Andy Streit | Rooted and Sent

Doctrinal Fidelity in Missions

“I do not mean by this in any wise to confine it to one denomination of
Christians. I wish with all my heart that everyone who loves our Lord Jesus
Christ in sincerity would in some way or other engage in it. But in the present divided state of Christendom, it would be more likely for good to be done by each denomination engaging separately in the work than if they were to embark in it conjointly.” William Carey

Session 1: The Biblical Mandate for Doctrinal Fidelity in Missions

• Biblical and Exegetical Analysis
  • Matthew 28:19-20
    • The main verb is the imperative μαθητεύσατε (“make disciples”).Three participles modify and explain how disciple-making happens: πορευθέντες (“going”), βαπτίζοντες (“baptizing”), and διδάσκοντες (“teaching”). Grammatically, the force rests on making disciples, while the participles show the necessary actions that carry it out. The participle πορευθέντες (“going”) highlights that disciple-making requires movement—disciples are made as God’s people go, whether across the street or across the world. Yet this going is not aimless; it has a destined end. Just as stopping at the store does not change the fact that we are going home, the command to “go” directs us ultimately to all nations. The focus is global, anticipating the fulfillment of Revelation 5:9, where people from every tribe, language, people, and nation stand before the throne. Our present obedience in going serves this greater purpose, moving us toward God’s promised future.[1] The participle βαπτίζοντες (“baptizing”) emphasizes incorporation into the community of faith. New disciples publicly identify with Christ and His body through baptism, which is an ordinance entrusted to the local church. This keeps the Great Commission centered not on individual initiative alone, but on the authority and responsibility of Christ’s churches. The commission is not handed off indiscriminately; it remains under Christ’s authority, yet is stewarded by local churches at His command. Just as pastors serve as under-shepherds under Christ the Great Shepherd, so churches serve as stewards—responsible to administer baptism and affirm new disciples in obedience to Christ.[2] The participle διδάσκοντες (“teaching”) especially underscores the doctrinal aspect: disciple-making is inseparable from communicating the content of Christ’s commands. The phrase “teaching them to observe (τηρεῖν)” carries the sense of keeping, guarding, and obeying. This has three crucial implications: (1) We must keep ourselves within the framework of Christ’s doctrine, living under His Word. (2) We must guard and preserve these doctrines so that future generations will have them intact. (3) We must build keepers—training new disciples to become faithful stewards of “all things” Christ commanded.[3]
• • • Summary Statement: The Great Commission is not just about activity—it centers on making disciples through baptism and solid, ongoing teaching. Doctrine is essential to true disciple-making.
    Acts 13:1–3; 14:26–28
    • In Acts 13, the Spirit directs the church in Antioch: “Set apart (ἀφορίσατε) Barnabas and Saul.” The verb ἀφορίζω carries the idea of appointing or assigning to a specific task, not severing from one body to act independently. They were not set apart from the Antioch church but for a Spirit-directed work. [4] The narrative gives no indication that Paul and Barnabas left Antioch’s oversight to act under an independent apostolic commission. Rather, Luke shows that they were recognized, commissioned, and sent by the local church (Acts 13:3; 14:26–28), establishing missions as a responsibility entrusted by Christ to the stewardship of His churches, not to individuals or external boards.[5] The verbs ἀπέλυσαν (“they sent them off,” 13:3) and παρέδωκαν (“they entrusted/commended them,” 14:26) highlight the church’s formal commissioning of missionaries. ἀπολύω conveys the idea of releasing or dismissing with approval, while παραδίδωμι signifies entrusting or commending to another’s care. Together they underscore that sending is both deliberate and authoritative, a church act guided by the Spirit.[6] Luke employs a literary device known as an inclusio—a framing technique where a narrative begins and ends with a parallel event to highlight what surrounds it. In Acts 13:3 the missionaries are sent out by the church, and in Acts 14:26–28 they return to the same church that sent them. This bracketing shows that the Antioch church was their point of departure and their place of accountability. By shaping the narrative this way, Luke emphasizes that the local church functions as the authoritative hub for missionary activity—not in itself as the source of authority, but as the Christ-appointed steward and validating center of missionary work.[7]
• • • Summary Statement: Missionaries in Acts are not freelancers. They are sent and held accountable by the church. Missions work is anchored in the oversight of the local congregation.
    1 Timothy 3:15
    • The church is called στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας — “the pillar and ground [foundation] of the truth.” The term στῦλος (“pillar”) suggests both support and visibility. Lexically, it denotes a column or upright support, but metaphorically it conveys the church’s role as the stabilizer and display stand of God’s truth. Just as a pillar holds up a structure and lifts it into prominence, the church upholds the truth, giving it both stability and visibility before the world.[8] The term ἑδραίωμα (“bulwark,” “foundation”) stresses firmness and stability. Lexically, it refers to that which provides a secure base or support. Metaphorically, it depicts the church as the protector of truth, preventing collapse or distortion.[9] Together, the imagery conveys that a church’s identity is tied to safeguarding and proclaiming God’s truth. By describing the church as both pillar and foundation, Paul highlights its dual role: upholding truth publicly (στῦλος) and safeguarding it securely (ἑδραίωμα).
• • • Summary Statement: The church is God’s appointed guardian of truth. This makes doctrinal faithfulness central, not optional, in every aspect of ministry—including missions.
• Interpretive Landscape—How these texts are often framed.
  • Pragmatic Readings: Mission as Strategy
    • Some interpreters approach the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19–20) in pragmatic terms, treating it as a broad mandate that legitimizes whatever structures or methods appear most effective in advancing quantifiable expansion. Early advocates of interdenominational missions, such as John R. Mott, called for mobilization and strategies that could evangelize the world “in this generation,” stressing visible results over ecclesiological concerns.[12] Later theorists, including Ralph Winter and the church growth movement, explicitly defended parachurch structures on pragmatic grounds, arguing that if methods advanced the cause of evangelism, they were therefore justified.[13] The strength of this view lies in its flexibility and adaptability. It can respond quickly to cultural shifts, technological developments, and emerging opportunities. Yet the danger is that the means of mission become detached from the theology of mission. When “what works” becomes the chief criterion, doctrinal clarity is easily compromised, accountability to local churches is weakened, and the pursuit of short-term effectiveness risks eroding long-term faithfulness to Christ’s command.
      • Pragmatic impulse often confuses numerical increase with spiritual fruit, producing “methods-driven” missions rather than biblically anchored disciple-making.[14]
• • • • Pragmatism, while appealing to some, tends to bypass the church and thereby undermines the very institution Christ established to safeguard truth.[15]
• • • • Evangelism severed from ecclesiology inevitably leads to instability, since the ordinances and teaching ministry are entrusted to the church, not to independent structures.[16]
    Missional-Church Readings: Mission as Ecclesial Identity
    • The missional-church movement, shaped by voices such as Lesslie Newbigin, Darrell Guder, and the Gospel and Our Culture Network, emphasizes that mission is not one program among many but the very identity of the church. The church exists to participate in the missio Dei—God’s sending of His people into the world.[17] This perspective rightly insists that mission cannot bypass the church, for the church itself is God’s instrument of witness.[18] It challenges overly individualistic or parachurch-driven models and calls the church back to her corporate vocation. But a weakness often emerges in its thin doctrinal center.
      • In an effort to broaden participation, some missional-church readings prioritize cultural engagement and social presence while softening commitments to confessional clarity or doctrinal alignment.[19] As a result, mission is sometimes reduced to community presence or cultural renewal without sufficient emphasis on gospel proclamation and doctrinal fidelity.
