Definition of Evangelical

[Cow Poke]

Sort of. The introduction seems to have rapidly become rather more cautions than your synopsis implies, and outsiders were only invited to witness part of worship until they'd made a commitment to Christ. Once Christianity was proscribed, people could not be as freely open about it.

No disagreement whatsoever -- I could have elaborated, but given the persecution at the time, I thought that was an 'obvious'.

[demi-conservative]

You should check out Michael Green's Evangelism in the Early Church. In surveying the early church up until the third century, he demonstrates that the Great Commission did, in fact, apply to all believers. As he writes in the epilogue,

That is not an exegetical argument. And since the Great Commission includes baptism, it obviously was not regarded to apply to all believers.

[One Bad Pig]

That is not an exegetical argument. And since the Great Commission includes baptism, it obviously was not regarded to apply to all believers.

You need to include a bit more detail before declaring that to be "obvious". There are no examples in the NT of Joe Schmoe believer baptizing anyone, but that is something of an argument from silence.

[demi-conservative]

You need to include a bit more detail before declaring that to be "obvious". There are no examples in the NT of Joe Schmoe believer baptizing anyone, but that is something of an argument from silence.

I was under the impression that since no one cares to engage with the exegesis, what's left is sweeping historical conclusions without detail.

[demi-conservative]

Interesting. Tertullian:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

[Adrift]

That is not an exegetical argument. And since the Great Commission includes baptism, it obviously was not regarded to apply to all believers.

I wasn't intending to offer an exegetical argument. I was highlighting that according to Green, the assertion that evangelism wasn't broadly practiced among lay believers before recent times is not accurate. I'm not sure what sort of exegetical argument you want from Matthew 28:16-20. As a review,



Christ commands his disciples to make disciples of all nations. I don't know about you, but I'm a disciple of Christ, so it is my duty to also make disciples so that all nations are reached. While lay Christians don't usually take it upon themselves to personally physically water baptize others after witnessing to them, they often lead them to a church where they will be baptized, and so in that sense, they are certainly responsible for their baptism. However, as previously pointed out, there's nothing in scripture that I know that forbids lay Christians from personally physically water baptizing people. If water baptism is an outward sign of an inner working, then it seems like there's no better place to express one's commitment to the Lord than within a community of fellow believers in a church, which will usually be presided by church staff as a matter of order (though I have personally witnessed non-staff members acting in helping roles).

I'm sure pastors and priests do their fair share of evangelizing, but I doubt that every person they baptize was someone they personally reached out to and led to Christ. So one wonders if the pastor/priest is then running against these rather legalistic rules that have been established which cordon off those who can and cannot evangelize within the body of Christ. As DA Carson points out in his commentary on Matthew,

And then, of course, there's the subject of baptizing in the Spirit, which a number of lay Christians will also affirm they've led people into.

Honestly, I'm not certain what the issue is. What's your background on this subject? Does only your pastor/priest evangelize, and everyone else in your congregation just chills out, or do you have specially prepared Evangelizers within your church who do the heavy lifting?

[Adrift]

Interesting. Tertullian:

I'm not sure how you think that helps your point. If I'm reading Tertullian correctly he's saying, yeah, any Christian can baptize another, but just to keep things in order, and just so's you don't get a big head, it's better to pass on the responsibility to church administration. Other than that, and the fact that he's not too fond of females taking a role in the church, he doesn't say anything specifically about evangelism that I can see.

[KingsGambit]

I'm not sure how you think that helps your point. If I'm reading Tertullian correctly he's saying, yeah, any Christian can baptize another, but just to keep things in order, and just so's you don't get a big head, it's better to pass on the responsibility to church administration. Other than that, and the fact that he's not too fond of females taking a role in the church, he doesn't say anything specifically about evangelism that I can see.

This has to be prior to his Montanism, I'd assume, given the prominent role of a woman in that movement, right?

[Adrift]

This has to be prior to his Montanism, I'd assume, given the prominent role of a woman in that movement, right?

You mean after his Montanism I'm assuming, but yeah, I'd imagine so.

[KingsGambit]

You mean after his Montanism I'm assuming, but yeah, I'd imagine so.

Why necessarily after, out of curiosity? The bulk of his writing fell between 190 and 220 according to tertullian.org, and his attraction to Montanism is generally dated around 207.

[Adrift]

Why necessarily after, out of curiosity? The bulk of his writing fell between 190 and 220 according to tertullian.org, and his attraction to Montanism is generally dated around 207.

