Should we now be Evangelize and spread the Good News to those who are disillusioned?

[Der Pilger]

But that's like this:

Man dying of a disease: "Sir, I need that pill to live"
Christian holding the pill: "I'm not qualified to hand you this, but I can take you to someone who is."
On the way, the man dies.

A scenario like this does not do justice to a sovereign God. Often arminians (not that our brother Jeremy is one) often posit some analogy that the lost are people on the brink of death, therefore we must tell everyone about Jesus before they suddenly pass away. While the reality is none of us ever know when it's any of our time to die, God does indeed know and as 2 Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." While Arminians often rip this verse out of context and misapply it, it's really an encouragement to God's elect. My point is God will not allow any of His people to perish. Each person that He has chosen before the foundation of the world will come to faith in Christ in God's perfect timing.

My post does no injustice to a sovereign God; it merely points out our duty. The sovereignty of God does not remove our responsibility to love our neighbor—in fact, it guarantees it. God commands because He is sovereign; we must obey because we are not sovereign. Emphasizing our duties lays stress on both the creaturely responsibility laid on us as well as the sovereignty of the God who commands that duty.

 

[Andres]

But that's like this:

Man dying of a disease: "Sir, I need that pill to live"
Christian holding the pill: "I'm not qualified to hand you this, but I can take you to someone who is."
On the way, the man dies.

A scenario like this does not do justice to a sovereign God. Often arminians (not that our brother Jeremy is one) often posit some analogy that the lost are people on the brink of death, therefore we must tell everyone about Jesus before they suddenly pass away. While the reality is none of us ever know when it's any of our time to die, God does indeed know and as 2 Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." While Arminians often rip this verse out of context and misapply it, it's really an encouragement to God's elect. My point is God will not allow any of His people to perish. Each person that He has chosen before the foundation of the world will come to faith in Christ in God's perfect timing.

My post does no injustice to a sovereign God; it merely points out our duty. The sovereignty of God does not remove our responsibility to love our neighbor—in fact, it guarantees it. God commands because He is sovereign; we must obey because we are not sovereign. Emphasizing our duties lays stress on both the creaturely responsibility laid on us as well as the sovereignty of the God who commands that duty.

I completely understand this and I am by no means attempting to use God's sovereignty as an "escape" from the obedience of supporting evangelism, missions, etc. I was merely pointing out the flaw in the Arminians contention that if we don't tell every single person we meet about Jesus, they will die later and go to hell because we failed to share something with them.

 

[he beholds]

Yes, we should evangelize and spread the good news if we are able and have the opportunity, though it looks different for different people--and that includes the entire body of Christ in good standing, not just ordained ministers.

double , and this from a Presbyterian.

 

[dudley]

Catholics quit church in droves last year
Published: 7 Apr 11 10:11 CET

Online: Catholics quit church in droves last year - The Local

The article and statistics are in Germany. Do you have any information about the stats here in the U.S.?

Rich,

The reason the article appeared in German papers is that Germany has a voluntary church tax where you declare your church…Catholic or Lutheran ..Baptist etc….That is why they could see the dramatic loss in numbers ..but the problem is in every country and I believe there are many disillusioned Catholics as Stuart..Jambo said above “Problem is many are jumping into the sea rather than the lifeboats’ Catholics have been brainwashed to believe that the Roman church is the true church and we who are Protestants have a false and apostate religion…we of course know the opposite is true ..as they are disillusioned that can fall into total loss of faith…a simple act of inviting a family to a service in your church on a Sunday who are disgusted with the catholic priest scandal and might fall away completely may open the door to evangelizing them…And yes if you got to the national Pew surveys for the United States you will read the following….Catholicism has suffered the greatest net loss in the process of religious change. Many people who leave the Catholic Church do so for religious reasons; two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated say they left the Catholic faith because they stopped believing in its teachings, as do half of former Catholics who are now Protestant. Fewer than three-in-ten former Catholics, however, say the clergy sexual abuse scandal factored into their decision to leave Catholicism.

In contrast with other groups, those who switch from one Protestant denominational family to another (e.g., were raised Baptist and are now Methodist) tend to be more likely to do so in response to changed circumstances in their lives. Nearly four-in-ten people who have changed religious affiliation within Protestantism say they left their childhood faith, in part, because they relocated to a new community, and nearly as many say they left their former faith because they married someone from a different religious background.