      This weakness is not incidental but systemic.
      • The mission of the church must be defined by the Great Commission itself, which binds evangelism and doctrinal instruction together.[20]
• • • • Evangelism divorced from confessional teaching produces instability rather than true disciple-making.[21]
• • • • Thus, while the missional-church movement is correct to locate mission within the church, its lack of doctrinal specificity undermines doctrinal fidelity, the very foundation of a faithful missionary enterprise.
  • Literal-Grammatical Reading: Mission as Doctrinal Stewardship
    • A literal-grammatical reading of the Great Commission requires careful attention to the passage’s grammar and syntax. As already developed, the central imperative is μαθητεύσατε (“make disciples”), with the participles πορευθέντες (“going”), βαπτίζοντες (“baptizing”), and διδάσκοντες (“teaching”) explaining the manner in which the command is carried out. Significantly, the participle teaching specifies the content of discipleship: new believers must be taught “to observe all things.”
      • μαθητεύσατε (“make disciples”) conveys more than making converts; it denotes bringing others into a relationship of apprenticeship under Jesus’ authority. Πορευθέντες (“going”) assumes movement, whether across the street or across the nations, and functions as the necessary circumstance for disciple-making. Βαπτίζοντες (“baptizing”) emphasizes incorporation into the visible community of faith through the church’s ordinance of baptism. Διδάσκοντες (“teaching”) stresses ongoing instruction in the entirety of Christ’s commands, underscoring that discipleship is both doctrinal and practical.
      This reading demonstrates that the Commission is not merely evangelistic in scope but is inherently doctrinal and ecclesial. The local church—identified by Paul as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)—is entrusted with the stewardship of Christ’s teaching and thus bears responsibility for ensuring that missionary work culminates in congregations firmly rooted in sound doctrine.
    • Within this framework, doctrinal alignment between sending churches, missionaries, and newly established assemblies is not a peripheral safeguard but the very essence of obedience to Christ’s Commission.
      • The Great Commission unites evangelism, baptism, and doctrinal instruction as inseparable parts of one mandate.[22] The ordinances and the authority to disciple are entrusted to local churches, not to individuals or boards.[23]
      • Evangelism divorced from doctrinal teaching results in shallow converts rather than stable churches.[24]
• Comparative Analysis—Supporting local churches and doctrinal fidelity in missions
  • Evangelical Networks and the Lausanne Model
    • Evangelical networks such as the Lausanne Movement have championed collaborative partnership across denominational and doctrinal lines. The Lausanne Covenant (1974) and its follow-up statements (e.g., the Manila Manifesto of 1989 and the Cape Town Commitment of 2010) affirm the authority of Scripture and the necessity of evangelism, yet intentionally adopt a minimal doctrinal core to encourage cooperation among a wide array of churches, agencies, and parachurch organizations.[25] This approach has several strengths:
      • it fosters global synergy
• • • • reduces unnecessary duplication of effort
• • • • allows for cooperation in areas such as Bible translation, relief work, and evangelistic campaigns.
      However, the trade-off is that doctrinal specificity is often set aside for the sake of broad unity.[26] While Lausanne consistently insists that evangelism and social responsibility belong together, it leaves many ecclesiological questions unresolved, permitting parachurch organizations to function with significant independence from local-church accountability. Such minimalism risks blurring gospel boundaries.
      • Without shared convictions on issues like ecclesiology, baptism, or separation from error, cooperative efforts may produce numerical growth without doctrinal stability.[27] Interdenominational and parachurch cooperative efforts, though often well-intentioned, frequently bypass the local church. In doing so,
        • They weaken the very institution Christ ordained to uphold and protect the truth.
• • • • • And, whether unintentionally or at times intentionally, encourage believers to drift from doctrinal fidelity.[28]
    Contemporary Evidence: Barna Research
    • Recent empirical studies highlight how such doctrinal minimalism in broad evangelicalism correlates with weak doctrinal instruction and mission drift.
      • Barna’s 2018 survey revealed that 51 percent of U.S. churchgoers reported they had never heard the term Great Commission, while only 17 percent both recognized the phrase and understood its meaning.[29] A follow-up in 2021–22 showed little improvement, with just 20 percent able to meaningfully identify the Great Commission.[30]
      These statistics are reinforced by broader indicators of declining biblical and mission literacy.
      • The American Bible Society’s State of the Bible 2022 report noted that only 39 percent of Americans read the Bible multiple times per year—a steep decline from the previous year.[31] A 2025 update observed an additional ten-percent drop in Bible engagement, underscoring the accelerated erosion of scriptural knowledge and discipleship capacity.[32]
      These findings underscore a critical reality: when doctrinal teaching is de-emphasized, believers often lack clarity on the church’s mission.
      • If American evangelicals—who enjoy unprecedented access to biblical and theological resources—demonstrate such confusion, the consequences are even more severe in global contexts, where new believers depend heavily on missionaries and theological institutions for foundational instruction. The faithful transmission of doctrine requires more than sincerity; it demands both reliability of character and the competence to teach others effectively.[33] Without such doctrinal grounding, mission work easily drifts from its biblical mandate.
  • Convictional Church Emphasis—Doctrinal Alignment
    • A proper theology of missions rests on two non-negotiable foundations: doctrinal fidelity and local church stewardship. The New Testament consistently portrays the church as the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), charged with safeguarding and transmitting the apostolic deposit (2 Tim. 2:2; Jude 3). Missions, therefore, cannot be reduced to pragmatic evangelistic activity or to a broad “mere Christianity” model of cooperation. Separation from error is not a cultural preference but a biblical necessity, designed to protect the purity of the gospel from modernist (and post-modern) dilution.[34] Mission structures that neglect doctrinal specificity risk producing numerical growth without theological depth. By contrast, when missionaries are anchored to their sending churches and accountable to robust doctrinal standards, the Great Commission is carried out in its full biblical scope: not only “going” and “baptizing,” but also “teaching them to observe all that Christ commanded” (Matt. 28:19–20).
      • The ordinances and the commission itself were entrusted to churches, not to individuals or boards.[35] Missions is never contentless evangelism but the planting of churches that confess and defend the same doctrinal convictions as their sending bodies.[36]
    • Doctrinal fidelity, then, is not restrictive but protective. It ensures that missions reproduces the faith of the New Testament church rather than propagating a diluted or distorted gospel. When missions flows through the local church and upholds sound doctrine, it guards the truth, forms disciples, and establishes churches of like faith and practice in every nation.
• Conclusion:
  • The biblical evidence is clear: missions is not a free-floating enterprise driven by pragmatism, innovation, or interdenominational minimalism. From the Great Commission’s grammar to the pattern of Antioch, from Paul’s charge to Timothy to the church’s identity as pillar and foundation of the truth, Scripture consistently binds mission to the local church and to the faithful transmission of doctrine. Doctrinal fidelity is not an optional safeguard—it is the very essence of Christ’s mandate. To “make disciples” requires more than numerical growth; it requires baptizing into the fellowship of the church and teaching believers to observe all that Christ commanded. The New Testament presents no category of mission apart from doctrinal alignment, church oversight, and faithful instruction.
  • This first session underscores that when missions is severed from doctrine and the authority of the church, it loses its biblical anchor. But when the church safeguards truth and sends faithful men to teach others also, missions becomes what Christ intended: a multiplying witness that produces disciples, plants churches of like faith and order, and guards the gospel for generations to come.

