Are there any baptists that arent...

Welcome back Bro. Glen!!!

Are you here to stay now?

It sure is good to have a good, solid Old Baptist around here again. Not that other PBs here aren't, but in my book you're a great defender of the Primitive Baptist faith!

I hope and pray that everything in your personal life is going really good for you now.

God Bless. Bro. James

 

Broadus, many SBC churches here in the South used to be Missionary Baptist. When I was growing up, I attended a Missionary Baptist church that did not believe in foreign missions. They gave money for home missions instead. I never knew there was a Southern Baptist church until I was grown, although an ancestor of mine was one of the men who began the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville, TN.

Our SBC church is very missions minded. This is missions month and we have devoted the whole month to studies and sermons on giving to missions. We are not a large church but gave almost $10,000 to the Lottie Moon offering. I think we were all amazed at that amount. Our pastor has preached on missions and we have had missionaries who came and talked about their missions fields. It has been an interesting month so far.

 

Although I am non missionary in my belief I like the idea of home missions. I also believe in helping my fellow man no matter his nationality or counrty or belief. Is the purpose of the missionary to save the heathen? Does the bible teach that or does it teach that missions are for helping those less fortunate then us. Can I help my fellow man without trying to change his belief. I know I can and I will let God change him or her if he so desires.
The Primitive Baptist are facing this right now in the Philipines as the Old Line Primitive Baptist I grew up with do not embrace the missionary mindset that other missionary baptist do. The question remains can God save his children without a missionary. Is our eternal salvation dependant upon the missionary preaching the gospel to the heathen?... What if the missionary preacher never makes it are the heathen who never heard it saved?... Those are my thoughts... Brother Glen

 

Glen,

Thanks for your input. How does Romans 10:14-16, concerning "how shall they hear without a preacher," impact your understanding of missions?

Concerning your question about the missionary preacher never making it to certain heathen . . . I would respond that God will get the message of the gospel to His elect. I don't think it accidental that godly missionaries go where they do. God sovereignly sends them where He desires.

Blessings,
Bill

 

So then the spoken gospel has the power to regenerate the dead alien sinner?... Spiritual regeneration only has that power and the spoken gospel delivers God's children from untruth to the truth that is in Christ Jesus!... I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father but by ME!... Behold the Lamb Of God that taketh away the sin of the world!... Brother Glen

 

My simple understanding - I'm not a theologian - is that it is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that saves us according to His eternal choice. That salvation acts as an atonement for our sins and pardons us for justly deserved condemnation. Regeneration by the Holy Spirit results in the awareness of that salvation already given to us even before we were born. Without it we'd not even know we were saved. It is up to the Holy Spirit to choose the venue in which regeneration is done and to use whatever parts of His creation He desires to accomplish it. It seems to me to be more a matter of the heart than the mind but our spiritual being is difficult to quantify.

Regardless, we can not save someone else by our own efforts directed to them - even eloquent emotional pleading - yet if it is God's will that we minister to others near or far then that is no less His will than any other aspect of His plan within His power to utilize. It seems to me from the whole of scripture that preaching - and I don't mean just preachers like today's term implies - often played a role to the extent that the Holy Spirit made use of it. The ultimate business of salvation - saving souls - is that of God and not man. Telling others about the good news of it all as defined in the Bible is the duty of all Christians to proclaim for the glory of the Lord.

Bless those whom God sends out to places far less comfortable than our own land so that those among them He has chosen may hear His word. We, as Primitive Baptists or any other Christians, should be very careful not to harshly judge those efforts, those who fund them, and those who carry them out according to God's will especially when we have little or know first hand information about the specifics.

Patrick

 

This is true. But, when we do learn what is happening and if something is being done amiss, then we also have the duty, as followers of Christ and defenders of the faith, to voice our disapproval and try to sway those whom we believe are doing things wrong, or incorrectly, if you will.

I've never heard a Primitive Baptist say that we should not preach the gospel to anyone who wants to hear it. The difference is going where God sends you, tursting in Him to lead and take care of you, or going where man, men, or a board sends you, depending on man to finance your way and tell you where to go.

