Featured FYI on Hyper-Calvinism:

?????

At least some very strong implications there, wouldn't you agree?

OK, you did not do that.

Oh, I do, when I've the will.

No will for that.

Wrong, false acusation. I've consistently stated it is deceitful to promulgate the notion that the Church is responsible to populate heaven with the redeemed. There is no heavier burden imaginable that could be placed upon our backs. Even those under the harsh schoolmaster of the law had no such burden placed upon them.

OK, if it makes you feel better to put it that way.

?????

I've consistently stated it is deceitful to promulgate the notion that the Church is responsible to populate heaven with the redeemed. There is no heavier burden imaginable that could be placed upon our backs. Even those under the harsh schoolmaster of the law had no such burden placed upon them.

 

I went precisely by what you said. Do you deny that you are against the Great Commission being for today and against mission boards?

Oh, come now. You can't have it both ways. You have made some very strong statements. If you are Biblical, then we are unbiblical. So I made no false accusation, but simply responded to your very strong statements about missions and the Great Commission.

I have never said that "the church is responsible to populate Heaven," nor do I believe that. So this doesn't answer the Scripture I gave. You said specifically that you were against mission boards, did you not? So please answer my posst on Phil. 4 and missionary support by local churches.

 

Originally Posted by John of Japan View Post
....You are at least anti-obedience-to-the-Great-Commission, and anti-mission-board though. Are you also anti-church-building, anti-pew, anti-Internet-for-God's-work and anti-anything-else-that-is-not-specified-in-Scripture? You should be these others to be consistent.
Then you are against the church at Phillippi which supported Paul (Phil. 4:10-19) and the church at Corinth (2 Cor. 1:11)....

Why do you need a church building when a Legion Hall or High School Auditorium will do? Why do you need a pew when a folding chair or a bench will do? Why do you need an Internet when good Ole Pressin the flesh & serving the community will do? I personally believe the mission field is all around me, in my community, with the neighborhood poor, with the myriad of people without jobs, with those struggling to survive in my backyard. When I was a RC, they always took up collections for foreign missions yes but they spent lots of time at the grass roots level & they still do. In my own town, the other churches are always sending folks down on their luck to the local RC church.... they spend great amounts of time focusing on the neighborhood. Any wonder they are both a growing & dominant church..... truthfully, I like & respect that about them.

With all do respect, I beieve the PB's are telling you to get back to basics but of course I dont interact much with those folks because they are not available to me in New Jersey. They appear to be good down home folks with a love for God & a desire to help folks on a local basis. Just my take anyway.

 

Actually, all the churches in the Bible were house churches. That's how I've started two churches--in my home. As for the mission field around you, the Great Commission says "world," every creature" and "every nation." So if you are not doing your best to reach the world, you are disobedient. That includes both your neighborhood AND the ends of the earth. (Acts 1:8 says "both.") There are still 340,000,000 people speaking 2000 languages with not a word of the Bible in their language. Have you no compassion for them?

The Buddhists in Japan (1% Christian) are big about their neighborhoods too, with neighborhood associations. So what? That does not equal Biblical Christianity.

Never mind neighborhoods, PBs are unbiblically opposed to all modern foreign missions: http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1474/36/ They flat out don't believe in missionaries of any kind. So they are dead wrong.

I fully admit that my view of the PBs is colored by my grandfather's experiences with them in Texas many years ago. (We have none in Japan, because they don't send missionaries out.) Among other experiences, a PB father refused to allow my grandfather to witness about Christ to his own sons because they might not have been elect. It is wicked to have no spiritual compassion for your own sons.

 

An early screed (1820s) by Primitive Baptists in North Carolina:

http://books.google.com/books?id=CjwrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA366

Article 1. Our body of churches shall be known by the name of the "Reformed Baptist Association of Churches."

Article 2. . . .Missionary Societies are only the inventions of men, and like all other such inventions will only prove a curse to the church of God, we therefore declare that no person who is a member of any Missionary Society shall have membership in any of our churches while he continues in such society, or if any who are already members of our churches, shall join such societies, they shall no longer be entitled to membership with us. And we furthermore declare, that no missionary preacher or beggar, being known to be such,— shall, by any of us, be invited into our pulpits. . .