Session 2: Doctrinal Compromise vs. Doctrinal Conviction in Missions

• Biblical and Exegetical Analysis
  • 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1

• Paul commands: μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις (“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers”). The verb γίνεσθε (present middle/passive imperative of γίνομαι) calls for an ongoing avoidance of becoming unequally yoked, emphasizing continuous vigilance rather than a one-time choice.[37]
  • The participle ἑτεροζυγοῦντες comes from ἑτεροζυγέω, a compound of ἕτερος (different) + ζυγός (yoke). It literally means “to be yoked with one of a different kind.” Its background lies in Old Testament prohibitions against mixing kinds (Lev 19:19; Deut 22:10), where mismatched animals could not plow together in unity.[38] Paul develops the command by listing five sharp rhetorical contrasts:
    • righteousness vs. lawlessness
• • • light vs. darkness
• • • Christ vs. Belial
• • • believer vs. unbeliever
• • • temple of God vs. idols (2 Cor 6:14–16).[39]
    He grounds the command in temple and covenant imagery (6:16–18), citing Lev 26:12, Isa 52:11, and 2 Sam 7:14. Thus, the church is the temple of the living God, called to holiness and separation from idolatry.[40] Though commonly applied to marriage, Paul’s covenantal and temple language suggests a wider application to ministry partnerships. Any cooperative relationship that binds believers in a way that compromises gospel integrity is prohibited.[41] Conservative scholarship supports this:
    • Joshua Greever highlights how Paul frames the church as the eschatological temple of God, noting that the Old Testament promises of God’s dwelling presence (Lev 26; Ezek 37) now find fulfillment in the Spirit’s indwelling of the church.[42] Murray Harris emphasizes the rhetorical crescendo of Paul’s five antitheses, showing that the piling up of contrasts (righteousness/lawlessness, light/darkness, Christ/Belial, believer/unbeliever, temple/idols) builds to an inescapable verdict: Such fundamental incompatibility makes unequal yokes theologically impossible.[43] David Garland underscores the Old Testament covenant background, arguing that Paul draws heavily on Israel’s call to holiness in order to stress the church’s identity as the separated people of God.[44] D. A. Carson stresses the continuity of temple imagery across redemptive history, tracing the line from the tabernacle, to Solomon’s temple, to Christ Himself as the true temple, and finally to the church as God’s dwelling place in the Spirit. Taken together, these scholars highlight that Paul’s command is not an isolated ethical rule but a theological mandate grounded in the continuity of covenant, temple, and holiness themes across Scripture.[45]
    Comparatively, we may apply this text to ecclesiastical separation in missions. Because Paul’s covenantal contrasts are taken as paradigmatic, the principle is seen to forbid cooperative endeavors that blur doctrinal fidelity or compromise local-church priority. This reading underscores purity and accountability but can sometimes risk over-fragmentation if applied without balance.[46]
    • Evangelical parachurch groups tend to restrict the scope of the passage to personal relationships (e.g., marriage or business ties). This allows for broad coalitions in evangelism and social engagement, so long as the “core gospel” is affirmed. The strength of this approach lies in its ability to mobilize wide-reaching partnerships, but its weakness is the erosion of theological depth and ecclesiological accountability when secondary doctrines are sidelined.[47]
• • • Catholic and Orthodox interpreters often spiritualize the text, treating “yokes” as metaphors for moral impurity, idolatry, or inner spiritual disorder. In this reading, the emphasis shifts from structural partnerships to personal holiness and liturgical integrity. While this maintains continuity with ascetical traditions, it tends to downplay the text’s ecclesial and missional implications.[48]
• • • The literal-grammatical reading requires a broader application: Paul’s use of temple and covenant imagery extends beyond private life to the corporate and the mission identity of the church. To be yoked with unbelievers in ministry partnerships is to confuse the identity of God’s dwelling place. This interpretation safeguards the doctrinal integrity of the church’s mission while also preserving space for cooperation only among those who share both doctrinal fidelity and ecclesial accountability.[49]
    Summary Statement: Paul warns that believers must not form binding partnerships with unbelievers because such unions compromise the church’s holiness. While the principle applies to marriage, its broader context addresses ministry and worship, warning churches against alliances that undermine doctrinal purity.
    • Jude urges his readers in Jude 3 ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ πίστει τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις — “to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” The verb ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι (present infinitive middle of ἐπαγωνίζομαι) is an intensified form of ἀγωνίζομαι (“to struggle, fight, compete”), evoking the imagery of a strenuous athletic contest.[50] Jude is not calling for casual discussion but for sustained and costly effort on behalf of the gospel.
• • • The noun ἡ πίστις (“the faith”) here refers not to subjective trust but to the objective content of Christian teaching.[51] Like Paul’s use of “the faith” in the Pastoral Epistles (e.g., 1 Tim 3:9; 2 Tim 4:7), it designates the apostolic deposit of doctrine. Thus, Jude grounds Christian perseverance not in private belief but in fidelity to a corporate, revealed truth.
• • • The phrase τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ (“once for all delivered”) underscores the finality of this deposit. ἅπαξ conveys completeness and non-repeatability; παραδοθείσῃ (aorist passive participle of παραδίδωμι) denotes an act of entrustment from God, through the apostles, to the church.[52] The grammar affirms that Christian revelation has been definitively given and is not open to revision.
• • • Interpretive Landscape
      • Critical/liberal interpreters often see Jude’s exhortation as occasional: an emergency appeal in light of specific false teachers, not a universal statement about revelation. In this view, “the faith” is a developing tradition within early Christianity, not a fixed deposit.[53]
• • • • Conservative evangelicals take “the faith” as the apostolic gospel in its fullness, affirming that revelation is complete and final. Schreiner, for instance, insists that Jude 3 underlines both the unchanging nature of Christian truth and the believer’s duty to defend it against all encroachments.[54]
• • • • Roman Catholic interpreters affirm that “the faith once delivered” is complete, but they emphasize the magisterium’s role in authentically interpreting it through time. Revelation is closed, but doctrinal development is considered ongoing through the church’s authoritative teaching office.[55]
• • • • As fundamentalists Jude 3 is a warrant for doctrinal vigilance and ecclesiastical separation. If “the faith” is once-for-all, then tolerating doctrinal corruption is viewed as a betrayal of the apostolic trust, requiring separation for the sake of purity.[56]
      Theological Implications
      • Jude 3 provides a biblical mandate for doctrinal boundaries. Christians cannot redefine or dilute the gospel without abandoning the very faith entrusted to the church.
• • • • The call to “contend” implies more than defensive apologetics. It includes proactive teaching, doctrinal understanding, and correction of error, ensuring that the faith is transmitted with clarity and integrity.
• • • • For missions, Jude 3 establishes a non-negotiable standard. Cross-cultural ministry must transmit the whole apostolic message, not a reduced or selectively “contextualized” version that omits inconvenient truths for the sake of acceptance.
• • • • By rooting missions in the once-for-all delivered faith, Jude 3 provides a stable foundation for endurance. This stance resists both relativism and revisionism, securing gospel witness across generations and cultures.
      Summary Statement: Christians are called to actively and vigorously defend the unchanging body of Christian truth. Doctrinal fidelity is not passive but requires ongoing, earnest struggle against distortion or erosion.
  • Revelation 2–3
    • In Christ’s letters to the seven churches (Rev 2–3), He addresses not only individual believers but entire congregations. The churches are praised, corrected, and warned corporately, indicating that Christ holds local assemblies accountable as bodies.[57]
  • • False teachers are explicitly named: the Nicolaitans in 2:6 and 2:15, the teaching of Balaam in 2:14, and the self-styled prophetess “Jezebel” in 2:20.[58] These references show that doctrinal corruption was a clear and present danger to the health of early congregations. The rebukes fall not only on the teachers but on the churches that tolerated them.[59]
  • • Christ’s evaluations are both corporate and doctrinal. He warns that tolerating false teaching imperils the church’s very lampstand (its witness and legitimacy before Him, cf. 2:5).[60] This suggests that ecclesial credibility in Christ’s eyes is inseparable from doctrinal fidelity.
    • At the same time, each letter concludes with promises “to him that overcometh” (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21). These promises tie individual perseverance to the corporate call for the church to overcome.[61] The implication is that endurance in truth is essential for both the individual believer and the congregation as a whole.
• Interpretive Landscape—Three Questions
  • 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1—Does Separation Extends Beyond Personal Life?
    • Restrictive Reading (Idolatry or Marriage Only). Some commentators argue that Paul’s prohibition applies narrowly to specific situations.
      • Many take it as a warning against participation in idolatrous worship, echoing Israel’s temple laws (cf. Lev 26:12). Others limit the metaphor of the “unequal yoke” to mixed marriages, since the agricultural imagery naturally evokes binding personal relationships. Both applications highlight real dangers—idolatry and spiritually mixed marriages—but they confine the text’s scope to the realm of individual ethics alone.[62]
      Literal-Grammatical Reading (Broader Ministry Partnerships). As already presented, a literal-grammatical approach observes that Paul develops a sweeping set of contrasts—Christ vs. Belial, light vs. darkness, temple vs. idols—that move beyond marriage or cultic settings.
      • His covenantal and temple imagery underscores the principle of separation from any binding partnerships that compromise the church’s identity as God’s dwelling place. Applied to missions, this reading means that believers and churches must not form cooperative alliances that dilute doctrinal purity or undercut the church’s stewardship of the gospel.
      Does Separation Extend Beyond Personal Life? Yes. Paul does not stop with warnings about idolatry or marriage. He escalates to sweeping contexts: righteousness vs. lawlessness, Christ vs. Belial, temple vs. idols. These categories transcend private concerns and frame the church corporately as the temple of the living God. Therefore, separation cannot be limited to personal life but must guide the church’s ministry partnerships, ensuring that doctrinal purity is not compromised.
