Teen Christian Debate

The year was 1903 and the Russian Czar observed a sentry posted for no apparent reason on the Kremlin grounds. Upon investigation, the Czar discovered that in 1776 Catherine the Great had spotted on the Kremlin grounds the first flower of spring. Immediately Catherine ordered "Post a sentry here so that no one tramples that flower under foot!" That flower has since died and faded away but the tradition lived on for many, many years after.

Though Baptists like to think they are not traditionalists, such as the Roman Catholics or Anglicans, in reality they are, at least in some areas. According to the computer program Word’s Thesaurus one synonym of "tradition" is "institution". One tradition Baptists tenaciously cling to is the man conceived institution known as the mission board. Let me make an opening statement right away, “You can be 100% sure that after searching all the Scriptures and studying and meditating on this matter, you will never find once a reference that supports this anti-Biblical tradition of man.” In spite of the Biblical fact that the First Century churches carried out the Great Commission without a mission board! Although not ALL Independent Baptists support mission boards, most of them seek after a mission board of their liking that might follow after their theological preferences. The churches see this favored mission board as having the expertise to help the local churches perform the local churches God given Great Commission. Is this the way it is supposed to be and how did this tradition enter the Baptists thinking? If we allow this into our churches it is definitely because we have fallen short of pleasing our Lord and may I dare say that THEN we’ll need all the help we can get because God will certainly not be on our side and stand for this.  

            1792 It was once again discovered that Evangelism was the responsibility of the church and its leaders, and it was this once again discovered truth that launched the modern missionary movement. NOTE: Those men were awakened to the need of world evangelism. And in this awakened state they saw that this was the “responsibility of the Church and its leaders.” But rather than seeking to follow the plain instructions laid forth in the Bible, these church leaders believed “A vehicle was needed to turn the belief into action, and that vehicle emerged in the form of a mission society.” Let me tell you something, “These societies, independent in some instances and denominationally oriented in others, opened the way for ecumenical activity.” Ecumenical activity via mission boards! This is not a fundamentalist saying this but a teacher in a New Evangelical Divinity School! (Ruth A. Tucker) She discerned the direction missionary activity outside the local church would lead! Interesting indeed! One wonders why so many fundamental Baptists do not discern the same!  

            It should come as no surprise but we often do things in life because that is the way we were taught. Fundamental pastors and churches channel their missions through mission boards because most of the fundamental Colleges and Seminaries only teach missions via mission boards. It is fair to say most, if not all, “fundamental” Christian Colleges or Seminaries would NOT have a class relating to missions where it would be taught that the LOCAL church is the ONLY mission agency in the New Testament. Sadly many have been duped for so long they just cannot imagine doing missions without a mission board. For them tradition continues. A couple of examples will suffice as to what future pastors and missionaries are taught in the classes of two fundamental Christian schools. These two examples are Pensacola Christian College and Bob Jones University with emphasis being the authors (DCB). This author appreciates the stand Pensacola takes on the Received Greek Text and the stand BJU has taken concerning fundamentalism through its years of existence. But the point being made here is not what they teach concerning fundamentalism or the Received Text but what they are teaching (or NOT teaching) regarding the local church’s Biblical responsibility in missions.

Pensacola:

PCC MI 301 Principles and Methods of Missions (2) This course prepares the student for missionary candidature with emphasis on application to a mission board, candidate school, pre-field ministries, as well as the physical, financial, and spiritual preparation for the student’s field. Projects are designed to aid the student in the organization of prayer cards, prayer letters, slide presentations, and display boards. Fall sem. Major: Bible —

Missions Concentration

The objective of the missions program is to prepare the student effectively for cross-cultural ministries. The student will receive practical training in preparation for mission board candidate school, for deputation, and for work in church planting. Throughout the semester visiting missionaries, chapel messages, Mission Prayer Band, and Campus Church encourage a warm heart toward missions. Each summer, students have opportunity to participate on a team to see missions firsthand and to assist missionaries in "on-the-field" experience."

Bob Jones University:

M AJOR CHOSEN: CHRISTIAN MISSIONS

I. A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE MAJOR

The purpose of the Christian Missions major is to provide information that will aid the future missionary in understanding the task of missions, the issues related to missions, the personal life of the missionary, the practical aspects of applying to a mission board, deputation, departure to the field, and life on the field.

Principles and Methods of Missions The course is divided into two semesters. The top mission boards consider these courses vital to missionary success. (Do you wonder who BJU considers are the "top mission boards"?)

VI. CAREER OPPORTUNITIES AND PLACEMENT

The School of Religion extension office and the Office of Missions will assist you in finding positions for Christian service. We work with students to help them select a mission board, and a number of mission board recruiters come to the campus each year. Pastors, camp directors, mission board directors, and other recruiters often visit the campus to find personnel for their ministries."

