# Theological Definitions: Ministry, Evangelism, Preacher, Witnessing, etc.



## Scott Bushey (Dec 22, 2017)

Given that we have had an issue as of recently, specifically in the threads, 'Leading to Christ' and 'Leading to Christ-Poll', I believe it would be beneficial to address and define some of the biblical terms being used, both historically and biblically. In this thread, I would like to define these terms one at a time:


1) Evangelism, evangelist, evangelizing
a) is it an office or are all called to evangelize?

Scripture: ‘Evangelist’, Used only 3 times in the New Testament

Acts 21:8

8 And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.

Ephesians 4:11

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

2 Timothy 4:5

5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Here is a link to D. A. Carson’s paper entitled: ‘Do the Work of an Evangelist’ that addresses some of the original language and intent:

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/do-the-work-of-an-evangelist

*answer*: The promulgation of the gospel message to every tribe, tongue and nation; It is an office. All are not called to the office. Some denominations still acknowledge the title/office (PCA/OPC). Most believe the office has passed with the passing of Apostleship. All are *_involved_* in the local church's evangelistic effort; the body is one. All laypersons work under the ordained person who is the central figure in evangelism. He is the evangelist, they are the infrastructure that makes the commission, whole. Evangelism is a team effort that all believers take part in.

The term 'evangelism' must be seen in two senses; It is important to understand that in the narrow sense, it is the evangelist/ordained man
who is evangelizing and in the wider sense, all are involved in the effort.

2) Ministry, Minister, ministering
a) sending?
b) Is there a difference between an official sending and non-official?
c) Are there particular characteristics that come w/ the term?



*C. The New Testament.*

1. Usage Generally.

a. The word group is comparatively rare in the NT, unlike words in δουλ- and διακον-. Furthermore the common Gk. ὑπηρεσία does not occur at all, let alone other terms. The distribution puts Luke (Lk. and Ac.) and John (Gospel only) in first place with nine instances each, while Mt. and Mk. have only two each. There is only one example in Paul. The verb occurs only three times in Ac.

b. The noun ὑπηρέτης is always used in a general sense similar to that of classical and Hellenistic Greek (→ 530, 13 ff.) including Philo (→ 535, 8 ff.) and Josephus (→ 536, 30 ff.): “assistant to another as the instrument of his will,” possibly in a system of integrated functions in which account is taken of specific needs. Connected with this is the fact that the specific function of a ὑπηρέτης is to be gleaned from the context in which he appears. This is true at any rate in most of the NT instances.

Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “Ὑπηρέτης, Ὑπηρετέω,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 539.


*D. The Early Church.*

In their use of the noun the post-apost. fathers have nothing new compared with the NT With ἄγγελος and ἄρχων it means “official” in the sense of “servant” Dg., 7, 2; cf. Barn., 16, 4, or with οἰκονόμος (*→* 542, 11 ff.) and πάρεδρος it has the sense of “functionary” Ign. Pol., 6, 1. The diaconate is ἐκκλησίας θεοῦ ὑπηρέται in Ign. Tr., 2, 3; possibly this follows Jewish usage *→* 537, 35 ff. Ign. Phld., 11, 1 has the verb for the ministry of a deacon associated with him, and the meaning is much the same in Herm. m., 8, 10; χήραις ὑπηρετεῖν, s., 9, 10, 2 and Barn., 1, 5 “to help,” “to assist,” the will of God being always in the background.

Later usage is along the same lines in Just. Apol., I, 14, 1; II, 2, 7, where ὑπηρέτης occurs along with “slave,” but is a “free servant” receiving and carrying out orders as such.


Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “Ὑπηρέτης, Ὑπηρετέω,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 543–544.


*answer*: Yes, ordained men are sent for a specific purpose and task; The promulgation of the gospel message to every tribe, tongue and nation is the primary reason behind the sending; It is a 'official' calling and sending of the local church to the ordained man alone-they are called _Ministers_. There is no such thing as an 'unofficial' call and sending; Their jobs are to ‘minister’. They are ministering. All are *_involved_* in the local church's ministerial effort; this is called ‘ministry’. Since the body is one, even the laypersons work under the ordained person who is the central figure in ministry, is a support system, assisting in the success of this ministry. He is the minister, they are the infrastructure that makes the ministry, whole. Ministry is a team effort that all believers take part in.

The term 'ministry' must be seen in two senses; It is important to understand that in the narrow sense, it is the ministry/ordained man who is ministering and in the wider sense, all are involved in the ministerial effort, but the actual title belongs to the church officer alone. In the wider sense, it could be said that the infrastructure is assisting in fulfilling the whole of the ministerial effort.

3) Preacher, preaching
a) (P)reaching vs (p)reaching-is there such a thing?
b) Is it a problem for the female gender to ever (p)reach?
c) Teacher vs preacher
d) Parents are called to teach their children-is this a different 'teaching'?

4) Witnessing/sharing/confessing
a) Are all called to witness and share?
b) Is there a difference between proclaiming Christ in a witness/share and preaching?

5) The Great Commission
a) Is the commission for all and if so, is the term divorced from church polity and hierarchy?

6) The church
 a) Local church/visible
b) Universal/invisible church
c) Is one ever independent of their local membership?
d) The keys to the church-who holds them?

7) The Gospel
 a) Is it entrusted to all or is it given specifically to the local church?
 b) Is the gospel any less affective if a lay-person gives witness to it outside of the local church setting?
c) Can a man be saved apart from the local church? 
d) Is the bible ever divorced from the local church? Example: A man on an island finds a bible that has washed up on the beach-he reads it and is saved. can it be said that this man was saved outside of the oversight of the church?

If you see the list as missing an important term, let me know and I will add it.

I would like to discuss these terms, in order; once we have established a proper, biblical definition, we can move on to the next term.


----------



## timfost (Dec 22, 2017)

David,

The other threads were shut down. Let's not use this platform to continue the conversation. Let's give it a rest, please.

Scott,

I'm looking forward to getting working definitions to these terms. Thanks for posting this thread. I've been reading up on them a little. I won't post definitions until I've done more research, though.

Thanks!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 22, 2017)

Calvin:

""...those whom, while inferior in rank to the apostles, were next them in office, and even acted as their substitutes" (_Institutes_, IV.iii.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,"

"yet he also says, "although I deny not, that afterward God occasionally raised up apostles, or at least evangelists, in their stead, as has been done in our time" (_Ibid._)."

"By Evangelists, I mean those who, while inferior in rank to the apostles, were next them in office, and even acted as their substitutes. Such were Luke, Timothy, Titus, and the like; perhaps, also, the seventy disciples whom our Saviour appointed in the second place to the apostles (Luke 10:1)."

Calvin on Eph. 4.11: "Next to them [apostles] come the Evangelists, who were closely allied in the nature of their office, but held an inferior rank. To this class belonged Timothy and others; for, while Paul mentions them along with himself in the salutations of his epistles, he does not speak of them as his companions in the apostleship, but claims this name as peculiarly his own. The services in which the Lord employed them were auxiliary to those of the apostles, to whom they were next in rank."

Calvin on 2 Tim. 4.5: "_Do the work of an Evangelist_ That is, “Do that which belongs to an evangelist.” Whether he denotes generally by this term any ministers of the gospel, or whether this was a special office, is doubtful; but I am more inclined to the second opinion, because from Ephesians 4:11 it is clearly evident that this was an intermediate class between apostles and pastors, so that the evangelists ranked as assistants next to the apostles. It is also more probable that Timothy, whom Paul had associated with himself as his closest companion in all things, surpassed ordinary pastors in rank and dignity of office, than that he was only one of their number. Besides, to mention an honorable title of office tends not only to encourage him, but to recommend his authority to others; and Paul had in view both of these objects."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 22, 2017)

*Moderator Note*:

Let's let the moderators moderate. If anyone has an issue with posts being made feel free to report the post.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Dec 22, 2017)

*Moderation*

Any posts that do not interact directly and to the point of the OP will be deleted.

