Is the Great Commission only to Apostles?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeremy,
It seems to me that there is another choice that may not have occured to you:

Your gifts and willingness to "put yourself out there" may be an indicator that you are called to service in the church that is not ministerial, or official in any way, or perhaps in time as an elder or deacon. Your engagements with unbelievers should be under the oversight of your officers, and according as you are equipped for the task.

In my opinion, you shouldn't be (or view yourself) as a lone-ranger-operator, with no connection between the "church-work" of evangelism you are doing, and the church to which you belong. We are far, far away from being Roman in our view of the church, but historically speaking, your service to Christ is never divorced from your connection to Christ in his church. When you think about it, this is even true when the church itself--acting in an ungodly way--persecutes the faithful.


But I would also say another thing, concerning the "method" you describe above:

It still looks to me like something akin to the "bait-and-switch" approach. When the folks take the "quiz," do they understand up-front that they are being contacted by the church? That the goal is to confront them with their SIN by means of the Law of God, and when they have been convicted to then present them the sure promise of comfort by the gospel, and citizenship in the Kingdom?

The problem with a churchless gospel is that the gospel gets divorced from the church. If a sinner only needs the gospel when he "gets saved," then the gospel ends up as little mor than the doorway, the threshold, of the way to Christ. But the gospel is the savor of life for the Christian every day. It is his comfort not only the hour he first believed, but every hour thereafter. We get gospel comfort (or should) every Sunday. If the minister/officers/church is essentially superfluous for evangelism, why is any of it important afterward?

And, of course, that is just what we've seen in Christianity of late. No more importance attached to the church. The gospel is not recognized as vital to our Christian life after the "moment of salvation," so why do we need the minister of the gospel? In this view, what we need is a man (or woman!) with talents for public speaking, charismatic (in the carnal sense), who is a good "life-coach." Oprah or Dr.Phil with a stack of Bible verses.

If you haven't read the articles linked above in Joy's post, I recommend them. They will assist your thinking in this area. Please do not be discouraged in well-doing. Continue to think about these things, and do not be afraid of "starting" a Christian conversation, for "fear" of doing "unauthorized" evangelism. Just think about it the right way, in connection to the church--visible as well as invisible--and categorically, in the way of our separate callings.

And never forget the gospel is an everyday, week-by-week thing for every believer.
 
Jeremy,
It seems to me that there is another choice that may not have occured to you:

Your gifts and willingness to "put yourself out there" may be an indicator that you are called to service in the church that is not ministerial, or official in any way, or perhaps in time as an elder or deacon. Your engagements with unbelievers should be under the oversight of your officers, and according as you are equipped for the task.

I agree completely. That's one of the main reasons why I do the outreach in the context of my church. Most of the time when that occurs, an elder is with me. I'm glad that he's out there with me, too.

But I've also applied what you said above to the other ministry (the one linked to in my sig). I had been involved in that even before I became a member at my current church, so it's actually a separate outreach. The ministry had actually been started by others and completely apart from any local church. Later, after I got involved in it and the original founders left, I made the move to bring it under my church's authority, with my pastor's agreement.

In my opinion, you shouldn't be (or view yourself) as a lone-ranger-operator, with no connection between the "church-work" of evangelism you are doing, and the church to which you belong. We are far, far away from being Roman in our view of the church, but historically speaking, your service to Christ is never divorced from your connection to Christ in his church. When you think about it, this is even true when the church itself--acting in an ungodly way--persecutes the faithful.

I agree, Bruce. I'm totally on board with the truth and necessity of doing ministry within the context of the local church. In recent years I have developed a healthy distrust of anyone or any group that sets up on their own apart from any sending body or authority.

But I would also say another thing, concerning the "method" you describe above:

It still looks to me like something akin to the "bait-and-switch" approach. When the folks take the "quiz," do they understand up-front that they are being contacted by the church? That the goal is to confront them with their SIN by means of the Law of God, and when they have been convicted to then present them the sure promise of comfort by the gospel, and citizenship in the Kingdom?

I'd say that yes, doctrinally, the quiz communicates all that up front, except perhaps for the part about being contacted by the church. The quiz focuses entirely on doctrinal content--God, sin (using the Ten Commandments), Jesus Christ, faith and repentance, so no mention is made, or is rarely made, of the specific church with which we are associated. It does come up at times, but I would not say that we make it a point to speak of it.

Incidentally, the quiz we use can be found here:
http://www.alexandriago.org/AGO%20-%20ARE%20YOU%20GOOD%20ENOUGH%20mult.%20choice%20-%20answers%20at%20end%20-%207-17-09.pdf.

I welcome any feedback you might feel like giving about it.

The problem with a churchless gospel is that the gospel gets divorced from the church. If a sinner only needs the gospel when he "gets saved," then the gospel ends up as little mor than the doorway, the threshold, of the way to Christ. But the gospel is the savor of life for the Christian every day. It is his comfort not only the hour he first believed, but every hour thereafter. We get gospel comfort (or should) every Sunday. If the minister/officers/church is essentially superfluous for evangelism, why is any of it important afterward?

I agree. One thing that has disturbed me about so much evangelism out there is that often it consists only of seed sowing, if you will, while leaving the work of disciple-making undone. This is a bit different from what you spoke of above, but it's still related. Often many who do evangelistic outreach, as I have noticed, are content with presenting the gospel and then leaving the person with whom they spoke out in the cold, so to speak, with no follow-up. That is a tragic omission. Doing evangelism in and through the local church, I think, goes a long way toward avoiding such an omission.

And, of course, that is just what we've seen in Christianity of late. No more importance attached to the church. The gospel is not recognized as vital to our Christian life after the "moment of salvation," so why do we need the minister of the gospel? In this view, what we need is a man (or woman!) with talents for public speaking, charismatic (in the carnal sense), who is a good "life-coach." Oprah or Dr.Phil with a stack of Bible verses.

If you haven't read the articles linked above in Joy's post, I recommend them.

I did, in fact, read a couple of them. They definitely got me thinking about the issue.

Thanks for your thoughts and insights. :D
 
I apologize if I frustrated anyone, was not my intention. Sorry, was just trying to figure out things and press some points to try to figure out why yall believe what you believe.
 
