Do the Reformed Confessions Affirm the Duty of Evangelistic and Missionary Outreach?

[Pergamum]

Your statement sounds anti-missions without this adition:

The Presbyterian church has always sent out people for church planting.

Gathering people into the already existing curch is NOT all there is.

The formation of new churches has also always been a priority.

I suppose the Presbyterian concern for church extension would look anti-mission to an Independent who is consumed with the idea of new churches. Acts 2:47, "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

God can add to the church daily by creating new local bodies. Acts 2 does not rule out church planting or church multiplication.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Presbyterian theology is primarily concerned with asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer, not with meeting human needs.

Matthew,

I think the theology of all true churches (whether Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, etc.) should be concerned with asserting the crown rights of King Jesus. But I'm not comfortable with the seeming dichotomy you've drawn. Part of "asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer" is doing what His word bids us do and walking in His steps. And since Jesus did not merely go about Palestine proclaiming "I'm the Promised Messiah" but also healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, feeding the hungry, causing the lame to walk, etc., I think we're on tenuous ground if we overlook, depreciate, or fail to imitate (without the miraculous elements of course) this facet of his ministry. In other words, I believe it is the duty of the church and every Christian to see the the multitudes, be moved with compassion, and to meet human needs both temporal (when possible and appropriate) and eternal (by pointing them to Christ).

It is remaining within the bounds of human knowledge to judge ministry on the basis of its faithful administration of Word and sacraments. We go beyond these bounds when we insist that this administration should also have a certain positive outcome which it is not in the power of human resourcefulness to secure.

I'm not sure what you're alluding to here. If you're alluding to the statement of John Frame, viz, a concern for the lost ought to be a mark of a genuine church, then I think you've misread him. He did not say that a true church is marked by "a certain positive outcome." Rather, he said the church is marked by a certain preoccupation with or concern to win the lost. This seems to have been a mark of Paul's ministry: "I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:22). Should not such a concern also mark the church?

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

2 Cor. 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

I always took this as applicable to all Christians, not limited to the Apostles. It is in this sense that we may all be missionaries.

 

[Herald]

2 Cor. 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

I always took this as applicable to all Christians, not limited to the Apostles. It is in this sense that we may all be missionaries.

Jim, Paul refers to Timothy and himself as "us." They are the ambassadors and the Corinthians are the ones being addressed. As way of application a preacher of the gospel is acting in the role of Paul and Timothy, as ambassadors for Christ.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

I wonder whether church's approach to evangelism is really one of purpose and function? The church's purpose is to worship God, a function of which is preaching the gospel.

Bill Brown has made an observation worth further reflection and that leads me to a text that might be relevant to our discussion regarding the church's corporate responsibility and possibly also the Christian's personal responsibility to communicate the gospel not merely in the corporate gatherings of the church but also outside those corporate gatherings to a lost and dying world. According to 1 Peter 2:9, the people of God are something in order that they might do something.

But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that [hopos = purpose] you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.
​

So God has granted the church privileged status in order that she might carry out a particular function. That function is described as "proclaiming the praises (or excellencies) of our Redeemer. The Greek verb translated "you may proclaim" is exangello. The basic meaning is to report, announce, declare. Calvin writes, "It behooves us to declare these excellencies not only by tongue, but also by our whole life" (Calvin's Commentaries on the NT, 12:266). According to John Brown, "Christians, as the called of God, are intended to show forth the excellencies of God, both passively and actively." "By your lips, by your lives ... honour Him who has called you ..." (Expository Discourses on First Peter, 317, 321). The addition of the preposition ex may convey the idea of declaring abroad. Edmond Hiebert argues that the verb "conveys the picture of a message being proclaimed to those outside what has taken place within. It indicates the evangelistic function of the church.... Both word and conduct are involved" (1 Peter, 144). The fact that Peter addresses the church both in corporate (e.g., "a spiritual house") and also in individual language (e.g., "living stones) would seem to suggest that the privileged responsibility has both a corporate and individual dimension.

It seems, from a perusal of certain other NT texts, that individual members of the church sensed this privilege and responsibility, and accordingly they engaged in evangelistic endeavor. For example, Saul's persecution of men and women in the church resulted not only in their dispersion but in their "publishing the good news [euangelizomenoi ton logon]" (Acts 8:4). Later, the now converted Saul praised the newly planted church in Thessalonica because "from [them] the word of the Lord has sounded forth [exechetai; from which we obtain the verb "to echo"] not only in Macedonia and Achaia but in every place." Indeed, the apostles boasts, "Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything" (1 Thess. 1:8). I don't believe we can limit the Thessalonian witness merely to a godly lifestyle since a godly lifestyle has no meaning apart from a propositional interpretation of that lifestyle. Paul could only say, "We do not need to say anything," because the Thessalonians apparently had sufficiently communicated the word. While Paul may be using a little hyperbole here, it does seem to me that he's acknowledged and praised an active effort of evangelism on the part of these relatively new believers.

Of course, I do recognize the potential problem to which Bill and a few others have made reference. First, there are many individual members who are afraid to share the gospel. Second, to use Bill's words, "there are just as many who don't have a mastery of the message." I agree. Consequently, we need to be patient with the fearful just as Jesus was patient with his disciples. Nevertheless, in the end we must embolden them with the same words Jesus communicated to his disciples, "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt. 10:28). Moreover, we need to do all we can to thoroughly ground our people in the faith so that each one can heed the words of Peter and "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15). Think also of the admonition Hebrew's author gives to certain members of the church:

For though by this time you ought to be teachers [emphasis added], you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of God's revelation. You need milk, not solid food. or everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil [emphasis added] (Heb. 5:12-14).
​

The implication of this text seems to be that individual believers ought to strive for doctrinal and practical maturity in order that they might communicate accurately the gospel to others. Certainly, of all believers those who are members of Reformed church and are indoctrinated with Reformed theology ought to be among the most qualified to communicate the gospel to the lost.

