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

[KMK]

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.

Is 'proclaiming God's excellencies to the world' the same as 'evangelization'? I would agree that the former is everyone's duty (even the reprobate), but not the latter.

My concern is not whether all have 'mastery of the message' but whether they have the 'authority' to call men to repentance and faith. Rom 10 seems to me to teach that only those who have been 'sent' have such authority. In fact, many people in churches today are living such a sinful lifestyle that they might be in danger of profaning God's Holy name by evangelizing.

Also, how is a concern for the lost measured? Does Dr. Frame give us any guidance on how to judge between a true and a false concern? It all seems very vague to me whereas the Word and Sacrements are obvious.

 

[MW]

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.

The answer will probably be given in terms of what the person understands of this very discussion. If they think in terms of the biblical emphasis on baptism and ministry, then they might be better prepared to give an informed answer along the lines of a connection with the visible church.

 

[MW]

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.

The issue emerged because of your point 2 in an earlier post, where you asked, "Does God save sinners for his own glory or for their eternal happiness?" God saving sinners is a matter of His own will of decree, not of man's duty by reason of His precept. The reason why I did not interact with the commentators on the Catechism is because their statements are irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

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.

Now you attribute unfulfilled desires in God, or passions, which is contrary to Scripture and to the basic theological presupposition that "God" is "blessed for ever."

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.

Be that as it may, it was a burden which resulted from Christ's dispensation, which shows the ordinance of Christ was foremost in his mind.

Fourth, the immediate context of Acts 8:1-4 speaks of the church and identifies "men and women."

Notwithstanding, the text nowhere says that the men and women were the ones who specifically preached the Word in every place. You are adding a determinative element which is neither expressed nor implied by the text.

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.

I agree that would be humble and conscionable, if it were what you stated. However, you proceeded on the supposition that 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." In which case you are not making a statement about the future discovery of truth through God's blessing on the means of grace, but are casting doubt on your present position in relation to the truth confessed by your denomination. This is not humble and conscionable, but a "doubtful disputation;" in which case your surmising is not to be received.

 

[MW]

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

From a leveller's perspective, I can see how it might sound like that.

 

[Pergamum]

Explain the term leveller

 

[MW]

Explain the term leveller

Do you mean, "please explain the term leveller?"

 

[Pergamum]

Agreed. I think the Gospel always goes forward with an imperative that the hearer is under obligation to believe. What I think makes Reformed theology distinctive is that it recognizes that the Holy Spirit converts and not extraordinary measures.

I wrote this article about 2 years ago when the Franklin Graham festival was in full swing in Okinawa: The Franklin Graham Festival in Okinawa and the Degeneration of Protestant Ecclesiology | SoliDeoGloria.com

It is characteristic of many people today to throw caution to the wind when it comes to telling people about Jesus as if simply making sure the maximum number of people hear about Him is what the goal is. Literally, people simply did not care what the Franklin Graham reps taught from the pulpit. It didn't matter how much eisegesis was used in order to motivate people to beat the bricks so that they would get the maximum number of "unsaved" people to the Festival. Of course, my problem with the whole mess was that these "converts" were plugged into Churches that made them twice as fit for Hell but most people have an attitude that it doesn't matter how you finish but merely hearing and responding is important.

Rich, like you I'm opposed to propagating a truncated gospel. I'm also not in favor of counting mere decisions in order to boast of one's "converts." And I think we all agree that every sinner is under obligation to believe the gospel. My question is whether Reformed and Puritan theology sees it as the duty of every believer (in accordance with the gifts and opportunities God gives him) to entreat sinners indiscriminately to come to Christ with the promise that God desires (not necessarily decrees) their salvation. If so, has Reformed and Puritan theology expressed the believer's duty to proactively evangelize the lost in manner and pathos described confessionally?

Bob,

I don't think every Christian is the one "...who is sent..." according to Romans 10. I think we all have responsibility to bear witness to Christ but not all are preachers of the Word.

