Missions and flavors

Really ?

So.

What gospel of salvation is being preached by whom, where and when, if Christ has not been born yet, and crucified, and resurrected ?

I am not the one who limited the scope and chronology of God's redemptive power and reach, you all did when you said the gospel must be preached and believed in before anyone can be saved.

 

And yours is a pile of dog dung.:wavey:

 

the gospel is God's plan of salvation.......this was preached in the OT as well as in the NT. Not all of it had been revealed in all of its specifics in the OT, but the saints then were trusting in God's Word just as we are now.

 

you forgot this part................

 

Well, God's plan of salvation is for His Son to come to earth in human form and take the penalty for sin upon Himself after living an absolutely obedient sinless life and therefore being the worthy sacrifice.
And I am happy to say....He done it. No if's, no but's, no two ways. He done it.

God also confirmed this by raising His Son from the dead.

That is the good news for sinners.

Salvation is OF the Lord, and it is a done deal for all to whom salvation is intended.

The gospel is merely the good news that God has condescended upon sinners, lived among men, and redeemed His people.

The angel told Mary that she shall call her child Jesus for the reason that "He shall save His people from their sins". Shall because the event, in time, was future. After it happened then God's salvation plan for His people is complete. All who were elect unto salvation, whoever they are, wherever they are, whenever they existed on this earth, were absolutely and totally redeemed by Christ, atoned for by the blood, and reconciled to God, and have become co-heirs with Christ of everything that is His.

The next thing after redemption is their regeneration, the quickening of their dead spirits, and this is done individually by the Holy Spirit at His own time and His own way, independent of means, whether it be the Bible, the preacher, the preaching, or the missionary.

The problem between us is that you see salvation as always referring to just the eternal aspect. Most Primitive Baptists don't. Most of us differentiate between the eternal, and the temporal, aspects of salvation.

The eternal is all OF God, BY God, FROM God, requires nothing from the sinner, not even his faith at that point, and is a covenant between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, with each of them having their own task in the execution of the plan. It was executed in time ONLY by Christ, no man was with Him, no man helped Him, and even the Father turned His back on Him.

The temporal has to do with the preaching, teaching, and learning of the gospel. This is where God commands faith, obedience, trust, and all those things usually preached as prerequisites to eternal salvation. These things result naturally in blessings from God, just as disobedience, sin, and faithlessness naturally results in chastisement from God.

Okay, my fifteen minute break at work is over.

Bye.

 

I have no idea why you'd think Id disagree with this post, EXCEPT for that last paragraph where you declare that obedience is a prerequisite for salvation.

However, through this thread we've seen that in order to hold to the anti-missions belief one would have to ignore parts of Scripture. You who have been arguing this side of the debate have constantly skipped over verses we pointed out, declared other verses to be taken out of context yet not explained how their context changes anything, and just outright ignored whole other passages and Biblical examples. Then tried to distract with explanations of the plan of salvation, as if that were somehow in dispute.

Let me tell ya, Im staying away from Primitive Baptist, too.

 

Missions has always been a sore spot among people throughout the history of the United States. I've read how such a subject has torn apart churches and families.

Here's my question, everybody takes what they want from the scriptures to back up their stance. Two places in scripture always come to mind when I think of "The Great Commission":

Mark 16:15
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Colossians 1:23
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

The question I have is, what is Paul saying here? So, was the commandment of Christ given out to his disciples executed exactly how it was given?

I've always been curious about these passages.

I am United Baptist by flavor. We do not (in general) support an official mission, lest it be a church trying to establish itself. Depending on where the UBs are located, out here in MO we generally help out when asked, but we see our churches as a mission, too.

If a person feels directed by the Lord, then do so. But, this thread reminds me of the history that I've read about missions and the attitudes it brings out....

Also, historcially, when did modern missions pick up? Is there evidence that churches were sending missions 400 or 500 years ago? 1000 years ago? Just curious.

David

 

Certainly we read about Paul's missionary journeys in the NT. We also read about Abraham's journey in Genesis 12:1-3, "Now the Lord said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse.

 

Modern missionism got its start in the 1780s, from what I can tell. It seems to have started with William Carey, who was indeed an English Baptist (and a Particular Baptist at that). The values of missionism were clearly imperialist, spreading English culture and political/economic influence along with whatever they wre doing to "save souls." Of course, depending upon one's definition of missions, one can argue that it goes back further, but not in its modern form. It is impossible for me to any missionism whatsoever in Abraham's journey, for example. Don't get that one.

The controversy in the U.S. which divided Baptists was over sending missions into the American frontier, not overseas. The Baptists, however did split over the issue in 1832 at the Black Rock Association meeting. i know there are so many people on this listserver who know much more about baptist history than I do, I am posting this hoping to provoke someone into providing more info.

 

As much as it pains me to say it, paedobaptism IMO is less problematic than refusing to carry out the Great Commission, and the condemnation on churches who do.

The former is bad theology, made into a very bad practice.
The second is disobedience to the command of Christ.

 

Restating an ignored verse: Romans 10:13-15...


14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

 

You quote a lot of verses that I have never thought of relating to missionism. If a man only preaches in his home church his feet aren't beautiful?

And are you arguing in favor of gospel regeneration? If so, maybe that is the underlying point of difference between us.

 

I'm not arguing Gospel regeneration.

I'm arguing obedience to a direct command from the Lord.

 

So I should go out to all the nations of the earth and preach the gospel?

 

Are you sure you arent breaking some rule by working on the Lord's Day? On your next break, give the BB a break and send in your Annie Armstrong envelope.

 

You should preach the Gospel wherever God calls you. But if he "sets you apart" to go, and you refuse, then you are rebelling against God.

 

We are about to spin off a new thread on whether women are called to preach, you know.

But actually I do agree with the point you are trying to make her, yes. Now the only question remaining is whether or not mission boards as an auxilliary to the church are scriptural.

 

What is usually called the "modern missions movement" is usually traced back to Carey, it is true. However, there were missionaries to the Indians in America before that, the great missions movement of Count Zinzindorf and the Moravians was before that, the Nestorians went as far as China and Japan many centuries before that--it would take too long to give the whole history here. I suggest you read a good history of missions such as The Light in Dark Ages by V. Raymond Edmond, then you can discuss the subject with some authority.

Oh, yes. Anyone celebrating the life of that great missionary to Ireland, St. Patrick?

This is absolutely not true, as a knowledge of the lives of these early missionaries would tell. Have you ever actually read a missioanry biography, or are you speaking second or third hand? William Carey in particular was clearly not an imperialist, since the very imperialistic British East India Trading Co. opposed all Carey did. What did he do? Spread the Gospel and translate the NT into about 46 of India's languages and dialects.

Oh, and by the way, Carey was not importing a foreign religion, since India already traditions of Coptic Christianity going all the way back to Thomas and other of the 12 disciples.

A 19th century missionary with tremendous influence on modern missions was Hudson Taylor, another anti-imperialist who dressed like a Chinese, spoke the language fluently, and went into the interior to reach those who had never heard--thus the name of the mission he started, China Inland Mission. Many of those CIM missionaries in the interior were slaughtered (along with 10's of 1000s of the national Christians) in the Boxer Rebellion, thus giving their lives for Jesus Christ, who they loved so well.