Is the Great Commission for us today?

Pergamum · #1 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 08:14 AM

Luther and Beza and many of the Reformers advocated the folowing:

The missionary mandate was given tothe Apostles, which they fulfilled. We have no apostles today and the Great Commission is fulfilled.

WHo advocated this? Who still advocates this? Who opposed it? What are the arguments for and against this?

Semper Fidelis · #2 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 08:28 AM

I believe the command was given to the Apostles and, by extension, the Church.

I don't agree with the majority view today that it is an individual commission. Many pulpits directly teach that the Commission is fulfilled by individual Christians going out and sharing their faith and getting decisions from people.

The command, however, is to make disciples, which includes that they be taught everything that Christ commanded. This is a lifetime thing.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people that are self-proclaimed Evangelists here in Okinawa that talk about the people they met that made a decision for Christ. Are they in Church? No, but they are somehow believers. How can that be? This is the main defect of the Crusade mentality that we've somehow fulfilled the commission by stopping at this point.

Of course the situation is exacerbated by people who think that discipleship is a personal responsibility. Whether a man comes to Church or not is up to him after all. Sheep are supposed to take care of themselves and know where to go to be fed.

The Commission is only fulfilled when Churches take their responsibilities to disciple believers. I don't believe a man is really a believer if he refuses to be discipled and I don't believe a man is truly an Evangelist if he sees his operation as apart from a Church in which discipleship occurs.

Thus, I view Evangelism in my own life as talking to people about Christ and sharing the hope that lies within me and then inviting them to Church where they can hear the Gospel regularly proclaimed. I don't feel like a man is ever truly converted if he only hears a message, makes a decision, and never finds himself in and among the people of God. The Church is the soil and, apart from the soil, there are no fertile plants.

Pergamum · #3 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 08:34 AM

Good points. William Carey argued that the Commission was ongoing because baptism was ongoing. And baptism is the propriety of the church, which seconds all of what you just said.

What about them verses that say the Gospel has ALREADY been preached to all nations, or their faith was known throughout the whole world?

And what about the verse about the GOspel being preached unto all nations and then the end would come?

Semper Fidelis · #4 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Good points. William Carey argued that the Commission was ongoing because baptism was ongoing. And baptism is the propriety of the church, which seconds all of what you just said.

What about them verses that say the Gospel has ALREADY been preached to all nations, or their faith was known throughout the whole world?

I assume you're speaking about this in reference to Romans 10. I think this is a typical problem I have with prooftexting. Within the passage, Paul is noting that the condemnation for the Jews' unbelief is not arbitrary because they have heard the Gospel but they have not responded to it. The passage fits within the larger context of explaining where Jews, according to the flesh, fit into the saving plan of God.

Quote:

And what about the verse about the GOspel being preached unto all nations and then the end would come?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. Might not have time to respond tonight. A brief response would be that it's compatible with the notion that Peter talks about where he notes that the Lord is not slow concerning His pomises. He witholds judgement until all the Elect have been saved and they are from all the nations.

Blessings!

Rich

Guido's Brother · #5 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 12:15 PM

Another (brief) excerpt from the rough draft of my dissertation:

In conclusion, we can state that Bucer conceived of mission as being the extension and consolidation of the Kingdom of Christ through the preaching of the gospel. He believed that the Church has a responsibility to go into all the nations and bring the gospel so that more and more people are brought under the reign of Christ. He saw this primarily as the responsibility of those called to the office of minister/evangelist. Moreover, he conceived of mission as belonging to the essence (esse) of the Church. A unique feature of Bucer’s mission-concept was the involvement of the civil magistrate. De Regno Christi was addressed to Edward VI and Bucer thought that the king had a responsibility to ensure that the gospel is proclaimed, not only in his own realm, but also in others. Later in this study, we will consider whether Bucer’s mission-concept may have had any influence on Guido de Bres and the Belgic Confession.

JohnOwen007 · #6 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

In conclusion, we can state that Bucer conceived of mission as being the extension and consolidation of the Kingdom of Christ through the preaching of the gospel. He believed that the Church has a responsibility to go into all the nations and bring the gospel so that more and more people are brought under the reign of Christ. He saw this primarily as the responsibility of those called to the office of minister/evangelist.

Does Bucer argue this in his work De Regno Christi? Moreover, are you saying that Bucer did not believe that the "evangelist" (of say Eph. 4:11) had expired with the apostles but was a gift that continued on in the church? If so, that quite interesting given that the majority of the reformed tradition in the 16th and 17th century didn't believe this.

Barnpreacher · #7 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I believe the command was given to the Apostles and, by extension, the Church.

I don't agree with the majority view today that it is an individual commission. Many pulpits directly teach that the Commission is fulfilled by individual Christians going out and sharing their faith and getting decisions from people.

The command, however, is to make disciples, which includes that they be taught everything that Christ commanded. This is a lifetime thing.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people that are self-proclaimed Evangelists here in Okinawa that talk about the people they met that made a decision for Christ. Are they in Church? No, but they are somehow believers. How can that be? This is the main defect of the Crusade mentality that we've somehow fulfilled the commission by stopping at this point.