Please stay on point.

Thank you.


----------



## timfost (Dec 22, 2017)

Scott,

Just realized you had text under gospel and church. I highlighted and realized there was text, but, at least on my device, it must be colored white. Could you please check on that?

Thanks!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 22, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Calvin:
> 
> ""...those whom, while inferior in rank to the apostles, were next them in office, and even acted as their substitutes" (_Institutes_, IV.iii.4)"
> 
> ...





Scott Bushey said:


> Calvin:
> 
> ""...those whom, while inferior in rank to the apostles, were next them in office, and even acted as their substitutes" (_Institutes_, IV.iii.4)"
> 
> ...


God gave those gifted men to the church such as pastors/teachers and Evangelists to be until the second coming, while the offices of the Apostle and Prophet ceased after John passed away.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 22, 2017)

So, it would seem that you are saying now, biblically speaking, that ‘evangelism’ is a characteristic of an office holder?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 22, 2017)

Evangelism terms and who can do it:

There is some ambiguity here. I believe it is best to maintain some tolerance over terms and not demand tight precision.

---Kerusso is one word but has been translated both as preach and proclaim, for instance the Gadarene demoniac κηρύσσων but most will say he proclaimed and not preached (perhaps due to assumptions drawn from Presbyterian ecclesiology).

---The witnesses to the healing of the deaf man in Mark 7:36 are said to proclaim to those around them, but the word is again, ἐκήρυσσον, from kerusso, translated elsewhere as to preach or proclaim.

---If the NT writers were so concerned to not give the impression that laymen could preach, why didn't they use katangello or dialegomai or laleo or diangello instead of kerusso to signify for sure that it was proclamation instead of preaching? Oh wait....all of these terms are variously translated as preach despite their nuances being slightly different (proclaim, dialogue, speak, declare).

---“to persuade” (_peithō_) is used to describe Paul's evangelistic activities as well. But nobody makes a point that only ordained people can "persuade" and that laymen should never persuade.

---I Peter 4:10 tells all believes to minister: "As every man hath received the gift, _even so_ minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." Even as the Apostle Paul is made a Minister.

Therefore, it appears okay to use "minister" in both a tight (big M) and loose (little m) way and even okay in this sense to say that there is truly an "every-member ministry of the church" even while it is wrong to assert an "every member Ministry."

---In Paul's epistles both men and women are called "fellow workers" or sunergous who shared in Paul's labor. Which labor would that be except labor in spreading the Gospel?


Ironically the NT seems less careful than some on the PB when it comes to defining evangelistic terms.

I fear such focusing on the boundaries and guarding such tight definitions might make solid Christians in our pews hesitant to act because they fear overstepping their bounds as laymen. Such a tight focus often serves to stifle initiative and discourage action and leave it all to the ordained minister lest the layman do something that laymen should not be doing when sharing the Gospel.

I do believe that most "Truly Reformed" churches are, in fact, less evangelistic and this is one reason why.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 22, 2017)

I have compiled a list of historic quotes supporting the idea that evangelism is a characteristic of the office holder alone.

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2017/12/evangelism-explosion-evangelism-erosion/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 22, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Evangelism terms and who can do it:
> 
> ---Kerusso is one word but has been translated both as preach and proclaim, for instance the Gadarene demoniac κηρύσσων but most will say he proclaimed and not preached (perhaps due to assumptions drawn from Presbyterian ecclesiology).



Preaching is under # 3....we haven't gotten there yet.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Dec 22, 2017)

Scott, the link doesn't work for me, but could you please also tell us the point of the linked piece (rather than just posting the link) so we can decide whether to follow and read it? Thanks!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 22, 2017)

Fixed link.

I have compiled a list of historic quotes supporting the idea that evangelism is a characteristic of the office holder alone.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 22, 2017)

Even if you prove evangelism is only for the ordained, what are the marks of evangelism that make it different than telling, sharing, being a fellow-laborour in the work (such as the women called sunergous did with Paul), or witnessing? 

Can laymen dialogue? Can laymen declare? Can laymen tell? Can laymen explain? Can a layman testify?

What would be the practical difference between a pastor evangelizing a group of non-believers and a regular Christian sharing or witnessing to the same group? 

If there is really no great distinction than why focus so adamantly that laymen cannot do it? It is a largely a distinctive without a practical difference outside the church. No layman I know is pushing to administer the sacraments or exercise ecclesiastical authority when they share the gospel with nonbelievers. 

I would suggest a healthier focus would be to stress what all Christians CAN do rather than finely delineate what some cannot do.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jack K (Dec 22, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Ironically the NT seems less careful than some on the PB when it comes to defining evangelistic terms.



Agreed.

Look, I admire the desire folks here have for clarity. I really do—it's a great feature of this board. But here's the thing: it's a fool's errand to try to nail down an exact meaning that always applies to a theological term. This is because most words in most languages have a _range_ of meanings, not a single precise meaning.

Within one's theological circle, it still can be helpful to precisely define how to use a certain theological term. This lets us communicate more efficiently. But it is important that we don't then turn around and insist that the Bible writers always stuck to our narrow definition, because in the case of most theological words they didn't. If we aren't careful, our impulse to assign narrow definitions will lead to bad exegesis.

Pergamum's example of the preach/proclaim/speak/declare issue is a good case in point. Context and nuance matter. If we insist on rigid word-usage rules, a reader could easily conclude that the deaf man who was healed became an ordained preacher—but it's doubtful that's what the Bible means.

So I'm inclined to give some leeway in the use of terms. I suppose in the case of a word like _euangelion_ and its derivatives, the word might be so unique that the biblical usage is very narrowly defined. But even if so, it should surprise no one that its usage since biblical times has broadened, because that's what happens to words.

A good exegetical principle is that we do theology on the concept level, not the word level. So I will gladly explain what I *mean* if I've used one of those terms and it isn't clear. But I hesitate to provide an overarching definition—much less demand that the rest of the world, including the apostles, follow it as well.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 23, 2017)

I notice that Paul tells Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist," then looking back to Acts 8, you see Phillip authoritatively preaching the gospel with great effect, with signs and wonders accompanying. I think there's no doubt that "evangelist" in the apostles' time was an ordained office, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it still considered to be that up until at least the times of the Puritans? I thought of John Wesley and the itinerant system he devised, which included lay preaching. I wonder if this was the first major or important effort to include lay members in evangelism.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 23, 2017)

Jack K said:


> ...I hesitate to provide an overarching definition—much less demand that the rest of the world, including the apostles, follow it as well.


Jack, you don't think we're imposing a narrow definition of "evangelist" on the apostles, do you? It seems that the Holy Spirit gave us what we need to know: there was an office of evangelist, the apostles called them evangelists, and the office had defined characteristics. They wouldn't have called a lay person an evangelist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 23, 2017)

If Paul's chief work was evangelism and church planting and only a narrow subset can engage in that work, then how did Paul refer to a great number of both men and women as sunergous / fellow-laborers who labored together with him? 

Just what labor was that if not evangelistic labor?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Dec 23, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> If Paul's chief work was evangelism and church planting and only a narrow subset can engage in that work, then how did Paul refer to a great number of both men and women as sunergous / fellow-laborers who labored together with him?
> 
> Just what labor was that if not evangelistic labor?



Exactly. All Christians have the privilege of sharing the gospel with whomever God puts in their path. 

