Missions and Primitive Scriptural Position

Discussion in 'Baptist History' started by Frogman, Feb 22, 2003.

  1. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brethren,

    I found the following quote from the cite I provided in "Paulicians, Waldensians..." I do not agree with this citation and wonder what your thoughts are on the subject, I have highlighted the portion which causes my disagreement, it is not the portion concerning "missionary machinations" which are described.

    My problem lays in the bold statement above; I don't believe absence of missionary movements warrants a non-Scriptural church; Jesus said to the church in Philadelphia: "...write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;"

    This [is] why I do not believe the absence of missionary movements would constitute a non-Scriptural church.

    Again, what are your thoughts.

    The source for the reference "Baptists in All Ages" is as follows:

    http://www.primitivebaptist.org and click on the title "Baptists in all Ages" the above citation is taken from Chapter 6.

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas

    [ February 23, 2003, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]
     
  2. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this agreeable?

    Bro. Dallas
     
  3. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the point being made was that, before about 150 yrs. ago, Baptists did not hold to missionary beliefs. That church was scriptural, so why do we need missions to day if that church was scriptural?

    It is not saying that the church today is scriptural, so the church back then was not.

    Obviously, as a Primitive Baptist, I too believe that the modern mission movement is unscriptural. The point is, why, if our fore-fathers in the Baptist church did not use missions, do some feel as if missions are needed today to be scriptural?

    Does that make more sense? I think you are misinterpreting it.

    God Bless. Bro. James
     
  4. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for posting Bro. James.

    I understand your point, and though I am missionary Baptist, I find that I agree with the Primitive Brethren on this point.

    However, I think the focus has been shifted to include all mission work, I believe men are called to specific fields, whereas, if they do not go, their particular ministry will not be blessed, as God has prepared them for service wherever they are called to.

    I mean I also do not agree with the machinations of modern mission movements. What I meant to relay is that Primitives are not 'anti-mission' but are 'anti' the missionary movements and see them as non-Scriptural.

    I don't know if this explains my point any better than before. But I began to study this point when I became involved with a missionary society whose objectives seem to coincide with the points made against such societies by Primitive Baptists.

    So, I made the statement that absence of missionary societies among the Primitive Brethren would not, IMO, make them non-Scriptural.

    In my own church, which is missionary landmark, we believe, or most do, as do the Primitives. In other words, if God calls a man into missions, this will be opened in the appointed time.

    Then, the only other point of contention, at least that I can see, is the point of Sunday Schools as they are operated at present. (I find I am agreeing more and more with the Primitives on this point as well, as do some in my church). There is too much emphasis put on the 'literature' to 'lead' the students to Christ through the Sunday School class. I don't agree with this method as being Scriptural at all.

    At any rate, these are some thoughts I had.

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas
     
  5. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's amazing how, when you get right down to it, so many of us believe so similarly. Maybe the walls of partition between the different Baptists are finally coming down.

    At any rate, I see what you are saying.

    I think it all depends on how you define the word "mission," and how you go about missioning and for what purpose. I, too, believe that a minister should go where he is called by God to go. I have my doubts as to the motives behind some people going one place or another, though.

    We tend to think of the word mission as meaing to win people, or save souls. As you know, Primitive Baptists won't stand for this. But, if you define it as spreading the gospel to God's children, don't many Elders already do this?

    I can see why some are for or against the mission movement within the Primitive Baptist Church. What I have yet to see is both sides coming together to discuss the issues of contention.

    I think too many "splits" have happened over semantics. I think this may be the case with this too. I know many people on both sides of the issue within the PB Church. From what I have heard, they both agree, for the most part. It's just that some have made their minds up that this is wrong or this is right without hearing the other side's case yet.

    BTW, it's nice to see you posting on the PBO.

    God Bless. Bro. James [​IMG]
     
  6. Rev. G

    Rev. G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a Landmark statement. This is a false statement.


    This is a Landmark statement. This is a false statement. This is a Hyper-Calvinist statement. This is a false statement.


    This is a Hyper-Calvist statement. This is a false statement.


    No missions, no Acts.
    No missions, no churches planted by Paul. No
    Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, etc.
    No missions, no seven churches of Asia. No Revelation.

    It would be easy to go on an on, but I think this will suffice. Hyper-Calvinism is a heresy, a scourge and a scurvy.

    Rev. G.
    A "Calvinist"
    An Evangelist
     
  7. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rev. G,

    I don't disagree with you, and I don't believe any Primitive Baptists I know rightly would. I believe the absence of mission societies does not mean absence of mission work, I believe this is the position of the PB brethren, though I am not an authority.