This report was done in 2008.….however the statistics show many are leaving Catholicism and 15 million former Roman Catholics like myself have become Protestants. Sadly though another 15 million now have no religious faith or affiliation…..lost souls….I believe that we should be reaching out and sharing the truth and the Good news to many of these people…

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I personally share the good news of Christ's propitiating atonement as often as I can. I am not ordained. Nor will I ever be in my estimation. God has effectually used His word through the vessel of what is called my life to bring people to be reconciled to himself. It is something he seems pleased to do. And I get to go where Pastors don't usually go. As long as anyone can speak legible sentences they can share the truth of the Gospel of Christ. I believe it would be a most unloving thing to keep something as precious as this hid under a basket as our Lord says in the Gospel of Matthew.

(Mat 5:11) Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

(Mat 5:12) Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

(Mat 5:13) Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

(Mat 5:14) Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

(Mat 5:15) Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

(Mat 5:16) Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

(Rom 1:16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

 

[he beholds]

I think since the question in the OP was, "Should we now be Evangelize and spread the Good News to those who are disillusioned?"
and you responded,

Ordained ministers commissioned in the Gospel should.

is why some of us were disagreeing with you. I don't think anyone's setting up a strawman. We're just saying that more than pastors can evangelize and spread the good news.

I find it funny that the concept of people keeping someone from hearing about Christ keeps coming up when **NOBODY** has asserted such a thing. This is what is called a strawman and a caricature.

 

[MW]

I find it funny that the concept of people keeping someone from hearing about Christ keeps coming up when **NOBODY** has asserted such a thing. This is what is called a strawman and a caricature.

Well noted, Joshua.

A proper profession of faith includes obedience to those things which Christ has commanded to be observed. Evangelism involves the demand to "believe and be baptised." Hence Reformed Christians, while giving primacy to the Word, also include the observance of sacraments as essential to visible Christian profession.

 

[Iconoclast]

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

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

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

4Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

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

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

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

8For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing. 9For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;

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

In verse 8 the believer priests are being spoken of ,or was this church made up of only ordained evangelists?
Why does this always turn into an either or? many churches and believers visit nursing homes speaking of saving faith. Some may not be equipped for such ministry, but many are.
Believers seeking to verbally engage unbelievers in the market-place about eternal concerns does not undermine the Word preached by the ordained Pastor in the assembly.
I travel to all 48 states and have not yet seen an ordained person out here {that I know of} speaking to random persons.
I am not advocating grabbing a megaphone and intruding into the pastoral realm.
I think we sin if we do not pray for opportunities to speak to the lost and steer them to faithful assemblies where the word and ordinances are practiced.

Many of us have libraries and sermons and tools that we profit from. Are we to just be over-fed sheep.
We should obviously seek to direct those into the fellowship and over sight of faithful churches, yes. I do not think the scripture identifies sounding out the word of Lord as a criminal, or sinful activity.
We are to occupy till he comes....I do not think that means world flight.
I do not see in scripture where we are to be confined to our house, or our fellowship only.

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

 

[Der Pilger]

I personally share the good news of Christ's propitiating atonement as often as I can. I am not ordained. Nor will I ever be in my estimation. God has effectually used His word through the vessel of what is called my life to bring people to be reconciled to himself. It is something he seems pleased to do. And I get to go where Pastors don't usually go. As long as anyone can speak legible sentences they can share the truth of the Gospel of Christ. I believe it would be a most unloving thing to keep something as precious as this hid under a basket as our Lord says in the Gospel of Matthew.

My point exactly. Nobody can rationally say he is obeying the second great commandment if he/she withholds from desperately needy people exactly what they need.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

My own sentiments on this issue have been stated before, so I'll be brief here. I believe Ephesians 4.8-11 has been mishandled in the discussion above. The word the Apostle Paul uses (which has been translated as "equip" in some modern translations) is (transliterated) katartizw, which means "to heal, to perfect". In other words, the 5 offices listed by the Apostle (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers) have a threefold function (perfecting, ministering, edifying). Our Westminster divines evidently interpreted the verse the same in saying that the ministry, ordinances, and oracles are given God for the "gathering and perfecting" of the saints. That is to say that the 5 (or 4 according to some) offices first listed are not "equipping the saints for ministry", but are 1) gathering and perfecting the saints, 2) ministering to them the Word and Sacraments among other things, 3) thereby edifying the body of Christ. This is the view of most if not all reformation-era and puritan commentators on the passage. The view that the officers listed are to "equip the saints so that the saints can do the work of the ministry" is a later, mostly 20th century interpretation. My own view of the passage is in accord with the older commentators I have read, which without exception have held the former view.