Article 3. . . .Tract Societies. . . .we therefore declare that no person who is a member of any such Tract Society, shall have membership with us except he first renounce his connexion with the society; and no minister or preacher in membership with these societies, shall be invited into our pulpits if it be known to us that he is a member of such societies.

Article 4. . . .Theological Seminaries are the inventions of men, [etc.]

 

Their dogma ratcheted up even more, from the late 1800s, the Primitive Baptist book History of the Church of God from the Creation to A.D. 1885 Including Especially the History of the Kehukee Primitive Baptist Association:

"wherever Missionary Societies, Bible Societies, Tract Societies, Sunday Schools, . . . and Theological Seminaries in America prevail, there the doctrine of Phariseeism (modernly called Arminianism) prevails, there the doctrine of saving the souls of men from sin and from hell by works which men may do for themselves and for each other prevails. There the mark of the Beast and there persecution prevail."

http://books.google.com/books?id=L_QPAAAAYAAJ&pg=748

 

:thumbs::thumbs:

Yesterday's innovations become today's traditions - seemingly scriptural, but actually neutralizing the intent of Scripture. I confess that I am not as read up on the Primitive Baptists as I should be, but from what I have been reading here in this thread they seem pretty much in line with that ancient simplicity the Church at one time enjoyed.

As far as Matthew 28 is concerned, the phrase "until the end of the age" is a helpful clue. This age which ends is the Jewish age. They are the same as Jacob's prophetical "last days", Gen. 49:1. That chapter in Genesis has several references to both Christ and the events of New Testament times. The Lord's Commission in Matthew 28, if we read Col. 1:23, was already seen as fulfilled in later New Testament times.

Incidentally (and this is aside from this thread, I know) an interesting study can be made by comparing this Matthew passage with Matthew 18:18-20 (same numbers except the first digit) and Joshua 1:8-9.

But this is grist for another mill.

 

If this thread shows nothing else, it shows the wretched wickedness of the Hyper-preterist delusion.

To ignore the obvious meaning of Col 1:23 which has been understood for centuries and make it mean something that is obviously ridiculous.....words fail me!

The Church is not responsible to populate heaven; but it is responsible to preach the Gospel to every creature. To suppose that that was done by AD 70 would be funny, if it weren't so tragic.

Steve

 

John, when did I ever say that I would never support foreign missions? Next, yes you are biased & need to revisit the PB's cause if your living in the past. If I was to do that myself, I would be completely embittered toward your Fundi Churches for many un- biblical things done to my family but thankfully I refuse to hate & even found an IFB pastor in NJ thats also a Calvinist ....imagine that!

BTW, I just recently phoned a IFB Pastor out of Columbia NJ & told him in a message that I wanted to speak to him, however I did disclose that I followed DoG as my salvation theology..... he never returned my phone call (what a surprise)

Now when I spoke to the PB pastor in NYC....some 60 Miles away, he returned all my calls & even offered to arrange transportation & continuously invites me to meetings. Just saying.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Well you would have a wonderful mission field right in England I would assume after looking at the Christian growth stats in your own back yard.:laugh: Here in America, these churches do the same.....talk of missions, talk of Christ & then retire to their safe havens at the home church while people go hungry & are starving for both material food & the food of the gospel. Why should they go abroad when they cant propagate the un-churched in their own communities.....If I were a Buddhist, or a Hindu or a Muslim or any non Christian, I would properly demean any Christian Missionary for coming to my country while neglecting your own home church. I'm sure that you have quick answers & responses to that argument but you will have to face the truth nonetheless.....you neglect the former for the later.

 

In your haste to be vituperative, Steve, you are actually lumping two positions together that do have differences. KyRedneck, to my knowledge, has never claimed to be a Preterist. And I have not called myself a Primitive Baptist - mainly because I am not clear on their position on several things.

And also, not that Ky cannot defend himself. you misrepresent his position.

