Poll on Missions

(where's the "chuckle" button?) This sounds like my church here in Milwaukee! Amen! Im sure glad God uses all of us!

 

Sounds pretty Biblical to me... Maybe you should change your name to David:

1 Samuel 22:1-2
(1) David therefore departed thence, and escaped to the cave Adullam: and when his brethren and all his father's house heard [it], they went down thither to him.
(2) And every one [that was] in distress, and every one that [was] in debt, and every one [that was] discontented, gathered themselves unto him; and he became a captain over them: and there were with him about four hundred men.


If God can use that bunch surely He can use us!!!!
BTW, it sounds like BB even existed back then!!!! lol

 

The word for "apostle", apostolos, when translated into the latin is mittere, from which we get our modern word "mssionary. In that sense every apostle was a missionary. The Apostle Paul went on three "missionary journey" establishing over 100 churches--the purpose of missions. Though we need to work through the local church in some way, evey believer is or ought to be a missonary. The word simply means "sent one" or one who is sent. We are all sent with the message of the gospel to others---whether at home or abroad. The focus of this thread is more on foreign missions than on home missions, though both are valid. If one is not a missionary at home, how will he be a missionary abroad? In this respect also the Great Commission is still valid today. It gives us the method for mssions: teaching and discipling, baptizing, more teaching. That was Paul's method.

Think about it. God left the evangelization of the entire world in the hands of just eleven men. It was their duty to reach the world. He didn't give that responsibility to angels or any other crreatures. It was only to those eleven. What if they had failed in that commission? God did not have any back up plan--no plan B. God works through men and woman such as you and I. It is foolish to say that the so-called elect will be saved whether or not you or I face up to our responsibility in evangelism. If we do not go, their blood will be on our hands.

 

Bro. John,

You say in this very sentence that you have a duty to preach the gospel so Jesus can save them. That then makes you part of the eternal salvation process. I reject the notion that any man, other than Christ, has any part whatsoever, through his preaching or otherwise, in saving anyone's soul from hell.

Serious question here:
Do you believe that Jesus would save those people from hell if you, or anyone else, never went and preached to them?

Bro. James

 

Im sorry to butt in here, but Bro. Reed and Amity, this post and the question it answers makes me think you guys are stuck in 1832!

What you described as how your churches do evangelism IS missions of today! Welcome to the 21st century! (and no, I don't mean that sarcastic....just tryin' to keep it light. )

HOnestly, you wrote that men are recognized by your church as called of the HOly Spirit, and then they go out and minister and evangelize where God calls them. You even said that particular church can and does often support that man in his efforts. As several of us said, this is the model used all over the country by thousands of IFBs and others every day.

When my husband and Iget to the field, we will not be going out because a board sent us........no board is sending us, though we will be aided by a mission board. In fact, my church is not "sending" us either, but God is. And our church is recognizing that fact and offering their support in that endeavour. We will not be starting a little "Faith Baptist Church - Japan" chapter.......we'll be helping to establish an independent entity that is under Christ alone.

This is missions..........

 

Thank you, Bro. Reed. That very much accords with our practice today, doesn't it? Some things never change (much), thank God.

bapmom, note this paragraph of Bro. Reed's:

"The church does play a part in evangelism though. When a preacher goes out to preach the gospel, he may be given authority from the church to baptize those who profess a belief and love of Christ into their particular church, subject to a later action of the church in accepting or rejecting that new member. The church, and individual members especially, may also help support a minister on his way, whether they be from his home church/people or from the church/people he is going to preach to."​

We do give ministers money when they come to preach to us, sometimes as a direct contribution from individuals to the visiting preacher, and sometimes as funds from the church itself (in fact I imagine most churches with a visiting preacher would give him something to offset the cost of travel, etc.) Establishing a new church is a different matter. How is that done, Bro. Reed? I assume a presbytery is formed with representatives from various churches that support the new church?

 

Precisely.

A church will extend an arm of fellowship to the group wishing to constitute, to show that they are a true gospel church. Elders and Deacons from various locales will then come to the place where the constitution is happening, form a presbytery, ask questions of the church, through a spokesman, about the orthodoxy of the church, and then vote to extend fellowship to them as a newly constituted church. The presbytery functions in much the same way it does during ordinations.

 

I really am not very familiar with missions of today since I've never been around any, but the ones I've heard from on this board seem to be carrying out evangelism work. I have no big problem with that. If the mission boards would be dropped, I'd like it even more. I don't think they're needed, nor do I believe they are the scriptural way to evangelize. (Mission boards, and the authority of those being sent, btw, were the big issues among PBs in 1832, not the going out and preaching itself.)

