Originally Posted by PerpetualLearner
Up front, I have a very negative view of revivalism. I also believe the older Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists were correct that the office of "evangelist" was an extraordinary office that no longer exists, being only for the apostolic age. It seems that Pastors are to be preaching the gospel, doing the work of an evangelist.

1. I share your negativism of MODERN revivalism, which would stretch back to the early 1800's, and made popular by Charles Grandison Finney. [Linked Image] Man does not bring about "revival", but rather God the Spirit brings revival according to the eternal good pleasure of God in order to gather His elect at the appointed time.

2. Now, as to the matter of the office of evangelist, I'm curious what writings you have consulted which have brought you to the conclusion that "evangelists" (Eph 4:11) was an "extraordinary office that no longer exists..."? scratchchin The original word is euaggelistas; one who brings good news euaggelion. Examples of such men can be found in Phillip (Acts 6:5, 8:5-13, 26-40, 21:8) and Timothy (2Tim 4:5). Although there may not be a definitive statement as to what evangelists actually did, I do believe that one would not be incorrect to conclude that the office of "evangelist" would be that which we today call "missionary", i.e., an itinerant preacher who does not have a permanent congregation where he would serve as a "pastor/teacher". [as a side note, if this is true, then this certainly would have much to say against the modern practice of sending men and women as missionaries evilgrin].

All the sources I have in my library are in agreement with the above, i.e., the "evangelists" of old are men gifted by Christ and His Spirit which are to be understood as those who traveled about preaching the good news of the Gospel, aka: missionaries. To be honest, I have never read anyone who believed that the office of "evangelist" was temporary. And I freely admit that I haven't read everyone who has written on this subject. grin But I have read enough orthodox and well known men to persuade me that my own exegesis and interpretation of that passage is correct.

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]