Last edited:
Jason,

I appreciated the remarks of those above who defend lay-evangelism as falling under the umbrella of the Great Commission. I have written a three-part series that examines the view of those Reformed teachers who limit evangelism to the ordained clergy, and I seek to refute this notion by examining several key passages in the NT that, in my estimation, clearly support the notion of lay-evangelism. Part 1 and Part 3 are especially relevant to this discussion.

Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Evangelism, Part 1
Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Evangelism, Part 2
Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Evangelism, Part 3

Your servant,
 
I think most ideas surrounding the modern day understanding of "evangelism" is a product of several things:

1. Revivalism - Since Finney and beyond there's this pressing for decisions, etc. that has so pervaded "evangelicalism," I believe this has trickled down to the more "Broadly Reformed" folks' understanding of what evangelism is. The ministers then impress upon the layfolk of how they ought to be "evangelizing." This pressure mounts and everyone's all of a sudden a missionary. Sure, folks may not be pressing them to say the sinners prayer, etc. but they take upon themselves the mantle of being the "ministers of reconciliation," when that responsibility, duty, and privilege are for ministers. They are the ones beseeching the lay folk to be reconciled unto Christ.

2. Egalitarianism - Flowing from Revivalism, since now every Christian is a missionary proper, there is this idea that everyone must be a "soul winner." It doesn't matter if they can't properly articulate the Scriptures or not. It doesn't matter if they are inverts who shutter at the thought of talking to complete strangers in awkward moments of confrontation. No, "God can use it." That's not the point, however. From this, I think arises the greatest detriment that has been a result of revivalism:

3. Misunderstanding of Calling - Christians are to be contented in their place and stations and do what it is with which they are gifted really well. THIS is the mark of a Christian. And, if those gifts be ministering, teaching, articulating the gospel, and they meet all the other qualifications of an elder, then the local session will recognize such, present said man to presbytery, and the rightful process will be undertaken to accomplish such. The problem with modern day thoughts of "evangelists" is a result of folks being discontent with their place and station, and wanting something different than that to which they are rightly gifted and called. They see some kind of romantic view of what ministry is and aspire towards.

It is a noble thing to desire to be an officer in the Church Paul tells us. No doubt. But there is a process to getting there, and the ministry belongs to ministers.

I smell the genetic fallacy in the reasoning above: attempt to discredit a legitimate position by associating it with imbalances, aberrations, or extremes. In point of fact, the NT accords the ordinary rank-and-file saints the role of "ministry" and "evangelism." The kind of ministry and level of evangelism in which they engage will be conditioned and circumscribed by gift and providence. But to limit ministry and evangelism to the "ordained" clergy is patently unbiblical.

---------- Post added at 11:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------

Christian friends, shine your light with all your might, testify the rich grace of God which you have received, share your faith with as many as will listen, always be ready to give an answer for the hope that you have; but please do not represent this as the activity of mission or evangelism. Unless a person has gone, been sent, and entered upon the life-course of preaching the gospel, he is not actively and personally undertaking the work of mission or evangelism in the biblical sense of the term. It is the rejection of the biblical concept of mission and evangelism which has led to the very sad state of affairs in the present day where churches are suffering from a lack of men committed to the ministry.

Mr. Winzer's reasoning is, I'm afraid, quite fallacious. I don't doubt his zeal for the church. I agree with his recognition of the unique place of the clergy. But I think his attempt to restrict the privilege and stewardship of "evangelism in the biblical sense of the term" to the province of clergy is quite contrary to the biblical data and reflects a kind of clericalism foreign to NT Christianity. Like flies in the ointment of the apothecary, this kind of "High Calvinism" lacks the fragrance of a full-orbed Christianity. I'm surprised that so many readers would be persuaded by such reasoning that runs contrary to the teaching of the NT.

---------- Post added at 11:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 PM ----------

v.12 is properly parsed in the older KJV, and infelicitously parsed in many recent translations. The "work of the ministry" is one of the three reasons listed for the "pastors-teachers" et al, in the previous verse; along with "equipping the saints" and "building up {or edifying} the body of Christ {that is the church}."

For a rebuttal of Reverend Buchanan's "clerical" view of Ephesians 4:12, see my article "Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Evangelism, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. The weight of NT evidence does not tip the scales in his direction. The saints, as well as the ordained minister, are granted the privilege and stewardship both to minister and to evangelize. Listen to Calvin's exposition of Acts 6:7-9:
Therefore, in keeping with the teaching Luke gives here, let us learn that we constitute a true church of God when we try our best to increase the number of believers. And then each one of us, where we are, will apply all our effort to instructing our neighbours and leading them to the knowledge of God, as much by our words as by our showing them good examples and good behaviour. That is also why holy Scripture exhorts us so often to win to God those who remain alienated from his church, for we see unbelievers as poor lost sheep. Our Lord has not given us insight into his truth for our advantage alone, but for sharing it with others. Because we see them as madmen casting themselves into hell, we must, to the extent we can, prevent them from doing so and procure their salvation. That, I tell you, is the zeal all Christians must have if they are not to limit themselves just to the public worship of God (emphasis added). (John Calvin, �Learning, Teaching, and Living the Gospel Message� (sermon on Acts 6.7-9) in Sermons on the Acts of the Apostles (Chapters 1-7)[Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2008], 335-36.)​
 
Last edited:
Before we even arrive at the making of disciples and baptising-teaching part of the commission, there is one extremely important word that must not be overlooked -- GO!


This should not be looked as going to another country. It is properly translated "AS you go" or 'As you are going' Which being in the passive participle leads me to believe it could be translated as something like; 'As you are following me" It is not an action or imperative men can perform without the power of Christ leading them.
 
Rather than a command, evangelism is the natural inclination of true believers. A person who has been so gloriously saved, who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God, and who has seen a picture of the glories to come WILL have a desire to tell others. It will be a natural outflow of their life. The reason so many people are having to be "commanded" to evangelize, is that goats don't typically act like sheep. They have to be coerced.
 
Rather than a command, evangelism is the natural inclination of true believers. A person who has been so gloriously saved, who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God, and who has seen a picture of the glories to come WILL have a desire to tell others. It will be a natural outflow of their life. The reason so many people are having to be "commanded" to evangelize, is that goats don't typically act like sheep. They have to be coerced.

