Leading to Christ

[Jeri Tanner]

The stories I could tell... I could write a book, but then again, if you are correct I have no business writing my memories for what we did was both wrong and pointless because useless.

Ed, not pointless or useless. It's a sweet experience that I recognize myself, and is nothing to discount- you were acting in the faith and light you had, out of love and zeal for the Lord, and he used it. As I've reflected on your post here I think of a couple of places in Scripture. There may be other examples.

Luke 9
“Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you."

Philippians 1
"But I want you to know, brethren, that the things which happened to me have actually turned out for the furtherance of the gospel, so that it has become evident to the whole palace guard, and to all the rest, that my chains are in Christ; 14 and most of the brethren in the Lord, having become confident by my chains, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. 15 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: 16 The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; 17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice."

My thinking is that these are examples of unauthorized or even ill-motived ministry, which neither Christ nor Paul condemned and even expected good from it. But after these examples, the activity of those men fell from view in Scripture and as always, the thread followed and commended is that of the properly ordained ministry.

There is no doubt that the Lord does and has used many irregular such evangelical activities that you took part in. They were "for" Christ and for the apostolic ministry. It doesn't follow though that there is no better way commended in Scripture.

 

[Dachaser]

I'm not sure as an ordained minister if I would say "I charge you to repent and believe" in those words. As a candidate for elder, I have taught and invited people to Christ publicly. in my opinion, you may be splitting hairs.

If you are encouraging people to repent and believe but don't want to label it a call to faith and repentance, I think we only differ in word choice. I can live with that.

I still struggle to see the distinction you and Scott make about evangelism. If you are encouraging someone to faith and repentance and speaking the gospel (evangel) to them, why not call it evangelism?

I don't have much more to say. I don't feel as concerned as I did at the beginning about the positions being projected since it seems to have more to do with word choice than anything, although to doubt someone's conversation because it wasn't in the context of preaching is still concerning to me (though I don't think you fully agree with that statement from your use of the word "ordinary").

Tyler, I always enjoy discussing things with you. Thanks for the interaction and blessings as you pursue the ministry!

A sinner is saved by the Gospel message, and by the working of the Holy Spirit, regardless who gave to them that good news is my understanding, as the pastor/Elders would then be called and assigned to make sure they now are trained up and matured in the faith.

 

[Dachaser]

David,

Please see above. My question strictly concerns Matthew 28:19-20:

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen

What is your interpretation of the commandment being given by Jesus in these two verses?

I think Jesus was charging there going forward those such as pastors and Elders to teach and build up the saved in the faith, but this to me is separate issue from actually being able to witness for Christ.

 

[Dachaser]

Scott, no disagreement here. I don't believe that preaching is the right word for laity. This is reserved for the ordained as you say. I disagree though that evangelism is reserved only for the ordained. If we promote the evangel, seek the salvation of souls (and yes, seeking to bring them under the preaching of the Word!), why not call it what it seems to be?

I plan on leaving the conversation at this unless there is any compelling reason to continue. I don't feel there are any really significant disagreements besides word choice.

Thanks for conversing!

We have small cell groups in our church, and have group leaders teach to us from the scriptures and other study materials, is that wrong thing to be doing then? I see witnessing as something all called to do, but preaching as in a Church setting reserved for ordained pastors/elders/teachers.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I think Jesus was charging there going forward those such as pastors and Elders to teach and build up the saved in the faith, but this to me is separate issue from actually being able to witness for Christ.

David,

Again you have refused to deconstruct the passage in question. The issue is not "witnessing", that is, being ready to give an answer for that which one holds dear. The matter of providing a reason for what one believes is not in doubt, nor in dispute. It is readily apparent in this thread that not a a few are writing with little trepidation, taking due care to distinguish between the two: (1) the duty of the ordained servant, (2) the duty of the non-ordained servant.

I will not speculate about how a non-Presbyterian views the passage, but a Presbyterian should well understand that disciples are those being baptized and being taught under the oversight of the lawfully ordained servant. These disciples are being made by the commandment in the passage: by baptizing and by teaching. The grammar therein seems to me unequivocal. The charge by Our Lord is given to these kinds of men, not to each and every person, else each and every person had better be about baptizing and teaching, else the command so given is being disobeyed.

 

[Dachaser]

David,

Again you have refused to deconstruct the passage in question. The issue is not "witnessing", that is, being ready to give an answer for that which one holds dear. The matter of providing a reason for what one believes is not in doubt, nor in dispute. It is readily apparent in this thread that not a a few are writing with little trepidation, taking due care to distinguish between the two: (1) the duty of the ordained servant, (2) the duty of the non-ordained servant.

I will not speculate about how a non-Presbyterian views the passage, but a Presbyterian should well understand that disciples are those being baptized and being taught under the oversight of the lawfully ordained servant. These disciples are being made by the commandment in the passage: by baptizing and by teaching. The grammar therein seems to me unequivocal. The charge by Our Lord is given to these kinds of men, not to each and every person, else each and every person had better be about baptizing and teaching, else the command so given is being disobeyed.

I agree with what you stated here, but my concern is when one states that only ministers/pastors can be used by God to have sinners here the good news and get saved, as all of us can have that privileged if set up by God for that opportunity.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I agree with what you stated here, but my concern is when one states that only ministers/pastors can be used by God to have sinners here the good news and get saved, as all of us can have that privileged if set up by God for that opportunity.

What exactly in my response disagrees with what you are asserting?

Please be detailed in your answer regarding your "concerned" response. Otherwise, you are just stating what has been declared without dispute.

Which is to say, your frequent implied "Amens!" are becoming wearisome. We all get it, David. If you want to Amen! a post select the Amen button at the below right of a post.

A substantive discussion at our site requires that one adds to the discussion with matters for due consideration. Merely weighing in with words that are basically "Me, too!" or "I agree!" does not move the discussion forward.

 

[lynnie]

I didn't read all the posts but I am puzzled by something. If it came up before please refer me back to it.

Don't most parents here assume that the primary means by which their children will hear the gospel and be saved is the parents? Of course the kids go to church with you on Sunday, but isn't it the daily influence of the parents that a child (one without some dramatic memory of an instant conversion experience outside the home) will attribute to their faith in and love for the Lord?

This thread seems to be severely demeaning to the God ordained role of parents in my opinion.

 

[timfost]

Lynnie,

I think there were a number of misunderstandings in this thread. Though I'm still unsettled with the OP, Tyler discussed the parents' obligation to children. I think some of the terminology is diced more than necessary, but there seems to be a general consensus to witness and lead people to Christ, though there is real aversion to calling it evangelism (I still can't really figure out why).

 

[Jack K]

Isn't it important to separate the question of who is ordained to gospel ministry from the question of what elements must be present for conversion to happen?

Of course, I believe only some men are ordained to the gospel ministry to preach, make disciples, and baptize. It's their formal calling.

To use a familiar example, they are like a teacher in a classroom. That teacher is in charge and specifically tasked with teaching. It would be inappropriate for the teacher to give up control of the lessons to one of the students, and wrong for any student to presume to teach.

However, sometimes the "aha moment" where a student finally understands a lesson doesn't come directly from the teacher. It may happen outside the classroom in a conversation with a fellow student, or in a study group, or through a textbook, or by copying notes, or in any of several other ways that happen naturally because the students encourage each other and like to talk about what they're learning.

The teacher too should seek out students one-on-one, and should often be consulted outside of class. But the teacher isn't always present everywhere students gather, nor does he need to be. There's no magic pixie dust associated with the teacher that limits understanding of the material to those moments when the teacher is present or is speaking. There may be more clarity when the teacher is speaking, and the teacher's presence may be preferred. But the material itself sometimes works, effectively, even when the teacher is not present.

Our question is whether or not gospel ministry works in a similar way, because certainly the note-sharing and talking outside of class is going on. Might people accurately hear the gospel message even when an ordained preacher is not present, and might the Spirit use this to convert them? Or does the Spirit keep the content of the message itself powerless unless it comes from an ordained man, so that it is not possible for a conversion to happen without a preacher?

I read both Matthew 28 and Romans 10 as addressing the appointment of the teacher, not limitations on how the gospel content itself might be effective. There are still important activities limited to the teacher: formal enrollment of students (baptism), classroom teaching (preaching), discipline, and a duty to teach that's far above any duty, if you want to call it that, of one's fellow classmates.

But if we say the content of the gospel is powerless unless delivered by an ordained preacher so that it's not possible for it to work apart from him, we start to sound like Rome. Then we credit the church and its leaders with power that rightly belongs to the Spirit alone and the Word through which he speaks. The fact that some men are ordained to preach that Word does not transfer this power to the preacher himself.

 

[timfost]

Exactly! We need to be really careful not to place the power (Spirit's work) of the gospel on the instrument (preacher's work) of the gospel. Surely God gives the increase.

I don't think anyone here is actually saying that the efficacy of the Gospel lies within the (magic?) words of the preacher, but the focus does seem to take away from the work of the Spirit in some ways as it seems to limit the way in which He can work.