For what it's worth, I believe my duty is to talk to others where I have opportunity and to invite them to Church where God's Word is preached and, should they be converted, they have opportunity to be discipled.

I think you are making a good distinction Rich.

Some are sent out and ALL others are supposed to bear witness where they are.

Perhaps when Matthew hears me and DR Gonzales stress the fact that ALL are to bear witness, he wants to defend that there are only SOME that are sent out. And I know when I hear Matthew stress that not all are sent out, I want to remind him that ALL are to bear witness.

Different emphases.

 

[Pergamum]

Explain the term leveller

Do you mean, "please explain the term leveller?"

Dear most revered right and esteemed Reverand Matthew Winzer:


If you would ever be so kind as to kindly extend the kindness of explaining the term "leveller" - seeing my humble estate and ignorance and all - I would humbly thank you and forever be in your service.

Your humble servant,

Pergmeister.



Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[MW]

INquiring minds want to know.

Inquiring minds shouldn't assume the position of superiors and demand answers of equals.

A leveller, ironically, is one who would abolish social distinctions and advocates everyone should be treated as equals. As the rebellion of Korah reveals, levellers often desire equality for the purpose of exercising their own prerogative where they have no authority.

 

[Pergamum]

INquiring minds want to know.

Inquiring minds shouldn't assume the position of superiors and demand answers of equals. QUOTE]

Huh? Do you have a problem?

 

[Herald]

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.

Is 'proclaiming God's excellencies to the world' the same as 'evangelization'? I would agree that the former is everyone's duty (even the reprobate), but not the latter.

My concern is not whether all have 'mastery of the message' but whether they have the 'authority' to call men to repentance and faith. Rom 10 seems to me to teach that only those who have been 'sent' have such authority. In fact, many people in churches today are living such a sinful lifestyle that they might be in danger of profaning God's Holy name by evangelizing.

Also, how is a concern for the lost measured? Does Dr. Frame give us any guidance on how to judge between a true and a false concern? It all seems very vague to me whereas the Word and Sacrements are obvious.

Ken, a careful reading of 1 Peter 2:9 puts the emphasis on who we are, not what we proclaim. We are actually proclaiming His excellencies by being, "A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION." The very fact that we are these things proclaims the excellencies of God. There is no positive command in this passage to preach.

The lifestyle of a believer does not change the truthfulness of the message. I'm not sure I would use that positively or negatively in my argument.

I won't speak for Dr. Frame, but a concern for the lost springs forth from our human emotion and an appeal from scripture. Humanly speaking, our hearts yearn for those we love to join us in God's family. Our parents, siblings, aunts uncles and friends are examples of those we do not want to see perish. To the extent that we display a deeper compassion, our hearts may grieve for Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus that are perishing. Does this feeling equate to each and every believer preaching the gospel in accordance with our compassion? No. I tried to draw the distinction earlier in this thread that preaching is a function of those specifically called for that purpose.

But what of sharing or witnessing? Does scripture preclude a believer from talking to an unbeliever about Christ? While not preaching, may a believer share or discuss scripture? That is a question that I do not believe has been adequately addressed in this thread. We seem to be agreed that preaching is the function of ordained men called for that purpose. I'll ask it plainly. What may a non-ordained believer do or not do when it comes to discussing the gospel?

 

[Pergamum]

NEW JERSEY BAPTIST:


Exactly:


But what of sharing or witnessing? Does scripture preclude a believer from talking to an unbeliever about Christ? While not preaching, may a believer share or discuss scripture? That is a question that I do not believe has been adequately addressed in this thread. We seem to be agreed that preaching is the function of ordained men called for that purpose. I'll ask it plainly. What may a non-ordained believer do or not do when it comes to discussing the gospel?


Perhaps one side is afraid of degrading the office so much that they immobilize the laity, and the other side wants to see every Christian bear good witness so much that they do not often stress enough that some are specifically called to be sent out.

 

[MW]

Huh? Do you have a problem?