Oh, duh. Yeah, you're right. Had it backwards in my head for some reason. Disregard.

[demi-conservative]

I wasn't intending to offer an exegetical argument. I was highlighting that according to Green, the assertion that evangelism wasn't broadly practiced among lay believers before recent times is not accurate.

You're flipflopping. Earlier you made a different claim, namely "he demonstrates that the Great Commission did, in fact, apply to all believers." He demonstrates no such obligation upon lay believers.

I'm not sure what sort of exegetical argument you want from Matthew 28:16-20. As a review,



Christ commands his disciples to make disciples of all nations.

Obviously, he gave a command to the Eleven, not to disciples in general.

[Adrift]

You're flipflopping. Earlier you made a different claim, namely "he demonstrates that the Great Commission did, in fact, apply to all believers." He demonstrates no such obligation upon lay believers.

That isn't a flipflop.

Obviously, he gave a command to the Eleven, not to disciples in general.

Again,

Source: Matthew by D. A. Carson, Zondervan Academic, 2017

all

© Copyright Original Source

Though directed towards the Eleven it seems highly unlikely that the Eleven alone are tasked with this mission, as discipling all nations (literally all "peoples" per Craig Blomberg's Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture) would require quite a bit of time and manpower, and it obviously continues to this day. Scholars like Carson and Leon Morris suggest that other disciples besides the Eleven (perhaps even the "500") were present when the command was given. Philip, who of course was not among the Eleven, certainly fulfilled the Great Commission when he shared the Gospel and baptized the Ethiopian eunuch. The church wouldn't have gotten very far without the work of Paul and his accomplices, and of course there are the dozens of other men and women of God who fulfill the Commission in the New Testament.

Source: Matthew 14-28, Volume 33B by Donald A. Hagner, Zondervan Academic, 2018

Here Jesus commissions his disciples and in effect the church of every period of history. They are to go everywhere with the message of good news in the name and authority of Jesus. Theirs is indeed an awesome responsibility: to go, make disciples of all nations, baptize, and teach. The risen, enthroned Jesus promises to be with them in their fulfillment of it, not intermittently but always. Evidence of the truth of that promise is readily available in the narrative of the book of Acts as well as in the history of the church (cf. 16:18), which has seen a network of believers around the world in every land, of every race, come into existence from what began just after the death of Jesus with but a handful of doubting, confused, and powerless disciples. The statements that frame the commission on either side concerning the authority and the presence of Jesus alone allow the church to continue in the world. Only the ongoing reality of these facts can continue to equip the church for its mission--a mission that will continue until the consummation of the age. The great commission and its frame with which Matthew ends remain, like the whole Gospel itself, one of the priceless treasures of the Christian church, providing comfort, strength, and hope until the final dawning of the eschaton. "And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come"(24:14).

© Copyright Original Source

I note that you ignored the questions from my previous post.

[demi-conservative]

That isn't a flipflop.

Do I have to spell everything out? At best Green showed that many lay believers evanglised, he did not do exegesis of the Matthew passage to show that it applied to them. That's a big difference.

No it isn't. What crap is this, just because the narrator calls the Eleven apostles 'the eleven disciples here' Carson claims the injunction is given to all disciples?

Though directed towards the Eleven it seems highly unlikely that the Eleven alone are tasked with this mission, as discipling all nations (literally all "peoples" per Craig Blomberg's Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture) would require quite a bit of time and manpower, and it obviously continues to this day. Scholars like Carson and Leon Morris suggest that other disciples besides the Eleven (perhaps even the "500") were present when the command was given. Philip, who of course was not among the Eleven, certainly fulfilled the Great Commission

"Suggest" (emphasis mine). Ha. It is not something that naturally arises from the text. All you have is an eisegetic reading from Evangellical assumptions. Evangelicals are used to automatically reading the idea that the Great Commission applies to lay believers into the text.

Obviously the Eleven could commission others to do the same work, and Jesus could personally do it to for Paul. That has nothing to do with the reading of the passage.

I note that you ignored the questions from my previous post.

They are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[NorrinRadd]

Obviously, he gave a command to the Eleven, not to disciples in general.

Does this mean all directives and promises spoken only to The Twelve (or The Eleven) apply only to them?

For instance, since no one else was present at the Last Supper, does that mean "I am the Vine, you are the branches" applied only to them?