I got this off *Who are we....*

Evangelist of the Shelby church of Christ, Shelby, Ohio. Graduate of Florida Christian College. Can't improve on brother Jack's description. >>

Thomas, what is an Evangelist? In the N.T. it was someone who WENT OUT and taught people how to be saved through accepting the gospel of Jesus. Is this what you are doing or are you *preaching to the choir?*

BTW I have three children and one son-in-law who went to Florida Christian College.

-- Thomas Tybeck (xpositor@bright.net), December 12, 1999.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 1999

Answers

Sam....

My disagreement with you is saying there is nothing in the N.T. to indicate what an evangelist did or was to do.

How in the world do you view 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.....i.e., letters written to evangelists??

In fact, it is wrong to call them, as many do...."The Pastoral Epistles" for they were not written to elders.

I see these books as a wonderful job description.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 1999

Sam....

I think I got you.

While the job description is there....how that job is carried out on a day to day basis is not.

Is this the essence of what you are saying?? If so....I wholeheartily agree.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 1999

Hmm, really? that's your answer to "What is an evangelist?"

The way I read the New Testament, an evangelist in the NT is someone who equips the saints for the work of evangelism. Certainly, an evangelist would practice what he/she preaches, but I see the role of an evangelist as someone who primarily equips the saints for evangelistic works of service:

Ephesians 4:11-12 -- It is he [Christ] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, some to be pastors and teachers to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up

As I see it, a flaw we have is when we hire someone, we think of them doing the work. Other than a missionary, I believe we should hire with the thought of getting someone gifted by God to equip the body.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 1999

There are three verses in the New Testament which mention the word "evangelist." Those verses are:

Acts 21:8 -- "Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven."

Ephesians 4:11 -- "It was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,"

2 Timothy 4:5 -- "But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.""

None of the three give any indication of just what an evangelist does. The closest that any of them come is, as noted above, that in Ephesians it is numbered among the kinds of gifts that are to be used to build up the church. So, while we may define what an evangelist does by deriving our definition from the good sense that God gave us, we CANNOT do so from the Scripture, except by inference from what those labeled as evangelists did.

In our three examples, we appear to have at least two different activities in the gift of evangelism, and we're not even sure just what those entailed, as far as the details are concerned. In the Acts passage, we are referred to Phillip the evangelist. What do we know of Phillip? That he was one of the first seven deacons; that he was driven from, or chose to leave, Jerusalem at a time of great persecution; that when he left he went to Samaria and proclaimed salvation through Jesus; that he was used of God to perform miraculous healings that drew people to hear more closely his message; that he did not pass on these miraculous abilities to anyone else; that he was sent to a remote stretch of road for an encounter with an Ethiopian, to whom he explained the good news about Jesus; that he was taken from there to Azotus and went from there to Caesarea, preaching as he went; that he stayed in Caesarea and established a home there, raising at least four daughters.

What did Phillip do in Caesarea? We don't know, from the Scriptures. Perhaps he continued his work of sharing the good news about Jesus; perhaps he labored in the church there. We cannot say, because the Scriptures do not say.

So in this case, a person who was called an "evangelist" was, at least part of the time, involved in taking the good news of Jesus to people who hadn't heard it.

How about the other two instances of the word "evangelist"? In one, Timothy is instructed to do the work of an evangelist. What was that work. We don't know. It doesn't say. It is a book, however, filled with istructions for a man laboring in the position which we would commonly call "the preacher" of a local church in a certain town. Was he the equivalent of what we mean when we say "the preacher"? Did he get paid for his work? Did he prepare a sermon for Sunday meetings? Did he help to shepherd the young flock? Did he go out and preach in the marketplaces? We don't know. It doesn't say.

In the Ephesians passage, again, the work of the "evangelist" focuses on working with other differently-gifted people to "prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up." What does that mean, as far as the actual details of the work? We don't know. It doesn't say. How did this gift differ from the others? We don't know. It doesn't say.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Specifically, the repitition of the phrases "we don't know" and "it doesn't say"?

