Thread: Is the Great Commission only to Apostles?

Originally Posted by AThornquist

This argument (the portion in bold) doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't those who are saved by grace through faith begin attending a church and thus become a part of the visible church? In the NT there were multitudes that heard the gospel in the public and were saved. In what way were they a part of the visible church before this conversion? And the eunuch that Phillip baptized, was he not detached until he came to a city and presumably gathered with Christians? The same events would be true for a new convert today.

They were baptised. Are those "saved" by every believer evangelism baptised? No.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

I'm not sure, are you suggesting that Dr. G's position is one of flattery? That is how it is easily read. If that is what you intend to say, that is an uncharitable statement.

If you must read my words a certain way in order to impute to me an uncharitable statement, charity says that you should read them another way.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by AThornquist

I'm not sure, are you suggesting that Dr. G's position is one of flattery? That is how it is easily read. If that is what you intend to say, that is an uncharitable statement.

If you must read my words a certain way in order to impute to me an uncharitable statement, charity says that you should read them another way.

Which is precisely why I charitably asked what you meant and responded to what it could easily be read as. I did not assume what you meant or impute anything to your true intentions. To the question though, were you referring to Dr. G? I'm not sure who exactly you are talking about when you say, "please do not listen to people who think that flattery is the way to motivate Christians," especially when you conclude by saying "If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body and with the mind of Christ" when it can easily appear that this is contrasted with individuals evangelizing, which you contradicted in your first paragraph.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Which is precisely why I charitably asked what you meant and responded to what it could easily be read as. I did not assume what you meant or impute anything to your true intentions. To the question though, were you referring to Dr. G? I'm not sure who exactly you are talking about when you say, "please do not listen to people who think that flattery is the way to motivate Christians," especially when you conclude by saying "If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body and with the mind of Christ" when it can easily appear that this is contrasted with individuals evangelizing, which you contradicted in your first paragraph.

My words are what they are -- a general appeal to beware of something. If a particular individual's conscience is awakened by that general statement then that particular individual will need to deal with his conscience. If his conscience does not accuse him then the statement does not apply to him and he can pass it off as something which concerns others rather than himself.

Please, if you are going to deal with the words of others, treat them as you find them and try not to add things into them which are not stated. As it stands, you are the one who have brought a particular individual into the statement and therefore turned a general cautionary statement into a personal accusation.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Please, if you are going to deal with the words of others, treat them as you find them and try not to add things into them which are not stated. As it stands, you are the one who have brought a particular individual into the statement and therefore turned a general cautionary statement into a personal accusation.

If you were not referring to his position, that's great. Thank you.

My words are what they are -- a general appeal to beware of something. If a particular individual's conscience is awakened by that general statement then that particular individual will need to deal with his conscience. If his conscience does not accuse him then the statement does not apply to him and he can pass it off as something which concerns others rather than himself.

Since I've been rightly accused of uncharitable comments in the past, this is a point that I need to learn.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The view of Mr. Gonzales, (1.) gives to the church and the world an evangelism which is without divine appointment and gifting. In the New Testament the body of Christ is said to be gifted by the risen Christ; we have some gifts which relate to speech and some which relate to action. The apostle Peter explicitly distinguishes these two. If every Christian is not gifted to speak then evangelism cannot be the function of every Christian.

Greetings, Matthew. It's been a while since we've interacted. For some reason, you keep misspelling my name. It ends with an "s" not a "z." No offense. In response to your first point, I don't argue that Christ has bestowed all gifts equally to each and every saint. In other words, I'm not an egalitarian. What I do reject is the notion that evangelism is the sole province of the ordained clergy. The numerous passages I adduce demonstrate Christ has gifted many laypeople with the gift of utterance and that they did in fact employ that gift in the work of evangelism. The task of the Great Commission devolves on the church as a whole, not exclusively on the clergy. Hence, your view unduly restricts the warrant Christ himself has given to his church to be a missionary agent in the world.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

(2.) His view also individualises evangelism so as to make it unaccountable. The great commission is a charge -- GO -- to a group. It requires submission and sacrifice. Throughout the Acts of the Apostles we find that evangelism is carried forward by men who were set apart to the work, who answered to the church for their work, and who were willing to sacrifice earthly callings in order to fulfil their course.

Poppycock! Every saint is accountable ultimately to Christ and more immediately to his church. My view endorses no sort of "lone ranger" Christianity. "Go" certainly requires submission and sacrifice, but those demands are not just directed to clergymen. Every disciple who would come after Jesus must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus. Indeed, those who fail to confess Jesus before men, will not be owned by Jesus before God (including laypeople). Moreover, throughout Acts we find that evangelism is carried forward NOT ONLY by men who were officially commissioned to the office of pastor-teacher BUT ALSO by those who did not occupy the pastoral office. Certainly, those set apart with extra-ordinary gifts may lead the way, but they are by no means the sole possessors of the privilege and stewardship of spreading the good news. This point is well-established in my articles where I expound a handful of key passages. You'll not advance your case very far until you address the data presented that contradicts your "clerical" view.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

(3.) Finally, his view obscures the nature of the church as visible. If evangelism were the office of every Christian then individuals could be saved without the ordinary means of grace, and would fill the world with numerous believers detached from the visible church. This is contrary to the view of the New Testament, where we find evangelism also entailed the work of gathering churches, confirming saints, and making provision for office-bearers.

What? How does my view "obscure the nature of the visible church"? The goal of evangelism, whether done by laypeople or pastors, is to make disciples and incorporate those disciples into the visible church. The "ordinary means of grace" includes the proclamation of the gospel. Are you suggesting that we limit such "ordinary means" exclusively to the Sunday sermons of pastors? If so, you ignore not only the NT data but God's providence in church history. Writes Kenneth Scott Latourette, Yale church historian,

The chief agents in the expansion of Christianity appear not to have been those who made it a profession or a major part of their occupation, but men and women who earned their livelihood in some purely secular manner and spoke of their faith to those whom they met in this natural fashion (A History of the Expansion of Christianity [Harper & Brothers, 1937], 1:116.).

FWIW, it was an ordinary layman whom God used as the first and primary instrument to communicate the gospel to me and to bring me to Christ. And as a pastor who's heard plenty of testimonies of conversion, I can assure you that my experience is not exceptional.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Dear friends, be active and diligent in using all the gifts that God has given you to further the cause of Christ, but please do not listen to people who think that flattery is the way to motivate Christians. If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body and with the mind of Christ.

"Flattery"? Do you really think I'm trying to "flatter" laypeople into thinking that they have a privilege and stewardship to love their unsaved neighbor as themselves and that they should do unto that unsaved neighbor what they would want that unsaved neighbor to do for them? Is it flattery to tell God's people that they're likely to suffer persecution if they attempt to fulfill their calling as salt and light in the world?

I do agree with your closing statement: "If the cause of Christ is to progress in this world it will be by means of the church functioning as a body [every member doing his part] and with the mind of Christ [which is expressed in the NT and which, contrary to your viewpoint, does not limit the work of evangelism or sharing the good news of the gospel to the ordained clergy.]"

Dear friends, I would urge you not to be persuaded by the arguments of Reverend Winzer but by the data of the NT, which supports lay-evangelism (click here to see for yourself). The enemies of Calvinism charge it with promoting a version of Christianity that quenches evangelistic effort and zeal. Let's not provide them with justification to charge us with "hyper-Calvinism." For those interested, I would encourage you to be persuaded rather by the Reverend C. H. Spurgeon's address, "How to Induce our People to Win Souls," which may be found in his book The Soul-Winner. For those interested in a more scholarly defense of lay-evangelism, see Robert L. Plummer, Paul's Understanding of the Church's Mission: Did the Apostle Paul Expect the Early Christian Communities to Evangelize? (Paternoster, 2006).

