To whom was the Great Commission given?

[JP Wallace]

To whom was the Great Commission given?

To the Apostles first and all ministers who follow.

The 1689 allows for others besides merely ministers to baptize; therefore, Reformed Baptists must believe the Great Commission may be fulfilled by those other than mere ministers of the Gospel.

It is given to the Church through those it appoints.

The 1689 most certainly does not allow for others beside minister to baptize, I'll admit it is not without some ambiguity on this matter, but I think the most harmonious reading of paragraph 28:2not only shows that they believed baptism was to be administered by ordained men but also that the Great Commission in some sense is primarily spear-headed by ordained men.

28:2. These holy appointments are to be administred by those only, who are qualified and thereunto called according to the commission of Christ.

The proof text for 'commission of Christ' is Matthew 28:19, and the reference to qualification and calling in connection with same is surely clear evidence that they believed (rightly or wrongly) that the commission and authorisation to baptise was for ordained and called pastors/elders/ministers.

 

[Pergamum]

Paul:

The 1644 Baptist Confession:


The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.

Are you asserting that the 1644 and 1689 are in essential disagreement on this issue?

 

[JP Wallace]

Obviously yes is the answer.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I would agree. The two Confessions (1644 and 1677 (89)) are not harmonious on this issue and the 1689 only clarifies more distinctly and lines up with the other Reformed confessions.

And just to be honest and fair with Joshua I am going to have to state that if one looks at question 158 in the WLC the Preaching of the Word is only to be ministered by and ordained man. I do know that the Presbyterians do have lay preachers that are ordained because they have a gift to fill the pulpit. Earnest Riesinger was one man in the States that was ordained as such a man. But I also think that what is being said is primarily a position that is talking about filling the pulpit since the context of the questions around it have to do with Reading the Word of God by regular persons and from the pulpit also. (ie question 156) But I am sure I could be incorrect. Rev. Winzer would definitely be the one to ask and inform us.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Just looked at Sam Waldron's Commentary on 28:2. It doesn't say they necessarily disagree. I will post it after I take a shower. He says the 89 takes a middle road between the Savoy, Westminster, and the 1644.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Okay. It is four pages long and I will summarize the best I can. He states what I stated above.

The first London Baptist Confession takes the position that all disciples may administer them.

The statement of the 1689 Confession is less specific than either of these positions. Yet the Confession is restrictive in a general sense, saying that 'only those who are qualified and thereunto called according the the commission of Christ' ought to administer the ordinances. Why did the writers state the matter this way? Clearly, they wished to steer a middle course between the clericalisms of the Presbyterians and the Congregationalism of the early Baptists.

He then goes on to discuss the proof texts and the wording....

He speaks about Eldership and the uses of the words that distinguish between Elder men (mature) and the office of Elder. Then he goes into the positions and ends up concluding that the Westminster's position seems to be the best interpretation of scripture. I recommend everyone read the pages. It is good. pp. 340-343 in my edition. A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. He does believe that the 1689 does take a middle position between the 1644 BCF and the WCF / Savoy. It seems to be ambiguous on purpose.

 

[JP Wallace]

I agree Martin, and with Dr. Waldron's perspective - there is ambiguity, I read it through WCF eyes I guess!

 

[SolaScriptura]

I think the problem is a myopic understanding of the "Great Commission," not a question of who can preach or administer sacraments. Jesus does not say to convert people and baptize them. He says to make disciples (how?) by baptizing and teaching them to observe all that He has commanded. The word for teach is NOT the word for preach. Of course, preaching is a form of teaching, but in Scripture teaching is NOT limited to preaching. Therefore, in the ongoing process of discipling, there is no textual or lexical basis for limiting Jesus' words to the administration of sacraments and preaching.

And given the number of times and places some form of teaching (husbands explaining things to wives, raising children, teaching via song, older teaching younger, etc) is assigned as a duty to folks other than office bearers in the life-long process of discipling/being discipled tells me that I'm right. Further, as Paul identifies his supporters as "partners" in the ministry - this tells me that Paul saw them as co-laboring in their various ways towards fulfillment of Christ's command along with him.

Without question it is the job of the church's officers to teach people what they are to do - I'm certainly not diminishing the role of officers as a vital gift to the church to aid and direct the church in it's mission. But I say to you that if you limit the execution church's mission to those office bearers you fundamentally destroy the organic and functional unity of the body of Christ by denying the disciple-making worth and necessity of the various other forms of teaching commanded in Scripture.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Thank you for taking care of that duplicate posting!