It would sound mighty funny to have to say: "I'm sorry, Mr. Next-Door Neighbor. Even though you have expressed interest, I can't share the gospel with you unless I contact an ordained, professionally trained pastor/evangelist to share the gospel with you. That might take awhile. So, can you please wait?"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Dec 23, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Jack, you don't think we're imposing a narrow definition of "evangelist" on the apostles, do you? It seems that the Holy Spirit gave us what we need to know: there was an office of evangelist, the apostles called them evangelists, and the office had defined characteristics. They wouldn't have called a lay person an evangelist.



I really don't know for sure whether an apostle might have called a lay-person an "evangelist" or—perhaps more likely—used "good news" to summarize a lay-person's testimony about Jesus. We have a limited number of accounts of such testimonies, and given the apostles' general freedom with theological terms, I would not be shocked to learn that the "good news" label got applied at times to everyday talk about the wonders of salvation in Christ.

The best way to know whether or not the term might be applied beyond office bearers is to look at passages that directly address the difference between office bearers and laymen. The most comprehensive passages on that topic don't use the word "evangelist/gospel/good news." This makes me think that although the job descriptions are important, the labels might not matter very much.

The one passage that does use the label is Ephesians 4:11, but it's a passing mention in a passage that's mostly about unity in the church rather than about what sets office bearers apart. I hate to build a hard-and-fast rule around a passing mention that's addressing a different topic. Reformed denominations have tended to be cautious too; few have recognized evangelist as an office.

Personally, I don't call myself an "evangelist," and I think it's not a good idea for a layman to do so. But when I talk about Jesus, I might describe the salvation he has accomplished as "good news." And when I teach my 10-year-olds in Sunday school, I include facts about Christ's work that the Bible sometimes calls "gospel." Does this make me in some sense a "gospeler"—in other words, an "evangelist"? Well, again, I don't use that term for myself because it tends to carry connotations that don't apply to me. But I can see why someone might end up using that language. And I'm not convinced the use of the label is a big enough issue, biblically, to get terribly upset about it when it's intended in a limited sense.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 23, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> If Paul's chief work was evangelism and church planting and only a narrow subset can engage in that work, then how did Paul refer to a great number of both men and women as sunergous / fellow-laborers who labored together with him?
> 
> Just what labor was that if not evangelistic labor?



Why do we have to label the great number of both men and women evangelists? There are a great number of men and women who labor along with surgeons in the operating room and we do not call them surgeons.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 23, 2017)

Jack K said:


> I really don't know for sure whether an apostle might have called a lay-person an "evangelist"


Jack, I'd say no more likely than an apostle calling a lay-person a pastor, an apostle, or a prophet. The three uses of the word in the NT seem pretty clear; speculation about any looser use of the word seems unwarranted.



Jack K said:


> The one passage that does use the label is Ephesians 4:11, but it's a passing mention in a passage that's mostly about unity in the church rather than about what sets office bearers apart.


Well two places, the label is used by Luke as well as Paul. The Ephesians 4 passage is about the unity of the church, but it's about coming to that unity by maturing in the faith; contrary to being a passing mention, the passage reminds us at the outset that Christ gave gifts to the church upon his ascension for that purpose, and those gifts were the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers. So the setting forth and enumerating of those varied gifts were of extreme importance, as their roles were to be recognized as the means of sanctification.

You said that few Reformed denominations have recognized evangelist as an office, but I suppose you mean as a continuing office. It seems evangelist was recognized as an office that has ceased: the Westminster Standards' BCO states, "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."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Steve Curtis (Dec 23, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I thought of John Wesley and the itinerant system he devised, which included lay preaching. I wonder if this was the first major or important effort to include lay members in evangelism.


Perhaps a bit earlier, with the Lollards of Wycliffe's era, though I would have to revisit their history to speak definitively.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2017)

Jack K said:


> Look, I admire the desire folks here have for clarity. I really do—it's a great feature of this board. But here's the thing: it's a fool's errand to try to nail down an exact meaning that always applies to a theological term.



22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council;

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 5:22.

I guess we should chide Calvin for his institutes or Owen for his work on Hebrews; or Witsius on covenant or Turretin on God's will.

Here's the thing, no one wants to upset the apple cart. People like liberalism-it's in their nature. We want everyone happy. Since God is accurate and orderly, we need to be as well; Hence, our determination to understand jots and tittles.

The office of evangelist and the characteristics of that office are particular to those ordained to that office. Again, no one is arguing against the infra structure that comes with it and how the whole body plays a part in how it completes the command to 'go'. It is when people liberalize the terminologies connected with the commission.

Earl brings up a great contrast in his example of the orderly in the Operating room and surgeon. All in the OR are assisting in the surgery; 'all' are not surgeons. Could it be said that a maintenance worker that works in the hospital sweeping floors works in the medical field? In a divided sense, yes. In the compound, no.The same thing must be considered in the example of evangelism. It is the evangelist who is evangelizing; The rest are 'involved' in evangelism as an infrastructure, supporting the evangelistic effort. There is a difference and this must be considered.

Trevor's quip about servanthood is flawed; the distinction I am proposing is neglected here. The word preach or 'published' is never used devoid of the terms I mention and a biblical polity always supplant these passages. When liberalism rules, the church suffers. It is Presbyterian to demand accuracy when it comes to God's word; it keeps order. Otherwise, you end up w/ anarchy in the church-which is prevalent in this age. Independency is a scourge.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> You said that few Reformed denominations have recognized evangelist as an office, but I suppose you mean as a continuing office




PCA Book of Church Order:
“8-5. When a man is called to labor as a teaching elder, it belongs to his order, in addition to those functions he shares with all other elders, to feed the flock by reading, expounding and preaching the Word of God and to administer the Sacraments. As he is sent to declare the will of God to sinners, and to beseech them to be reconciled to God through Christ, he is termed ambassador. As he bears glad tidings of salvation to the ignorant and perishing, he is termed evangelist. As he stands to proclaim the Gospel, he is termed preacher. As he dispenses the manifold grace of God, and the ordinances instituted by Christ, he is termed steward of the mysteries of God.”

OPC Book of Church Order
“Chapter VI Ministers or Teaching Elders 1. The ministry of the Word is a calling of God to stewardship in the gospel. In this ministry there is a diversity of gifts that are essential to the discharge of evangelistic, pastoral, and teaching functions.

The evangelist, in common with other ministers, is ordained to perform all the functions that belong to the sacred office of the minister. Yet distinctive to the function of the evangelist in his ministry of the gospel are the labors of (a) a missionary in a home or foreign mission field; (b) a stated supply or special preacher in churches to which he does not sustain a pastoral relation; (c) a chaplain in institutions or in military forces; (d) an administrator of an agency for preaching the gospel; and (e) an editor or similar ministry through the press and other means of communication.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> ---The witnesses to the healing of the deaf man in Mark 7:36 are said to proclaim to those around them, but the word is again, ἐκήρυσσον, from kerusso, translated elsewhere as to preach or proclaim.



G. Kittel helps here:



> *A. κηρύσσω in Greek.*
> 
> 1. Shades of Meaning and Synonyms.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 23, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Even if you prove evangelism is only for the ordained, what are the marks of evangelism that make it different than telling, sharing, being a fellow-laborour in the work (such as the women called sunergous did with Paul), or witnessing?
> 
> Can laymen dialogue? Can laymen declare? Can laymen tell? Can laymen explain? Can a layman testify?


Perg, I would say that evangelism, if narrowly defined to be the undertaking of those ordained to ministry, would carry with it an authority not present with those not so called. It has a teaching element to it; doctrine is being taught. As a sent ambassador he's been given the authority to speak the message, "Be reconciled to God." 