Your servant,

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The view of Mr. Gonzales, (1.) gives to the church and the world an evangelism which is without divine appointment and gifting. In the New Testament the body of Christ is said to be gifted by the risen Christ; we have some gifts which relate to speech and some which relate to action. The apostle Peter explicitly distinguishes these two. If every Christian is not gifted to speak then evangelism cannot be the function of every Christian.

Greetings, Matthew. It's been a while since we've interacted. For some reason, you keep misspelling my name. It ends with an "s" not a "z." No offense.

Shrugs shoulders.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

In other words, I'm not an egalitarian. What I do reject is the notion that evangelism is the sole province of the ordained clergy. [B][URL="http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/giving-proper-due-to-the-people-in-the-pew-a-biblical-defense-of-lay-ministry-and-lay-evangelism-part-3/"]

Let's be clear. You are claiming this activity is "evangelism," yet you have no basis in Scripture for calling it such. Where you part ways with Scripture the Bible believer must part ways with you. So far as personally communicating the teachings of Christianity with others is concerned, no one has called this the exclusive province of ordained men. Your reaction is an over-reaction.

A second clarification -- you choose to use the term, "ordained clergy." "Clergy" is your description. I have only emphasised an ordained "ministry." If you are going to attack a position you should make sure it is the correct one.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

The task of the Great Commission devolves on the church as a whole, not exclusively on the clergy. Hence, your view strips unduly restricts the warrant Christ himself has given to his church to be a missionary agent in the world.

Sending, baptism, and instruction does not devolve on the church as a whole. Hence you are failing to distinguish things that differ. Every believer should be concerned to see the great commission fulfilled, but every believer is not actively participating in the duties enjoined in the great commission.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

My view endorses no sort of "lone ranger" Christianity. "Go" certainly requires submission and sacrifice, but those demands are not just directed to clergymen. Every disciple who would come after Jesus must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus. Indeed, those who fail to confess Jesus before men, will not be owned by Jesus before God (including laypeople). Moreover, throughout Acts we find that evangelism is carried forward NOT ONLY by men who were officially commissioned to the office of pastor-teacher BUT ALSO by those who did not occupy the pastoral office. Certainly, those set apart with extra-ordinary gifts may lead the way, but they are by no means the sole possessors of the privilege and stewardship of spreading the good news.

You are failing to strictly apply terms and their meanings. Those who deal with the commission in a serious exegetical way are careful to define the "going" mentioned by the Lord in contrast to the "go not" of the commission of chapter 10. There is no doubt that it is tied to the idea of "mission."

You state the ordained ministry has extra-ordinary gifts. Some attention to detail will show that ministers exercise ordinary gifts in the fulfilment of their function; and it is undoubtedly the case that these gifts are given by God to equip them for the office they are to fulfil, and have been proven by the church in a process of ordinary calling. Nothing less than the same ordinary, biblical process should be required by others who wish to exercise these "gifts."

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

The goal of evangelism, whether done by laypeople or pastors, is to make disciples and incorporate those disciples into the visible church.

Then, by your own definition, unordained people do not engage in the work of evangelism because unordained people are not authorised to add people to the church by baptism.

Of course Matthew's (armourbearer's) position is based on Presbyterian ecclesiology. Being Baptist myself, and seeing a complete lack in the scriptures of any such hierarchial church government/authority, and believing firmly that each believer's authority is Christ Himself (we need no other mediator), I wholeheartedly reject the idea that evangelism is done only through the authority of the leadership of the Church. I myself was saved by a sovereign God, through a co-worker who evangelized me, with no sponsorship or authority granted from his church.

The believer needs no other authority (for evangelism) than Christ Himself, and the Holy Spirit of God, who is present with all regenerate persons. The appeal that since every Christian is "not gifted to speak" so therefore "evangelism cannot be the function of every Christian" is unbelievably false and refuted by multiple scriptures. My answer for that would be the same answer God gave Moses:

Exo 4:10 But Moses said to the LORD, "Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue."

God's purpose is not accomplished through well spoken, polished, and perfect men. God's will is often accomplished through the weak, stuttering, and scared man or woman, who is wise enough to rely on the power of Christ, rather than their own abilities.

Exo 4:10 But Moses said to the LORD, "Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue."

Not polished or perfect, but certainly ordained.

You're confusing living as a witness, being ready to give an answer, with the ordained and commissioned work of evangelism.

Originally Posted by Damon Rambo

I myself was saved by a sovereign God, through a co-worker who evangelized me, with no sponsorship or authority granted from his church.

Were you "saved," in the complete biblical sense of the word, i.e., the Lord adding you to the church, Acts 2:47? I think not; and if you took a moment to reflect on this subject with something other than a concern to validate your religious experiences you would see that the proper definition of "evangelism" is more than a matter of settling ecclesial structure but pertains to the proper means of nourishing souls unto eternal life in the now/not yet reality of Christian salvation.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Let's be clear. You are claiming this activity is "evangelism," yet you have no basis in Scripture for calling it such. Where you part ways with Scripture the Bible believer must part ways with you. So far as personally communicating the teachings of Christianity with others is concerned, no one has called this the exclusive province of ordained men. Your reaction is an over-reaction.

Yes, let's be clear--the Reverend Winzer has yet to interact with the articles I've posted. For anyone interested in the exegetical evidence supporting the notion that terminology related to "evangelism" is applied to disciples not ordained to the office of pastor or missionary, please take the time to read my post in defense of lay-evangelism (especially the final section entitled, "A Word About Words"). I demonstrate that folks like the Reverend Winzer, Daryl Hart, and R. Scott Clark are not competent linguists.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

A second clarification -- you choose to use the term, "ordained clergy." "Clergy" is your description. I have only emphasised an ordained "ministry." If you are going to attack a position you should make sure it is the correct one.

Okay. How about this from the Encyclopedia Britannica: "clergy"- a body of ordained ministers in a Christian church (emphasis added).

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

The task of the Great Commission devolves on the church as a whole, not exclusively on the clergy. Hence, your view strips unduly restricts the warrant Christ himself has given to his church to be a missionary agent in the world.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Sending, baptism, and instruction does not devolve on the church as a whole. Hence you are failing to distinguish things that differ. Every believer should be concerned to see the great commission fulfilled, but every believer is not actively participating in the duties enjoined in the great commission.

"Making disciples," which is the one imperative of the passage and, therefore, stands at the heart of the Great Commission, is the church's task. The "clergy" or "ordained ministry" is accorded a special and unique rule in this task, but they're calling does not exhaust the task, which is given to the church as a whole. Matthew 28:19-20 must be interpreted in light of the rest of NT data related to the activity of the rank-and-file believers who were engaged in evangelizing the lost. Why are you restricting the basis of your clerical view to Matthew 29:18-20? This is certainly a key text. But it must be interpreted in keeping with the analogy of Scripture. Why aren't you trying to deal with the several passages I've advanced in support of lay-evangelism.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

You are failing to strictly apply terms and their meanings. Those who deal with the commission in a serious exegetical way are careful to define the "going" mentioned by the Lord in contrast to the "go not" of the commission of chapter 10. There is no doubt that it is tied to the idea of "mission."

Matthew, I'm a trained linguist. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you're obviously not. You apparently retain the outmoded and discredited notion that certain terms can only have "technical" meanings when in fact they may also have more common or non-technical meanings. I'd recommend for starters that you read Donald Carson's Exegetlcal Fallacies.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

You state the ordained ministry has extra-ordinary gifts. Some attention to detail will show that ministers exercise ordinary gifts in the fulfilment of their function; and it is undoubtedly the case that these gifts are given by God to equip them for the office they are to fulfil, and have been proven by the church in a process of ordinary calling. Nothing less than the same ordinary, biblical process should be required by others who wish to exercise these "gifts."