Of course the situation is exacerbated by people who think that discipleship is a personal responsibility. Whether a man comes to Church or not is up to him after all. Sheep are supposed to take care of themselves and know where to go to be fed.

The Commission is only fulfilled when Churches take their responsibilities to disciple believers. I don't believe a man is really a believer if he refuses to be discipled and I don't believe a man is truly an Evangelist if he sees his operation as apart from a Church in which discipleship occurs.

Thus, I view Evangelism in my own life as talking to people about Christ and sharing the hope that lies within me and then inviting them to Church where they can hear the Gospel regularly proclaimed. I don't feel like a man is ever truly converted if he only hears a message, makes a decision, and never finds himself in and among the people of God. The Church is the soil and, apart from the soil, there are no fertile plants.

AV1611 · #8 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I don't agree with the majority view today that it is an individual commission.

It was given to the Church and God provides us with those who are gifted for the work i.e. Ministers of the Gospel (Presbyters).

Guido's Brother · #9 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

In conclusion, we can state that Bucer conceived of mission as being the extension and consolidation of the Kingdom of Christ through the preaching of the gospel. He believed that the Church has a responsibility to go into all the nations and bring the gospel so that more and more people are brought under the reign of Christ. He saw this primarily as the responsibility of those called to the office of minister/evangelist.

Does Bucer argue this in his work De Regno Christi? Moreover, are you saying that Bucer did not believe that the "evangelist" (of say Eph. 4:11) had expired with the apostles but was a gift that continued on in the church? If so, that quite interesting given that the majority of the reformed tradition in the 16th and 17th century didn't believe this.

Yes and yes.

JohnOwen007 · #10 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

[
Does Bucer argue this in his work De Regno Christi? Moreover, are you saying that Bucer did not believe that the "evangelist" (of say Eph. 4:11) had expired with the apostles but was a gift that continued on in the church? If so, that quite interesting given that the majority of the reformed tradition in the 16th and 17th century didn't believe this.

Yes and yes.

Dear Wes, wow. Thanks for this reference brother! I look forward to ransacking Bucer. (I'm doing a ThD on Owen's view of the gospel, and this naturally entails his understanding of mission, so I'm keen to see what the rest of the reformed tradition says about mission).

God bless you. Marty.

Herald · #11 (**permalink**) 11-04-2007, 12:43 AM

Rich - I concur with your post. The Great Commission was given to the Apostles, and by extension the church. However I do not believe it excludes a believer from sharing his faith. What is excluded is the overwhelming guilt that is laid upon individuals if they do not make personal evangelism a top priority. Is guilt a means of grace?

christiana · #12 (**permalink**) 11-04-2007, 01:51 PM

2 Corinthians is written to all believers everywhere and clearly says to each of us:

ch.5. v11 Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God, and I also trust are well known in your conscience.

v 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Real believers tell the lost about Christ and His eternal purpose of saving them from the wrath to come!
We must each have a passion for Christ and be about telling others of Him!
We must know the Word and what it says about salvation!
We must pray daily for the lost and make every effort to tell them of Christ!
It isnt someone else's problem. It is our problem as believers to tell what we've learned!

Semper Fidelis · #13 (**permalink**) 11-04-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

Rich - I concur with your post. The Great Commission was given to the Apostles, and by extension the church. However I do not believe it excludes a believer from sharing his faith. What is excluded is the overwhelming guilt that is laid upon individuals if they do not make personal evangelism a top priority. Is guilt a means of grace?

I assume you noted where I stated that individual believers share their faith in my post. That activity occurs, however, from derivative authority. We go out from the Church in that activity in the process of sharing. I also believe there are gradations of evangelism. By that I mean that we are meant to share the hope that lies within us that we may bring men and women into the Church where they might be converted and nurtured but not all of us can properly said to have the authority to go into a "foreign land" and appoint elders in every city they way that Paul was or the authority he gave to Timothy and Titus to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by christiana

2 Corinthians is written to all believers everywhere and clearly says to each of us:

ch.5. v11 Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God, and I also trust are well known in your conscience.

v 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Real believers tell the lost about Christ and His eternal purpose of saving them from the wrath to come!
We must each have a passion for Christ and be about telling others of Him!
We must know the Word and what it says about salvation!
We must pray daily for the lost and make every effort to tell them of Christ!
It isnt someone else's problem. It is our problem as believers to tell what we've learned!

I don't think anyone is disputing the necessity laid upon believers to represent Christ in our lives and to share the Gospel with others but the sharing of the Gospel at the personal level does not fulfill the Great Commission.

christiana · #14 (**permalink**) 11-04-2007, 05:42 PM

Christ has said that He will build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it! Mt 16:18

He builds the church and when allowed to be the means He uses to declare His gospel we are blest!

Whatever means He uses hearts are changed one at a time by the Holy Spirit, whether by preaching ,Titus 1:3 or personal witnessing ,2 Cor 5:11

We as believers are still responsible to declare His gospel to others at whatever opportunity avails itself and whenever He so opens doors for such!

Is not all of this part of the Great Commission to be accomplished as He so directed?

