• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evangelism

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,480
3,740
Canada
✟884,512.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
One of the articles referenced in this thread covered that. It is our job to be friends, serve meals, and drive them. But we aren't qualified to speak about the gospel to them. Sort of like, "I'm happy because Jesus loves me and I know a guy who can tell you why. I'll take you to him." My wife is good at that stuff so she can do our part. I operate the sound board, so that's going to have be my only ministry ( if I'm allowed to call it that).

Still, I can’t help but think this idea is related to the paedobaptists view of the “church” and who makes up “the church.” Following the covenantal thinking of Reformed and Presbyterians they believe UNBELIEVERS are in the new covenant of grace as well as believers. Those who deny faith after being baptized as infants are covenant breakers. Fine. I don’t want to digress on the issue but more than willing to accept further clarification from my brothers and sisters on this issue. Baptists believe only those who confess faith in Jesus Christ should be viewed as “the church.”

Baptist covenantalism leads to congregation church government and a different view of the laity.

The Baptist church I attend is not Reformed. They take great care and effort in training the congregation to clearly articulate the Gospel. They have evangelism classes and a group that meets to specifically deal with evangelism. This is under the direction of the Elders.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,480
3,740
Canada
✟884,512.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I daresay that Presbyterian Reformists DO engage in "evangelism" and I point to Dr D James Kennedy's excellent and ongoing work "Evangelism Explosion".

A strong defender for the faith, Dr Kennedy always insisted the Christian share his faith with others.

True.

Was Dr. Kennedy acting like a Baptist? What were his biblical reasons for 'Evangelism Explosion?'

Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

BryanW92

Hey look, it's a squirrel!
May 11, 2012
3,571
759
NE Florida
✟30,371.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Baptist church I attend is not Reformed. They take great care and effort in training the congregation to clearly articulate the Gospel. They have evangelism classes and a group that meets to specifically deal with evangelism. This is under the direction of the Elders.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

The United Methodist Church (as well as the Church of the Nazarene and Wesleyan Church) does so too. They believe that every layperson can be a minister and have layperson ministries to support that idea in their Certified Lay Speaker, Certified Lay Minister, and Licensed Local Pastors (all supervised by Elders--which are ordained clergy in the UMC). I gave that up when I left the UMC, but I had hoped that the PCA would have a use for my gifts. Did I make a huge mistake?
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,480
3,740
Canada
✟884,512.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
The United Methodist Church (as well as the Church of the Nazarene and Wesleyan Church) does so too. They believe that every layperson can be a minister and have layperson ministries to support that idea in their Certified Lay Speaker, Certified Lay Minister, and Licensed Local Pastors (all supervised by Elders--which are ordained clergy in the UMC). I gave that up when I left the UMC, but I had hoped that the PCA would have a use for my gifts. Did I make a huge mistake?

Do you believe what the PCA teaches? That’s a more important question. If you do not agree with the PCA why did you become a member?

Your in the Lord,

jm
PS: Speaking openly and freely to all about the Gospel doesn’t make you a minister but it is still your duty as a Christian to do so.

 
Upvote 0

BryanW92

Hey look, it's a squirrel!
May 11, 2012
3,571
759
NE Florida
✟30,371.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do you believe what the PCA teaches? That’s a more important question. If you do not agree with the PCA why did you become a member?

Your in the Lord,

jm
PS: Speaking openly and freely to all about the Gospel doesn’t make you a minister but it is still your duty as a Christian to do so.


I agree with almost everything. I can accept the rest. I'm not going to make waves and try to go against the stream on this issue. My wife is already plugged in as a Stephen Minister in our church and she worked very hard to become that. I can just become a pew warmer so she can pursue the work that she's called to do.
 
Upvote 0

BryanW92

Hey look, it's a squirrel!
May 11, 2012
3,571
759
NE Florida
✟30,371.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
PS: Speaking openly and freely to all about the Gospel doesn’t make you a minister but it is still your duty as a Christian to do so.


Oh yeah. I'll still talk about my own experiences to anyone who wants to know. But without being able to "teach" the gospel, there's not a lot to talk about.
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,717
913
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟219,428.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The sad matter of the Great Commission is that it being parsed out by some groups as if the commission was not given to those to whom it was addressed. So you have those who think they can teach, but not baptize. Those who can baptize, but not teach, or make disciples. Those who can go into the nations of the world, but not be sent by and with the authority of the local church. And so on. The role of the minister is clear from Scripture and not all are called, hence we are not all ministers.