I maintain that ministers have "extra-ordinary" gifts relative to the gifts of the rank-and-file layperson. Relative to the "office" of pastor, the gifts of the pastor-teacher are ordinary. Relative to all disciples in general, the gifts of the pastor-teacher are extra-ordinary. But this is beside the point. The gift of utterance is not limited to the ordained minister alone: please read and interact with the exegetical data I've advanced.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

The goal of evangelism, whether done by laypeople or pastors, is to make disciples and incorporate those disciples into the visible church.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Then, by your own definition, unordained people do not engage in the work of evangelism because unordained people are not authorised to add people to the church by baptism.

(1) If the NT says non-ordained folks engage in evangelism, they engaged in evangelism no matter what convoluted logic you advance. (2) You seem to assume that the scope of the duty of "making disciples" is co-terminus with the scope of the duty to baptize. I would beg to differ on the basis of the NT data, which you have yet to address.

Matthew, you deny the free and well-meant offer of the gospel. You restrict the privilege of stewardship of evangelism to the ordained minister (and I've met very few Reformed ministers who seem to have the time and zeal to engage in the degree of evangelism needed to build a church). And you have yet to deal with those NT texts that describe and warrant lay-evangelism (Acts 6:7; 8:1-4; 11:19-21; I Cor 4:16; 11:1; Eph 6:15, 17; Phil 1:12-18; 2:15-16; Col 4:5-6; 1 Thes 1:8; Heb 5:12-14; 1 Pet 2:9; 3:15).

It's difficult not to conclude that a rather frigid hyper-Calvinism is still alive and well. Like dead flies in the ointment of the apothecary, this brand of "Calvinism" sends forth a "stinking savor." Once again, I'm compelled to prefer Calvin's sentiments when he writes,

Therefore, in keeping with the teaching Luke gives here, let us learn that we constitute a true church of God when we try our best to increase the number of believers. And then each one of us, where we are, will apply all our effort to instructing our neighbours and leading them to the knowledge of God, as much by our words as by our showing them good examples and good behaviour. That is also why holy Scripture exhorts us so often to win to God those who remain alienated from his church, for we see unbelievers as poor lost sheep. Our Lord has not given us insight into his truth for our advantage alone, but for sharing it with others. Because we see them as madmen casting themselves into hell, we must, to the extent we can, prevent them from doing so and procure their salvation. That, I tell you, is the zeal all Christians must have if they are not to limit themselves just to the public worship of God (emphasis added). (John Calvin, "Learning, Teaching, and Living the Gospel Message" (sermon on Acts 6.7-9) in Sermons on the Acts of the Apostles (Chapters 1-7) [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2008], 335-36.)

---------- Post added 03-08-2010 at 12:16 AM ---------- Previous post was 03-07-2010 at 11:52 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Brad

You're confusing living as a witness, being ready to give an answer, with the ordained and commissioned work of evangelism.

Brad,

You've just committed a linguistic "no-no." You think laypeople may "witness" or "give an answer" since apparently in your view these terms are non-technical or non-official and are, therefore, the province of the layperson. The term "evangelism," you think, is a technical term that exclusively predicates the ordained minister's function. If you'll take the time to read my article defending lay-evangelism, you'll find that the term "witness" has greater claim to "official" and "technical" than does "evangelize." In point of fact, the NT writers employ both "witness" and "evangelism" terminology in both "official" and "non-official" or "non-clerical" contexts. Biblical usage, Brad, not some strand of Reformed tradition, determines meaning.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

I demonstrate that folks like the Reverend Winzer, Daryl Hart, and R. Scott Clark are not competent linguists.

Thankfully even incompetent linguists have competent linguists to which we can turn, and need not slavishly follow the fancies of men who like to pretend they are linguists.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Matthew, I'm a trained linguist. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you're obviously not. You apparently retain the outmoded and discredited notion that certain terms can only have "technical" meanings when in fact they may also have more common or non-technical meanings. I'd recommend for starters that you read Donald Carson's Exegetlcal Fallacies.

Carson's Exegetical Fallacies has been around for many years, and has long since been read and digested. Perhaps the good doctor might show some real scholarship and actually quote a relevant portion of it.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

(1) If the NT says non-ordained folks engage in evangelism, they engaged in evangelism no matter what convoluted logic you advance.

But the NT doesn't say non-ordained folk engaged in evangelism; that is the crux of the matter. Dr. Gonzales can throw his weight around all he pleases, denounce people who disagree with him, insist that individuals read his articles, set himself up as an authority in all matters scholastical, etc. etc., but the fact remains, he has no biblical support for his position.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Were you "saved," in the complete biblical sense of the word, i.e., the Lord adding you to the church, Acts 2:47? I think not; and if you took a moment to reflect on this subject with something other than a concern to validate your religious experiences you would see that the proper definition of "evangelism" is more than a matter of settling ecclesial structure but pertains to the proper means of nourishing souls unto eternal life in the now/not yet reality of Christian salvation.

The "complete biblical sense of the word"? In point of fact, "saved" is used to refer to various facets of one's salvation: sometimes more broadly to include the totality of one's deliverance from sin (regeneration, conversion, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification, etc.); sometimes, however, the terminology is employed more narrowly to refer to conversion or justification. (Hence, the aorist tense or perfect tense) The average reader is sharp enough to realize that Damon was not employing the term "saved" in the fullest sense but rather in the more restrictive sense of conversion and justification. And whether it suits your fancy or not, Christ Jesus is pleased to birth some in to the kingdom and justify their souls through the means of lay-evangelism.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

And whether it suits your fancy or not, Christ Jesus is pleased to birth some in to the kingdom and justify their souls through the means of lay-evangelism.

Acts 2 says what it says.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

I demonstrate that folks like the Reverend Winzer, Daryl Hart, and R. Scott Clark are not competent linguists.

Thankfully even incompetent linguists have competent linguists to which we can turn, and need not slavishly follow the fancies of men who like to pretend they are linguists.

Then by all means make use of competent linguists! And if I've violated sound linguistic principles in my exegesis of several key NT passages vis-a-vis lay-evangelism, then address the data and arguments.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Matthew, I'm a trained linguist. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you're obviously not. You apparently retain the outmoded and discredited notion that certain terms can only have "technical" meanings when in fact they may also have more common or non-technical meanings. I'd recommend for starters that you read Donald Carson's Exegetlcal Fallacies.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Carson's Exegetical Fallacies has been around for many years, and has long since been read and digested. Perhaps the good doctor might show some real scholarship and actually quote a relevant portion of it.

I'm happy to oblige. The Reverend Winzer (as well as Daryl Hart and R. Scott Clark) commit the fallacy Carson summarizes in pages 45-48, which he labels, "False assumptions about technical meaning." Concerning this fallacy, Carson writes,

In this fallacy, an interpreter falsely assumes that a word always or nearly always has a certain technical meaning--a meaning usually derived either from a subset of the evidence or from the interpreter's personal systematic theology.... One corollary of this fallacy is that some interpreters will go one stage further and reduce an entire doctrine to one word which they have understood to be a technical term" (Exegetical Fallacies, 45-48).

You may also want to consult James Barr's The Semantics of Biblical Language.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

(1) If the NT says non-ordained folks engage in evangelism, they engaged in evangelism no matter what convoluted logic you advance.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

But the NT doesn't say non-ordained folk engaged in evangelism; that is the crux of the matter. Dr. Gonzales can throw his weight around all he pleases, denounce people who disagree with him, insist that individuals read his articles, set himself up as an authority in all matters scholastical, etc. etc., but the fact remains, he has no biblical support for his position.

