• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

foreign vs home missions

billwald

New Member
Most Baptist Churches support foreign missions? Are not most foreign missionaries shoveling sand against the tide? Why don't you object to foreign missions?

Why is it good to send money to a foreign country so that someone you don't know can help someone you will never meet? Are we not told by Jesus to help our neighbors? Some guy in Boolieboolie Land is our neighbor but some guy in Detroit who looks just like him is not?

"Christian" medical ships go all over the world to treat Moslems who probably think we are white devils and that is a good use of our money but our Mexican neighbors who come here for jobs are the enemy?

Why do Americans and US foreign policy help the people who hate us and at the same time screw over our friends and neighbors by omission?
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Our missionaries at our church are mostly homegrown and they range from the woman who runs the local crisis pregnancy center to a young man who grew up in the church and went to medical school specifically so he could go to the Congo and he has now started a Christian hospital there.

I'm not sure if I'm getting your concern. Yes, we are ministering to those right in our own back yard - but there are also others who need help/need to hear the Word. We're trying to provide both.
 

Tom Butler

New Member
If you ask most missionaries, they will tell you that God sent them to where they are serving.

From Wikipedia, regarding Adoniram and Ann Judson:
t was another difficult year before the Judsons finally reached their intended destination, Burma.[4] Buddhist Burma, Judson was told by the Serampore Baptists, was impermeable to Christian evangelism. Judson, who already knew Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, immediately began studying the Burmese grammar but took over three years learning to speak it. This was due, in part, to the radical difference in structure between Burmese and that of "Western" languages. He found a tutor and spent twelve hours per day studying the language. He and his wife firmly dedicated themselves to understanding it. During this time they were almost entirely isolated from contact with any European or American. This was the case for their first three years in Burma. Four years passed before Judson dared even to hold a semi-public service. At first, he tried adapting to Burmese customs by wearing a yellow robe to mark himself as a teacher of religion, but he soon changed to white to show he was not a Buddhist. Then, he gave up the whole attempt as artificial and decided that, regardless of his dress, no Burmese would identify him as anything but a foreigner. However, he accommodated to some Burmese customs and built a zayat, the customary bamboo and thatch reception shelter, on the street near his home as a reception room and meeting place for Burmese men. Fifteen men came to his first public meeting in April 1819. He was encouraged but suspected they had come more out of curiosity than anything else. Their attention wandered, and they soon seemed uninterested. Two months later he baptized his first Burmese convert, Maung Naw, a 35 year old timber worker from the hill tribes.
 

Tom Bryant

Well-Known Member
Most Baptist Churches support foreign missions? Are not most foreign missionaries shoveling sand against the tide? Why don't you object to foreign missions?

Why is it good to send money to a foreign country so that someone you don't know can help someone you will never meet? Are we not told by Jesus to help our neighbors? Some guy in Boolieboolie Land is our neighbor but some guy in Detroit who looks just like him is not?

"Christian" medical ships go all over the world to treat Moslems who probably think we are white devils and that is a good use of our money but our Mexican neighbors who come here for jobs are the enemy?

Why do Americans and US foreign policy help the people who hate us and at the same time screw over our friends and neighbors by omission?

Why? Because Jesus commanded us to get the Gospel throughout to the whole world.

This issue of foreign aid is entirely separate and is a poltical issue worthy of debate. But Christ's clear command to be His witness to the most remote part of the earth is not up for debate unless you care to argue with Him.
 

billwald

New Member
Maybe God uses welfare and foreign aid to help those who people on this list find politically and morally objectionable.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Most Baptist Churches support foreign missions? Are not most foreign missionaries shoveling sand against the tide? Why don't you object to foreign missions?

Why is it good to send money to a foreign country so that someone you don't know can help someone you will never meet? Are we not told by Jesus to help our neighbors? Some guy in Boolieboolie Land is our neighbor but some guy in Detroit who looks just like him is not?

"Christian" medical ships go all over the world to treat Moslems who probably think we are white devils and that is a good use of our money but our Mexican neighbors who come here for jobs are the enemy?