I conclusion, these are some passages in the NT that presently seem to me to give some warrant for laying a measure of evangelistic responsibility at the feet of the saints. Of course, I think it's also vital that we make appropriate qualifications. Not everyone is called to serve Christ as an ordained pastor or missionary. Nor does every Christian have the same measure of opportunities. Nor does every child of God possess the same level of doctrinal and practical maturity to effectively and accurately communicate the gospel. So the weight of responsibility upon each individual Christian will differ. Nevertheless, it does not appear wide the mark to conclude that the Scriptures do seem to give warrant for us in our confessions to affirm not only the church's responsibility to preach the gospel in the context of corporate worship and to commission church planters and missionaries to take the gospel to the nations but also the individual believer's responsibility to be salt and light (by life and lip) in the midst of a lost and perishing world.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

2 Cor. 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

I always took this as applicable to all Christians, not limited to the Apostles. It is in this sense that we may all be missionaries.

Jim, I agree with you that in a qualified sense all Christians may in some form or another be missionaries (see my post above). But I do think, in agreement with Bill, that in this particular text, Paul is probably referring to those specifically ordained (Eph. 4:11).

 

[Pergamum]

Watch out, Dr Gonzales, this board can get addictive. I fear you are already an addict. I tell myself often, "I can quit anytime."

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Watch out, Dr Gonzales, this board can get addictive. I fear you are already an addict. I tell myself often, "I can quit anytime."

Brother, I think you're right. I get the shakes whenever I'm not hooked up.

 

[Scott1]

There are some deep principles and concepts at stake here and many of us are trying to "get their arms around" them.

No question Reformed theology and broad evangelicalism have some significant differences in the way they approach evangelism, church growth, and discipleship. Both groups are rightly highly prioritized on salvation but the way that is done is not the same.

It's not that one group is more concerned about "seeing souls saved," its more about how that gets done.

It flows from deep theological doctrines of soteriology, I think. This discussion has well-researched and well-expressed thoughts that are helping clarify this for all of us- thanks!

 

[Iconoclast]

When you say the church casts out the gospel net,How do you mean that exactly? Just when it gather's to hear the word preached?
If unsaved providentially come into our meetings,then the net closes on them? In ISA.54 when he speaks of lengthening the cords,and strengthening the stakes ,how does that happen?
Why cut out the vast majority of believers from speaking forth the word of God like the Thessalonians did? Why not both?
I have never seen a Pastor on any job site I am on speaking to anyone! As am matter of fact, I am happy if I meet a christian who speaks a word in season.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Well my friends, I believe in proclaiming the gospel to whomever I can whenever I have opportunity (not to say I don't fail). I don't try to lead people in sinners prayers but I look to exhort them to repent and believe the gospel. Though only the elect CAN repent and believe, all men are responsible to (as Jonathan Edwards argued and the apostles demonstated) so I proclaim to all and God saves whom He will.

Manley, now I know why you picked Spurgeon as your avatar. You have his soul-winner's heart.

 

[MW]

Part of "asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer" is doing what His word bids us do and walking in His steps. And since Jesus did not merely go about Palestine proclaiming "I'm the Promised Messiah" but also healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, feeding the hungry, causing the lame to walk, etc., I think we're on tenuous ground if we overlook, depreciate, or fail to imitate (without the miraculous elements of course) this facet of his ministry. In other words, I believe it is the duty of the church and every Christian to see the the multitudes, be moved with compassion, and to meet human needs both temporal (when possible and appropriate) and eternal (by pointing them to Christ).

It comes down to preoccupation. By stating the Presbyterian's preoccupation with the crown rights of Jesus there is no denial of the necessity and usefulness of good works. Rather, these are established by a proper recognistion of our Lord's mediatorial authority. Good works are to be done in faith to Jesus Christ; but in order for them to be constituted good works they must be such as Christ has commanded. This brings us back to the primacy of Christ.

Where there is a preoccupation with "souls," and the meeting of human needs, the necessity and usefulness of good works is distorted. A good work is not such as is done in obedience to Christ's command, but such as serves to benefit the souls of men. The preaching of the gospel is then no longer a matter of spreading the savour of Christ as an act of worship to God, but it is a humanitarian deed which seeks the individual's good foremost.

The commission given to the church is not to "reach souls," but to "disciple all nations," teaching them to observe all things which are commanded by the Head of principalities and powers. If one is preoccupied with reaching souls, then his foremost responsibility is to connect with people. If one is preoccupied with the authority of Christ, then his foremost responsibility is to ensure that he and those within his sphere of influence are obeying the truth as it is in Jesus. The dichotomy is a fact of human experience. The preoccupation cannot be syncretised.

This seems to have been a mark of Paul's ministry: "I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:22). Should not such a concern also mark the church?

Yes, a mark of the church is the sound preaching of the Word by those ordained thereunto. As the apostle states in that chapter, necessity was laid upon him, which evinced that a dispensation of the gospel was committed unto him.

 

[Scott1]

armourbearer
Moderator
Good works are to be done in faith to Jesus Christ; but in order for them to be constituted good works they must be such as Christ has commanded.

This is hard for human nature to accept.

"Good" works are not only external but involve an inner heart to please God (which the non-believer does not have). Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XVI summarizes the doctrine of Scripture on this.

The Reformers called "outwardly seemingly" good works as works of "civic virtue." They may be done out of motive to prevent the inconvenience of punishment, to be praised of men, to receive a tax deduction, many reasons but not from a heart priority to obey God. Therefore, from God's standpoint, and from a salvation and sanctification standpoint, they are not "good."

There are some soteriological differences here when an Arminian-influenced theology (i.e. broad evangelicalism) will not necessary understand it this way, Reformed will.

 

[Scott1]

armourbearer
Moderator

The commission given to the church is not to "reach souls," but to "disciple all nations," teaching them to observe all things which are commanded by the Head of principalities and powers.