Evangelism means something distinct in the Scriptures. If we are going to call what the responsibility of all Christians without exception is (i.e. being excellent in our callings, ready to give an answer for the hope that we have, give a word in season, prayer for the ministry of the church and those ministered unto, financial support of the ministry of the church) evangelism, then it needs to be in line with what the Scriptures call evangelism. The ministry of reconciliation, as Paul calls it, is carried out by the ministers of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5).

If I am a layperson, and I am being told that it is my responsibility to "proclaim the Gospel," and "evangelize," then that duty must be proven out in the Scriptures. Yet, no one can tie those two practices with what every man must, or is even authorized to do. If one is doing this so-called evangelism, and it includes the proclamation of the Gospel, and they appeal to the Great Commission for such a practice, then they'd better also be baptizing, administering the Lord's Supper, and executing discipline on errant disciples, because all of that is bound up in Evangelism, that is, the Gospel Ministry. All of the anecdotal stories and experiences in the world don't change what the Scriptures say about Christ's Kingdom, His ordering thereof, and our duty to execute His orders in the way He has ordered them.

We need to focus on what evangelism means per Scripture. Evangelism does not mean merely the proclamation of the Gospel, but entails all of those things that ministers do in the making of disciples. If a man is perceived to be gifted in discussing the Scriptures, and he meets other biblical qualifications, he should place himself under care of the Presbytery and come under examination, his call verified, etc. That is the biblical model.

At every event when this topic is raised the response should be:

1. Using Scriptures only, please define evangelism.
2. Once one does that, one will find that evangelism, properly and biblically defined, is a work carried out by those who have been called, examined, ordained, and commissioned to such a work (e.g., see Matthew 28, Acts throughout, Romans 10, and Ephesians 4).
3. The Apostle intimates that a 'novice' should not even be considered for an officership in the Church. Necessarily, this would preclude a novice from doing the work of evangelism, which, properly understood, belongs the officers of the Church.

As was once cogently put to me...

...should we send plumbers to do the work of a surgeon? No. Should we send infants to fight in warfare? No. Does it not follow, then, we do not send newborns, or those otherwise not fit, qualified, gifted for, to do the work of the officers of the Church. Preaching is authoritative proclamation. Good preaching usually teaches, but its essential function is conveying authority. What is truly authoritative isn't so much the officer's commission (ordination)--although that is not insignificant. What is truly authoritative is when Holy Spirit accompanies his own Word in the mouth of his appointed agent to bring life to the dead--that's what he's promised. Preaching, that is to say heralding, is the whole package. Can "anybody" preach? Well, that's like asking if "anybody" can lead men into battle. There are people who are natural leaders, and someone's innate gift-and-calling may propel him into the role of sergeant or lieutenant absent orders. So, regardless of what the brass says, he's the real deal. On the other hand, the insignia bestowed by or on behalf of higher authority is meaningful.

6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
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!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Again, if some church calls upon the layperson to do the job of the minister, for me, they had better be calling upon that person to do the whole job of the minister, not neglecting baptizing, the Supper, disciplining, and so forth. To do otherwise is to cast aside Scripture's teachings on the ordering of the church.

Evangelism should not to be equivocated with "being ready to give an answer for the hope we have," or being "salt and light", etc. as these are the duties of all Christians. However, the way laypersons in the Church play their part in evangelism, is by the giving of their resources to the ministry of Word and Sacrament of the Church, inviting others to church, praying for their ministers, and so forth. The ministry of reconciliation belongs to ministers, and to place such a heavy duty upon souls unqualified for such is to require more than God has required. The layperson's witness is filled with many duties which are already time-consuming such as being excellent in one's calling, ready to give an answer, salt and light, ready to give a word in season to those who need it, and other such glorious tasks.

What I have written is the historically Reformed, as well as biblical, definition of evangelism. It has only been in the recent years, with the onslaught of Finneyism, with all its happy-clappy churching, and other grievous aromas reaching God's nostrils, as well as egalitarianism that the definition of evangelism has been changed, with the 'each one reach one' model disastrously employed. This is not done by 'making a decision for Christ,' but endeavoring to make every decision for Christ from now until eternity. As Reformed folk, we do not believe in a threshold Christianity, but a living, ongoing, persevering Christianity, whereby God giving graces to His elect, they progress in the faith and finish the race.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,480
3,740
Canada
✟884,512.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
AMR, I’m kind of playing devil’s advocate here so bear with me. The church I’m a member of is very evangelistic. Like you I do not believe everyone is a minister but I do believe the local congregation, under the authority of its Elders, can train and send out missionaries. I have to deal with their arguments for hyper-evangelism often and will try to repeat some of them in response to your post.

