What do you think of Packer's quote?

[KMK]

London Baptist Confession:

chapter 26; paragraph 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.

I believe that a person should be sent out by the church for things such as open air preaching, teaching classes, etc. However, your average Christian is called to witness to people in their life such as family, friends, co-workers, waitresses, etc.

The quoted chapter from the LBC does not forbid the average Christian from giving the Gospel to their neighbor or to a guy sitting next to them on a bus.

I simply quoted the confession to remind ourselves of what we all agree the word 'preach' means. Invariably, these discussions go nowhere because of equivocation on the word 'preach'. Since we are a Reformed discussion board we ought to discuss things, as much as possible, using Reformed definitions. When we discuss things with non-confessional people we might, of course, use the word 'preach' in many different ways, but here we should stick to the confessional definition.

 

[timmopussycat]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong but I think Pastor Packer is one that believes all Christians are tasked with spreading The Gospel the same way as all pastors are to tasked with. As was expressed above this leads to the the mistaken idea that all Christians are "priests" which in no way is aligned with the official position as espoused in scripture especially as conveyed in the pastoral epistles.

As one of his former students, I think I can correctly speak for his views at the time I studied with him a couple of decades after he wrote E&SoG. He then definitely did NOT believe that all Christians are tasked in spreading the gospel in the same way as ministers. If he had he never would have accepted a position at Vancouver's Regent College which is institutionally committed to the contrary.

 

[earl40]

As one of his former students, I think I can correctly speak for his views at the time I studied with him a couple of decades after he wrote E&SoG. He then definitely did NOT believe that all Christians are tasked in spreading the gospel in the same way as ministers. If he had he never would have accepted a position at Vancouver's Regent College which is institutionally committed to the contrary.

I stand corrected. May I assume then that Pastor Packer would not endorse Evangelism Explosion?

 

[earl40]

I simply quoted the confession to remind ourselves of what we all agree the word 'preach' means. Invariably, these discussions go nowhere because of equivocation on the word 'preach'. Since we are a Reformed discussion board we ought to discuss things, as much as possible, using Reformed definitions. When we discuss things with non-confessional people we might, of course, use the word 'preach' in many different ways, but here we should stick to the confessional definition.

Of course you cited the London Baptist Confession which is not the same as the WCF on the point being discussed. Of course you may realize this and one can argue which is more biblical concerning what is preaching and evangelism.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Pastor Strange what do you think of this article on the OPC site, which I assume you have already read?

http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=158

See also the linked content noted here: http://opc.org/os.html?issue_id=46

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I simply quoted the confession to remind ourselves of what we all agree the word 'preach' means. Invariably, these discussions go nowhere because of equivocation on the word 'preach'. Since we are a Reformed discussion board we ought to discuss things, as much as possible, using Reformed definitions. When we discuss things with non-confessional people we might, of course, use the word 'preach' in many different ways, but here we should stick to the confessional definition.

Of course you cited the London Baptist Confession which is not the same as the WCF on the point being discussed. Of course you may realize this and one can argue which is more biblical concerning what is preaching and evangelism.

Earl,

Note that Ken was responding to Chris, who is covenanted with CBF, a group that affirms the LBCF, so how is his use of the LBCF implying the coyness you imply?

 

[KMK]

i simply quoted the confession to remind ourselves of what we all agree the word 'preach' means. Invariably, these discussions go nowhere because of equivocation on the word 'preach'. Since we are a reformed discussion board we ought to discuss things, as much as possible, using reformed definitions. When we discuss things with non-confessional people we might, of course, use the word 'preach' in many different ways, but here we should stick to the confessional definition.

of course you cited the london baptist confession which is not the same as the wcf on the point being discussed. Of course you may realize this and one can argue which is more biblical concerning what is preaching and evangelism.

Westminster Larger Catechism:

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.

 

[earl40]

i simply quoted the confession to remind ourselves of what we all agree the word 'preach' means. Invariably, these discussions go nowhere because of equivocation on the word 'preach'. Since we are a reformed discussion board we ought to discuss things, as much as possible, using reformed definitions. When we discuss things with non-confessional people we might, of course, use the word 'preach' in many different ways, but here we should stick to the confessional definition.

of course you cited the london baptist confession which is not the same as the wcf on the point being discussed. Of course you may realize this and one can argue which is more biblical concerning what is preaching and evangelism.

Westminster Larger Catechism:

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.

