if so could they not be "fast tracked" into service?


----------



## timmopussycat

earl40 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Luke would have called it a "great persecution" if it resulted in scattering only the six remaining table servants (the only ordained persons outside the Apostles)?
> Given the severity of what Saul was doing, do you think only the six were scattered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that out of the 9,120 men that were added to the church before Acts 8 that maybe The Apostles ordained other pastors that might have been scattered with the laity? Also among those that were added may have included some, if not many, of those ordained before Pentecost and if so could they not be "fast tracked" into service?
Click to expand...


What Scriptural evidence do you have for these notions? There is no evidence that the Church ordained anyone other than Matthias (Acts 1:26) to any function before Pentecost and there is no evidence that the Apostles ordained anyone to assist with the teaching of the word before Acts 8. The WCF 1:6 shuts us up to direct Scriptural evidences or what may, by good and necessary consequence be deduced from them. It does not permit the use of groundless speculation to justify our opinions.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross

Was Philip not given to the office of Evangelist? Would good and necessary consequence not suggest the some men were ordained to serve as preachers? I mean, even Saul was baptized by a disciple. Most of us would agree that baptisms should be administered by ordained men, yet the function was perhaps temporarily given to at least one man without stated qualification.


----------



## earl40

timmopussycat said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Luke would have called it a "great persecution" if it resulted in scattering only the six remaining table servants (the only ordained persons outside the Apostles)?
> Given the severity of what Saul was doing, do you think only the six were scattered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that out of the 9,120 men that were added to the church before Acts 8 that maybe The Apostles ordained other pastors that might have been scattered with the laity? Also among those that were added may have included some, if not many, of those ordained before Pentecost and if so could they not be "fast tracked" into service?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Scriptural evidence do you have for these notions? There is no evidence that the Church ordained anyone other than Matthias (Acts 1:26) to any function before Pentecost and there is no evidence that the Apostles ordained anyone to assist with the teaching of the word before Acts 8. The WCF 1:6 shuts us up to direct Scriptural evidences or what may, by good and necessary consequence be deduced from them. It does not permit the use of groundless speculation to justify our opinions.
Click to expand...


The groundless speculation I see is that The Lord spread out many sheep with no pastors. I can deduce that Paul said that people will not believe unless they are preached towards by the sent. Also to assume that those scattered did not have ordained leaders is in my opinion total speculation based on an historical account that could have lacked the information that ordained men were with the laity. In other words, the absence of all the details of those who were scattered does not make the account you assume (only laity scattered) to be such.


----------



## TheOldCourse

Westminster Larger Catechism:



> Question 154: What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?
> 
> Answer: The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.
> 
> Question 155: How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
> 
> Answer: The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; of building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.
> 
> Question 156: Is the Word of God to be read by all?
> 
> Answer: Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the holy Scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.
> 
> Question 157: How is the Word of God to be read?
> 
> Answer: The holy Scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very Word of God, and that he only can enable us to understand them; with desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them; with diligence, and attention to the matter and scope of them; with meditation, application, self_denial, and prayer.
> 
> Question 158: By whom is the Word of God to be preached?
> 
> Answer: The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office



Ask yourself what place this leaves for lay evangelism as an appropriate "ordinary" means of the conversion of sinners in the Westminster Standards. At best it would be considered an extraordinary occurrence, in which case how can it be the common duty of all? 

As for evangelists, as Rev. Winzer mentioned, from the Form of Presbyterial Church-Government drawn up by the Westminster Assembly:



> Of the Officers of the Church.
> 
> THE officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, which are ceased.
> Others ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church-governors, and deacons.



This is not a confessional standard, but it does show the perspective of our Presbyterian forebears which was held over against the Prelatists until relatively recently.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> But if a particular aspect of irregular order is not specifically addressed when regular order is introduced, that aspect must, be assumed to continue under the regular order.



If it is "irregular" it will by nature disrupt the "regular," and introduce disorder and confusion at every turn.



timmopussycat said:


> When only one ordination had taken place in church history to this point, and that an ordination to waiting on tables rather than teaching, presuming that the Jerusalem church had recognized the need for ordained evangelists prior to the persecution leads one to ask the question why they would have seen the need for such an office. The apostles were already devoting themselves to prayer and teaching, and with all of them still based in Jerusalem there would have been no need for such.



This one ordination served as a pattern to the other ordinations, and gave the rationale for them, namely, to ensure the call of the people as a part of their Christian liberty in the regular order of the church. This is the point on which the Free Church of Scotland quit the vitiated establishment in 1843.

The fact it included waiting on tables does not mean it was exclusively tied to this role. Its rationale was to free the apostles to do the work to which they were immediately called, and the qualifications imply that something more than diaconal work was in mind.



timmopussycat said:


> Clearly not all are called to teach and preach formally within the church, lacking both the necessary God given gifting and the external call of the church. But, as has previously been noted, a man gifted for the task and with a correct understanding of the message will not be acting in love if he does not share the gospel as he has opportunity.



What is this "within" and "without" the church? The church is the body of professing Christians. Those "without" the church are unbelievers.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross

It is difficult to read Acts 11 and hold to the view some have taken concerning Acts 8.