    I am a missionary and landmarker Baptist. :eek:

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas
     
  8. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    First of all I have been in the Primitive Baptist Church for 35 years as a member. Before then I went with my parents since the age of 7... I am now 57 so I guess you can say I grew up in the Primitive Baptist Church... In fact third generation that I know of and the reason I say all this is to show everyone that I am not a novice or new member or come from another denomination to the church... Where I think the whole crux of the matter originated.

    Are mission scriptural?... Sure they are and Paul was one great missionary as were all the Apostles. The modern workings of the missionary system were not in existence at that time and didn't raise its head until recently... I would say within the last 200 years. What is important to realize that God not only sent his missionaries out but he supplied the ways and the means. Not only that he sustained the living of those he sent out and their were a people prepared for his name to receive the gospel.

    I am of the altered Calvinist belief and so are all my Primitive Baptist brethren. When God sends out a missionary he is not sent out to save sheep... But he is sent out to feed those that are already saved by bringing to them the gospel of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that has already saved them... The good news that their Eternal Salvation was purchased for them 2,000 years ago on calvary by the Lamb of God... Their election is sure and by the grace of God they are bought with a price... By the sinless life and blood of the Son of God.

    To me and I'm sure all my PB brethren that is what a missionary is. Now among us at the present time their is split among our brethren... Some feel they have been called to the Philippines and India and other countries and maybe they have as there has been great growth among the PBs. Is this a work of God though or a work of men?... If he supplies the ways and the means yes... If he is supplying the ways and the means why do the PB Elders have to ask for love donations from the other PBS in the states to help in their work?

    Not only is the work in question but the ways and means it was carried out is in question also. The PBs have had certain mannerism and order of the ways they have carried among their forefathers for years. Then again many of these who are advocating all these things have come from the missionary baptist movement. Many of the forefathers and mothers and fathers in Israel are now gone and a new generation has come into the church which IMHO is reinterpreting way and means... I will end this by saying this I am Old School... Old Line... The others are New School and liberal... And there is division in the camp on the ways and means... IMHO!... The PBs already know... Now you all do!... Brother Glen [​IMG]
     
  9. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro. Glen,

    I will give you a "baby" example working in my own life and ministry.

    I begun a radio ministry 2 yrs. ago. I pay for each broadcast as I go. When I begun the program I, as I believe is necessary, submitted myself to the Sovereignty of God in all matters concerning this ministry.

    This means I have not, do not ask for support apart from prayers that I would serve God alone and not the interests of man, including myself. I have determined that as long as God provides me the ability to support the program I will continue in it, when I am unable to continue...i.e. to pay for the broadcasts, I will discontinue the program.

    Over the course of the two years I have not had to miss due to a lack of funds once, I have missed due to the baptism of one of my children, and for sickness a time or two, and usually I ask another preacher to fill in for me. The manager at the radio station has asked me if I would record messages on Saturday for the Sunday Broadcast, but I refuse to do this, I prefer to engage in the broadcast live.

    I have also been encouraged to seek after business sponsors, I refuse to do this also. I support the program myself, or as God moves upon the saints acquainted to support me and this has operated just fine for the past two years.

    I believe mission work on any scale should be operated the same.

    (I would add that many seem to point to 'love offerings' as evidence of God's support, but if we must be in the face of the saints constantly with our hands out, then is it God moving upon them and urging their support? or is it their human emotion acting?)

    I know what I believe it is. It follows to me if a man has to continue to seek support for the work he is involved in, then it is time for him to end his work, or to stop altogether.

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas
     
  10. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is that because Paul does?

    1 Corinthians 9:19-23
    19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more;
    20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;
    21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;
    22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
    23 Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

    Paul is not in agreement with primitive theology on missions.
     
  11. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Brother Dallas thanks for that testimony... I believe that if Gods people will put their FULL TRUST in God which few of us do... We will see how great our God really is!... And Preach the word that is not an opinion... brethren that is a proven biblical and historical fact!... Read your Bibles... When there was no way or means possible... And that is the primitive ways and means... By the Ancient Of Days... God showed his children their God and still does!... Brother Glen [​IMG]
     
  12. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe Rom. 10.14 & 15 settles the question of means.

    I am missionary Baptist, and by no means an authority on PB belief, however, I think the difference is not that they don't accept missions, but that they accept only missions that do not continually rely upon conferences to draw support, but rather upon the Will and Purpose of God that the missionary is serving where he is called.