The sad thing about the whole "Philippine" ordeal is that the "leadership" running the whole thing are spoiling it for anyone who really feels a burden to go there or any other country and preach and do it the right way, biblically speaking.

It's so unfortunate. The "primitive" in our name used to mean something. Unfortunately, nowadays you can't tell the difference between one Baptist or another. It is sad that because of certain people we no longer have an identity of our own. Some people see what other churches do and decide it looks good to them, so they want to incorporate it into the Old Baptist church. That's wrong and I'm glad there's a large chunk of us standing up against it.

Bro. James

 

Glen,

Thanks for your reply. God alone regenerates the "dead alien sinner" before that person can repent and believe. He uses the message of the gospel to which the person in whom He has already worked will respond. What else does Romans 10:17 mean: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"?

So are you saying that persons who have never heard the gospel and do not know that Jesus Christ died on the cross to receive the wrath of God, because He became the substitute for the elect (particular redemption), will be saved if they die in that state? If so, what is your scriptural support?

Thanks,
Bill

 

This - something being done amiss - is why I feel compelled to speak out to my fellow Christians about that which, to the best of my ability to discern, is improper categorization and criticism of fellow Christians. That's what drives all of us to speak out. Being a fallible man I can not claim with absolute certainly that I am correct but only that I believe I am correct. I'll bet you feel the same about your point of view on this. My comments, while written in response to your post, are addressed to the whole forum for the purpose of presenting a different point of view.

Who are we to say that those who have gone here or there were not called by God do so? Those few I know who have participated in foreign mission work as Primitive Baptists are, from all I can discern, most certainly called by God for a lifetime of service to Him. It is more than obvious after just a short time spent visiting with them.

Who are we to say that they did, and are not doing, so with full trust in the Lord to lead them in the work? There's no doubt that just making the journey to a foreign land, then staying on for years, and dealing with all kinds of ups and downs of it all involves a tremendous trust in the Lord. There is much comfort in going to our local church or others nearby. It's another thing altogether to go somewhere far from home into a different culture without the comforts of home and speaking another language to preach among many whom may not always welcome you. How would one support themselves in such a place? How easy it is for those who stay to criticize those that go.

Exactly how is it that financial assistance provided for a mission effort makes the giver or receiver un-Christian in their acts? What part of that does God find unfavorable? All Churches are supported by the fruits of labor of its members some whom give money (that represents their work) while others give service and all do so according to what God had provided for them. The churches here are mission efforts within our own communities constantly reaching out to spread the word of God to those who hear it and tending to the needs of its members. Shall we claim supporting them with our earnings is improper? Why then would it be wrong to support - as in help - others Christian brothers and sisters less able to provide for themselves?

The "leadership" of the Philippine Primitive Baptists - not an "ordeal" but a sister Church establishing its roots in a far away place - seem no different than the leadership in any properly constituted Church here in the states. This "leadership" are ordained ministers engaged in preaching the gospel and, also with others, in caring for the needs of their members. The elements of man escapes neither and, certainly, there are faults among them both. Let us more carefully examine ourselves and our own ministers with the same degree of scrutiny and see if we find the same degree of perfection we seek in those we do not know well.

The "leadership" in the Philippines, and in other places like India and Africa, doesn't keep anyone else from going to preach. How could they? It could be said that some churches here keep others from coming to preach at their church - largely based on the preferences of the pastor - but it could not be said they keep others from coming to preach in the city or state much less country.

The Primitive Baptist names does still mean something very good for those of us who prefer its doctrine and practice and you can most certainly tell the difference. Not a word of this is meant to diminish our brothers and sisters of other Christian orders. Each Church stands independent and what some may not want to support may be different that what others may deem completely acceptable. We should refrain from harshly labeling the work of others - especially those we don't even know well - least we put ourselves in similar harsh judgment for what we do and don't do.

Some are confusing God's will and methods with man's will and methods. Some have incorrectly concluded that their objections - or those of their favorite ministers - are God's objections and, therefore, all who do not agree stand against God.