Laymen can speak to others of Christ, that's been affirmed over and over. The biblical examples of how to speak are the woman at the well-"come and hear the man who told me everything I've ever done. Is this not the Messiah?" The demoniac- told to go and tell the great things God did for him. 1 Peter 3:15. Beyond that, all Christians are instructed to live in such a way that the gospel is adorned, and not shamed, and to do good to all men, and so on. Now that's the biblical data the Holy Spirit gave us regarding called and sent ambassadors and laypeople; in former times men seemed to carefully start with that data and then work out the practical application. 

I have 2 daughters who are not believers and who pretty much scorn Christianity. I used to feel tremendous pressure to share the gospel with them, which would produce much eye rolling. The face is they'd both heard the gospel preached in church and have so far rejected it. As I began to better understand the biblical model of my role in bearing witness to Christ, I rejoiced in feeling that burden lifted. Now, I have opportunities now and then to speak simply of my love and appreciation for my Savior- he hath done great things, whereof we are glad. I said a few brief words to one hopeless-feeling daughter the other night of the hope that is in Christ. She didn't appreciate it but how can she argue with my belief? And she sees a changed life.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 23, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I have 2 daughters who are not believers and who pretty much scorn Christianity. I used to feel tremendous pressure to share the gospel with them, which would produce much eye rolling. The face is they'd both heard the gospel preached in church and have so far rejected it. As I began to better understand the biblical model of my role in bearing witness to Christ, I rejoiced in feeling that burden lifted. Now, I have opportunities now and then to speak simply of my love and appreciation for my Savior- he hath done great things, whereof we are glad. I said a few brief words to one hopeless-feeling daughter the other night of the hope that is in Christ. She didn't appreciate it but how can she argue with my belief? And she sees a changed life.


I spoke with my Pastor about the 'Leading To Christ' threads. Of course he is not on the board, and he did not read the posts. His response to my simplistic explanation of the debate was two Scriptural examples. In Luke 1 when Mary comes to visit Elizabeth and 'the baby leaped in Elizabeth's womb. That John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb, and in John 3:8 when Jesus tells Nicodemus that 'The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.'


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 23, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> God gave those gifted men to the church such as pastors/teachers and Evangelists to be until the second coming, while the offices of the Apostle and Prophet ceased after John passed away.




You have asserted such several times, over and against Calvin. Please defend this as sheer assertion in unconvincing.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2017)

Jimmy,
I have no idea how John 3, specifically fits into the picture.


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 23, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Jimmy,
> I have no idea how John 3, specifically fits into the picture.


I should have explained, my pastor meant that the Holy Spirit determines who receives the Gospel regardless of the source. As I said, he didn't read the threads, and my explanation of them was probably too simplistic for him to 'get' that the debate is on the specific meaning of the terms, and the roles played by those who wear them. On the other hand, maybe he did get that.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2017)

Agreed.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 23, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> It is Presbyterian to demand accuracy when it comes to God's word; it keeps order.



Absolutely! If I wasn't concerned for accuracy, I would not be pointing out the inherent flaws, and the inaccuracy that results, in trying to assign a single narrow meaning for some of these words. More tightly defined does not necessarily equal more accurate. It often means less accurate.



Scott Bushey said:


> When liberalism rules, the church suffers.



For example, if I insisted on applying a narrow, technical definition to your use of the word "liberalism," I might conclude you were accusing those who don't agree with you of being unbelievers who deny Christ's deity, substitutionary atonement, and so forth. But I'm sure you aren't saying that. From the context, I can see you're using the word in a broader sense, and that's okay. If I insisted that word may have only one theological meaning, I would either misunderstand you or end up making myself the enforcer of word-usage rules that don't actually fit the way people use words.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2017)

Jack,
I'm open to opinion; if u can show me biblically and historically that I am using a too narrow view, I will surely adjust. Can you do that? Provide me with any biblical and historic data on the contrary? I provided some reputable data biblically, historically and linguistically.


----------



## timfost (Dec 23, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> 1) Evangelism, evangelist, evangelizing
> a) is it an office or are all called to evangelize?



Yes, evangelist is an office, likely for the apostolic age and not a continuing office (Berkhof). But we all have been given new life in the gospel. As we witness, the gospel is spread. The promulgation of the evangel = evangelism. Therefore, it is no stretch to use the word in both an official capacity as well as a general one. In this way, interpretating Acts 8:4 as ordained ministers or laity makes very little difference.



Scott Bushey said:


> 2) Ministry, Minister, ministering
> a) sending?
> b) Is there a difference between an official sending and non-official?
> c) Are there particular characteristics that come w/ the term?



This term is very clearly used in a special and general sense in scripture. Paul was a minister of the gospel (Eph. 3:7). The word that is used here is _diakonos_ translated in the NKJV as a) minister(s), b) servant(s) and c) deacon(s). Was Paul a deacon? He was certainly a _servant_ but it does not follow that he also had the official office of _deacon_. Likewise, Phoebe is described as a servant (_diakonos_). Was her "ministry" the same as Paul's? Was she ordained to the office of deacon? The use of _diakonos_ also applies to non-church office in scriptures (see Matt. 22:13, 23:11, etc.). 

When the early church was first considering deacons, their mindset was probably not "what kind of exclusive term can we use for deacons so that we maintain theological precision?" but rather "what word is understood by all to describe this new public office?" "Servant" well describes the office, but it is certainly not to the exlusion of the ministry of others.

I'm working through the list slowly...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Dec 23, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Jack,
> I'm open to opinion; if u can show me biblically and historically that I am using a too narrow view, I will surely adjust. Can you do that? Provide me with any biblical and historic data on the contrary? I provided some reputable data biblically, historically and linguistically.



My concern is with the entire premise that we ought to take a bunch of theological words and nail down exactly how they may be used. Now, it isn't an entirely bad idea: narrow definitions can be very helpful in theological conversations, as they keep one from constantly having to explain in what sense one is using the word. So I have some sympathy for your opening post.

But when doing Bible study, it is necessary also to consider context, the writer's history of using a word, etc. It may well be that in the case of a unique word like "gospel" and its derivatives, especially since it is mostly used by Paul and his close associate Luke, the scriptural range of meaning is fairly limited. And since the word includes connotations of a proclamation, it is no surprise to see it used alongside the ministry of Jesus and the apostles and in announcements from angels.

But to observe such usage is not the same as to have an instruction that the label must only, ever be applied that way. Each time we encounter that word in the Bible (and especially if we encounter other, less unique theological words) we must be open to the possibility that the context, etc. means the writer is using it somewhat differently than our narrowest definition would allow. That's why your opening question seemed problematic to me.

To be open to this possibility that a writer is using a word differently than our narrowest definition allows is NOT liberalism. Liberal exegesis takes its definitions and imposes them on the Bible's meaning. I want to avoid that very thing.

Plus it's considerate to give others leeway, knowing how language is fluid. If I say anything meaningful about Jesus, in any context at all, it is likely to contain some of the same verbal content as the "gospel" Paul describes in 1 Cor. 15. It won't be the same sort of preaching/proclamation Paul also mentions there. But the fact that it includes some of the same content should allow us to admit there are similarities. And in such cases, people sometimes apply similar labels. It doesn't necessarily mean they are blurring the distinctions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Dec 23, 2017)

Galatians 1:6-9 seems to suggest Paul defines what is truly "gospel" more by the content of the message than by who does the speaking.

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

Again, this doesn't mean Paul will always use the word the exact same way everywhere else, since words tend to have a range of meaning. But here in Galatians 1, "gospel" seems mostly defined by the message content.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2017)

Jack,
I disagree; u make it sound as if there is no definite meaning to words. Most all textual critics would disagree. Paul was specific in what he always conveyed and in the background of all those statements is a structured polity. Just because you interpret what Paul meant with the faculties you have onboard, does not make it so.