So don't lump us together. And, by the way, words never fail you. I wish they would - for your sake. We will all give an account for such things.

So, responding only for us arch-heretic Hyper-Preterists I would say that the Gospel is still to be preached. Just because the Parousia has happened does not mean that people don't still come to faith. And how shall they hear without the message being given?

But there needs to be a distinction noticed in some of the passages that teach of the Gospel being preached. For instance in Matthew 24:14 we have the

"Gospel of the Kingdom be[ing] preached in all the world (oikoumene) .. and then the end will come."

This is the time of the Parousia. But two chapters later we have:

"Assuredly I say to you wherever this Gospel is preached in the whole world (kosmos), what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her."

Well, this is obviously - as the event itself is still demonstrating - an ongoing fulfillment. Thus, this preaching of the Gospel is not quite the same as the first. The Gospel is the same, the time-frame is different.

 

It's a man made term applied to a particular passage and designated by man to be such, that's what I disagree with:

"The phrase "The Great Commission" was first popularized by missionaries who used it to infuse interest in evangelism in the hearts of their audiences. They wanted a moniker that would attract people to join Jesus in the greatest mission of all time to tell the greatest story ever told. They hoped that the term would recruit more givers and goers when it came to missions work, especially when it came to young people. They succeeded. The term was used to recruit thousands upon thousands into foreign missions."
http://www.dare2share.org/energize/who-else-wants-to-make-evangelism-a-priority-for-teens/

How far had the Church already spread prior to the invention of the phrase 'the Great Commission' or of mission boards? With Christ as Her head, it was inherent within Her to grow.

Show specifically those 'strong statements' you're referring to.

That is a common misconception the majority have of the Church, and I believe a primary reason for that is propaganda promugated by missionaries and others whose livlihoods depend on such notions such as that, and hardline restrictivism.

I don't recall making such a statement, but I do agree with this from the PBs:

"...that gospel ministers should go where they are directed by the Spirit and not by a mission board (Acts 20: 22-23). Primitive Baptists believe that if the Lord impresses one of His servants to go to a foreign land to preach the gospel, he ought to go at once and not wait for someone to pay his way."

I fail to see the connection between this and mission boards. Churches are autonomous, it's up to those bodies to decide for themselves where or how to minster to the saints

 

It is an often, and sad as well as dishonest, tactic used against pastors and missionaries from those who oppose their work to suggest that one of, if not the primary, reason their work is defended is because their "livelihood depends on it".

 

Okay. Your post #4:

Your post #21:

Do you have any idea how offenseive this is to a missonary who is simply trying to obey the Word of God and God's call on his life?

This is unproveable, and I strongly doubt its verity. I've never read it in any missiology book or history of missions.

Once again, do you have any idea how offensive this is to me? I have never one time asked for monetary support from a church. In Japan we live in a tiny apartment and own a 13 year old car. We own no house in either Japan or the US, only a tiny piece of land from my wife's father worth about $1000. We have a very small retirement fund (would last about 6 months). And I never, ever preach "propaganda," but only what I believe the Word of God to say.

So, do you own a home? A fairly new car? A good retirement account? Then you are much richer than my wife and I are.

In the first place, my mission board never, ever tells me where to go. They would not dare to. I would resign as soon as they did so. I am completely dependant on the Spirit of God for that. Mission boards with a field council do direct their missionaries, but my mission board (and other IFB mission boards except for two) does not have field councils.

Secondly, I already showed how Phil. 4 shows a local church supporting a missionary. So, does your local PB church support any missionaries?

Thirdly, IFB churches have about 120 missionaries in Japan, and the SBC has 78. Guess what? Japanese people get saved! But there is not a single PB missionary or church in Japan. The PB opposition to mission boards has become a de facto opposition to all missionaries.

The connection is not to mission boards per se, but the reference proves that the church at Phillippi supported Missionary Paul. So again, what missionaries does your PB church support? Are they following the Biblical pattern?

Many IFB missionaries go out not through a mission board, but with no mission board, but their own local church as their sending agency. So how many PB missionaries have you heard of that do this? I've never heard of a single one.

