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

[dudley]

Article entitle "Catholics quit church in droves last year"
Published: 7 Apr 11 10:11 CET follows my introductary statement to my PB brothers.

It may be a time for the Reformed Protestant churches to reach out to any delusioned Catholic at this critical point in church history. I am sure there are many disgruntled Catholics angry with a church and a clergy that they believe has betrayed them.

I believe the Roman Catholic priest sex abuse scandal ;revealing the horrid abuses of children by its clergy and the cover up which reaches right to the Vatican itself is the will of almighty God. I believe God wishes to show the impurities and misguided teachings of the catholic church that run contrary to Gods natural plan and what is given in scripture.

The Catholic practice of priestly celibacy dates back to the 11th century and was done for many reasons , one so that church property would never fall into the hands of the families of its priests and clergy, other reasons have to do with the Roman catholic hang up on virginity.

The following is an article that appeared in German newspapers this week. Its title is “Catholics quit church in droves last year”
The Roman Catholic priest sex scandal has reached epidemic proportions and it is in every country. Even many people of formally Catholic Ireland especially in the southern counties have left the catholic church and are becoming Protestants.

There are many Catholics I know in this area of the United States who are also very upset with the scandal. This might be the time God wishes us as Reformed Christians to reach out and evangelize to the Catholics who might be loosing all faith or at risk of loosing faith because of the scandal.

I think as Reformed Protestants who know we are the true church as Christ intended it to be should be reaching out individually to Catholics you know who are delusioned and inviting them to come and experience the meaning of being a Christian by welcoming them as a guest to a Sunday morning service at your local congregation be it Presbyterian or Baptist. There are also remember, 15 million former Roman Catholics in the United States who like me are now Protestant; and many like me are now Reformed Protestants and several actually many here on the PB are like me now either Presbyterian as I am or Baptist and as many others are.

The fact is many Catholics do become Protestants and far much more so in the last 20 years. In the United states the 51% Protestant majority is held by the Protestant churches only because of the 15 million ex Roman Catholics who have become Protestant in the last 20 years.

The Roman church continues to make stories up of Protestant conversions to catholic and they are truly not correct, the national pew survey’s in this country show very few Protestants now becoming Catholics and a majority of religious conversions are from former Roman Catholics becoming Protestants and this is on the rise even in the last 5 years. I am one of the converts from Catholicism to Protestantism in the last 5 years.

The following Article and its statistics are supported by a voluntary tax that exists in Germany but not in may other countries. Certainly the scandal being world wide I would guess that the statistics are perhaps probably true in other countries as well as s the United States,.

There is a voluntary church tax in Germany where a percentage of your taxes go to the church you declare yourself to be a member of. ;nobody ever has to pay church tax in Germany - its a purely voluntary service.

Read the following article yourself and then decide: Is it the time that God may wish us to help bring to conversion many lost sheep and help bring them to the ranks of the elect. The divine will of God can be fostered by our actions working in unison with His .

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

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

The number of Catholics quitting the church jumped 40 percent last year to 180,000 in the wake of persistent child sex abuse scandals, a media report said Thursday.
Firefighters most trusted profession, faith in priests slides (5 Apr 11)
Most Germans would sacrifice lifestyle to ditch nuclear energy (3 Apr 11)
Incest trucker confesses (21 Mar 11)
It means that for the first time in Germany, more Catholics abandoned their church than Protestants.

A survey by magazine Christ & Welt, a lift-out carried by weekly Die Zeit, revealed that 180,000 Catholics left the church in 2010, which was a rise of 40 percent on the previous year.

That compared with 150,000 leaving the country's Protestant Church (EKD).

Membership decline was concentrated in the first half of the year, when public anger over child abuse scandals was at its peak, the magazine reported.

Many Catholics had left as a “personal form of protest and expression of disgust,” Cologne vicar-general Dominik Schwaderlapp told Christ & Welt.

The magazine surveyed 27 Catholic dioceses, 24 of which provided definite figures or estimates.