 

[Dachaser]

What exactly in my response disagrees with what you are asserting?

Please be detailed in your answer regarding your "concerned" response. Otherwise, you are just stating what has been declared without dispute.

Which is to say, your frequent implied "Amens!" are becoming wearisome. We all get it, David. If you want to Amen! a post select the Amen button at the below right of a post.

A substantive discussion at our site requires that one adds to the discussion with matters for due consideration. Merely weighing in with words that are basically "Me, too!" or "I agree!" does not move the discussion forward.

I am still looking for scriptures that plainly state that only ordained ministers or Elders are able to give forth the Gospel message to someone and that only that would qualify as a legit salvation experience, am I misunderstanding what some seem to be advocating here?

 

[Dachaser]

Lynnie,

I think there were a number of misunderstandings in this thread. Though I'm still unsettled with the OP, Tyler discussed the parents' obligation to children. I think some of the terminology is diced more than necessary, but there seems to be a general consensus to witness and lead people to Christ, though there is real aversion to calling it evangelism (I still can't really figure out why).

The scriptures tell us that the Lord gifts one and calls him as an Evangelist, but that seems to to be somewhat different then when any of us witness for Jesus. there seems to be a real fear that by stating that all can be used by God to witness, that somehow waters down the ordained roles of the pastor within the church, but that seems to advocate that the primary task of the minister is to evangelize the lost, but I see that main task as feeding the local flock.

 

[Dachaser]

Isn't it important to separate the question of who is ordained to gospel ministry from the question of what elements must be present for conversion to happen?

Of course, I believe only some men are ordained to the gospel ministry to preach, make disciples, and baptize. It's their formal calling.

To use a familiar example, they are like a teacher in a classroom. That teacher is in charge and specifically tasked with teaching. It would be inappropriate for the teacher to give up control of the lessons to one of the students, and wrong for any student to presume to teach.

However, sometimes the "aha moment" where a student finally understands a lesson doesn't come directly from the teacher. It may happen outside the classroom in a conversation with a fellow student, or in a study group, or through a textbook, or by copying notes, or in any of several other ways that happen naturally because the students encourage each other and like to talk about what they're learning.

The teacher too should seek out students one-on-one, and should often be consulted outside of class. But the teacher isn't always present everywhere students gather, nor does he need to be. There's no magic pixie dust associated with the teacher that limits understanding of the material to those moments when the teacher is present or is speaking. There may be more clarity when the teacher is speaking, and the teacher's presence may be preferred. But the material itself sometimes works, effectively, even when the teacher is not present.

Our question is whether or not gospel ministry works in a similar way, because certainly the note-sharing and talking outside of class is going on. Might people accurately hear the gospel message even when an ordained preacher is not present, and might the Spirit use this to convert them? Or does the Spirit keep the content of the message itself powerless unless it comes from an ordained man, so that it is not possible for a conversion to happen without a preacher?

I read both Matthew 28 and Romans 10 as addressing the appointment of the teacher, not limitations on how the gospel content itself might be effective. There are still important activities limited to the teacher: formal enrollment of students (baptism), classroom teaching (preaching), discipline, and a duty to teach that's far above any duty, if you want to call it that, of one's fellow classmates.

But if we say the content of the gospel is powerless unless delivered by an ordained preacher so that it's not possible for it to work apart from him, we start to sound like Rome. Then we credit the church and its leaders with power that rightly belongs to the Spirit alone and the Word through which he speaks. The fact that some men are ordained to preach that Word does not transfer this power to the preacher himself.

This is a very good summary statement, as the Pastor/Minister is the one ordained by God to feed the flock, not the main body is the one that is to get involved in the outreach and witness to the lost.

 

[earl40]

I am still looking for scriptures that plainly state that only ordained ministers or Elders are able to give forth the Gospel message to someone and that only that would qualify as a legit salvation experience, am I misunderstanding what some seem to be advocating here?

You would be better served by looking to scripture to try to find where the nonordained served as the ordained do, and the results are the same as if an ordained person did the work. BTW you will not find any scripture that supports the idea of the nonordained work doing the work of the ordained.

 

[TylerRay]

I didn't read all the posts but I am puzzled by something. If it came up before please refer me back to it.

Don't most parents here assume that the primary means by which their children will hear the gospel and be saved is the parents? Of course the kids go to church with you on Sunday, but isn't it the daily influence of the parents that a child (one without some dramatic memory of an instant conversion experience outside the home) will attribute to their faith in and love for the Lord?

This thread seems to be severely demeaning to the God ordained role of parents in my opinion.