Helpful observation, Damon. That is why the bulk of NT data related to lay-evangelism is descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words, the NT writers spend more time describing ordinary saints engaged in evangelism than commanding ordinary saints to evangelize. Of course, the Christian's privilege, stewardship, and responsibility may be established by precedent as well as precept. In any case, you are correct. Those who've know and have experienced the saving power and benefits of the gospel ought to have a desire to share the gospel spoil with those in need.
 
The view of Mr. Gonzales, (1.) gives to the church and the world an evangelism which is without divine appointment and gifting. In the New Testament the body of Christ is said to be gifted by the risen Christ; we have some gifts which relate to speech and some which relate to action. The apostle Peter explicitly distinguishes these two. If every Christian is not gifted to speak then evangelism cannot be the function of every Christian. (2.) His view also individualises evangelism so as to make it unaccountable. The great commission is a charge -- GO -- to a group. It requires submission and sacrifice. Throughout the Acts of the Apostles we find that evangelism is carried forward by men who were set apart to the work, who answered to the church for their work, and who were willing to sacrifice earthly callings in order to fulfil their course. (3.) Finally, his view obscures the nature of the church as visible. If evangelism were the office of every Christian then individuals could be saved without the ordinary means of grace, and would fill the world with numerous believers detached from the visible church. This is contrary to the view of the New Testament, where we find evangelism also entailed the work of gathering churches, confirming saints, and making provision for office-bearers.

Dear friends, be active and diligent in using all the gifts that God has given you to further the cause of Christ, but please do not listen to people who think that flattery is the way to motivate Christians. If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body and with the mind of Christ.
 
Last edited:
The view of Mr. Gonzales, (1.) gives to the church and the world an evangelism which is without divine appointment and gifting. In the New Testament the body of Christ is said to be gifted by the risen Christ; we have some gifts which relate to speech and some which relate to action. The apostle Peter explicitly distinguishes these two. If every Christian is not gifted to speak then evangelism cannot be the function of every Christian. (2.) His view also individualises evangelism so as to make it unaccountable. The great commission is a charge -- GO -- to a group. It requires submission and sacrifice. Throughout the Acts of the Apostles we find that evangelism is carried forward by men who were set apart to the work, who answered to the church for their work, and who were willing to sacrifice earthly callings in order to fulfil their course. (3.) Finally, his view obscures the nature of the church as visible. If evangelism were the office of every Christian then individuals could be saved without the ordinary means of grace, and would fill the world with numerous believers detached from the visible church. This is contrary to the view of the New Testament, where we find evangelism also entailed the work of gathering churches, confirming saints, and making provision for office-bearers.

This argument (the portion in bold) doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't those who are saved by grace through faith begin attending a church and thus become a part of the visible church? In the NT there were multitudes that heard the gospel in the public and were saved. In what way were they a part of the visible church before this conversion? And the eunuch that Phillip baptized, was he not detached until he came to a city and presumably gathered with Christians? The same events would be true for a new convert today.

Dear friends, be active and diligent in using all the gifts that God has given you to further the cause of Christ, but please do not listen to people who think that flattery is the way to motivate Christians. If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body and with the mind of Christ.

I'm not sure, are you suggesting that Dr. G's position is one of flattery? That is how it is easily read. If that is what you intend to say, that is an uncharitable statement.
 
This argument (the portion in bold) doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't those who are saved by grace through faith begin attending a church and thus become a part of the visible church? In the NT there were multitudes that heard the gospel in the public and were saved. In what way were they a part of the visible church before this conversion? And the eunuch that Phillip baptized, was he not detached until he came to a city and presumably gathered with Christians? The same events would be true for a new convert today.

They were baptised. Are those "saved" by every believer evangelism baptised? No.

I'm not sure, are you suggesting that Dr. G's position is one of flattery? That is how it is easily read. If that is what you intend to say, that is an uncharitable statement.

If you must read my words a certain way in order to impute to me an uncharitable statement, charity says that you should read them another way.
 
I'm not sure, are you suggesting that Dr. G's position is one of flattery? That is how it is easily read. If that is what you intend to say, that is an uncharitable statement.

If you must read my words a certain way in order to impute to me an uncharitable statement, charity says that you should read them another way.

Which is precisely why I charitably asked what you meant and responded to what it could easily be read as. I did not assume what you meant or impute anything to your true intentions. To the question though, were you referring to Dr. G? I'm not sure who exactly you are talking about when you say, "please do not listen to people who think that flattery is the way to motivate Christians," especially when you conclude by saying "If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body and with the mind of Christ" when it can easily appear that this is contrasted with individuals evangelizing, which you contradicted in your first paragraph.
 
Which is precisely why I charitably asked what you meant and responded to what it could easily be read as. I did not assume what you meant or impute anything to your true intentions. To the question though, were you referring to Dr. G? I'm not sure who exactly you are talking about when you say, "please do not listen to people who think that flattery is the way to motivate Christians," especially when you conclude by saying "If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body and with the mind of Christ" when it can easily appear that this is contrasted with individuals evangelizing, which you contradicted in your first paragraph.

My words are what they are -- a general appeal to beware of something. If a particular individual's conscience is awakened by that general statement then that particular individual will need to deal with his conscience. If his conscience does not accuse him then the statement does not apply to him and he can pass it off as something which concerns others rather than himself.

Please, if you are going to deal with the words of others, treat them as you find them and try not to add things into them which are not stated. As it stands, you are the one who have brought a particular individual into the statement and therefore turned a general cautionary statement into a personal accusation.
 
Please, if you are going to deal with the words of others, treat them as you find them and try not to add things into them which are not stated. As it stands, you are the one who have brought a particular individual into the statement and therefore turned a general cautionary statement into a personal accusation.

If you were not referring to his position, that's great. Thank you.
 
My words are what they are -- a general appeal to beware of something. If a particular individual's conscience is awakened by that general statement then that particular individual will need to deal with his conscience. If his conscience does not accuse him then the statement does not apply to him and he can pass it off as something which concerns others rather than himself.
Since I've been rightly accused of uncharitable comments in the past, this is a point that I need to learn.
 