 

[steadfast7]

the word "evangelism" doesn't occur in any English Bible that I know of, so how are we to let scripture "speak for itself" in defining this word? We are forced to define it by some other means, which is one step removed from the actual text of scripture. It needs to be defined theologically in a way that is suitable and encompasses the various semantic domains. Just because it CAN be defined narrowly as preaching and sacrament duties, does not mean its ENTIRE meaning is located in that, does it?

 

[Notthemama1984]

the word "evangelism" doesn't occur in any English Bible that I know of, so how are we to let scripture "speak for itself" in defining this word? We are forced to define it by some other means, which is one step removed from the actual text of scripture. It needs to be defined theologically in a way that is suitable and encompasses the various semantic domains. Just because it CAN be defined narrowly as preaching and sacrament duties, does not mean its ENTIRE meaning is located in that, does it?

euangelizo is the Greek word which means "to spread the Gospel." The ESV translates this word as preach or preaching 36 out of 54 occurrences.

 

[Notthemama1984]

the word "evangelism" doesn't occur in any English Bible that I know of, so how are we to let scripture "speak for itself" in defining this word? We are forced to define it by some other means, which is one step removed from the actual text of scripture. It needs to be defined theologically in a way that is suitable and encompasses the various semantic domains. Just because it CAN be defined narrowly as preaching and sacrament duties, does not mean its ENTIRE meaning is located in that, does it?

euangelizo is the Greek word which means "to spread the Gospel." The ESV translates this word as preach or preaching 36 out of 54 occurrences.

I forgot to state that this Greek word is the verb form of euangelion which is the Greek word translated "evangelist" in Acts 21:8, Ephesians 4:11, and 2 Timothy 4:5.

 

[KMK]

For those who point to the 1644 as a loophole for unordained baptism, I suggest the following article by James Renihan: Confessing the Faith in 1644 and 1689, James M. Renihan | The Reformed Reader

From the article:

There is no substantial theological difference between the First and Second London Confessions. I get very much bothered when I read statements asserting or inferring that there is some kind of theological difference between these two great confessions. Most often, this is asserted by those who dislike the Covenant theology that is more explicit in the Second Confession than in the first. It is especially true of those who espouse the so-called "New Covenant" theology. But the question that I would like to ask those who assert this difference is this: On what basis do you make this assertion?

Too often, this alleged distinction is made by those who have little or no familiarity with the historical and theological backgrounds of the two confessions. Like good postmodernists, they read into the Confessions the type of theology that they hope to find there, without any serious investigation into the theological thinking of the men who wrote the Confessions. Like any other historical document, our confessions need to be subject to historical and grammatical exegesis. We cannot simply read into them what we think we may find there. Instead, we need to ask and answer the question "How did the men who first adopted this Confession understand its theology? Do their writings give support to the notion that there are significant theological differences between the two?" An examination of this kind can be a very fruitful exercise in sorting out this notion.

There are several things that we need to say. First, the method of editing these Confessions was the same. Both are based on existing paedobaptist documents, adapted, not to highlight differences, but to emphasize commonalities. The editors of both Confessions used the identical method. They chose the best existing paedobaptist confessions and "baptized" them. Beyond this, it is important to remember that the first Confession was actually revised to make it more palatable to the paedobaptist opposition. Throughout the 17th century, the Calvinistic Baptists sought to demonstrate their orthodoxy to their paedobaptist counterparts.

Thirdly, it should also be remembered that it was the same churches, and several of the same men, who issued both of the Confessions. Seven London congregations published the 1644/46 Confession. By 1689, representatives of 4 of these churches also publicly signed the 1689 Confession. What happened to the other 3? They either ceased to exist, or had merged into the remaining churches. In addition, several key men signed both Confessions: William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, and Henry Forty, as well as the father-son duo of Benjamin and Nehemiah Coxe. If the theology of the two Confessions is different, one would have to demonstrate that these churches and these men went through a process of theological change. But no evidence for such exists.

Also, the forward to the 2nd Confession in 1677 says...

And forasmuch as our method, and manner of expressing our sentiments, in this, doth vary from the former (although the substance of the matter is the same) we shall freely impart to you the reason and occasion thereof.

The differences contained in the 2 confessions is one of emphasis, not substance.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Dear Chaplin Ben and Potential Beer-Drinkin' Date,

I'll happily drink beer with you! If you find yourself anywhere near the DC area, let me know and I'll drop what I'm doing and work something out for us to get together.