May God bless and use this conversation to add clarity for me and others reading it.

The sad matter of the Great Commission is that it being parsed out by some groups as if the commission was not given to those to whom it was addressed. So you have those who think they can teach, but not baptize. Those who can baptize, but not teach, or make disciples. Those who can go into the nations of the world, but not be sent by and with the authority of the local church.

I can’t speak to every context but what you wrote is only partially true. Ideally, the local church equips the saints who have a calling and zeal to proclaim the Gospel and sends them forth to do so. They go forth under the guidance of the Elders. Those who believe the proclamation are brought into the church to be taught and baptized. We have the authority of the church sending those with a calling for evangelism out into the world to proclaim the truth and directing them to the local church and Elders.

And so on. The role of the minister is clear from Scripture and not all are called, hence we are not all ministers. Evangelism means something distinct in the Scriptures. If we are going to call what the responsibility of all Christians without exception is (i.e. being excellent in our callings, ready to give an answer for the hope that we have, give a word in season, prayer for the ministry of the church and those ministered unto, financial support of the ministry of the church) evangelism, then it needs to be in line with what the Scriptures call evangelism. The ministry of reconciliation, as Paul calls it, is carried out by the ministers of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5).

Agreed. A minister is called by God for the task. How does that exclude others, selected and trained by the church, for the task?

If I am a layperson, and I am being told that it is my responsibility to "proclaim the Gospel," and "evangelize," then that duty must be proven out in the Scriptures. Yet, no one can tie those two practices with what every man must, or is even authorized to do. If one is doing this so-called evangelism, and it includes the proclamation of the Gospel, and they appeal to the Great Commission for such a practice, then they'd better also be baptizing, administering the Lord's Supper, and executing discipline on errant disciples, because all of that is bound up in Evangelism, that is, the Gospel Ministry. All of the anecdotal stories and experiences in the world don't change what the Scriptures say about Christ's Kingdom, His ordering thereof, and our duty to execute His orders in the way He has ordered them.

I agree. The local church should not saddle everyone with the duty of evangelism but equip those recognized with the gift and zeal for evangelism and send them out. Everyone should be equipped to articulate the Gospel even if they are not an evangelist. In Reformed churches there is often a difference as to who preaches the Gospel in the pulpit and who proclaims that same Gospel to those outside the church. (http://www.reformedalberta.ca/Evangelism/Basics_Evangelism/Form_OM00.html) What you’re saying is that because Baptists do it differently, approve evangelism in a different manner, it is invalid.

We need to focus on what evangelism means per Scripture. Evangelism does not mean merely the proclamation of the Gospel,

If that is true why are we disagreeing? If you are saying the free proclamations of the Gospel is not evangelism you really don’t have a valid objection to those with a zeal for the Gospel telling others about Christ…because that’s not evangelism.

If it’s not evangelism what is it brother AMR?

but entails all of those things that ministers do in the making of disciples. If a man is perceived to be gifted in discussing the Scriptures, and he meets other biblical qualifications, he should place himself under care of the Presbytery and come under examination, his call verified, etc. That is the biblical model.

Not all Christian churches function in the traditional Presbyterian manner and I’m not interested in following that rabbit trail, just wanted to point out. We should not assume Presbyteries are biblical. I agree we should insistent on scripture only definitions and therefore rejected any assumed authority of Presbyteries that has been undefined.

At every event when this topic is raised the response should be:

1. Using Scriptures only, please define evangelism.


Agreed.

“Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.” Acts 8

Acts 11:19-21

19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.

21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.

1 Peter 3

8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:

11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.

12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

2. Once one does that, one will find that evangelism, properly and biblically defined, is a work carried out by those who have been called, examined, ordained, and commissioned to such a work (e.g., see Matthew 28, Acts throughout, Romans 10, and Ephesians 4).

Agreed, somewhat. Does it have to look Presbyterian? That seems to be what you’re driving at brother. “If it’s not according to our tradition or view of the church (Presbyterianism) than it’s not being done properly. AMR, you wrote, “Evangelism does not mean merely the proclamation of the Gospel” So what is the issue with laity marked by their Elders for proclamation the Gospel?