Semper Fidelis · #15 (**permalink**) 11-04-2007, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by christiana

Christ has said that He will build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it! Mt 16:18

He builds the church and when allowed to be the means He uses to declare His gospel we are blest!

Whatever means He uses hearts are changed one at a time by the Holy Spirit, whether by preaching ,Titus 1:3 or personal witnessing ,2 Cor 5:11

We as believers are still responsible to declare His gospel to others at whatever opportunity avails itself and whenever He so opens doors for such!

Is not all of this part of the Great Commission to be accomplished as He so directed?

You're missing the point. Those are all elements of it but it is not an individual Commission to "...make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them, and teaching them all things...." The activity of the individual is subsumed under the larger role of the Church as a whole. Our witness to the Gospel as individuals is both commanded and necessary but our individual actions are not the Great Commiission and we ought not view Christ as speaking directly to us as apart from the Church.

It's quite simple for me to analogize as a military man. The Marine Corps has a Title 10 role within the Department of Defense. That law, on the books, is not meant for me to read and interpret it as being addressed directly to me, Rich Leino, for fulfillment apart from the larger organization. By the same token, I realize that what I do every day is part of that Title 10 responsibility and that I play a part in the overall fulfillment of the mission we are mandated to perform by Law.

Extending the analogy further the way some people view the Great Commission is that I could just decide I want to form my own para-Marine Corps organization to fulfill Title 10 responsibilities. I'll meet people along the way and tell them how great it is to be a Marine. I'll even have little studies with them to teach them about our history and ethos. But, if I never get them to boot camp (or OCS) and if they do not complete it and become contributors to the mission of the Marine Corps then they are not Marines.

Also, I find this view of sanctification slightly problematic in its presentation (perhaps unintended on your part):

Quote:

Whatever means He uses hearts are changed one at a time by the Holy Spirit, whether by preaching ,Titus 1:3 or personal witnessing ,2 Cor 5:11

I think you could "tighten that up" a little bit by noting that our sanctification is not fully expressed as being individual. We are certainly sanctified as individuals but the Church exists to build up the Body. Our growth ought primarily be viewed in how it benefits all we are in union with rather than how it benefits us.

Amazing Grace · #16 (**permalink**) 11-04-2007, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Luther and Beza and many of the Reformers advocated the folowing:

The missionary mandate was given tothe Apostles, which they fulfilled. We have no apostles today and the Great Commission is fulfilled.

WHo advocated this? Who still advocates this? Who opposed it? What are the arguments for and against this?

Pergy:

Do you have any sources for this statement? Just havent seen this much

christiana · #17 (**permalink**) 11-04-2007, 09:54 PM

Thanks Rich, the marine analogy was good, and helpful! However, each marine has a great responsibility individually to fulfill his role!
Rich said:

Quote:

I think you could "tighten that up" a little bit by noting that our sanctification is not fully expressed as being individual. We are certainly sanctified as individuals but the Church exists to build up the Body. Our growth ought primarily be viewed in how it benefits all we are in union with rather than how it benefits us

.

Our sanctification, before it can benefit the body, must progress through the Holy Spirit and our individual committment to Christ and we must daily spend time in prayer and reading the Word to reach such a place of progressive sanctification in order to be an asset to the body. Now, each person, as a believer must also commit to sharing the gospel with those he is in contact with to be an active part of that body.
I guess my thoughts were that all of this is part of the Church being part of the Great Commission. I guess I dont see a difference there. Am I still missing the point?

Semper Fidelis · #18 (**permalink**) 11-04-2007, 09:57 PM

No, I think you're generally fine. Remember that our sanctification, though, is not something that we bring to the Body after working at it individually but, indeed, the Body itself actually builds us up even as we build it up. That said, I do not want to de-emphasize the importance of personal prayer and study but it is part of our sanctification just as Word and Sacrament are.

I just wanted to make sure to emphasize the issue that our personal sanctification is to be, in large measure, motivated in how it benefits the Church at large.

Thank you for your irenic response.

Pergamum · #19 (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 01:28 AM

Amzing Grace:

David Bosch in Transforming Mission documents this. I have a leter from Lutehr that says as much too. I can dig out the refences, but maybe some brotehrs here with faster net connections can help you better.

reformedcop · #20 (**permalink**) 11-05-2007, 02:29 AM

Understanding that sharing our faith as individual believers is only an element of The Great Commisson, what is everybody's opinion regarding the believer taking part in "open air preaching" or handing out tracts at public event/marketplace and subsequently getting into witnessing encounters?

I ask this question pre-supposing that the believer realizes that sharing the Gospel is done out of obediance, concern for the lost, and most of all, to Glorify God. Furthermore, he realizes that it is the power of God that does the converting and therefore should not expect a "decision" for Christ on the spot, or ever for that matter.

I ask this question because I believe that it is important for the believer to be pro-active about sharing their faith and not just wait for people to ask them about the hope that lies within us, although we should be prepared for that as well

.

I guess I am going about this question in a roundabout way. Does one have to be gifted or ordained by the church in order to take the Gospel in to the public square via open air preaching or one on one encounters?