 

[steadfast7]

[T]he word "evangelism" doesn't occur in any English Bible that I know of, so how are we to let scripture "speak for itself" in defining this word? We are forced to define it by some other means, which is one step removed from the actual text of scripture. It needs to be defined theologically in a way that is suitable and encompasses the various semantic domains. Just because it CAN be defined narrowly as preaching and sacrament duties, does not mean its ENTIRE meaning is located in that, does it?

This is why we shouldn't be limited to English translations of the Scriptures. As Boliver has already noted, the term is in the original texts of Scripture, and has its application to those authorized by way of calling, commissioning, etc. It is also noteworthy that we do have an English noun equivalent as an office in the term Evangelist. So an Evangelist would have been one who did Evangelism.

'to preach' is a verb, and 'evangelist' is one who evangelizes. There is still no term "evangelism" defined scripturally. Evangelism is, in fact, a colloquial Christian term which we use to denote the activities involved in spreading the gospel. You mentioned the greek verb simply means "spread the gospel" Wonderful, it's the broader term, which we should use as the definition. Why should we insist on the narrower definition? Yes, the evangelist is one who does evangelism, but Timothy who was Pastor-Teacher, was also told to do the work of an evangelist. Interesting that Paul should say something so redundant, unless there was a distinction between preaching and evangelism. I would simply opt for the more inclusive term if there is in fact more to evangelism than pulpit preaching.

 

[KMK]

There is still no term "evangelism" defined scripturally. Evangelism is, in fact, a colloquial Christian term which we use to denote the activities involved in spreading the gospel.

And both sides will fight to the death to maintain their definition. That is why these discussions never seem to go anywhere. We can't agree on what 'evangelism' means.

 

[SolaScriptura]

And both sides will fight to the death to maintain their definition.

Well, I for one wouldn't fight to the death over it. If someone put a gun to my head and said, "Accept my definition of evangelism... or else!" I'd say, "Suddenly your definition makes a lot of sense!"

 

[Notthemama1984]

Well, I for one wouldn't fight to the death over it. If someone put a gun to my head and said, "Accept my definition of evangelism... or else!" I'd say, "Suddenly your definition makes a lot of sense!"

Chicken!

 

[Pergamum]

For those who point to the 1644 as a loophole for unordained baptism, I suggest the following article by James Renihan: Confessing the Faith in 1644 and 1689, James M. Renihan | The Reformed Reader

From the article:

There is no substantial theological difference between the First and Second London Confessions. I get very much bothered when I read statements asserting or inferring that there is some kind of theological difference between these two great confessions. Most often, this is asserted by those who dislike the Covenant theology that is more explicit in the Second Confession than in the first. It is especially true of those who espouse the so-called "New Covenant" theology. But the question that I would like to ask those who assert this difference is this: On what basis do you make this assertion?

Too often, this alleged distinction is made by those who have little or no familiarity with the historical and theological backgrounds of the two confessions. Like good postmodernists, they read into the Confessions the type of theology that they hope to find there, without any serious investigation into the theological thinking of the men who wrote the Confessions. Like any other historical document, our confessions need to be subject to historical and grammatical exegesis. We cannot simply read into them what we think we may find there. Instead, we need to ask and answer the question "How did the men who first adopted this Confession understand its theology? Do their writings give support to the notion that there are significant theological differences between the two?" An examination of this kind can be a very fruitful exercise in sorting out this notion.

There are several things that we need to say. First, the method of editing these Confessions was the same. Both are based on existing paedobaptist documents, adapted, not to highlight differences, but to emphasize commonalities. The editors of both Confessions used the identical method. They chose the best existing paedobaptist confessions and "baptized" them. Beyond this, it is important to remember that the first Confession was actually revised to make it more palatable to the paedobaptist opposition. Throughout the 17th century, the Calvinistic Baptists sought to demonstrate their orthodoxy to their paedobaptist counterparts.

Thirdly, it should also be remembered that it was the same churches, and several of the same men, who issued both of the Confessions. Seven London congregations published the 1644/46 Confession. By 1689, representatives of 4 of these churches also publicly signed the 1689 Confession. What happened to the other 3? They either ceased to exist, or had merged into the remaining churches. In addition, several key men signed both Confessions: William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, and Henry Forty, as well as the father-son duo of Benjamin and Nehemiah Coxe. If the theology of the two Confessions is different, one would have to demonstrate that these churches and these men went through a process of theological change. But no evidence for such exists.