    Jude 3—Is “The Faith” a Fixed Deposit of Truth?
    • Ad Hoc Polemic Reading.
      • Some interpreters argue that Jude’s call to contend was merely a situational appeal to confront a local crisis of false teaching. From this perspective, “the faith” is not viewed as a settled body of doctrine but as a tradition still in formation, and the command is understood as a reactive measure rather than a binding norm.[63]
      Stable Doctrinal Deposit Reading.
      • Conservative interpreters stress Jude’s careful wording: “the faith once for all delivered” (τῇ πίστει τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ). The term ἅπαξ signals finality, and the participle παραδοθείσῃ emphasizes divine entrustment of a completed deposit.[64] Jude’s appeal is therefore not merely polemical but normative: every generation is obligated to contend for the same apostolic body of truth, guarding it against both dilution and alteration.[65]
      Is “The Faith” a Fixed Deposit of Truth? Yes. Jude’s precise phrase — “the faith once for all delivered” — employs ἅπαξ to denote finality and παραδοθείσῃ to mark entrustment. This is not a situational appeal to fight one battle but a universal declaration that the apostolic faith is complete and unalterable. Every generation must therefore contend for the same body of truth, resisting both dilution and revision. This establishes doctrinal vigilance as a non-negotiable priority for the church and its missionaries.
  • Revelation 2–3—Does Christ Really Judge Churches by Doctrinal Fidelity?
    • Local and Historical Reading.
      • Some interpreters limit the seven letters to their original first-century context, reading them as time-bound evaluations of the churches in Asia Minor. On this view, warnings against the Nicolaitans or “Jezebel” are instructive as historical examples but do not function as criteria binding on churches today.[66]
      Paradigmatic and Normative Reading.
      • A literal-grammatical interpretation stresses that Christ repeatedly broadens application: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (2:7, 11, etc.). This refrain universalizes the message, showing that these letters establish paradigmatic standards for all churches.[67] Christ’s commendations and rebukes are therefore timeless: He commends faithfulness to truth and warns against tolerating doctrinal error, providing every church with enduring criteria for purity in doctrine and practice.[68]
    • Does Christ Really Judge Churches by Doctrinal Fidelity? Yes. Christ’s refrain — “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” — extends His evaluations beyond the seven historical congregations to all churches. He commends those who reject false teaching (e.g., Ephesus) and rebukes those who tolerate error (e.g., Pergamum, Thyatira), even threatening to remove lampstands. This demonstrates that Christ evaluates churches corporately and doctrinally, making fidelity to truth the decisive standard by which their witness and legitimacy are measured.
• Comparative Analysis
  • Evangelical Parachurch Approach: Broad Coalitions
    • Evangelical parachurch networks, exemplified in movements like the Lausanne Congress, emphasize broad coalitions across denominational lines. Their guiding principle is cooperation around a minimal doctrinal core—usually the authority of Scripture, the necessity of evangelism, and the centrality of Christ. This enables diverse groups to collaborate on translation, relief, education, and global mission strategies.[69]
• • • Strengths. This model maximizes reach and visibility. It mobilizes resources, unites diverse traditions, and achieves large-scale initiatives (e.g., global evangelism congresses, Scripture distribution, humanitarian aid). Its inclusive posture fosters a sense of shared responsibility for the unfinished task of world evangelization.[70]
• • • Weaknesses. The trade-off is doctrinal drift. By prioritizing cooperation over clarity, parachurch networks often sidestep or downplay doctrinal distinctives. This risks weakening the priority of the local church and allowing pragmatic partnerships that blur gospel boundaries. The result may be short-term effectiveness but long-term instability in church planting and theological education.[71]
    Empirical Data: Pressures and Patterns
    • Lausanne (2024): Reports highlight the challenges of pluralization in global collaboration. As evangelical networks expand into diverse cultural and denominational contexts, pressures increase to broaden theological inclusivity. This often means lowering doctrinal barriers for the sake of unity, which can dilute the authority of confessional commitments.[72]
• • • The Barna (2018): A study on U.S. Christians revealed that only 17% could correctly identify the Great Commission. This low awareness underscores the catechetical thinness of many churches and parachurch efforts. Where doctrinal teaching is minimal, mission understanding falters, and believers are ill-equipped to discern the church’s role in God’s mission.[73]
    The Conservative Approach: Separation and Clarity
    • Separation from doctrinally compromised partnerships is a biblical mandate. Drawing from texts like 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 and Jude 3, mission philosophy is built on the conviction that cooperation must be limited to those who share common faith and practice. Mission boards and institutions therefore adopt detailed doctrinal statements that reflect their sending churches’ theology, ensuring consistency between home and field.[74]
• • • Strengths. This approach offers clarity and fidelity. Missionaries know the doctrinal boundaries, churches retain oversight, and institutions are less likely to drift from their confessional moorings. This clarity fosters confidence that mission work will reproduce churches aligned with the faith of the sending body.[75]
• • • Weaknesses. The same clarity can lead to fragmentation. By refusing cooperation with groups outside their confessional circle, multiple groups may duplicate efforts, limit resources, and appear isolated in global contexts. The risk is insularity, even when stronger collaboration could occur without compromise.[76]
  • Comparative Evaluation –
    • Separation from doctrinally compromised partnerships is a biblical mandate, grounded in passages like 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1, Jude 3, and Revelation 2–3. This principle ensures clarity, fidelity, and accountability between missionaries and sending churches. Yet, as noted, the same clarity can sometimes create the perception of fragmentation or isolation. The challenge, then, is how to preserve the strengths of separation while mitigating the weaknesses — without conceding doctrinal ground.
  • • 1. Guarding Against Fragmentation with Intentional Cooperation
      • The literal-grammatical reading of Scripture does not forbid all cooperation, but only partnerships that compromise doctrinal truth or ecclesial priority. Baptists can therefore pursue subordinate cooperation, where parachurch ministries serve under the doctrinal oversight of local churches. This allows for shared translation projects, relief work, or educational initiatives—so long as the local church retains theological priority and oversight. In this way, resources can be pooled and duplication avoided without sacrificing clarity.
      2. Leveraging Networks Without Losing Accountability
      • One way to counter insularity is through fellowship networks of like-minded churches. These networks are not broad coalitions built on minimal creeds (as in Lausanne), but rather associations anchored in detailed doctrinal statements. By coordinating efforts, churches can retain doctrinal purity while also maximizing global effectiveness, ensuring that resources are not wasted in duplicated or competing ministries.
      3. Prioritizing Doctrinal Training
      • The empirical evidence is clear: doctrinal thinness produces confusion. The Barna study (2018) underscores the dangers of doctrinal compromise. Fundamentalists must lean into their strength—robust doctrinal teaching—and make it the non-negotiable foundation of their mission work. Rather than apologizing for clarity, they must demonstrate that long-term stability and gospel faithfulness require it.
    • 4. Modeling Cooperation That Flows from the Church
      • Finally, the solution lies in modeling a “subordinate partnership” framework. Here, parachurch initiatives exist, but they do not set doctrinal agendas or operate independently.
      •  Instead, they flow from and remain accountable to the priority of local churches. This preserves biblical separation, prevents doctrinal drift, and at the same time allows for practical cooperation where true doctrinal unity exists.
• Conclusion— Doctrinal Conviction as the Foundation for Faithful Missions
  • Session 2 has shown that Scripture speaks with clarity on the necessity of doctrinal fidelity in missions.
    • Paul’s command in 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 demonstrates that separation must extend beyond private life to the corporate and missional identity of the church. Jude’s exhortation in verse 3 establishes that “the faith once for all delivered” is a fixed and final deposit, demanding vigilance from every generation of believers. Christ’s letters in Revelation 2–3 confirm that He evaluates churches corporately, commending those who guard truth and rebuking those who tolerate error. In all three texts, the literal-grammatical reading accounts for the full weight of the covenantal, apostolic, and Christological themes that run through Scripture.
    Placed alongside contemporary mission models, the contrast becomes even sharper.
    • Evangelical parachurch coalitions may mobilize broad resources and achieve visibility, but at the cost of clarity and long-term stability.
• • • Fundamentalists safeguard doctrinal truth through separation, but must guard against unnecessary fragmentation by modeling forms of cooperation that flow from and remain accountable to local churches. Empirical data underscores this point: doctrinal thinness leads to confusion about the very mission of the church, while doctrinal alignment produces stability and enduring witness.
    The lesson is clear: missions cannot be sustained on pragmatic alliances or minimal creeds.
    • The church’s calling is to transmit the undiluted apostolic gospel across cultures and generations. Subordinate partnership offers a faithful way forward—allowing cooperation where possible, but never at the expense of truth. In this model, parachurch ministries serve under the doctrinal oversight of actual churches, ensuring that cooperation strengthens rather than undermines gospel clarity.
  • Therefore, the priority of missions is not breadth of coalition but depth of fidelity.
    • Christ calls His church to contend earnestly for the truth, to separate from partnerships that compromise the gospel, and to build ministries that flow from the church’s priority.
    • Only then can missions bear lasting fruit, leaving behind not confusion or compromise, but a clear testimony to the unchanging truth of God’s Word.