Many people study the Bible in what I call "The Betty Crocker Approach To Bible Study." That is, they come to the Scriptures as though it were a cookbook. They can't rest until they have every recipe figured out in detail, and they usually end up trying to bind on other believers ideas and formulas which God never intended. The fact is that the Scriptures don't just lay it all out to us, as far as all the details of the structure of the church and how each of its parts operate. We know SOME, but not a lot. We are given some of the basic ideas -- for instance, that authority in a church body rests with the elders -- but we are not given many details.

And when there are details given for a certain place, they are somewhat different than than those given in another place. (For example, which list do we use for choosing elders -- the one Timothy used or the one Titus used? Which of the lists of gifts will we look to put to use in the church -- the one in Ephesians or one of the lists if Corinthians? If they were important in Corinth, why weren't they all important in Ephesus?)

The Betty Crocker approach just doesn't work. God didn't give all the details. He gave certain strong principles and some details to include, and gave us the Spirit to help wisely sort them out and apply them. If a certain thing is not spoken of in the Scriptures, are we prohibited from doing it? Certainly not. If we don't know all the details of a particular gift or work from the Scriptures, are we then prohibited from using our God-given wisdom and discernment in figuring out how it works best in our situation? Certainly not. Notice that in the letter, Paul doesn't tell Timothy how to discharge all the duties of his ministry. He apparently expects him to figure it out, with the Spirits help.

Why am I going through all this long answer here? Because, Nelta, in all love and concern, I believe that you have a strong tendency to use the Betty Crocker approach to Bible Study. This is kind of an answer to other conversations weve been a part of as well. It is all well and good to say, Well, just look at what the Bible says and do it. Or to say, as you do in one reply to me in another thread,

(if you believe there is scripture for such) and others who believe there is scripture for the practices done today, such as formal worship. If you wish to give scripture for the practices you mentioned, I am listening. 

I know that there is not Scripture for everything that the church does today. If you look at the stories of the early church written by the people who were there, you see things that arent in the Scriptures. Does that make them wrong? No. Not if they dont violate the principles given by God. We can read stories of whathappened in the day to day life of the early church -- even of the church in Ephesus that the Apostle John was a member of. We have records of things he did and said within the life of that congregation, and of things that the congregation did while he was a part of them. And they are not all things that are found in Scripture. Things like gathering on a certain day of the week to pray and to sing praises and to have the Scriptures taught to them by the local EVANGELIST (who was NOT the Apostle. John listened just like the others.) But if they were good enough for the Apostle John to allow to happen in the local church, theyre good enough for me.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 1999

Well, Sam, according to your reasoning everyone can do what they want to do, add what they want to add, and God doesn't care because He didn't lay out any plans to follow. Call it *Betty* if you want to but if there are not principles to follow on how things should be done today then the Bible is usless to us. If man can conceive a whole new system in religion (changing the face of the body of Christ) and God will condone it, then just throw open the gate and let anything in. That is what Rome did. And even today that is being done. Alex Campbell had much to say about the preacher system today. He was agin it. It really doesn't matter what Alex thought though. We should go back further than the Restoration and Rome and follow the apostles' teaching or there is nothing to the scriptures, anyhow.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 1999

/BWell, Sam, according to your reasoning everyone can do what they want to do, add what they want to add, and God doesn't care because He didn't lay out any plans to follow./b

No, thats not what I said at all. It would help if you would read what I actually wrote. I made a number of references to using the Scriptures as a guide, and to following the Spirits lead in understanding and wisdom. It would be helpful if you would answer what is actually there, rather than answering the questions that you want to answer, even if you have to make them up to do so.

/BCall it *Betty* if you want to but if there are not principles to follow on how things should be done today then the Bible is usless to us./b

As Ronald Reagan might say, There you go again. That is EXACTLY what I said above. I specifically and intentionally stated that God gave principles to adhere to. Where you and I differ is that you see necessity in the lack of detail, and I see freedom to give God-given wisdom and Spirit-guidance a hand in deciding what to do. And where do we get that wisdom, and in what does the Spirit give guidance? in the principles and small number of details that we find in the Scriptures. I said that above.

/BIf man can conceive a whole new system in religion (changing the face of the body of Christ) and God will condone it, then just throw open the gate and let anything in./b

And if you can show me where I said anything like that, then do so. Quote me, in context, and prove me wrong.