I think I understand what you mean here, in context of your post and in that of earlier posts.

Is it fair to say that Gospel presentation is not only part of "discipleship of all nations," (Great Commission) but also part of the all-of-life discipleship Scripture calls each individual to yet within the overall priority of Christ's authority over all Creation and his command to make disciples through His Church?

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Part of "asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer" is doing what His word bids us do and walking in His steps. And since Jesus did not merely go about Palestine proclaiming "I'm the Promised Messiah" but also healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, feeding the hungry, causing the lame to walk, etc., I think we're on tenuous ground if we overlook, depreciate, or fail to imitate (without the miraculous elements of course) this facet of his ministry. In other words, I believe it is the duty of the church and every Christian to see the the multitudes, be moved with compassion, and to meet human needs both temporal (when possible and appropriate) and eternal (by pointing them to Christ).

It comes down to preoccupation. By stating the Presbyterian's preoccupation with the crown rights of Jesus there is no denial of the necessity and usefulness of good works. Rather, these are established by a proper recognistion of our Lord's mediatorial authority. Good works are to be done in faith to Jesus Christ; but in order for them to be constituted good works they must be such as Christ has commanded. This brings us back to the primacy of Christ.

Where there is a preoccupation with "souls," and the meeting of human needs, the necessity and usefulness of good works is distorted. A good work is not such as is done in obedience to Christ's command, but such as serves to benefit the souls of men. The preaching of the gospel is then no longer a matter of spreading the savour of Christ as an act of worship to God, but it is a humanitarian deed which seeks the individual's good foremost.

The commission given to the church is not to "reach souls," but to "disciple all nations," teaching them to observe all things which are commanded by the Head of principalities and powers. If one is preoccupied with reaching souls, then his foremost responsibility is to connect with people. If one is preoccupied with the authority of Christ, then his foremost responsibility is to ensure that he and those within his sphere of influence are obeying the truth as it is in Jesus. The dichotomy is a fact of human experience. The preoccupation cannot be syncretised.

Matthew, I am nonplussed. First, you make it sound as if only Presbyterians are concerned about the crown right of Jesus. I'm sure you don't intend it this way, but it comes across as denominational snobbery. Second, you once again introduce a false dichotomy. You affirm that you believe in good works, but then you remind me that for such to truly count as "good works," they must be done in faith and obedience to Christ. But didn't I already say that? I'll say it again: "Part of 'asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer' is doing what His word bids us do and walking in His steps." Thirdly, you seem determined to maintain this dichotomy as a "fact of human experience," arguing that loyalty to Christ and genuine concern for the biblically defined needs of men "cannot be syncretized." To this I offer the following observations:

1) Jesus syncretizes them on the Day of Judgment: "Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.' Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 'When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 'Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'" (Matthew 25:34-40). Reflect: if these sheep were so preoccupied with "asserting the crown rights of Jesus" when they were meeting the needs of those in misery, why were they so surprised when Jesus claimed that they had in effect done it unto him? It turns out that these sheep were able to love people and love Christ simultaneously.

2) Does God save sinners for his own glory or for their eternal happiness? Biblical answer: both. "I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not keep them back!' Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth -- Everyone who is called by My name, Whom I have created for My glory [emphasis added]" (Isaiah 43:6-7). "For God so loved the world [emphasis added] that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). Indeed, the Shorter Catechism reminds us that the two belong together coordinately: "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forevever [emphasis added]." Man's enjoying God cannot be divorced from glorifying God with respect to the chief end for which he was created and redeemed. The two are inseparable. One cannot truly and fully glorify God (in the sense intended by the framers of the catechism) without enjoying God.

3) Must we draw such a contrast between "discipling the nations" and "reaching souls"? Can they not be ways of looking at the same objective from two different perspectives? To the Corinthians, Paul says, "I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls [emphasis added]" (Corinthians 12:15). "Receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls [emphasis added]" (James 1:21). "Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving the end of your faith -- the salvation of your souls [emphasis added]" (1 Peter 1:8-9). One might also note that in the context of the text I cite below--1 Cor. 9:22)--the Greek verb for "win" (kerdaino) is employed five times (9:19-22).

Let me make it clear--I don't advocate preaching a truncated gospel and pressing men to make superficial "decisions" for Christ. I believe in discipling men and bringing them into the fold of the church. I believe one must confess Jesus as Lord not just Savior (Romans 10:9). But the idea that a heartfelt concern for lost and needy images of God and "asserting the crown rights of Jesus" are incompatible is, in my opinion, neither biblical nor truly Presbyterian.

This seems to have been a mark of Paul's ministry: "I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:22). Should not such a concern also mark the church?

Yes, a mark of the church is the sound preaching of the Word by those ordained thereunto. As the apostle states in that chapter, necessity was laid upon him, which evinced that a dispensation of the gospel was committed unto him.

Please take the time to read my post above, #65, where I offer several passages of Scripture that appear to lay some measure of evangelistic responsibility at the feet of laypeople. Once again, I don't draw dichotomies. I don't deny the proper place of the ordained minister. I don't deny that evangelistic and missionary endeavor should be conducted under the general oversight of the church. But Paul's preoccupation to save sinners [and note the active voice--'that I may by all means save'--not, 'that I might simply assert the crown rights of Jesus and let Jesus do the saving'] should be reflected not merely in the heart of the ordained minister but should also reverberate in the hearts of all God's people, from the least to the greatest.

In closing, I commend your zeal for Christ's lordship and his church. But I do not believe it's inconsistent with either Scripture or our creeds to have simultaneously a zeal for God and a concern for the welfare of human souls made in God's image. The word of Christ and his example (as well as that of his apostles) constrain me to be and to encourage others to be preoccupied with both.

Cordially,

 

[MW]

1) Jesus syncretizes them on the Day of Judgment: [cut] Matthew 25:34-40. Reflect: if these sheep were so preoccupied with "asserting the crown rights of Jesus" when they were meeting the needs of those in misery, why were they so surprised when Jesus claimed that they had in effect done it unto him? It turns out that these sheep were able to love people and love Christ simultaneously.