Lynnie,

I think there were a number of misunderstandings in this thread. Though I'm still unsettled with the OP, Tyler discussed the parents' obligation to children. I think some of the terminology is diced more than necessary, but there seems to be a general consensus to witness and lead people to Christ, though there is real aversion to calling it evangelism (I still can't really figure out why).

Exactly! We need to be really careful not to place the power (Spirit's work) of the gospel on the instrument (preacher's work) of the gospel. Surely God gives the increase.

I don't think anyone here is actually saying that the efficacy of the Gospel lies within the (magic?) words of the preacher, but the focus does seem to take away from the work of the Spirit in some ways as it seems to limit the way in which He can work.

The OP lacks balance. The relevant questions are, how does God ordinarily work? and who has the charge to preach the Gospel? The Scriptures are clear that faith ordinarily comes by hearing, and that by the Word of God, and that by the mouth of a preacher. They are equally clear about the responsibility of parents to train up their children in the faith. What's more, they are clear that God sometimes works apart from his ordinary means.

I agree that the OP reads as though the words of a preacher have efficacy in themselves. It reminds one of the ex opere operato teaching of the Romish church. I mean no disrespect to my brother Earl, but his rhetoric in the OP is imbalanced.

 

[earl40]

I didn't read all the posts but I am puzzled by something. If it came up before please refer me back to it.

Don't most parents here assume that the primary means by which their children will hear the gospel and be saved is the parents? Of course the kids go to church with you on Sunday, but isn't it the daily influence of the parents that a child (one without some dramatic memory of an instant conversion experience outside the home) will attribute to their faith in and love for the Lord?

This thread seems to be severely demeaning to the God ordained role of parents in my opinion.

I know today I am not like "most parents". Just look back a 100 years and the most parents would be like me, and think what foolishness it would be that they usurped the Pastors role. The modern mindset of what the priesthood of every believer has basically taken the role of the TE in my opinion. To overcome this mindset one must seriously consider one may be wrong, as I did a few years ago, in that I wrongly thought like many otherwise reformed brothers and sisters.

 

[Dachaser]

You would be better served by looking to scripture to try to find where the nonordained served as the ordained do, and the results are the same as if an ordained person did the work. BTW you will not find any scripture that supports the idea of the nonordained work doing the work of the ordained.

I agree that the scriptures teach to us that the Minister/pastor has been charged to preach the scriptures to the flock, but still not seeing where only he can take the scriptures and witness to the lost.

 

[Dachaser]

The OP lacks balance. The relevant questions are, how does God ordinarily work? and who has the charge to preach the Gospel? The Scriptures are clear that faith ordinarily comes by hearing, and that by the Word of God, and that by the mouth of a preacher. They are equally clear about the responsibility of parents to train up their children in the faith. What's more, they are clear that God sometimes works apart from his ordinary means.

I agree that the OP reads as though the words of a preacher have efficacy in themselves. It reminds one of the ex opere operato teaching of the Romish church. I mean no disrespect to my brother Earl, but his rhetoric in the OP is imbalanced.

Anytime you would tell others about what the scriptures say concerning salvation, would that not be witnessing for the Lord?

 

[TylerRay]

Anytime you would tell others about what the scriptures say concerning salvation, would that not be witnessing for the Lord?

I don't have a problem telling someone what the Scriptures say concerning salvation, or bearing witness of the Lord. See my earlier posts.

 

[timfost]

I agree that the scriptures teach to us that the Minister/pastor has been charged to preach the scriptures to the flock, but still not seeing where only he can take the scriptures and witness to the lost.

David,

No one is saying this. Please, please, please try to read slowly and understand the previous posts. Not only will this help the flow of the thread, but it is consistent with the Christian mandate to be quick to listen and slow to speak. I don't think you intentionally misrepresent, but it seems you do not intentionally represent the thoughts of others accurately.

I say this brother to brother. I am often not quick to listen and slow to speak in my own family. One thing I have learned from this is that being quick to speak and slow to listen never helps any situation.

It would be far more helpful to spend time reading and understanding and write a few posts that are carefully thought out and edited rather than many two sentence responses that demonstrate a lack of care.

As I write this, I hope you know that if you ever see a lack of care in my posts, please tell me. I want my words to be helpful and I acknowledge that I need work in becoming a better listener.

Thanks in advance for hearing me.

Your brother,

 

[earl40]

I agree that the scriptures teach to us that the Minister/pastor has been charged to preach the scriptures to the flock, but still not seeing where only he can take the scriptures and witness to the lost.