    I think further it is a question of whether the elect must hear the Gospel or not.

    But these are my thoughts.

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas
     
  13. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Preach the word... Compare what you said to what is said here... How can you be an enemy to the gospel but elect and beloved of the Father?

    Romans 11:[25] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

    [26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

    [27] For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

    [28] As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

    [29] For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

    [30] For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

    [31] Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

    [32] For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

    [33] O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

    [34] For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?

    [35] Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

    [36] For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

    Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... Paul was winning them to the gospel of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ... Not to Eternal Salvation!... Brother Glen [​IMG]
     
  14. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Actually, I quoted what Paul said.

    2. They are enemies because they (ethnic Israel) rejected Christ and his gospel. They (ethnic Israel) is beloved because God is not through with them. His gifts and callings are without repentance. So, inspite of their rejection of him, he will one day bring them back. Simple enough.

    3. Correct.

    4. Oh I see, you can be won to the gospel (which is the power of God unto salvation) and it be something separate from eternal salvation?

    Um, besides this being heresy, it flat out denies 1 Cor. 1:18-21, Romans 4:3-6; and Romans 10:14-17. I guess these Scriptures are meaningless to the PB also.

    James N. Kime
    Preach the Word
    Saved like Abraham and David: by grace alone through faith alone in the Messiah alone
     
  15. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know, I sometimes forget just how ignorant some people are.

    Bro. Glen, I think we should just leave this brother alone where he is. All he wants to do is ridicule and disprove Primitive Baptists. He is not open for honest debate and he is not searching for the truth. He just wants the rest of us (every other denomination) to look bad.

    I could argue with you, Preach, but I wouldn't get anywhere. I think I will save my breath for someone who actually cares.

    To all of our other brethren, thank you for being respectful of all opinions that differ from your own.

    God Bless. Bro. James
     
  16. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. That sounds very respectful of my opinion which differs from yours.

    2. I care enough to point out what Scripture says for those who might read this and not know what PBs really believe.

    3. I respect your right to believe whatever you want (I am a baptist). I do not agree with and in fact preach against such heretical notions. As a preacher of the gospel of Christ, I am responsible to examine everything in light of Scripture.

    You want to debate with the underlying idea that your view is acceptable. It isn't, so I wouldn't waste my time either.
     
  17. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... Paul was winning them to the gospel of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ... Not to Eternal Salvation! ... Brother Glen

    Don't mean to pour salt on a sore, but, either I am "hyper-calvinist" and only trying to deny it, if so, from this comes all so called contradictions some find in scripture. Or this statement is worthy of acceptation. The Jew, nationally speaking, Israel, is the the covenant people of God; Romans 9 says just because they are of Israel does not mean they are of Israel. Further, he states, Israelites to whom pertaineth....the promises. Thus, Pauls ministry to them would not necessarily be viewed as winning them to eternal salvation, any individual Jew participating in the Temple worship must do so in the view that these point to the Messiah. Also, that which Paul had been 'won' to was not the promises of the Messiah, but the fulfillment of those (promises) in Jesus Christ.

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas
     
  18. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Brother Dallas you may be!... I sent you a PM you may want to check it out!... Maybe you are coming out of the closet so to speak?... Brother Glen [​IMG]
     
  19. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,145
    Likes Received:
    25
    Rev. G, you have every right to take issue with the historicity of Elder Newman's contentions. Just saying that so you will not misunderstand my next statements. This part of your post - "This is a Landmark statement" - contains somewhat of an historical misperception. The so-called missionary/anti-missionary division took place some years prior to the rise of the Landmark movement among Southern Baptists. Primitive Baptists and Landmark Baptists share several ideas on ecclesiology. But since this statement was made by a Primitive Baptist, and since (regardless of what one believes about the divisions among Baptists) a recognizable group of "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptists existed prior to any Baptists recognized as "Landmark" Baptists, I think it is historically incorrect to call this a "Landmark statement." It would be more correct to call such statements made by Landmarkers "Primitive statements."
     
  20. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,145
    Likes Received:
    25
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

    Be advised that this is a History forum. IF you want to debate things regarding the history of the statement quoted by Frogman (yes, even what it means) - feel free! IF you want to debate the theology of missions, Primitive Baptists, etc., we have forums for that purpose - feel free to start a new topic there! IF you want to call names, we don't have any forums available - feel free to restrain yourself! If you can't, I will.

    Consider yourselves warned!!
    :(
     

Share This Page

Loading...