Session 3: Doctrinal Fidelity and Lasting Testimony in Missions

• Biblical and Exegetical Biblical Analysis
  • Philippians 1:27
    • Paul exhorts: μόνον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε — “Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.” The verb πολιτεύεσθε (present middle imperative of πολιτεύομαι) carries civic overtones: “live as citizens.”[77] In the Roman colony of Philippi, where civic pride ran deep, Paul deliberately uses political imagery to stress that the Philippians’ true citizenship is in heaven (cf. Phil 3:20). The exhortation is not merely private ethics but a public, communal witness consistent with the gospel.[78] The goal is then expressed: στήκετε ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι, μιᾷ ψυχῇ συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου — “stand firm in one spirit, with one mind contending together for the faith of the gospel.”
      • στήκετε (present active participle) = “stand firm,” a military metaphor for holding one’s ground.[79]
• • • • συναθλοῦντες (present active participle of συναθλέω) = “strive together, contend side by side,” drawn from athletic contests. The prefix συν- underscores the corporate nature of the struggle: this is not an individual fight but a team effort.[80]
• • • • τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου is best taken as an objective genitive: not “faith in the gospel,” but “the faith that is the gospel itself” — the doctrinal content entrusted to the church.[81]
      Interpretive Landscape
      • Individual-ethical reading. Some interpreters treat Paul’s exhortation as primarily about personal conduct (honesty, integrity, lifestyle).[82] While true in part, this risks missing Paul’s corporate emphasis on unity in gospel defense.
• • • • Ecclesial-corporate reading. Conservative interpreters highlight that the grammar (stand firm, contend together) stresses collective action. [83] Churches are to function like a unified military units or athletic teams, striving for the advance and defense of the gospel.
• • • • Missional implication. This is not simply about living morally, but about defending, guarding, and advancing the doctrinal faith against opposition. Paul is concerned not only with right living but with living out right belief.
      Theological Implications
      • Paul frames the Christian life as citizenship under the gospel, showing that the church’s identity must shape its public witness. Doctrinal fidelity is not an individual burden alone, but a shared responsibility of the church community. The athletic imagery stresses that missions and doctrinal defense are team sports, requiring unity, coordination, and shared resolve, but within doctrinal boundaries. For missions: this text reminds us that the credibility of gospel witness rests not on zeal but on the church’s ability to stand together upon a foundation of doctrinal unity while proclaiming Christ.
      Summary Statement: Paul pictures a church as a team, standing shoulder to shoulder to defend and advance the truth of the gospel. Missions and ministry require a unified effort in protecting and promoting sound doctrine.
    2 Timothy 4:7–8
    • Paul declares at the end of his ministry: τὴν πίστιν τετήρηκα — “I have kept the faith.” The verb τετήρηκα (perfect active of τηρέω) highlights completed action with abiding results: Paul has faithfully guarded the deposit of truth entrusted to him, and the effects of that faithfulness endure even as he faces death.[84] The phrase τὴν πίστιν refers not merely to subjective belief (“I have kept on believing”), but to the objective body of Christian truth.[85] This interpretation fits the broader “deposit” language of the Pastoral Epistles:
      • 1 Tim 6:20 — παραθήκην φύλαξον (“guard the deposit”).
• • • • 2 Tim 1:14 — τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον (“guard the good deposit”).
• • • • Paul’s apostolic ministry is framed not as innovation but as custody of entrusted truth, to be passed on faithfully to others (2 Tim 2:2).[86]
      Interpretive Landscape
      • Subjective view. Some commentators take “the faith” here as Paul’s personal trust in God, stressing perseverance in belief rather than stewardship of doctrine.[87] This view underscores Paul’s devotion but narrows the text’s scope.
• • • • Objective view. Conservative interpreters argue that “the faith” consistently refers to the apostolic deposit of teaching in the Pastorals.[88] Paul is not boasting in his own believing but in his faithfulness as a steward of God’s truth.
• • • • Pastoral pattern. Taken objectively, Paul’s testimony becomes paradigmatic for pastors and missionaries: the measure of success is not innovation, growth metrics, or human acclaim, but whether the apostolic faith has been guarded and transmitted intact.[89]
      Theological Implications
      • Paul’s ministry is characterized by guardianship, not creativity. He received the gospel and preserved it whole, demonstrating that the missionary task is essentially custodial. The perfect tense of τετήρηκα stresses enduring results: Paul’s fidelity ensures that the faith remains intact for the next generation. This text affirms that success in missions is measured by faithfulness to the deposit, not by visible results. Perseverance in doctrine is itself the crown-worthy accomplishment Paul anticipates in v. 8. For missionaries today, Paul’s example calls for unwavering doctrinal fidelity, even when pragmatism or numerical growth might tempt toward compromise.
      Summary Statement: Paul finished his race by preserving the truth of the gospel intact. His model shows that the missionary’s ultimate task is not innovation or popularity but faithfulness in guarding the doctrinal trust handed down.
  • Hebrews 13:7–8
    • The command: μνημονεύετε τῶν ἡγουμένων ὑμῶν — “Remember your leaders.”
      • The plural participle ἡγουμένων refers to those who formerly led the community, most likely pastors or teachers who have since died.[90] To “remember” is not merely to recall their names but to hold their example in esteem and to let it shape present faithfulness.
      Readers are called to ἀναθεωροῦντες τὴν ἔκβασιν τῆς ἀναστροφῆς — “considering the outcome of their way of life.”
      • The noun ἔκβασις (“outcome”) likely refers to their death in faith, pointing to the manner in which they finished their course with perseverance.[91] The command urges careful reflection on how these leaders lived and died in fidelity to Christ.
      The imperative follows: μιμεῖσθε τὴν πίστιν — “imitate their faith.”
      • The emphasis is not simply on outward conduct but on the faith that governed their lives.[92] This directs attention away from personality and toward doctrinal and spiritual convictions that remain exemplary for future generations.
      The grounding comes in Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς χθὲς καὶ σήμερον ὁ αὐτός, καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας — “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
      • The immutability of Christ secures the continuity of “the faith” across time. Because Christ is unchanging, the faith confessed by past leaders remains normative for the present church.[93]
      Interpretive Landscape
      • Historical-memorial reading.
        • Some see this simply as a call to honor past leaders for their faithful service, without further doctrinal weight.[94] This interpretation risks reducing the command to sentiment.
        Doctrinal-continuity reading.
        • Conservative interpreters argue that the immutability of Christ is given as the theological grounding for imitation.[95] The unchanging Christ guarantees that the same faith remains binding for successive generations. This is not just historical remembrance but doctrinal continuity.
