Featured FYI on Hyper-Calvinism:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those early PBs did not only object to mission boards but to missions in general. PB "Pinoy" on the BB has said just as much, and believes that people can get saved in other countries without the Gospel. Is this what you believe?

The problem here is that you lumped all us non-PB missionaries together. There are three missionaries who post on the BB: C4K, me, and another person in a "closed" country whose name I will not mention. We are all three in "Gospel resistant" countries, and to my knowledge, none of us use the kind of appeal you are talking about. I never tell people in the homeland that Japanese go to Hell because I do not witness to them. They go to Hell because of their own depravity (Rom. 1, esp. v. 20).

My grandfather called this kind of appeal "Unworthy Missionary Appeals" in one of his books. I've never made such an appeal and it is not right for you to lump missionaries like me with such people. And on that I have STRONG FEELINGS.

Yes, but you left out v. 5: "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." Please know that you are quoting a missionary here, one who faithfully preached the Gospel in many countries. And by the way, in the same book he commended the church at Corinth for supporting missions: "Ye also helping together by prayer for us, that for the gift bestowed upon us by the means of many persons thanks may be given by many on our behalf." (1:11).

I object STRONGLY to the word "propaganda" in reference to anything my kind of missionary does.

As for salaried ministers, Paul specifically taught that missionaries should be supported financially in their work (1 Cor. 9:1-14). So if there is a conundrum, God put it there.

I don't give a salmon sushi how many buses you have. Very few IFB churches have bus ministries anymore anyway.

God called me to be a missionary to Japan through Rom. 15:20-21, a passage conveniently ignored by the PB position, as is 10:14-15. Never mind predestination, God requires that the Gospel be given by people, who are His willing tools. God saves, but believers give the Gospel. Whether believers are predestined to give the Gospel is another subject entirely.

Excellent! But were these missionaries sent out by their local church as is the Biblical pattern in Acts 13:1-6?

How nice. But it adds nothing to your position. I know Buddhist Japanese who are politer and nice to those they know personally than the average American. So what? The Muslims are required to take in strangers and treat them like family. So what?

 

The term 'the Great Commission' was in common use long before before the PB's anti-missions snit/schism. I just read John Bunyan (late 1600s) using it repeatedly of the Matthew 28 passage.

 

I could write for a month about what is wrong with the Church in Britain. Indeed, I have done so on my blog. Without doubt Britain is a mission field and those of us who believe with all our hearts in the Great Commission are reaching out as well as we can. With regard to the statistics, I think you will find that it is the liberal churches that are losing members by the dozens while conservative evangelical, evangelistic churches are seeing steady growth.

I am sure that there was plenty of work for Jonah to do in Israel, but it was God who sent him to Nineveh. In my church, our main effort is put into reaching our neighbours for Christ, but that does not stop us supporting a missionary family reaching the Aborigines in the North West Territories of Australia.

Steve

 

The phrase first came up well after the Reformation. There is a better article elsewhere (which I can't find at the moment), but the one from Wiki will do in a pinch. An excerpt (underlining mine):

"It is unknown who coined the term: "The Great Commission".

Scholars such as Eduard Riggenbach (in "Der Trinitarische Taufbefel') and J.H. Oldham et al (in "The Missionary Motive") assert that even the very concept did not exist until after the year 1650, and that Matthew 28:18–20 was traditionally interpreted instead as having been addressed only to Jesus's disciples then living(believed to be up to 500), and as having been carried out by them and fulfilled, not as a continuing obligation upon subsequent generations."

Once again, this does not mean there is to be no preaching, teaching, personal witnessing of the Good News of the eternal Gospel. It is just that this particular passage (Matthew 28) on the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom had a particular purpose, now fulfilled.

 

I was responding to your post, where you wrote

If thise were only obvious drivel (which it is), I would leave you to your delusions. The trouble is that you are denying that our Lord's command applies to all Christians, so it is dangerous drivel as well. If we follow your suggestions we shall come to the conclusion that the Letter to the Ephesians (for example) applied only to 1st Century Christians living in Ephesus and we shall be able to avoid obeying just about all the teaching of the New Testament.

So far as Kyredeck is concerned, I am not aware that he is a Hyper-preterist and I was not addressing his posts. However, if the cap fits, he must wear it.

I write as one who must give account to God. Woe to me if I do not oppose such dangerous errors!

But if it has already been preached to every creature under heaven, then what need to preach it further? You underline the foolishness of your position.

But Matthew 24:14 is still going on in the world just as much as Matt 26:13. Indeed, the two are inextricably linked. If per impossible the Parousia has indeed come, the Gospel should no longer be preached (Matt 24:14) and the woman's story will cease to be told qed. The story is told only as long as the Gospel is preached and the Gospel is preached until the Parousia.

I don't know whether to :laugh: or :tear: or :BangHead:

Steve

 

Why are the Sassenagh interested in the Aborigines in Australia. Isnt there enough Aussie Pastors that can handle that?

 

Plenty in Sydney and Canberra. Apparently not so many in the Outback.

Steve

 

We got the same thing in the USA....lots of church's & pastors in the bible Belt ....in the North East, not so much.

