Teach the Nations (2)

The Christian Message

Jesus commands us to "make disciples of all nations," and we have seen that disciples are learners. So what are they supposed to learn? When we approach potential converts, what are we supposed to tell them? Now that we have defined the Christian mandate, we must also define the Christian message.

However, before we consider what we are to teach people, we should first consider the fact that we are to teach them. This characteristic of the Great Commission carries tremendous implications that define our entire approach toward non-Christians. The Church today has often failed to confront the world with power partly because it has adopted a philosophy of discourse from the unbelievers that is contrary to the method dictated by Christ in the Great Commission.

One way to indicate a common error that I have in mind is by noting what Christ does not say – that is, he does not say, "Learn from all nations" or "Dialogue with all nations." Some people think that it is less abrasive to give the impression that we are promoting mutual respect and understanding rather than imposing our beliefs on people. Such an approach generates less discomfort and hostility in others, and perhaps some of them will eventually see things our way.

But if we give the impression that we are willing to listen or even learn from non-Christians as we demand that they listen and learn from us, then we are also implying that it is possible for us to change our beliefs upon hearing the non-Christian views. Just as we demand that they abandon whatever non-Christian view that they now hold in order to submit to Christian teachings, such an approach gives the impression that we are also willing, or even with the same level of willingness that we demand from them, to abandon Christianity and adopt non-Christian beliefs.

If we give the impression that in every encounter with non-Christians, we are seeking mutual understanding, and that at every encounter it is possible for us to abandon Christianity, then either our faith is false or we are liars. That is, if you are sincerely prepared to abandon Christian beliefs every time you speak or debate with a non-Christian, then you are already a non-Christian. True faith believes that Christianity is the truth, and not only that it is the best option out of what you have encountered so far in your life. Consider the Chinese saying: "Riding on a cow to look for a horse" – you stay with what you have while looking for something better. This is contrary to biblical faith, which affirms that we have already found and embraced the ultimate truth in Christ, and there is no chance that we are wrong about it. On the other hand, if there is in fact no possibility that you will consider the non-Christian views as true, or to abandon Christianity, then it would be dishonest to give the opposite impression.

Therefore, when I approach an unbeliever, I am not going to lie to him and let him think that I am personally interested in his ideas, or that we are two seekers trying to discover the truth that is "out there" somewhere. I know that I have already found the truth, that Christ has revealed the truth to me, and granted me faith to believe it and be transformed by it. So I am interested in the unbeliever's ideas only for the purpose of refuting them, and to adapt my presentation to anticipate objections and misunderstandings.

Jesus sent me to teach the unbeliever the truth, to tell him what I know, and not to insinuate or negotiate him into the truth. Still less am I there to seek the truth along with him. I am on a mission, not a quest for truth – I have already found the truth, and that is what I am there to tell him. This does not imply that I must be mean and hostile. Depending on the person and the situation, I might be gentle, or I might be forceful, but I am not going to do anything less than to tell him what to believe and how to behave in accordance with Christ's teachings.

Of course this is offensive to the unbelievers, and doubtless also to many who consider themselves believers, but it is the Great Commission. Or do you think that the unbelievers are supposed to support the Great Commission, giving it their approval and cheering us on? No, those heading for destruction are scandalized by the gospel. Only those whose hearts God has prepared will welcome and embrace, not only the message of evangelism, but the very act of evangelism as well.

One problem is that many believers are too self-centered in their thinking – they go because they want to go, because they want to share something useful with others. They do not operate on the basis of an external and objective spiritual authority. To illustrate, if as an ambassador you visit a foreign nation with the possibility of defection already in mind, then from your perspective you are not carrying out a mission at all, but you are there to gather information and weigh the advantages for yourself. Although you think that you are better off staying with your side, you are willing to entertain other options. On the other hand, I go to the unbelievers because Jesus sent me, and I am there to deliver a message, to tell the people what my King requires of them. There is no possibility of compromise or defection, and I would be a miserable herald to allow a contrary impression.