      Theological Implications
      • Continuity of truth. The faith of past leaders is authoritative today not because of tradition, but because it rests on the unchanging Christ.
  • • • Corporate accountability. The church is called to remember, evaluate, and imitate faith corporately, highlighting that doctrinal fidelity is a communal responsibility.
  • • • Generational mission. Leaders come and go, but the faith does not change. Each generation is tasked with passing on the same gospel unchanged, providing stability and credibility in missions and discipleship.
  • • • Doctrinal anchor. In contrast to relativistic or evolving models of truth, this text roots the church’s mission in the immutability of Christ, ensuring that the message remains the same across times and cultures.
    • Summary Statement: Believers are called to remember and imitate faithful leaders whose doctrine and life were anchored in Christ. Because Jesus never changes, the faith once taught by past leaders remains the standard for every generation.
• Interpretive Landscape of Endurance in Mission
  • Pragmatic Outcome Models: Endurance as Measured by Success
    • In pragmatic readings of mission, endurance is equated with visible outcomes: numerical growth, institutional scale, global reach, or cultural impact. The assumption is that if a ministry expands and continues to influence people broadly, then it has “endured.” This perspective often draws its legitimacy from practical results—churches planted, organizations sustained, or social programs expanded.
• • • Strengths. This model values urgency, adaptability, and measurable fruit. It can inspire innovation and mobilize resources toward ambitious goals.[96]
• • • Weaknesses. By equating endurance with scale, this approach risks overlooking doctrinal erosion. A ministry may expand in size while quietly losing its theological core. Success becomes measured by breadth rather than faithfulness.[97]
  • Deposit-Custody Models: Endurance as Measured by Fidelity
    • A deposit-custody reading—rooted in texts like 2 Timothy 1:14 and Jude 3—understands endurance not primarily as institutional survival or numerical growth but as fidelity to the received doctrinal deposit. Missionary success is judged by whether the same gospel content entrusted to the apostles is preserved and handed down unchanged to future generations.[98]
  • • Strengths. This model safeguards doctrinal integrity and provides a stable standard across cultures and times. It prioritizes the quality of faithfulness over the quantity of results.[99]
    • Weaknesses. From the outside, this approach may appear rigid or resistant to innovation, especially in contexts that prize visible expansion. Yet its insistence on doctrinal stewardship ensures that endurance is measured by truth preserved rather than institutions merely perpetuated.[100]
• Comparative Analysis
  • Placed side by side, the models expose two radically different instincts:
    • Pragmatic models define endurance by what is achieved.
• • • Deposit-custody models define endurance by what is preserved.
• • • The former risks shallow expansion; the latter risks being perceived as narrow.
    But when tested against Scripture, endurance is framed not by outcomes but by fidelity—Paul’s testimony, “I have kept the faith” (2 Tim 4:7); Jude’s charge to “contend for the faith once for all delivered” (Jude 3); the Hebrews’ call to “imitate the faith” of their leaders (Heb 13:7); and the promise that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb 13:8). Thus, for a theology of subordinate partnership, the enduring measure of mission is not breadth of influence but faithful custody of the gospel under the stewardship of local churches.
  • Reconciling Strengths and Weaknesses: Practical Implications for Enduring Missions
    • Urgency and Adaptability without Doctrinal Drift
      • Pragmatic models remind us that urgency and adaptability are necessary in missions. The gospel must move quickly across cultural and geographic barriers. Yet urgency must never come at the expense of clarity. Deposit-custody models can adopt practical innovation (translation strategies, media use, training systems) while insisting that such methods serve, not redefine, the doctrinal deposit. This balance allows missions to be both agile and anchored.
      Measurable Fruit within the Framework of Fidelity
      • Visible outcomes—churches planted, disciples baptized, leaders trained—are not illegitimate measures of fruitfulness. The weakness arises when numbers replace fidelity as the ultimate standard. Deposit-custody models affirm the importance of fruit but insist that metrics must be tethered to doctrinal continuity. A church-planting movement is only successful if it produces congregations that uphold and transmit the apostolic gospel.
      Guarding against Rigidity through Strategic Cooperation
      • The weakness of deposit-custody models is the risk of being perceived as rigid or isolated. This can be mitigated by embracing subordinate partnership—cooperation that flows from and remains accountable to local churches. Churches can work together across institutions, sharing resources and strategies, while retaining confessional integrity. Such cooperation addresses duplication and fragmentation without compromising doctrinal purity.
    • Endurance as Fidelity with Visible Witness
      • Pragmatic models highlight the power of public visibility; deposit-custody models highlight the necessity of doctrinal faithfulness. The two can be reconciled by recognizing that doctrinal endurance and visible impact are not mutually exclusive.
      • Faithful gospel proclamation, guarded by churches, produces lasting witness. Movements that compromise truth may achieve scale but collapse over time, while movements anchored in truth may appear smaller but endure for generations.
• Conclusion
  • Session 3 has demonstrated that the New Testament consistently defines endurance in missions not by visible results but by faithful custody of the gospel.
    • In Philippians 1:27, Paul calls the church to live as citizens worthy of the gospel, striving side by side in unity for the faith. In 2 Timothy 4:7–8, he testifies at the end of his ministry that success is measured not by innovation or expansion, but by having “kept the faith.” In Hebrews 13:7–8, believers are exhorted to remember and imitate leaders who persevered in faith, grounded in the immutability of Christ, who ensures the continuity of truth across generations. Together these texts provide a unified picture: endurance means standing firm, guarding the deposit, and transmitting the same faith without alteration.
    By contrast, pragmatic outcome models measure endurance by size, scope, and reach, often producing impressive mobilization but fragile depth. Deposit-custody models, however, define endurance by fidelity—what has been preserved, not what has been achieved. Though the latter may appear narrow in the eyes of a results-driven culture, Scripture shows it to be the only enduring standard. The missionary task is not to reinvent or dilute the gospel, but to steward it faithfully until Christ returns.
  • Thus, the conclusion is clear: lasting testimony in missions depends on doctrinal fidelity. Churches and missionaries who subordinate every effort to the custody of the apostolic faith leave behind a legacy that outlasts numbers and movements. In a theology of subordinate partnership, parachurch structures must remain under the priority of local churches, ensuring that cooperation serves, rather than eclipses, the church’s role as custodian of the faith. The measure of endurance, therefore, is not breadth of influence but the preservation and transmission of the truth once for all delivered to the saints.