----------



## timmopussycat

MW said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if a particular aspect of irregular order is not specifically addressed when regular order is introduced, that aspect must, be assumed to continue under the regular order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is "irregular" it will by nature disrupt the "regular," and introduce disorder and confusion at every turn.
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> When only one ordination had taken place in church history to this point, and that an ordination to waiting on tables rather than teaching, presuming that the Jerusalem church had recognized the need for ordained evangelists prior to the persecution leads one to ask the question why they would have seen the need for such an office. The apostles were already devoting themselves to prayer and teaching, and with all of them still based in Jerusalem there would have been no need for such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This one ordination served as a pattern to the other ordinations, and gave the rationale for them, namely, to ensure the call of the people as a part of their Christian liberty in the regular order of the church. This is the point on which the Free Church of Scotland quit the vitiated establishment in 1843.
> 
> The fact it included waiting on tables does not mean it was exclusively tied to this role. Its rationale was to free the apostles to do the work to which they were immediately called, and the qualifications imply that something more than diaconal work was in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not all are called to teach and preach formally within the church, lacking both the necessary God given gifting and the external call of the church. But, as has previously been noted, a man gifted for the task and with a correct understanding of the message will not be acting in love if he does not share the gospel as he has opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is this "within" and "without" the church? The church is the body of professing Christians. Those "without" the church are unbelievers.
Click to expand...


"Within" refers to the regular meetings of church assemblies, "without" is one man speaking to one or more others outside that context.


----------



## timmopussycat

Ryan J. Ross said:


> Was Philip not given to the office of Evangelist? Would good and necessary consequence not suggest the some men were ordained to serve as preachers? I mean, even Saul was baptized by a disciple. Most of us would agree that baptisms should be administered by ordained men, yet the function was perhaps temporarily given to at least one man without stated qualification.



Philip was called an evangelist yes - in Acts 21 which means that we may conclude that by the time of Acts 21 he had either been ordained as such or had become recognized as one who carried on the work of an evangelist. The problem for developing one's view of what evangelism is is that he is not called an evangelist in Acts 8.


----------



## timmopussycat

MW said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if a particular aspect of irregular order is not specifically addressed when regular order is introduced, that aspect must, be assumed to continue under the regular order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is "irregular" it will by nature disrupt the "regular," and introduce disorder and confusion at every turn.
Click to expand...


Nonsense and it can be easily proved so. If it is only ordained men that may preach in regular order, why are men who are not ordained but only in training permitted to preach in many denominations?



timmopussycat said:


> When only one ordination had taken place in church history to this point, and that an ordination to waiting on tables rather than teaching, presuming that the Jerusalem church had recognized the need for ordained evangelists prior to the persecution leads one to ask the question why they would have seen the need for such an office. The apostles were already devoting themselves to prayer and teaching, and with all of them still based in Jerusalem there would have been no need for such.





MW said:


> This one ordination served as a pattern to the other ordinations, and gave the rationale for them, namely, to ensure the call of the people as a part of their Christian liberty in the regular order of the church. This is the point on which the Free Church of Scotland quit the vitiated establishment in 1843.
> 
> The fact it included waiting on tables does not mean it was exclusively tied to this role. Its rationale was to free the apostles to do the work to which they were immediately called, and the qualifications imply that something more than diaconal work was in mind.



Those who assume that men not Scripturally identified as ordained must have been ordained by the church in order to "evangelise" their neighbours when Scripture does not explicitly make that a requirement are presuming on what may be logically inferred from the evidence to justify their conclusion. In logic this is called circular reasoning and circular reasoning is never a good and necessary consequence from the Scriptures.

The qualifications given for selecting the seven table waiters in Acts 6 have no mention of teaching skills, something that would seem to be an essential for such an office since it is an ability which is included by Paul when among those that must be present in an elder in 1 Tim. 3.


----------



## timmopussycat

earl40 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Luke would have called it a "great persecution" if it resulted in scattering only the six remaining table servants (the only ordained persons outside the Apostles)?
> Given the severity of what Saul was doing, do you think only the six were scattered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that out of the 9,120 men that were added to the church before Acts 8 that maybe The Apostles ordained other pastors that might have been scattered with the laity? Also among those that were added may have included some, if not many, of those ordained before Pentecost and if so could they not be "fast tracked" into service?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Scriptural evidence do you have for these notions? There is no evidence that the Church ordained anyone other than Matthias (Acts 1:26) to any function before Pentecost and there is no evidence that the Apostles ordained anyone to assist with the teaching of the word before Acts 8. The WCF 1:6 shuts us up to direct Scriptural evidences or what may, by good and necessary consequence be deduced from them. It does not permit the use of groundless speculation to justify our opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The groundless speculation I see is that The Lord spread out many sheep with no pastors. I can deduce that Paul said that people will not believe unless they are preached towards by the sent. Also to assume that those scattered did not have ordained leaders is in my opinion total speculation based on an historical account that could have lacked the information that ordained men were with the laity. In other words, the absence of all the details of those who were scattered does not make the account you assume (only laity scattered) to be such.
Click to expand...