No one would try and argue that some words are used in various fashions; however, given what we are discussing, as I have stated a number of times, these statements are being made with a biblical polity in mind and when they seem as if they are crossing over into a contrary idea that would go against a biblical polity, it must be discarded.

For instance, both you and Trevor have mentioned servanthood and proclamations/publishing; The Greek uses the same word for deacon or proclaiming. One not doctrinally sound may get this on it's ear; however, if we work forward from a biblical polity, the answer simply flows freely and the conflict is simply resolved.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 23, 2017)

Actually, I have nothing to say here about servanthood and deacons.


----------



## timfost (Dec 23, 2017)

In agreement with Jack, the reformed have always classified certain words that are used in different contexts in scripture as we all know well. For example, we see the word "call" sometimes referring to _effectual_ calling, sometimes to _general_ calling. Instead of insisting it is one or the other (which would actually lead to eisegesis), we simply add an adjective. Why not add some adjectives when we consider _evangelism_ or _ministry_? 

Problem solved!


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 23, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> You have asserted such several times, over and against Calvin. Please defend this as sheer assertion in unconvincing.


Paul in Ephesians 4:11 asserts to us the God has given to His church those offices, and while the ones of Apostles and prophets no longer are open, as those dealt with revelation and theology from God to His church, and that has been completed in the canon of Scriptures, those other offices are until the time when his church is mature in Christ, and that will not be fully obtained until the Second Coming, as Paul also stated that there will be no need for that when we all have the full knowledge, and only faith/hope and love still will abide.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 23, 2017)

timfost said:


> In agreement with Jack, the reformed have already classified certain words that are used in different contexts in scripture as we all know well. For example, we see the word "call" sometimes referring to _effectual_ calling, sometimes to _general_ calling. Instead of insisting it is one or the other (which would actually lead to eisegesis), we simply add an adjective. Why not add some adjectives when we consider _evangelism_ or _ministry_?
> 
> Problem solved!


Apostles, prophets, and also Evangelists seem to have been giving to the church at large, while the local assemblies seem to get the pastors and teachers.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 23, 2017)

timfost said:


> In agreement with Jack, the reformed have already classified certain words that are used in different contexts in scripture as we all know well. For example, we see the word "call" sometimes referring to _effectual_ calling, sometimes to _general_ calling. Instead of insisting it is one or the other (which would actually lead to eisegesis), we simply add an adjective. Why not add some adjectives when we consider _evangelism_ or _ministry_?
> 
> Problem solved!



If one has a systematic belief system we do admit that sometimes the context helps and sometimes the context of a systematic view of concepts help. I know the word "saved" is used in childbirth. Both the context and a systematic view help with what saved means. Now if the context appears to say one thing and the systematic view another, one ought to harmonize one to the other which is the way to "solve" the problem.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 23, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council;
> 
> _The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 5:22.
> 
> ...



So you have granted my point that all are involved in evangelism in some way. Just as all Christians are involved in ministry in some fashion. 

This at least is an admittance of the involvement of all instead of the same old tired refrain that, "No, they don't evangelize."


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 23, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Perg, I would say that evangelism, if narrowly defined to be the undertaking of those ordained to ministry, would carry with it an authority not present with those not so called. It has a teaching element to it; doctrine is being taught. As a sent ambassador he's been given the authority to speak the message, "Be reconciled to God."
> 
> Laymen can speak to others of Christ, that's been affirmed over and over. The biblical examples of how to speak are the woman at the well-"come and hear the man who told me everything I've ever done. Is this not the Messiah?" The demoniac- told to go and tell the great things God did for him. 1 Peter 3:15. Beyond that, all Christians are instructed to live in such a way that the gospel is adorned, and not shamed, and to do good to all men, and so on. Now that's the biblical data the Holy Spirit gave us regarding called and sent ambassadors and laypeople; in former times men seemed to carefully start with that data and then work out the practical application.
> 
> I have 2 daughters who are not believers and who pretty much scorn Christianity. I used to feel tremendous pressure to share the gospel with them, which would produce much eye rolling. The face is they'd both heard the gospel preached in church and have so far rejected it. As I began to better understand the biblical model of my role in bearing witness to Christ, I rejoiced in feeling that burden lifted. Now, I have opportunities now and then to speak simply of my love and appreciation for my Savior- he hath done great things, whereof we are glad. I said a few brief words to one hopeless-feeling daughter the other night of the hope that is in Christ. She didn't appreciate it but how can she argue with my belief? And she sees a changed life.


There is no reason to only narrowly define it. 

The same with ministry. We have both broad definitions and narrow definitions. When someone commonly uses the broader definition, there is not always a need to strive for accepting only the narrow definition and change the focus of the discussion to quibbling over terms.

The normal PB thread. Someone posts about some evangelistic effort....then the next 30 threads are spent arguing over the definition of evangelism. This is a needless distraction if we allow that there are both narrow and broad definitions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2017)

I updated the first section. Does everyone agree with this definition?


1) Evangelism, evangelist, evangelizing
a) is it an office or are all called to evangelize?

*answer*: It is an office. All are not called to the office. Some denominations still acknowledge the office (PCA/OPC). Most believe the office has passed with the passing of Apostleship. All are *_involved_* in the local church's evangelistic effort; the body is one. All laypersons work under the ordained person who is the central figure in evangelism. He is the evangelist, they are the infrastructure that makes the commission, whole. Evangelism is a team effort that all believers take part in.

The term 'evangelism' must be seen in two senses; It is important to understand that in the narrow sense, it is the evangelist/ordained man
who is evangelizing and in the wider sense, all are involved in the _effort_.


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 23, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> I updated the first section. Does everyone agree with this definition?
> 
> 
> 1) Evangelism, evangelist, evangelizing
> ...



Scott,
I think that is a good answer. Point of clarity for the OPC- "Evangelist" isn't a separate office from the minister, rather one of the potential roles of a minister (ie. minister, seminary prof, evangelist,...)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 23, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> rather one of the potential roles of a minister



10-4


----------



## timfost (Dec 23, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> It is an office. All are not called to the office. Some denominations still acknowledge the office (PCA/OPC). Most believe the office has passed with the passing of Apostleship. All are *_involved_* in the local church's evangelistic effort; the body is one. All laypersons work under the ordained person who is the central figure in evangelism. He is the evangelist, they are the infrastructure that makes the commission, whole. Evangelism is a team effort that all believers take part in.
> 
> The term 'evangelism' must be seen in two senses; It is important to understand that in the narrow sense, it is the evangelist/ordained man
> who is evangelizing and in the wider sense, all are involved in the _effort_.



Scott,

I do appreciate the effort you're making. Some comments if I may:

1. Evangelist is an office. Evangelism is the message of the gospel that goes out. This message can go forth from an evangelist (one holding the office), but evangelism itself is not limited to an office, nor is evangelism itself an office. I think you've conflated the _message_ with the _function_.

2. Your point about the infrastructure seems to be a technicality that allows you to take what you might call an official function (evangelism) and show the involvement of the laity without calling it evangelism. I think you use the term synonymously with preaching in some ways. It seems one can preach the evangel but the evangel is not only promulgated through preaching. This relates to my next point:

3. An ordained minister promulgates the evangel through _preaching_ and _witnessing_. While preaching is oriented in verbal proclamation, witnessing encompasses both word and life. One can witness without a word, but one cannot preach without words. Laity are not called to preach but are called to witness. Note, though, that the evangel shines forth through both preaching and witnessing.

I'm offering these up as my thoughts on the matter right now. I'm in the learning process. Again, I appreciate this effort to slow down and work on definitions with their full scriptural scope in mind.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 24, 2017)

timfost said:


> Your point about the infrastructure seems to be a technicality that allows you to take what you might call an official function (evangelism) and show the involvement of the laity without calling it evangelism. I think you use the term synonymously with preaching in some ways.