No. I don't think the sacrasm was called for when I asked you politely if you meant to include "please" in your demand. I can't imagine you ordinarily go about demanding answers of people.

 

[Pergamum]

I thought pleases were assumed on the PB when asking for answers. If not, plenty of others and you, too, need to go back and add a lot of pleases.

It is entirely customary to ask things without prefacing it with a please on here.

On this post you have accused John Piper of betraying the Reformed faith and have called Dr Gonzales Postmodern, and now you want to teach me lessons in politeness?

Let's get back to the discussion...

 

[MW]

On this post you have accused John Piper of betraying the Reformed faith and have called Dr Gonzales Postmodern, and now you want to teach me lessons in politeness?

You should not misrepresent what I wrote. I simply drew attention to the statements as made; I did not say anything about the men who made the statements. Speaking the truth in love does not entail covering over errors. It does, however, call upon us to act courteously towards one another.

 

[Pergamum]

fair enough, let's get back to the discussion at hand....it gives us meat enough to chew without these bones...

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

NEW JERSEY BAPTIST:

Exactly:

But what of sharing or witnessing? Does scripture preclude a believer from talking to an unbeliever about Christ? While not preaching, may a believer share or discuss scripture? That is a question that I do not believe has been adequately addressed in this thread. We seem to be agreed that preaching is the function of ordained men called for that purpose. I'll ask it plainly. What may a non-ordained believer do or not do when it comes to discussing the gospel?

Perhaps one side is afraid of degrading the office so much that they immobilize the laity, and the other side wants to see every Christian bear good witness so much that they do not often stress enough that some are specifically called to be sent out.

Brother, thanks for the clarifying statement. I want to make it clear, as I tried to do above, that I am not a "leveller" and do affirm a distinction between an officially ordained servant of Christ officially sent to preach the gospel whether at home (pastor-teacher) or abroad (missionary/church planter) in keeping with Ephesians 4:11. That's why I'm not a member of a Brethren church. I should add, nevertheless, that the 1689 Baptist Confession does not limit the preaching the the gospel to the ordained minister:

Although it be incumbant on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the Word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the Word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it (Of the church, XXVI, 11; proof texts = Acts 8:5, 11, 19-21; 1 Pet. 4:10-11).
​

I do, however, believe the pastor-teacher is charged with the responsibility of equipping the saints so that the saints can do the work of ministry so that Christ's body may be edified (Eph. 4:12). So I do not believe the saint's ministry and witness is to be merely passive. They are, in keeping with 1 Thessalonians 1:8, to "sound forth" the word of truth. This is more than merely a moral lifestyle. Paul assumes that some verbal interpretation of that lifestyle had been given when he says at the end of the verse: "so that we do not need to say anything [emphasis added]."

Matthew does not believe it's possible that those scattered abroad "evangelizing" may have included non-ordained persons simply because it doesn't explicitly identify who they were. But the immediate context speaks of "the church in Jerusalem, except the apostles" (v. 1) and mentions "men and women" being committed to prison (v. 3). I don't think it's a stretch to assume that those scattered aboard also included both "men and women" and that not all of them had been officially ordained to preach. Philip, who's later depicted as one of those preaching the gospel was no more than a deacon at this time. He's not explicitly identified as an evangelist till Acts 21:8. (Of course, this assumes that these passages are referring to the same Philip.) Matthew accuses me of "adding a determinative element which is neither expressed nor implied by the text." I do think the implication is likely. But I'm willing to concede it's not certain. But neither is it certain that those doing the "evangelizing" were all ordained pastors.

I don't believe the writer to the Hebrews was focusing his rebuke upon ministerial aspirants when he said, "For though by this time you ought to be teachers" (Heb. 5:12a). The opposite assumption, viz, they were laypeople, is supported by the fact that he tells this same group to submit to their elders (13:17). So according to his text, laypeople are to strive after doctrinal and ethical maturity so that they might be in a position where they're able to expound the same gospel truth the writer is expounding. And I see no reason to limit the sphere of their teaching to their own family members. If a father or mother may disciple and "evangelize" his or her own children effectively, then what prohibits them from communicating the gospel to a lost neighbor or relative or workmate and calling that individual to repent and believe on the authority of Christ's own word?