So in the Great Commission we are to teach, and not to learn from or dialogue with unbelievers. But then, Jesus does not say that it is the United States that will teach all nations, but it is the Church that must teach all nations, including the United States. Therefore, we must disciple the United States also. This nation is a vast and hard mission field. It is vast because many people are not Christians, and it is hard because many of them think that they are. The Great Commission is relevant everywhere, even in the United States, and even in the Church.

Now we must consider the message itself. Subordinate to and explanatory of "make disciples" are the commands to baptize and teach. We will focus on the teaching aspect, so that we cannot take time to discuss the significance of baptism in the Great Commission. This does not mean that I think baptism is unimportant to the Great Commission. A full study of this passage ought to explain its significance and its role in making disciples, but this is not a full study.

Nevertheless, we can say this: Water baptism cannot save anyone, and it happens only once to a person, whereas it is the teaching of the gospel that leads to conversion and maturity, and it is to be a constant and lifetime pursuit. Thinking about its role and implementation in the Great Commission will take up what time we have left. Again, this might highlight the importance of teaching, but it does not diminish the significance of water baptism.

Our passage specifies at least two things that must characterize our approach as we disciple the nations:

First, our message must be Christian. We make disciples "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Notice that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit each receives a definite article, indicating a clear distinction between the three, but the word "name" remains in the singular, indicating their essential unity and equality. The grammatical construction is such that if the Father is God, then the Son and the Spirit must also be God, and that if the Father and the Son are persons, then the Spirit must also be a person.

So the grammatical construction strongly suggests a Triune Deity, if it does not prove it altogether. Of course, the doctrine of the Trinity does not rest on what we can derive from this verse alone, but it is the consistent teaching of the whole Bible. Right now, the point is that the Christian religion is one in which the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are distinctively three but essentially one, and in which the Son is God and the Spirit is a person. This makes our religion very specific and exclusive, and among other things, it is this doctrine of the Trinity that makes it Christian.

And if disciples are to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, how can we make disciples without affirming and teaching the Trinity? We must recognize it as one of the controlling elements in a distinctively Christian theology. Furthermore, if disciples are to be baptized in this name, it seems impossible to recognize those who deny the Trinity as Christian disciples at all. To say that it is crucial for the Christian message to be Trinitarian is also to say that it is crucial for the Christian message to be truly Christian in the first place.

This first requirement alone effectively excludes Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and all similar groups that claim to be Christian but that deny the Trinity, as truly Christian. But this is just one requirement, and not the only one, so that even if a group appears to be Trinitarian, it still does not necessarily make it a Christian group. For example, Roman Catholicism affirms the Trinity, but on every other essential issue it contradicts Christianity, whether we are talking about hamartiology (sin), soteriology (election, justification, sanctification), ecclesiology (church government, biblical authority, the sacraments), or eschatology (purgatory, heaven, hell). Catholicism is a thoroughgoing opposition to Christianity – the two must never be identified or united.

Second, our message must be comprehensive. Jesus says that we are to disciple the nations by teaching them "to obey everything" that he commanded. This is, again, why we say that a disciple is a total student, since it is not enough for us to teach people to memorize the teachings of Scripture, but we must also make sure that they obey all of them.

We cannot limit the "everything" in "everything I commanded you" as referring only to the red-letter portions of the Gospels, as the whole of the Gospels reflect the teachings of Christ, and not only the direct quotations. We cannot limit "everything" even to the Gospels themselves, since Jesus acknowledged the authority of the Old Testament and taught from it. Then, he told the disciples that he had "much more to say" (John 16:12) to them that they could not yet bear, and that he would later send the Holy Spirit to transmit from him to them these additional teachings (John 16:13-15).

Paul explained that he spoke "in words taught by the Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:13), and that what he wrote was "the Lord's command" (1 Corinthians 14:37). He said that he proclaimed "the whole will of God" (Acts 20:27) and held nothing back. An important passage from Colossians explains his thinking. There he writes, "We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me" (1:28-29).