Updated section 1 with emphasis on the promulgation of the gospel.

Yes, we can utilize the same synonym with regard to 'preaching'. The lay-person is not involved in the narrow sense in preaching or evangelizing, but a helper in the task; the lay-person is not 'preaching or evangelizing, in the technical sense of the words, but assisting by sharing what was preached and evangelizing in the same way.

In the next section, 'minister, ministry, ministering'; I believe the same ideas expressed in section 1 can be attributed to section 2.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 24, 2017)

2) Ministry, Minister, ministering
a) sending?
b) Is there a difference between an official sending and non-official?
c) Are there particular characteristics that come w/ the term?


*C. The New Testament.*

1. Usage Generally.

a. The word group is comparatively rare in the NT, unlike words in δουλ- and διακον-. Furthermore the common Gk. ὑπηρεσία does not occur at all, let alone other terms. The distribution puts Luke (Lk. and Ac.) and John (Gospel only) in first place with nine instances each, while Mt. and Mk. have only two each. There is only one example in Paul. The verb occurs only three times in Ac.

b. The noun ὑπηρέτης is always used in a general sense similar to that of classical and Hellenistic Greek (→ 530, 13 ff.) including Philo (→ 535, 8 ff.) and Josephus (→ 536, 30 ff.): “assistant to another as the instrument of his will,” possibly in a system of integrated functions in which account is taken of specific needs. Connected with this is the fact that the specific function of a ὑπηρέτης is to be gleaned from the context in which he appears. This is true at any rate in most of the NT instances.

Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “Ὑπηρέτης, Ὑπηρετέω,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 539.


*D. The Early Church.*

In their use of the noun the post-apost. fathers have nothing new compared with the NT With ἄγγελος and ἄρχων it means “official” in the sense of “servant” Dg., 7, 2; cf. Barn., 16, 4, or with οἰκονόμος (*→* 542, 11 ff.) and πάρεδρος it has the sense of “functionary” Ign. Pol., 6, 1. The diaconate is ἐκκλησίας θεοῦ ὑπηρέται in Ign. Tr., 2, 3; possibly this follows Jewish usage *→* 537, 35 ff. Ign. Phld., 11, 1 has the verb for the ministry of a deacon associated with him, and the meaning is much the same in Herm. m., 8, 10; χήραις ὑπηρετεῖν, s., 9, 10, 2 and Barn., 1, 5 “to help,” “to assist,” the will of God being always in the background.

Later usage is along the same lines in Just. Apol., I, 14, 1; II, 2, 7, where ὑπηρέτης occurs along with “slave,” but is a “free servant” receiving and carrying out orders as such.


Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “Ὑπηρέτης, Ὑπηρετέω,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 543–544.


*answer*: Yes, ordained men are sent for a specific purpose and task; The promulgation of the gospel message to every tribe, tongue and nation is the primary reason behind the sending; It is a 'official' calling and sending of the local church to the ordained man alone-they are called _Ministers_. There is no such thing as an 'unofficial' call and sending; Their jobs are to ‘minister’. They are ministering. All are *_involved_* in the local church's ministerial effort; this is called ‘ministry’. Since the body is one, even the laypersons work under the ordained person who is the central figure in ministry, is a support system, assisting in the success of this ministry. He is the minister, they are the infrastructure that makes the ministry, whole. Ministry is a team effort that all believers take part in.

The term 'ministry' must be seen in two senses; It is important to understand that in the narrow sense, it is the ministry/ordained man who is ministering and in the wider sense, all are involved in the ministerial effort, but the actual title belongs to the church officer alone. In the wider sense, it could be said that the infrastructure is assisting in fulfilling the whole of the ministerial effort.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 24, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Perg, I would say that evangelism, if narrowly defined to be the undertaking of those ordained to ministry, would carry with it an authority not present with those not so called. It has a teaching element to it; doctrine is being taught. As a sent ambassador he's been given the authority to speak the message, "Be reconciled to God."





Pergamum said:


> There is no reason to only narrowly define it.



I took the purpose of the OP to be to narrow down labels and terms to the biblical and Reformed historical definitions, narrowing them down from the popular and broader ways in which they're currently used.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 24, 2017)

All, it would be so nice if we could explore in a more dispassionate way what the OP asked for, which was to define some biblical labels and terms. Scott, it may be more helpful to explain what you're looking for- I took you to mean to look strictly at how we can deduce this from the Scriptures themselves in a systematic way- did you also mean what they were historically held to mean from a Reformed (presbyterian and Baptist) perspective? I assumed so since you provided thoughts from historical commentators. Maybe the OP's wording needs to clarify more.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 25, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I took you to mean to look strictly at how we can deduce this from the Scriptures themselves in a systematic way- did you also mean what they were historically held to mean from a Reformed (presbyterian and Baptist) perspective?



Updated the OP to reflect 'historically and biblically'.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 25, 2017)

Next section on Preacher/teacher:

3) Preacher, preaching
a) (P)reaching vs (p)reaching-is there such a thing?
b) Is it a problem for the female gender to ever (p)reach?
c) Teacher vs preacher
d) Parents are called to teach their children-is this a different 'teaching'?


The word ‘preach, preacher, preaching, proclaim, herald, publish, must be seen in the same context as the previous distinctions. There is no such thing as (p)reaching, given that it is a characteristic of the office holder alone. The commission command is given to the leaders of the church, the ordained men to pursue the promulgation of the gospel message to all tribes, tongues and nations through the means of preaching; Since preaching is a means of grace, there are never times where preaching is distributed by a lay-person. Preaching is never divorced from the church-it is always an extension of the church and the man called, sent and ordained to the office. Hence, there is no such thing as (p)reaching, unless of course the ordained man who was called and sent is giving testimony in a setting where he cannot comfortably give the whole of the gospel message, secondary to space and time. It could be then said that the message he conveyed was (p)reaching vs (P)reaching.

Woman preachers: Since preaching is a means of grace, the gender associated with the office is always male. Woman are not called to the office; hence, whatever women do as an extension of the local church’s ministry, can never be said that they are _preaching_.

There are examples in scripture where a lay-person is said to be ‘proclaiming' or 'publishing' information; this proclamation is not official in the sense that the person doing this type of proclamation ordained to the official proclaiming of said information. In many instances, the person proclaiming or publishing may not be ordained. In these cases, it must be seen as an extension of the local church and its officers and can be seen as a witness, testimony, reasons for the hope that resides within themselves. It would be beneficial, when reading things of this nature, to jettison systematically from a biblical church polity to assist in coming to a correct conclusion on the matter.

Teacher: For the sake of this sections, we will use the terms (T)eacher to distinguish between an officer who is called to (T)each and a lay-person who (t)eaches:

*Given that I take a 4-office view on church government, that being, Elder-Teaching/Ruling, Deacon and Doctor, my assessment of the following section will hopefully reflect that.

Pastors are called to the office; Many (T)eachers are not pastors; however, both pastors and (T)eachers must be able to teach the flock. The (T)eacher, generally is an elder-it could also be a deacon. The pastor is called to preach, the (T)eacher is not. The way the information is given in the preaching, is different in form. (T)eaching is more academic and preaching must be seen in a spiritual realm where God is actually speaking through the pastor as his message is given. Preaching, at its core is to disseminate the gospel message. (T)eaching is more elaborate and meticulous; it also has the gospel message in the details, but it is not being disseminated via the means of grace as when the pastor does it. Preaching targets the heart. (T)eaching, the mind.