The view of Mr. Gonzales, (1.) gives to the church and the world an evangelism which is without divine appointment and gifting. In the New Testament the body of Christ is said to be gifted by the risen Christ; we have some gifts which relate to speech and some which relate to action. The apostle Peter explicitly distinguishes these two. If every Christian is not gifted to speak then evangelism cannot be the function of every Christian.

Greetings, Matthew. It's been a while since we've interacted. For some reason, you keep misspelling my name. It ends with an "s" not a "z." No offense. In response to your first point, I don't argue that Christ has bestowed all gifts equally to each and every saint. In other words, I'm not an egalitarian. What I do reject is the notion that evangelism is the sole province of the ordained clergy. The numerous passages I adduce demonstrate Christ has gifted many laypeople with the gift of utterance and that they did in fact employ that gift in the work of evangelism. The task of the Great Commission devolves on the church as a whole, not exclusively on the clergy. Hence, your view unduly restricts the warrant Christ himself has given to his church to be a missionary agent in the world.

(2.) His view also individualises evangelism so as to make it unaccountable. The great commission is a charge -- GO -- to a group. It requires submission and sacrifice. Throughout the Acts of the Apostles we find that evangelism is carried forward by men who were set apart to the work, who answered to the church for their work, and who were willing to sacrifice earthly callings in order to fulfil their course.

Poppycock! Every saint is accountable ultimately to Christ and more immediately to his church. My view endorses no sort of "lone ranger" Christianity. "Go" certainly requires submission and sacrifice, but those demands are not just directed to clergymen. Every disciple who would come after Jesus must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus. Indeed, those who fail to confess Jesus before men, will not be owned by Jesus before God (including laypeople). Moreover, throughout Acts we find that evangelism is carried forward NOT ONLY by men who were officially commissioned to the office of pastor-teacher BUT ALSO by those who did not occupy the pastoral office. Certainly, those set apart with extra-ordinary gifts may lead the way, but they are by no means the sole possessors of the privilege and stewardship of spreading the good news. This point is well-established in my articles where I expound a handful of key passages. You'll not advance your case very far until you address the data presented that contradicts your "clerical" view.

(3.) Finally, his view obscures the nature of the church as visible. If evangelism were the office of every Christian then individuals could be saved without the ordinary means of grace, and would fill the world with numerous believers detached from the visible church. This is contrary to the view of the New Testament, where we find evangelism also entailed the work of gathering churches, confirming saints, and making provision for office-bearers.

What? How does my view "obscure the nature of the visible church"? The goal of evangelism, whether done by laypeople or pastors, is to make disciples and incorporate those disciples into the visible church. The "ordinary means of grace" includes the proclamation of the gospel. Are you suggesting that we limit such "ordinary means" exclusively to the Sunday sermons of pastors? If so, you ignore not only the NT data but God's providence in church history. Writes Kenneth Scott Latourette, Yale church historian,
The chief agents in the expansion of Christianity appear not to have been those who made it a profession or a major part of their occupation, but men and women who earned their livelihood in some purely secular manner and spoke of their faith to those whom they met in this natural fashion (A History of the Expansion of Christianity [Harper & Brothers, 1937], 1:116.).
For what it's worth, it was an ordinary layman whom God used as the first and primary instrument to communicate the gospel to me and to bring me to Christ. And as a pastor who's heard plenty of testimonies of conversion, I can assure you that my experience is not exceptional.

Dear friends, be active and diligent in using all the gifts that God has given you to further the cause of Christ, but please do not listen to people who think that flattery is the way to motivate Christians. If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body and with the mind of Christ.

"Flattery"? Do you really think I'm trying to "flatter" laypeople into thinking that they have a privilege and stewardship to love their unsaved neighbor as themselves and that they should do unto that unsaved neighbor what they would want that unsaved neighbor to do for them? Is it flattery to tell God's people that they're likely to suffer persecution if they attempt to fulfill their calling as salt and light in the world?

I do agree with your closing statement: "If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body [every member doing his part] and with the mind of Christ [which is expressed in the NT and which, contrary to your viewpoint, does not limit the work of evangelism or sharing the good news of the gospel to the ordained clergy.]"

Dear friends, I would urge you not to be persuaded by the arguments of Reverend Winzer but by the data of the NT, which supports lay-evangelism (click here to see for yourself). The enemies of Calvinism charge it with promoting a version of Christianity that quenches evangelistic effort and zeal. Let's not provide them with justification to charge us with "hyper-Calvinism." For those interested, I would encourage you to be persuaded rather by the Reverend C. H. Spurgeon's address, "How to Induce our People to Win Souls," which may be found in his book The Soul-Winner. For those interested in a more scholarly defense of lay-evangelism, see Robert L. Plummer, Paul's Understanding of the Church's Mission: Did the Apostle Paul Expect the Early Christian Communities to Evangelize? (Paternoster, 2006).

Your servant,
 
Last edited:
The view of Mr. Gonzales, (1.) gives to the church and the world an evangelism which is without divine appointment and gifting. In the New Testament the body of Christ is said to be gifted by the risen Christ; we have some gifts which relate to speech and some which relate to action. The apostle Peter explicitly distinguishes these two. If every Christian is not gifted to speak then evangelism cannot be the function of every Christian.

Greetings, Matthew. It's been a while since we've interacted. For some reason, you keep misspelling my name. It ends with an "s" not a "z." No offense.

Shrugs shoulders.

In other words, I'm not an egalitarian. What I do reject is the notion that evangelism is the sole province of the ordained clergy. http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/...se-of-lay-ministry-and-lay-evangelism-part-3/


Let's be clear. You are claiming this activity is "evangelism," yet you have no basis in Scripture for calling it such. Where you part ways with Scripture the Bible believer must part ways with you. So far as personally communicating the teachings of Christianity with others is concerned, no one has called this the exclusive province of ordained men. Your reaction is an over-reaction.

A second clarification -- you choose to use the term, "ordained clergy." "Clergy" is your description. I have only emphasised an ordained "ministry." If you are going to attack a position you should make sure it is the correct one.