Especially hard hit were the Bavarian dioceses of Augsburg, Bamberg, Eichstätt, Passau and Würzburg, where the number of people leaving the church climbed by as much as 70 percent on the previous year.

Augsburg was the diocese of controversial bishop Walter Mixa, who stepped down a year ago amid allegations that he beat children while he was head of the Schrobenhausen children’s home in Bavaria, as well as claims of sexual abuse and alcoholism.

This followed months of revelations about sexual and physical abuse within the church, starting in January 2010 when it emerged that priests at the elite Canisius College in Berlin committed dozens of assaults on pupils in the 1970s and 1980s.

More than 200 cases of such abuse at church institutions throughout the country emerged in the months that followed.

The dioceses of Trier and Rottenburg-Stuttgart, which are regarded as liberal within the church, also suffered more than 60 percent rises in the number of members quitting. The archdiocese of Cologne saw a 41 percent rise.

The Berlin and Hamburg archdiocese each suffered a relatively mild exodus, with the numbers leaving rising by less than 20 percent.

The Local/djw


What do you think?

 

[John Weathersby]

I'd say certainly, if we've not already, it's a great time to bone up on specific apologetics.
Proclaiming The Gospel with Evangelists Mike Gendron - Home is a great start!

 

[Notthemama1984]

Ordained ministers commissioned in the Gospel should.

 

[AThornquist]

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

 

[Der Pilger]

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

 

[Ivan]

Obviously, Baptists don't think this way.

 

[Der Pilger]

I'd also add that disciples are to be like their master (Mt. 10:25), and that includes evangelism, since that is part of the "all that [Christ] commanded" that disciples must be taught to observe (Mt. 28:20).

 

[Notthemama1984]

T. David Gordon on the Great Commission

http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=155

The Great Commission. The commission of our Lord, recorded in Matthew 28:18-20, has frequently been cited by those who defend the universal view of evangelistic responsibility.[6] Those who cite the commission in defending the universal view tend merely to assert that the commission defends this view; they do not argue the point. This is regrettable, because their argument would certainly contribute to the discussion if it were available, and, because the commission does not appear to be properly employed in the defense of this view.

The commission is addressed to the eleven disciples/apostles.[7] Because of this, one's understanding of the apostolate influences one's understanding of the commission. If the apostles are paradigm Christians, exemplars[8] of the Christian faith, then we are to do what they do, and everything addressed to them is addressed to us. If, on the other hand, the apostles have at least some unique functions[9] in the history of redemption, then one must always bear in mind the possibility that some things are addressed to them in terms of their unique functions. In particular, one must keep in mind that the apostles were the foundation upon which the church was established (Eph. 2:20), having some foundational responsibilities that would not be repeated. Two contextual considerations allow us to understand the commission's responsibilities to extend through the apostles to the church more generally. First, the geographic/ethnic parameters of the commission (all the nations) are so broad that the apostolate could not (and did not) complete the commission's requirement. Second, the temporal bounds of the commission appear to extend until the consummation of all things ("until the end of the age"). Thus, while the apostles are the ones to whom the commission is originally addressed, it appears that the responsibility entailed therein extends beyond the apostolate to the church of which they are the foundation.

If it is granted that the responsibility entailed in the commission extends beyond the apostolate, then one must ask a second question: is the commission addressed to the church, as a corporate entity, or to its individual members, as individual entities? Expressed differently, is the commission the responsibility of every believer, or is it the responsibility of the church, each believer playing a particular role? Rather obviously, even the wealthiest individual believers cannot go into all of the nations, so this aspect of the commission is clearly beyond the possibility of any individual believer. Further, we surely would not expect every individual believer to have or exercise the prerogative of baptizing people. Prima facie, therefore, it appears that the church as a corporate entity has the responsibility to fulfill the commission, and its individual members are responsible only to contribute to the church's overall mission.

Of what, then, does the commission consist? What does the commission require of the church? Some missions agencies and evangelists have tended to assume that the commission is directed specifically to the activities that they perform. This assumption must be challenged.

