Reformed View of Matthew 28 and Acts 8?

Coram Deo · #1 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 09:16 PM

I know that the traditional and Reformed view of Matthew 28 verse 19 and 20 say that this is for the leaders of the church since it was given to the Apostles and also since layman cannot teach, baptize, or teaching them to obseve all things whatsoever I have commanded you....

I accept this view... This of course does not negate the laymens job of evangelism, i.e Lifestyle by being Salt and Light, and having our conversation honest among the gentiles. Also by giving the faith that is within us when asked. Also with Fervent Prayer and such....

How is Acts Chapter 8 intreprated by this understanding? How are we to view this part of scripture? Someone showed me this passage tonight.. So I am curious how all you great Reformed minds would respond?

Acts 8:

Verse 1 - ... there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the region of Judea and Samaria, expect the apostles.

Verse 4 - Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

What saith you and the traditional Reformed view?

Mainly I am looking for Old School (Light) thought, not New School (Light) thought with all their methods of evangelism stuff....

VirginiaHuguenot · #2 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 10:04 PM

Matthew Henry says of Acts 8.1:

Quote:

3. What was the effect of this persecution: They were all scattered abroad (v. 1), not all the believers, but all the preachers, who were principally struck at, and against whom warrants were issued out to take them up.

You can read Brian Schwertley's discussion of the Acts passage in the context of the Great Commission here.

Calvibaptist · #3 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 10:08 PM

If I recall correctly, there was a discussion involving this passage in relation to evangelism on this board already. I think the answer given by some was that God obviously is a better planner than we think and had church leaders scattered with all the believers. It was these church leaders that evangelized by preaching the gospel.

I, honestly was unsatisfied with this answer. Being newly introduced to Reformed theology anyway, I have never heard the argument that the Great Commission was given only to church leaders. Obviously only church leaders should be baptizing and teaching, but from my exposure to teaching on Matthew 28, it was always understood that the Great Commission was given to the Church. Those who are in the church should handle the responsibilities within that commission that they are qualified for.

Coram Deo · #4 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 10:12 PM

Thanks, I will read over it very carefully.... Henry's quote makes sense, since preaching does not belong to the laymen but to clergy........

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Matthew Henry says of Acts 8.1:

Quote:

3. What was the effect of this persecution: They were all scattered abroad (v. 1), not all the believers, but all the preachers, who were principally struck at, and against whom warrants were issued out to take them up.

You can read Brian Schwertley's discussion of the Acts passage in the context of the Great Commission here.

KMK · #5 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Obviously only church leaders should be baptizing and teaching, but from my exposure to teaching on Matthew 28, it was always understood that the Great Commission was given to the Church. Those who are in the church should handle the responsibilities within that commission that they are qualified for.

This is my understanding as well. We are all members of Christ's body and when the members fulfill their roles correctly, the body of Christ fulfills the Great Commision.

reformedman · #6 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 12:45 AM

Boston Church of Christ member (heretical), once told me that this verse was directed to all disciples and that all disicples are to evangelize and baptize and disciple. He was very logical in his approach. Apparently, his point was that the office of elder, pastor, or preacher is for all the men in the church to take turns at, as long as they are qualified to do so by others who have approved them (laying on of hands).
The reason why I say that it seemed logical to me was because I had previously learned that in a synogogue setting, the men took turns in leading in worship and study of the word as long as they were qualified by other peers of that synogogue that "called" them to speak.

That was about 10 years since I spoke to that gentleman and have not thought of it since this evening now that I am reading this.

I believe that the role of baptizing is for elders, why? because that is what I have been told. Sorry to say that I must admit I have not studied this issue enough but would you please consider answering that line of reasoning that the BCoC member displayed to me. Concerning, cultural hermeneutic of the preacher from the setting of the synogogue to the setting of the New Testament church, is their a valid argument in his saying that baptizing new converts is not merely only for elders? The verse in fact does not stipulate that. If we are to use the line of reasoning that only the 11 were called up to be given that office by Jesus, then the argument can be posed, "That means that the baptizing converts office should only be given to modern apostles". If we are to take the verse to mean pastors are the only ones permitted to baptize, then there should be a valid reasoning for this. Otherwise, what the BCoC member said about all members should be permitted to baptize would be a question to think about.

All these years of agreement by the puritans and great theological minds is the reason why I believe the BCoC was wrong and that the only office permitted to baptize others should be pastors. I'm sure there is a good reason right under my nose.