heartoflesh
Puritan Board Junior
Thanks, Joseph. Great answer.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Rick Larson
Just so you know, I am in agreement with pretty much everything you've written. I have one question, however: When, and under what circumstances can you tell a person "now you are a Christian"?
Originally posted by Robin
As in the case of the 3,000 (Acts 2:37) note that their reaction to what Peter previously proclaimed (the Gospel) was "what shall we do?" Here, evidence of faith is already at work in their hearts (as they were cut to the quick.) After this question, Peter continues with "repent and believe."
Originally posted by RAS
Andrew-
Could you clarify some things for me? You say that being a witness and preaching the gospel are two completely different things. How so exactly?
I agree that only the ordained are called to the office of preaching. But where in scripture do we get the principle that only the ordained can evangelize? If we are witnessing as layman, this seems to be at least a form of evangelism. Ephesians 4:11 seems to contradict any idea of evangelism as being restricted to preachers.
I would say say that only the ordained could be called to an office of evangelist (i.e. Billy Graham), but this does not mean that a believer cannot share the gosepl at all if he is only a layman. Being a witness in word and deed and not sharing the gospel means what? What does it mean for us to respond with the reason for our hope? Is this something other than the gospel that we must share?
In the context of your principled convictions, how do you deal with Acts 8:1 and 8:4?
Is there not a difference between preaching the gospel, and the office of preacher?
What about Matt. 28:18-20? How does this fit into your objection of lay evangelism?
Hypothetical situation:
If a person who is a christian is at the deathbed of their parent who is not a christian, is that person not allowed to share the gospel with the parent because they are not ordained? Are they only allowed to express the character of Christ in action and speech? Would that person have to wait until an ordained minister showed up and have him share the gospel? What if that ordained minister got stuck in traffic and the parent died before he could preach to him? What should the minister then say to the child?
I am just trying to understand what exactly you are saying.
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Andrew, how do you differentiate between teaching the Gospel "with authority" and sharing the Gospel "without authority"?
Touching the Doctrine of Ordination.
NO man ought to take upon him the office of a minister of the word without a lawful calling.
Ordination is always to be continued in the church.
Ordination is the solemn setting apart of a person to some publick church office.
Every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong.
It is agreeable to the word of God, and very expedient, that such as are to be ordained ministers, be designed to some particular church, or other ministerial charge.
He that is to be ordained minister, must be duly qualified, both for life and ministerial abilities, according to the rules of the apostle.
He is to be examined and approved by those by whom he is to be ordained.
No man is to be ordained a minister for a particular congregation, if they of that congregation can shew just cause of exception against him.
...every example of gospel preaching in the book of Acts is by ordained men....When discussing the preaching of Philip the evangelist, Luke uses the word kerrusso which signifies a heralding or a public proclamation of the gospel. While all Christians should explain the good news of who Christ is and what He has accomplished to their friends and acquaintances, only ordained gospels preachers are to publicly preach the word and administer the sacraments. The reason there is so much misunderstanding today regarding who is to go is that many people confuse the task of evangelism with the much more comprehensive task of discipling the nations. Discipling the nations involves church planting, the sacraments, an established preaching ministry, church discipline and so on. While all believers should evangelize, only some are called upon to go to foreign lands to establish churches.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Preaching the gospel is an authoritative proclamation of the gospel and is limited to those who are called (by God and by the church) and ordained as the Westminster Larger Catechism says (#158) (for example, men can preach but women cannot -- why? because it is a function of church authority to preach the gospel). Witnessing to the gospel is simply the duty of every Christian which means doing good works that others might see them and glorify our Father in Heaven, speaking the truth in love at all times, and being ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within us.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Ephesians 4.11 speaks to the office of an evangelist, which was a temporary office which has ceased.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Evangelism is the proclamation of the gospel with authority.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
See Matthew Henry: 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.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
There is of course a difference the act of preaching and the office of preacher. But the act of preaching is confined to the office, Heb. 5.4, WLC #158.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
This is a pretty extreme example. Again, however, any believer can and should witness by word and by deed. They should testify of the grace of God working in them. They should pray for their parent. They can read or sing the word of God to their parent.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Brian Schwertley:
...every example of gospel preaching in the book of Acts is by ordained men....When discussing the preaching of Philip the evangelist, Luke uses the word kerrusso which signifies a heralding or a public proclamation of the gospel. While all Christians should explain the good news of who Christ is and what He has accomplished to their friends and acquaintances, only ordained gospels preachers are to publicly preach the word and administer the sacraments. The reason there is so much misunderstanding today regarding who is to go is that many people confuse the task of evangelism with the much more comprehensive task of discipling the nations. Discipling the nations involves church planting, the sacraments, an established preaching ministry, church discipline and so on. While all believers should evangelize, only some are called upon to go to foreign lands to establish churches.
Originally posted by RAS
What is this truth that we are to speak? Something other than the gospel? What is the answer for the hope that lies within us? Something other than the gospel?