3. The Apostle intimates that a 'novice' should not even be considered for an officership in the Church. Necessarily, this would preclude a novice from doing the work of evangelism, which, properly understood, belongs the officers of the Church.

Agreed. It seems you are picking the worst examples of unbiblical evangelistic practices and branding us all with them.

As was once cogently put to me.....should we send plumbers to do the work of a surgeon? No. Should we send infants to fight in warfare? No. Does it not follow, then, we do not send newborns, or those otherwise not fit, qualified, gifted for, to do the work of the officers of the Church.

Do I need a mechanic to give someone a ride to church? No. Do I need pilot to fly a kite? No. Do I need a lesson in rhetoric to speak? No. What is assumed in your examples brother, is that all Christians are newborn, unfit, not qualified, not gifted for the work of proclaiming the Gospel UNLESS a Presbyteries tells them they are. What if the local congregation recognizes the need for evangelism, has a group of zealous believers that are willing to be trained for the task, and sends them? This is where Baptists and Presby differ.

Preaching is authoritative proclamation. Good preaching usually teaches, but its essential function is conveying authority. What is truly authoritative isn't so much the officer's commission (ordination)--although that is not insignificant. What is truly authoritative is when Holy Spirit accompanies his own Word in the mouth of his appointed agent to bring life to the dead--that's what he's promised. Preaching, that is to say heralding, is the whole package. Can "anybody" preach? Well, that's like asking if "anybody" can lead men into battle. There are people who are natural leaders, and someone's innate gift-and-calling may propel him into the role of sergeant or lieutenant absent orders. So, regardless of what the brass says, he's the real deal. On the other hand, the insignia bestowed by or on behalf of higher authority is meaningful.

All authority is found in scripture. The church that recognizes scriptural authority is the true church. The essential function of preaching is not to convey authority but to convey the word of God which is authoritative in and of itself. The minister does not give the word it’s power or add to its authority.

(part 1)
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,480
3,740
Canada
✟884,512.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
(part 2)

Again, if some church calls upon the layperson to do the job of the minister, for me, they had better be calling upon that person to do the whole job of the minister, not neglecting baptizing, the Supper, disciplining, and so forth. To do otherwise is to cast aside Scripture's teachings on the ordering of the church.

Understood. So the laity are just to sit (or stand like they use to before the Reformation) and be observers.

Evangelism should not to be equivocated with "being ready to give an answer for the hope we have," or being "salt and light", etc. as these are the duties of all Christians.

We’ll keep proclaiming the Gospel freely to all. God will save them and when they get to big for their britches they’ll become Presbyterians. lol

However, the way laypersons in the Church play their part in evangelism, is by the giving of their resources to the ministry of Word and Sacrament of the Church, inviting others to church, praying for their ministers, and so forth. The ministry of reconciliation belongs to ministers, and to place such a heavy duty upon souls unqualified for such is to require more than God has required. The layperson's witness is filled with many duties which are already time-consuming such as being excellent in one's calling, ready to give an answer, salt and light, ready to give a word in season to those who need it, and other such glorious tasks.

No one would disagree with the Christian duties you listed above. Most would not limit it based on scriptures already listed.

What I have written is the historically Reformed, as well as biblical, definition of evangelism. It has only been in the recent years, with the onslaught of Finneyism, with all its happy-clappy churching, and other grievous aromas reaching God's nostrils, as well as egalitarianism that the definition of evangelism has been changed, with the 'each one reach one' model disastrously employed. This is not done by 'making a decision for Christ,' but endeavoring to make every decision for Christ from now until eternity. As Reformed folk, we do not believe in a threshold Christianity, but a living, ongoing, persevering Christianity, whereby God giving graces to His elect, they progress in the faith and finish the race.