Dr. Gonzales does not wish any reader to accept his arguments on the basis of his own authority (God forbid!). Accordingly, he has repeatedly posted links to his three-part series in defense of lay-ministry and lay-evangelism where he expounds and applies the biblical data. There the reader will find several passages of Scripture that support the privilege and stewardship of lay-ministry and lay-evangelism.

For some odd reason, the Reverend Winzer refuses to interact with these texts. Of course, I understand that ministers are busy folk and may not have time to read links. If that is what has restrained Mr. Winzer from engaging the exegetical data I present, then I'll make his work easy by posting some of the passages here. Of course, I'm not naive to think that a straightforward presentation of the data will automatically convince every gainsayer. Some are so committed to their "paradigm" that they'll place the exegetical data on their Procrustean bed in order to slice or stretch it to their liking. My hope, though, is that some readers will examine the evidence marshaled unbiasedly or will remove the glasses of "clericalism" when reading the biblical data and see for themselves what the Bible really says about lay-evangelism.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Originally Posted by Brad

You're confusing living as a witness, being ready to give an answer, with the ordained and commissioned work of evangelism.

Brad,

You've just committed a linguistic "no-no." You think laypeople may "witness" or "give an answer" since apparently in your view these terms are non-technical or non-official and are, therefore, the province of the layperson. The term "evangelism," you think, is a technical term that exclusively predicates the ordained minister's function. If you'll take the time to read my article defending lay-evangelism, you'll find that the term "witness" has greater claim to "official" and "technical" than does "evangelize." In point of fact, the NT writers employ both "witness" and "evangelism" terminology in both "official" and "non-official" or "non-clerical" contexts. Biblical usage, Brad, not some strand of Reformed tradition, determines meaning.

Welp, Dr. Bob, I find only three cases where the word εὐαγγελιστής is used in the NT, one refering to Philip (an ordained man), one exhorting Timothy (an ordained man) to carry out that work, and one describing an office. Yet I find the word μαρτυρία used 37 times in the NT, refering to witnesses of crimes, witnesses to a man's calling, witnesses to miracles, and witnesses of Christ. I'm no trained linguist, and I would dain to get into any debates with one, but I will say that the word translated witness appears to have a tad more leeway in application to unofficial capacity than the word translated evangelist. Trained or untrained, we all approach interpretations with our own presuppositions. The crux of the matter is which of those presups is biblical. That can't be proven anecdotally by individual experience. I was first 'witnessed' to (or in your terminology, evangelized) by some very warped individuals. God used that to grab this child of His by the hair and yank him out of the fire. Does that then mean that these drug addicted profligates were qualified to preach, teach, and baptise? Evangelism is the whole ball of wax, not just one aspect. And all members of the Church participate in it through their support and participation, under the authority of those God has set over them, and only within the confines of the offices to which they are called. As a layman, I am not about to baptise anyone, nor administer communion, all a part of the whole of evangelism. I will be ready to give an answer, I will support my Church's efforts at evangelism with my money, prayers, and presence where asked, but I will not presume to be a teacher if I do not occupy that office.

Later, the Spirit prompts him to go to Gaza where Philip preaches the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch (8:26-40). In these contexts, Philip’s activity is depicted three times with the Greek verb “to evangelize” (8:12, 35, 40). It was probably in light of Philip’s gifts and success in evangelism that he was later promoted to the more official function of “evangelist” (Acts 21:8).

So, since Philip, an ordained Deacon, baptised this Ethiopian, but was 'evangelising' outside of the duties of his Office (which you say is serving tables), then you do support laity performing baptisms, correct?

Originally Posted by Brad

Later, the Spirit prompts him to go to Gaza where Philip preaches the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch (8:26-40). In these contexts, Philip’s activity is depicted three times with the Greek verb “to evangelize” (8:12, 35, 40). It was probably in light of Philip’s gifts and success in evangelism that he was later promoted to the more official function of “evangelist” (Acts 21:8).

So, since Philip, an ordained Deacon, baptised this Ethiopian, but was 'evangelising' outside of the duties of his Office (which you say is serving tables), then you do support laity performing baptisms, correct?

Brad,

One way to avoid the force of a text is to attempt to send your opponent after a red herring. Phillip was ordained to serve tables, not to give himself to the word and prayer. Yet he "evangelized" and he "baptized." These functions he preformed under the authority of the church, but he performed them not as an ordained "minister of the word" but as a deacon at best. Interestingly, the Presbyterians I've met don't seem inclined to permit deacons to baptize but limit the administration of the sacrament to the ordained "minister" whom they distinguish from the "deacon." Bottom line: Stephen and Phillip were not ordained as pastor-teachers or missionaries, yet they engaged in evangelism. Their particular labors are highlighted as part of a larger activity on the part of Christ's disciples in general.

---------- Post added at 01:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Brad

I'm no trained linguist, and I would dain to get into any debates with one, but I will say that the word translated witness appears to have a tad more leeway in application to unofficial capacity than the word translated evangelist.

Brad,

Please read the exposition of the various texts above, especially the section that reads, "A Word About Words." The term "witness" is used as much if not more often as a technical term than "evangelize." Yet both terms are also used in non-technical or non-official senses. The same is true of the terminology for "preach." Make it your goal to be no more or no less restrictive in your employment of biblical terminology than the biblical writers themselves.

Your servant,

---------- Post added at 01:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Brad

Later, the Spirit prompts him to go to Gaza where Philip preaches the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch (8:26-40). In these contexts, Philip’s activity is depicted three times with the Greek verb “to evangelize” (8:12, 35, 40). It was probably in light of Philip’s gifts and success in evangelism that he was later promoted to the more official function of “evangelist” (Acts 21:8).

So, since Philip, an ordained Deacon, baptised this Ethiopian, but was 'evangelising' outside of the duties of his Office (which you say is serving tables), then you do support laity performing baptisms, correct?

Yes, on the basis of this text, I support the notion of deacons preforming baptisms (within the context and oversight of the church). Moreover, I support the notion that those who are not ordained to labor in word and doctrine may indeed evangelize. Isn't that scandalous!

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Then by all means make use of competent linguists! And if I've violated sound linguistic principles in my exegesis of several key NT passages vis-a-vis lay-evangelism, then address the data and arguments.

I have already addressed these the last time you trumpeted your articles on Puritan Board. As stated then, you failed to provide the specific link between word-ministry and "laymen." The articles contain the same content now as then; so you have still failed to make the link all this time afterwards. I would refer the reader to U. Becker's article, "Gospel," in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology," 2:110-112, for a clear exhibition of what preaching the gospel meant to the apostle Paul. At every point it is shown that preaching the gospel is a technical term with specific meaning and divinely authoritative overtones. Andrew Lincoln's Word Commentary on Eph. 4:12 suffices to show that Dr. Gonzales' exposition of the passage is not as linguistically informed as he presents it.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

(Exegetical Fallacies, 45-48).
[/INDENT]You may also want to consult James Barr's The Semantics of Biblical Language.

No person has read a systematic theology into the term nor developed an entire doctrine around it. We have simply noted what the word technically means in the writings of the New Testament. Clearly you are misapplying the fallacy. Perhaps you need to heed your own advice and read Carson's Introduction, where he discusses the Dangers of this Study; it may surprise you to learn that you have used his book in a way that he himself did not intend it to be used.