Bill argues that "a careful reading of 1 Peter 2:9 puts the emphasis on who we are, not what we proclaim.... The very fact that we are these things proclaims the excellencies of God. There is no positive command in this passage to preach." So this text would apparently argue for a "passive" witness. With all due respect to Bill, I have my doubts. First, the term translated "proclaim" (exangello) normally refers to a verbal communication of propositional truth or information. Second, one's lifestyle needs an interpretation. When I was converted, many of my family members and friends interpreted the change as "turning over a new leaf" or "getting my life in order." They could not infer from simply watching my lifestyle that I had been "called out of darkness into God's marvelous light." I had to explain to them the gospel for them to properly understand the change. So if God tells me, "You are this in order that you may do that," the "that" becomes my purpose or role or function in a lost world. I see no impropriety in inferring an active duty or responsibility from this text. Again, I would qualify it, as does Peter,

As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen [emphasis added] (1 Peter 4:10-11).
​

I certainly hope we're all agreed that 1 Peter 3:15 is referring to the duty of every believer. Not just the theologians and pastors but the laypeople must "sanctify the Lord God in [their] hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks [them] a reason for the hope that is in [them], with meekness and fear." Note, the "defense" or "apologia" should not be limited to the general kind of apologetic that seeks to prove theism or the historicity of the Bible. They are to provide a rational defense of "the hope that is in them," i.e., the gospel hope. Note secondly, the fact that the lost are asking these people not merely "why do you live an upright life?" or "why are you different from other people?" or "why do you go to church?" but rather "why do you have a future expectation of blessing?" presupposes that these believers have already been, to some degree, vocal about their gospel hope. I've worked in the secular world around many professing Christians whose outward deportment was kind, upright, and pleasant. But those whose witness was most effective did not merely communicate by lifestyle but by lip. The "shared the gospel." I myself was led to a gospel preaching church not merely by a plumber's changed life but by his verbal declaration, explanation, communication of the good news.

I'm not sure why we can't call that "evangelism" with a little 'e,' distinguishing it from the evangelistic efforts of an ordained Evangelist with a big 'E.' Don't we do the same when we distinguish different kinds of apostles? There are the inspired Apostles with a large 'A' and the non-inspired apostles (or missionaries to use the Latin equivalent) with a little 'a' (2 Cor. 8:23). Personally, I don't agree with highjacking a Greek term and limiting its usage exclusively to the pastoral office when in fact the Bible does not so limit its usage. For example, the verb "to preach" (kerusso) is used of non-ordained individuals proclaiming an important message (Mark 1:45; 5:20; Luke 8:39). Particularly notable is the example of the demon-possessed man whom Jesus had restored and ordered,

Return to your own house, and tell what great things God has done for you. And he went his way and proclaimed [kerusson] throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him.
​

The fact Jesus commanded him to do this does not necessitate an official ordination to an office. What Jesus commands this man to do, he, by way of implication, commands all those who have been rescued from the kingdom of darkness to do. So the term kerusso does have a non-technical or non-official usage. The term "evangelize" (euangelizomai) also appears to have a non-official usage. In Psalm 68:11, "the great host" who are proclaiming the good news is in the feminine and the verse may be translated, "The Lord speaks;many, many women spread the good news (NET)." The text may be referring to Miriam and company declaring the Lord's deliverance with timbrels and song (Exo. 15:20-21). When Timothy brings a positive report to Paul regarding the faith of the Thessalonians, it turns out he's "evangelizing" [euangelisamenou] (1 Thes. 3:6). So these special terms, which normally are used for an official proclamation of the gospel by someone commissioned, also have less, non-technical meanings and may be applied to those who are not apostles or pastor-teachers (Acts 8:4).

