The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Am I living out the Gospel Message

I hesitate to use non-biblical words when discussing words and doctrines of Scripture and I do not see "missionary" of today equivalent to the biblical "evangelist". The first known use of the word "missionary" was in 1625, and neither mission nor missionary is found in Scripture, and I do not see that missions and missionaries in this day match the biblical pattern or standard. If a Christian feels a definite call of God to go to another land and preach the gospel, he certainly should do so, and if his home church feels the call to support him, sure, sounds biblical to me. What I find problematic, is setting up mission boards, and fund raising to send out missionaries. I just do not see that taught in Scripture. The following verses seem to indicate other methods:

I see those who receive the preachers or evangelists, should be supported by those to whom he preaches the gospel as Jesus instructed the 70 he sent out.

"Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house." (Luke 10:7, NRSV)

"In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." (1Cor 9:14, NRSV)

"Those who are taught the word must share in all good things with their teacher." (Gal 6:6, NRSV)

I find the preceding passages to indicate that those being taught are to support their teacher. The following passage shows that the elders rule, preach and teach and should be paid for their work. I believe Pilgrim mentioned that Elders can do all three, rule, preach and teach, this verse seems to indicate that.

"Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; for the scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,' and, 'The laborer deserves to be paid.'” (1Tim 5:17-18, NRSV)

I'll let stop here since it is probably flogging a dead horse to keep going at it. We all have our views on this so for myself, I will stop here.

Sorry, but I couldn't let this statement go unquestioned.
What do you do with the doctrine/word "Trinity" which does not appear in Scripture? Neither does the word "alone" appear in regard to "justification by faith"? And, there could be other examples added where a modern theological term isn't found specifically in Scripture but the doctrine represented by the term is most certainly found in Scripture.

Oh yes... one other small exegetical item. Where does it say that the "70" appointed by Jesus vs. the "gifts" given by the Spirit were in fact the "Evangelists" mentioned in Eph 4:11?

The question about the Trinity is what I get back when I challenge others on their "rapture", which word is not in Scripture. The Scriptures clearly teach that God is One. The Scriptures also teach that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are likewise God. So we are forced by logic to recognize that and in defense of this teaching of Scripture, I suppose we'd say a 'title' was assigned to it. Now, I have no problem with that because I can read from Merriam-Webster a definition of trinity "a group of three closely related persons or things" or as the 1913 Websters gives "2. Any union of three in one; three units treated as one; a triad, as the Hindu trinity, or Trimurti." If the word's definition, matches the doctrine or concept clearly stated in Scripture, I see it is suitable to use a word not found in the Scriptures. It is my understanding that the reason for the Ecumenical Creeds was to protect the faith from heretics who denied the Bible doctrines.

The word "alone" that Luther put into Romans 3:28 is merely a matter of his using a dynamic equivalence approach to the verse. I don't see it so far from a couple of modern versions.

Literal word for word translation of Rom. 3:28
"For we reckon a man a man to be justified by faith without works of law."

Luther's German of Rom. 3:28 -
"So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben."
google translates that into English thus:
"Thus we hold that man should become righteous without the law, by faith alone."

"For we hold that a man is justified and made upright by faith independent of and distinctly apart from good deeds (works of the Law). [The observance of the Law has nothing to do with justification.]" (Rom. 3:28 1987 Amplified Bible"

"For we conclude that a person is put right with God only through faith, and not by doing what the Law commands." (Rom. 3:28 Good News Translation)

When I wrote "I see those who receive the preachers or evangelists..." I suppose I should have written it "I see those who receive the preachers (or evangelists?)..." What went through my mind was, since Jesus appointed them for the job of preaching the gospel of the kingdom and apparently gave them the gift of healing, and it was temporary and I don't think we hear of them again, would they qualify as New Testament evangelists, the gift of the office? Or, would they be like Elders, doing the work of an evangelist? You sure are working me hard! But it's good for me!