Originally Posted by Brad

I will be ready to give an answer, I will support my Church's efforts at evangelism with my money, prayers, and presence where asked, but I will not presume to be a teacher if I do not occupy that office.

What a shame! Speaking to lay-people, the author of Hebrews says, “by this time you ought to be teachers” (5:12). Imagine that! The inspired write predicates the word διδάσκαλοι of laypeople and expects them to aspire after such a role. Of course, he's not referring to an official teaching office. But he does, nevertheless, expect his readers both to understand and to articulate the gospel about the Messiah. Giving your money, prayers, and presence is certainly part of the equation. But if you're too cowardly to open your mouth and share the good tidings of salvation with those in need, then you "do not well" (2 Kings 7:9).

This is a strand of Reformed theology that needs "reforming." Too many Reformed Christians content themselves with living a decent life, attending the "ordinary means of grace" at the gathered assembly, and giving their tithe. But they're frankly cowards when it comes to sharing the gospel with the unconverted. How contrary the demeanor of our Lord who came to "seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). May God help us all to play the man and boldly evangelize, witness, and proclaim the good news!

---------- Post added at 02:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 AM ----------

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I have already addressed these the last time you trumpeted your articles on Puritan Board. As stated then, you failed to provide the specific link between word-ministry and "laymen." The articles contain the same content now as then; so you have still failed to make the link all this time afterwards. I would refer the reader to U. Becker's article, "Gospel," in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology," 2:110-112, for a clear exhibition of what preaching the gospel meant to the apostle Paul. At every point it is shown that preaching the gospel is a technical term with specific meaning and divinely authoritative overtones. Andrew Lincoln's Word Commentary on Eph. 4:12 suffices to show that Dr. Gonzales' exposition of the passage is not as linguistically informed as he presents it.

Matthew,

I do in fact provide a link between the "word ministry" and "laymen" above and also here. Either you're not reading my argument or your unwilling to engage. That there are sometimes technical usages of "preaching" and "evangelizing" and "witnessing" I do not deny. But the same terminology is employed in non-technical ways to predicate the activity of non-clergy, that is, those who are not officially ordained ministers of the word.

I am well aware of Andrew Lincoln's minority interpretation of Ephesians 4:12 and, like most competent scholars today, reject it on linguistic, grammatical, and contextual grounds. For those interested in the argument that sees the "pastor/teacher equipping the saints so that the latter may engage in works of ministry, click here.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

You may also want to consult James Barr's The Semantics of Biblical Language.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

No person has read a systematic theology into the term nor developed an entire doctrine around it. We have simply noted what the word technically means in the writings of the New Testament. Clearly you are misapplying the fallacy. Perhaps you need to heed your own advice and read Carson's Introduction, where he discusses the Dangers of this Study; it may surprise you to learn that you have used his book in a way that he himself did not intend it to be used.

Reverend Winzer, I'm quite familiar with Carson's work and use it as a textbook for our seminary. FWIW, Carson himself would reject your brand of clericalism and would, I'm confident, point out the obvious (to which you appear quite blind): the so-called technical terms for evangelism, preaching, and witness are also used to describe the activity of non-ordained individuals bearing the good tidings of the gospel to a lost and dying world. Thankfully, Carson's allegiance is sound linguistic principles and exegesis rescues him from permitting a paradigm foreign to Scripture to overrule the plain and simple meaning of the text. I would humbly suggest that it is you who need to reread his book and jettison your unbiblical form of "Calvinism" for something more akin to NT Christianity.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

I do in fact provide a link between the "word ministry" and "laymen" above and also here. Either you're not reading my argument or your unwilling to engage.

As noted, I have already engaged. Follow your link back to your articles and see where you have linked them on Puritan Board in the past and you will see my assessment.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

I am well aware of Andrew Lincoln's minority interpretation of Ephesians 4:12 and, like most competent scholars today, reject it on linguistic, grammatical, and contextual grounds.

He has provided linguistic arguments; your article does not address those arguments. Simply taking sides with what you consider to be the majority postion of "most competent sholars today" is, basically, unscholarly.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Reverend Winzer, I'm quite familiar with Carson's work and use it as a textbook for our seminary. FWIW, Carson himself would reject your brand of clericalism

That is beside the point. The point I made is that you are using Carson's Exegetical Fallacies in a way he repudiates in the Introduction to his book. If you do use this as a textbook to teach others, you are all the more responsible to ensure you are using it in a right manner.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

As noted, I have already engaged. Follow your link back to your articles and see where you have linked them on Puritan Board in the past and you will see my assessment.

The 2009 threads are located here:

A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Lay-Evangelism
A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Lay-Evangelism, Part 2
A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry and Lay-Evangelism, Part 3

AMR

Is it possible to remove some of the hyperbole accompanying this discussion? I have separate questions for Matthew Winzer and Bob Gonzales.

Matthew, is it possible, that outside of those actions that are the province of the ordained minister, such as baptizing and sending (calling and equipping those to be sent), that you see a dichotomy between evangelism and evangelistic related work? In other words, you seem to be indicating that evangelism is a particular function of the ordained minister while he is functioning in that capacity; whether it be during a sermon, counseling session, or pastoral visit. Evangelistic related work would be the efforts of lay people sharing their faith in Christ with others. This sharing, while capable of being used by God (and I believe biblical and historical precedent support this claim), is not strictly defined as evangelism according to your view. Is that a fair assessment, or I am drawing a wrong conclusion of your position?

Bob, you said to Brad:

What a shame! Speaking to lay-people, the author of Hebrews says, “by this time you ought to be teachers” (5:12). Imagine that! The inspired write predicates the word διδάσκαλοι of laypeople and expects them to aspire after such a role. Of course, he's not referring to an official teaching office. But he does, nevertheless, expect his readers both to understand and to articulate the gospel about the Messiah. Giving your money, prayers, and presence is certainly part of the equation. But if you're too cowardly to open your mouth and share the good tidings of salvation with those in need, then you "do not well" (2 Kings 7:9).

What counts as "cowardly"? What must a Christian do in the are of evangelism? Is evangelism an imperative for each Christian, or is it a function that a Christian can elect to participate in? In order to be honest with the reason for my question, I freely admit that I came out of a Jack Chick type of Christian background where guilt was to be heaped upon you if you missed an opportunity to share the gospel. Instead of sharing my faith out of joy, sharing became a duty; it became rote. I concur with you that believers ought to know the Gospel well enough to articulate it (Heb. 5:12). The reality is that our people are going to have different levels of understanding as well as different abilities. We want them to be bearers of the light, but what does that mean in reality?

Some general comments: Since my eyes were opened to the doctrines of grace I have seen the sharing of the gospel in a different light. While there is never an excuse for willful ignorance, I came to experience a new-found liberty in my Gospel witness. My skills (or lack thereof) of persuasion didn't matter. I no longer had to "push" a person to make a "decision" for Christ. I realize this is a bit off topic. The thread was dealing with evangelism and the warrant for lay people in participating in it. But I believe my comments are somewhat related in that ordained ministers are ultimately responsible for the equipping of the saints. Part of that equipping is to impart a right understanding of the Gospel. There is no need for those under our care to feel guilt or unwarranted fear about sharing the Gospel. I know some dear saints who are not cowardly about their faith, but are desperately afraid about initiating any type of conversation that may result in confrontation. I want to encourage and comfort these saints, not bludgeon them. There are different ways that a person may share their faith in Christ. Some do have a holy boldness to speak to strangers and articulate the Gospel. You may see these type of people bringing Christ into the public square. Others may be better off sharing their faith in acts of mercy, such as visiting those in the hospital or a nursing home. Still others are gifted in working with children. Ministers can/should encourage their flock to labor in these areas according to their skills and desires. Perhaps these methods would be termed "sharing" as opposed to "evangelism." I suppose it depends on how you define evangelism. I'm getting the impression, in this thread, that evangelism is being used as both a noun and verb.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Damon Rambo

I myself was saved by a sovereign God, through a co-worker who evangelized me, with no sponsorship or authority granted from his church.