Our love for souls should flow out of love to Christ. It should be the love of the Lord Jesus which we show to our neighbour and brethren. The priority rests with the Lord Jesus. John 14:15, "If ye love me keep my commandments." It is not "simultaneous." The expression of love to "souls" depends entirely on what Jesus tells us to do to and for them. It is liberalism which teaches love to others gives expression to moral norms. Conservatism teaches that moral norms are dictated by Jesus Christ, Who provides the expression which is to be manifested in love to others. Again, the preoccupation is with the Lord Jesus Christ, not with souls.

2) Does God save sinners for his own glory or for their eternal happiness? Biblical answer: both.

Eph. 1:6, "To the praise of the glory of His grace." Again, it is a question of priority. The salvation of the sinner is subservient to the manifestation of God's glory. The damning of sinners is to the praise of the glory of His justice; hence it cannot be that the "eternal happiness" of "sinners" is first.

3) Must we draw such a contrast between "discipling the nations" and "reaching souls"? Can they not be ways of looking at the same objective from two different perspectives?

No. As deviant theologies have shown, one might "reach souls" for reasons other than "discipling the nations." Hence we must emphasise the need to disciple the nations as a priority, and the idea of "reaching souls" must be made subservient to this commission. If "nations" are to be reached for the purpose of making them disciples of Jesus Christ, there will be an emphasis on maintainig the ordinances of Christ in going out into the world. If, on the other hand, souls are a priority, then what is fitted to reach the souls of men might be considered acceptable evangelism in and of itself, without respect to the ordinances of Christ.

Paul's preoccupation to save sinners [and note the active voice--'that I may by all means save'--not, 'that I might simply assert the crown rights of Jesus and let Jesus do the saving'] should be reflected not merely in the heart of the ordained minister but should also reverberate in the hearts of all God's people, from the least to the greatest.

Again, it is a matter of preoccupation. The Philippians were in fellowship/partnership with Paul in the gospel, Phil. 1:5. This means, in the first place, they were supporters of His ordained ministry, or dispensation, as he sometimes called it. They prayed for him, they financially assisted him. This is first and foremost. If there is not this practical partnership in the gospel there will be no visible extension of the kingdom. Further, they were to endeavour to have a conversation as becomes the gospel, Phil. 1:27. The whole life of a Christian is to be a gospel-life, living out the great truth of reconciliation through the blood of Jesus Christ and waiting for His glorious coming. And this no doubt includes speaking about the things which are believed and practised, both within the fellowship of the church and outside of it. But this is not preaching the gospel. We might call it sharing one's faith; but evangelism, in the NT sense of the word, is the official proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ, commanding sinners to repent of their sins and believe upon Him for the salvation of their souls.

Such are my Presbyterian beliefs. It is not a matter of displaying denominational snobbery, though uncharitable judgment might be inclined to see it that way. Denominations indicate that there are divisions in the body of Christ. We attach ourselves to one of those denominations in faithfulness to Jesus Christ because we believe that denomination is more consistent in its adherence to the claims of truth as revealed in the Scriptures. I am a Presbyterian because I believe the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the Westminster Standards is the most faithful exposition of the mind of Christ as revealed in Scripture amongst all the denominations calling themselves churches today. Honesty calls upon me to maintain, assert, and defend what I believe to be the truth.

 

[MW]

Is it fair to say that Gospel presentation is not only part of "discipleship of all nations," (Great Commission) but also part of the all-of-life discipleship Scripture calls each individual to yet within the overall priority of Christ's authority over all Creation and his command to make disciples through His Church?

The New Testament employs a specific terminology. Preaching the gospel is an ordained function. Each believer is to be a partner in the gospel and to live a life worthy of the gospel, Phil. 1 (please refer to my previous post); but it is the one set apart to preach who has a charge committed to him to proclaim the gospel to every creature, such that the blood of men shall be required at his hands if he fails in his duty.

 

[Scott1]

armourbearer

And this no doubt includes speaking about the things which are believed and practised, both within the fellowship of the church and outside of it. But this is not preaching the gospel. We might call it sharing one's faith; but evangelism, in the NT sense of the word, is the official proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ, commanding sinners to repent of their sins and believe upon Him for the salvation of their souls.

I'm not trying to interrupt this very good back-and-forth, only to clarify following all this.
When we share our faith, in our family, in the covenant community, and in our sphere of influence in life- don't we do this with the end of hoping/believing/praying that God will redeem sinners as a result of it?

Isn't this sharing the Gospel?

Isn't this commanded of the Believer?

 

[Iconoclast]

Is it fair to say that Gospel presentation is not only part of "discipleship of all nations," (Great Commission) but also part of the all-of-life discipleship Scripture calls each individual to yet within the overall priority of Christ's authority over all Creation and his command to make disciples through His Church?

The New Testament employs a specific terminology. Preaching the gospel is an ordained function. Each believer is to be a partner in the gospel and to live a life worthy of the gospel, Phil. 1 (please refer to my previous post); but it is the one set apart to preach who has a charge committed to him to proclaim the gospel to every creature, such that the blood of men shall be required at his hands if he fails in his duty.