AMR, it was I who posted the Black Rock Address on PB…so no worries about me being influenced by Finneyism. J I think you have a valid concern with all the bad and worrisome practices that we see in the church today. It scares me as well. I just don’t believe we should enact an unbiblical iconostasis between the Elders and laity on this one issue. I’m all for the Elders training and sending those who have a calling to preach the Gospel outside of the church. I am against every Tom, Dick and Sally taking a course on evangelism so they can look good and religious in front of their Christian friends.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/black-rock-address.pdf
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,480
3,740
Canada
✟884,512.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I mentioned Black Rock Address above. Here is a portion of it:

MISSIONS

We will now call your attention to the subject of Missions. Previous to stating our objections to the mission plans, we will meet some of the false charges brought against us relative to this subject, by a simple and unequivocal declaration, that we do regard as of the first importance the command given of Christ, primarily to His apostles, and through them to his ministers in every age, to "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," and do feel an earnest desire to be found acting in obedience thereunto, as the providence of God directs our way, and opens a door of utterance for us. We also believe it to be the duty of individuals and churches to contribute according to their abilities, for the support, not only of their pastors, but also of those who go preaching the gospel of Christ among the destitute. But we at the same time contend, that we have no right to depart from the order which the Master himself has seen fit to lay down, relative to the ministration of the word. We therefore cannot fellowship the plans for spreading the gospel, generally adopted at this day, under the name of Missions; because we consider those plans throughout a subversion of the order marked out in the New Testament.

lst. In reference to the medium by which the gospel minister is to be sent forth to labor in the field. Agreeable to the Prophecy going before, that out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, the Lord has manifestly established the order, that his ministers should be sent forth by the churches. But the mission plan is to send them out by a Mission Society. The gospel society or church is to be composed of baptized believers; the poor is placed on an equal footing with the rich, and money is of no consideration, with regard to membership, or church privileges. Not so with Mission Societies; they are so organized that the unregenerate, the enemies of the Cross of Christ, have equal privileges as to membership, &c., with the people of God, and money is the principal consideration; a certain sum entitles to membership, a larger sum to life membership, a still larger to directorship, &c., so that their constitutions, contrary to the direction of James, are partial, saying to the rich man, sit thou here, and to the poor, stand thou there.

In Christ's kingdom, all His subjects are sons, and have equal rights, and an equal voice, as well in calling persons into the ministry, as in other things. But the mission administration is all lodged in the hands of a few, who are distinguished from the rest, by great swelling titles, as Presidents, Vice Presidents, &c. Again, each gospel church acts as the independent kingdom of Christ in calling and sending forth its members into the ministry. Very different from this is the mission order. The mission community being so arranged that from the little Mite Society, on the State Conventions, and from them on to the Triennial Convention, and General Board, there is formed a general amalgamation, and a concentration of power in the hands of a dozen dignitaries, who with some exceptions have the control of all the funds designed for supporting ministers among the destitute, at home and abroad, and the sovereign authority to designate who from among the professed ministers of Christ, shall be supported from these funds, and also to assign them the field of their labors.

Yea, the authority to appoint females, and school-masters, and printers, and farmers, as such, to be solemnly set apart by prayer, and the impositions of hands, as missionaries of the cross, and to be supported from these funds. Whereas in ancient times the preachers of the gospel [were called] by the Holy Ghost. - Acts xiii. 1,4.

2nd. In reference to ministerial support. - The gospel order is to extend support to them who preach the gospel; but the mission plan is to hire persons to preach. The gospel order is not to prefer one before another, and do nothing by partiality. See 1 Tim. v. 17, 21. But the Mission Boards exclude all from participation in the benefits of their funds, who do not come under their direction and own their authority, however regularly they may have been set apart according to gospel order, to the work of the ministry, and however zealously they may be laboring to preach the gospel among the destitute. And what is more, these Boards by their auxiliaries and agents, so scour every hole and corner to scrape up money for their funds that the people think they have nothing left to give a preacher who may come among them alone upon the authority of Christ, and by the fellowship of the church. Formerly not only did preachers generally feel themselves bound to devote a part of their time to traveling and preaching among the destitute, but the people also among whom they came dispensing the word of life, felt themselves bound to contribute something to meet their expenses. These were the days when Christian affections flowed freely.

Then the hearts of the preachers flowed out toward the people, and the affections of the people were manifested toward the preachers who visited them. There was then more preaching of the gospel among the people at large, according to the number of Baptists, than has ever been since the rage of missions commenced. How different are things now from what they were in those by-gone days. Now, generally speaking, persons who are novices in the gospel, however learned they may profess to be in the sciences, have taken the field in the place of those who, have been taught in the school of Christ, were capacitated to administer consolation to God's afflicted people.