The commission itself consists of one imperative and three participles (one of these complemented by an infinitive). The imperative is the predominant idea of the commission, and the participles explain this idea more precisely. While some grammarians have spoken of an "imperatival" participle, those who do so recognize that it is a last ditch effort to describe the function of a participle in a context where there is no main verb, or where the main verb is somewhat distant from the participle.[10] In contexts where there is a main verb, the participle functions dependently, to describe further the main verb, delimiting it in a variety of ways. In our context, the main verb is the imperative μαθητεύσατε (mathēteusate) "Make disciples." Dependent upon this are the three participles, πορευθέντες (poreuthentes), βαπτίζοντες (baptizontes), and διδάσκοντες (didaskontes) (which is itself complemented by the infinitive τηρεῖν [tērein]). Thus, the "going," baptizing," and "teaching" are subordinate to the command to make disciples. A formally equivalent English translation would read, "Going, therefore, make disciples ... baptizing them ... and teaching." This matter is not terribly clear in the English translations, many of which translate the first participle as though it were an imperative, "Go." These translations then insert the word "and" between this and the imperative about disciple-making, leaving the impression that at the most, discipling is parallel in importance with going, and at worst, subordinate to it. Such translations reverse the emphasis of the original text. The original text establishes the priority of discipling, and defines the discipling by the three dependent verbs.

The discipling spoken of in Matthew 28 is specified by the three participles. The first, πορευθέντες (poreuthentes), suggests that the discipling of all the nations is not to be passive, but active.[11] The apostles, and the church, are to go among all the nations, and not to wait for the nations to come to them. The discipling is to be active, aggressive. The second participle, βαπτίζοντες (baptizontes), requires that the discipling include visible association with the church, through the initiatory rite of baptism. Perhaps by synecdoche, this participle includes all of the evangelistic activity that precedes the rite itself, since it is unlikely that this suggests the indiscriminate baptizing of people who know nothing of the gospel. The third participle, διδάσκοντες (didaskontes), is complemented by an infinitive, τηρεῖν (tērein). The discipling includes not only instruction, but instruction eventuating in obedience. Further, the obedience is comprehensive. Those who are discipled are to observe "everything, whatsoever I commanded you."

Summary of the Commission. Taken as a whole, the commission is far more comprehensive than is normally understood.[12] It consists of the aggressive, worldwide discipling of people who are initiated into the visible communion of Christ, increasingly obedient to everything he commanded. Evangelism is only an aspect of the commission; it is not its distilled essence. Obedience to the commands of Christ is the goal of the commission; not merely initial conversion. Further, this very comprehensiveness excludes the possibility that it can be fulfilled through the efforts of any particular individual. No individual within the church can possibly be responsible for fulfilling the commission, and no individual is without responsibility to contribute in some way or ways to its fulfilling. But this contribution need not consist of active involvement in evangelism. Those who are instructing others in the content of our Lord's teaching, or who are encouraging (or praying for) others to obey our Lord's teaching, are no less participants in the commission than are evangelists, whether foreign or domestic. There is nothing in the commission itself to suggest even remotely that evangelism is more important than the other aspects of discipling, and nothing in the commission suggests that each believer must do every aspect.

 

[Der Pilger]

As T. David Gordon correctly points out, not every believer can fulfill every aspect of the Great Commission. But every believer can certainly communicate the gospel message to those around them, and the second greatest commandment demands that such a crucial message be shared by those who are capable of doing so with those who so desperately need it. We would rightly frown upon any professing Christian who callously turned his back on someone in dire need, yet we are so quick to excuse the even more callous act of withholding needed revelation from the lost. Shame on us if we try to excuse such behavior.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I believe there is a big difference between "giving a reason" and evangelism. If one was approached or one came across someone who needed to hear a reason for our hope, turning their back would be terrible. On the other hand I do not believe that Joe Blow Christian should actively seek out people and evangelize. That duty is giving to specific people called by God.