            As YOU can see, these schools have taken up the devil’s work of embedding mission boards into the thinking of those preparing for the ministry. Please forgive me if this statement offends you, but the truth is that the Devil has been the one in control of changing or taking away from Scriptures ever since day one in the garden of Eden. This happens not only in these two schools but in almost every, if not every, fundamental Christian College and Seminary.

            Yet in spite of this there have always been some Baptists who have held strongly to the local church and not relinquished their responsibility of missions to mission boards. There is also a ray of hope for some of those who in the past supported missionaries through mission boards and are now questioning the necessity of mission boards in the local church fulfilling the Great Commission. This is refreshing and maybe this paper will be an encouragement and serve as Scriptural basis to answer some of their questions. May we see Oh Lord, pastors and churches initiate a mission’s program that operates Biblically through the only New Testament institution God has established, the Local Church? There are a multitude of men who love and serve the Lord under a mission board but that still does not make the mission board the Biblical method of sending forth missionaries! There is only ONE Biblical method, and therefore the only correct method is to send missionaries through the Local Church WITHOUT the “assistance”, or “help” of a mission board.

Let us concentrate on what Scriptures say on the matter:

I. The Scriptural method is through the Local Churches.

Matthew 28 is the commission and Acts 13 is the recognition of the missionaries and the implementation of the task. In Acts 14 following the first missionary journey the Scriptures say that Paul and Barnabas reported back to the local church. It does not say they reported back to the local church and the mission boards for a report or debriefing as some mission boards have their missionaries do. In fact the only time boards are mentioned in the New Testament is Acts 27: 44 "And the rest, some on boards, and some on broken pieces of the ship. And so it came to pass, that they escaped all safe to land." Not surprisingly these boards have absolutely nothing to do with a mission board.

To defend the local church as God’s agency for sending forth missionaries is defendable from Scripture but to defend mission boards from Scripture is to make Scripture say something it does not say. The president of Baptist International Mission Incorporated (BIMI) wrote in his 1^st March, 2003 President’s Perspective that "One thing for certain, the ministry of the local church is in the Bible and also the ministry of ‘helps.’ A mission board is a ministry of helps. In the New Testament there were groups who collected funds for other Christian groups. These groups took care of the logistics of collecting funds from different churches and getting those funds delivered. This is very much the role of a mission board." Are present day mission boards really defendable from the examples given? Is this a true exegesis of those Scriptures?

II. The Spiritual method is through the local churches. 

In Matthew twenty eight the Chief Shepherd commissions the church. In Acts 2 the Holy Ghost empowers the church and in Acts 13 God the Holy Ghost is working with and through the Antioch local New Testament church to send the missionary team forth. There wasn’t a candidate class held, orientation class to prepare the missionaries for the field, or a meeting of the mission board to approve the missionaries but simply a sending forth of God’s chosen servants by the Holy Ghost and the local church at Antioch.

However, mission board promoters say they are commissioned by God to carry out this task. On page 4 of the Principles and Practices (P & P) of The Association of Baptists for world Evangelism (ABWE) we read that "…the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism (hereafter called AABWE@) has grown into an organized team of men and women commissioned to evangelize the nations with the gospel of God (Emphasis mine)." Commissioned by whom? Have mission boards been commissioned by God or man? Again there is no Scriptural basis for this.

There is the old saying "Keep it simple stupid". Why have we made missions more complicated when God has already made them so simple? Sure some things have changed since that first missionary trip but has God changed? Has God’s Word changed? Again quoting Dr. Strouse from the same paper on page 20 and footnote 73 he says that he "…is not ignorant of the complexities of visas, taxes, language schools, funding, etc., for modern NT missionaries, and is not suggesting that there is an easy and simple answer to these difficulties. Nevertheless, the biblical pattern should be followed rather than man's contrived and non-authoritative efforts."

Certainly, there will be problems in obeying the Scriptural way but let it be known there are also a multitude of problems with the man made mission board method as well. The reason there will be problems is due to the old man within! For instance, the first missionaries sent out had a falling out, Acts 15: 36-40. Who was right and who was wrong? This much the Scriptures do tell us is that Paul went out with Silas and his ministry was blessed of God. Barnabas took and trained Mark so that later Paul would say "…Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry" 2Timothy 4:11. Who knows what would have been the outcome if a man made mission board had been involved! Under the mission board method a conflict such as what we read about with Paul and Barnabas may have ended in at least one if not both being terminated by the board for insubordination and the sending church (since they were both from the same church) disciplining them for a lack of love and team work. In turn the men would have been dropped by both the board and the church. The church would then seek other missionaries to support who were in good standing with the board for after all the mission board executives are experts!

III. The Sensible method is through the local churches. 

Local church missions is sensible in that the Chief Shepherd of the local church is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Chief Shepherd has the interest of His churches at heart and has given His local churches the authority to carry out His Commission.