There is one other thing I'll say pertaining to this thread, getting back to the OP and some subsequent posts: The analogy of a medical emergency is not a good one with which to compare to the ministry of the Gospel, for it presupposes that after a person is medically healed the crisis is averted. This is not so with the preaching of the Gospel, in the sense that we are not, as Reformed Presbyterians, decisionalists. That is, the gospel is not a threshold across which we must drag or carry the lost. The Churchliness of Gospel Preaching, the Covenantal aspects of evangelism are lost in an "each one reach one" model. The goal of evangelism is to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I (Christ) have commanded you". It is not "making a decision for Christ". It is entering into a life, a Covenant community where every decision, from now until you die, is made for Christ. There is nothing in Scripture precluding any Christian from speaking to others about this life, and what the Lord has done for him in delivering him from his sins, just like Christ told the Gadarene Demoniac to do. But that is not the same as the great commission, where the authoritative word of the ambassador of Christ is accompanied by the seals of that Word--the sacraments. The ordained Gospel Preacher is an ambassador of Christ, and has the commission of Christ to proclaim that message of liberty--that is why Paul used the term "ambassador" in 2 Corinthians 5.18-20. When Church members speak about Christ, they speak from their own experience. This is not to be minimized, except when the lines become blurred between personal witness bearing and official functions. When ministers speak of Christ, they speak by way of Christ's commission, and carry the seals of that authority.

 

[Der Pilger]

That, of course, needs to be established. To show this, I'd think that a clear prohibition against lay evangelism must be shown to exist. I don't think one does exist. Of course, I could have overlooked it. Do you know of such a prohibition?

Q. 158. By whom is the Word of God to be preached?

A. The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted,[1015] and also duly approved and called to that office.[1016]

I agree, but this has to do with pastoral ministry. The lay-person does not have the pastor's duties: We agree on that. The lay-person will not prepare sermons, be responsible for the spiritual well-being of the congregation, preach in the pulpit, labor in the Word and doctrine, administer communion, and so forth. But it is a leap to say that because of those restrictions the lay-person may not teach others at some level. If that were the case, then we would have to conclude that nobody except pastors should be doing any teaching whatsoever in the church, such as Sunday School instruction or leading a small-group Bible study.

1 Timothy 3:2, 6. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.... Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Ephesians 4:8-11. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers. Hosea 4:6. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Malachi 2:7. For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. 2 Corinthians 3:6. Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

[1016] Jeremiah 14:15. Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed. Romans 10:15. And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Hebrews 5:4. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 1 Corinthians 12:28-29. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 1 Timothy 3:10. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 1 Timothy 4:14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 1 Timothy 5:22. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.

All of these passages emphasize that the pastoral/leadership office is limited to those who are called to it. I agree. No problem. But restriction from being in pastoral ministry != restriction from teaching biblical truths on some level.


---------- Post added at 08:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 AM ----------

My own sentiments on this issue have been stated before, so I'll be brief here. I believe Ephesians 4.8-11 has been mishandled in the discussion above. The word the Apostle Paul uses (which has been translated as "equip" in some modern translations) is (transliterated) katartizw, which means "to heal, to perfect". In other words, the 5 offices listed by the Apostle (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers) have a threefold function (perfecting, ministering, edifying). Our Westminster divines evidently interpreted the verse the same in saying that the ministry, ordinances, and oracles are given God for the "gathering and perfecting" of the saints. That is to say that the 5 (or 4 according to some) offices first listed are not "equipping the saints for ministry", but are 1) gathering and perfecting the saints, 2) ministering to them the Word and Sacraments among other things, 3) thereby edifying the body of Christ. This is the view of most if not all reformation-era and puritan commentators on the passage. The view that the officers listed are to "equip the saints so that the saints can do the work of the ministry" is a later, mostly 20th century interpretation. My own view of the passage is in accord with the older commentators I have read, which without exception have held the former view.

Interesting. I'll have to look into that.