It could be said that there are strains of teachers; parents are called to (t)each their children; believers are to (t)each each other; the older woman is called to (t)each the younger.

John Gill helps here on the distinction:

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Titus 2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father; see Proverbs 1:8. Timothy, no doubt, received much advantage, from the private teachings and instructions of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois; but then women are not to teach in the church; for that is an act of power and authority, and supposes the persons that teach to be of a superior degree, and in a superior office, and to have superior abilities to those who are taught by them: nor to usurp authority over the man; as not in civil and political things, or in things relating to civil government; and in things domestic, or the affairs of the family; so not in things ecclesiastical, or what relate to the church and government of it; for one part of rule is to feed the church with knowledge and understanding; and for a woman to take upon her to do this, is to usurp an authority over the man: this therefore she ought not to do, but to be in silence; to sit and hear quietly and silently, and learn, and not teach, as in 1 Timothy 2:11."


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 26, 2017)

timfost said:


> Scott,
> 
> I do appreciate the effort you're making. Some comments if I may:
> 
> ...


The office of an Evangelist would seem in the scriptures to be someone called and empowered by God to head up and have authority in witnessing to the masses, someone such as a Billy Graham or a John Wesley, or a George Whitefield come to mind.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 26, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Next section on Preacher/teacher:
> 
> 3) Preacher, preaching
> a) (P)reaching vs (p)reaching-is there such a thing?
> ...


Do you see a distinction then between the pastor and teacher, as there are laity who are very good teachers in a church, without being ministers per say?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 26, 2017)

I make those distinctions in the section...



> Teacher: For the sake of this sections, we will use the terms (T)eacher to distinguish between an officer who is called to (T)each and a lay-person who (t)eaches:
> 
> Pastors are called to the office; Many (T)eachers are not pastors; however, both pastors and (T)eachers must be able to teach the flock. The (T)eacher, generally is an elder-it could also be a deacon. The pastor is called to preach, the (T)eacher is not. The way the information is given in the preaching, is different in form. (T)eaching is more academic and preaching must be seen in a spiritual realm where God is actually speaking through the pastor as his message is given. Preaching, at its core is to disseminate the gospel message. (T)eaching is more elaborate and meticulous; it also has the gospel message in the details, but it is not being disseminated via the means of grace as when the pastor does it. Preaching targets the heart. (T)eaching, the mind.
> 
> ...



Are you reading and processing the information...it always seems as if you aren't as u ask questions that are usually answered already.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 26, 2017)

Next two sections for review:



4) Witnessing/sharing/confessing/proclaiming/publishing
a) Are all called to witness and share?
b) Is there a difference between proclaiming Christ in a witness/share and preaching?

See answers for #3


5) The Great Commission
a) Is the commission for all and if so, is the term divorced from church polity and hierarchy?

In the previous sections, most of this is already addressed. However, I will devote some time to the specifics of the Great Commission. I wrote a paper on the subject a while back and I will cite some examples from my paper here:

The commission was given to the Apostles alone. They were to become the first officers of the New Testament expression of Christ’s church. 

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 28:16–20.

This is essentially the laying on of Christ’s hands and ordaining the eleven. It is an ordination ceremony; one never to be repeated!


Let’s look at the definition of the word commission:

to give a commission to: to commission a graduate of a military academy.

16.to authorize; send on a mission.

17.to give the order that places a warship, military command, etc., in a state of complete readiness for active duty.

If we consider our military, the officers are commissioned in a similar manner like our church officers. The enlisted people are not commissioned, in fact they are called ‘non commissioned officers. There is a big difference between the polity of the non com’s and the commissioned. Both camps have a specific designation and an official job classification. The officers, lead and the enlisted ranks submit to that leadership. If this level of hierarchy is aborted, the campaign suffers greatly and generally, as history has proved, the side that has a weak leadership, generally falls under destruction. The officers are set apart from the enlisted ranks. In fact, the military has a fraternization rule dividing the camps so as not to create a false unity for the sake of the safety of the troops. The same can be said of the officers of the church and their commissioning.


Dabney writes:
“With these preparatory truths, we wish to remind our readers of a few admitted Scripture facts. Christ, though Head of the church, has himself ordained the mode in which he wills his gospel shall be preached to mankind. He has instituted in the world a visible church, and appointed it to be “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). He has given it, at least in outline, its form, laws and officers, and has enjoined upon it though species of didactic and disciplinary functions it is to perform. He has taught this church that her public organic functions are all to be performed through these officers, whose names and places he has himself assigned. When he was pleased to ordain that “by the foolishness of preaching” those who believe are saved, he provided expressly how the preachers were to be selected and appointed.”


Calvin adds:
“19. Go out, therefore, and teach all nations. Though Mark, after having related that Christ appeared to the eleven disciples, immediately subjoins the command to preach the gospel, he does not speak of these as an unbroken series of events, for we learn from the enumeration of them which is given by Matthew, that the latter event did not take place before they had gone into Galilee. The meaning amounts to this, that by proclaiming the gospel everywhere, they should bring all nations to the obedience of the faith, and next, that they should seal and ratify their doctrine by the sign of the gospel. In Matthew, they are first taught simply to teach; but Mark expresses the kind of doctrine, that they should preach the gospel; and shortly afterwards Matthew himself adds this limitation, to teach them to observe all things whatsoever the Lord hath commanded.
Let us learn from this passage, that the apostleship is not an empty title, but a laborious office; and that, consequently, nothing is more absurd or intolerable than that this honor should be claimed by hypocrites, who live like kings at their ease, and disdainfully throw away from themselves the office of teaching. “

“In short, whoever does not fulfill the duties of a teacher acts wickedly and falsely by assuming the name of an apostle; and what is more—the priesthood of the New Testament consists in slaying men, as a sacrifice to God, by the spiritual sword of the word. Hence it follows, that all are but pretended and spurious priests who are not devoted to the office of teaching.”

These examples should delineate how the commission is to function in the church; there is something to be said of that which I have already illuminated in the earlier sections, that being, the commission is a body function; even though there is a hierarchy, no functioning part of the body is less important. For the process to work optimally, all gifts must be involved.

So, in short, the answer to the question is that the commission is for all. All have specific, particular jobs to do. However, the term is never divorced from a biblical hierarchy. To ignore this biblical polity is to ignore Christ’s command


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 27, 2017)

6) The church
a) Local church/visible
b) Universal/invisible church
c) Is one ever independent of their local membership?
d) The keys to the church-who holds them?


I have written a bit about question #6, a&b, so I will just refer you to my webpage on that portion:


http://www.semperreformanda.com/ecc...dex/is-the-church-a-new-testament-phenomenon/


WCF ch 25

OF THE CHURCH

1. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

3. Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

4. This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

5. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.

6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.


Local church/visible/universal/catholic:
Believers and unbelievers

Only living people

Many local churches that make up the whole

Many denominations

Differing types of government


Invisible/Universal/catholic
Only elect

Living and deceased

One church-not many

No single denomination-we will finally see truth.

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/12/the-local-church/


c) Is one ever independent of their local membership?


It is of my personal opinion that church membership comprises all of the believer’s life; for example, If I am caught stealing something at work, is it not important that my church be informed of this sin? Yes, my job will deal with the issue in their civil ways of dealing with things, but this punishment does not release me from the sin; my church needs to know. I need to confess this sin to my elders and submit to them in the matter. Is my family life divorced from my church life and membership? Again, in my opinion, nothing is separate. One may say, “Scott, my sex-life is personal and the church has no right to know about the quality or problems in my personal life”. There are arguments, biblically speaking to quash this attitude which I won’t go into. Does the church have a right to know how much money you make in your profession or how much tax you paid? There are arguments on both sides of the fence; I believe this all boils down to _devotion_. If you are submitting and you have nothing to hide, why is this an issue?


