IMB BF&M2000 issues etc.

In a thread in the "News Affecting Baptists Worldwide" section, which is now closed due to the three page limit, Charlesga stated:

While I agree with the statement about the Gospel, can someone tell me how this statement can be reconciled with 2 Tim. 3:16-17:

That passage says that we should expect all of our missionaries (pastors and Sunday School teachers etc.) to be teaching the whole counsel of God. Additionally, the Great Commission does not tell us to simply make converts to Christianity, it commands us to share the Gospel, baptize new believers, and make disciples. How do you make disciples if you don't teach them the complete Word of God?

[ May 21, 2003, 02:07 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Hello Charles,

Your statement that I quoted in the opening post of this thread does not address “differences in interpretation.” I fully agree with your explanation of sharing the Gospel—the good news of Jesus Christ. However, the statement that you made appears to indicate that you believe that sharing the Gospel and making converts to Christianity is the extent of the responsibility of our SBC Missionaries. Your statement says that Missionaries should share the Gospel and not worry about teaching the new converts the rest of the Word of God. The Bible tells us that all Scripture is profitable and good for us (2 Timothy 16-17). That means that every word of the Bible is important and useful in the Christian’s life. My point is that if we were to do as you suggest we would not be making disciples as the Lord commanded in the Great Commission. All we would be doing is making converts. We have a responsibility to share the Gospel and then to continue to teach the new believers sound doctrine based upon the entire Word of God.

I am not questioning whether or not you are a disciple of Christ based upon your interpretation of the rapture etc. I am saying that mature Christians have a responsibility to disciple, teach, new believers into Christian maturity. The questions that you have raised in your reply quoted above have nothing to do with your statement that I quoted in the original post on this thread. Let’s stick to one issue at a time. Therefore, I must ask you whether or not you agree with me that our Missionaries must teach all of the Word of God as they make disciples out on the mission field? Once we get that issue settled we can move on to discuss methods of biblical interpretation, qualifications for pastors, submission, and/or the rapture--one at time mind you .

[ May 22, 2003, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

HELLO!

 

The first question to ask this missionary couple is why they suddenly need more financial support per year than they received during all their years of service with the IMB.

Then we need to address the wife's statement quoted above. First, let's clear something up. No one is being or has been asked to "sign" the BF&M 2000. However, all IMB missionaries were asked to sign a statement saying that they agree that they will teach in accordance with and not contrary to the current BF&M. You see no one is telling them that they can not hold their personal beliefs or interpretation of Scripture.

Second, at no point are they being asked to "exchange the authority of the Bible for that of a man-made document." The BF&M affirms the Bible as our highest and sole source of authority.

Third, no one has asked them to "replace Christ as the criterion for interpreting the Bible with a creedal criterion." I would like for this missionary couple (or someone) to give a cogent explanation of how they know the Christ that they wish to use as the criterion for interpreting the Bible?

Fourth, the missionary states: "We are not willing to sign off on somebody else's statement of belief. I will not sign as a statement of my faith something I did not write." It is interesting how the context quickly went from "we" to "I" in the portion of her statement. Clearly, this is where we come to the rub. Point blank the missionaries state that they do not agree with the current BF&M. That is fine. However, because they disagree they should not expect to remain at their post at the IMB's expense. The majority of Southern Baptists, who agree with the current BF&M and provide for the missionary's salaries through their giving to the Cooperative Program, have the right to expect their representatives on the mission field to teach in accordance with their expressed biblical views (meaning the current BF&M). As a missionary if you are unable to agree to conduct yourself in that manner then you are free to seek your support from another source that happens to agree with you.

Finally, the missionary states: "Neither will I promise to conduct my ministry according to a statement of belief which was prepared for a situation foreign to the culture in which I live and work." I would ask her to please provide a cogent explanation of how a Scriptural statement of faith (that is based upon the Bible, which transcends nationalities, cultures, and time) can possibly be "foreign" to the culture in which she lives and works?

Well that's my two-cents worth. I say let the CBF and Mainstream Baptists provide them with their requested $120,000.

 

Hi BibleBoy,

Sure, I agree with this statement. I do believe missionaries need to disciple. My point is only that disciples can have different interpretations on some issues and still be disciples. </font>[/QUOTE]Hello Charles,

I agree with your statement about people holding to different interpretations of the Bible. However, I would point out that those who teach false doctrine are in error. Then as a result of their teaching false doctrine, heresy, they raise up a generation of believers that have been fed false doctrine, who in turn continue to propagate and purvey the original heresy. This is the problem with the school of thought whereby Christians sit in their Sunday School classes and discuss "What this passage means to me is..." Solid biblical exegesis and interpretation is not about what the passage says to me. There is only one proper interpretation of Scripture and that is the interpretation that the Holy Spirit intended when He breathed the Word and inspired the human author to write it down. That is the meaning we must strive to reach. We can not place ourselves, our feelings, or our experience in authority above the Scripture. We must pass our culture, thoughts, feelings, experiences, etc. through the sieve of the Word and never attempt to pass the Word through the sieve of our culture, thoughts, feelings, and experience.

Charles,

I appreciate your response and participation in this discussion. However, we can not have a meaningful and intelligent discussion if you withdraw after making only a couple of remarks. I pray God's blessings upon you as well.

 

"Autonomy of the Individual" Definitely a Post-Modern Phylosophy! It seems that it would also translate to "I am God and I don't have to accept anything from anybody."