Once again, and for the last time, no one is saying we, who are not TE's, may not witness to the lost. Read this 100 times "Call speaking to the lost a WITNESS and call what the Pastor does as PREACHING".

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The point of the OP that keeps getting lost was that the duty of evangelism is being pressed upon lay members from pulpits and Reformed and evangelical literature, even though the duty of evangelism does not lie, according to Scripture, with lay members. No need for anyone to argue with this post, as arguments back and forth have been made throughout the thread. Everyone has said all that can be said, I think; I just wanted to remind that this is the issue that is at the heart of the OP.

 

[Jack K]

The OP lacks balance. The relevant questions are, how does God ordinarily work? and who has the charge to preach the Gospel? The Scriptures are clear that faith ordinarily comes by hearing, and that by the Word of God, and that by the mouth of a preacher.

I agree. I will gladly say God ordinarily works through his word in the Scriptures and the preaching of them, and that ordained men have the charge to preach the gospel. But as you point out, the OP's claims went beyond this.

The point of the OP that keeps getting lost was that the duty of evangelism is being pressed upon lay members from pulpits and Reformed and evangelical literature

Jeri, I do see that frustration with some modern teaching about evangelism was behind the opening post. And I have sympathy for that frustration. But the OP also claimed conversion was "exclusive" to the work of preachers. It said the idea that "one can believe without a preacher" is excluded. It discounted the idea that conversion outside the work of an ordained preacher was "possible." Had those hard-to-prove statements not been made, I think this conversation would have ended long ago in general agreement.

 

[Dachaser]

The point of the OP that keeps getting lost was that the duty of evangelism is being pressed upon lay members from pulpits and Reformed and evangelical literature, even though the duty of evangelism does not lie, according to Scripture, with lay members. No need for anyone to argue with this post, as arguments back and forth have been made throughout the thread. Everyone has said all that can be said, I think; I just wanted to remind that this is the issue that is at the heart of the OP.

What would be the difference between witnessing for the Lord and evangelizing for Him then?

 

[Dachaser]

I agree. I will gladly say God ordinarily works through his word in the Scriptures and the preaching of them, and that ordained men have the charge to preach the gospel. But as you point out, the OP's claims went beyond this.



Jeri, I do see that frustration with some modern teaching about evangelism was behind the opening post. And I have sympathy for that frustration. But the OP also claimed conversion was "exclusive" to the work of preachers. It said the idea that "one can believe without a preacher" is excluded. It discounted the idea that conversion outside the work of an ordained preacher was "possible." Had those hard-to-prove statements not been made, I think this conversation would have ended long ago in general agreement.

This is where I am having my main confusion, as it seemed to me that some have stated that only the clergy can be involved in reaching out to the Lord, and only they have the mandate to have valid conversions happening. I am not trying to be contentious here, just trying to understand what has been said.

 

[Dachaser]

Once again, and for the last time, no one is saying we, who are not TE's, may not witness to the lost. Read this 100 times "Call speaking to the lost a WITNESS and call what the Pastor does as PREACHING".

Do you hold that the laity when witnessing can see the Lord save lost sinners just the same as when the pastor preaches Christ? Are both valid conversions then?

 

[earl40]

Do you hold that the laity when witnessing can see the Lord save lost sinners just the same as when the pastor preaches Christ? Are both valid conversions then?

Nope. Show me ANYWHERE in scripture where this happened. Allow the bible to be your guide in faith and practice.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What would be the difference between witnessing for the Lord and evangelizing for Him then?

How about starting with defining terms to avoid this continued back and forth.

What is evangelizing?
What is witnessing?

Once you and your interlocutors are in agreement with the terms being loosely bantered about, the discussion will likely proceed and be edifying.

As a suggestion, how about we define evangelism, as the proclamation of the Gospel by those whom God has called, have been trained, examined, and vetted, and then commissioned thereunto.

Furthermore, let's define witnessing as being ready to give an answer for the hope we have, and a defense of the faith, and a good word in season to those who need it, while affirming that these are not the teaching/preaching of the gospel.

That "in season" bit above is important. The phrase teaches us that the duty of witnessing is opportunistic upon circumstances that may arise, e.g., normal conversations that may present themselves, as in standing in the grocery line, casual conversations at work or play, etc. It is not grabbing an empty milk carton, ascending it, and starting to wax eloquent to the crowd in the public square.

Work for you?

 

[lynnie]

38 Now the man from whom the demons had departed begged Him that he might be with Him. But Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 “Return to your own house, and tell what great things God has done for you.” And he went his way and proclaimed throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him.

I would have to say that maybe God might have somebody not ordained wax eloquent in the public square.