The Lord has repeatedly left sheep without shepherds FOR SHORT TERMS. To name only one example, I note that Paul and Barnabas did not appoint elders for the converts made on the outbound leg of their first missionary journey, only doing so on the return trip.

And a man may be sent by God without being ordained by the church (although I believe that a man with such a calling from God should seek ordination.) There have been many such people down through the years and the fruits of their unordained service has been a factor in their churches' decisions to ordain them.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross

So he is evangelizing (preaching) in Acts 8 and descriptively referred to as "evangelist" in Acts 21, yet good and necessary consequence would have you believe that he was ordained between those chapters because the text refers to it after he was appointed in Acts 6? Curious. Would not GaNC suggest that their appointment may have entailed more than serving tables? Does it not seem strange that immediately after their appointment, Stephen and Philip are not explicitly said to be engaged in table serving but performing miracles and wonders, preaching, and baptizing? There is more than diaconal work suggested by Acts 6 and I don't need to get to Acts 21 to learn about a possible post-persecution ordination.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Nonsense and it can be easily proved so. If it is only ordained men that may preach in regular order, why are men who are not ordained but only in training permitted to preach in many denominations?



That is simple. They have been recognised to have certain gifts and are now given opportunity under the proper oversight to exercise them for the purpose of developing them and proving themselves. But it is still under oversight and with the recognition that the Head of the church has gifted them for this task.



timmopussycat said:


> are presuming on what may be logically inferred from the evidence to justify their conclusion. In logic this is called circular reasoning and circular reasoning is never a good and necessary consequence from the Scriptures.



From Scripture it is called the regulative principle of church power. James Bannerman's Church of Christ provides an excellent treatment of this subject.


----------



## timmopussycat

Ryan J. Ross said:


> So he is evangelizing (preaching) in Acts 8 and descriptively referred to as "evangelist" in Acts 21, yet good and necessary consequence would have you believe that he was ordained between those chapters because the text refers to it after he was appointed in Acts 6? Curious. Would not GaNC suggest that their appointment may have entailed more than serving tables? Does it not seem strange that immediately after their appointment, Stephen and Philip are not explicitly said to be engaged in table serving but performing miracles and wonders, preaching, and baptizing? There is more than diaconal work suggested by Acts 6 and I don't need to get to Acts 21 to learn about a possible post-persecution ordination.



Even today when the church ordains a man to a role, it is a universal assumption that he is limited to that role until and unless he is called to an additional one. 

When they asked the disciples to choose the seven, the Apostles stated that they would appoint the men the congregation chose to "this duty" of [serving] "tables." When the purpose of the responsibility was so limited, the only certain conclusion we can come to without using circular reasoning is that the function of waiting on tables was what they were appointed to do. Anything more is speculation that takes us beyond the evidence. Consider the fact that we hear nothing about the subsequent "evangelizing" activities of the remaining deacons (Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus). Since nothing is said about them, we cannot conclude anything about whether they just continued to serve as deacons, or moved on to something else.


----------



## timmopussycat

MW said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense and it can be easily proved so. If it is only ordained men that may preach in regular order, why are men who are not ordained but only in training permitted to preach in many denominations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is simple. They have been recognised to have certain gifts and are now given opportunity under the proper oversight to exercise them for the purpose of developing them and proving themselves. But it is still under oversight and with the recognition that the Head of the church has gifted them for this task
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> are presuming on what may be logically inferred from the evidence to justify their conclusion. In logic this is called circular reasoning and circular reasoning is never a good and necessary consequence from the Scriptures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Scripture it is called the regulative principle of church power. James Bannerman's Church of Christ provides an excellent treatment of this subject.
Click to expand...


Do you have a page reference for this discussion? I ask because a Kindle's search function applied to the phrase "regulative principle of church power" returned no hits.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

timmopussycat said:


> Do you have a page reference for this discussion? I ask because a Kindle's search function applied to the phrase "regulative principle of church power" returned no hits.


Start around page 427 in Bannerman.


----------



## timmopussycat

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a page reference for this discussion? I ask because a Kindle's search function applied to the phrase "regulative principle of church power" returned no hits.
> 
> 
> 
> Start around page 427 in Bannerman.
Click to expand...


Which volume? I assume vol. 1 but is that correct?


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Do you have a page reference for this discussion? I ask because a Kindle's search function applied to the phrase "regulative principle of church power" returned no hits.



Essentially the whole book is a sustained treatment, but sections that particularly relate to this subject are,

The Power of the Church, vol. 1, pp.187ff.

The Christian Ministry, vol. 1, pp. 421ff.

Divine appointment of a form of church government, vol. 2, pp. 201ff.

The Extraordinary Office-bearers of the Christian Church, vol. 2, pp. 214ff.

The point about church power being exercised by office-bearers, not by members generally, is demonstrated in vol. 2, pp. 308ff.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

timmopussycat said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a page reference for this discussion? I ask because a Kindle's search function applied to the phrase "regulative principle of church power" returned no hits.
> 
> 
> 
> Start around page 427 in Bannerman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which volume? I assume vol. 1 but is that correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct. But, Rev. Winzer's pointer to start at page 421 and forward is equally good.


----------

