Is the Great Commission only to Apostles?

Is it possible to remove some of the hyperbole accompanying this discussion? I have separate questions for Matthew Winzer and Bob Gonzales.

Matthew, is it possible, that outside of those actions that are the province of the ordained minister, such as baptizing and sending (calling and equipping those to be sent), that you see a dichotomy between evangelism and evangelistic related work? In other words, you seem to be indicating that evangelism is a particular function of the ordained minister while he is functioning in that capacity; whether it be during a sermon, counseling session, or pastoral visit. Evangelistic related work would be the efforts of lay people sharing their faith in Christ with others. This sharing, while capable of being used by God (and I believe biblical and historical precedent support this claim), is not strictly defined as evangelism according to your view. Is that a fair assessment, or I am drawing a wrong conclusion of your position?

Bob, you said to Brad:

What counts as "cowardly"? What must a Christian do in the are of evangelism? Is evangelism an imperative for each Christian, or is it a function that a Christian can elect to participate in? In order to be honest with the reason for my question, I freely admit that I came out of a Jack Chick type of Christian background where guilt was to be heaped upon you if you missed an opportunity to share the gospel. Instead of sharing my faith out of joy, sharing became a duty; it became rote. I concur with you that believers ought to know the Gospel well enough to articulate it (Heb. 5:12). The reality is that our people are going to have different levels of understanding as well as different abilities. We want them to be bearers of the light, but what does that mean in reality?

Some general comments: Since my eyes were opened to the doctrines of grace I have seen the sharing of the gospel in a different light. While there is never an excuse for willful ignorance, I came to experience a new-found liberty in my Gospel witness. My skills (or lack thereof) of persuasion didn't matter. I no longer had to "push" a person to make a "decision" for Christ. I realize this is a bit off topic. The thread was dealing with evangelism and the warrant for lay people in participating in it. But I believe my comments are somewhat related in that ordained ministers are ultimately responsible for the equipping of the saints. Part of that equipping is to impart a right understanding of the Gospel. There is no need for those under our care to feel guilt or unwarranted fear about sharing the Gospel. I know some dear saints who are not cowardly about their faith, but are desperately afraid about initiating any type of conversation that may result in confrontation. I want to encourage and comfort these saints, not bludgeon them. There are different ways that a person may share their faith in Christ. Some do have a holy boldness to speak to strangers and articulate the Gospel. You may see these type of people bringing Christ into the public square. Others may be better off sharing their faith in acts of mercy, such as visiting those in the hospital or a nursing home. Still others are gifted in working with children. Ministers can/should encourage their flock to labor in these areas according to their skills and desires. Perhaps these methods would be termed "sharing" as opposed to "evangelism." I suppose it depends on how you define evangelism. I'm getting the impression, in this thread, that evangelism is being used as both a noun and verb.

 

Bob,

I personally use the term "evangelism." I injected the word sharing earlier in my question to Matthew. I'm waiting to read Matthew's response. Perhaps he was not intimating that a believer cannot or should be discouraged from sharing their faith in Christ, while leaving evangelizing to the ordained minister. It may be an exercise in semantics.

 

This discussion seems to always boil down to definitions.

Dr. Gonzales, do you believe an evangelist is a 'minister of the word'? If not, what do you do with Eph 4:11?

Also, I don't think it is a fallacy to argue that 'lay-evangelism' as a moral obligation is a fruit of Finneyism. You obviously disagree, but it would be helpful to me if you could cite some Reformed/Puritan sources that demonstrate the universal moral obligation of evangelism. Is the universal moral obligation to do more than 'share your faith' but 'evangelize' an historical church doctrine?

 

Ken,

I know your question is directed at Dr. Bob, but I'd like to weigh-in on this topic.

Is there a moral obligation for "lay-evangelism"? It depends on what you mean by the term. If we are saying that each Christian has a moral imperative to share the gospel verbally with unbelievers, and that by not doing so they are being disobedient to Christ, I would have to disagree. However, there is a scriptural imperative that our very lives should be a witness of our faith.

If someone is intrigued by our walk and manner of speech, and they inquire into them, should we shrink away from sharing with them the Gospel? Of course not! I hope that all of us are agreed on that. There is no moral or scriptural imperative against sharing our faith. If a Christian feels compelled to share the Gospel message with someone who is lost, should we prohibit them? If so, on what grounds? Would it be that more Christians understand the Gospel well enough to share it with others. But must they do so? Is there a compulsion from scripture to do so?

 

You have addressed one of my concerns and that is this: whenever someone argues that 'evangelism' is not a universal moral obligation, there are those who accuse him of arguing that some are morally obligated not to 'be a witness of their faith'. No one on this thread is arguing that.

Is Matt 5 'evangelism'? Is an 'evangelist' one who 'let's their light shine'? Or is an evangelist a minister of the word? Dr. Gonzales seems to say that those who view an evangelist as a minister of the word, as in Eph 4:11, have somehow hijacked the true Biblical meaning of the word. I don't get that.