In closing, allow me to affirm the following: (1) I'm not a "leveller." I believe Christ has ordained officers for the church and they are especially commissioned to proclaim the gospel. (2) I believe in a holistic evangelistic and missionary outreach. We're not just concerned with the happiness of man but with God's glory that will result as men and women find their highest enjoyment in God alone. Furthermore, God's methodology for evangelism includes proclaiming the good news so that sinners might be saved, baptized, gathered into local assemblies, and grounded in the whole counsel of God. (3) Though I believe a large responsibility for proclaming the gospel resides at the feet of those specially trained and commissioned for the task, I do not, in keeping with the passages I've cited and expounded above, believe proclaiming the gospel is the sole province of officially ordained men. Nor do I believe that all true evangelism must take place within the church. As one man has recently stated it, "Trying to reach the lost in one's community primarily or exclusively through the public services of the church is like bass fishing in one's bathtub. The fish just ain't there." Of course, he didn't intend that statement in an absolute sense. There are often unsaved young people and visitors that come among us. But for the most part, we have to reach out if we are to draw the lost into the church. And to suppose that the reaching out must be limited to the ordained preacher is, in my opinion, subbiblical, wrongheaded, and contrary to the experience of most.

 

[Pergamum]

In unreached areas evangelism must happen before there is a church.
Evangelism occurs prior to the church.

Once a local church is established we can bring people into the church. But where there is no church we are the ones who go (Matthew 28).

As God adds to the church, this need not mean that he adds to already established churches; the Lord can add to the church daily by multiplying churches and creating new churches were churches did not exist before.

There is no need to look inward - we should always be reaching out.

Let's have an outward looking view of why God has blessed us. He has blessed us so that we may bless others (psalm 67) and that salvation should come to all nations.

And this reaching out, praying and loving the world is done by all members of the body of Christ, in their respective stations in life.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

In unreached areas evangelism must happen before there is a church.
Evangelism occurs prior to the church.

Once a local church is established we can bring people into the church. But where there is no church we are the ones who go (Matthew 28).

As God adds to the church, this need not mean that he adds to already established churches; the Lord can add to the church daily by multiplying churches and creating new churches were churches did not exist before.

There is no need to look inward - we should always be reaching out.

Let's have an outward looking view of why God has blessed us. He has blessed us so that we may bless others (psalm 67) and that salvation should come to all nations.

And this reaching out, praying and loving the world is done by all members of the body of Christ, in their respective stations in life.

Preach it, brother!

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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.

The issue emerged because of your point 2 in an earlier post, where you asked, "Does God save sinners for his own glory or for their eternal happiness?" God saving sinners is a matter of His own will of decree, not of man's duty by reason of His precept. The reason why I did not interact with the commentators on the Catechism is because their statements are irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

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.

Now you attribute unfulfilled desires in God, or passions, which is contrary to Scripture and to the basic theological presupposition that "God" is "blessed for ever."

Matthew, with all due respect, you seem to be uncomfortable with the paradox of God's will of purpose and his will of desire or precept. Do you deny that God sincerely offers and desires the salvation of all men? If so, what do you do with Jesus' statement in John 5:34 where he tells the Jews, many of whom were reprobate, "I say these things so that you may be saved." When God tells the wicked, many of whom did perish in their sins, "As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?" (Ezek. 33:11). Or what about Jesus' lament, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! [emphasis added]" (Matt. 23:37).

I do affirm that God is blessed forever more. Indeed, I affirm that God is completely self-sufficient and doesn't need humankind. But I'm also constrained by Scripture to affirm that God desires certain things (e.g., that humans stop sinning), which desires are unfulfilled. If you think this is contrary to Scripture, then I'd like to know how God could want sinners to be saved whom in the end he does not regenerate. From all the reading I've done in Reformed theology, I've gotten the impression that most Reformed divines have properly distinguished between God's will of purpose and his will of precept and have been content to live with this mystery.