So reformed baptist hold to the 3 forms also? I ask because I did not know this. If so can I expect only a teaching elder to preach the sermon in a reformed baptist church, unless circumstances arose for a ruling elder to fill in when a TE is unavailable? That is why I asked what "others" are.

 

[earl40]

Note that Ken was responding to Chris, who is covenanted with CBF, a group that affirms the LBCF, so how is his use of the LBCF implying the coyness you imply?

I meant no coyness but maybe came across as such from ignorance. If so I apologize and the above post with my questions should clear up my ignorance.

 

[earl40]

Pastor Strange what do you think of this article on the OPC site, which I assume you have already read?

http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=158

See also the linked content noted here: http://opc.org/os.html?issue_id=46

I think this is the minority viewpoint in the OPC, right? I know it is in the PCA churches I have attended though they are few.

 

[KMK]

i simply quoted the confession to remind ourselves of what we all agree the word 'preach' means. Invariably, these discussions go nowhere because of equivocation on the word 'preach'. Since we are a reformed discussion board we ought to discuss things, as much as possible, using reformed definitions. When we discuss things with non-confessional people we might, of course, use the word 'preach' in many different ways, but here we should stick to the confessional definition.

of course you cited the london baptist confession which is not the same as the wcf on the point being discussed. Of course you may realize this and one can argue which is more biblical concerning what is preaching and evangelism.

Westminster Larger Catechism:

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.

So reformed baptist hold to the 3 forms also? I ask because I did not know this. If so can I expect only a teaching elder to preach the sermon in a reformed baptist church, unless circumstances arose for a ruling elder to fill in when a TE is unavailable? That is why I asked what "others" are.

First question: No. The Westminster Larger Catechism is part of the Westminster Standards. The Three Forms of Unity are different but some Reformed Presbyterians to them. The only reason I referenced the Larger Catechism was to show that all of the Reformed used the word 'preach' in a certain way.

Second question: Not exactly. Reformed Baptists, as LBC 26:11 states, believe that it is incumbent on ministers to preach, but others who are approved and called by the church may also preach.

But, this is getting off topic. I was simply trying to aid the discussion by defining our terms here on PB.

 

[timmopussycat]

As one of his former students, I think I can correctly speak for his views at the time I studied with him a couple of decades after he wrote E&SoG. He then definitely did NOT believe that all Christians are tasked in spreading the gospel in the same way as ministers. If he had he never would have accepted a position at Vancouver's Regent College which is institutionally committed to the contrary.

I stand corrected. May I assume then that Pastor Packer would not endorse Evangelism Explosion?

I don't know his stand and I don't know EE well enough to risk an informed guess.

 

[earl40]

i simply quoted the confession to remind ourselves of what we all agree the word 'preach' means. Invariably, these discussions go nowhere because of equivocation on the word 'preach'. Since we are a reformed discussion board we ought to discuss things, as much as possible, using reformed definitions. When we discuss things with non-confessional people we might, of course, use the word 'preach' in many different ways, but here we should stick to the confessional definition.

of course you cited the london baptist confession which is not the same as the wcf on the point being discussed. Of course you may realize this and one can argue which is more biblical concerning what is preaching and evangelism.

Westminster Larger Catechism:

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.

So reformed baptist hold to the 3 forms also? I ask because I did not know this. If so can I expect only a teaching elder to preach the sermon in a reformed baptist church, unless circumstances arose for a ruling elder to fill in when a TE is unavailable? That is why I asked what "others" are.

First question: No. The Westminster Larger Catechism is part of the Westminster Standards. The Three Forms of Unity are different but some Reformed Presbyterians to them. The only reason I referenced the Larger Catechism was to show that all of the Reformed used the word 'preach' in a certain way.

Second question: Not exactly. Reformed Baptists, as LBC 26:11 states, believe that it is incumbent on ministers to preach, but others who are approved and called by the church may also preach.

But, this is getting off topic. I was simply trying to aid the discussion by defining our terms here on PB.

So can we agree that there would be a difference between a Reformed Baptist and a Reformed Presbyterian thinking concerning who should be approved to preach and evangelize. Of course I use the word preach as what pastors do on Sunday and also by preaching they are officially evangelizing those in attendance. I think as you point out it comes down to what preaching and evangelicalism are and also In my most humble opinion there is a difference in the confessions and the thinking within the LBCF and the WCF.