 

[jambo]

Two things.

First of all we are all called to be witnesses. Some do so by preaching publicly, but most by quiet words in peoples ears. Spurgeon was a great preacher and evangelist. He founded a bible college that still operates for training men for the baptist ministry. His Sword and Trowel magazine reached thousands as well as his compassionate work of founding an orphanage. Despite having a father and grandfather who were both congregational ministers, Spurgeon paid tribute to a woman called Mary King who was a cook at the school Spurgeon attended. Spurgeon would walk into the kitchen where she prepared meals for the pupils and he would just chat to her. He said of her that she taught him all the theology he ever needed and was indebted to her teaching and influence throughout his life. In Christian circles Spurgeon is world famous whilst Mary King is largely unknown. I am quite convinced it is the unknown men and women who have never stood in a pulpit in their lives and who would consider themselves to be very ordinary individuals with very little to offer that have achieved far more in the extension of the kingdom than any other group of people.

Don't get me wrong. The preaching of the word is the highest thing one can do, but very often it is from one to one conversations that seeds heard from the preached word are watered. Nor am I saying preaching on its own is ineffective, far from it.

Secondly the RC church is leaking people. The previous pope saw the likes of France as a missionfield whilst the Republic of Ireland which sent out more priests and nuns than any other country in the world has seen the flood reduce to a trickle whilst its disillusioned "faithful" are jumping ship. Problem is many are jumping into the sea rather than the lifeboats. Disillusioned RCs are disillusioned by religion in general. "If one religion treated us this way then so will all the other religions treat us this way" is the way RCs think.

Yet disillusioned as they are when it comes to the crunch they will fall back to mother church. I met on the doors once a guy who told me he was a communist then he qualified it by saying he was a Catholic communist. That for me sums up much of the modern RC mind. Disillusioned, cynical, doubtful, mistrusting, angry, let down, disappointed but with Catholicism so ingrained it is hard to be free from its grip.

The RC on conversion becomes a new creation, the old has gone all things are new. It is a miracle. But the miracle required is no greater than the miracle needed to convert protestants.

 

[Der Pilger]

I believe there is a big difference between "giving a reason" and evangelism. If one was approached or one came across someone who needed to hear a reason for our hope, turning their back would be terrible.

We come across people every day of our lives, though, who need to hear the gospel. They are put into our path every day--unless we live in some strange place where there are no unbelievers.

On the other hand I do not believe that Joe Blow Christian should actively seek out people and evangelize. That duty is giving to specific people called by God.

I don't think that has been established. In fact I doubt that a biblical case could be made for it.

---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 PM ----------

As T. David Gordon correctly points out, not every believer can fulfill every aspect of the Great Commission. But every believer can certainly communicate the gospel message to those around them, and the second greatest commandment demands that such a crucial message be shared by those who are capable of doing so with those who so desperately need it.

Of course we should all be keeping the "second greatest commandment" by means of obeying the 2nd Table of the Law, since that is to what Jesus was referring with His use of "love thy neighbour as thyself." That obedience does not equal "evangelize" as it is defined by Scripture.

I must not have been clear. Let me explain again. We are obligated by the second commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. To withhold from someone the means to satisfy their greatest need--reconciliation with a holy God--is clearly a violation of that commandment.

We would rightly frown upon any professing Christian who callously turned his back on someone in dire need, yet we are so quick to excuse the even more callous act of withholding needed revelation from the lost. Shame on us if we try to excuse such behavior.

Who here has promoted such a thing? No one that I can see. So unless you're just making a general statement I can't imagine why it's being brought up.

It should be obvious why I'm bringing it up. To say that laypeople should not take the initiative to evangelize the lost because it is not their calling is to say that it is all right for them to withhold the gospel from the lost when it is in their power to give it to them. It's like saying, "I don't have to help that person who just got run over in the street because mercy is not my gift."

 

[Notthemama1984]

I would say that they obey that commandment by bringing them to the church. It is then the church's duty to properly explain the intricacies of the Gospel.