Every Christian is bound to answer and apologize for the hope that is in him. Christians should have a reason ready for their Christianity, that it may appear they are not actuated either by folly or fancy. This defence may be necessary more than once or twice, so that Christians should be always prepared to make it, either to the magistrate, if he demand it, or to any inquisitive Christian, who desires to know it for his information or improvement.
So not only is B. Graham's arminianism wrong, but his role as an evangelist is wrong too?
Agreed. But whose authority? The minister's or Christ's? Since Christ's authority is through the officers of the church (not passed on to them), could not the officers equip the layman to proclaim this gospel in a non-formal preaching capacity? Don't all christians have the authority of Christ in some sense?
I respect Matthew Henry but unfortunately he is not here for me to ask him further about his statement here. Where in these verses do we get the idea that "all" means "ordained preachers"? The scripture says that all of the church was scattered, not all of the preachers. Is there something in the greek that translates church here as strictly ordained officers? I just read Calvin's commentary, and he does not seem to agree with Henry here.
If the act of preaching is confined to the office of preaching, then why is Philip, in the office of evangelist, preaching? And why are fathers responsible for sharing the gospel with their children? Or can non-ordained fathers only point their kids to the church if they want to hear the gospel?
III. As the charge and office of interpreting the holy scriptures is a part of the ministerial calling, which none (however otherwise qualified) should take upon him in any place, but he that is duly called thereunto by God and his kirk; so in every family where there is any that can read, the holy scriptures should be read ordinarily to the family; and it is commendable, that thereafter they confer, and by way of conference make some good use of what hath been read and heard. As, for example, if any sin be reproved in the word read, use may be made thereof to make all the family circumspect and watchful against the same; or if any judgment be threatened, or mentioned to have been inflicted, in that portion of scripture which is read, use may be made to make all the family fear lest the same or a worse judgment befall them, unless they beware of the sin that procured it: and, finally, if any duty be required, or comfort held forth in a promise, use may be made to stir up themselves to employ Christ for strength to enable them for doing the commanded duty, and to apply the offered comfort. In all which the master of the family is to have the chief hand; and any member of the family may propone a question or doubt for resolution.
I am not convinced. I agree with what Patrick said in that thread. And Schwertley's article is a polemic against fundamentalists and dispensationalists. I am neither of these. One does not have to be either of those groups to disagree with his position. It could be the case that his view is an overreaction to the fundy/Dispensational view.
I do not think it is an extreme example. Anything can happen in God's providence.
If a layman can read and sing the word of God to their parent, is this not in a sense preaching the gospel to them? Or can they only read and sing the parts that do not touch on the gospel?
If only the ordained can teach and preach, even in the broad sense of those terms, then what do parents do with their kids in family worship? Not all fathers are ordained to teaching or preaching offices in the church, but all fathers are called to teach the gospel to their kids. Your position seems inconsistent to me.
[Edited on 7-9-2005 by RAS]
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
But with all due respect I think you are missing the difference between preaching and speaking.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Did you read Brian Schwertley on this subject?
Originally posted by RAS
I am not convinced. I agree with what Patrick said in that thread. And Schwertley's article is a polemic against fundamentalists and dispensationalists. I am neither of these. One does not have to be either of those groups to disagree with his position. It could be the case that his view is an overreaction to the fundy/Dispensational view.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I respect your opinion but firmly disagree.
Originally posted by RAS
If a layman can read and sing the word of God to their parent, is this not in a sense preaching the gospel to them? Or can they only read and sing the parts that do not touch on the gospel?
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
The word of God is for all. You do not need to keep implying that my position means that ordinary Christians are to avoid talking about the gospel. I have said otherwise repeatedly. Please understand that.
Originally posted by RAS
Please explain to me what the difference is between proclaiming (preaching) and speaking?
Doesn't one have to speak in order to proclaim?
Originally posted by RAS
I am not convinced. I agree with what Patrick said in that thread. And Schwertley's article is a polemic against fundamentalists and dispensationalists. I am neither of these. One does not have to be either of those groups to disagree with his position. It could be the case that his view is an overreaction to the fundy/Dispensational view.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I respect your opinion but firmly disagree.
What part of this do you disagree with?
Andrew, brother, I sense that you are getting irritated with me? I never implied these things about you. When I said your position seems inconsistent, I meant inconsistent with other things you've said, not with the reformed faith. Example: you say that laymen are not to preach the gospel, then you say that they can sing and read the gospel to others. My question was simply, what is the difference? The gospel is the gospel, regardless of means expressed. If I asked you to explain the gospel to me right now, and you did, then we could say that you shared, or preached, or proclaimed the gospel to me. This would not mean that you are a Preacher with a capital P. You can do this without being in the office of preacher. That is all I am saying, and I was asking you questions because it seems as if you are saying that you couldn't even preach the gospel to me in this sense since you are not ordained. Am I making sense?
Q156: Is the word of God to be read by all?