 

[earl40]

As one of his former students, I think I can correctly speak for his views at the time I studied with him a couple of decades after he wrote E&SoG. He then definitely did NOT believe that all Christians are tasked in spreading the gospel in the same way as ministers. If he had he never would have accepted a position at Vancouver's Regent College which is institutionally committed to the contrary.

I stand corrected. May I assume then that Pastor Packer would not endorse Evangelism Explosion?

I don't know his stand and I don't know EE well enough to risk an informed guess.

Well if what I read about Pastor Packer here as being true and his holding of the proper roles and offices in the church I know enough about EE to say he would not approve of EE.

 

[KMK]

So can we agree that there would be a difference between a Reformed Baptist and a Reformed Presbyterian thinking concerning who should be approved to preach and evangelize.

Not only would there be a difference between Baptists and Presbyterians but between individual churches within the two as well.

 

[earl40]

So can we agree that there would be a difference between a Reformed Baptist and a Reformed Presbyterian thinking concerning who should be approved to preach and evangelize.

Not only would there be a difference between Baptists and Presbyterians but between individual churches within the two as well.

Indeed, I see that also.

 

[Reformed Roman]

I'm late to the party but I think we all know that we are all called to be a witness to the gospel. It's sad that we pay people to go out of the nation to give the gospel and we refuse to go ourselves to give the gospel. You can talk about preaching and exposition, but there is no biblical question that we are all called to give the gospel to people.

Truth be told I'm introverted. Very introverted. I have used that as an excuse many times. Our world is full of dying people, and I ignore that many days. I firmly believe that many of us who are introverted won't and shouldn't be expected to walk up to random people giving the gospel all the time. I don't even naturally know how to start random conversation well... But it's easy to hide behind that.....

I've tried to find out of the box ways to give the gospel to people and get out of my comfort zone... It's hard but I know I am called to share the gospel.

All things should be taken in scriptural balance. But I think we who are introverted people should examine what things we can do to share the gospel in our daily lives.

And I think it's really obvious that Packer is just sharing our responsibility to share the gospel. I love the intellectual conversation but I think it can distract us from the fact that we should all be on mission for God. That doesn't mean we are going to be on the streets every day. But on our jobs, day to day lives, we should seek opportunities to share the gospel with life and lips

 

[johnny]

I asked this question before, and I may be off point here.

But I still do not see many trained evangelists,
(Those chosen by God who have been through seminary)
out on street corners preaching the gospel.

 

[MW]

But I still do not see many trained evangelists,

They served with the apostles and expired when there were no apostles to appoint them. With the power to ordain elders a continuing office of evangelist would require the church to recognise bishops as a superior order over the ordinary ministry. As it is, they were out of the ordinary, which means the regular form of church government is presbyterian.

 

[timmopussycat]

But I still do not see many trained evangelists,

They served with the apostles and expired when there were no apostles to appoint them. With the power to ordain elders a continuing office of evangelist would require the church to recognise bishops as a superior order over the ordinary ministry. As it is, they were out of the ordinary, which means the regular form of church government is presbyterian.

If an an Ephesians 4 gift to the church requires apostolic appointment, and there are no apostles today to appoint such, the necessary consequence is that all pastors and teachers in Christ's church are illegitimate.

And one should also note that Presbyterians have recognized on occasion that God has apparently called someone to that office Cf the Free Church of Scotland's 1859 ordination of layman Brownlow North.

 

[Reformed Roman]

Why is evangelizing an office if everyone is called to do it? Furthermore everyone is called to proclaim the gospel. I'm not saying you will directly go to a street corner and proclaim the gospel, but everyone is called to proclaim. Those of us who are a little less introverted don't need to be confirmed to go proclaim the gospel. I don't need to be confirmed to share it quietly, why would I need elders to appoint me to proclaim it loudly? Those type of reactions sounds like ways to avoid witnessing, all introverts have to fight to love people and share the gospel, even if some do it in different ways

 

[Ken]

hineni

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

 

[KMK]

Why is evangelizing an office if everyone is called to do it? Furthermore everyone is called to proclaim the gospel. I'm not saying you will directly go to a street corner and proclaim the gospel, but everyone is called to proclaim. Those of us who are a little less introverted don't need to be confirmed to go proclaim the gospel. I don't need to be confirmed to share it quietly, why would I need elders to appoint me to proclaim it loudly? Those type of reactions sounds like ways to avoid witnessing, all introverts have to fight to love people and share the gospel, even if some do it in different ways