 

Ken, is it possible to have a small "e" evangelist and big "E" evangelist? The big "E" evangelist is the actual office of evangelist; whether it be someone set apart solely for the purpose of evangelism, or a pastor/elder who is a minister of the Word of God. The small "e" would be anyone who shares the gospel. The are acting in the role of an evangelist, just as a father is acting in the role of minister of the Gospel when he proclaims the Word to his family.

 

I know people do, but I don't think it is wise. Are there Apostles and apostles? Are there Prophets and prophets? Are there Pastors and pastors?

According to the 'lay-evangelist' view, what is the difference between the duties of the Evangelist office holder and the duties of every Christian? If there is no difference in the duties then there is no 'office'. If there is no 'office' what happened to it?

 

Ken, so if a lay person shares the gospel, what do we call that? Evangelism? Sharing? Witnessing? Nothing? See my point? I'm not arguing that a lay person holds the office of evangelist. I'm simply asking what we call it when a lay person evangelizes? Or are we going to say that's not what they're doing?

 

I get it. The problem is there is always a violent reaction when someone proposes a different term for 'a lay person sharing the gospel'. Why are people accused of 'cowardice' or 'goat-like behavior' when all they want to do is keep scriptural categories distinct and clear?

I repeat my question: According to the 'lay-evangelist' view, what is the difference between the duties of the Evangelist office holder and the duties of every Christian?

 

Well Ken, not everyone agrees that the office of Evangelist exists today re: Eph. 4. Some say that office ceased to exist while others believe it is the duty of pastors and elders (2 Tim. 4:5). If it is the latter than we know that the office of pastor/elder has more than just evangelism as an assigned duty. Preaching/teaching, discipleship, administration of the ordinances/sacraments, spiritual oversight of the church etc. Evangelism would be just one duty of the office. What are the responsibilities of the lay person in regards to evangelism? This is what I tried to touch on earlier. Well, there is the command to live an obedient life to the glory of God (Matthew 5:16). I concede that there is no positive command for believers to share the Gospel. But neither is there a prohibition against it. I am not straying into Finneyism, I'm simply calling the activity of sharing one's faith exactly what it is: evangelism. Why is it a threat to scriptural categories to call an activity what it is? If Bob shares the Gospel with Fred, Bob is evangelizing according to the strict definition of the word. Why can't we just leave it at that without being pulled into Finneyism or hyper-Calvinism?

 

Bill, in a previous post, you said...

I assumed you were arguing for an office called 'Evangelist'. If there is no longer an office called 'Evangelist' then so be it, but to my mind it is confusing when people speak of 'lay-evangelism' because it sounds like they are referring to a set of duties that is distinct from the office. I will rephrase my question: how do the duties of every Christian today differ from the duties of the now non-existent office of Evangelist? Is everyone now an evangelist? Does that mean that everyone now is an apostle and a prophet?

 

Ken,

The duties of a non-ordained Christian differ from an ordained minister (I'm combining evangelists, pastors and elders) in both scope and legality. Only an ordained minister is able to administer the ordinances/sacraments. Normally only an ordained minister can preach, although qualified lay people can do so under the authority of an ordained minister. What about evangelism? As I pointed out from 2 Timothy 4:5, ordained ministers are to do the work of an evangelist. Within the jurisdiction of the church evangelism is the responsibility of the ordained minister.

So, what do we make of the lay person who wants to share his faith in Christ with his neighbor? I am assuming he is not prevented from doing so. Fine. I am also willing to concede he is not obligated to do so. But what if he wants to? Is this unlawful? If it's not unlawful do we not call what he is doing evangelizing? Would calling it evangelism threaten the lawful work of the ordained minister? I don't see how it would. The evangelism is being done one-on-one. I suppose we could remove the word evangelism and call it "a religious discussion centering on items of salvific importance." Ken, I'm not trying to be flippant, but I can't help but chuckle at not being able to call a duck a duck.

 

Matthew,

What I appreciate about your response is that it dispenses with ambiguity. Thank you.

While not advocating egalitarianism, how would you classify the work of sharing one's faith with another? Would you see God using such activity as a means of calling His elect even if such activity is either not normative or outside the scope and mandate of the church? Or could it be that such activity is useful, although it falls outside of evangelism in your view? The reason I ask these questions is because there is incontrovertible evidence that many have come to Christ through such a journey. I am one of them. Yes, I heard the Gospel preached by an ordained minister (if you consider the Assembly of God a true church). But prior to that time my mother and her friends literally hounded me with the Gospel message. I was hit square between the eyes about my sin and the need for a Savior. In my 31 years of being a Christian, I have met hundreds of people with a similar story. The first time they heard the Gospel was not in a church. Do we chalk this up to God using unordinary means in order to call His sheep?

 

"a religious discussion centering on items of salvific importance" We could make it an anacronym! RDCOITOSI!

 

Matthew,

You wrote:

Are you saying that salvation can only occur in the church, the place where ministry, sacraments are intricately tied to the doctrine of salvation, or that is ordinarily the case, leaving open the possibility that someone can enter into the invisible church by other means? I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. I appreciate your patience.