Were you "saved," in the complete biblical sense of the word, i.e., the Lord adding you to the church, Acts 2:47? I think not

I KNOW so. Define what is meant in Acts 2:47, regarding "church." Their are two possible meanings. The first is,

(LBCF 26:2)All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

OR

(LBCF 2:5)Those thus called, he commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requireth of them in the world.


I believe it is referring to the universal church; i.e. Article 2, above. Please note that it was the Lord who added them, in 2:47; not some ordained minister in some religious ceremony.

But, IF you decided it was a local church, it STILL would not prove your point, since God "added" the ones being saved to the church; therefore salvation and addition to the church are necessarily and logically separated.

And the Lord added to their number day by day /those who were being saved (ESV).

and if you took a moment to reflect on this subject with something other than a concern to validate your religious experiences you would see that the proper definition of "evangelism" is more than a matter of settling ecclesial structure but pertains to the proper means of nourishing souls unto eternal life in the now/not yet reality of Christian salvation.

No, my friend, it does not. As an evangelist, this is something that I have studied a bit. The Greek word "euangelion" is the word for gospel, and it means "good news." People are described using the noun form of the word, which means someone who tells the good news (a "good news-er").

Now, their is only one person, in all of scripture, who is called an "evangelist" (although nearly every single person in the New Testament is said to proclaim the good news). He does not "baptize" people into a particular local congregation (there is no explicit reference to this). We see him traveling around, and the one baptism that he explicitly does, is in the public square, far from any local church, and is in essence a "believers" baptism (no textual debates please! I have studied the passage, am aware of the variants, and have no wish to derail the thread.) Further, IMMEDIATELY afterward, he is "carried away." This man was saved; yet not a member of any local congregation.

Originally Posted by Herald

Is it possible to remove some of the hyperbole accompanying this discussion?

Yes. Forgive me. Moreover, reread the comments I made in response to Brad. They were sarcastic and unwarranted. I do believe laypeople have both a privilege and a stewardship to share the truth of the gospel with unbelievers in keeping with their level of gift and providential opportunities as I argue above. Accordingly, I don't think supporting a church financially, listening to sermons, and praying for the lost is enough. We should always be ready and eager to confess Jesus before men. Nevertheless, I had no warrant to attribute Brad's apparent failure to concede this stewardship to "cowardice" on his part. Please forgive me, Brad.

Originally Posted by Herald

Perhaps these methods would be termed "sharing" as opposed to "evangelism." I suppose it depends on how you define evangelism. I'm getting the impression, in this thread, that evangelism is being used as both a noun and verb.

Bill, I'm not sure why we need to replace "evangelism" with "sharing." Does the NT data compel us to do so? I think I've demonstrated above that the NT predicates the terminology used for the communication of the gospel both to clergy (i.e., official ministers) and non-clergy (i.e., laity). Just as there may be a more specialized used of "Apostle" and a less-specialized, more generic use (see 2 Cor. 8), so the terms "preach," "evangelism," and "witness" may be predicated of the clergy or the non-clergy.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Originally Posted by Herald

Is it possible to remove some of the hyperbole accompanying this discussion?

Yes. Forgive me. Moreover, reread the comments I made in response to Brad. They were sarcastic and unwarranted. I do believe laypeople have both a privilege and a stewardship to share the truth of the gospel with unbelievers in keeping with their level of gift and providential opportunities as I argue above. Accordingly, I don't think supporting a church financially, listening to sermons, and praying for the lost is enough. We should always be ready and eager to confess Jesus before men. Nevertheless, I had no warrant to attribute Brad's apparent failure to concede this stewardship to "cowardice" on his part. Please forgive me, Brad.

Originally Posted by Herald

Perhaps these methods would be termed "sharing" as opposed to "evangelism." I suppose it depends on how you define evangelism. I'm getting the impression, in this thread, that evangelism is being used as both a noun and verb.

Bill, I'm not sure why we need to replace "evangelism" with "sharing." Does the NT data compel us to do so? I think I've demonstrated above that the NT predicates the terminology used for the communication of the gospel both to clergy (i.e., official ministers) and non-clergy (i.e., laity). Just as there may be a more specialized used of "Apostle" and a less-specialized, more generic use (see 2 Cor. 8), so the terms "preach," "evangelism," and "witness" may be predicated of the clergy or the non-clergy.

Bob,

I personally use the term "evangelism." I injected the word sharing earlier in my question to Matthew. I'm waiting to read Matthew's response. Perhaps he was not intimating that a believer cannot or should be discouraged from sharing their faith in Christ, while leaving evangelizing to the ordained minister. It may be an exercise in semantics.

This discussion seems to always boil down to definitions.

Dr. Gonzales, do you believe an evangelist is a 'minister of the word'? If not, what do you do with Eph 4:11?

Also, I don't think it is a fallacy to argue that 'lay-evangelism' as a moral obligation is a fruit of Finneyism. You obviously disagree, but it would be helpful to me if you could cite some Reformed/Puritan sources that demonstrate the universal moral obligation of evangelism. Is the universal moral obligation to do more than 'share your faith' but 'evangelize' an historical church doctrine?

Originally Posted by KMK

This discussion seems to always boil down to definitions.

Dr. Gonzales, do you believe an evangelist is a 'minister of the word'? If not, what do you do with Eph 4:11?

Also, I don't think it is a fallacy to argue that 'lay-evangelism' as a moral obligation is a fruit of Finneyism. You obviously disagree, but it would be helpful to me if you could cite some Reformed/Puritan sources that demonstrate the universal moral obligation of evangelism. Is the universal moral obligation to do more than 'share your faith' but 'evangelize' an historical church doctrine?

Ken,

I know your question is directed at Dr. Bob, but I'd like to weigh-in on this topic.

Is there a moral obligation for "lay-evangelism"? It depends on what you mean by the term. If we are saying that each Christian has a moral imperative to share the gospel verbally with unbelievers, and that by not doing so they are being disobedient to Christ, I would have to disagree. However, there is a scriptural imperative that our very lives should be a witness of our faith.

Matthew 5:13-16 3 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. 14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 "Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

If someone is intrigued by our walk and manner of speech, and they inquire into them, should we shrink away from sharing with them the Gospel? Of course not! I hope that all of us are agreed on that. There is no moral or scriptural imperative against sharing our faith. If a Christian feels compelled to share the Gospel message with someone who is lost, should we prohibit them? If so, on what grounds? Would it be that more Christians understand the Gospel well enough to share it with others. But must they do so? Is there a compulsion from scripture to do so?

Although we strive to obey the bible in it's teachings, as we all know different views of what the church is, what the passages teach ,lead different churches to much different conclusions on this topic. this can even be influenced by our eschatholgical position.

Noah moved with fear preparing an ark to the saving of His household, and yet we read this also..

5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

.

Was Noah an ordained seminary man? Was it only His life and moving with fear that was a
preacher of righteousness...or did he also verbally warn those around him?

The padeo view of Mt 28/make disciples baptising infants as the primary means of God adding to His church might effect your view of the great commision.
That is to say... attend church services , home school ,christian school, seperation from the world that some times leads to an insulation and isolation from the evil dark world leading to many raising the charge of being guilty of world flight
If the ordained person alone is the only person capable of evangelism,what is left for the
"layperson". A silent witness? waiting for someone to ask us the reason for the hope that is within us? God can use this type of ...witness in His providence as he sometimes does.
Is this the only model however?
Here is a bit of David Engelsma from a book he wrote dealing with His amillenial view of the world ,reacting against in part.Gary Demar and other postmillenial views,theonomists etc.