I cite T. J. Crawford, Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh, who in his Baird Lecture (1874) summarized it well:

"It may be alleged, however, that the invitations of the Gospel, besides being expressive of the undisputed fact that whosoever complies with them shall obtain the offered blessings, are also indicative of a desire on the part of God that all sinners to whom they are held out should comply with them; and how, it may be asked, can such a desire be sincere, if it be the purpose of God to confer only on some sinners that grace by which their compliance will be secured? Now, without pretending that we are able to give a satisfactory answer to this question, we are not prepared to admit, what the question evidently assumes, that God can have no sincere desire with reference to the conduct of all His creatures, if it be His purpose to secure on the part of some, and not on the part of all of them, the fulfillment of this desire. For how does the case stand in this respect with His commandments? These, no less than His invitations, are addressed to all. Both alike to be considered as indications of what He desires and requires to be done by all. Nor are there wanting, with reference to his commandments, testimonies quite as significant as any which are to be found with reference to His invitations, of the earnestness and intensity of His desire that the course which they prescribe should be adopted by all who hear them [he cites several texts].... Doubtless it is an inscrutable mystery that things should thus be done under the government of the Almighty which are in the highest degree displeasing and offensive to Him. It is just the old mystery of moral evil, which no one has ever been able to explain.... Therefore, convinced though we be, on the authority of Scripture, that it is God's purpose to bring an elect people to a willing and hearty reception of the great salvation, we cannot, and never will, thence deduce any conclusions tending to obscure the brightness of the manifestation which God has made of His love to a sinful world in the mediatorial work and sufferings of His beloved Son, or to cast a shadow of doubt on the earnestness of His desire, as indicated in the calls and offers of the Gospel, that all sinners should come ot the Saviour that they may have life."

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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.

I agree that would be humble and conscionable, if it were what you stated. However, you proceeded on the supposition that 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." In which case you are not making a statement about the future discovery of truth through God's blessing on the means of grace, but are casting doubt on your present position in relation to the truth confessed by your denomination. This is not humble and conscionable, but a "doubtful disputation;" in which case your surmising is not to be received.

Yes, if you'll take the time to read my post, you'll find that I don't think the 1689 is perfect. I should think that would make you happy since you think your confession is better. Indeed, one flaw I call to attention is the Savoy's and 1689's omission of the paragraphs related to the grounds of divorce and remarriage, which were included in the WCF. Why the congregationalists and baptists left this out I do not know. But I think it was a mistake. And on this point, I think the WCF is superior. By admitting that fact, I'm trying to be humble and keep a good conscience with respect to God's word. I'm trying to encourage my fellow Baptist pastors to consider reinserting the original statement found in the WCF into our confession. But, as I'm learning on this board and elsewhere, it's mighty difficult to persuade Reformed pastors that their confessions are not perfect and could be improved. My impression has been that though in principle men confess them to be fallible and subject to emendation in practice it's usually another story. BTW, Paul's warning against "doubtful disputations" (Rom. 14:1) has reference to quarrels over matters indifferent. It does not preclude a man assuming the posture that his tradition is not perfect.

 

[Scott1]

I know there is a lot of passion in this. Thanks again for the contributors here especially Dr Gonzales and Mr Winzer. There are some profound issues being discussed, and one won't hear them discussed hardly anyplace else.

Early on, I sensed we were swerving into soteriological issues and that has happened.

One of the hardest things for us as human beings to accept is that God is glorified by both his mercy on sinners and His justice on sinners. Both display the glory of a God who is, at once merciful and just.

While Arminian-influenced theology says God wants everyone to be saved but man makes the final decision, Reformed theology says God chooses to save some and to pass others by- to the praise of His Glory.

When I first heard this, I thought it was outrageous that God does not want to save everyone. However, over time after reflecting on God's Word, I came to understand that God is good and He defines what good is- I do not define it for God.

It is as "outrageous" that God chooses to save anyone because justice demands punishment but we look at it the other way as we are self-centered and self-seeking beings.

These are difficult things to understand, far less accept, so we really need to be charitable with another... and marvel that God choose to save sinners such as us.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Fourth, the immediate context of Acts 8:1-4 speaks of the church and identifies "men and women."