/BWe should go back further than the Restoration and Rome and follow the apostles' teaching or there is nothing to the scriptures, anyhow. /b

And thats what I did. I wrote of how the church in Ephesus put into practice what the apostles taught. And I emphasized that there was an actual Apostle with them, helping do it. If you want to follow the example and teaching of the Apostles, you cant get any closer than emulating what they actually did. Churches meeting in synagogues and in the temple courts regularly, for praise and fellowship. Churches meeting in houses and public places for group praise and prayer. Churches meeting wherever they could to sit and listen to the Scriptures expounded upon by a man set aside specifically to do that. You want to follow the Apostles example? The Apostle John did those things. Why wont you?

-- Anonymous, December 13, 1999

Sam, so that I won't misrepresent you I printed both your posts out and will give a response. One thing that might be standing in the way of our understanding one another is the fact that you might be looking at the scriptures through institutional eyes and I am not. However, be that as it may, I want to respond to your last post, probably tomorrow if I do not teach.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 1999

Should have given some credit for that cartoon in my answer.

It is copyright 1998 by Bob West, and is from a regular e-strip called "Theophilus". check out Theophilus at www.theophilus.org.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 1999

While this is kind of tongue in cheek, I think its relevant here. "We" in the church get wrapped around the axle on the "show me scripture and verse" to "validate" what we are doing. Has anyone considered the fact that the apostles didn't use "chapter and verse" for anything? They just DID IT. Their guidance was principles from the O.T., but they were flexible and changed organization and approaches to solve existing problems. The Epistles which are so liberally quoted from were written for that very purpose: to solve problems in the contemporary churches. Scripture provides example, types, precedents, but is not a checklist. The church is non- relevant in the eyes of the society at large because we keep having these nit picky discussions, and a viewed as (and are in a large part are) inflexible. These discussions are not edifying at all. I'll quote scripture to you: Colossians 2:16-19, and especially verses 20- 23.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 1999

Jon,

You will probably enjoy these links:

battle link narrow link

-- Anonymous, December 14, 1999

My second try at typing this response.

Before I respond to each of your responses in this one post I just want to mention that I once met Bob West in Ark. at a Truth and Freedom forum. He is a very nice man. His cartoons appeared in the Examiner often. This was a paper I wrote for as long as it was in existances....about eight years.

What I am hearing from you on this list on this subject is that we don't have to have scriptural proof for what we have. I believe we have the N.T. scriptures as principles to follow. If we have a question on something we are doing then we go to the apostles teaching and find a principle for how it was handled.

However, in our discussion we are dealing with something not found in scripture and we are taking out of context a principle and applying it to that practice. How? There is nothing in the N.T. about the way *church* is set up and done today. It isn't there. Therefore, when we take a princple on, say, evanglists and plop that scripture into our practice we have taken something out of context. We can't do any *assuming*. Rome is still *assuming*. When we have to assume something to make it fit our practice then we need to step back a bit and take notice.

What are we doing today with no principle to back it up? I've given these before but feel it will be of benefit to do it one more time on this thread.

1) We have an institution...an *it* that people place membership in or join. Check out Acts 2_38ff and try to find if the Christians were told to join anything else, now that they were added to the universal body of Christ...by Christ.

2) We have a building that has become a curse instead of a blessing because the business of running this *it* is run from that building. Elders have left their duty of being examples to the sheep. An example of a godly life that the sheep will desire to follow. They are also suppose to be *apt to teach.* This doesn't usually mean to teach in a group situation (since our gatherings are for interaction one with another) but being able to teach the one who needs teaching at the time. IOW know the truth so well he can counteract bad choices of a saint who might be following the wrong path...with the sword of truth.

3) The principle about helping the poor in 1 Cor. 16:1-2 has been taken out of context and placed in said tradition for the holding up of all this *it*.

4) All kinds of *Ministers* have been added to benefit the *it* and to do the work of the elders in teaching and caring for the sheep. Except this is put in the business of the *it*. BIG BUSINESS!

I could go on because there are at least ten things that have been borrowed from Rome and other traditions that cannot be supported by principles in the scriptures. But this is be aplenty for now.