Matthew,
I am enjoying this thread and would like to expand on some of the idea's discussed. Everyone agree's the call of the gospel minister,and his duties are clearly spelled out in the word of God. Along that same line. Is it not true that all godly men should aspire to the characteristics of a godly elder, or deacon as set forth in 1Tim, and Titus.
And as such we should strive as you say as partner's in the gospel,living lives worthy of the gospel. What seperates office bearer's from non office bearer's would be degree of gift and calling, physical abilities [perhaps ie, ability to preach, necessary mental facalties, and discipline]
Having His house in order so as to be able to take on the over-sight of the assembly he is pastoring.
Now what about gifted persons in the church who lack all of the "must be"qualities listed in Timothy,and Titus so that they come up short of full qualifications for office bearing. Take one of these men who leads a home bible study, or ministers at a nursing home to shut in's. Think of many of the men in seminary now, or who study as many of the men in here do.
If they faithfully pray for unsaved persons, invite them to sit with open bibles and try to remove some obstacles and answer questions they have.
You would not say that God would not use His word in these situations would you? Either for salvation , or damnation.
The goal would be to faithfully give an answer for the hope that is in us. Many times christian couples open their home via hospitality with a view to be friendly enough to present the claims of the Lord to the visitors.
This should be done as a part of the body, the local assembly .
Many people have been drawn to truth,through interactions with cults. They were forced to read the word, and were converted,without hearing the word preached. Later on they found their way into a local assembly and were further discipled. Do you know of such examples? Or woul;d you be of a mind to say that they were never truly converted until they physically sat under gospel preaching?

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

The expression of love to "souls" depends entirely on what Jesus tells us to do to and for them. It is liberalism which teaches love to others gives expression to moral norms. Conservatism teaches that moral norms are dictated by Jesus Christ, Who provides the expression which is to be manifested in love to others. Again, the preoccupation is with the Lord Jesus Christ, not with souls.

My response:
Okay, Matthew. For some reason we seem to be talking past each other. I'll cite what I said earlier (post #62) once again--this time in CAPS: Part of "asserting the crown rights of the Redeemer" IS DOING WHAT HIS WORD BIDS US DO AND WALKING IN HIS STEPS." So, yes, I do believe we should love sinners and demonstrate that love to them in tangible ways BECAUSE Jesus COMMANDS IT AND BECAUSE HE EXEMPLIFIED IT. And since Jesus commanded it and exemplified it, then it must be a matter of priority to him! Indeed, I question whether one can claim to keep the first greatest commandment while rejecting the second.

2) Does God save sinners for his own glory or for their eternal happiness? Biblical answer: both.

You respond:

Eph. 1:6, "To the praise of the glory of His grace." Again, it is a question of priority. The salvation of the sinner is subservient to the manifestation of God's glory. The damning of sinners is to the praise of the glory of His justice; hence it cannot be that the "eternal happiness" of "sinners" is first.

My rejoinder:
Is Judas fulfilling his chief end as defined by the Shorter Catechism while he's suffering in hell? Answer: Absolutely not. Judas' chief end was to glorify and enjoy God forever. True, by virtue of God's decree even sinners in hell will glorify God. But the Shorter Catechism Q1 is not referring to God's decree. How do we know that? Because Q2 tells us the rule by which man is to fulfill his chief end, namely, the revealed will of God in Scripture. And according to Scripture, God commands his images to glorifying him by means of loving him with all their heart, soul, mind and strength. Since Judas Iscariot is not doing that in hell, he is not fulfilling his chief end.

Also note carefully that the framers of the catechism question do not speak of "ends" (plural) but of "end" (singular). So they were not referring to two separable ends but of one inseparable end (probably a literary device, hendiadys). Let me offer you a few citations from the Reformed tradition:

Because God hath inseparably joined them together, so that men cannot truly design and seek the one without the other. They who enjoy God most in his house on earth, do most glorify and enjoy him. ‘Blessed are they that dwell in thy house; they will be still praising thee.’—Ps. lxxxiv. 4. And when God shall be most fully enjoyed by the saints in heaven, he will be most highly glorified. ‘He shall come to be glorified in his saints.’—2 Thess. i. 10 [emphasis added](Thomas Vincent, The Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture [1674; reprint, Banner of Truth, 1980], p. 15)
​

Glorifying and Enjoying God, are Inseparably joined together; there can’t be the one without the other. [We] must be Holy, or can’t be Happy; but those who are Holy shall be Happy, Mat. 5.8. Heb. 12.14 [emphasis added] (Benjamin Wadsworth, An Help to Get Knowledge: or, an essay, familiarly to explain the Assemblies Catechism, to the capacity of the weakest learners; and prove the truths therein contained, by plain Scripture [microfilm; Boston: printed by B. Green, for Nicholas Buttolph, 1714], p. 3)
​

Because he who desires to glorify God desires also to enjoy Him, and he who desires to enjoy God feels the impulse to glorify Him. The two desires, although distinguishable in thought, are inseparable in fact [emphasis added] (James Harper, An Exposition in the Form of Questions and Answers of the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism [1905], p. 17).
​

Last but not least, B. B. Warfield:

The peculiarity of this first question and the answer of the Westminster Catechisms, it will be seen, is the felicity with which it brings to concise expression the whole Reformed conception of the significance of human life. We say the whole Reformed conception. For justice is not done that conception if we say merely that man’s chief end is to glorify God. That certainly: and certainly that first. But according to the Reformed conception man exists not merely that God may be glorified in him, but that he may delight in this glorious God. It does justice to the subjective as well as to the objective side of the case. The Reformed conception is not fully or fairly stated if it be so stated that it may seem to be satisfied with conceiving man merely as the object on which God manifests His glory—possibly even the passive object in and through which the Divine glory is secured. It conceives man also as the subject in which the gloriousness of God is perceived and delighted in. No man is truly Reformed in his thought, then, unless he conceives of man not merely as destined to be the instrument of the Divine glory, but also as destined to reflect the glory of God in his own consciousness, to exult in God: nay, unless he himself delights in God as the all-glorious One [emphasis added] (“The First Question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism,” The Princeton Theological Review [1908] printed in The Westminster Assembly and Its Work [1931; reprint, Baker Books, 1991], pp. 396-97).
​

So, once again I post the question: Does God save sinners for his own glory or for their eternal happiness? According to these divines the Catechism says "both." I think the Bible does too. And here is where John Piper has it right: "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him."

3) Must we draw such a contrast between "discipling the nations" and "reaching souls"? Can they not be ways of looking at the same objective from two different perspectives?

