Warren vs Fundamentalism

In Matthew 28:19 the primary verb "teach" translates a Greek verb literally rendered means "make disciples." Inherent in that concept is the idea to reproduce those who are like faith and order with Jesus Christ or followers of Christ in what He taught and practiced. There are three participles that provide boundary lines in this process of discipleship making. The first participle or the Aorist tense translated "go" in the KJV stands first and presumes they have already gone and gospelized (Mk. 16:15) out of the nations "them" who are to be baptized and taught how to observe all things commanded.

Here is the brunt of my point. Christ did not authorize anyone to "go" preach ANOTHER gospel than what he preached (Jn 3:16,36) or to administer ANOTHER kind of baptism than what he administered (Lk. 7:29-30; Jn. 4:1-2) or teach to observe and ANOTHER faith and practice than what He observed and commanded. Therefore, what he is commissioning is to reproduce like faith and order.

Second, it is utterly impossible to observe the third participle "teaching them to observe all things" apart from actually bringing them into the membership of a New Testament church. They could not be taught how to observe Matthew 18:15-18 outside the membership of such a church. They could not possibly observe Matthew 26:18-30 without actually assemblying together. The apostles understood this was inherent in this commission as Acts 2:41 inserts "added unto them" between baptism and continuing stedfastly in the apostles doctrine.

Lastly, those who would preach "another gospel" are accursed (Gal. 1:6-9). Those who reject the baptism of John are said to reject the counsel of God against themselves (Lk. 7:29-30) and those who depart from "the apostles doctrine" depart from "the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1).

The Great Commission principles restrict the discipleship making process within boundary lines that eventually take the shape of reproduction of churches of like faith and order just as we find throughout the New Testament when it is observed.

 

Over all this is a good exegesis and I agree.

This is all true. The only thing I would add (and it is not disagreeing with you) is that since the main verb is an aorist imperative, the participles carry the same imperative force.

Well said. I agree completely. After all, I'm a church planter. :thumbs:

 

Again, how many times did Jesus have a huge following in scripture? After He performed the greatest work in human history, saving His people from the penalty of their sins by dying for them, He left the earth with a scant 120 followers. Numbers are not an indication of correctness.

I'm surprised as your use of Acts 2. You do realize that even with 3,000 converted, that was still a rather small number compared to the population?

 

Actually, all of this is moot, so I don't intend to argue it with you. My mention of numbers was not to prove fundamentalism is correct, but to disprove Warren's assertion in the quote in the OP that it had shrunk and was going away.

I don't agree with this, but I'm not going to argue it with you. It's not germane to the thread, and I don't want to derail the thread.

 

Well, let me take it to next level. Jesus did not authorize just anyone to go do these things. He did not authorize "all nations." He did not authorize those represented by the pronoun "them" (unbaptized believers or baptized but unchurched untaught believers). He authorized only those who had already been through this process ("disciples" - v. 16 "have commanded you" - v. 20; "companied all the time" - Acts 1:21-22).

In other words he didn't authorize the ungospelized (unconverted) to gospelize others, the unbaptized to baptize others or the unchurched and untaught to teach others. He did not authorize the blind to lead the blind.

What this demands is the fulfillment of the promise in the latter part of verse 20 which more literally reads "I will be with YOU all the days until the end of the age" as there is no authority given to administer this commission at any time in any generation for those who fit the description of "them." Hence, only those who fit the description of "you" ("disciples" = baptized believing church members in churches of like faith and order) were authorized to administer this commission in all generations.

This is a promise of reproduction after your own kind that cannot possible be administered apart from direct organic contact. They could not gospelize without actually going to the geographical location of those who they were to gospelize and meet them. They could not baptize "them" without actually laying their hands upon their physical body. They could not teach "them" without actually and habitually assembling together with them over a period of time. They could not observe this commission as stated and designed without either adding "them" into existent churches (Acts 2:41-42) or constituting them into new churches (Acts 14:22-23). When any aspect of the commission was left undone it requires follow up (Acts 8:14; 11:22) or it is incompleted.

This commission denies the idea of "direct" authority and self-discipleship, self-baptism, self-constitution of churches, self-ordinantion, etc. It requires New Testament churches reproducing after their own kind in every generation until Jesus comes again (Mt. 16:18; 28:20; Eph. 3:21). It requires the previous existence of a New Testament church to produce this kind of "ye" or "you" found in the Great Commission and thus to bring another New Testament church in to existence through such.

Thank you for your correction concerning the force of the imperative mode coming from the main verb. I missed that detail. You are right.