Also, the forward to the 2nd Confession in 1677 says...

And forasmuch as our method, and manner of expressing our sentiments, in this, doth vary from the former (although the substance of the matter is the same) we shall freely impart to you the reason and occasion thereof.

The differences contained in the 2 confessions is one of emphasis, not substance.

Yes, it seems to me that the 1644 and the 1689 state the same thing, that preaching and baptising is not tied to church office alone but is tied to calling, qualification and commissioning by the church. Therefore, the church may allow for those other than their pastors to preach or administer the ordinances. This occurs often when churches commission certain men as lay-preachers or missionaries and send them out.

 

[KMK]

Yes, it seems to me that the 1644 and the 1689 state the same thing, that preaching and baptising is not tied to church office alone but is tied to calling, qualification and commissioning by the church. Therefore, the church may allow for those other than their pastors to preach or administer the ordinances. This occurs often when churches commission certain men as lay-preachers or missionaries and send them out.

Well said.

LBC 26:11 Although it be incumbent 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.

 

[Pergamum]

About evangelistic labors:

A Pauline phrase for evangelism is often "working in the Lord." In Romans 16:6 we read of Mary, who "has worked hard for me." and Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who are "workers in the Lord" (16:12) and the beloved Persis, too, who has "worked hard in the Lord." (Romans 16:12). In Phil. 4:2-3, we read of Euodia and Synteche who had struggled at Paul's side, along with Clement and Paul's other co-workers. Also, we read of Prisca and Aquila, who were both co-workers and who explained the way of life to Apollos.

Many of these co-workers seemed to travel with Paul and made up part of the Pauline missionary band. Thus, while the NT gives us the structure of the local church, I would also assert that the NT also gives us the descriptive pattern of what many misssionary teams will look like on the field, sent-out men and women working together to take the Gospel to an unreached area and who more freely circulate among the churches.

Working hard, or co-laboring, or being a fellow-worker, is Pauline vocabulary for taking part, in some fashion, in the same evangelistic labors as the apostle Paul. This could mean service roles, but it also could indicate evangelism in some fashion.

In most evangelical missionary church-planting teams, we see a similar structure. We usually see a church-planter who is usually ordained (and if not, surely commissioned and sent out by his home church) and then, as part of his team, other men or female missionaries making up the rest of this missionary team. They all have differing roles, but they all co-labor in the Gospel and are said to take part in the evangelistic task as they tell, witness, explain and promote the Gospel.

Several reformed baptist mission efforts I have seen, by contrast, have sent out a solitary ordained man who often became merely a relocated pastor (a white pastor with a congregation of all black African congregants or brown Asian congregants, with no clear plan to train up or turn over leadership to the indigenous believers any time soon). In general, these Reformed Baptist works I have seen first hand are a lot less effective than many of the evangelical works I have seen, though there is, admittedly, less "missiological fad-drivenness" than some of the evangelical teams I have seen.

-
Also,

-Philip, one of the seven deacons, is also called an "evangelist" (Acts 21:8) and he preached and also baptized, and Timothy is exhorted to "perform the work of an evangelist" (II Tim. 4:5). So, I would love to hear arguments for an official church office of an "Evangelist" rather than merely possessing the personality of an evangelist or doing evangelistic work due to the gifting of God and the commissioning of a local church.

-
-
-

My conclusion: God has given the Great Commission to the whole Church through the foundational Apostles. Now, the whole Church fulfills the Great Commisssion by sending forth some of its own. Every person plays a part, but they are all involved. Thus, we see God calling ordained men as well as unordained men and women going out to help in the task of telling and teaching and baptizing all the nations, each according to their specific giftings, callings, abilities, and the commissioning of their sending churches (these sending churches also being said to help fulfill the Great Commisssion through the means of sending and supporting and praying). Our role today is similar to these apostolic bands we see travelling about in the NT (Paul's team and the others that travelled from church to church with Paul), and just as those teams incorporated a great variety of people as they co-labored in the Gospel, so too, our misssionary agencies of today are carrying on with the example first laid in the Book of Acts.

 

[Notthemama1984]

A Pauline phrase for evangelism is often "working in the Lord."

Can I ask what this is based on? The Greek has a word for "evangelism."

 

[Pergamum]

Bolivar,

The Greek has many words.