Zach,

This discussion has veered somewhat from the issue of introversion. The Reformers viewed Eph 4:11 as a list of official church offices, all of which, except for 'pastor' and perhaps 'teacher' expired with the dawning of the NT age. Many today also use the word 'evangelist' to refer to someone who is good at sharing the gospel in general as you describe. You kind of have to 'know your audience' around here whenever that word comes up.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

There are differing views of "evangelist" as to office/function, with some historic Presbyterian churches seeing this as a continuing aspect of the office of minister, along with pastor and teacher. It is most common, on this view, to see that function as expressed in those called to be missionaries, home or foreign. Some Reformed see this in a similar vein. There has not been a monolithic view on this in the Reformed and Presbyterian world.

For the view of this, for example, in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, see here: http://www.opc.org/BCO/FG.html#Chapter_VII.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Ken]

This discussion has veered somewhat from the issue of introversion. The Reformers viewed Eph 4:11 as a list of official church offices, all of which, except for 'pastor' and perhaps 'teacher' expired with the dawning of the NT age.

Does the expiration of what Jesus gave us mean the saints are no longer perfected for ministry? The body of Christ is no longer edified, that we all have come into the unity of faith?

If these offices no longer exist are we no longer children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sight of men, and cunning craftiness?

Today, is all we need pastors and teachers to make increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love?

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

There are differing views of "evangelist" as to office/function, with some historic Presbyterian churches seeing this as a continuing aspect of the office of minister, along with pastor and teacher. It is most common, on this view, to see that function as expressed in those called to be missionaries, home or foreign. Some Reformed see this in a similar vein. There has not been a monolithic view on this in the Reformed and Presbyterian world.

For the view of this, for example, in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, see here: http://www.opc.org/BCO/FG.html#Chapter_VII.

Peace,
Alan

Just a note:

John Owen's teaching on this (that evangelists have ceased) in volume 4 of his works concerning the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Puritan View).

"Secondly, They were such as consisted in extraordinary endowments and improvements of the faculties of the souls or minds of men; such as wisdom, knowledge, utterance, and the like. Now, where these were bestowed on any in an extraordinary manner, as they were on the apostles and evangelists, they differed only in degree from them that are ordinary and still continued, but are of the same kind with them; whereof we shall treat afterward...With respect unto these ends, extraordinary officers, with extraordinary authority, power, and abilities, were requisite. Unto this end, therefore, he “gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists;” of the nature of whose offices and their gifts we have spoken before. I shall here only add, that it was necessary that these officers should have their immediate call and authority from Christ, antecedent unto all order and power in the church, for the very being of the church depended on their power of office. But this, without such an immediate power from Christ, no man can pretend unto." See Owen's Works, Volume 4 - chapters 4-6.

It was also Calvin's view (the Reformation) to a great extent. "...those whom, while inferior in rank to the apostles, were next them in office, and even acted as their substitutes" (Institutes, 4.3.4). "Those three functions were not instituted in the church to be perpetual, but only endure so long as churches were to be formed where none previously existed..."

(It seems a bit monolithic?)

 

[Ken]

What does this look like today, in real life, considering what Paul said these people were given for in Ephesians 4:12-16?

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

 

[Aaron637]

Luke 9
49 Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.”

50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us[c] is on our side.”


Pastors should equip and teach the laity to p preach the gospel to the world. The gospel isnt difficult. This isnt catholicism where priests have a monopoly on grace.

 

[MW]

If an an Ephesians 4 gift to the church requires apostolic appointment and their are no apostles today to appoint such, the necessary consequence is that all pastors and teachers in Christ's church are illegitimate.

A non sequitur. Pastors and teachers are ordained in an ordinary way with the call of the people.

And one should also note that Presbyterians have recognized on occasion that God has apparently called someone to that office Cf the Free Church of Scotland's 1859 ordination of layman Brownlow North.

It was noted as an innovation and a peculiarity, and it created dissension. The Form of Church Government clearly states evangelists were extraordinary and have ceased. Besides, the term "Lay" distinguishes it from the biblical office.

 

[KMK]

Today, is all we need pastors and teachers to make increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love?

Along with the HS and the Word of God, yes.

LBC 26aragraph 8. A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.

The Form of Presbyterial Church Government: 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.