Notwithstanding, the text nowhere says that the men and women were the ones who specifically preached the Word in every place. You are adding a determinative element which is neither expressed nor implied by the text.

Matthew et al, consider the opinions of the following commentators on the implications of Acts 8:1-4:

John Calvin:

"Luke also recounts here that it happened by the incredible providence of God that the dispersion of believers led many into the unity of the faith. This is God's normal way of bringing light out of darkness, and life out of death. For the sound of the Gospel, which was being heard only in one place, is now resounding everywhere" [emphasis added] (NT Commentaries, 6:228).
​

J. A. Alexander:

"The inspired writer, having paused to tell us what became of Stephen and Saul, now resumes his narrative of the dispersion, not by repeating what he said in v. 1, but by advancing a step further. As he there said that all (except the twelve) were scattered, he now says that all who were thus scattered preached the word. Some would infer from this, that none but preachers were expelled; but it is far more natural to understand the verse as referring, not to preaching in the technical or formal sense, but to that joyful and spontaneous diffusion of the truth, which is permitted and required of all believers, whether lay or clerical, ordained or unordained [emphasis added] (A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles [1857; reprint, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1984], 319).
​

Dennis Johnson:

"As the Lord in Isaiah summoned the people to be his witnesses, so now all believers, empowered by the Spirit, can speak the word of God boldly (Acts 4:31). In fact, the first step in the gospel's spread to the earth's ends are taken not by apostles, but by other Christians, who are scattered by persecution as the apostles remain in Jerusalem (8:1). These scattered believers 'announce the word as good news' as they travel through Judea and Samaria (8:4). Their announcement of good news is centered on Jesus Christ (8:5, 12), and is therefore firmly rooted in the apostles' testimony that Jesus is alive from the dead" [emphasis added] (The Message of Acts in the History of Redemption [P & R, 1997], 45).
​

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

R. B. Kuiper on "God and the Agent of Evangelism"

"Beyond dispute, the Christian Church is the God-ordained agent of evangelism. However, when making that statement one does well to define the term church. In this context, it has two references, which, although inseparable, are properly distinguished from each other. Both the church as an organization, operating through its special offices, and the church as an organism of believers, each of which holds a general or universal office, are God-ordained agents of evangelism" [emphasis added] (God Centered Evangelism [Banner of Truth Trust, 1966], 118).

"God has instituted special offices in His church. But Scripture also teaches a universal office in which all believers participate. Every believer holds the office of prophet, priest, and king. That truth is stated succinctly in 1 Peter 2:9, 'Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you into his marvelous light.' The church is a royalty of priests, a priesthood of kings. And it is the duty of every priest and king to proclaim the excellencies of his Saviour. That is his function as prophet" [emphasis added] (Ibid., 124).

 

[ManleyBeasley]

I know there is a lot of passion in this. Thanks again for the contributors here especially Dr Gonzales and Mr Winzer. There are some profound issues being discussed, and one won't hear them discussed hardly anyplace else.

Early on, I sensed we were swerving into soteriological issues and that has happened.

One of the hardest things for us as human beings to accept is that God is glorified by both his mercy on sinners and His justice on sinners. Both display the glory of a God who is, at once merciful and just.

While Arminian-influenced theology says God wants everyone to be saved but man makes the final decision, Reformed theology says God chooses to save some and to pass others by- to the praise of His Glory.

When I first heard this, I thought it was outrageous that God does not want to save everyone. However, over time after reflecting on God's Word, I came to understand that God is good and He defines what good is- I do not define it for God.

It is as "outrageous" that God chooses to save anyone because justice demands punishment but we look at it the other way as we are self-centered and self-seeking beings.

These are difficult things to understand, far less accept, so we really need to be charitable with another... and marvel that God choose to save sinners such as us.

This debate seems (though not forthrightly stated) to be about supralapsarianism verses infralapsarianism. In defence of those of us who are infra (including Edwards, Spurgeon, Augustine and most believe Calvin) the statement "God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him" is a statement of individual, not grand total. He is more glorified in me as an individual when I am most satisfied in Him, though for Him to have this glorification in me (my treasuring of Him) the contrast of the glorification of His justice must be displayed on the unelect. Piper very clearly states (in numerous sermons and writings) that God created the universe as a whole to bring him the most possible glory. Some individuals may bring God less glory individually (though still glorifying Him by His justice) but enable the most possible glory overall. Jonathan Edwards dealt with this in speaking of a wide and narrow angle lens in which God sees sin. He hates all sins in the narrow angle but is ultimately glorified by the existence of sin in the wide angle. I believe Romans 9:22-24 shows what I'm saying.

22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

This debate seems (though not forthrightly stated) to be about supralapsanarianism verses infralapsanarianism. In defence of those of us who are infra (including Edwards, Spurgeon, Augustine and most believe Calvin) the statement "God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him" is a statement of individual, not grand total. He is more glorified in me as an individual when I am most satisfied in Him, though for Him to have this glorification in me (my treasuring of Him) the contrast of the glorification of His justice must be displayed on the unelect. Piper very clearly states (in numerous sermons and writings) that God created the universe as a whole to bring him the most possible glory. Some individuals may bring God less glory individually (though still glorifying Him by His justice) but enable the most possible glory overall. Jonathan Edwards dealt with this in speaking of a wide and narrow angle lens in which God sees sin. He hates all sins in the narrow angle but is ultimately glorified by the existence of sin in the wide angle. I believe Romans 9:22-24 shows what I'm saying.

22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Manley, thanks for the very helpful clarification. I believe the Shorter Catechism's chief end of man had in view what Piper has in view: how we as individuals were designed to bring God the most glory. Keeping these distinctions in mind will help to keep our discussion on track.

 

[dannyhyde]

After wading through all the posts, I did not see this article referenced, which explains the missio Dei in the Canons of Dort:

Anthony A. Hoekema, "The Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort." Calvin Theological Journal 7:2 (November 1972).

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

After wading through all the posts, I did not see this article referenced, which explains the missio Dei in the Canons of Dort:

Anthony A. Hoekema, "The Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort." Calvin Theological Journal 7:2 (November 1972).

Danny, can you give us a synopsis of this article?

 

[ManleyBeasley]

This debate seems (though not forthrightly stated) to be about supralapsanarianism verses infralapsanarianism. In defence of those of us who are infra (including Edwards, Spurgeon, Augustine and most believe Calvin) the statement "God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him" is a statement of individual, not grand total. He is more glorified in me as an individual when I am most satisfied in Him, though for Him to have this glorification in me (my treasuring of Him) the contrast of the glorification of His justice must be displayed on the unelect. Piper very clearly states (in numerous sermons and writings) that God created the universe as a whole to bring him the most possible glory. Some individuals may bring God less glory individually (though still glorifying Him by His justice) but enable the most possible glory overall. Jonathan Edwards dealt with this in speaking of a wide and narrow angle lens in which God sees sin. He hates all sins in the narrow angle but is ultimately glorified by the existence of sin in the wide angle. I believe Romans 9:22-24 shows what I'm saying.

22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Manley, thanks for the very helpful clarification. I believe the Shorter Catechism's chief end of man had in view what Piper has in view: how we as individuals were designed to bring God the most glory. Keeping these distinctions in mind will help to keep our discussion on track.

I agree. Piper quoted it repeatedly in "Desiring God". The Canons of Dordt also take a clearly infra position. Article 7 says-

"Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, he chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery."

 

[dannyhyde]

After wading through all the posts, I did not see this article referenced, which explains the missio Dei in the Canons of Dort:

Anthony A. Hoekema, "The Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort." Calvin Theological Journal 7:2 (November 1972).

Danny, can you give us a synopsis of this article?

Sorry, no time to do so. If you are a prof at a seminary then you should have CTJ or at least are able to get it via inter-library loan.