The missionary, instead of going into such neighborhoods as Christ's ministers used to visit, where they would be most likely to have an opportunity of administering food to the poor of the flock, seeks the more populous villages and towns, where he can attract the most attention, and do the most to promote the cause of missions and other popular institution's. His leading motive, judging from his movements, is not love to souls, but love of fame; hence his anxiety to have something to publish of what he has done, and hence his anxiety to constitute churches, even taking disaffected, disorderly, and as has been the case, excluded persons, to form a church, in the absence of better materials. And the people, instead of glowing with the affection for the preacher as such, feel burdened with the whole system of modern mendicancy, but have no resolution to shake off their oppression, because it is represented so deistical to withhold and so popular to give.

Brethren, we cheerfully acknowledge that there have been some honorable exceptions to the character we have here drawn of the modern missionary, and some societies have existed under the name of Mission Societies which were in some important exceptions from the above drawn sketch; but on a general scale we believe we have given a correct view of the mission plans and operations, and of the effects which have resulted from them, and our hearts really sicken at this state of things. How can we therefore forbear to express our disapprobation of the system that has produced it?
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,717
913
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟219,428.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
JM,

Your response, while not wanting to go down rabbit holes of church polity, does not avoid doing so. The matter is not Presbyterian polity versus Baptist or congregationalism. The matter before us is the commission given the Apostles and their linked in doctrine ordained servants from then until now. Key here is ordained servants who are commissioned with the authority to Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you..{observance of the Supper, Word and Sacrament, discipline, church order, etc.}."

As I have stated evangelism is part of the ministry of reconciliation. This ministry belongs to the called, the one's whose call is verified, the one who is examined to be found worthy, the one who is equipped under the guidance of the church, and the one who is sent. This is the Biblical model and we simply cannot wave off the model, or parse it up with pieces done by this person or that persons, by appeals to the contrary.

If a local church is sending someone to go forth, what are they meaning by "go forth" if not the Commission given to the ordained servant? From what you have written you seem to take a different exegetical view of the commission given in Matthew than its plain meaning.

"The priesthood of all believers," has been mishandled so as to teach that the laity is welcomed to all the responsibilities of the ordained. Such a position results in disintegration not because of a simple violation of order but because of disobedience.

Today we are being inundated with jargon-pious sounding "buzz words"; e.g., words like witness, testimony, ministry, fellowship, growth, discipling, sharing, as well as evangelizing. All of these words have been turned into "trigger words" which subtly mark the boundaries of an at attempt at a new orthodoxy. If someone questions the accepted usage, he is immediately suspect, as if the distinction between laity and clergy was a meaningless concept in Scripture.

The Great Commission was originally given to the apostles, not to every single believer. This means that while it is admirable and encouraged for all Christians to be witnesses to Christ in their lives (and in their speech when the opportunity arises), there is a specific context in which gospel preaching enjoys a promised blessing by the Holy Spirit, and that context is the pulpit each Lord’s Day (Romans 10:13-15, 17). It seems inconceivable in Paul’s mind that the preaching that produces faith would be done outside the context of a duly ordained minister whom the church has sent out on this holy errand. Yes, Paul did rejoice even when the gospel is preached by unworthy and self-serving men (Philippians 1:15-18), but that is far different from saying that the ordained ministry of the Word is in some way unnecessary or dispensable.

It was of the church that Jesus was speaking when he issued the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, and it was of this church that Paul wrote to Timothy, calling it the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth (see Matthew 16:18; 1 Timothy 3:15). Thus, while all believers are called to faithfully glorify God by fulfilling their earthly callings, it is not incumbent upon them to also fulfill the Great Commission. That holy task is given to men set apart from worldly endeavors—men who, like Paul, are separated to the gospel of God (Romans 1:1).

We find in 1 Cor 14:26, 33, 40, that everything in the church is to be done decently, in order, peacefully, and for edification. Elsewhere we read the office of elder was charged with the leadership and the governance of the church, and to do so they formed a presbyterium (1 Tim. 4:14). Do not let the word "presbyterium" limit the discussion to Presbyterianism.

There can also be no doubt that Christ founded the church and entrusted it with certain powers. After all, our Lord spoke of the church as being based on a rock such that even Hell could not prevail against it. To the church community, Christ gave offices, ministries, institutions, and gifts (see Romans 12:6 and forward, Ephesians 4:11, and 1 Cor. 12-14). Power, too, was given to the church. Power to determine what will and will not be in effect, that is what is permitted and what is prohibited, what will or will not be allowed in the kingdom of heaven established here on earth, the center of which is the church. This power (exousia), the power of the keys, was the ministry of Word and sacrament (Matthew 28:19). The ministry of Word and sacrament necessarily also implies the power to teach, govern, and to discipline.