Matthew writes: No. As deviant theologies have shown, one might "reach souls" for reasons other than "discipling the nations." Hence we must emphasise the need to disciple the nations as a priority, and the idea of "reaching souls" must be made subservient to this commission. If "nations" are to be reached for the purpose of making them disciples of Jesus Christ, there will be an emphasis on maintainig the ordinances of Christ in going out into the world. If, on the other hand, souls are a priority, then what is fitted to reach the souls of men might be considered acceptable evangelism in and of itself, without respect to the ordinances of Christ.

I respond:
Once again, Matthew, I just don't think you and I are on the same wave-length. When I speak of a concern for souls--like the one Paul clearly manifested (1 Cor. 9:19-22), I, like Paul, have the whole picture in view. I'm not speaking of being concerned merely with seeing someone converted, then leaving them on the street to fend for themselves. I have in view seeing men and women make a credible profession of faith, being baptized, added to the church, and taught all of Christ's commandments (Matt. 28:18-20). Moreover, when Paul said, "That I may by all means save some [emphasis added]," I take it that he had biblical means in view. The point is that Paul doesn't use the same language you're using. He doesn't tell the Corinthians, "I become all things to all men in order that I might maintain the ordinances of Christ." He speaks of a concern, better, a preoccupation with souls.

Paul's preoccupation to save sinners [and note the active voice--'that I may by all means save'--not, 'that I might simply assert the crown rights of Jesus and let Jesus do the saving'] should be reflected not merely in the heart of the ordained minister but should also reverberate in the hearts of all God's people, from the least to the greatest.

You write:

Again, it is a matter of preoccupation. The Philippians were in fellowship/partnership with Paul in the gospel, Phil. 1:5. This means, in the first place, they were supporters of His ordained ministry, or dispensation, as he sometimes called it. They prayed for him, they financially assisted him. This is first and foremost. If there is not this practical partnership in the gospel there will be no visible extension of the kingdom. Further, they were to endeavour to have a conversation as becomes the gospel, Phil. 1:27. The whole life of a Christian is to be a gospel-life, living out the great truth of reconciliation through the blood of Jesus Christ and waiting for His glorious coming. And this no doubt includes speaking about the things which are believed and practised, both within the fellowship of the church and outside of it. But this is not preaching the gospel. We might call it sharing one's faith; but evangelism, in the NT sense of the word, is the official proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ, commanding sinners to repent of their sins and believe upon Him for the salvation of their souls.

To which I reply:
According to Acts 8:1-3, Saul persecuted the church, which in turn resulted in the dispersion of both men and women. Then verse 4 tells us the result of the dispersion: "Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word." The term translated "preaching" is the participle of euangelizomai. Hence, I don't limit evangelism to the ordained minister. Read post #65 and interact with the exegesis of those texts.

You say:

Such are my Presbyterian beliefs. It is not a matter of displaying denominational snobbery, though uncharitable judgment might be inclined to see it that way. Denominations indicate that there are divisions in the body of Christ. We attach ourselves to one of those denominations in faithfulness to Jesus Christ because we believe that denomination is more consistent in its adherence to the claims of truth as revealed in the Scriptures. I am a Presbyterian because I believe the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the Westminster Standards is the most faithful exposition of the mind of Christ as revealed in Scripture amongst all the denominations calling themselves churches today. Honesty calls upon me to maintain, assert, and defend what I believe to be the truth.

To which I reply:
Matthew, I didn't accuse you of denominational snobbery. I said that your manner of arguing "comes across that way." I won't judge your heart. But I will say that any evangelical tradition, whether Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Baptist, etc., that assumes his denomination is closer to the truth of Scripture in every single aspect of faith and doctrine will never be willing to learn from God's people in other denominations. He will assume ipso facto that his tradition is always right about every detail of doctrine and practice. That's an attitude I don't share and discourage my flock from adopting. A more balanced way of stating it would be, "I think my denomination may be ahead of others in most things but not necessarily in everything." Such a disposition enables me to learn from others.

 

[MW]

What seperates office bearer's from non office bearer's would be degree of gift and calling, physical abilities [perhaps ie, ability to preach, necessary mental facalties, and discipline]

These, plus two other significant elements -- "the call of the congregation" and "taking up the call." Without the first, there is no sphere within which to exercise an authoritative function; and without the second, there is no charge or accountability in the use of the function. The "every believer evangelism" ideal undermines these two elements to the detriment of the official, authoritative work of the ministry.

You would not say that God would not use His word in these situations would you? Either for salvation , or damnation.

God not only uses His word in these situations, but blesses His people as sanctified instruments of service. But this is simply what the NT calls "gospel-conversation." Such activity does not come under the cognisance of the church and therefore cannot properly be called "evangelism." Evangelism in the NT is always conducted under the guidance of the two elements mentioned previously, which both can be reduced to the simple principle of being "sent."

 

[MW]

Is Judas fulfilling his chief end as defined by the Shorter Catechism while he's suffering in hell? Answer: Absolutely not. Judas' chief end was to glorify and enjoy God forever.

Most commentators of the Shorter Catechism are careful to note the difference between active and passive glorifying of God. All things passively glorify God because they fulfil His purpose, which was decreed pre-eminently "for His own glory."

The issue at this point is not one of "precept" because you were drawing attention to God's purpose in saving sinners, which by definition belongs to God's decree. God is glorified in the damnation of sinners. This fact means that the happiness of sinners is not foremost in God's plan.

And here is where John Piper has it right: "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him."

This is a betrayal of the reformed faith. It supposes that God is not going to be most glorified for ever, because some of the human race are going to wail miserably under the punishment of their sins for all eternity. God has made all things for Himself. If one cannot grasp that fundamental point then, in my humble opinion, he is not worth listening to as a teacher of God's counsel.