There is one other thing I'll say pertaining to this thread, getting back to the OP and some subsequent posts: The analogy of a medical emergency is not a good one with which to compare to the ministry of the Gospel, for it presupposes that after a person is medically healed the crisis is averted. This is not so with the preaching of the Gospel, in the sense that we are not, as Reformed Presbyterians, decisionalists. That is, the gospel is not a threshold across which we must drag or carry the lost. The Churchliness of Gospel Preaching, the Covenantal aspects of evangelism are lost in an "each one reach one" model. The goal of evangelism is to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I (Christ) have commanded you". It is not "making a decision for Christ". It is entering into a life, a Covenant community where every decision, from now until you die, is made for Christ.

All analogies break down at some point. If you expect the analogy posted earlier to give a full picture of salvation, then of course it will seem to come short because it wasn't meant to convey all that. The analogy I gave was meant to show the urgency of a dire need and, consequently, the sin involved in willfully overlooking that need. In that sense, the analogy paints an accurate picture.

---------- Post added at 09:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 AM ----------

I find it funny that the concept of people keeping someone from hearing about Christ keeps coming up when **NOBODY** has asserted such a thing. This is what is called a strawman and a caricature.

I never set up any straw man. I said that withholding revelation from those who desperately need it is a violation of the commandment to love them. It's an inescapable conclusion: To hold back what someone desperately needs, when it is in our power to give it, is unloving. Calling it a straw man will not eliminate that fact. Hiding the light of the gospel under a basket is patently callous.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Originally Posted by Chaplainintraining
Originally Posted by Der Pilger
I've shown it by pointing out that the requirement to love our neighbor demands that we do what we can for those in need.
Simple men can get behind a pulpit and give a "message," but we would both agree this is not proper. These men have the ability and thus can do this action, but it is not proper. Only men called by God to do such should give the sermon.
That, of course, needs to be established. To show this, I'd think that a clear prohibition against lay evangelism must be shown to exist. I don't think one does exist. Of course, I could have overlooked it. Do you know of such a prohibition?

This was the reason why I posted the WFC. It seemed you were stating that it had to be established that a lay-person should not preach.

I would also add that as RPW guys, we do not wait for prohibitions. We wait for commands.

 

[Pergamum]

All,

It appears that the OP was about jumping on the opportunity to evangelize the Catholics due to this time of disillusionment among their ranks.

I would say this: It looks like the harvest season may be upon us.

I think there is sufficient cause to strategize and redouble our efforts towards evangelizing Catholics, both in the US and abroad.

For instance, I know of a region here where I work that is almost predominantly Catholic. They bring their idols into the church (wooden carvings) in the name of "culture" and they are wholly biblically illiterate (and almost wholly illiterate in basic reading anyway). We have had 12 villages ask us for an evangelical Gospel witness last year and we sent 2 evangelists...but the doors are still wide open. The workers are few, however, to exploit the open doors.

https://www.crosier.org/default.cfm?PID=1.35.13.1&inq_key=28880&action=detail&LibID=5686

 

[Theoretical]

[/COLOR]

I find it funny that the concept of people keeping someone from hearing about Christ keeps coming up when **NOBODY** has asserted such a thing. This is what is called a strawman and a caricature.

I never set up any straw man. I said that withholding revelation from those who desperately need it is a violation of the commandment to love them. It's an inescapable conclusion: To hold back what someone desperately needs, when it is in our power to give it, is unloving. Calling it a straw man will not eliminate that fact. Hiding the light of the gospel under a basket is patently callous.

I have met both Josh and Rev. Ruddell and have to say that neither man is in the slightest against laity defending the hope within them to others, even when we're initiating the conversation, when it's appropriate. For example, it's not appropriate to share the Gospel on the job when we're being paid to be a plumber or lawyer or factory worker. But if a coworker asks us OR we've developed a friendship with him or her, then by all means off the clock we should be willing to discuss the hope in us and defend our faith. And our efforts need to point to inviting them to Church to hear the Word faithfully preached by our minister.

Their problem with the modern re-definition of evangelism is that it implicitly reduces the minister's tasks to the same level of defending the hope in us to others, when the preaching of the Word is the opening and closing function of the keys of the kingdom. If I'm in a position to sow seeds, then by all means I should, not out of Christian duty, but out of love for my neighbor. But I should not call what I'm doing evangelism because I'm not Preaching the Word to the lost in the congregation of the assembled visible church. I could be speaking presumptuously for them but I may be wrong.