 

But his argument was that because the numbers are small, it is indicative of the fact that fundamentalism is incorrect. He was saying things like they had small congregations and small number overall and all of this. My point was, he is wrong because numbers don't mean a thing concerning whether a church body is correct or not.

 

Each of the four aspects found in the Great Commission are but summary points for fuller explanation in the gospels and epistles.

For example, take going with the gospel - the same gospel and not "another gospel." Many don't believe that either Jesus or John the Baptist preached the same gospel that Jesus commissioned to the end of the age (Jn. 3:16; 3:36). Many believe there is "another gospel" or gospels rather than the same one that is Old Testament in origin and in progressive revelation (Acts 10:43; 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2; I Cor. 15:3-4 "according to the scriptures"; etc.).

However, the bottom line is that most of the professed Christian world preach and embrace "another gospel" that defines "grace" inclusive of works confusing justification with sanctification.

Take baptism in the Great Commission. Most professing Christian scholars deny that the baptism of John was Christian baptism and thus deny Christ had "CHRIST-ian" baptism or that John's baptism was the baptism being commissioned. They would side with the Pharisees and "reject the counsel of God" (Lk. 7:29-30) and rightly so if all those being baptized had to be rebaptized in a few short years as mosts Christians claim today.

In addition, baptism identifies with twelve doctrines in the New Testament and acts as the "logo" of "the faith" once delivered. Eight of these doctrines it identifies with covers the whole range of Theology proper (Theology, soteriology, ecclessiology, Chistology, Pneumatology, Harmatiology, eschatology). The four essential administrative requirements repudiate the vast majority of professed baptisms in the world today. Where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no scriptural church institution.

The third aspect, "teaching them to observe all things" includes all aspects preceding and following in this commission and is therefore the most comprehensive aspect. It is called "the apostles doctrine" in Acts 2:42 and is mentioned under a number of synonyms (all with the definite article) a body of doctrine throughout the Acts and epistles which was "handed down" from the apostles to the churches. It is the standard for qualifying who can be ordained. It is the standard for disciplinary action (2 Thes. 2:15; 3:6). It is the standard for recognition of churches and preachers (1 Tim. 3:15; Rom. 16:17; etc.). It is the standard for orthodoxy (Jude 3; I Tim. 4:1).

The three general principles we began with provide general principles to ascertain "the faith once delivered" in Matthew 28:19-20. The contents and structure of the Great Commission zero in on a specific core of essentials. However, it is baptism that provides a compendium of absolute essential theology. I personally believe that is why John was given the descriptive noun "The Baptist" as it was the best summary descriptive noun for His mission, his methods and his message. However, that name means very little today.

 

I agree the name Baptist means little today. At least, the varied and sundry meanings weaken the term rather than strengthen it.


More to come....

 

Interesting point. JoJ makes a good case. Some of my IFB friends refer to the statement Jesus makes about "the least of my commandments" to state we have no such thing as a nonessential doctrine.

Al Mohler has a good article on what he calls "Theological Triage" and the levels of compliance we should have with other brothers/sisters/churches based on these. IOW, we can be more cooperative with someone who disagrees about church order than we can someone who disagrees with us about inerrancy.

As pertaining to IFBs and fundamentalism, most IFBs I know reject the term. They believe fundamentalism is too narrow. Here again, they believe allowing women to wear blue jeans at home is equal to a denial of the virgin birth of Christ.

 

Aha! Now I understand. I thought you were posting contra my post.

 

I cry thread drift....I cry off topic!!!

 

...like your post?

 

I don't believe there is such a thing as non-essential scriptures or "commandments and that is what Matthew 5:19 speaks about "commandments." However, among the scriptures and commandments there are those which even the scriptures place a greater emphasis upon (Mt. 23:23).

For example, there are absolute essentials to recognize another person and their profession to be Christian. They can be ignorant of many doctrines and many scriptures but they cannot be ignorant of salvation essentials in relation to Christ. There must at least be the essence of a gospel profession to be RECONGIZED as a Christian. There are bare essential doctrines necessary for the salvation of anyone (new birth, justification, etc.).

Likewise, there are absolute essentials for a group of professed Christians to be RECOGNIZED as a New Testament church. For example, the New Testament knows nothing of a church composed of unbaptized believers. The New Testament knows nothing of a church composed of unbelievers (infants).

I find that the four aspects of the Great Commission and/or the fundemental doctrines that baptism identifies with in scriptures to furnish a bare bone theology of essential doctrines.

 

I agree. I pretty much agree with the entirety of your post.

That's no fun. We have to argue about something...we're Baptists :laugh:

 

Well, its good to have rest from squabbling:thumbs: