Posted on 06/11/2002 8:08:19 PM PDT by xzins
Jewish World Review June 11, 2002 / 1 Tamuz, 5762
Cal Thomas
Free at last
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Islamic guerillas in the Philippines appear to have profiled Martin Burnham and his wife, Gracia. The missionaries were kidnapped more than a year ago because they were Christians and Americans. They were held hostage because their captors hoped to win political concessions from the Philippine government that would ultimately lead to their goal of establishing a Muslim state.
Burnham, 42, died Friday (June 7) in a shootout between government troops and the Muslim separatists, Gracia, 43, was wounded but is reported out of danger following surgery in a military hospital. Four of the kidnappers, who are part of the Abu Sayyaf group, were killed. Since they began their movement, the rebels have kidnapped 18 other people, including 17 Filipinos and a resident of Corona, Calif., Guillermo Sobero, whom the guerillas beheaded in June, 2001 according to U.S. and Filipino officials. Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo told President Bush in a phone call that her government would hold the rebels accountable for Burnham's death.
The Burnhams, like thousands of other missionaries around the world and millions since the time of Christ, gave up the comforts of home and careers that could earn them money and prestige and committed their lives to helping the less fortunate and sharing what Christians call the "good news'' of salvation through the Christian savior and the promise of a home in Heaven.
In a significant way, the Burnhams and the many others who similarly labor, are counter-cultural. They exchange the illusion of immediate gratification for something they regard as of greater value. Their rewards are not denied, although some are delayed and paid in a different ``currency''; missionaries see the people to whom they minister transformed and given a hope that transcends their circumstances.
Missionaries may not have fancy homes, expensive clothes, flashy cars and the prestige sought and obtained by others, but neither do they have the burden of maintaining an expensive lifestyle. In fact, some who observe missionaries like the Burnhams come to realize that even though they gain the world's riches, they have nothing if they fail to tend to the care and feeding of their souls. That's the point John Grisham makes in his novel ``The Testament,'' in which a hard-charging Washington lawyer confronts a missionary in the Amazon jungle and is transformed by the power of her example and witness to him. She needs none of what he has. He needs, but cannot buy, what she possesses.
Missionary work has always been dangerous. Whether they confront disease, discouragement or loneliness, the work is forever challenging. Now, in an age in which terrorists might see unarmed, defenseless missionaries as inviting targets, the danger is greater. Church history teaches that persecution, including the death of missionaries, always produces new converts. Some American Christians think they are being persecuted when a newspaper editorial criticizes what they're doing in the political arena. Perhaps they should change places with missionaries like the Burnhams and experience what real persecution looks and feels like. The Burnhams worked in the Philippines under the auspices of New Tribes Mission. A June 7 news bulletin on the NTM Online Web site (http://www.ntm.org/connect/hlast.shtml) announced Martin's death this way: ``Martin with the L-rd.'' For such people, death is the ultimate freedom.
NTM Web pages also include the words of the One the Burnhams followed, even to the Philippine jungles and, for Martin, to death, including: ``'He that loves his life shall lose it; and he that hates his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be; if any man serve me, him will my Father honor.' -- Jesus Christ.''
In addition to his wife, Martin Burnham is survived by three children, Jeff, 15, Mindy, 12 and Zach, 11. They could not have had better role models of selflessness, sacrifice and service, although they also have Martin's parents, who served God in the Philippines for more than 32 years.
Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
That's the point John Grisham makes in his novel ``The Testament,'' in which a hard-charging Washington lawyer confronts a missionary in the Amazon jungle and is transformed by the power of her example and witness to him. She needs none of what he has. He needs, but cannot buy, what she possesses.
This struck me....I guess I read Grisham's book about a year ago.
It struck me because it talks about not being able to buy what the missionary possesses. Nor can we talk our way into that "what" that Thomas is speaking of.
What is the "what?" Assurance of God's favor? Satisfaction or joy that comes from obedience?
Free at last.
Grisham must have based that on the real life story of Dr. Livingston, the great missionary to Africa.
The newsman (Stanley) who finds him is also transformed by the brief time he spent with him and turned his life over to Christ as a result of it.
It struck me because it talks about not being able to buy what the missionary possesses. Nor can we talk our way into that "what" that Thomas is speaking of. What is the "what?" Assurance of God's favor? Satisfaction or joy that comes from obedience?
For our light afliction, which is for a moment, worketh us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things that are unseen, for the things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are unseen are eternal (2Cor.4:17-18)
Taking it upon oneself to commit to works for their salvation maybe? Denying their own families at home to accomplish it? Creating a security nightmare for our military?
Assurance of God's favor?
This is our assurance.
Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Satisfaction or joy that comes from obedience?
Obedience to what, to whom? Did God tell these people to leave their families and go to a country not of their birth to die? For what? The great commission was only to the disciples and their first requirement was to first know the gospel for themselves then to preach it. No one today has that gospel.
Your posting here is one of the most bizarre I have encountered. I am taking the liberty of 'pinging' a couple of Calvinists who will (hopefully) join in condemning the logical (though oft denied) predicate of the Calvinist construct: that missionary work makes no difference and is indeed unnecessary because of the prehistoric, pre-selection of the 'elect' and the 'unelected'.
Nonetheless to actually encounter someone who internalizes the inconsistencies of the construct to the degree you have is truly eye-opening.
I am sure that you recognize that, shall we say, the vast majority of Christians of all stripes have historically understood that the Great Commission applies to us. Perhaps you might share the 'thought process' (liberally construed) which led you to the conclusion that it applied only to the disciples?
First of all let me (as a Calvinist) condemn the notion that the great commission was only for the first century. However, you are in error, by stating that seeing missionary work as unnecessary is the logical predicate of Calvinism.
Do you believe God will provide your daily bread?
Yes.
Then why do you work?
Do you believe God is the giver and sustainer of life?
Yes.
Then why do you eat?
Do you believe God as elected some to salvation in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world?
Yes.
Then why do you evangelize?
Proverbs 21:31
"The horse is prepared for the day of battle, But deliverance is of the LORD."
Quite simply, missions and evangelism is one way God draws the elect unto Himself. We are His tools in His sovereign plan. Arguing that missionary work is inconsistent with the Calvinist belief is as silly as arguing that you shouldn't work, because "God will provide."
The until the end of the age, per my eschatology, means the commission is still in force.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
These words are where the commission is derived from and it is quite clear to whom Christ was speaking.
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Here Paul makes clear that to preach one must be sent. We hear many who say they are sent but we know many are not. The twelve were sent into the world by Christ with the commission which was fulfilled evidenced by the following scriptures.
Romans 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Colossians 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
If you wish to provide proof from scripture of any such commission directed to future believers after the fact that the very commission was fulfilled I would be happy to consider it. One would be hard pressed to find any human beings living today who aren't familiar with Coca-Cola, much less Jesus Christ. God bless you and yours.
On that basis, everything in the NT would be applicable only to the 1st century. After all, everything written or spoken was written or spoken to someone.
Moreover, I don't recall any passages directed to "so-and-so and all those people in ages to come who may read or hear this." On what basis do you decide which is to be of universal application and which applies only to the initial hearers?
Are you approaching the term great commission dispensationaly, that is, it was for the Kingdom period?
Ofcourse, that would not preclude missionary activity, but missionary activity today would not be considered as being in fullfillment of the great commission
Ofcourse, that would not preclude missionary activity, but missionary activity today would not be considered as being in fullfillment of the great commission
By the same line of thought, this applies only to the apostles as well
Luke 22 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." 19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you
sarcasm
Herein is the task for us today of rightly dividing the truth. This is the same problem the Jews faced when attempting to understand the scriptures in which they misunderstood how their Messiah would come and is the source of so much misinterpretation among modern Christianity and I pray that today's believers aren't falling into the same kind of trap.
Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
This is a good question from a man who was undoubtedly intelligent and searching the scriptures for understanding yet he knew he needed someone teach him.
Moreover, I don't recall any passages directed to "so-and-so and all those people in ages to come who may read or hear this." On what basis do you decide which is to be of universal application and which applies only to the initial hearers?
Again, this is a good question and the answer is at the heart of rightly dividing the truth. The burden of this particular "commission" and to whom it was directed is now upon you to prove it was applicable to more than those it was directly applied and who were uniquely qualified to accomplish it as witnesses of his death, burial and resurrection and having been drawn aside from the multitudes and taught the kingdom truthes personally which none of us today can be. Below is one of the few examples of scriptures which I would argue are universally applied on their face and is a scripture many here need to take a second, third, fourth and fifth look at.
Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.
God bless you and yours.
I am objecting to missionary work being justified within scripture for us today. The scripture I addressed is the one most used to justify this work. The commission was part of the overall plan of salvation within which we have a part. Defining our part is what we today have the most trouble with and I warn that setting about to establish a part which God has not commissioned is a terrible mistake and many are guilty of this today.
Luke 22 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." 19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
sarcasm
This ritual ended when Christ returned for his bride around 70 AD but that is another subject. God bless.
1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Your comment: Again, this is a good question and the answer is at the heart of rightly dividing the truth. The burden of this particular "commission" and to whom it was directed is now upon you to prove it was applicable to more than those it was directly applied and who were uniquely qualified to accomplish it as witnesses of his death, burial and resurrection and having been drawn aside from the multitudes and taught the kingdom truthes personally which none of us today can be.
You seem to raise an unusual question. You don't really raise a question of interpretation, but rather one of applicability. The closest thing I can think of is the feminists trying to restructure the Bible by arguing to exclude the applicability of some scripture on asserted 'cultural' grounds. But that clearly is not your argument.
I also noticed that you passed on FTD's proffer of a 'dispensationalist' explanation.
The argument you give here is a form of the 'lost Jesus' argument, i.e. that the Biblical record is an insufficient transmission of the 'true teaching' of Jesus; that the disciples had the advantage of person-to-person contact which they failed to communicate with us. Now, Clearly, person-to-person contact with Jesus (in human form) would have been a tremendous advantage (which is why when the early church fathers begin to try to settle on a canon, they gave primacy to books they felt were written by eye-witnesses (or at least contemporaries of the disciples)).
But that argument goes to accuracy of what was transmitted, not what wasn't transmitted. So, it seems that we have a battle of presuppositions. You presume that some critical knowledge was left out, so as to deprive us of the qualification to execute the Great Commission.
On the other hand, I understand that the Biblical authors were writing precisely for the purpose of communicating what they felt was the essence of the Gospel and, when they felt that the information they wanted to share was too politically incendiary, they 'hid' the content in the apocalypse form (only one of which made it into the canon) with its coterie of 'insider' terms and symbols. But none of the other writings imply that the writers were holding back information that would be necessary for salvation or the living of the Christian life.
So, that's my reasoning for the presuposition of 'adequacy', what is the evidence for 'inadequacy' of the Gospel record for purposes of fulfilling the Great Commission?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.