The apostle was not interested in preaching the bare minimum, nor was he aiming to produce people who were barely Christians. He was interested in presenting everyone "perfect in Christ," and it was to this end that he labored. In fact, according to the Great Commission, the bare minimum that we must teach all nations is everything – the whole biblical revelation, and all that is Christianity.

One of the most important things for the Church to realize at this hour is that the Great Commission is certainly not "evangelism," that is, in the narrow way that we often use the word, but it is to "make disciples," to baptize them in the Triune name and to teach them everything that God has revealed in the Bible. "Evangelism" is just one of the first steps on the way to fulfilling the Great Commission. Thus a church whose primary objective is "evangelism" is also a church that defies Christ's Great Commission to his face. To make one's main focus "evangelism" is to refuse to obey the better part of the Great Commission.

Although he was not as harsh, Lloyd-Jones was just as clear on this point in one of his sermons on Romans:

'The gospel of his Son' does not merely mean evangelism – and I think you will agree that this needs to be emphasized at this time. I think there is a real danger at present that all the energy of the church should be given to evangelism. Does anybody misunderstand that, or think I am saying that there should be no evangelism? I am saying the exact opposite. All I am saying is that the activity of the church should not be only evangelistic. I think there is a real danger at the present time that the emphasis on evangelism may become an exclusive emphasis, with the church always evangelizing, and stopping at that. That way lies disaster. No! The gospel of God's Son starts with the evangelistic message, but it does not stop there. It goes on to teach – and, indeed, teaching is a part of the evangelizing if it is to be true evangelism. Indeed, let me put it like this – all the profound doctrines of the Epistle to the Romans come under the heading of 'the gospel of his Son'. All is the good news from beginning to end, and nothing must be left out. (Romans, Chapter 1: The Gospel of God; The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985; 219-220.)

Today, the world is unfamiliar with Christian teachings. We cannot assume that our hearers possess any biblical knowledge, and still less can we assume that they already agree with us on certain points and that we only need to address the differences. This is because unbelievers really have no biblical knowledge, but usually many prejudices, assumptions, and misunderstandings. This applies even to those living in a nation with a Christian heritage like the United States. It applies even to the Church, as it seems that nowadays you cannot even assume monotheism with many of those who claim to be Christians.

Therefore, it is not enough to preach "The Four Spiritual Laws" or some other message that is incomplete and disconnected with the whole system of biblical revelation. Of course God might convert a person with much less, but right now we are not considering what God can do, but what we have been told to do.

So, in general, the best way for you to approach an unbeliever is to first provide a summary of the whole biblical worldview, adapting the length and depth of the presentation according to the amount of time available. Then, as Providence arranges additional opportunities, you must extensively expound on the points that you mentioned in the summary.

Notice that this actually makes "evangelism" the first step to a complete discipleship program. Now if the person refuses to believe, he would probably terminate the discussion at some point. But if God has chosen him for salvation and opened his heart, then at some point in your teaching program, this person will be converted. Although some things might need to change in how you relate to him, there would be no drastic shift in your program, since he would already be on the discipleship track. It matters little whether conversion takes place at your first discussion, or whether it happens months later after many discussions – the main thrust of the method remains the same.

What topics must we address in our preaching? With Jews who claim to believe the Old Testament, you can include a presentation of biblical theology, or a "history of redemption" aspect in your message. If we go into this, it will take up the rest of our time, so I will just refer you to Acts 7 for Stephen's example. However, most of the people that you will face, including those who claim to be Christians, will be wholly unfamiliar or even hostile to the biblical worldview. Therefore, you will need a logical outline that covers the main topics. A good example of this is found in Acts 17:22-31.

As I have previously produced a detailed exposition of Acts 17 in my Presuppositional Confrontations in which I defended my interpretation of the passage, I will not repeat what I wrote, but will assume here what I have established there. In addition, since our goal is to derive a simple outline for our presentation of the Christian message, we will ignore some of the details in the passage, such as the citations from pagan poets, as I have also addressed these in my exposition of the passage.

Paul started by saying that he would tell his hearers what they did not know. Thus he declared the message from a position of authority and knowledge, as an official herald of God, and not as just another confused seeker on the quest for truth. He found the truth in Jesus, but his hearers had not. He knew the truth, but his hearers did not, and he was there to teach them.