---------- Post added at 12:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 AM ----------

The prophetess Anna (Luke 2:36-38) prophesied and the woman of Samaria testified (John 4:28-42); "Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Isn't this the Messiah?" (v. 29) Verse 39 tells us, "Many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the woman's word, who testified, 'He told me everything I ever did.'"

I don't recall a single instance of the word Euaggelizo connected with women.

But they co-labored with Paul, they were also "servants" (let's not get into the deacon debate, but some are called deaconesses, or female servants, and we may take this as a role and not an official church office if you will). We see that Philip was both a deacon (office) and an evangelist (office or role I am not sure).

Unordained men and women would be included in the disciples who “went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4), though I agree that this verse does not prove that every single person who was scattered preached but that this was a general trait of the group as a whole, possibly due to the work of the few within the group. And every Christian is commanded to "give an answer."

In Acts 4:31 we read, "And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were ALL filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness."

Older women are to teach younger women (Titus 2:3-5), and so teaching is a permissible activity for women to do as long as it does not take an authoritative leadership role in the church over men. Thus, many women have gone out into the mission fieldk and have co-labored with ordained male church-planters, teching the women and children and taking part in "the work" just as in the Pauline phraseology. Priscilla helped her husband Aquilla teach Apollos (Acts 18:26).

Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). And it seems that women prayed and prophesied in the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:3-16). At least in the early church their gifts had occasion to be exercised, though it is another step to prove that this is to be entirely normative for us today.

So, as the entire Church attempts to fulfill the Great Commisssion today, they send out ordained men, unordained men and women in various roles and with various giftings for the evangelization of the entire world and they all co-labor together, each exercising his specific role (and the sneding church back home as well) as they, together, fulfill the charge that they have corporately been given. Thus, though it appears that only some are to Euaggelizo, we can say that all these others are involved in evangelism in its broader definition as they work together to evangelize the world. Therefore, I would support the acceptance of both a narrower term of Evangelism and a broader acceptable definition of evangelism as well.

---------- Post added at 12:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 AM ----------


The Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon defines this word (sunergos, sunergois) as "those who helped (Paul) in spreading the Gospel." (p. 795). These people are all referred to as sunergois:

• Timothy (Romans 16:21),
• Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25),
• Clement (Phil. 4:3),
• Philemon, verse 1 of his epistle,
• Mark and Luke (Philemon 24),
• Priscilla (Romans 16:3),
• Euodia and Synthyche

(Phil. 4:2-3).

Other women Paul commends for their "labor in the Lord" are Mary, Persis, Tryphena and Tryphosa (Romans 16:6 and 12).


Any attempt to define Evangelism more narrowly also must accept that Paul defined his "work" and his "labors" broad enough to include both Timothy types and also Tryphena and Tryphosa types, and so we should not be restrictive in our encouragements for many in the church to take part in the work of evnagelism, but we should be as broad as Paul was willing to be in his inclusion of many into some sort of role in his labors.

 

[Pergamum]

God's Church is joined and knit together by what EVERY joint supplies, according to the effective working by which EVERY part does its share” (Ephesians 4:16) and as the Church fulfills the Great Commission together, every Christian has some part in that work.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Bolivar,

The Greek has many words.

I agree it has many words (more than a thousand I would guess), but we are talking about evangelism specifically. I believe Scripture uses "evangelism" as a very specific act. Modern Christians tend to lump any ministerial act as evangelism.

I do not think it is proper to say that those who helped Paul were performing evangelism themselves. If someone was to give you 100,000 dollars for your mission work, this would be a great help, but this does not make them a missionary.

Do other people "labor in the Lord?" Sure. But again, this does not mean they are performing evangelism.

 

[Pergamum]

Bolivar,

All of these roles help in evangelism and help towards the evangelization of the world. The Church corporately owns the Great Commisssion and we all fulfill it together, each in our particular roles.

Defining world evangelization by strapping it merely to one descriptor of how the Gospel goes forth is unnecessarily restrictive.

What other word would you like to use in reference to the Church's role in fulfilling the Great Commission? "Evangelism" and "missions" has usually been used to denote these tasks, and I do not object to this broader use of the term "evangelism" which includes all legitimate means of spreading the Gospel. After all, most of you Presbyterians have no problem with expanding the word baptizo to modes other than what is plainly referred to in the greek as being dipped or immersed, so why do you narrow the available terminology now?

If you have a team that is passing out tracts, even if 100% are not ordained ministers, most Christians refer to this as "evangelism" or "missions" depending on the context. I suppose you could make a big stink against this word and substitute the word "witnessing," but this task serves the goal of the Church which was given at the Great Commission and is a telling of the Good News, and thus fitting with the meaning of the term euanggelizo, Gospelling.