 

[Andres]

There is one other thing I'll say pertaining to this thread, getting back to the OP and some subsequent posts: The analogy of a medical emergency is not a good one with which to compare to the ministry of the Gospel, for it presupposes that after a person is medically healed the crisis is averted. This is not so with the preaching of the Gospel, in the sense that we are not, as Reformed Presbyterians, decisionalists. That is, the gospel is not a threshold across which we must drag or carry the lost. The Churchliness of Gospel Preaching, the Covenantal aspects of evangelism are lost in an "each one reach one" model. The goal of evangelism is to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I (Christ) have commanded you". It is not "making a decision for Christ". It is entering into a life, a Covenant community where every decision, from now until you die, is made for Christ. There is nothing in Scripture precluding any Christian from speaking to others about this life, and what the Lord has done for him in delivering him from his sins, just like Christ told the Gadarene Demoniac to do. But that is not the same as the great commission, where the authoritative word of the ambassador of Christ is accompanied by the seals of that Word--the sacraments. The ordained Gospel Preacher is an ambassador of Christ, and has the commission of Christ to proclaim that message of liberty--that is why Paul used the term "ambassador" in 2 Corinthians 5.18-20. When Church members speak about Christ, they speak from their own experience. This is not to be minimized, except when the lines become blurred between personal witness bearing and official functions. When ministers speak of Christ, they speak by way of Christ's commission, and carry the seals of that authority.

---------- Post added at 06:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 AM ----------

Their problem with the modern re-definition of evangelism is that it implicitly reduces the minister's tasks to the same level of defending the hope in us to others, when the preaching of the Word is the opening and closing function of the keys of the kingdom.

The above is completely true, but I think there is even more to it. I believe Josh has touched on this, but another part of the modern re-definition of evangelism is that it heaps unfounded guilt upon saints who are not telling every person they encounter about Christ. "Oh no, I didn't say anything about Christ to the guy I sat next to on the bus!" "Oh man, when I checked out at the store, I didn't even ask the cashier if she was saved! Please forgive me God!"

 

[Der Pilger]

Calling it a straw man will not eliminate that fact. Hiding the light of the gospel under a basket is patently callous.

Simply restating the caricature doesn't make me guilty of what's being charged in said caricature

The point wasn't to make you guilty. That's up to you to determine. Restating it has a good purpose. You had said that it was a straw man to bring up the issue of obeying the second commandment. It is not. The question has been whether the lay-person should evangelize, whether he/she ought to. The requirement to love our neighbor makes that "should" and "ought to" very clear.

and it also shows that you've either ignored the points I've asserted or missed them by way of accident. Either way, you certainly haven't dealt with the meaning of "evangelism" as defined by Scripture.

In all honesty, I haven't dealt with your points because you have displayed anger and have been vitriolic in this thread. I generally avoid discussing an issue with someone who displays those tendencies.

---------- Post added at 08:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 AM ----------

The above is completely true, but I think there is even more to it. I believe Josh has touched on this, but another part of the modern re-definition of evangelism is that it heaps unfounded guilt upon saints who are not telling every person they encounter about Christ. "Oh no, I didn't say anything about Christ to the guy I sat next to on the bus!" "Oh man, when I checked out at the store, I didn't even ask the cashier if she was saved! Please forgive me God!"

Sorry, that doesn't work. The urgency of evangelism that I alluded to in an earlier post does not necessitate the extreme you are describing. It could lead to it, but of course that is no argument against it because a misperception or abuse of a doctrine does not constitute an argument against it. If it did, the same logic could be used against your position: "Saying that the lay-person's job is not to evangelize is wrong because it can lead to a complacent neglect of any lay outreach. 'Well, my pastor said it's his job to evangelize, so now I don't have to do anything for the Great Commission.' "

It would be pointless to respond by saying, "Well, that's because they misunderstand the teaching. It doesn't mean that they have no part whatsoever in the Great Commission," because I could say the same thing: "They suffer anxiety over not having given the gospel to everyone they meet because they misunderstand the need for everyone to evangelize. It doesn't mean that they have to reach every single person with the gospel."

And by the way, I haven't redefined evangelism. There is biblical support for my view. See the quoted passage in Iconoclast's post (post #45).

 

[he beholds]

I evangelize my children.