The task of the Great Commission devolves on the church as a whole, not exclusively on the clergy. Hence, your view strips unduly restricts the warrant Christ himself has given to his church to be a missionary agent in the world.

Sending, baptism, and instruction does not devolve on the church as a whole. Hence you are failing to distinguish things that differ. Every believer should be concerned to see the great commission fulfilled, but every believer is not actively participating in the duties enjoined in the great commission.

My view endorses no sort of "lone ranger" Christianity. "Go" certainly requires submission and sacrifice, but those demands are not just directed to clergymen. Every disciple who would come after Jesus must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus. Indeed, those who fail to confess Jesus before men, will not be owned by Jesus before God (including laypeople). Moreover, throughout Acts we find that evangelism is carried forward NOT ONLY by men who were officially commissioned to the office of pastor-teacher BUT ALSO by those who did not occupy the pastoral office. Certainly, those set apart with extra-ordinary gifts may lead the way, but they are by no means the sole possessors of the privilege and stewardship of spreading the good news.

You are failing to strictly apply terms and their meanings. Those who deal with the commission in a serious exegetical way are careful to define the "going" mentioned by the Lord in contrast to the "go not" of the commission of chapter 10. There is no doubt that it is tied to the idea of "mission."

You state the ordained ministry has extra-ordinary gifts. Some attention to detail will show that ministers exercise ordinary gifts in the fulfilment of their function; and it is undoubtedly the case that these gifts are given by God to equip them for the office they are to fulfil, and have been proven by the church in a process of ordinary calling. Nothing less than the same ordinary, biblical process should be required by others who wish to exercise these "gifts."

The goal of evangelism, whether done by laypeople or pastors, is to make disciples and incorporate those disciples into the visible church.

Then, by your own definition, unordained people do not engage in the work of evangelism because unordained people are not authorised to add people to the church by baptism.
 
Of course Matthew's (armourbearer's) position is based on Presbyterian ecclesiology. Being Baptist myself, and seeing a complete lack in the scriptures of any such hierarchial church government/authority, and believing firmly that each believer's authority is Christ Himself (we need no other mediator), I wholeheartedly reject the idea that evangelism is done only through the authority of the leadership of the Church. I myself was saved by a sovereign God, through a co-worker who evangelized me, with no sponsorship or authority granted from his church.

The believer needs no other authority (for evangelism) than Christ Himself, and the Holy Spirit of God, who is present with all regenerate persons. The appeal that since every Christian is "not gifted to speak" so therefore "evangelism cannot be the function of every Christian" is unbelievably false and refuted by multiple scriptures. My answer for that would be the same answer God gave Moses:

Exo 4:10 But Moses said to the LORD, "Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue."

God's purpose is not accomplished through well spoken, polished, and perfect men. God's will is often accomplished through the weak, stuttering, and scared man or woman, who is wise enough to rely on the power of Christ, rather than their own abilities.
 
Exo 4:10 But Moses said to the LORD, "Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue."
Not polished or perfect, but certainly ordained.

You're confusing living as a witness, being ready to give an answer, with the ordained and commissioned work of evangelism.
 
I myself was saved by a sovereign God, through a co-worker who evangelized me, with no sponsorship or authority granted from his church.

Were you "saved," in the complete biblical sense of the word, i.e., the Lord adding you to the church, Acts 2:47? I think not; and if you took a moment to reflect on this subject with something other than a concern to validate your religious experiences you would see that the proper definition of "evangelism" is more than a matter of settling ecclesial structure but pertains to the proper means of nourishing souls unto eternal life in the now/not yet reality of Christian salvation.
 
Let's be clear. You are claiming this activity is "evangelism," yet you have no basis in Scripture for calling it such. Where you part ways with Scripture the Bible believer must part ways with you. So far as personally communicating the teachings of Christianity with others is concerned, no one has called this the exclusive province of ordained men. Your reaction is an over-reaction.

Yes, let's be clear--the Reverend Winzer has yet to interact with the articles I've posted. For anyone interested in the exegetical evidence supporting the notion that terminology related to "evangelism" is applied to disciples not ordained to the office of pastor or missionary, please take the time to read my post in defense of lay-evangelism (especially the final section entitled, "A Word About Words"). I demonstrate that folks like the Reverend Winzer, Daryl Hart, and R. Scott Clark are not competent linguists.

A second clarification -- you choose to use the term, "ordained clergy." "Clergy" is your description. I have only emphasised an ordained "ministry." If you are going to attack a position you should make sure it is the correct one.

Okay. How about this from the Encyclopedia Britannica: "clergy"- a body of ordained ministers in a Christian church (emphasis added).

The task of the Great Commission devolves on the church as a whole, not exclusively on the clergy. Hence, your view strips unduly restricts the warrant Christ himself has given to his church to be a missionary agent in the world.

Sending, baptism, and instruction does not devolve on the church as a whole. Hence you are failing to distinguish things that differ. Every believer should be concerned to see the great commission fulfilled, but every believer is not actively participating in the duties enjoined in the great commission.

"Making disciples," which is the one imperative of the passage and, therefore, stands at the heart of the Great Commission, is the church's task. The "clergy" or "ordained ministry" is accorded a special and unique rule in this task, but they're calling does not exhaust the task, which is given to the church as a whole. Matthew 28:19-20 must be interpreted in light of the rest of NT data related to the activity of the rank-and-file believers who were engaged in evangelizing the lost. Why are you restricting the basis of your clerical view to Matthew 29:18-20? This is certainly a key text. But it must be interpreted in keeping with the analogy of Scripture. Why aren't you trying to deal with the several passages I've advanced in support of lay-evangelism.

You are failing to strictly apply terms and their meanings. Those who deal with the commission in a serious exegetical way are careful to define the "going" mentioned by the Lord in contrast to the "go not" of the commission of chapter 10. There is no doubt that it is tied to the idea of "mission."

Matthew, I'm a trained linguist. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you're obviously not. You apparently retain the outmoded and discredited notion that certain terms can only have "technical" meanings when in fact they may also have more common or non-technical meanings. I'd recommend for starters that you read Donald Carson's Exegetlcal Fallacies.