I also add T. David Gordon again from same article.

Ephesians 4:11. Perhaps one of the clearest Pauline passages related to the specific question of evangelistic responsibility is Ephesians 4:11. "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers ..." The text treats evangelists as it does prophets, apostles, pastors, and teachers. There is no indication that everyone should be all of these. Further, there is no indication that evangelism is singled out among these other functions as the one function all should have. This passage does contain the difficulty that it may very well be discussing particular offices, some of which may not be perpetual. For those who understand the passage this way, the text is less germane to our discussion than other texts. By any resolution of that question, however, Paul's principle of differentiated service is affirmed.

 

[Notthemama1984]

It's like saying, "I don't have to help that person who just got run over in the street because mercy is not my gift."

I would say it is more like saying, "I will not set the broken bones, do surgery, perform a trach, or do a host of other medical procedures because I am not a medical doctor."

I would still do the basics of applying pressure to the wound until the doctors came along. The same would be with my neighbor. I would simply apply pressure to the spiritual need until I took him to one who was an expert/pastor.

 

[MMasztal]

What I find interesting is why the RC are leaving. For me, I left the RCC because of the schizophrenic teachings/theology, but many in my family are still RC and my from own experience, I know how they put their trust in the RC “church” first rather than in Christ. The RCC is a mess, yet a home for many growing up in this tradition. The folks leaving the RCC are used to having a church home and I believe will be looking for a new one. Where we might focus our witness is showing the primacy of the person and work of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures (which are also ignored by the RCC for the most part) as opposed to the grandeur and pomp and cult of the pope of the RCC.

 

[Der Pilger]

I would say that they obey that commandment by bringing them to the church. It is then the church's duty to properly explain the intricacies of the Gospel.

But that's like this:

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

I also add T. David Gordon again from same article.

Ephesians 4:11. Perhaps one of the clearest Pauline passages related to the specific question of evangelistic responsibility is Ephesians 4:11. "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers ..." The text treats evangelists as it does prophets, apostles, pastors, and teachers. There is no indication that everyone should be all of these. Further, there is no indication that evangelism is singled out among these other functions as the one function all should have. This passage does contain the difficulty that it may very well be discussing particular offices, some of which may not be perpetual. For those who understand the passage this way, the text is less germane to our discussion than other texts. By any resolution of that question, however, Paul's principle of differentiated service is affirmed.

And evangelists, according to that passage, are sent to equip the church (v. 12)--but equip the church to do what?

---------- Post added at 09:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 AM ----------

It's like saying, "I don't have to help that person who just got run over in the street because mercy is not my gift."

I would say it is more like saying, "I will not set the broken bones, do surgery, perform a trach, or do a host of other medical procedures because I am not a medical doctor."

Touché. But that's just it--laypeople are capable of performing those tasks on a spiritual level because the task is not as complicated as you're making it sound. To be sure there are profound truths underlying the gospel message, but what one actually needs to know to be saved is plain and clear, and therefore even the lay-person is capable of providing the lost adequate knowledge of the truths that must be believed for salvation. The WCF brings this out clearly:

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." (I.VII, emphasis added)

 

[Notthemama1984]

But that's like this:

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

No, in this case the man is asking for a defense of our hope. We would be wrong in not giving it to him.

And evangelists, according to that passage, are sent to equip the church (v. 12)--but equip the church to do what?

The prophets were not sent to equip everyone in prophesying. The apostles were note sent to equip everyone to apostelize. The pastors and teachers are not sent to equip everyone in pastoring and teaching. Why should evangelists be different?

But that's just it--laypeople are capable of performing those tasks on a spiritual level because the task is not as complicated as you're making it sound.

I do understand what you are saying, but you must agree that "teaching them to obey all everything that I have commanded you" entails much more than a simple Gospel message?

Also I see a big difference between helping someone who was in an accident right in front of your house and cruising the city with a police scanner trying to get to every accident before the ambulance does.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

 

[Der Pilger]

But that's like this:

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

No, in this case the man is asking for a defense of our hope. We would be wrong in not giving it to him.