The local church does not force itself into one’s personal life unless it is reported as one of the realms of said personal life is sinful and needs over sight. The Book of Church order of the PCA states:

CHAPTER 3

The Nature and Extent of Church Power


3-1. The power which Christ has committed to His Church vests in the whole body, the rulers and those ruled, constituting it a spiritual commonwealth. This power, as exercised by the people, extends to the choice of those officers whom He has appointed in His Church.


3-2. Ecclesiastical power, which is wholly spiritual, is twofold. The officers exercise it sometimes severally, as in preaching the Gospel, administering the Sacraments, reproving the erring, visiting the sick, and comforting the afflicted, which is the power of order; and they exercise it sometimes jointly in Church courts, after the form of judgment, which is the power of jurisdiction.


3-3. The sole functions of the Church, as a kingdom and government distinct from the civil commonwealth, are to proclaim, to administer, and to enforce the law of Christ revealed in the Scriptures.


3-4. The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force. The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events. The Church has no right to construct or modify a government for the State, and the State has no right to frame a creed or polity for the Church. They are as planets moving in concentric orbits: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21).


3-5. The Church, with its ordinances, officers and courts, is the agency which Christ has ordained for the edification and government of His people, for the propagation of the faith, and for the evangelization of the world.


3-6. The exercise of ecclesiastical power, whether joint or several, has the divine sanction when in conformity with the statutes enacted by Christ, the Lawgiver, and when put forth by courts or by officers appointed thereunto in His Word.


d) The keys to the church-who holds them?


Matthew chapter 16 and 18 are pretty clear and conclusive in reference to who the keys are held by. The passage in chapter 16 is about leadership; 18 has to do with sin and discipline:

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 16:17–19.



15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 18:15–20.


Westminster Confession of Faith:
I. The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.

II. To these officers the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the word and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.

III. Church censures are necessary for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren; for deterring of others from like offenses; for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump; for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel; and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.

IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition, suspension from the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper for a season, and by excommunication from the Church, according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.


Since the gospel is a means of grace and as previously discussed, office holders are the only ones called to ‘preach’ the gospel message, it would follow then that the majority of men are only saved by the dissemination of this gospel message. Hence, the keys are held, primarily by the ordained and the church local. As well, since keys open and close doors, the gospel works in such a manner. It opens doors to the elect and closes or locks the door to Heaven to those who remain rebellious to its message. In church discipline, those rebellious to the discipline of the church, who refuse to repent, those doors are closed shut on those resistant.


7) The Gospel
a) Is it entrusted to all or is it given specifically to the local church?
b) Is the gospel any less affective if a lay-person gives witness to it outside of the local church setting?
c) Can a man be saved apart from the local church?
d) Is the bible ever divorced from the local church? Example: A man on an island finds a bible that has washed up on the beach-he reads it and is saved. can it be said that this man was saved outside of the oversight of the church?


a) As described above, the gospel is entrusted to the local church via the commission; as previously mentioned, it is a team effort. All are involved, in one way or another is making the commission, whole. There are the central players in the ordained and the supportive infrastructure in the laypeople involved.


b) The gospel is never ineffective; man cannot destroy the works of God. God’s word will never return void and will accomplish all that it is intended to accomplish.


c) A man can be saved apart from the local church; however, as previously discussed, especially here in America, most everyone has either been in a church at one time or another or knows who and what Christ represents. So, in essence, even these people can be said that the gospel they had heard at one time or another, ruminated form a local church setting. God can use a witnessing lay-person to finalize that which had begun elsewhere. These regenerated people will attach themselves to the local church as the Holy Spirit bears witness to the truths of the bride, in time. No man can be said to be a true believer who rejects the local church and the things attached to it. To reject the bride is to reject the son.


d) Since the scriptures are proclaimed in a local church, (this doesn’t necessarily mean there must be actual walls), it would seem that the scriptures are never apart from the bride in an absolute way. It is always part and parcel with the church; a man can be saved as I described, ‘on an island’ and if never break the doorway of a church, given the circumstance, even reaching glory, however, the scriptures are never divorced from the local church setting in one way or another as they were left for the church. Hence, that man is actually part of the visible church, even while marooned on an island. Consider all the doctrine on local church that is between its pages as an example.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 28, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Next section on Preacher/teacher:
> 
> 3) Preacher, preaching
> a) (P)reaching vs (p)reaching-is there such a thing?
> ...



TE's are pastors who teach by preaching and teaching and RE are called to rule. In other words, the office of a teacher in the church, other than a Pastor, is sorely lacking in scripture.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 28, 2017)

All elders are called to be apt to teach. The distinction between a TE Pastor (one who has the ordination to distribute the means of grace) and Ruling Elder/Teacher is obvious.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 28, 2017)

All those described in I Tim. 3:1-7 are called to be "apt to teach." In historic Presbyterianism, that has often been regarded as pertaining exclusively to ministers. This is true of Charles Hodge and many other partisans of a "three-office" (or "four-office") view. 

Hodge and others, for instance, find the ruling elder description limited to places like Romans 12:8 ("the one who leads") or I Cor. 12:28 ("helping, administrating"). They do not regard "apt to teach" as applicable to ruling elders. 

The OPC Form of Government, for instance, in FG X (on "Ruling Elders") does not list "apt to teach" as a requirement for elders. 

These differences in understanding the offices have become matters of significant debate in Presbyterian polity: to assert that the "distinction" between a TE and an RE is "obvious" is either unaware of or not properly reflective of this debate. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 28, 2017)

Alan,
I wasn't referring to the 'debate' as much as how the distinction is meted out practically in most churches.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 28, 2017)

Scott:

You said, "All elders are called to be apt to teach."

I don't agree with this. I think that ruling elders are called to join together with ministers in the joint governance of the church.

Ruling elders do not hold the teaching office and I don't believe that they are required as such to be "apt to teach." They may well be and I've known more than a few that are. But I do not believe that pertains to their particular office and thus I do not believe it to be a biblical requirement for "all elders."

This is a subject about which good men, including on this board, disagree. That is why I mentioned the debate. It is quite relevant, because we have differing views here, and in our denominations, of the precise nature of the offices of minister and ruling elder.

I am quite prepared to defend my view, but I am also quick to acknowledge that good men of the same doctrinal standards differ with me on this. This is why I have responded here as I have. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 28, 2017)

Alan,
Thanks for your answer. Have you written on the subject and if so, would love to peruse the paper.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 28, 2017)

Scott:

It's been cited on here not long ago, so I am loathe to do so again so soon, but here is one thing that I have published (I have other unpublished materials on the matter): http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=393&issue_id=90.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## earl40 (Dec 28, 2017)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Scott:
> 
> It's been cited on here not long ago, so I am loathe to do so again so soon, but here is one thing that I have published (I have other unpublished materials on the matter): http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=393&issue_id=90.
> 
> ...



Pastor Strange, you being a historian, when exactly did the idea of RE's teaching within the congregation arise in Presbyterianism? I strongly suspect it creeped in gradually and was not challenged, and if so without success. I find it interesting to find any old theological writings penned by non TE's are few and far between.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 28, 2017)

Earl:

Short answer: it began in the nineteenth-century in Scotland and America with the development of the two-office theory (Reformed and Presbyterian polity had been decidedly three- or four-office before then; four-office and three-office are variations on a theme whereas two-office takes a different approach). 

In addition to the link to my article from _Ordained Servant _on the office question (in #67, above), this article from Greg Reynolds on "Democracy and the Denigration of Office" might also prove interesting/useful: http://www.amoskeagchurch.org/wp-co...R-Democracy-and-the-Denigration-of-Office.pdf.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Informative 2


----------