You state the ordained ministry has extra-ordinary gifts. Some attention to detail will show that ministers exercise ordinary gifts in the fulfilment of their function; and it is undoubtedly the case that these gifts are given by God to equip them for the office they are to fulfil, and have been proven by the church in a process of ordinary calling. Nothing less than the same ordinary, biblical process should be required by others who wish to exercise these "gifts."

I maintain that ministers have "extra-ordinary" gifts relative to the gifts of the rank-and-file lay-person. Relative to the "office" of pastor, the gifts of the pastor-teacher are ordinary. Relative to all disciples in general, the gifts of the pastor-teacher are extra-ordinary. But this is beside the point. The gift of utterance is not limited to the ordained minister alone: please read and interact with the exegetical data I've advanced.

The goal of evangelism, whether done by laypeople or pastors, is to make disciples and incorporate those disciples into the visible church.

Then, by your own definition, unordained people do not engage in the work of evangelism because unordained people are not authorised to add people to the church by baptism.

(1) If the NT says non-ordained folks engage in evangelism, they engaged in evangelism no matter what convoluted logic you advance. (2) You seem to assume that the scope of the duty of "making disciples" is co-terminus with the scope of the duty to baptize. I would beg to differ on the basis of the NT data, which you have yet to address.

Matthew, you deny the free and well-meant offer of the gospel. You restrict the privilege of stewardship of evangelism to the ordained minister (and I've met very few Reformed ministers who seem to have the time and zeal to engage in the degree of evangelism needed to build a church). And you have yet to deal with those NT texts that describe and warrant lay-evangelism (Acts 6:7; 8:1-4; 11:19-21; I Cor 4:16; 11:1; Eph 6:15, 17; Phil 1:12-18; 2:15-16; Col 4:5-6; 1 Thes 1:8; Heb 5:12-14; 1 Pet 2:9; 3:15).

It's difficult not to conclude that a rather frigid hyper-Calvinism is still alive and well. Like dead flies in the ointment of the apothecary, this brand of "Calvinism" sends forth a "stinking savor." Once again, I'm compelled to prefer Calvin's sentiments when he writes,
Therefore, in keeping with the teaching Luke gives here, let us learn that we constitute a true church of God when we try our best to increase the number of believers. And then each one of us, where we are, will apply all our effort to instructing our neighbours and leading them to the knowledge of God, as much by our words as by our showing them good examples and good behaviour. That is also why holy Scripture exhorts us so often to win to God those who remain alienated from his church, for we see unbelievers as poor lost sheep. Our Lord has not given us insight into his truth for our advantage alone, but for sharing it with others. Because we see them as madmen casting themselves into hell, we must, to the extent we can, prevent them from doing so and procure their salvation. That, I tell you, is the zeal all Christians must have if they are not to limit themselves just to the public worship of God (emphasis added). (John Calvin, "Learning, Teaching, and Living the Gospel Message" (sermon on Acts 6.7-9) in Sermons on the Acts of the Apostles (Chapters 1-7) [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2008], 335-36.)


---------- Post added 03-08-2010 at 12:16 AM ---------- Previous post was 03-07-2010 at 11:52 PM ----------

You're confusing living as a witness, being ready to give an answer, with the ordained and commissioned work of evangelism.

Brad,

You've just committed a linguistic "no-no." You think laypeople may "witness" or "give an answer" since apparently in your view these terms are non-technical or non-official and are, therefore, the province of the lay-person. The term "evangelism," you think, is a technical term that exclusively predicates the ordained minister's function. If you'll take the time to read my article defending lay-evangelism, you'll find that the term "witness" has greater claim to "official" and "technical" than does "evangelize." In point of fact, the NT writers employ both "witness" and "evangelism" terminology in both "official" and "non-official" or "non-clerical" contexts. Biblical usage, Brad, not some strand of Reformed tradition, determines meaning.
 
I demonstrate that folks like the Reverend Winzer, Daryl Hart, and R. Scott Clark are not competent linguists.

Thankfully even incompetent linguists have competent linguists to which we can turn, and need not slavishly follow the fancies of men who like to pretend they are linguists.

Matthew, I'm a trained linguist. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you're obviously not. You apparently retain the outmoded and discredited notion that certain terms can only have "technical" meanings when in fact they may also have more common or non-technical meanings. I'd recommend for starters that you read Donald Carson's Exegetlcal Fallacies.

Carson's Exegetical Fallacies has been around for many years, and has long since been read and digested. Perhaps the good doctor might show some real scholarship and actually quote a relevant portion of it.

(1) If the NT says non-ordained folks engage in evangelism, they engaged in evangelism no matter what convoluted logic you advance.

But the NT doesn't say non-ordained folk engaged in evangelism; that is the crux of the matter. Dr. Gonzales can throw his weight around all he pleases, denounce people who disagree with him, insist that individuals read his articles, set himself up as an authority in all matters scholastical, etc. etc., but the fact remains, he has no biblical support for his position.
 
Were you "saved," in the complete biblical sense of the word, i.e., the Lord adding you to the church, Acts 2:47? I think not; and if you took a moment to reflect on this subject with something other than a concern to validate your religious experiences you would see that the proper definition of "evangelism" is more than a matter of settling ecclesial structure but pertains to the proper means of nourishing souls unto eternal life in the now/not yet reality of Christian salvation.

The "complete biblical sense of the word"? In point of fact, "saved" is used to refer to various facets of one's salvation: sometimes more broadly to include the totality of one's deliverance from sin (regeneration, conversion, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification, etc.); sometimes, however, the terminology is employed more narrowly to refer to conversion or justification. (Hence, the aorist tense or perfect tense) The average reader is sharp enough to realize that Damon was not employing the term "saved" in the fullest sense but rather in the more restrictive sense of conversion and justification. And whether it suits your fancy or not, Christ Jesus is pleased to birth some in to the kingdom and justify their souls through the means of lay-evangelism.
 
I demonstrate that folks like the Reverend Winzer, Daryl Hart, and R. Scott Clark are not competent linguists.

Thankfully even incompetent linguists have competent linguists to which we can turn, and need not slavishly follow the fancies of men who like to pretend they are linguists.

Then by all means make use of competent linguists! And if I've violated sound linguistic principles in my exegesis of several key NT passages vis-a-vis lay-evangelism, then address the data and arguments.

Matthew, I'm a trained linguist. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you're obviously not. You apparently retain the outmoded and discredited notion that certain terms can only have "technical" meanings when in fact they may also have more common or non-technical meanings. I'd recommend for starters that you read Donald Carson's Exegetlcal Fallacies.

Carson's Exegetical Fallacies has been around for many years, and has long since been read and digested. Perhaps the good doctor might show some real scholarship and actually quote a relevant portion of it.

I'm happy to oblige. The Reverend Winzer (as well as Daryl Hart and R. Scott Clark) commit the fallacy Carson summarizes in pages 45-48, which he labels, "False assumptions about technical meaning." Concerning this fallacy, Carson writes,
In this fallacy, an interpreter falsely assumes that a word always or nearly always has a certain technical meaning--a meaning usually derived either from a subset of the evidence or from the interpreter's personal systematic theology.... One corollary of this fallacy is that some interpreters will go one stage further and reduce an entire doctrine to one word which they have understood to be a technical term" (Exegetical Fallacies, 45-48).
You may also want to consult James Barr's The Semantics of Biblical Language.

(1) If the NT says non-ordained folks engage in evangelism, they engaged in evangelism no matter what convoluted logic you advance.

But the NT doesn't say non-ordained folk engaged in evangelism; that is the crux of the matter. Dr. Gonzales can throw his weight around all he pleases, denounce people who disagree with him, insist that individuals read his articles, set himself up as an authority in all matters scholastical, etc. etc., but the fact remains, he has no biblical support for his position.

Dr. Gonzales does not wish any reader to accept his arguments on the basis of his own authority (God forbid!). Accordingly, he has repeatedly posted links to his three-part series in defense of lay-ministry and lay-evangelism where he expounds and applies the biblical data. There the reader will find several passages of Scripture that support the privilege and stewardship of lay-ministry and lay-evangelism.

For some odd reason, the Reverend Winzer refuses to interact with these texts. Of course, I understand that ministers are busy folk and may not have time to read links. If that is what has restrained Mr. Winzer from engaging the exegetical data I present, then I'll make his work easy by posting some of the passages here. Of course, I'm not naive to think that a straightforward presentation of the data will automatically convince every gainsayer. Some are so committed to their "paradigm" that they'll place the exegetical data on their Procrustean bed in order to slice or stretch it to their liking. My hope, though, is that some readers will examine the evidence marshaled unbiasedly or will remove the glasses of "clericalism" when reading the biblical data and see for themselves what the Bible really says about lay-evangelism.
 
Last edited:
You're confusing living as a witness, being ready to give an answer, with the ordained and commissioned work of evangelism.

Brad,

You've just committed a linguistic "no-no." You think laypeople may "witness" or "give an answer" since apparently in your view these terms are non-technical or non-official and are, therefore, the province of the lay-person. The term "evangelism," you think, is a technical term that exclusively predicates the ordained minister's function. If you'll take the time to read my article defending lay-evangelism, you'll find that the term "witness" has greater claim to "official" and "technical" than does "evangelize." In point of fact, the NT writers employ both "witness" and "evangelism" terminology in both "official" and "non-official" or "non-clerical" contexts. Biblical usage, Brad, not some strand of Reformed tradition, determines meaning.
Welp, Dr. Bob, I find only three cases where the word εὐαγγελιστής is used in the NT, one refering to Philip (an ordained man), one exhorting Timothy (an ordained man) to carry out that work, and one describing an office. Yet I find the word μαρτυρία used 37 times in the NT, refering to witnesses of crimes, witnesses to a man's calling, witnesses to miracles, and witnesses of Christ. I'm no trained linguist, and I would dain to get into any debates with one, but I will say that the word translated witness appears to have a tad more leeway in application to unofficial capacity than the word translated evangelist. Trained or untrained, we all approach interpretations with our own presuppositions. The crux of the matter is which of those presups is biblical. That can't be proven anecdotally by individual experience. I was first 'witnessed' to (or in your terminology, evangelized) by some very warped individuals. God used that to grab this child of His by the hair and yank him out of the fire. Does that then mean that these drug addicted profligates were qualified to preach, teach, and baptise? Evangelism is the whole ball of wax, not just one aspect. And all members of the Church participate in it through their support and participation, under the authority of those God has set over them, and only within the confines of the offices to which they are called. As a layman, I am not about to baptise anyone, nor administer communion, all a part of the whole of evangelism. I will be ready to give an answer, I will support my Church's efforts at evangelism with my money, prayers, and presence where asked, but I will not presume to be a teacher if I do not occupy that office.
 
Later, the Spirit prompts him to go to Gaza where Philip preaches the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch (8:26-40). In these contexts, Philip’s activity is depicted three times with the Greek verb “to evangelize” (8:12, 35, 40). It was probably in light of Philip’s gifts and success in evangelism that he was later promoted to the more official function of “evangelist” (Acts 21:8).
So, since Philip, an ordained Deacon, baptised this Ethiopian, but was 'evangelising' outside of the duties of his Office (which you say is serving tables), then you do support laity performing baptisms, correct?
 
Later, the Spirit prompts him to go to Gaza where Philip preaches the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch (8:26-40). In these contexts, Philip’s activity is depicted three times with the Greek verb “to evangelize” (8:12, 35, 40). It was probably in light of Philip’s gifts and success in evangelism that he was later promoted to the more official function of “evangelist” (Acts 21:8).
So, since Philip, an ordained Deacon, baptised this Ethiopian, but was 'evangelising' outside of the duties of his Office (which you say is serving tables), then you do support laity performing baptisms, correct?

Brad,

One way to avoid the force of a text is to attempt to send your opponent after a red herring. Phillip was ordained to serve tables, not to give himself to the word and prayer. Yet he "evangelized" and he "baptized." These functions he preformed under the authority of the church, but he performed them not as an ordained "minister of the word" but as a deacon at best. Interestingly, the Presbyterians I've met don't seem inclined to permit deacons to baptize but limit the administration of the sacrament to the ordained "minister" whom they distinguish from the "deacon." Bottom line: Stephen and Phillip were not ordained as pastor-teachers or missionaries, yet they engaged in evangelism. Their particular labors are highlighted as part of a larger activity on the part of Christ's disciples in general.