The command to provide a defense of one's hope was written to Christians undergoing persecution. Therefore, I doubt it should be interpreted as how the lay-person should evangelize all the time.

But to take the analogy further: What if the man did not ask the Christian for the cure? Should the Christian walk by without providing the cure even though he can?

And evangelists, according to that passage, are sent to equip the church (v. 12)--but equip the church to do what?

The prophets were not sent to equip everyone in prophesying. The apostles were note sent to equip everyone to apostelize. The pastors and teachers are not sent to equip everyone in pastoring and teaching. Why should evangelists be different?

That's an interesting question, but I noticed you didn't answer my question. What is it that evangelists are to equip the church to do?

But that's just it--laypeople are capable of performing those tasks on a spiritual level because the task is not as complicated as you're making it sound.

I do understand what you are saying, but you must agree that "teaching them to obey all everything that I have commanded you" entails much more than a simple Gospel message?

Indeed it does. But we're talking about the presentation of the gospel, which is one part of the Great Commission. You are saying that laypeople should not and/or cannot do even that part.

Also I see a big difference between helping someone who was in an accident right in front of your house and cruising the city with a police scanner trying to get to every accident before the ambulance does.

You're saying that laypeople should take a passive approach to evangelism, communicating the gospel only when they are asked about it and not going out of their way to bring the gospel to the lost. The "accidents" are all around us, though, every day. We barely have to travel one block from our homes before encountering them.

 

[Notthemama1984]

That's an interesting question, but I noticed you didn't answer my question. What is it that evangelists are to equip the church to do?

For the building up of the church (second half of verse 12).

But we're talking about the presentation of the gospel, which is one part of the Great Commission.

So are you saying one part of the Commission is for pastors, but other parts are for everyone? Can you show me exegetically where the division is?

 

[Der Pilger]

That's an interesting question, but I noticed you didn't answer my question. What is it that evangelists are to equip the church to do?

For the building up of the church (second half of verse 12).

And for the equpping of the saints for the ministry. What do both of those tasks look like for the evangelist? I'm interested in particular details if you can provide them.

But we're talking about the presentation of the gospel, which is one part of the Great Commission.

So are you saying one part of the Commission is for pastors, but other parts are for everyone? Can you show me exegetically where the division is?

I've shown it by pointing out that the requirement to love our neighbor demands that we do what we can for those in need. I've also shown that all Christians are capable of communicating to the lost what must be known for salvation. You've responded by claiming that for laypeople this entails passively waiting for those in need to come up to them to express that need and ask for help. That is equivalent to refusing to provide someone what they urgently need unless they ask for it. That is simply horrific.

The kind of love that God requires, though, goes far beyond that. It is not reactive; it is proactive. It is not just passive but also active.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I've shown it by pointing out that the requirement to love our neighbor demands that we do what we can for those in need.

Simple men can get behind a pulpit and give a "message," but we would both agree this is not proper. These men have the ability and thus can do this action, but it is not proper. Only men called by God to do such should give the sermon.

Simple men and women can say a prayer and give communion, but again we would agree this is not proper. These men and women have the ability, but does not mean they should. Only men called by God to do such should give communion.

Just because Christians can communicate the Gospel does not mean they should.

---------- Post added at 10:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 AM ----------

And for the equpping of the saints for the ministry. What do both of those tasks look like for the evangelist? I'm interested in particular details if you can provide them.

The first thing that comes to mind is simply the addition of more bodies to help achieve other duties of the church. I really do not have anything specific right now, but I would find it odd that every other position listed in the verse does not equip everyone to do their job, but the evangelist position would. It does not seem consistent.

 

[Grillsy]

the requirement to love our neighbor demands that we do what we can for those in need.

The debate is about what we may do not what we can do.

 

[Der Pilger]

the requirement to love our neighbor demands that we do what we can for those in need.

The debate is about what we may do not what we can do.

I know, but the question of ability was implied later in the thread when it was pointed out that the medical work should be left up to the doctor. The clear implication at that point was that ability is also an issue.

 

[Grillsy]

I know, but the question of ability was implied later in the thread when it was pointed out that the medical work should be left up to the doctor. The clear implication at that point was that ability is also an issue.

I thought the implication was that in order to lawfully carry out a task one must be trained and called to a specific office.

 

[Der Pilger]

I've shown it by pointing out that the requirement to love our neighbor demands that we do what we can for those in need.

Simple men can get behind a pulpit and give a "message," but we would both agree this is not proper. These men have the ability and thus can do this action, but it is not proper. Only men called by God to do such should give the sermon.

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

Just because Christians can communicate the Gospel does not mean they should.

Again, I would disagree on the basis of the commandment to love our neighbors. The "should" most definitely comes into play when we are talking about that requirement. Love demands that we go out of our way to attempt to meet needs that we know of and are capable of addressing. If I applied your passive-approach argument to other urgent human needs, I'd have to conclude that Christians are not required to seek out and address homelessness, poverty, child abuse, alcoholism, and any other dire needs that arise (directly or indirectly) out of human sin. Instead, they should just allow those problems to exist without lifting a finger to solve them unless the suffering ones come to them for help.

And for the equpping of the saints for the ministry. What do both of those tasks look like for the evangelist? I'm interested in particular details if you can provide them.

The first thing that comes to mind is simply the addition of more bodies to help achieve other duties of the church. I really do not have anything specific right now, but I would find it odd that every other position listed in the verse does not equip everyone to do their job, but the evangelist position would. It does not seem consistent.

It's interesting that Paul does not try to delineate the full scope of the roles he lists. He simply gives two general goals: to build up the body of Christ and to equip the saints for the work of ministry, with the maturity of the church being the ultimate goal. Since that's the case, I doubt we can say for sure that the evangelist's role is not to equip believers for evangelism. The passage simply doesn't tell us.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I thought the implication was that in order to lawfully carry out a task once must be trained and called to a specific office.

That was my thought process. If it did not come across clearly, I apologize.

 

[Der Pilger]

By the way, (Mr.? LTC? 1LT? CAPT?) Boliver:

I want to thank you for your patient interaction with me. You must be used to dealing with former marines.

I've appreciated your responses and the points you've brought up. Even though I don't agree with you, you've given me things to think about.

 

[Notthemama1984]

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

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

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

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

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

Again, I would disagree on the basis of the second commandment. The "should" most definitely comes into play when we are talking about the requirement to love our neighbor. Love demands that we go out of our way to meet needs that we know of and are capable of addressing. If I applied your passive-approach argument to other urgent human needs, I'd have to conclude that Christians are not required to seek out and address homelessness, poverty, child abuse, alcoholism, and any other dire needs that arise (directly or indirectly) out of human sin. Instead, they should just allow those problems to exist without lifting a finger to solve them unless the suffering ones come to them for help.

The difference is that we do not have the offices listed as apostle, prophet, teacher, pastor, evangelist, alcoholic helper, child abuse counselor, homelessness preventer, etc.

Since that's the case, I doubt we can say for sure that the evangelist's role is not to equip believers for evangelism. The passage simply doesn't tell us.

I would say that I doubt we can say that it does because the term "evangelist" is sandwiched between other offices that do not equip the church in such a way that each and every Christian now has the same duty. An evangelist would teach and equip future evangelists (or those with and evangelism calling), but this teaching would not be to make everyone future evangelists.

---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 AM ----------

By the way, (Mr.? LTC? 1LT? CAPT?) Boliver:

I want to thank you for your patient interaction with me. You must be used to dealing with former marines.

I've appreciated your responses and the points you've brought up. Even though I don't agree with you, you've given me things to think about.

Thank you for the kind words. I am merely a 1LT. Nothing fancy. Not even a full Chaplain yet.

 

[Andres]

But that's like this:

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

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