What I've noted most about the missionary controversy - as one example of a few key controversies - is the gross misunderstanding of what others are actually doing and how they're doing it. What's not liked is labeled as the work of men and what's liked is labeled as the work of God. It seems that the farther away you get from it the more evil the legend about it becomes. The truth, on the other hand, is very different.

Patrick

 

My statement above was more generally directed to the reason for the Primitive - Missionary split, not necessarily referring to any one group or people today.

The point is that it is wrong for a group of people, or anyone other than the preacher, to decide for that preacher to go preach somewhere. That is what the split was about, missionary boards sending out preachers to places they feel the preacher needs to go, rather than the preacher deciding where he is led to go. I have no doubt that those who are in the PB Philippine movement today have a sincere desire to go and preach there.

You're right, it is no different. But, the fact remains that if what is going on in the Philippines with certain people doing certain things, I won't go into details right now, were going on here in the US, our churches would be standing up against them just as we are now.

I think I worded this badly. It came out like I thought those who are over there don't "really feel a burden to go there" when what I was trying to relay was anyone who has a great desire to go there, not in association with any of the "leadership" there now, would probably be ostracized as condoning the work going on there now, and be labeled as being "involved" with those ministers. That is bad on our part, and that is the point I was trying to convey. I apologize if it didn't come across that way.

What we are standing for is what we believe the Bible teaches and what the history of the Primitive Baptist church relates to us, which we feel are both the same and the correct way to do things.

We find the way things are being done, ordaining elders a few days after baptism, having one or a few men oversee all of the churches and elders in the country, having seminars here in the States for ministers only, preaching the doctrine of Calvinism, teaching that Conditional Time Salvation is a heresy, taking alien baptism, and many other things, are not consistent with the Bible and what Primitive Baptists have stood for since the church began.

Our belief is all that we have to go on. If we didn't believe God's word the way we do then we wouldn't have a problem going along with many of the things that are being done by some ministers. Our belief is what makes us who we are. If we didn't think our belief about these things was correct, and that our belief is in the word of God, then we would have no reason to have a church at all.

Our belief, and our belief that other peoples' interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, is what makes us Primitive Baptists, while others are Missionary Baptists, Catholic, Calvinist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, etc, etc.

On a side note, Bro. Patrick, I'm glad we're both at the stage where we can have a deep, meaningful conversation without yelling or "typing loudly" at each other. This way is much better, don't you think?

Bro. James

 

The preacher or God decides? I thought we'd concluded that it was God who called men to preach?

Consider the frequent case in this country where a particular preacher will be out of town and unable to keep an appointment to preach. What does he do? He calls another preacher he knows and asks him to fill in for him. Sometimes the congregation makes the request. Sometimes the preacher is just passing through and gets asked on the spur of the moment because he's there. The preacher called responds on the basis of that request. Did God facilitate this communication? We hope so! It sure seems to involve the asking and accepting of persons doesn't it?

So if someone asks and a preacher accepts does that not make it the decision of the preacher in as much as he was not commanded by man to go and preach?

What missionary board has sent Primitive Baptist preachers out to preach? Are we confusing missionary boards such as were involved in the split with an organization formed to support a specific mission effort called by God? Wasn't the organization established by the very same preacher or preachers who were called to preach in the first place? What then is wrong with this?

The problem of long ago seems to have been more about local churches not wanting some business based missionary board levying dues upon them and deciding where and how that money would be spent, who would be sent where, and even what the qualifications of the persons would or would not be. Those issues don't appear to be involved in the current mission work at all.

If individual churches wish to contribute to a specific mission effort because they believe it to be worthy of support in as much as it is God's work then how can other churches condemn such? Could it be that the shallow depth of our own pockets are a concern in this matter?

Then these things must be those you've mentioned herein. What other great evils are being committed by fellow Primitive Baptists in the Philippines, India, or Africa?

What is the basis of these accusations? Are these actions personally witnessed or even heard directly from someone who has witnessed them? Have they been discussed with those accused? Are they simply accepted third-hand, forth-hand, or more allegations passed along from preacher to preacher and church member to church member without benefit of examination or cross examination? Who defends those accused by such allegations?

According to the words of several who've actually been there with whom I've spoken the story is very different than what's often passed along.

The one elder who was ordained shortly after baptism was already an ordained elder who became convicted of the specific Primitive Baptist doctrine. Some involved have already acknowledged that in the early days of the mission work because of the excitement of bearing fruit of the labor that things were perhaps done more hastily than would have been if more consideration had been given to how they might be received by others distant from the work.

Never the less, this quick proceeding from baptism to ordination is not at all unusual as there have been many ministers in this country who've done likewise and were not subjected to a prolonged proving of their call before being ordained. Further, if the Holy Spirit desires a man can be quickly converted from the vilest of sinners to the greatest of witnesses or preachers, then it is done. Time is the element man applies to gain some degree of comfort with what God has already decided.

The seminars you mention, according to the sponsor, are open to anyone who desires to attend whether minister or not. The Bible relates stories of elders gathering together alone, with others, or with the Lord to study and learn. How is such a meeting today against the doctrine of the church?

When you write "our" aren't you actually referring to yourself, to your church, and to those you known and with whom you fellowship? I don't write this in a negative sense because I think we're all more comfortable with those closest to ourselves and tend to view ourselves as correct. Our conversations with oneanother tend to build up and affirm those beliefs. This can work for the glory of God if it's based in truth but it can also work against him if it's based in untruth.

We all have to decide what we'll believe and stand for it else there is nothing to believe and nothing to stand for. That is why I stand where I do in these matters.

However, others of the Primitive Baptist order do not agree completely with the specific positions taken and are directly involved in the mission work. Their faith in God, knowledge of God's word, and faithful practice of our faith and order is no less than any other.

Go and visit with them! Speak with them and question them gently about what you've been told. Listen to what they say and the spirit it which it is related to you. Go and see for youself what is happening. Ask the other brothers and sisters you do not know what they've seen. Ask God to show you the truth and then help you put an end to the rumors that work against His work.

Certainly! It is always good to have a healthy debate without getting angry. We tend to listen more that way and that's usually a good thing.

Good comments Bro. James!

 

Of course God decides. I was simply making the point that no one (earthly beings; people) is involved in this decision other than the preacher.

That a minister may ask another to fill in for him is a different situation. One, the minister asking is not a missionary board who employs the other minister and tells him to preach at such and such church. Two, it is a request, which the offered minister can very easily turn down for any number of reasons, which happens quite often. When someone is under a missionary board, it is that board that decides where that preacher will go, and in effect he is the employee of the mission board.

Once again, my mentioning missionary boards was more in line with the original split. When I refer to mission boards I'm referring to that split, not the current controversy.

But, if I may say so, it does seem to be moving in a direction that would make it more like the missionary boards of old that the early Primitive Baptists fought against. At least, that's what it looks like from the last pamphlet I saw asking for money.

Actually, these are only a few things. The biggest "no, no" going on right now, from my perspective anyway, is with one particular minister. His activities are the ones I will not go into detail about because I don't feel that a public board is the place to name names and start telling what I think is wrong with someone personally.

I have heard with my own ears, from the people I'm talking about, and I've seen their writings with my own eyes. I don't just take second-hand information without checking it out. I investigate, and I have reached my conclusions based on first-hand knowledge.

If the "seminars" are open to anyone, why are they openly called preacher meetings by those who attend? Why, in the booklet and minutes printed out of the schedule, are the subjects about teaching ministers how to preach this subject and that subject. It is a seminary, plain and simple. We will not stand for that.

Please name an example, in private if you like, of an elder here in the US who was ordained after a week in the church and was accepted as duly ordained and called of God by Primitive Baptists.

 

I'll finish my comments here. (I hit the "add Reply" button by mistake and sent the above message before I was finished. oops)

When I say "our belief" I don't mean ours collectively. I mean ours, as in yours and mine, and everyone else's individually.

I will also pray, as you say, for "God to show you the truth". It is my sincere belief, based on church history, but also more importantly on His Holy Word, that I am standing for the truth, however unpopular that may make me with certain churches and people.