The Supper and Baptism are holy, visible, signs and seals instituted by God so that (1) He may make the believer more clearly understand and to reassure the believer of the promises and benefits of the covenant of grace; and (2) that the believer might confess and confirm their faith and love before God, the elect angels, and mankind.

From Scripture we find ordinary (and extraordinary) offices that were instituted by Christ: Mark 3:14; Luke 10:1; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11

These ordinary offices were given power for the:

1. proclamation of the gospel (Matthew 10:7; Mark 3:14; 16:15; Luke 9:2)
2. administration of the sacraments (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-26)
3. feeding of the flock (John 21:15-17; Acts 20:28)
4. exercise of discipline (Matthew 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:4)
5. serving of tables (Acts 6:2)
6. right to earn a living from the gospel (Matthew 10:10; 1 Cor. 9:4 and forward; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 5:18)

The extraordinary offices were given power for performing miracles (Matthew 10:1; 10:8; Mark 3:15; 16:18; John 20:23).

No person can take the honor of these unless they have been verified to have been called and sent (Romans 10:15; Hebrews 5:4). These powers are for (1) building up, not for destruction, (2) the perfection of the saints, and (3) building up of the body of Christ.

For example, baptism is administered by Christ. But, in the administration of baptism, our Lord employs those whom He has charged with the distribution of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1). The testimony of the Scripture is clear in that in the New Testament baptism was administered only by those men who held offices.

Further, the teachings from Scripture about the elder and/or teaching elder are clearly directed towards men who were called, tested, examined, and laid hands upon, and sent to offer the means of grace of Word and sacrament. Brother, even our Lord was appointed to His office (Heb. 5:4-5).

I am not denying the believer should refrain discussing their faith with others. This is not the issue. Of course we are to share our experiences of faith with others, even having a ready defense for that which we hold dear. But there is a limit on the authority each person may claim for themselves, else we have anarchy. Making disciples is not about "witnessing", "sharing testimonies", etc. In Matthew 28:19, disciples are made. How? By baptizing and teaching. This is the proper grammar of the passage.

Lest I be misunderstood, I hold that this view of "sharing the gospel" by any and all is not what the Great Commission is about. Rather it is about identifying the proper responsibility for the ministry of Word and sacrament and the commands contained thereto. If a person honestly believes that the Lord's commands in the Great Commission apply strictly to themselves, then they need to get busy traveling to nations, teaching, discipling, and baptizing. These are not either-or options and we cannot ignore James 3:1: "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment."

On whom is the obligation to "make disciples" laid? The men to whom those words were precisely directed were competent (trained in the school of Jesus), and they were being commissioned (ordained, authorized) to this mission. The Great Commission is basically a "graduation exercise" to these men and their successors.

Just because I may tell a Christian churchgoer that he's not been commanded by Christ to "evangelize" or "make disciples" (which are not even the same thing), how exactly have I discouraged anyone from articulating his faith with others? Why should it seem controversial that there should be special directions for church operations and officers in the Bible? Why should you, or anyone else, feel as though they aren't being treated with due respect unless all the commands of Scripture are directed equally toward everyone?

You have appealed to Acts as if to show it disagrees with my claim that once one uses Scripture alone, one will find that evangelism, properly and Scripturally defined, is a work carried out by those who have been called, examined, ordained, and commissioned to such a work (e.g., Matthew 28, Acts throughout, Romans 10, and Ephesians 4). Nothing in your appeal to Acts makes your case.
 
Upvote 0

gord44

Well-Known Member
Nov 4, 2004
4,361
666
✟37,508.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Interesting AMR. It makes me wonder though about the amount of education that seems to be required to answer 'the call'. If only ordained ministers should evangelise, would it not be better if people could be ordained more easily? I don't mean no education, but maybe not the need for a masters or doctorate? I wonder how many possible good ministers and evangelists fall through the cracks because they don't have the education. Of course there would still be verification of the call, etc.

Sorry if this is off topic, but it popped into my head. Of all the posts here, what AMR just posted makes the most sense from a Biblical perspective in my mind.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,480
3,740
Canada
✟884,512.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
gord, I actually agree with AMR but I'm using the arguments I'm given from the members of the church I attend to get his responses. The passage about the "ministry of reconcilliation" is one that I've used in the past and for me, is really the clincher. When I state my objections to hyper evangelism I feel as if I'm dismissed because of my "Calvinism." People will not even consider the scriptures I offer on the subject.