He doesn't tell the Corinthians, "I become all things to all men in order that I might maintain the ordinances of Christ." He speaks of a concern, better, a preoccupation with souls.

Read the context. Earlier he had stated his major concern was with fulfilling the "dispensation" committed to him; in other words, he was preoccupied with the ordinance of Christ.

According to Acts 8:1-3, Saul persecuted the church, which in turn resulted in the dispersion of both men and women. Then verse 4 tells us the result of the dispersion: "Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word."

There is nothing in the text to determine who preached the word.

Matthew, I didn't accuse you of denominational snobbery. I said that your manner of arguing "comes across that way." I won't judge your heart. But I will say that any evangelical tradition, whether Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Baptist, etc., that assumes his denomination is closer to the truth of Scripture in every single aspect of faith and doctrine will never be willing to learn from God's people in other denominations. He will assume ipso facto that his tradition is always right about every detail of doctrine and practice. That's an attitude I don't share and discourage my flock from adopting. A more balanced way of stating it would be, "I think my denomination may be ahead of others in most things but not necessarily in everything." Such a disposition enables me to learn from others.

This is all very post-modern and tolerant, but quite inconsistent with holding faith with a good conscience. One either believes and teaches the truth or he does not. It is the duty of the ministry to renounce the hidden things of dishonesty and plainly to manifest the truth. There is to be no cult-like hiding behind denominational names. What does the church confess? The confession is either true or false. My confession is true. Judging from the above, you are not so sure about yours. Fair enough; then you need to do a little more searching; but you can't expect anyone who is of the truth to give credence to your standpoint of doubt.

 

[Iconoclast]

Matthew,
Thank you for clarifying your position although I am not sure I see it the same way. I do not think gospel conversation would be detrimental to the ministry of the word from the pulpit,unless it was unfaithful to the texts of scripture. As I posted earlier on any of these efforts would be with the goal of having the person come under the hearing of the word preached.
An explanation of why and how the church functions would explain to the friend in question what takes place in the local assembly.
Many of us who have these gospel conversations repeat the main parts to the elders in the church so that their can be some oversight.
In Acts 8 the whole church was persecuted, why would it not be the whole church that spread the word, similar to this previously cited passage from 1 Thess.

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.

 

[KMK]

What seperates office bearer's from non office bearer's would be degree of gift and calling, physical abilities [perhaps ie, ability to preach, necessary mental facalties, and discipline]

These, plus two other significant elements -- "the call of the congregation" and "taking up the call." Without the first, there is no sphere within which to exercise an authoritative function; and without the second, there is no charge or accountability in the use of the function. The "every believer evangelism" ideal undermines these two elements to the detriment of the official, authoritative work of the ministry.

You would not say that God would not use His word in these situations would you? Either for salvation , or damnation.

God not only uses His word in these situations, but blesses His people as sanctified instruments of service. But this is simply what the NT calls "gospel-conversation." Such activity does not come under the cognisance of the church and therefore cannot properly be called "evangelism." Evangelism in the NT is always conducted under the guidance of the two elements mentioned previously, which both can be reduced to the simple principle of being "sent."

This post crystalizes a great deal of what has been swirling around my tiny brain for years. Thanks for the edification!

 

[MW]

Thank you for clarifying your position although I am not sure I see it the same way. I do not think gospel conversation would be detrimental to the ministry of the word from the pulpit,unless it was unfaithful to the texts of scripture. As I posted earlier on any of these efforts would be with the goal of having the person come under the hearing of the word preached.

Please note, I have maintained gospel conversation is the duty of every believer and complimentary to the work of evangelism. It is only when this gospel conversation assumes the title and function of "evangelism" that it becomes detrimental to the ministry of the word, because it is then conducted without the official call of the congregation and subsequent accountability to discharge an official function.

 

[Iconoclast]

Thank you for clarifying your position although I am not sure I see it the same way. I do not think gospel conversation would be detrimental to the ministry of the word from the pulpit,unless it was unfaithful to the texts of scripture. As I posted earlier on any of these efforts would be with the goal of having the person come under the hearing of the word preached.

Please note, I have maintained gospel conversation is the duty of every believer and complimentary to the work of evangelism. It is only when this gospel conversation assumes the title and function of "evangelism" that it becomes detrimental to the ministry of the word, because it is then conducted without the official call of the congregation and subsequent accountability to discharge an official function.

It is only when this gospel conversation assumes the title and function of "evangelism" that it becomes detrimental to the ministry of the word, so would your concern be that if the well meaning believer presented error in the name of the local assembly it would be detrimental to the ministry of the word? Are you then saying that any proclamation of the good news is not evangelism because it does not come from the Pastor alone?
I wonder how many of the members of the Puritanboard were drawn to salvation by the Spirit using "gospel conversation" as the evangelistic method as opposed to the formal preaching from the Pulpit alone .
Who on the PB can say that they went from being dead in Adam , to providentially coming into an faithful bible church to hear the called man preach, without having had any dealings with God prior to that first sermon preached?

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Is Judas fulfilling his chief end as defined by the Shorter Catechism while he's suffering in hell? Answer: Absolutely not. Judas' chief end was to glorify and enjoy God forever.

Most commentators of the Shorter Catechism are careful to note the difference between active and passive glorifying of God. All things passively glorify God because they fulfil His purpose, which was decreed pre-eminently "for His own glory."

The issue at this point is not one of "precept" because you were drawing attention to God's purpose in saving sinners, which by definition belongs to God's decree. God is glorified in the damnation of sinners. This fact means that the happiness of sinners is not foremost in God's plan.

And here is where John Piper has it right: "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him."

This is a betrayal of the reformed faith. It supposes that God is not going to be most glorified for ever, because some of the human race are going to wail miserably under the punishment of their sins for all eternity. God has made all things for Himself. If one cannot grasp that fundamental point then, in my humble opinion, he is not worth listening to as a teacher of God's counsel.