God Bless. Bro. James

PS If you would like to email me privately, I can refer you to first hand accounts, written and recorded, of the allegations I, and many others have made against certain ministers.

 

Bro. James, we differ completely in our views on this subject and, obviously, our sources of information also differ. You do not represent what I believe in this matter nor what many other Primitive Baptists I know believe. You do accurately reflect what many, if not most, in this area seem believe. I know you're sincere in your belief. I respect that there are such differences among Christians and know these differences don't make any of us enemies in all respects.

Just as you feel you're standing firmly for the truth, so do I, regardless how unpopular that makes me here in this little corner of the world. Just as you feel compelled to point out the allegations, I feel compelled to defend against them. I have no naive expectations of changing anyone's mind on these matters nor arguing the points to the point of proving them beyond a doubt. My main purpose in responding to your original post was just so other forum readers would know that the views you portray are not universal among Primitive Baptists.

You, and others who share your concerns, should take your allegations to the ministers against which you're making them. I have no interest in reading or listening to that kind of thing. I find the allegations trivial, unfounded, and certainly unproved. I also find them to be based - not in the interest of upholding the truth of the church - but in attacking and defeating other brothers and sisters with whom there's disagreement. Without examination and cross examination no firm conclusion can or should be reached. Every time I've learned of this stuff - a lot of which floats on the internet - and followed up on it with the individuals named I've found the story to be very different. It all smells like rumors to me and it has from the very first time I heard of it. I think it's very wrong to keep spreading such gossip.

Patrick

 

I really don't see why you would disagree with my original post. What I said was an accurate reflection of the "climate" here in Texas.

The allegations have been taken to the ministers many times before, so for me to do so again would be only to rehash things that have already been said and done. It is pointless.

Besides that, I can read the writings and hear the sermons myself on the websites of these very men who are accused and see what they are saying. That is by no means gossip, unless you want to say they are gossipping about themselves when they put their own material online.

I am confident that with the testimony of respected and well-known Elders and churchmembers who have questioned these men, as well as with the "confessions", if you will, to these allegations on their own websites and in their own writings, that there is enough evidence there to accurately portray a picture of what is going on.

I think we should end on this note. We are not going to agree on this, at least anytime soon, but I want you to know that I respect your opinion, and I still want you to know that I, and the church, love you and your wife, and you are welcome to come to services anytime, and that I will continue to fellowship with you just as I do with the other brethren on the Baptist Board.

God bless you.

Bro. James

 

The allegations remain unproved and the gossip should stop. All that's alleged is what's been provided and magnified by those bent on making it out to be something it's not. The accusers assume guilt and then search for scraps of information to support their predetermined conclusions. It is like a little flock of vultures waiting on a fence for a passer by to remain motionless for just a moment so they can claim them as dead and satisfy their hunger as they rip apart the live flesh of their victim.

Bro. James, there are just as many well known and respected elders and others out there who don't agree with your conclusions as those you know who do. There are many who testify that the mission work in the Philippines is completely in order as it is in India and Africa and elsewhere. Many people do seem to gather their wagons around their leaders even if by subtle guidance.

The way to resolve this is to bring the accusers and the accused together, present the evidence, hear the testimony, permit examination and cross examination, record what is charged, evaluated, and concluded. All else merely fits the category of "Look at this! ...." such as was presented to me by one minister with great excitement and pleasure over having found something on the Internet concerning "wrong doings" in the Philippines. I found that kind of attitude very troubling.

Until the matter is proved, if it could be proved, in a proper Biblical manner then it's up to Christians like all of us to challenge the ongoing discrediting by some Primitive Baptists of the mission work in the Philippines being done by fellow Primitive Baptists.

Surely, we will continue to fellowship on this forum from time to time when there's a subject of mutual interest! I don't agree with you on this matter at all but I'm not a war with you, brother, and I'm with you on a lot of matters.

The more personal issues aren't of concern to this forum and really shouldn't be mentioned in keeping with the guidelines. However, lest anyone conclude otherwise, we (my wife and I as well the rest of my family) do, and will continue to, fellowship with Primitive Baptists of like mind around the country.

Patrick