The future is not bright with the prospect of mass conversions, much less the conversion to Christ of a majority of mankind, as is the dream of postmillennialism. On the contrary, the future is dark with the certainty of departure from Christ on the part of many who once professed Him

[Other postmillennialists, particularly the "Christian Reconstructionists," urge an unbiblical activity. They call the church to "Christianize" the world, a task that Holy Scripture nowhere assigns either to the church or to the believer. Christ calls His church to guard against becoming worldly; He does not call her to make the world Christian.

These first two quotes come from his writings jewish dreams, here is a link to his defense of amillenialism A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism
I am not saying that Prof.Engelsma would speak on behalf of all amillenial brethren but I enjoyed reading through his writings on this . I contrast it by reading the postmill men he mentions as well.
As Bill and others have noted there are many credo churches who rush off to the other extreme views, chick tracts, 4 spiritual laws, romans road, raise the hand, walk the aisle.
Radical lone ranger type of self appointed "evangelists". Do we have to go to the extremes however? Can lay evangelism be correctly done under the oversight of the church?
You also have the fundementalists who are so seperated they are one step away from being amish/mennonites... world flight would not begin to describe them.

I would be glad, even more than glad to be approached in public by an ordained minister of the word. This has never happened to me. If I were waiting to be approached by an ordained minister, i would still be waiting.
Has anyone here on the PB been approached out in a public place...randomly...ie,{not at a bible conference} by an ordained minister and evangelized?
I believe or would like to believe that most all of the ordained men here on the PB are actively serving the Lord, visiting the sick, and perhaps have a system of how they conduct evangelism. Some have and do write books, articles, blogs that can be useful in this way.
But how does your face to face evangelism look during the week?

I have only been approached publicly by lay persons,and that not nearly enough. I have been approached by cults,[jw] more than by believers.

When I pray for my unsaved family members, friends , and work associates who are not church attenders I am praying that God will have them come across other believers who might be used of God to bring up the condition of their soul before our holy God.
That the believer will plant the seed of the word, or remove obstacles to them being saved.

Are you praying for the same thing? If an unsaved friend or relative of yours goes to shop for groceries and bumps into a solid believing christian...what would you like to see happen?
A silent witness saying it is a nice day,and it might rain tommorow, or a believer who can engage your friend or relative in conversation that gets to gospel conversation,and maybe an invitation to church or bible study?

Originally Posted by Herald

Ken,

I know your question is directed at Dr. Bob, but I'd like to weigh-in on this topic.

Is there a moral obligation for "lay-evangelism"? It depends on what you mean by the term. If we are saying that each Christian has a moral imperative to share the gospel verbally with unbelievers, and that by not doing so they are being disobedient to Christ, I would have to disagree. However, there is a scriptural imperative that our very lives should be a witness of our faith.

Matthew 5:13-16 3 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. 14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 "Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

If someone is intrigued by our walk and manner of speech, and they inquire into them, should we shrink away from sharing with them the Gospel? Of course not! I hope that all of us are agreed on that. There is no moral or scriptural imperative against sharing our faith. If a Christian feels compelled to share the Gospel message with someone who is lost, should we prohibit them? If so, on what grounds? Would it be that more Christians understand the Gospel well enough to share it with others. But must they do so? Is there a compulsion from scripture to do so?

You have addressed one of my concerns and that is this: whenever someone argues that 'evangelism' is not a universal moral obligation, there are those who accuse him of arguing that some are morally obligated not to 'be a witness of their faith'. No one on this thread is arguing that.

Is Matt 5 'evangelism'? Is an 'evangelist' one who 'let's their light shine'? Or is an evangelist a minister of the word? Dr. Gonzales seems to say that those who view an evangelist as a minister of the word, as in Eph 4:11, have somehow hijacked the true Biblical meaning of the word. I don't get that.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Herald

Ken,

I know your question is directed at Dr. Bob, but I'd like to weigh-in on this topic.

Is there a moral obligation for "lay-evangelism"? It depends on what you mean by the term. If we are saying that each Christian has a moral imperative to share the gospel verbally with unbelievers, and that by not doing so they are being disobedient to Christ, I would have to disagree. However, there is a scriptural imperative that our very lives should be a witness of our faith.

Matthew 5:13-16 3 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. 14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 "Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

If someone is intrigued by our walk and manner of speech, and they inquire into them, should we shrink away from sharing with them the Gospel? Of course not! I hope that all of us are agreed on that. There is no moral or scriptural imperative against sharing our faith. If a Christian feels compelled to share the Gospel message with someone who is lost, should we prohibit them? If so, on what grounds? Would it be that more Christians understand the Gospel well enough to share it with others. But must they do so? Is there a compulsion from scripture to do so?

You have addressed one of my concerns and that is this: whenever someone argues that 'evangelism' is not a universal moral obligation, there are those who accuse him of arguing that some are morally obligated not to 'be a witness of their faith'. No one on this thread is arguing that.

Is Matt 5 'evangelism'? Is an 'evangelist' one who 'let's their light shine'? Or is an evangelist a minister of the word? Dr. Gonzales seems to say that those who view an evangelist as a minister of the word, as in Eph 4:11, have somehow hijacked the true Biblical meaning of the word. I don't get that.

Ken, is it possible to have a small "e" evangelist and big "E" evangelist? The big "E" evangelist is the actual office of evangelist; whether it be someone set apart solely for the purpose of evangelism, or a pastor/elder who is a minister of the Word of God. The small "e" would be anyone who shares the gospel. The are acting in the role of an evangelist, just as a father is acting in the role of minister of the Gospel when he proclaims the Word to his family.

I know people do, but I don't think it is wise. Are there Apostles and apostles? Are there Prophets and prophets? Are there Pastors and pastors?

According to the 'lay-evangelist' view, what is the difference between the duties of the Evangelist office holder and the duties of every Christian? If there is no difference in the duties then there is no 'office'. If there is no 'office' what happened to it?

Ken, so if a lay person shares the gospel, what do we call that? Evangelism? Sharing? Witnessing? Nothing? See my point? I'm not arguing that a lay person holds the office of evangelist. I'm simply asking what we call it when a lay person evangelizes? Or are we going to say that's not what they're doing?

Originally Posted by Herald

Ken, so if a lay person shares the gospel, what do we call that? Evangelism? Sharing? Witnessing? Nothing? See my point? I'm not arguing that a lay person holds the office of evangelist. I'm simply asking what we call it when a lay person evangelizes? Or are we going to say that's not what they're doing?

I get it. The problem is there is always a violent reaction when someone proposes a different term for 'a lay person sharing the gospel'. Why are people accused of 'cowardice' or 'goat-like behavior' when all they want to do is keep scriptural categories distinct and clear?

I repeat my question: According to the 'lay-evangelist' view, what is the difference between the duties of the Evangelist office holder and the duties of every Christian?

I am glad the tone of the thread has been addressed. Had I seen it earlier I would have added infractions. Thanks Bill.

I would just like to post a passage that seems to indicate that a non ordained person preached Christ in the book of Acts.

(Act 18:24) And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

(Act 18:25) This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

(Act 18:26) And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

(Act 18:27) And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

(Act 18:28) For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

It seems after his mention in this passage that he goes to Corinth for his work. He is given a commendation by the brethren for reception but is that the same thing as being ordained by the Presbyters?