As I said earlier though, there seems to be a bigger issue today.

Missionism, it seems to me, has the ultimate goal of preaching the gospel to the unregenerate so that they might be saved, either through the preaching itself, or by Jesus after they have heard the gospel. Primitives reject the notion that hearing the gospel can cause an unregenerate person to accept Christ. We believe that the gospel has nothing to do with saving anyone from hell and that Christ regenerates his people separate from the gospel. We believe the purpose of the gospel is to give peace and good news to those who are already regenerated by Christ.

I hope that explains our current position on missions.

James

 

I am not sure that it is not okay overseas, and have no problem with "ordinary" preaching to anyone. If someone feels led to go overseas and preach, why not? Let them go. Help them if you want to. I am opposed to adding mission boards to what a church does. I have lived overseas at several points in my life, and it is not THAT difficult to get a passport and visa, which is the main reason people seem to be giving for missionism! At the very least mission boards are a huge waste of funds and energy that otherwise could go toward helping people who are hungry and naked, which is a much clearer biblical mandate than attempting to "save" people. And missionism does have a way of becoming the main point of being a Christian to so many people. People think that it is "what a church does." There are many people who are attempting to serve Christ by badgering people, right here in the U.S. That is too bad. Heavy handed attempts to save people are very counter-productive and give Christianity a bad name. And if one subjects people who know nothing of the Lord to intense psychological tactics and cajoles them into buying into the whole program, saying some rote prayer, and "getting saved" then it is hard for me to see actual Christianity in that, frankly. I know the people who try to do this are Christians, but I see no support for the whole program in the Bible, and certainly not when most churches have missionism as a big part of their raison d'etre.

 

That's not the reason I give to missions, and I don't know of anyone who gives to missions for that reason. I'm not even that sure of your point here.

Big-time accusation: facts, please.

I would assert that not one in a hundred BB posters are "heavy handed" in their efforts to obey Christ by sharing the Good News as they go.

Missions is one of the main things that many churches do, because Christ commands it.

Matthew 28:19-20.
Romans 10:14-16

 

There are several types of salvation spoken of in the gospel. This is not an example of eternal salvation, but of the salvation we receive, in truth and understanding, while we are yet here on this earth. Just as when Peter cried out for Christ to save him when he began to sink in the water, this is an example of a temporal salvation that takes place here in time. It has nothing to do with affecting one's going to heaven, just as Christ saving Peter from drowning didn't. There is something so much greater that we regenerates have that other regenerates who have never heard the gospel do not, and that is the knowledge and comfort we have in knowledge of what Christ did and is doing for us.

What about those who were worshipping the "unknown God"? Sure Paul preached Him to them, but that was after they were already worshipping Him. Were they not saved before Paul came, even though they were worshipping the "unknown God" which Paul preached to them later?

Who preached to the thief on the cross next to Christ? It seems to me that, after he and the other had been railing against Christ, he suddenly had a change of heart. How did that happen? You need not answer these questions, since you stated you do not want to pursue this any further in this thread, but I would like you to think on them.

When I talk about it being sad to me, I mean what you just stated. I don't belittle you or your beliefs at all, but I would not want to believe that if I didn't go preach to some people that they would be sent to hell because I failed them. That seems like a heavy burden to carry.

I don't want to turn the thread into something else. I would suspect, and have all along, that the poll questions will come down largely along the lines of those who believe basically like Calvinists and Arminians.

I think you will see that missionism, and the reason for doing so, is basically favored by folks with your view, that man is involved, in whatever way, in saving souls from hell, and those with my basic view, that God does not use any man to carry out His purpose in saving His people from hell.

I would like to say that they only reason I started discussing this is because of the questions, and statements about Old Baptist beliefs being "sad", given earlier in this thread.

I will say no more about my reason for not supporting missionism today, as you asked.

I will say though, that whether at home in this country, or abroad, has nothing to do with my view of missions. If a man feels led to go down the street and preach the gospel for the edification of God's people, then he should go. If he feels led to go across the country and preach the gospel for the edification of God's people, then he should go. If he feels led to go across the world and preach the gospel for the edification of God's people, then he should go. Evangelism is an integral part of the story, and God's ministers should go and preach wherever they feel the Lord is leading them.

I pray that the Lord will continue to bless His people with knowledge and understanding, wherever they may be.

God bless.

Bro. James

 

I have a simple question about this, since I do not know the answer.

Do you know what your gift is used for when you send it in to the mission society or board or what not? Is it used to help the person on their way, or could it perhaps be used to pay for the Mission President's salary?

I'm not asking this to be confrontational. I simply do not know and I hope that you do.

Bro. James