The Chief Shepherd has established two offices in the local church, pastors and deacons. The structure of the local church is sensible, simple and skilled to perform what God intends for it to do whatever size it may grow too. But the same cannot be said for most manmade mission boards. For an example of the lack of simplicity download the Principle and Practices, P & P, (PDF) of the Association for World Evangelism (ABWE).

The man made mission boards of today are not sensible and simple but they also become financial leeches. They drain funds from the local churches that could be used for front line mission war fare. For example a Biblical immersionist Church will receive its income from the tithes and offerings of its members. Mission boards are not God ordained and they seek to gather their funds any way they can. For example The Association of Baptists for World Evangelism advertised in their Winter 04 publication The Message such a financial program as "DONOR ADVISED FUND. WHAT IS IT? It is a plan that allows a donor to make one, or a series of gifts to ABWE Foundation. Such gifts can be in the form of cash, securities, or real estate. The donor retains the ability to advise or direct how the fund’s income, or income and principal, are to be distributed for charitable purposes." Of course ABWE "…can…be one of the beneficiaries..." to "…receive income or income and principal."

Of course the man made "servants" of the churches need funds as do all organizations. But the mission organizations often have many more paid staff than the average size local church. These staff members, from the president on down, all draw salaries and these salaries must be paid. The mission may draw its home office operating funds (including salaries) from local churches who budget the mission as a part of their missions’ budget. Another area in which the mission board receives its funds is through a charge levied per month on the individual missionary. One way or another mission boards will obtain the funds needed for their buildings and office staff. This is additional financial baggage for the churches and the missionaries. In 1993 ABWE was taking $220 per missionary couple per month for the operation of the home office. Who knows what they are taking now in 2006. Another Baptist mission board takes 10% right off the top of the missionary’s account each month. Where does one find this in the New Testament? Sadly it is accepted by many churches without question.

Mission boards have written policies, often comprising many pages, explaining their reason for existence and their operation. For instance, The Association of Baptists for World Evangelism has twenty five pages in their Principles and Practices (P & P) manual. On page five of ABWE’s P & P we read that "ABWE is committed to the centrality of the church in God’s plan, and exists to serve local churches and their missionaries. Those churches that seek the assistance of ABWE in the service and administration of their missionaries do so in a spirit of partnership and cooperation that allows their missionaries to link strategically with missionaries of other local churches. Individually, the missionary is accountable primarily to his sending church and, secondarily, to his supporting churches. While the appointment of missionaries with ABWE does not remove them from the authority and discipline of their sending church, it is considered a relationship through which the mission is entrusted with the responsibility to oversee and coordinate the missionary’s ministry.” Is this double talk? One synonym for "entrusted" is delegate. Can a local church delegate its authority from God over its members, to a man made organization?

IV. The Practical Way is Local Church Missions. 

Most churches operate their missions program similar to this church which says on its web site that "As… Church grew in the mid-1980s; one of the first priorities for the young church was missions. The strategy behind our approach to missions in the 80s was simple: we called a missions agency and told them to send us a list of missionaries who needed support."

Rather than contacting a mission agency the Antioch church was led of the Holy Ghost, Acts 13: 1-3 "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." Why is it local churches believe they can operate a Christian Day school, perhaps a Bible College, or a mission downtown but they do not believe they can send a missionary directly to the field without the help of a mission board? Why do they not realize the local church is God’s Way and therefore it is the practical way and also the workable way? The only answer that seems plausible to the churches not accepting local church missions is tradition.

V. The Workable Way is Local Church Missions. 

If God’s way of missions worked in the First Century it is workable in the 21^st Century! Again I quote Dr. Strouse in his paper YE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST PAGE 20. He wrote that "Para-church mission boards usurp the privilege and responsibility of local church missions. The Great Commission is the divine mandate to plant immersionist assemblies both locally and worldwide. Only the Lord's candlesticks can produce NT churches. Para-church mission boards cannot baptize converts and cannot commission missionary candidates. Nevertheless, these same boards develop a hierarchy of unbiblical offices, such as "missions’ president/director," and dictate to "their" missionaries and to the pastors of supporting churches, their policies, practices, and doctrines. The NT teaches, in contradistinction, that the church at Antioch acted as Paul's "mission board" and sent out Barnabas and the Apostle (Acts 13:1 ff.). To be sure, other churches such as the Philippian church helped support Paul's missionary endeavors on his second journey (Phil. 4:15-16)."

Again, let it be said that this paper is not saying those involved with mission boards do not love the Lord and desire to see people come to Christ, however, mission boards can be compared to the ark of God being carried by the cart in 1 Chronicles 13. It was not God’s method in carrying the ark as mission boards are not God’s method to carry forth His Word today. Paul and Barnabas, and later Paul and Silas, did not have a board, a field council or a field administrator but they did have God, God’s Word, and a local New Testament local church behind them. Of these men it is said they "turned the world upside down".

May we as Bible Believing Independent Fundamental Baptists leave tradition and get on with the job of the Great Commission given to His churches!

Labels: Mission Boards, Missions, Scriptures, Tradition

Romans 8:27-32, “And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?”

Matthew 23:24, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel"

“Having read John Calvin's Institutes and having studied the writings
of many Calvinists, I am convinced that
Calvin was guilty of straining at gnats and swallowing camels. To
accept Calvinism (in any of its forms) is to deny the plain teaching
of dozens of Scriptures.”

I had heard of Calvinism before but I didn't really think of it till lately, so I read a couple of titles on the subject with a desire to understand it and to know whether it was scriptural or not. I concluded that though Calvinism makes some good points about the sovereignty of God and though I personally like the way it exalts God above man and though I agree with its teaching that salvation is 100% of God and though I despise and reject the shallow, manipulative, man-centered soul winning scheme that is so common, and though it does seem to be supported by a few Scriptures,
the bottom line to me is that it ends up contradicting far too many plain Scriptures.

Where Did It Begin?

 Many believe that Calvinism began with John Calvin when he wrote, The Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1535, of which brought about the spread of Calvinism all over Western Europe. Many believe this book was the most influential work of the Protestant Reformation. And yet even in his own writings Calvin tells us, “It (Calvinism) might with equal justice be called ‘Augustinianism.’” After no other than St. Augustine a Romanist Priest and is no church father of mine. Calvin and his followers burned Ana-Baptists at the stake. They made laws against them, they mocked and lied about them, and yet we have Baptists calling themselves Calvinists. You might as well call yourself Romanist or Protestant. I am not an Arminianist or a Calvinist, I am a Baptist and I can trace my roots back to the time of the Apostles, and to that first Baptist.

Article

The Calvinist will doubtless argue that I simply don't understand Calvinism properly, and to this I reply that if Calvinism is that complicated it can't be the truth. If a reasonably intelligent preacher who has studied and taught the Bible can study Calvinism with a desire to understand it properly and still not understand it, then it is far too complicated to be the truth! The apostle Paul warned that it is the devil that makes theology that complicated. "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor. 11:3). Of course, Calvinism is not simple by any means and this is one reason why it produces an elitist mentality. To understand Calvinism one must deal with compatibalism, monergism versus synergism, electing grace vs. irresistible grace, effectual calling vs. general calling, effective atonement vs. hypothetical atonement, libertarian free will vs. the bondage of the will, objective grace and subjective grace, natural ability and moral ability, mediate vs. immediate imputation of Adam's sin, supralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, infralapsarianism, desiderative vs. decretive will, and antecedent hypothetical will, to name a few!

The Calvinist will further argue that the reason I have studied Calvinism and rejected it is because I think man should be equal to God. Calvinists invariably claim that the non-Calvinist doesn't believe in God's sovereignty. I can't speak for others, but this non-Calvinist certain believes in God's sovereignty. God is God and He can do whatsoever He pleases whensoever He pleases. As one man said, "Whatever the Bible says, I believe; the Bible says the whale swallowed Jonah, and I believe it; and if the Bible said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe that!" If the Bible taught that God sovereignly selects some sinners to go to heaven and sovereignly elects the rest to go to hell or that He chooses only some to be saved and allows the rest to be destroyed, I would believe it, because I believe God is God and man cannot tell God what is right or wrong.

The fact is that I have studied Calvinism. I have come away convinced that it simply contradicts too many Scriptures, that it is built more upon human logic and philosophy than upon the plain teaching of God's Word. Whatever divine election means, and it is certainly an important and oft-taught doctrine of the Word of God, it cannot mean what Calvinism concludes, because to accept that position requires one to strain at gnats and swallow camels. The gnats are Calvinist extra-scriptural arguments and reasoning and the camels are Scriptures understood plainly by their context.
Consider some gnats that Calvinists strain at. The Calvinist reasons that if God is sovereign than man can't have a will and cannot resist Him. The Calvinist reasons that if the sinner is dead then he obviously can't respond to the gospel and if he cannot respond to the gospel and if faith itself is a sovereignly bestowed gift (based on an erroneous exegesis of Eph. 2:8-9) then the elect must be born again before he can exercise faith. The Calvinist reasons that since God works all things after His own will then if He truly willed for all men to be saved, He would save all men. The Calvinist argues that since God predestinated some to eternal salvation then He must have predestined others to eternal damnation.

In each of these cases, the Calvinist applies human logic to the issue rather than a clear statement from Scripture and the Scriptures he uses to support his doctrine do no such thing. He thus strains at gnats while swallowing hundreds of Camels (clear Scriptures) that overthrow his doctrine.