The Great Commission...Fulfilled?!?

[satz]

Hi all,

how would you respond to the assertion that the great commission was fulfilled by the apostles in their life time and thus does not apply to believers today?

based on these points;
1. the commission was only given to the 11 disciples

2. The 11 were given special powers (Mark 16:17-20) to accomplish the commission, something present day believers lack, hence making them unfit to fulfill the commission.

3. Several places in the NT, Paul describes the gospel as having been preached to 'every creature', hence indicating the fulfillment of Jesus' command. ( Col 1:23, Rom 16:26, Mark 16:20)


How would you respnd to this?

 

[RamistThomist]

1. The command given to the eleven disciples assumed the disciples would multiply and teach what they had learned which by definition includes "go and teach all"

2. I would be careful about basing a doctrine on questionable manuscripts. Anyway, it merely says that they will do those thigns, not that they will be empowered by snake-handling and cyanide drinkin

3. During Paul's time did you see all the nations bowing the knee to King Jesus?

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by satz
Hi all,

how would you respond to the assertion that the great commission was fulfilled by the apostles in their life time and thus does not apply to believers today?

based on these points;
1. the commission was only given to the 11 disciples

2. The 11 were given special powers (Mark 16:17-20) to accomplish the commission, something present day believers lack, hence making them unfit to fulfill the commission.

3. Several places in the NT, Paul describes the gospel as having been preached to 'every creature', hence indicating the fulfillment of Jesus' command. ( Col 1:23, Rom 16:26, Mark 16:20)


How would you respnd to this?

1. If they are running with such wooden literalism, why does Paul's fulfillment count? Hermeneutically speaking, I don't believe they can get around this. The commission was given to the 11, so why does Paul count? They are suddenly going to come up with an aspect of "succession" or Paul's incorporation, which gets away from their literalism.

2. This is silly. The Great Commission is "baptizing, discpling the nations, teaching them to observe all things..." They have obviously never done any missions work.

3. I don't take those verses so literally either. For example, Romans is commonly thought to be a letter for the preperation of missions work. Cranfield comments, "He hopes to visit Rome on his way westward and to spend a short time with the church there, and then, refreshed by their fellowship, to journey on to his NEW mission field with their blessing, their interest, their support." See chapter 15 as well, notably v. 20. If Paul is "literal/absolute" in 16, why the mention of preaching where Christ is not known in ch. 15?

Short of the long, what is their agenda? Are they hyper-preterists? If so, it has to be "fulfilled" in that time frame, so no argument can convince them otherwise. If some strange brand of dispensationalism, then I would leave and make them think you were raptured.

openairboy

 

[satz]

OK..thanks for the replies folks...just to clarify i am not trying to propogate this view..i just encountered it and thought i would run it by the people here.

Just one point..Jacob (sorry..i have no idea how to use the qoute function) you mention

2. I would be careful about basing a doctrine on questionable manuscripts. Anyway, it merely says that they will do those thigns, not that they will be empowered by snake-handling and cyanide drinkin


I have heard ( but never really studied) of the view that the last bit of Mark is questioned by some...could anyone just elaborate on this?

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by satz

I have heard ( but never really studied) of the view that the last bit of Mark is questioned by some...could anyone just elaborate on this?

Basically, the earliest manuscripts we have do not include verses 9-20 and a couple other reasons: writing style, early objection from Jerome and Eusebius content (some suggest it is a type of gnosticisim), contextual (doesn't really follow v. 8), suggest that these verses are a later addition to Mark's Gospel. I'm sure there are other reasons, but that's the gist.

There are many solid evangelicals that reject this as being in the original text.

What people did you encounter that are promoting this teaching?

sdg,
openairboy