 

There was overeaction and extremes on both sides of the issues back then. I've seen cost estimate/breakdowns per 'soul saved' from these early missionary socieites which of course resulted in opposition to their methods. The split between the Old School and New School in this area, so I've been told, was more of a peaceful drifting apart, with the older and younger generations sharing the same buildings and attending one another's meetings. The very turbulent split was with Alexander Campbell and the 'Restoration Movement' which spawned the COC right here in the Bluegrass.

 

I am going by previous statments of yours (can't remember what thread) where you talked about how important it was to reach your neighborhood, but why send missionaries to other countries when ours is such a big mission field. In fact, you say something similar in your post #71 right here on this thread:

So, do you or your church support any missionaries to foreign lands? If not, are you willing to? (I'm not asking for support, and have no plans to do furlough in your neck of the woods. Just wondering.)

The difference is that the PB movement is fairly unified in doctrine and practice, but the IFB movement is Heinz 57 varieties.

This is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Just saying. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Which was:

“Originally Posted by kyredneck
Because they refused to change when everyone else around them was succumbing to the great commission of the Church to populate heaven through missionary boards they are now castigated as 'hyper'.

How did folks ever make it to heaven before the invention of missions?”

OK, that's a STRONG statement of fact, the PBs are considered 'hyper' bacause they did not adopt foreign mission boards.

Which was:

“Originally Posted by kyredneck
but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man`s conscience in the sight of God. 2 Cor 4:2

There is nothing 'trifling' about the outright lies, deceit, and making merchandise of the flock that has arisen from the man made 'great commission' of the Church to populate heaven.”

Yea, I could have toned that one down a bit. But the fact is I've strong feelings and MANY memories from my own experience with mission appeals that are nothing short of deceitful tactics designed to convince the sheep of their absolute duty/necessity to give to missions (over and beyond tithing of course) or people will perish in hell. Here's more of the passage, which I believe to be right in context to what I'm referring to:

1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, even as we obtained mercy, we faint not:
2 but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man`s conscience in the sight of God.
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish:
4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them. 2 Cor 4

It was directed towards THE TACTICS used for funding of these mission. Again, from post#39:

“What I'm against is the lie that their support is increasing the numbers of the redeemed in heaven. I despise the lie that people will perish in hell if the flock doesn't financially support a mission board.”

OK, so you say.

Which was:

“That is a common misconception the majority have of the Church, and I believe a primary reason for that is propaganda promugated by missionaries and others whose livlihoods depend on such notions such as that, and hardline restrictivism.”

Take note I said livelihood and not wealth. It is an inherent conundrum with any salaried ministers. You'd be kinda shooting yourself in the foot were you to reject a doctrine like hardline restrictivism, now wouldn't you?

OK, I don't really know what to say except that you've just described a lot of folks that I know here in the states. I mostly drive a 14 yr old 98 Corolla, my wife drives a 12 yr old 2000 Explorer. My car's older than yours.

Ah, not going there.

Aren't you going to ask how many buses we have?

FYI, there are PBs in this area that are supporting a work in the Phillipines. I personally helped to support a friend of mine there doing translation. The Old Baptists I've come to know are some of the most generous kind hearted folks you'll ever meet and eager to help others.

 

In all fairness to you, I agree that some ministers push the responsibility of other's salvation off on the flock in the sense that they will say that if someone goes to hell, it's my fault. Actually, the pastor of the church I left last year believes that stuff. One of the reasons I'm glad to be gone. So I do understand where you're coming from in that respect. See...you can dialog with me.

I believe the scriptures speak to us today that we should share the gospel. Some are called by God to be missionaries, some are called to witness right where they are. I do believe in God's sovereignty in this matter and that we should obey Him. But to say that missions do not matter, is a gross misinterpretation of the scriptures and PB's are known for their stance on missions. Maybe not you personally, but it's a fact that PB's for the most part do not support missions.

 

Kyred stated,


"OK, that's a STRONG statement of fact, the PBs are considered 'hyper' bacause they did not adopt foreign mission boards."


Brother, the operative word here is "Considered":smilewinkgrin: