[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So the verses I quote do not prove an idea that I do not believe in nor have ever said.

You are slowly establishing that you are not really what you make yourself out to be. I made specific comments about what I am seeing in the words recorded in Matthew 28 that at least provide some evidence that the so-called great commission was not actually given to everyone. And at the same time I was clear that I was not suggesting that we do not have a calling to the gospel, but that maybe that passage in Matthew 28 was something special relative to the commission of those specific apostles. I have been advised offline that there were probably some others that were always around when the 11/12 were there, so they probably heard it as well. But Jesus did not gather everyone together and speak it, but sent them ahead separately.

And since that time, you have at least given the appearance that you are responding to those statements that I made in that line of reasoning. So when you bring up the verses in Romans, I can find nothing in them that in any way relates to what I have been talking about. And since you gave them after quoting what I had said, and in a manner that indicated you were trying to take exception with what I had said, I'm not sure how i should understand them to be about anything else.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't know of anyone who has taught that the commission in Matt 28 is a charge for every Christian to go spread the gospel elsewhere. When you stop thinking out loud and are actually responding to what others are writing let me know.

So you are retracting all those things that you said in opposition to what I said that was simply suggesting that the commission in Matthew 28 was not a charge to every Christian? Or is there a typo in your post? Either you unintentionally said that you now agree with me and know of no one who has every taught otherwise (and really do not because that reading is due to a typo) or you are actually saying that you were misreading me earlier and you now agree with what I suggested.

Either way, I am baffled by what appears to be a sudden change of position from what you seemed so strongly to refute just one or two posts ago. Were we just misreading each other that badly?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You say that what I write is completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Whose conversation? Not the one I have been having.

Since you were responding to my posts, it would seem that the topic was whether Matthew 28 was or was not a commission to every Christian. And Romans 1 just does not connect with that topic. And the way to put my quote in red seems to indicate that you are reading me differently from what I actually said, or at least what I actually meant to say.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You say "you are tired of believing everything simply because someone tells you it is true". Who ever told you that all Christians were called to be Apostles? Who ever told you that all Christians were called to be traveling evangelists?

I never said either of those things. I said that it starts to appear that the commission in Matthew 28 was more about those things, and therefore was not a commission to all of us. But having said that, I have repeatedly been clear to repeat that I am not suggesting that we do not have a calling relative to the gospel.

What I meant by "tired of believing . . . " was that when I see something that does not jive, I go with the question rather than just accept that a more studied person has said it. When it comes to issues of scriptural study, it is becoming clear that too many of the most studied still are so blinded by their colored lenses that they can only see answers that fit in their preconceived framework. And the truth is that while some of the frameworks out there may be very good, they are all limited and narrow, therefore do not deal with everything well.

And I do not suppose that just because I have taken this "ask a lot of questions and don't just take what someone else says" position that all of my reasoning will be right or my questions will be good. But I get suspicious that I am onto something when there is little on-point discussion that points back to the popularly-held position that I am questioning.

I honestly expect that when it is all said and done, there will be little substantial change in what is important in my beliefs. But I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is what is so confusing about your posts. You assume that you are rethinking what you were taught in the LRC, and yet no one ever taught what you allege they taught. I have repeatedly asked you to clarify what it is you are "rethinking". I have even provided a post where I have put together what I assume is what you are talking about and made it very clear that no one that I know of, not Paul, not WL, not WN, not me, ever said (to my limited knowledge) that the commission in Matt 28 is for all Christians to go preach the gospel as traveling missionaries.

This particular line of reasoning appears to be rather recent in the discussion.

But I am actually suggesting that because there are references in scripture to our part in the spread of the gospel, we do have a commission. But I see something more detailed in the Matthew 28 commission that may not legitimately be relevant to what most of us will ever be called to do. And it is not just that Jesus spoke it specifically to the disciples. It is also that it entails the task of equipping others to follow. And teaching them to obey. Even in the majority of Paul's writings it is fairly clear that there are the teachers/evangelists/apostles, etc., and those who are equipped by them. And I actually doubt that "works of ministry" that the now-equipped ones are to carry out are simply small versions of what the teachers/evangelists/apostles, etc. did.

The fullness of the gospel is to make us what we were intended to be. To restore us. And we were not created to be teachers and evangelists. We were created to bear God's image in our lives. And we are now saved for that purpose. The teachers/apostles help us to learn what that is. Why do we have to learn it? Maybe because we lost the natural knowledge in the fall. I don't know why for sure. It is clear that it doesn't just fall on us at salvation because Jesus would not have had to tell the disciples to teach the converts to obey.

The pattern I see is that Jesus had a following of 12/70/others who followed and learned and were ready to take on the commission at the end of Matthew. At the same time, Jesus set hundreds of people on the path to following and obeying. Most of those people did not follow from place to place to become teachers. They followed in their living right where they already were. They lived and exemplified the good news in their lives. And they were ready to tell why they lived the way they lived.