The Great Commission was given to the whole Church, not merely to a select class of ordained ministers, and the whole Church fulfills the Great Commission together, each in their particular roles. This means that though, this select class of ordained ministers may have important and specific roles to play in taking the Gospel to the world, that they alone do not receive the Great Commisssion or own it, nor are they the only ones to perform it.

Thus, it can be said that while euanggelizo and kerusso were restricted to called males, that other terms such as teaching, witnessing, prophesying, testifying were all included in the expansion of the faith in the NT and were performed by men and women both, and in this way Paul could call women and un-ordained men "co-laborers" in the Gospel. They were laboring with Paul in his evangelistic task, towards the evangelization of the world and towards the corporate fulfillment of the Great Commission.

I have already shown that Baptist may rightly believe, according to their own confessions, that preaching and the administration of the ordinances is not relegated merely to ministers, but to these officers, plus others who are called and qualified and commissioned by the church to perform these actions. We have seen that Philip the deacon was also an evangelist and both preached and baptized. And now, we see that Christ's church screens and commisssions and sends out many into the mission field, even many who are not ordained. And these all take part in fulfilling the Great Commission.

---------- Post added at 04:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 AM ----------

[T]he word "evangelism" doesn't occur in any English Bible that I know of, so how are we to let scripture "speak for itself" in defining this word? We are forced to define it by some other means, which is one step removed from the actual text of scripture. It needs to be defined theologically in a way that is suitable and encompasses the various semantic domains. Just because it CAN be defined narrowly as preaching and sacrament duties, does not mean its ENTIRE meaning is located in that, does it?

This is why we shouldn't be limited to English translations of the Scriptures. As Boliver has already noted, the term is in the original texts of Scripture, and has its application to those authorized by way of calling, commissioning, etc. It is also noteworthy that we do have an English noun equivalent as an office in the term Evangelist. So an Evangelist would have been one who did Evangelism.

Joshua,

The Westminster Standards seem to indicate that there is no longer such an office as the office of an Evangelist.

“The Form of Presbyterial Church Government” in the Westminster Standards reads: “The officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, which are ceased. Others ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church governors, and deacons.”

 

[Notthemama1984]

After all, most of you Presbyterians have no problem with expanding the word baptizo to modes other than what is plainly referred to in the greek as being dipped or immersed, so why do you narrow the available terminology now?

We do not expand what baptism does. We look at Scripture and what it says baptism accomplishes and go with that. You are looking at "euangelion" and expanding its definition to include all ministerial works.

 

[Pergamum]

For all those that witness and tell others about Jesus as part of the Great Commission who are not part of the official offices of the church, I suppose the term "Lay Witness" might satisfy some; but this term seems hardly appropriate for full-time missionaries who are commisssioned and sent out by the church and supported full-time.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Is it common to have a commissioned full time missionary who is not ordained?

 

[Pergamum]

Also, I would like to add that I do appreciate and respect the Church's offices of elder and deacon. We need more elder-qualified and ordained men to lead church-planting teams here in Asia.

However, in evangelism and missions, I believe many of the reformed (especially those in several of the micro-denominations) are overly restrictive. While many evangelicals want to totally erase the gap between the minister and laity altogether, many of the reformed go the other extreme and are unneccessarily rigid in their allowances for what the unordained can do towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission. A good example is the section on missions by Josh's denomination which states that only an elder can become a missionary, thus eliminating any chance of women or non-elder men serving in orphanages, teaching literacy, helping in bible translation and literacy or evangelizing segregated muslim women.

Some remind us that only church officers may preach and administer the sacraments, and then they equate all missionary work with these two tasks alone and restrict the missionary task to merely formal preaching and ecclesiastical rule and administering of the ordinances within established churches. This is a too-narrow definition of missions. Its scope is too narrow in the tasks needed for making and teaching disciples. Also, their scope is too narrow in who can be active, and in what ways, towards the evangelization of the world.

The Apostle Paul was pleased to incorporate a large band of people in his travels and labors and refers to many of these men and women as "fellow-workers." They did much more than merely pray for the lost and be a witness in their vocations, Paul refers to them as laboring in the Gospel, and these were commended instead of being told that "That is not our job." Would these so-called "sunergois" co-laborours, in the NT even be acceptable missionary candidates in some of our Presbyterian micro-denominations today?