(Act 19:1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

Paul mentions Apollos to the Corinthians a lot because it was probably his main ministering place. I don't know much about Apollos nor if he is considered an Elder or ordained man. I do know that Paul sets him up next to himself and Peter when he is charging the Corinthians to avoid their carnal divisions. Paul also says he is a minister in 1 Cor 3:5. But it isn't a signification of an Elder.

G1249
διάκονος
diakonos
dee-ak'-on-os
Probably from διάκω diakoÌ„ (obsolete, to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, that is, (generally) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess): - deacon, minister, servant.

G1249
διάκονος‚
diakonos
Thayer Definition:
1) one who executes the commands of another, especially of a master, a servant, attendant, minister
1a) the servant of a king
1b) a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use
1c) a waiter, one who serves food and drink
Part of Speech: noun masculine or feminine
A Related Word by Thayer/Strongs Number: probably from an obsolete diako (to run on errands, compare G1377)
Citing in TDNT: 2:88, 152

Originally Posted by Damon Rambo

Of course Matthew's (armourbearer's) position is based on Presbyterian ecclesiology.

BTW Damon,
I disagree with what you said here. You have made a statement that I can't support in my experiences of the last 30 years.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Herald

Ken, so if a lay person shares the gospel, what do we call that? Evangelism? Sharing? Witnessing? Nothing? See my point? I'm not arguing that a lay person holds the office of evangelist. I'm simply asking what we call it when a lay person evangelizes? Or are we going to say that's not what they're doing?

I get it. The problem is there is always a violent reaction when someone proposes a different term for 'a lay person sharing the gospel'. Why are people accused of 'cowardice' or 'goat-like behavior' when all they want to do is keep scriptural categories distinct and clear?

I repeat my question: According to the 'lay-evangelist' view, what is the difference between the duties of the Evangelist office holder and the duties of every Christian?

Well Ken, not everyone agrees that the office of Evangelist exists today re: Eph. 4. Some say that office ceased to exist while others believe it is the duty of pastors and elders (2 Tim. 4:5). If it is the latter than we know that the office of pastor/elder has more than just evangelism as an assigned duty. Preaching/teaching, discipleship, administration of the ordinances/sacraments, spiritual oversight of the church etc. Evangelism would be just one duty of the office. What are the responsibilities of the lay person in regards to evangelism? This is what I tried to touch on earlier. Well, there is the command to live an obedient life to the glory of God (Matthew 5:16). I concede that there is no positive command for believers to share the Gospel. But neither is there a prohibition against it. I am not straying into Finneyism, I'm simply calling the activity of sharing one's faith exactly what it is: evangelism. Why is it a threat to scriptural categories to call an activity what it is? If Bob shares the Gospel with Fred, Bob is evangelizing according to the strict definition of the word. Why can't we just leave it at that without being pulled into Finneyism or hyper-Calvinism?

Originally Posted by Herald

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Herald

Ken, so if a lay person shares the gospel, what do we call that? Evangelism? Sharing? Witnessing? Nothing? See my point? I'm not arguing that a lay person holds the office of evangelist. I'm simply asking what we call it when a lay person evangelizes? Or are we going to say that's not what they're doing?

I get it. The problem is there is always a violent reaction when someone proposes a different term for 'a lay person sharing the gospel'. Why are people accused of 'cowardice' or 'goat-like behavior' when all they want to do is keep scriptural categories distinct and clear?

I repeat my question: According to the 'lay-evangelist' view, what is the difference between the duties of the Evangelist office holder and the duties of every Christian?

Well Ken, not everyone agrees that the office of Evangelist exists today re: Eph. 4. Some say that office ceased to exist while others believe it is the duty of pastors and elders (2 Tim. 4:5). If it is the latter than we know that the office of pastor/elder has more than just evangelism as an assigned duty. Preaching/teaching, discipleship, administration of the ordinances/sacraments, spiritual oversight of the church etc. Evangelism would be just one duty of the office. What are the responsibilities of the lay person in regards to evangelism? This is what I tried to touch on earlier. Well, there is the command to live an obedient life to the glory of God (Matthew 5:16). I concede that there is no positive command for believers to share the Gospel. But neither is there a prohibition against it. I am not straying into Finneyism, I'm simply calling the activity of sharing one's faith exactly what it is: evangelism. Why is it a threat to scriptural categories to call an activity what it is? If Bob shares the Gospel with Fred, Bob is evangelizing according to the strict definition of the word. Why can't we just leave it at that without being pulled into Finneyism or hyper-Calvinism?

Bill, in a previous post, you said...

Ken, is it possible to have a small "e" evangelist and big "E" evangelist? The big "E" evangelist is the actual office of evangelist; whether it be someone set apart solely for the purpose of evangelism, or a pastor/elder who is a minister of the Word of God

I assumed you were arguing for an office called 'Evangelist'. If there is no longer an office called 'Evangelist' then so be it, but to my mind it is confusing when people speak of 'lay-evangelism' because it sounds like they are referring to a set of duties that is distinct from the office. I will rephrase my question: how do the duties of every Christian today differ from the duties of the now non-existent office of Evangelist? Is everyone now an evangelist? Does that mean that everyone now is an apostle and a prophet?

Originally Posted by Damon Rambo

I believe it is referring to the universal church; i.e. Article 2, above. Please note that it was the Lord who added them, in 2:47; not some ordained minister in some religious ceremony.

Please read the passage. They were added to the church by means of being baptised by ordained ministry.

Ken,

The duties of a non-ordained Christian differ from an ordained minister (I'm combining evangelists, pastors and elders) in both scope and legality. Only an ordained minister is able to administer the ordinances/sacraments. Normally only an ordained minister can preach, although qualified lay people can do so under the authority of an ordained minister. What about evangelism? As I pointed out from 2 Timothy 4:5, ordained ministers are to do the work of an evangelist. Within the jurisdiction of the church evangelism is the responsibility of the ordained minister.

So, what do we make of the lay person who wants to share his faith in Christ with his neighbor? I am assuming he is not prevented from doing so. Fine. I am also willing to concede he is not obligated to do so. But what if he wants to? Is this unlawful? If it's not unlawful do we not call what he is doing evangelizing? Would calling it evangelism threaten the lawful work of the ordained minister? I don't see how it would. The evangelism is being done one-on-one. I suppose we could remove the word evangelism and call it "a religious discussion centering on items of salvific importance." Ken, I'm not trying to be flippant, but I can't help but chuckle at not being able to call a duck a duck.

Originally Posted by Herald

Matthew, is it possible, that outside of those actions that are the province of the ordained minister, such as baptizing and sending (calling and equipping those to be sent), that you see a dichotomy between evangelism and evangelistic related work? In other words, you seem to be indicating that evangelism is a particular function of the ordained minister while he is functioning in that capacity; whether it be during a sermon, counseling session, or pastoral visit. Evangelistic related work would be the efforts of lay people sharing their faith in Christ with others. This sharing, while capable of being used by God (and I believe biblical and historical precedent support this claim), is not strictly defined as evangelism according to your view. Is that a fair assessment, or I am drawing a wrong conclusion of your position?

Bill, thankyou for your irenic tone. From my POV the sharing of one's faith is in no sense "evangelistic related work." It is not accompanied by the call to repent and be baptised. Hence it is not evangelism. It is not performed by one who has been sent. Hence it is not evangelism. It is not something which is done by necessity. Hence it is not evangelism. It is not something which adds people to the church. Hence it is not evangelism. It is not something which carries any divine authority or is promised any divine blessing. Hence it is not evangelism.

The Bible is our rule of faith and life. It is not a mere guide which provides nice suggestions as to how to do things. It directs our faith and life, and if it is not in the Word we have no warrant for saying it is "of God."