I also agree with AMR when he wrote, "We discern and interpret Scripture in the community of saints, not in isolation. Look to the instruction received at the hands of those in authority over you in the church to which you have covenanted your membership." Due to the authority of the Elders over me I need to consider their teaching about evangelism as AMR stated. They would disagree with him. Should I obey my Elders or AMR? Lol I obey scripture. As AMR already pointed out proclaiming Jesus Christ to all freely doesn't make you a minister.

As for getting an M. Div. before becoming a preacher...that's another issue. Start a thread and we can explore it.

Yours in The Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,717
913
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟219,428.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Interesting AMR. It makes me wonder though about the amount of education that seems to be required to answer 'the call'. If only ordained ministers should evangelise, would it not be better if people could be ordained more easily? I don't mean no education, but maybe not the need for a masters or doctorate? I wonder how many possible good ministers and evangelists fall through the cracks because they don't have the education. Of course there would still be verification of the call, etc.

Sorry if this is off topic, but it popped into my head. Of all the posts here, what AMR just posted makes the most sense from a Biblical perspective in my mind.

It all depends on church polity and their respective requirements. Some ordained men have little formal education, some plenty. The church makes the decision per its formalized procedures. Even the PCA has policies for exception making as relates to formalized education. Consider, RC Sproul, who has a degree from Whitefield, a seminary that is not accredited. ;)
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,717
913
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟219,428.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Should I obey my Elders or AMR? Lol I obey scripture.

Well, speaking as one of those stuffy and snobbish Presbyterians, if your church officers are doing their job, then the elders had better be obedient to Scripture. ;)

"Just Me and My Bible" is not something anyone who is a church member should be practicing if they are being faithful to Scripture, which clearly outlines the roles and responsibilities of its church leaders and members.

I am not saying we are not permitted to take exception to a church's stated confessional basis or policies. We as members are so permitted by Scriptural warrant. That said, church officers have a more narrow wiggle room as they must affirm the church's confessional basis and be public about their exceptions at any time they may arise in their walk of faith such that the church elders, session, etc., can evaluate them and consider if exceptions taken are in or out of bounds. The laity are not so bound. But they are bound to their affirmation when becoming a member to "keep the peace" by working within the procedures established for "reformation" that aligns with Scripture (not just alignment with cultural changes). If you read some of the posts in the Ask A Chaplain forum you will find not a few folks who think they have an excuse for not joining any local assembly because of their issues with what they believe or they seek to join a church in order to "set everyone straight" on their "many errors". Sigh.

Getting formally educated is not as difficult as some may imagine. Today, many church groups permit education in seminaries with good reputations, even those not formally accredited. For example, Whitefield graduates find their way into many pulpits. Even at TNARS, a completely free seminary where students work at their own pace, we find local sessions being more and more willing to accept graduates for ordained roles. Some churches have their own ordination-track programs, too. A man who feels called of the Lord should be discussing this with their local church, who should be responsible for their spiritual care and training for ordination.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,480
3,740
Canada
✟884,512.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Very true AMR. I'm not a proponant of solo scriptura, or Tradtion and my Bible. I did a few courses through TNARS and, at the time, they were overwhlemed. I would spend a week writing a paper and get three or four sentences in return. Always positive comments.

AMR, the people at the church I'm a member of tend to view me as a stuffy and snobbish Reformed Baptist for the same reasons... We have a lot in common. I use CF to workout ideas, ways to defend the faith, etc.

Don't take my posts to heart.

:)
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,717
913
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟219,428.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Very true AMR. I'm not a proponant of solo scriptura, or Tradtion and my Bible. I did a few courses through TNARS and, at the time, they were overwhlemed. I would spend a week writing a paper and get three or four sentences in return. Always positive comments.

AMR, the people at the church I'm a member of tend to view me as a stuffy and snobbish Reformed Baptist for the same reasons... We have a lot in common. I use CF to workout ideas, ways to defend the faith, etc.

Don't take my posts to heart.

:)
Thank you for the irenic spirit, brother. I too often come across as "may be wrong, but not in doubt" and I need the brotherly correction of others. I am but an unprofitable servant. Sigh.

Gimme a Christian side hug:

http://tinyurl.com/ap6sqvy
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0