Why do Americans and US foreign policy help the people who hate us and at the same time screw over our friends and neighbors by omission?
"What in the ever-lovin' cotton-pickin' blue-eyed world" (Pogo) are you talking about? True Biblical missions has absolutely nothing to do with foreign policy.

It's not home missions versus foreign missions, it's both if a believer and church want to be obedient to the Great Commission: "all the world" and "both Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria and the uttermost parts of the earth."

There are some who have trusted Christ over the years who are very happy my wife and I answered the call to Japan: N the schizophrenic, T the frustrated old maid (at 28), W the business man enslaved by his company, T the abused and sinned-against wife, S the little girl without a daddy whose mommy worked in a bar, U who lost his wife to fast-acting cancer, U the ex-drug pusher who now has Hepatitis C T the drug addict who died young, etc. etc.

Are you for or against people of other nations and tribes trusting Christ as Savior through the work of missionaries? Speak up now.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
The only difference between home and foreign missions is that to be a foreign missionary you need a passport (and maybe a few shots :smilewinkgrin:).
 

billwald

New Member
>Are you for or against people of other nations and tribes trusting Christ as Savior through the work of missionaries? Speak up now.

Straw man argument. I support missions that earn the respect of the people and earn the right to be heard by helping people in other nations because they are our neighbors. I don't support missions who think they can speed Jesus' return through Bible translation or who are mostly in "filling the lifeboats" so that God can bail them out and trash the rest of the world.

Basically, I trust the Holy Spirit to regenerate the elect.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
>Are you for or against people of other nations and tribes trusting Christ as Savior through the work of missionaries? Speak up now.

Straw man argument. I support missions that earn the respect of the people and earn the right to be heard by helping people in other nations because they are our neighbors. I don't support missions who think they can speed Jesus' return through Bible translation or who are mostly in "filling the lifeboats" so that God can bail them out and trash the rest of the world.

Basically, I trust the Holy Spirit to regenerate the elect.
God left "the regeneration of the elect" in the hands of 12 men, when he gave them the Great Commission:

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

He had no other plan. He left the salvation of the entire world in the hands of those 12 men. What if they had failed, been to lazy to go out to foreign lands, and be the missionaries that God had told them to. You would not be saved today, and Christianity would not be in existence today.

"The regeneration of the elect" is only so because God uses men to carry out the Great Commission so that the "elect" might hear the gospel and be saved. He has no other plan.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
>Are you for or against people of other nations and tribes trusting Christ as Savior through the work of missionaries? Speak up now.

Straw man argument. I support missions that earn the respect of the people and earn the right to be heard by helping people in other nations because they are our neighbors. I don't support missions who think they can speed Jesus' return through Bible translation or who are mostly in "filling the lifeboats" so that God can bail them out and trash the rest of the world.

Basically, I trust the Holy Spirit to regenerate the elect.
rbell was right. You don't give straight answers. But from the answer you gave I conclude that (1) yes, you are against soul-winning missionaries, and (2) you are against Bible translation by missionaries. Am I right?
 

billwald

New Member
>God left "the regeneration of the elect" in the hands of 12 men, when he gave them the Great Commission:

OK. But that's ignoring the plain reading of the text, unless one reads into the text that the authority and obligation is passed on to the next generation by some ecclesiastical process that Baptists don't "believe in."

>I conclude that (1) yes, you are against soul-winning missionaries,

No, I am philosophically against missionaries who theology teaches that they can bring in the Kingdom by good works and earn brownie points in the process. But the value of the good deeds doesn't depend upon the intent of the doer. As Joseph told his evil brothers . . . .



> (2) you are against Bible translation by missionaries. Am I right?

I think Wycliffe's has a good intent but they are sending good money after bad. Christ's return does not depend upon the existence of a Bible in every human language.

Why are there dozens of English translations? Because translation is not an easy task. Yet Wycliffe takes a person who is not an expert in Greek, Aramiac, or Hebrew, even English, sends them to the top of some mountain and find a person who maybe knows pigeon English and they "translate" the Bible after first inventing a written form of Boolie-Boolie.

