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

[JimmyH]

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]

Agreed.

 

[Jack K]

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.

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.

 

[Scott Bushey]

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]

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.

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...

 

[Jack K]

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.

 

[Jack K]

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]

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]

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

 

[timfost]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Scott Bushey]

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]

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.

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,...)

 

[Scott Bushey]

rather one of the potential roles of a minister

10-4

 

[timfost]

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]

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]

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]

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."

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]

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]

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'.

 

[Scott Bushey]

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]

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.

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]

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:

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.

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]

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.


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.

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]

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]

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.