 

They have their imperfections just as all others do, and there's different flavors of them, but yes, they have strove to maintain the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus. ANCIENT simplicity it is:

Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves a year old? will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6:6-8

I agree, the gospel was actually preached unto 'the uttermost part of the earth' at Pentecost:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1740544&highlight=Pentecost#post1740544

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=74283&highlight=Pentecost&page=4

Excellent! Thanks for that.

I would probably fill the bill for Partial Preterist, which I agree with Gentry is orthodox Preterism.

 

Yes, the ones I feel sorry for are those poor benighted fools like Carey and Judson. Fancy going all the way to India and Burma to preach the Gospel when it had already been done! And fancy the Apostle Paul talking about going to places where the Gospel was not known (Rom 15:20) when there actually was no such place.

And fancy the Lord Jesus not knowing that the ends of the earth extended just a little bit further than the boundaries of the Roman Empire (Acts 1:8 etc.)! Unless of course there were Japanese people, Aborigines and Red Indians in Jerusalem on the day of Pentacost

Steve

 

Amen!

Preterists...ugh..

 

Steve, squinting his eyes so tight again that he doesn't consider what is being written.

Once again, there are two aspects of preaching of the Gospel, with two audiences in mind. The first is the one that was especially relevant to the 1st century Jews, this being their "last days". This is the only "last days" the Bible speaks of. Whenever that phrase comes up, or one similar to it ("last hour", etc.) you never have to look far to see some reference also to the Jews. Check it out yourself. (This is written to anyone. I know better than to think that Steve will take this seriously.)

So the "first" preaching of the Gospel, for want of a better word, has direct connection to the Jews who are coming to the end of their "days", their "eleventh hour". The disciples were promised that Christ would be with them as they taught all those things that He had taught them.

And we need to also pause and consider what that last phrase means. There are several things Christ taught which had special time-dated connection to Jews, to their time and locality - and the very fact that there was a temple still standing.

But then you have other Gospel preaching passages, such as the one I mentioned earlier, about the woman whose act will be spoken of through out the world - and far into our time. This is the ongoing Gospel.

Lastly you also have passages that put the two aspects of the Gospel together, the one that ends at AD 70 and the eternal Gospel. An example here is the one that Steve chose for his ill-considered ridicule, Acts 1:8.

 

Not literally. This is clearly hyperbole, a figure of speech. A. T. Robertson wrote about Col. 1:23 in his Word Studies, "It is hyperbole, to be sure, but Paul does not say that all men are converted, but only that the message has been heralded abroad over the Roman Empire in a wider fashion than most people imagine."

Also, since the verb "preached" is an aorist passive participle, meanin it is about verbal aspect and not time, it refers to the general act, not a specific occasion. Paul was probably simply referring to his own task.

 

Well, it's very hard to take this stuff seriously, but I'll try. The very first instance of 'Last days' that comes to mind is 2 Tim 3:1ff. 'But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: for men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, proud, blasphemers......etc., etc.' This was written by Paul in Rome to Timothy who was almost certainly in the Gentile city of Ephesus. It was written in 66 or 67AD, just before Paul's martyrdom, so if it has any reference to AD 70 it is speaking only of a 3 or 4 year period. The reason for the 'perilous times' is not judgement coming upon Jerusalem, but because of the low morals that would define the 'last days.' Now if Tom has any evidence that the morality being spoken of was Jewish, or that it suffered a marked decline for three years and then improved, let's hear it. If the prophesy spoke only about the 3 or 4 years, how come people are still showing just the same behaviour when we are in the 'New heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells' (2 Peter 3:13)?

I suppose Tom will trek down to verse 8 with the reference to Moses and the Egyptian court magicians. Does that prove that verses 1-5 are only about Jews? Of course not! By the same logic one could suppose that they are only about Egyptians.

Perilous times for Christians continued, and indeed increased after AD 70, and FWIW judgement upon the Jews also continued after that time culminating in the 'Bar Cochba' rebellion of AD 132-136 after which no Jew was alowed within 50 miles of Jerusalem, which was itself renamed Aelius Hadrianus.

Tom, if you want to be taken seriously you need to write some serious stuff.

Steve

 

There is another interpretation of Col 1:23 which is found in Matthew Henry and various other commentators. I covered it in a blog post along with Matt 10:23.

The complete article is here. http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/the-forgotten-doctrine-loving-the-return-of-christ-2/

 

Thanks. I took a look.

 

I'm in between teaching classes now, but a quick comment. I intend to answer these in more detail, but I am not holding my breath that you would take me seriously, Steve. You are a high church kind of guy. Tradition is big with you, so I doubt very seriously you would ever reconsider anything that chases you out of your traditional belief system.

But, having been encouraged by some private emails on thi very subject, I do want to go further into this.

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1740581&postcount=33

 

Well, now you did it, KyRedneck. Now I have to rethink my take on Acts 1:8. You make some good points on that verse.

BTW, I followed that thread on through. I like the "I'm done" comment too! I can relate.

I also liked the answer of yours to the one saying that the sun no longer shining and the tribes mourning, to which you answered "If the sun stops shining there'll be no mourning.......they'll all be dead."

Too true. This is only consistent literalism.