---

[1] Benjamin L. Merkle, “Why the Great Commission Should Be Translated Go!” Southeastern Theological Review 9.2 (2018): 19–29.

[2] Kevin T. Bauder, One in Hope and Doctrine: Origins of Baptist Fundamentalism, 1870–1950 (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 2014), 212.

[3] Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1002–3.

[4] Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 158; Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 90; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 35.47.

[5] Rolland D. McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. 3 (Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 261–63; Paul R. Jackson, The Doctrine and Administration of the Church (Des Plaines, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1968), 103; David Nettleton, A Biblical Philosophy of Missions (Des Moines, IA: Regular Baptist Press, 1967), 41.

[6] Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 117, 762; Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 66, 481.

[7] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 323; Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 49; Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 103; David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 147; Wendell E. Berry, Biblical Figures of Speech (Greenville, SC: BJU Press, 2009), 112.

[8] Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 947; Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 586; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 7.53; Rolland D. McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. 3 (Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 268; Paul R. Jackson, The Doctrine and Administration of the Church (Des Plaines, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1968), 21; Kevin T. Bauder, One in Hope and Doctrine: Origins of Baptist Fundamentalism, 1870–1950 (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 2014), 47.

[9] Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 342; Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 168; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 7.18; Rolland D. McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. 3 (Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 268; Paul R. Jackson, The Doctrine and Administration of the Church (Des Plaines, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1968), 21; Kevin T. Bauder, One in Hope and Doctrine: Origins of Baptist Fundamentalism, 1870–1950 (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 2014), 47.

[10] Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 767; Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 484; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 35.26; Rolland D. McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. 3 (Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 269; Paul R. Jackson, The Doctrine and Administration of the Church (Des Plaines, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1968), 24; David M. Cummins, This Day in Baptist History II (Springfield, MO: Regular Baptist Press, 2000), 2:41.

[11] Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 821, 472; Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 514, 301; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 31.86, 65.23; Rolland D. McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. 3 (Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 270; Paul R. Jackson, The Doctrine and Administration of the Church (Des Plaines, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1968), 85; David Nettleton, A Biblical Philosophy of Missions (Des Moines, IA: Regular Baptist Press, 1967), 54.