3)

-- Anonymous, December 14, 1999

Danny:

You read me right but applied me wrong. here's what I said about the Timothy letters:

"How about the other two instances of the word "evangelist"? In one, Timothy is instructed to do the work of an evangelist. What was that work. We don't know. It doesn't say. It is a book, however, filled with istructions for a man laboring in the position which we would commonly call "the preacher" of a local church in a certain town. Was he the equivalent of what we mean when we say "the preacher"? Did he get paid for his work? Did he prepare a sermon for Sunday meetings? Did he help to shepherd the young flock? Did he go out and preach in the marketplaces? We don't know. It doesn't say."

Im not disagreeing with you in general. Yes, the Timothies and Titus address and instruct two young men left behind by Paul in some position of authority in the church. Timothy, but not Titus, is addressed as an evangelist. That doesnt mean that Titus wasnt, of course. Instructions to each were very similar to the others instructions. Timothy gets some extra exhorting that Titus doesnt get, but the overall approach to what they are to do is the same.

The point Im working at with Nelta is that while many principles are firmly laid down, few details are. For instance, Ill list here some of the commands Paul gives to Timothy and Titus that have to do with their specific assignments:

I Timothy Chapter 1 3,4 - charge some that they teach no other doctrine nor give heed to fables and endless geneologies Chapter 2 8,9 (implied) - teach men to pray, teach women to be modest 11 - teach women to learn in silence 12 - dont let a woman teach or have authority over a man Chapter 3 13 (implied) - appoint bishops and deacons (and maybe deaconesses) Chapter 4 6 - instruct the brethren in these things 11 - command and teach these things 12 - be an example to the believers 13 - give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine 14 - use your gift, given by the laying on of the hands of the elders 16 - continue in the doctrine,and teach it Chapter 5 3-16 - sort out the widows and call them to do what they ought 17-20 - honor elders when needed; protect them when needed; rebuke them when needed 22 - be careful who you lay hands on. keep yourself pure Chapter 6 2 - teach and exhort these things 17 - command those who are rich to be careful 20 - guard what is committed to your trust, avoid silliness 2 Timothy Chapter 1 6 - stir up the gift of God given by the laying on of Pauls hands 13 - hold fast the pattern of sound doctrine committed to you Chapter 2 2 - commit what you have learned from me to faithful men who can teach them to others 14 - remind them of these things and charge them to be true to truth 24 - be gentle to all, teaching patiently and in humility Chapter 4 2 - preach the word. Convince, rebuke, exhort 5 - do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry Titus Chapter 1 5 - set in order the things that are lacking 5 - appoint elders in every city 10-16 - rebuke idle talkers and deceivers Chapter 2 1-10 - speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine 7 - practice what you preach 15 - speak, exhort, rebuke Chapter 3 1-2 - Remind them of these things 9 - avoid foolish disputes 10 - reject a divisive man 14 - teach people to maintain good works

In fact, these are ALL the instructions given to Timothy and Titus that deal specifically with their work in the church. Paul says many other things to them, of course, but those things could be said to ANY Christian -- keeping oneself pure, pursuing righteousness, avoiding silly talk, etc. Im trying to isolate the things that refer to the work of the evangelist.

While these are specific instructions on what to do in the church, the instructions to not lay out HOW to do it. And THATs the big point that most of my little points are adding up to. 18 of the 34 instructions have to do with teaching (or preaching, or committing truth, or other words to the same effect). Now, just how were Timothy and Titus supposed to do this? Get up and preach a sermon each week? Preach a sermon on Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night? Hold a Sunday School class? Do it privately and inidividually, face-to-face? Speak in the public square? Hold a weekend seminar series? We dont know. Paul doesnt say.

(Nelta, this is for you as well.) My overall point to Nelta is that while God gives us through the Scriptures a whole boatload of principles to follow and to teach, He doesnt give much detail on how to do it. He doesnt even give us much detail on how the first century church did it. He gives us some ideas. In some cases, people taught face-to-face with an individual or a small group. In some cases, men preached to crowds in the public square. In some cases, men preached to smaller groups in private houses. In some cases, Christians got together in large groups in places set aside for religious observance. Sometimes they prayed, sometimes they sang, sometimes they listened as one man taught or preached, sometimes they enjoyed being around each other, sometimes they did combinations of these things. We also know from the writings of the early church fathers of the first and second century, who were on the scene or who were taught by those who were on the scene, that many churches, including the one of which the Apostle John was a member, met on Sunday for corporate praise, worship, singing, prayers, and teaching by a person set aside by the body to lead instructionally. That is, from what we can gather from Timothy and Titus, what they did as evangelists.