Read the context. Earlier he had stated his major concern was with fulfilling the "dispensation" committed to him; in other words, he was preoccupied with the ordinance of Christ.

According to Acts 8:1-3, Saul persecuted the church, which in turn resulted in the dispersion of both men and women. Then verse 4 tells us the result of the dispersion: "Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word."

There is nothing in the text to determine who preached the word.

Matthew, I didn't accuse you of denominational snobbery. I said that your manner of arguing "comes across that way." I won't judge your heart. But I will say that any evangelical tradition, whether Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Baptist, etc., that assumes his denomination is closer to the truth of Scripture in every single aspect of faith and doctrine will never be willing to learn from God's people in other denominations. He will assume ipso facto that his tradition is always right about every detail of doctrine and practice. That's an attitude I don't share and discourage my flock from adopting. A more balanced way of stating it would be, "I think my denomination may be ahead of others in most things but not necessarily in everything." Such a disposition enables me to learn from others.

This is all very post-modern and tolerant, but quite inconsistent with holding faith with a good conscience. One either believes and teaches the truth or he does not. It is the duty of the ministry to renounce the hidden things of dishonesty and plainly to manifest the truth. There is to be no cult-like hiding behind denominational names. What does the church confess? The confession is either true or false. My confession is true. Judging from the above, you are not so sure about yours. Fair enough; then you need to do a little more searching; but you can't expect anyone who is of the truth to give credence to your standpoint of doubt.

First, why didn't you respond to the commentators of the Catechism I cited? The issue at this point is one of "precept" because I drew attention to the Shorter Catechism's teaching regarding the chief end of man which is discerned and governed by what the Catechism goes on to identify as Scripture, i.e., God's precept not decree.

Second, you think John Piper's statement is "a betrayal of the Reformed faith." If you've read his literature, he spends a great deal of time citing Reformed authors to demonstrate that his statement is consistent with the Reformed faith. Moreover, I'm not sure you're reading the statement carefully: "God is most glorified in us when we're most satisfied in him [emphasis added]." God is certainly more glorified by Peter than by Judas. The glory God desires from humans the most and that which glorifies him the most is that which flows from a heart of devotion and love.

Third, the "dispensation" committed to Paul was not merely a command to preach the gospel but a command to have a burden and love for lost souls that would drive him to use every biblical means possible to persuade them to turn from their sins and trust in Christ.

Fourth, the immediate context of Acts 8:1-4 speaks of the church and identifies "men and women." Whether you're comfortable with the idea or not the saints of the NT did communicate the gospel (which is just another way of saying they evangelized) (Acts 8:4; 1 Thes. 2:8) and are in fact commanded to do so (Hebrews 5:12-14; 1 Peter 2:9; 3:15). If personal evangelism is incompatible with the Reformed faith, then I'm not Reformed--at least not the version of the Reformed faith you're advocating.

Fifth, identifying my position as "post-modern" is a good way to sling mud and to obscure the real point of debate. Assuming a position in which I admit that I and the tradition of which I am part haven't learned everything there is to learn about the Bible and that maybe, just maybe, there might be a brother in another tradition that knows more than me is indeed living with a good conscience, one that is humble and teachable. On the other hand, were I to assume that the Holy Spirit's work of illuminating the minds of his people and all biblical learning ended in the 17th century I could not have a good conscience. Your statement, " The confession is either true or false," is, to put it mildly, mistaken. To begin with, it's a perfect example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. It assumes that there's only two possible conclusions: an entire confession is either true or false. That's absurd. I doubt any of the Westminster divines would have claimed that their confession embodied all the truth of the Bible in all its proportions and without error. Confessions are not infallible. I believe my confession is an excellent summary of the teaching of Scripture. I think it gets most things right. But I don't believe it's perfect. Neither do I believe the WCF is perfect. So once again, I just don't agree with the dichotomies you draw. I close with a statement of John Murray and another from your own standard (it's not in the 1689):

When any generation is content to rely upon its theological heritage and refuses to explore for itself the riches of divine revelation, then declension is already under way and heterodoxy will be the lot of the succeeding generation.

All synods or councils [including the Westminster Assembly], since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore, they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice; but to be used as a help in both.
​

Respectfully yours,

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Thank you for clarifying your position although I am not sure I see it the same way. I do not think gospel conversation would be detrimental to the ministry of the word from the pulpit,unless it was unfaithful to the texts of scripture. As I posted earlier on any of these efforts would be with the goal of having the person come under the hearing of the word preached.

Please note, I have maintained gospel conversation is the duty of every believer and complimentary to the work of evangelism. It is only when this gospel conversation assumes the title and function of "evangelism" that it becomes detrimental to the ministry of the word, because it is then conducted without the official call of the congregation and subsequent accountability to discharge an official function.

Sounds a bit like clericalism with a capital "C."

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Thank you for clarifying your position although I am not sure I see it the same way. I do not think gospel conversation would be detrimental to the ministry of the word from the pulpit,unless it was unfaithful to the texts of scripture. As I posted earlier on any of these efforts would be with the goal of having the person come under the hearing of the word preached.

Please note, I have maintained gospel conversation is the duty of every believer and complimentary to the work of evangelism. It is only when this gospel conversation assumes the title and function of "evangelism" that it becomes detrimental to the ministry of the word, because it is then conducted without the official call of the congregation and subsequent accountability to discharge an official function.

Sounds a bit like clericalism with a capital "C."

Sounds a lot like Presbyterianism with a capital "P" to me.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Please note, I have maintained gospel conversation is the duty of every believer and complimentary to the work of evangelism. It is only when this gospel conversation assumes the title and function of "evangelism" that it becomes detrimental to the ministry of the word, because it is then conducted without the official call of the congregation and subsequent accountability to discharge an official function.

Sounds a bit like clericalism with a capital "C."

Sounds a lot like Presbyterianism with a capital "P" to me.

Well, I guess my only response is to say that I've met plenty of Presbyterians who, thankfully, don't share this perspective.