[12] John R. Mott, The Evangelization of the World in This Generation (New York: Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions, 1900), 19–27.

[13] Ralph D. Winter, “The Two Structures of God’s Redemptive Mission,” in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, ed. Ralph Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1981), 220–30; C. Peter Wagner, Strategies for Church Growth (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1987), 13–20.

[14] David J. Hesselgrave, Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 100–103.

[15] Rolland D. McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. 3 (Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 268–70.

[16] Paul R. Jackson, The Doctrine and Administration of the Church (Des Plaines, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1968), 93–95.

[17] Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 116–33; Darrell L. Guder, ed., Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 3–18.

[18] Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 32–36.

[19] Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert, What Is the Mission of the Church? Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), 20–35.

[20] Rolland D. McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. 3 (Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 268–71.

[21] David Nettleton, A Biblical Philosophy of Missions (Des Moines, IA: Regular Baptist Press, 1967), 41–45.

[22] Rolland D. McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. 3 (Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 268–71.

[23] Paul R. Jackson, The Doctrine and Administration of the Church (Des Plaines, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1968), 93–95.

[24] David Nettleton, A Biblical Philosophy of Missions (Des Moines, IA: Regular Baptist Press, 1967), 41–45.

[25] “The Lausanne Covenant,” Lausanne Movement, 1974, https://lausanne.org/lausanne-covenant; cf. “The Manila Manifesto,” Lausanne Movement, 1989; and “The Cape Town Commitment,” Lausanne Movement, 2010.

[26] David J. Hesselgrave, Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 100–103.

[27] Paul R. Jackson, The Doctrine and Administration of the Church (Des Plaines, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1968), 21–25.

[28] Rolland D. McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. 3 (Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 268.

[29] Barna Group, “51% of Churchgoers Don’t Know of the Great Commission,” Barna, March 27, 2018, https://www.barna.com/research/half-churchgoers-not-heard-great-commission.

[30] Barna Group, “The Great Disconnect: Reexamining the Church’s Role in Missions,” Barna, 2021; cited in Mission Network News, March 24, 2022, https://www.mnnonline.org/news/new-barna-report-reveals-us-church-beliefs-about-missions.

[31] American Bible Society, State of the Bible 2022 (Philadelphia: ABS, 2022); see reporting in Daniel Silliman, “Bible Reading Dropped Dramatically in 2022,” Christianity Today, April 20, 2022, https://www.christianitytoday.com/2022/04/state-of-bible-reading-decline-report-26-million.html.

[32] Biola University, “Update on Biblical Literacy: Are There Any Reasons to Be Encouraged?” Talbot Magazine, January 2025, https://www.biola.edu/blogs/talbot-magazine/2025/update-on-biblical-literacy-are-there-any-reasons-to-be-encouraged.

[33] Rolland D. McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. 3 (Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 270.

[34] David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1986), 202–12.

[35] Paul R. Jackson, The Doctrine and Administration of the Church (Des Plaines, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1968), 93.

[36] David Nettleton, A Biblical Philosophy of Missions (Des Moines, IA: Regular Baptist Press, 1967), 42.

[37] Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 481–84.

[38] Joshua M. Greever, “We Are the Temple of the Living God: The Spirit as the Fulfillment of God’s Promise to Dwell among His People (2 Cor 6:14–7:1),” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 19, no. 3 (2015): 97–112.

[39] Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 485.

[40] David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, New American Commentary, vol. 29 (Nashville: B&H, 1999), 330–37.

[41] Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 490.

[42] Joshua M. Greever, “We Are the Temple of the Living God: The Spirit as the Fulfillment of God’s Promise to Dwell among His People (2 Cor 6:14–7:1),” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 19, no. 3 (2015): 97–112.

[43] Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 481–84.

[44] David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, New American Commentary, vol. 29 (Nashville: B&H, 1999), 330–37.

[45] D. A. Carson, “2 Corinthians,” in New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and Gordon J. Wenham (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 1121–22.

[46] David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1986), 195–210.

[47] John Stott, The Message of 2 Corinthians: Power in Weakness, Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 138–40.

[48] Andrew Louth, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2013), 104–6.

[49] Joshua M. Greever, “We Are the Temple of the Living God: The Spirit as the Fulfillment of God’s Promise to Dwell among His People (2 Cor 6:14–7:1),” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 19, no. 3 (2015): 97–112.

[50] Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 50 (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 31–33.

[51] Gene L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 70–72.

[52] Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter and Jude, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 47–49.

[53] Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 50 (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 31–33.

[54] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, New American Commentary, vol. 37 (Nashville: B&H, 2003), 433–35.

[55] Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd ed.; Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), §§84–95.

[56] David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1986), 195–210.

[57] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 229–31.

[58] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 86–89.

[59] Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 145–48.

[60] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 245–48

[61] Craig S. Keener, Revelation, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 121–25.

[62] David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, New American Commentary, vol. 29 (Nashville: B&H, 1999), 330–32.

[63] Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 50 (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 31–33.

[64] Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter and Jude, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 47–49.

[65] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, New American Commentary, vol. 37 (Nashville: B&H, 2003), 433–35.

[66] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 86–89.

[67] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 229–31.

[68] Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 145–48.

[69] John Stott, The Lausanne Covenant: An Exposition and Commentary (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975), 7–10.

[70] Samuel Escobar, The New Global Mission: The Gospel from Everywhere to Everyone (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 56–59.

[71] David J. Hesselgrave, Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 198–203.

[72] Lausanne Movement, State of the Great Commission Report (2024), 44–48.

[73] Barna Group, “Translating the Great Commission,” Research Release, 2018.

[74] David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1986), 195–210.

[75] Kevin T. Bauder, One in Hope and Doctrine: Origins of Baptist Fundamentalism 1870–1950 (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 2014), 289–91.

[76] Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1979), 112–16.

[77] Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 160–62.

[78] Moisés Silva, Philippians, 2nd ed., Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 81–83.

[79] Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, Philippians, rev. ed., Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 43 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 54–56.

[80] Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 163–65.

[81] Moisés Silva, Philippians, 2nd ed., Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 83–85.

[82] Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, Anchor Bible 32A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 374.

[83] Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 147–50.

[84] Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 633–35.

[85] George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 470–72.

[86] Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder, Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles (Nashville: B&H, 2010), 207–10.

[87] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1957), 386.

[88] George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 472.

[89] William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 584–86.

[90] William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 47B (Dallas: Word, 1991), 528–29.

[91] David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 491–92.

[92] Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 705–07.

[93] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 377–78.

[94] Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 511–12.

[95] William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 47B (Dallas: Word, 1991), 530.

[96] David J. Hesselgrave, Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 198–200.

[97] Samuel Escobar, The New Global Mission: The Gospel from Everywhere to Everyone (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 56–59.

[98] Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder, Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles (Nashville: B&H, 2010), 207–10.

[99] George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 470–72.

[100] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, New American Commentary, vol. 37 (Nashville: B&H, 2003), 433–35.