A156: Although all are not to be permitted to read the word publicly to the congregation,[1] yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves,[2] and with their families:[3] to which end, the holy scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.[4]
1. Deut. 31:9, 11-13; Neh. 8:2-3; 9:3-5
2. Deut. 17:19; Rev. 1:3; John 5:39; Isa. 34:16
3. Deut. 6:6-9; Gen. 18:17, 19; Psa. 78:5-7
4. I Cor. 14:6, 9, 11-12, 15-16, 24, 27-28
Q158: By whom is the word of God to be preached?
A158: The word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted,[1] and also duly approved and called to that office.[2]
1. I Tim. 3:2, 6; Eph. 4:8-11; Hosea 4:6; Mal. 2:7; II Cor. 3:6
2. Jer. 14:15; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4; I Cor. 12:28-29; I Tim. 3:10; 4:14; 5:22
Do you think that I am denying the confessions and reformed faith? I will willingly subject myself to examination by the elders on this board to see if I am. As in my last post, I am only saying what Schwertly says in his article (what I highlighted in bold).
[Edited on 7-9-2005 by RAS]
Originally posted by street preacher
Andrew, I agree with you. It is the same thing concerning communion. It is the ordained ministers job to fence the table by not allowing just anyone to partake of that holy sacrament, not the lay people. The Pastor/Elders is to oversee all that goes on within the church and is responsible as under-shepherds, or representatives of Christ, to correct or to speak on those issues. So the Elders job includes more than just speaking on these things but, like you and the Scriptures say, this includes the Gospel to, and that they are the ones appointed for this.
Originally posted by street preacher
Andrew,I think that we can witness to others concerning what the Lord has done for us in saving us. For example, the early Christians in Jerusalem went out to do the work of the ministry by testifing about Jesus but I think that the preaching that you have mentioned is different. What say you?
Originally posted by street preacher
I totally agree. Thanks brother for the confirmation!
Originally posted by RAS
Andrew-
Sorry for my delayed response, my fiance was hospitalized all last week and had to tend to her and other serious matters that have recently come my way.
Anyways, I just came back to this thread after my last post and it seems that it is assumed I was debating you and disagreed with you and what others have said. My initial questions were for clarification, because it seemed that you were saying something other than what I and others were saying, and taking an extreme position. As the thread went on I was concerned that a distinction was being lost, so I asked further questions for clarification. For the record I agree with everything Bruce said, and ironically this was the very content I was trying to see if you were denying, because some of the things you were saying seemed to stray from what Bruce subsequently said. So without seeking a debate with you nor taking a position different from the confessions (as both seem to be assumed about me in this thread), I was only wanting clarification for my benefit in case I misunderstood something. I was searching to see if you were making an extreme separation, rather than a distinction, while you may have assumed I was commiting the error of confusing two things.
My position:
1. only those ordained to the office of pastor are called to preach
2. "preach" means "to proclaim", therefore if a layman reads Phillipians 3:9 to a dying ubelieving parent, in a certain sense that layman has "preached" the gospel; they have "proclaimed" it
3. if a layman sings a psalm to an unbeliever, and that psalm has the gospel in it, in a certain sense they have "preached" the gospel.
4. points 2 and 3 I think are to be distinguished from the concrete form of preaching from the scriptures that only ordained Pastors are allowed to do. This is the distinction I was concerned I was not seeing in what you were saying. Apparently I was not alone, because Joseph also was seeking the same clarification. We picked up something that seemed inconsistent with what Bruce said and I was trying to understand that. I recently come from a hyper-calvinist community that said some of the same things you seemed to be saying, and they used this as a way to avoid evangelising at all, in any form whatsoever. Needless to say this congregation has remained at a membership total of 100 or less for 20 years now. (Not a comment on small churches, just pointing out that after 20 years one would think there would be at least some numerical growth)
5. an analogy: we refer to public speakers as those who are called to go on the lecture circuit and publicly speak. But not all of us have to be public speakers to speak publicly. This is the distinction I was concerned was being denied in evangelism. Preachers are called to proclaim the gospel, and so are layman. But how they do so is what distinguishes the office from the general command.
6. as an aside, I think that the growth of "evangelism training" isn't so much to bring in souls, but rather so that Pastors do not have to do the work of evangelism and so that churches can grow numerically in membership with little or no concern for the fact that the more a church grows in substance the more the church will grow numerically almost by default simply because Christians live more effective lives of witness.
Hope I have clarified myself, and I am glad we are in agreement.
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by houseparent
It seems that evangelicals have more "stuff" to offer hurting people than we do and that annoys me to no end.
I totally agree with you!!!!!
Of course, I am definitely not for watering down the sermons or the worship time. But I completely agree with your gripe, and I wish that more of the Calvinistic, biblically-sound churches would realize that it is important to have multiple programs and activites to get people more involved, and also to help people. Is the teaching of the Word most important? Certainly! But sometimes people aren't interested in listening to preaching until they first are touched by some other ministry of the church. So if offering various ministries helps bring people in so that they hear the Word, then so be it.
I'm with you, Adam.