They would be more useful to the people if they taught the locals English, French, German , whatever the language of their official nation is. If the Holy Spirit regenerates a Boolie-Boolie person, The Holy Spirit can use an existing major language text to convert the person if the missionary has taught the person an existing written and useful language.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
>God left "the regeneration of the elect" in the hands of 12 men, when he gave them the Great Commission:

OK. But that's ignoring the plain reading of the text, unless one reads into the text that the authority and obligation is passed on to the next generation by some ecclesiastical process that Baptists don't "believe in."

>I conclude that (1) yes, you are against soul-winning missionaries,

No, I am philosophically against missionaries who theology teaches that they can bring in the Kingdom by good works and earn brownie points in the process. But the value of the good deeds doesn't depend upon the intent of the doer. As Joseph told his evil brothers . . . .
Okay, from this you are only against liberal missionaries, because what you have described is postmillenialsm, held by very few if any evangelical/fundamental missionaries.

I think Wycliffe's has a good intent but they are sending good money after bad. Christ's return does not depend upon the existence of a Bible in every human language.
I agree that Christ's return does not depend on the existance of a Bible in every tongue. But I'm afraid you are wrong about Wycliffe. This belief that you describe is not listed in their "Beliefs," doctrinal statement or "Our Core Values" on their website at www.wycliffe.org. Please prove your statements or back down.

For the great good being done by Bible translators in tribal regions, I highly recommend Jungle Jewels and Jaguars, by Martha Duff Tripp, or some of the books out there about Cameron Townsend or other translators. Here we sit in our nice houses, with good salaries or retirement, driving nice cars to well-equipped hospitals when we're sick, while such missionaries risk malaria and other jungle diseases, far from the nearest pharmacy. I have nothing but the highest regard for translators who live in poverty seeking to reach tribal peoples for Christ.

Why are there dozens of English translations? Because translation is not an easy task. Yet Wycliffe takes a person who is not an expert in Greek, Aramiac, or Hebrew, even English, sends them to the top of some mountain and find a person who maybe knows pigeon English and they "translate" the Bible after first inventing a written form of Boolie-Boolie.
Even a Bible that is poorly translated from an English version by a half-trained missionary is better than no Bible at all, which is what 2393 language groups have. There you sit with your nice leather English Bible (probably several of them, in fact), criticizing missionaries who spend literally thousands of hours decifering a tribal language. What gall!

I don't mean to be disrespectful. You are a retired policeman and I honor our policemen. (My best friend is one.) And you are somewhat older than me. (I'm 57.) But you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for criticizing such missionaries who sacrifice their lives for Christ as you sit there in comfort with your computer and a nice beverage, probably in air conditioning.

They would be more useful to the people if they taught the locals English, French, German , whatever the language of their official nation is. If the Holy Spirit regenerates a Boolie-Boolie person, The Holy Spirit can use an existing major language text to convert the person if the missionary has taught the person an existing written and useful language.
You know what, this is one of the more ridiculous claims by those who oppose Bible translation in other tongues. I've taught English to many, many Japanese and I can assure you right now that unless they live in an English-speaking (or German-speaking, etc.) country and can practice all the time, the average person in the street in a first world country cannot master a foreign language enough to read the Bible in it. This means that it would be even much harder for a tribal person to learn English.

You are suggesting that a missionary go to a tribal people and, instead of learning their language (and thus showing the love of God), he demand that they learn his language. Do you speak any other languages fluently? I doubt it. I suggest that your idea is much harder to accomplish than translating the Bible into the local language.
 

billwald

New Member
>This belief that you describe is not listed in their "Beliefs,"

OK, I read between the lines.

OK, I only know English.

I still defend the principle of earning the right to be heard. I defend the principle that the Holy Spirit regenerates whom she will and conversion is the human response to one's regeneration.

I give several thousands a year to missions.

>I conclude that (1) yes, you are against soul-winning missionaries,

I reject this most unbiblical phrase which implies earning points in contest.

>Okay, from this you are only against liberal missionaries, because what you have described is postmillenialsm, held by very few if any evangelical/fundamental missionaries.