---------- Post added at 01:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 AM ----------

I'm no trained linguist, and I would dain to get into any debates with one, but I will say that the word translated witness appears to have a tad more leeway in application to unofficial capacity than the word translated evangelist.

Brad,

Please read the exposition of the various texts above, especially the section that reads, "A Word About Words." The term "witness" is used as much if not more often as a technical term than "evangelize." Yet both terms are also used in non-technical or non-official senses. The same is true of the terminology for "preach." Make it your goal to be no more or no less restrictive in your employment of biblical terminology than the biblical writers themselves.

Your servant,

---------- Post added at 01:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 AM ----------

Later, the Spirit prompts him to go to Gaza where Philip preaches the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch (8:26-40). In these contexts, Philip’s activity is depicted three times with the Greek verb “to evangelize” (8:12, 35, 40). It was probably in light of Philip’s gifts and success in evangelism that he was later promoted to the more official function of “evangelist” (Acts 21:8).
So, since Philip, an ordained Deacon, baptised this Ethiopian, but was 'evangelising' outside of the duties of his Office (which you say is serving tables), then you do support laity performing baptisms, correct?

Yes, on the basis of this text, I support the notion of deacons preforming baptisms (within the context and oversight of the church). Moreover, I support the notion that those who are not ordained to labor in word and doctrine may indeed evangelize. Isn't that scandalous!
 
Last edited:
Then by all means make use of competent linguists! And if I've violated sound linguistic principles in my exegesis of several key NT passages vis-a-vis lay-evangelism, then address the data and arguments.

I have already addressed these the last time you trumpeted your articles on Puritan Board. As stated then, you failed to provide the specific link between word-ministry and "laymen." The articles contain the same content now as then; so you have still failed to make the link all this time afterwards. I would refer the reader to U. Becker's article, "Gospel," in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology," 2:110-112, for a clear exhibition of what preaching the gospel meant to the apostle Paul. At every point it is shown that preaching the gospel is a technical term with specific meaning and divinely authoritative overtones. Andrew Lincoln's Word Commentary on Eph. 4:12 suffices to show that Dr. Gonzales' exposition of the passage is not as linguistically informed as he presents it.

(Exegetical Fallacies, 45-48).
[/INDENT]You may also want to consult James Barr's The Semantics of Biblical Language.

No person has read a systematic theology into the term nor developed an entire doctrine around it. We have simply noted what the word technically means in the writings of the New Testament. Clearly you are misapplying the fallacy. Perhaps you need to heed your own advice and read Carson's Introduction, where he discusses the Dangers of this Study; it may surprise you to learn that you have used his book in a way that he himself did not intend it to be used.
 
I will be ready to give an answer, I will support my Church's efforts at evangelism with my money, prayers, and presence where asked, but I will not presume to be a teacher if I do not occupy that office.

What a shame! Speaking to lay-people, the author of Hebrews says, “by this time you ought to be teachers” (5:12). Imagine that! The inspired write predicates the word διδάσκαλοι of laypeople and expects them to aspire after such a role. Of course, he's not referring to an official teaching office. But he does, nevertheless, expect his readers both to understand and to articulate the gospel about the Messiah. Giving your money, prayers, and presence is certainly part of the equation. But if you're too cowardly to open your mouth and share the good tidings of salvation with those in need, then you "do not well" (2 Kings 7:9).

This is a strand of Reformed theology that needs "reforming." Too many Reformed Christians content themselves with living a decent life, attending the "ordinary means of grace" at the gathered assembly, and giving their tithe. But they're frankly cowards when it comes to sharing the gospel with the unconverted. How contrary the demeanor of our Lord who came to "seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). May God help us all to play the man and boldly evangelize, witness, and proclaim the good news!

---------- Post added at 02:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 AM ----------

I have already addressed these the last time you trumpeted your articles on Puritan Board. As stated then, you failed to provide the specific link between word-ministry and "laymen." The articles contain the same content now as then; so you have still failed to make the link all this time afterwards. I would refer the reader to U. Becker's article, "Gospel," in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology," 2:110-112, for a clear exhibition of what preaching the gospel meant to the apostle Paul. At every point it is shown that preaching the gospel is a technical term with specific meaning and divinely authoritative overtones. Andrew Lincoln's Word Commentary on Eph. 4:12 suffices to show that Dr. Gonzales' exposition of the passage is not as linguistically informed as he presents it.

Matthew,

I do in fact provide a link between the "word ministry" and "laymen" above and also here. Either you're not reading my argument or your unwilling to engage. That there are sometimes technical usages of "preaching" and "evangelizing" and "witnessing" I do not deny. But the same terminology is employed in non-technical ways to predicate the activity of non-clergy, that is, those who are not officially ordained ministers of the word.

I am well aware of Andrew Lincoln's minority interpretation of Ephesians 4:12 and, like most competent scholars today, reject it on linguistic, grammatical, and contextual grounds. For those interested in the argument that sees the "pastor/teacher equipping the saints so that the latter may engage in works of ministry, click here.

You may also want to consult James Barr's The Semantics of Biblical Language.

No person has read a systematic theology into the term nor developed an entire doctrine around it. We have simply noted what the word technically means in the writings of the New Testament. Clearly you are misapplying the fallacy. Perhaps you need to heed your own advice and read Carson's Introduction, where he discusses the Dangers of this Study; it may surprise you to learn that you have used his book in a way that he himself did not intend it to be used.

Reverend Winzer, I'm quite familiar with Carson's work and use it as a textbook for our seminary. For what it's worth, Carson himself would reject your brand of clericalism and would, I'm confident, point out the obvious (to which you appear quite blind): the so-called technical terms for evangelism, preaching, and witness are also used to describe the activity of non-ordained individuals bearing the good tidings of the gospel to a lost and dying world. Thankfully, Carson's allegiance is sound linguistic principles and exegesis rescues him from permitting a paradigm foreign to Scripture to overrule the plain and simple meaning of the text. I would humbly suggest that it is you who need to reread his book and jettison your unbiblical form of "Calvinism" for something more akin to NT Christianity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top