But how did Paul know? How did he learn the truth? By the sovereign grace of God, who opened his spiritual eyes, he learned it from the Scripture and from the revelation of Jesus Christ. Now we have the same Scripture that he had, and we also have what he learned from Christ and wrote down for us. Therefore, we have the same message, the same knowledge, and the same fullness of revelation.

When we speak to unbelievers, we speak from the Scripture, and thus a position of prophetic and apostolic authority, and a position of knowledge. The non-Christians are in a position of wickedness and ignorance. This is offensive to the unbelievers, but it should not be so to Christians. And if this offends you, the Great Commission will not make sense to you, and will go against the sensibilities of your unrenewed mind, and you will not be able to properly obey it.

Then, on this foundation, we observe that Paul's message coherently touches on a wide range of topics: theology (idolatry, God, creation, providence), anthropology (creation, common descent, cultural mandate), hamartiology (ignorance, repentance, judgment), christology (election, resurrection), soteriology (calling, repentance), eschatology (justice, judgment, resurrection). In other words, Paul spoke on God, man, sin, Christ, salvation, and the consummation (which includes the resurrection and judgment).

This resembles a standard systematic theology outline, not only when it comes to the topics covered, but also the order in which they are addressed. Contrary to one objection against systematic theology, the discipline is not arbitrary, but biblical and logical. Of course the topics interpenetrate, and of course no presentation – adapted to the situation, the audience, and the speaker – is completely "clean" and rigid, but it is unmistakable that Paul gave a presentation of what we would call systematic theology. And this is the answer to what we must include in our preaching, and how we should organize it.

Such an outline is most useful in directing a positive presentation of Christian theology, but we can also translate it into philosophical terms to make it even more adaptable. It might look something like this: epistemology, metaphysics, morality, soteriology, and eschatology.

Why would we need a philosophical outline? In a positive presentation of the faith, there is indeed no need for it; in fact, the theological outline would be better for that purpose. However, the theological outline cannot be directly used to engage the unbeliever in that he might not have the corresponding categories in his thinking. A person who has never heard of Christ is not going to have much of a christology; however, he is most likely going to have a view of right and wrong (even if he believes that there is no right and no wrong), and an opinion on what is the solution for the wrongs in humanity – that is, what it is that will "save" humanity. At least when pressed to think about it, he might also have a view concerning the final fate of humanity, individually and corporately speaking.

Thus a philosophical outline is broader, and can guide the engagement between the biblical worldview and the unbelieving worldview. It can direct the positive presentation of the biblical worldview, as well as to guide the believer in asking the right questions and mapping the unbelieving worldview, for the purpose of refutation. But I will repeat that the theological outline is superior for a positive presentation of the biblical worldview, as it is more detailed and specific, and useful in ensuring a complete and coherent presentation.

Yet another outline can be derived from Acts 17. Even if it is unnecessary to reduce our outline to a simpler one, this one is useful if for no other reason than that it is easy to remember: authority, reality, morality, and mortality. The "authority," of course, refers to the controlling epistemological principle that produces and restricts the rest of the system. To discuss mortality is to discuss the person's view of death, of the end, and where the preceding items of his philosophy lead him.

Again, although one may roughly follow such an outline in a monologue, a rigid plan is usually not possible in a conversation. Each topic implies the others, and the discussion will roam back and forth between these major issues. For example, if the non-Christian's view of reality denies an incorporeal soul, then this will affect his view of mortality, and probably even morality. And if he denies the soul, we can ask him, by what authority does he know?

The outline can also facilitate engagement. For example, if the unbeliever affirms the authority of science, how does this relate to your belief in the authority of Scripture? Does scientific authority refute biblical authority? If so, how? Or is science itself in trouble, so that it has no authority to tell us anything about reality, morality, and mortality? So the interrelatedness of the topics is not a problem, and a strictly linear discussion is unnecessary, as long as each major area is eventually covered in some depth.