We know all those things. Some of them we know from what the New Testament says. Nelta keeps saying that we DONT knnow those things, that we DONT find the New Testament church in the Scriptures being anything like what we have today. Im saying that we DO see some of that in Scripture, but even the bits we dont see in Scripture, we still know that the first century church did them, with the approval of and participation by Apostles.

I do not mean to slight the books of Timothy and Titus in any way. They give wonderful principles for leadership within the church outside of the office of elder. But they certainly do NOT give you the details of how to work out those instructions ona day-to-day basis. We have the Holy Spirit to lead us into truth and wisdom and discernment, as we study the Word and strive to follow and apply it to ourselves and others.

I gotta watch myself. I may have to change my last name to Saffold.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 1999

Well, Sam, we both know where each other stands. No use to keep on. You see in the scriptures the principles for the preacher system we have today: one preacher goes to a congregation...stays awhile...goes to another...and someone follows him. I see nothing that even hints to that in the N.T. That was added much later. That does not fit the term *evangelist* principle in the scriptures. I see simple gathering together as the early Christians did with interaction as they encouraged one another to stay on the straight and narrow.

After much prayer I post something for others to read and think on if they so desire. If it is worthwhile God will give the increase. It can only happen though if a person is open-minded and is forever seeking, realizing he might be wrong in his interpretation. That goes both ways.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 1999

Yes. Thank you. It's good to know that I am not entirely unclear in what I'm writing. So many principles, so few details -- and so much freedom. Honor the Word and use the guidance of the Spirit and the good sense God gave you. If you do things differently than I, great. Just do the job. You're right on.

Nelta, I guess we're done with this conversation, for now anyway. It will probably come up again in another thread. The basic difference between us is that you apparently see in the silence of Scripture a prohibition -- "if it doesn't address the issue, then you can't do it," while I see freedom -- "if it doesn't address the issue, then apply the principles of the Word and follow the Spirit to wisdom and discernment." Above all, however, the principle, "if it doesn't address the issue, then don't bind your opinion on another believer or call their committment to God and to Scripture into question when they don't agree with you." I try to follow that. If I read here someone making points that I think result from sloppy thinking, I sometimes try to point it out, and hope others will do so for me.

the peace of God to you and your house.

SammyBoy

-- Anonymous, December 15, 1999

Evangelism: One beggar telling another beggar where to find Bread.

Just popped into this forum on the way to the Y2K forums. Nice spot!

-- Anonymous, December 16, 1999

HHHMMMM.. I thought they were the ones in line @ the church food pantry @ Danny's church. I didn't know THEY were the evangelists! Tee-Hee, KRC

-- Anonymous, December 17, 1999

Hey Jon!

You wrote:

Has anyone considered the fact that the apostles didn't use "chapter and verse" for anything? They just DID IT. Their guidance was principles from the O.T.,

No. Their guidance was the Holy Spirit.

-- Anonymous, December 25, 1999

Evanglist:

2099. euaggelistes, yoo-ang-ghel-is-tace'; from G2097; a preacher of the gospel:--evangelist.

2097. euaggelizo, yoo-ang-ghel-id'-zo ); from G2095 and G32; to announce good news ("evangelize") espec. the gospel:--declare, bring (declare, show) glad (good) tidings, preach (the gospel).

32. aggelos, ang'-el-os; from aggello [prob. der. from G71; comp. G34] (to bring tidings); a messenger; esp. an "angel"; by impl. a pastor:--angel, messenger.

Angelos? What hath God wrought?

-- Anonymous, December 30, 1999

Duane -

I can't believe I almost missed your post in among the others.

I do agree - they received guidance from the Holy Spirit. However, I do not believe that the apostles were ignorant of existing Scripture either.

I have a simple equation for guidance: Scripture + Holy Spirit = direction. I heard someone say years ago that the Holy Spirit uses what we already have in us - that is why we have to know the Scriptures. Or to put it scripturally: "...for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things" (Matt. 12:34b-35).

That's what I was talking about. I didn't mean to shortchange the work of the Holy Spirit at all. Thanks for the correction.

-- Anonymous, December 30, 1999