 

[Der Pilger]

I have met both Josh and Rev. Ruddell and have to say that neither man is in the slightest against laity defending the hope within them to others, even when we're initiating the conversation, when it's appropriate. For example, it's not appropriate to share the Gospel on the job when we're being paid to be a plumber or lawyer or factory worker.

I agree. Committing sin in order to present the gospel is odious. That's one reason I'm against friendship evangelism: It involves insincerely forming a bond with someone as a means to an end.

But if a coworker asks us OR we've developed a friendship with him or her, then by all means off the clock we should be willing to discuss the hope in us and defend our faith.

Besides being asked or developing a friendship, there is a third possibility: going out of our way to bring the good news to the lost.

And our efforts need to point to inviting them to Church to hear the Word faithfully preached by our minister.

I agree. Evangelism should always be done in and through the local church.

Their problem with the modern re-definition of evangelism is that it implicitly reduces the minister's tasks to the same level of defending the hope in us to others, when the preaching of the Word is the opening and closing function of the keys of the kingdom.

I don't think it reduces the minister's role at all. The minister's labor in the Word and doctrine far surpasses that of bringing the good news to the lost. The minister's other responsibilities, I'd add, also place his role in a different sphere than the lay-person who merely hits the street to bring the good news to the lost.

 

[Der Pilger]

Dear Friend,

Wherein have I been verbally abusive toward you or anyone else? I am sincerely asking, because I believe you're perceiving a tone that is not there. So if you're going to make the charge (and I'm okay with that since, if I am guilty of it I can rectify it), please back it up and reference this statements filled with "vitriol" and "anger."

Okay, since you asked:

Your words are rife with misrepresentation against your brethren because of your broad definition of "evangelize" that is not informed by the Scriptures.

You were far, far too quick to accuse me of "misrepresenting the brethren" without sufficient evidence. That shows a serious lack of patience with someone who disagrees with you. It also seemed that you were eager to create the appearance that I am working against the brethren, almost as if you were drawing a line in the sand between me and other Christians.

What's truly regrettable are the blatant and near-slanderous misrepresentations that have been given in regard to the position espoused above. Truly going for the sentimental jugular a picture is painted of a lost person on the brink of hell and a lay Christian having their back turned saying, "Sorry. I can't help you." Hog. Wash.

(emphasis added)

 

[earl40]

Fellas I have a quick question. I work in a hospital and see many who die that do not have faith in Jesus. Do you think it would be OK for me to evangelize them knowing full well I will be about the last person they see before they enter the gates of hell? Heavens knows our "chaplains" don't and this really is a sincere question even though the way I phrased it may seem not so.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Fellas I have a quick question. I work in a hospital and see many who die that do not have faith in Jesus. Do you think it would be OK for me to evangelize them knowing full well I will be about the last person they see before they enter the gates of hell? Heavens knows our "chaplains" don't and this really is a sincere question even though the way I phrased it may seem not so.

Absolutley. I believe strongly in evangelism. I think that every child of God represents Christ and should be deep in prayer over lost souls and should be a witness for Christ every chance we get.

Romans 10:13-17 ESV
13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Let them know about Christ brother. Tell them about the great things he has done.

 

[Michael]

Fellas I have a quick question. I work in a hospital and see many who die that do not have faith in Jesus. Do you think it would be OK for me to evangelize them knowing full well I will be about the last person they see before they enter the gates of hell? Heavens knows our "chaplains" don't and this really is a sincere question even though the way I phrased it may seem not so.

My wife is a nurse and has been in situations similar to this many times. Even with the possibility of consequences from her employer(s) who have policies against employees "imposing religious views on patients" she has consistently shared the Gospel with others. It has caused some problems actually but she's never lost her job for it. In several cases patients have benefited from her witness and expressed gratitude. Others, not so much.

 

[earl40]

Fellas I have a quick question. I work in a hospital and see many who die that do not have faith in Jesus. Do you think it would be OK for me to evangelize them knowing full well I will be about the last person they see before they enter the gates of hell? Heavens knows our "chaplains" don't and this really is a sincere question even though the way I phrased it may seem not so.

My wife is a nurse and has been in situations similar to this many times. Even with the possibility of consequences from her employer(s) who have policies against employees "imposing religious views on patients" she has consistently shared the Gospel with others. It has caused some problems actually but she's never lost her job for it. In several cases patients have benefited from her witness and expressed gratitude. Others, not so much.