Interesting! see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Christian_political_organization)

Agree that pre-mil/pre-trib is preached BUT

Conservative politics seems to have adopted Reconstructionist eschatology even if most don't realize it. see www.freebooks.com
 

billwald

New Member
Acts 1:8 "Bearing witness" is not "winning souls."

Great Commission. The problem in the Bible is the pronouns!

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches can logically claim that the apostolic authority has been passed on to them, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

but Baptists don't "believe in" such stuff.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Acts 1:8 "Bearing witness" is not "winning souls."
No, it is being a witness, a witness for the Lord Jesus Christ.
The application of the verse as far as you personally are concerned is:

"And you (Biwald) shall be a witness unto me both in Everet, and in all Washingtion, and in California, and unto the uttermost part of the earth"
Are you that witness? How are you going to be that witness to the uttermost part of the earth if you know not their languagues. The Apostles did know their languages. The universal language of the known world at that time was Greek. Everyone knew it. The world today does not have a universal language--thus the need of Bible translators--unless you have the ability to learn all the languages of the world.
Great Commission. The problem in the Bible is the pronouns!
Perhaps the problem is that the pronouns are offensive to you.
The pronouns are in the second person.

YOU (Biwald) Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
--Yes when put that way it is offensive to you. For it is a command that you don't want to keep. You will do everything in your power to stop from leaving the comfort of your home and to go to a nation where the temperatures reach 120 Farenheit, where the floors are made out of cow dung, where the food is so spicy it burns your tongue, where you don't know what others are saying because you don't know the language, where it is hard to teach them because in their language there is no Bible. And those are only a fraction of the obstacles a person may come across. But you don't want to do that. That is part of that nasty word called "sacrifice."

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches can logically claim that the apostolic authority has been passed on to them, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

but Baptists don't "believe in" such stuff.
The Orthodox and Catholics have perverted the Word of God.
Look at this concept Biblically.

The Greek word is apostolos = apostle. It means: one sent with a message. The 12 Apostles were sent with the message of Christ, the gospel. The Great Commission was given to them. But if you study the Bible there are more than twelve apostles. The word apostle was used in a more general sense. After Matthias, the 12th chosen to replace Judas, we encounter Paul, and then Barnabas. Sylvanus is also called an apostle. There are a number of others referred to as apostles.

When the Greek was translated into the Latin the Latin word for apostolos is mittere, from which we get our English word--missionary--one sent with a message. Every Christian ought to be a missionary--sent with the message of Christ. Even if you don't look at it that way our apostles of this day and age are our missionaries. The English word missionary can be traced right back to the Greek word for Apostle.
Our "apostolic authority" stands on the Bible and not on tradition. We have authority behind our message; the RCC and Orthodox have no such authority. All tradition is sinking sand.

On Christ the solid rock I stand;
All RCC tradition is sinking sand.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
>This belief that you describe is not listed in their "Beliefs,"

OK, I read between the lines.
This is called giving false witness.
I still defend the principle of earning the right to be heard. I defend the principle that the Holy Spirit regenerates whom she will and conversion is the human response to one's regeneration.
I'm not even going to touch this. Wow. The Holy Spirit as female? Shades of Jack Hyles, though even he didn't call Him a "her."
I give several thousands a year to missions.
Home missions only, or around the world as God commanded?
>I conclude that (1) yes, you are against soul-winning missionaries,

I reject this most unbiblical phrase which implies earning points in contest.
Though some have misused it, this is an entirely Biblical phrase: "He that winneth souls is wise." It is also an old and honored phrase. Charles Spurgeon used it in his book The Soul Winner. I'm currently reading the bio of Hudson Taylor by his son, and Taylor used the term. R. A. Torrey used in his book The Wondrous Joy of Soul Winning (no date, but probably around 1910). Charles Trumbull used it in his 1938 book, Taking Men Alive. I could name many more.
>Okay, from this you are only against liberal missionaries, because what you have described is postmillenialsm, held by very few if any evangelical/fundamental missionaries.

Interesting! see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Christian_political_organization)
This link is useless.
Agree that pre-mil/pre-trib is preached BUT

Conservative politics seems to have adopted Reconstructionist eschatology even if most don't realize it. see www.freebooks.com
This link is useless.
 
Top