Preaching and Witnessing

[Scott Bushey]

It had been metioned before in the 'Street Preaching' thread that Praeching is not the same as witnessing; Do you agree with this statement? If not, what is the difference between preaching and witnessing?



[Edited on 2-27-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[ReformedWretch]

hmmmmm

I think there is greater responsability upon a preacher (teacher) than upon someone who shares their faith. After witnessing, you can bring an intrested person to the preacher.

 

[alwaysreforming]

I think that's an excellent question to ponder.
It would seem that "preaching" is a category far broader than simply "witnessing," whereas "witnessing" could be seen as a "subset" of preaching.

In preaching, the whole panoply of Scripture could be brought to light, explained, exhorted, etc. Witnessing, per se, wouldn't be interested in ALL of Scripture, but only such as is necessary for BEGINNING the faith, and as such would contain those elements necessary for saving faith.

Preaching can be delivered to the saints and saints alone, and can be profitable for improving one's conversion and love to God. "Witnessing" wouldn't really be necessary to saints, because you're not giving a testimony to things previously unknown or unbelieved.

My to get the ball rolling....

 

[Scott Bushey]

I'm speaking solely to the distinction and limitation. Is the commission given to everyone in the body or to only the leadership? pastors are called to preach, non ordained men are not. We are all called to witness. When does witnessing become preaching? if it is in a corporate setting? What do you call it if I am standing up on a picnic table and giving a gospel message to a bunch of homeless people?

 

[ReformedWretch]

How do we fulfill the great comission as individual believers?

 

[alwaysreforming]

Oh, sorry, I didn't catch the distinction you were aiming for.

I think in the example you've given below there are a couple of things to consider:

One is, I think we need to be careful laying the most distinct boundaries around the two categories to the exclusion of not being able to take advantage of providence in sharing the Gospel message.
But that being said, I think there is also the danger in men taking it upon themselves to be "a church of one" and invest themselves with whatever authority they feel is necessary to "get the job done." If a man has not been ordained and commissioned by a local church body/governing body, then in MANY circumstances, he probably does not possess the qualifications to rightly divide the Word, nor shepherd people's souls in a way that will not prove dangerous to them.


In your example, should a person not seize the opportunity, if he has a Gospel message on his heart, to share it with a group who may be willing listeners? Why restrain oneself should one be ready, willing, AND able?

I think the distinction might come into play when a man decides that ON A REGULAR BASIS this will be his "calling." At that point, it would seem he has moved past "witnessing" and become a self-proclaimed "preacher", with no authority, no accountability, and who knows what other deficit. This would seem to be a prideful stance and deny the authority of the Church.

 

[Larry Hughes]

I believe the two are distinct because I've seen truly gifted evangelist who lead well and inspire others to the over all effort, but without them it struggles and often dies off after a while. A gifted teachers inspire learning in the otherwise weak in this area, gifted mercy persons the same, gifted evangelist the same and so forth.

The Great Commision does not seem to be an individualistic effort but a call to the church as a whole bringing the various gifts to bear upon it. But not all are necessarily preachers or evangelist in that same effort.

Not everyone is gifted with 'evangelism' per se and that seems painfully obvious in congregations all over the gammit.

Witnessing seems to be more of the over all call to all Christians.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by houseparent
How do we fulfill the great comission as individual believers?

Adam,

This earlier thread on the Great Commission may be of interest.

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2883

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Acts 8
1 Now Saul was consenting to his death.
At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
3As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.
4Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word. 5Then Philip went down to the[a] city of Samaria and preached Christ to them. 6And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 7For unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many who were possessed; and many who were paralyzed and lame were healed. 8And there was great joy in that city.


Apparently everyone preached after they were dispered by Saul's persecuction.

Evangelism is something all believers must do. Some are more gifted than others, but we must all give an answer for the hope within us. Certainly the minister usually delivers the message home with more power because of the nature of the office, but how do they come to hear the minister? How do they get interested? It is usually the lives, testimonies, and sharing of the gospel by the average believer.

[Edited on 2-28-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The term rendered "preaching" in verse 4 is euangelizomenoi. The NT is uniform in its use of the "techinical" terms kerusso--to preach, kerux--preacher/herald; and kerugma--message, used in the context of gospel proclamation, to refer to the official announcement of God the King by his ministers.

I'm not trying to downplay the significance of everyone being able "to give a reason for the hope that is in them," but even Acts 8:4 doesn't demand that we understand this "announcing the good news of the Word" to have been done outside of the context of the church being scattered, as if no structure was scattered as well, or rather that the scattering had destabilized the church structure.

[Edited on 2-28-2005 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I guess when I read it, I look at it as a generalization of what happened. I'm sure there were ordained evangelists among the dispersed but it is clear the people spread the word too. How could they not? How else would they explain why they fled Judea?

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by puritansailor
I guess when I read it, I look at it as a generalization of what happened. I'm sure there were ordained evangelists among the dispersed but it is clear the people spread the word too. How could they not? How else would they explain why they fled Judea?

Actually some expositors say those scattered were *only* the teachers, one of the reasons is exactly because those that were scattered preached. Also notice it says Saul was breaking into houses and capturing believers which he did in Jerusalem (Act 26:10), and also why would the apostles remain in Jerusalem if there was no one to minister to. "To what end did the apostles tarry at Jerusalem, to preach to the walls?" Jus Divinum, p208.