As you and your wife do know no one is converted without having The Gospel preached to them and have come close to being let go for the same reasons. I do believe that the phrase "unless they are sent" is the crux of the matter. Is it Jesus or the church that sends? As a near future member of a PCA church I "get the feeling" that they would look at me like I have 3 eyes if I ask to be "sent" to evangelize our patients.

 

[Notthemama1984]

As a near future member of a PCA church I "get the feeling" that they would look at me like I have 3 eyes if I ask to be "sent" to evangelize our patients.

Maybe not so much in PCA churches, but in evangelical churches you will get the same weird look if you talk to them about the Reformed view of the 2nd commandment or that the rapture is a farse. Just because the church would give a weird look does not give theological proof one way or another on any given topic.

With regards to "unless they are sent," I believe it is Christ who calls and the church who sends. I cannot think of any rogue Christians just going about doing whatever they wanted.

 

[Gloria]

But that's like this:

Man dying of a disease: "Sir, I need that pill to live"
Christian holding the pill: "I'm not qualified to hand you this, but I can take you to someone who is."
On the way, the man dies.

A scenario like this does not do justice to a sovereign God. Often arminians (not that our brother Jeremy is one) often posit some analogy that the lost are people on the brink of death, therefore we must tell everyone about Jesus before they suddenly pass away. While the reality is none of us ever know when it's any of our time to die, God does indeed know and as 2 Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." While Arminians often rip this verse out of context and misapply it, it's really an encouragement to God's elect. My point is God will not allow any of His people to perish. Each person that He has chosen before the foundation of the world will come to faith in Christ in God's perfect timing.

My post does no injustice to a sovereign God; it merely points out our duty. The sovereignty of God does not remove our responsibility to love our neighbor—in fact, it guarantees it. God commands because He is sovereign; we must obey because we are not sovereign. Emphasizing our duties lays stress on both the creaturely responsibility laid on us as well as the sovereignty of the God who commands that duty.

This!

 

[jogri17]

There is no New Testament office of witness... Mary, Martha, James, John, Paul, Stephen, all testified to what they saw. Often those who say only the ordained ought to evangelize use that as an excuse for their own sin of not being in the world but rather living lives of separation- the opposite of what Jesus prayed for in John 17.

 

[MW]

Sacraments? Or has Christianity been reduced to a philosophy with no observances to be obeyed?

 

[steadfast7]

Any consideration of Stephen, who basically held the office of church kitchen staff, but was powerfully used by God in the preaching of the gospel through deed, word, and death? Acts 6.

 

[Prufrock]

There is no New Testament office of witness.

Acts 2:21-22.

I don't understand why it seems so many keep implying that those who claim Evangelism belongs to the ministry think those not in the ministry have no responsibilities whatsoever, or are "not allowed" to speak of Christ to those outside the church. This is clearly not what anyone has said. Every believer has the responsibility, the duty, to be salt and light, to hold forth a good conversation, to live lives worthy of Christ's calling before men, to be ready to give an answer to every man, etc. No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged. What is being stated is simply that all of those things are not to be confused with Evangelism, which is the official proclamation of Christ by one ordained and sent for this purpose, being equipped for the same, and able to perform it according to its fullest by way of the ordained/ordinary means. When people say "Evangelism does not belong to all," this is what they mean. It means all Christians will not be called to account for those whom they have not warned (as Ezek. 33) - for to do such requires that task of official witnessing to be the whole course of one's life; and that is not possible for one faithfully carrying out their secular vocation in life. No one is giving Christians an excuse for anything; no one is saying Christians are not to be concerned with the lost; no one is saying Christians can't or shouldn't speak about Christ with their neighbor; etc. etc. etc.

 

[steadfast7]

Paul, I think your analysis is fine and well, but this is becoming a semantic exercise, don't you think? It's helpful that you're making the distinction because it's always good to keep exegesis primary. Biblical terminology and Christianese terms often get mashed together. But tacking on the word "official" to the words evangelism and witnessing is quite foreign to my ears, to be honest.

Every believer has the responsibility, the duty, to be salt and light, to hold forth a good conversation, to live lives worthy of Christ's calling before men, to be ready to give an answer to every man, etc.

This job description you've given, most people call "evangelism." The job description you've given of an "official evangelist" most people call "the pastorate." The distinctions may be there, but it's causing confusion with words that we use all the time. The disagreements are purely semantic, in my opinion.