Old School Baptist Doctrinal Debates

BTW, our church amended our Articles of Faith year before last because the wording used in describing our belief on predestination sounded a little too absolute.

The prevalent view here is that God predestinated only man unto eternal glory. That predestination only deals with that aspect, as the word itselfs says. Pre-destinate...destination determined beforehand.

God's foreknowledge has two aspects; passive and active(or determinate, which is also predeterminate since God has already foreseen everything and decided, in His own mind, on what He will or will not act).

God's predeterminate foreknowledge is separate from His passive knowledge of all things and people which will ever occur or exist. The active/predeterminate part is the aspect of God which causes things to occur, rather than passively allowing them to occur. This is separate from predestination, which pertains only to people, yet similar in that God actively causes certain events to take place, just as He actively chose a people to call His own and take home to glory.

I hope this helps explain the distinction on predestination held by most PBs.

 

We probably do have more absoluters here than in Texas, but then again, I have only been to a couple of churches in Texas and that was many years ago. No progressives here to speak of, and never heard of non-forgivers, so we probably don't have them, but we do have Universalist PBs, so maybe that makes us even. :laugh:

Probably huffing and hupping are the same thing. I don't like myself very much when my mouth gets faster than my brain. So, I personally avoid it like the plague. A few preachers who do do it, don't bother me, most however, do.

The liberation period here used to be 3-5 years, and then either ordain them or sit them down. Probably should be that way yet. When I was ordained, I had been licensed for 7 months, and a church called me as their pastor. They had been without for years, relying on unreliable supply. I objected, but was told that it was between the churches, and I had no say in the matter. I am sure I actually did, but it was to try to calm my nerves I think. It wasn't long till some wanted to join this little church, and I got the big head. Someone should have slapped me silly. Wasn't long till I accepted another church and had several candidates for baptism at one time, and should have been slapped silly again. It wasn't too long after that till I was asked to take a still larger church, and I turned them down, as I was happy where I was, and have been beaten up over that decision for more than 20 years now. They had a minister in their membership and the church I was pastoring didnot. That church is now counted among the liberals. I have nothing against being liberal, politcally I am as liberal as they come, but not in the church, and see absolutely nothing wrong with that view. Liberalism in the proper context is just fine, but the church was established by a perfect being, and I can't improve.

At any rate, after some years my health failed, and we moved back "home" and have had our share of church trouble since we came back 5 years ago. I think it is punishment for those early years of having an inflated sense of self. (Not really, but hopefully the idea is coming across). I finally resigned my last pastorate in September, and am not looking for one. I can barely stand anymore, and am happy filling in when I am able. Diabetes is a nasty, nasty disease.

A little of my experience on this crooked road of life.

 

Huffing Preachers?

I can't say I've heard of "huffing" preachers, but I am familiar with the term "hacking" preachers. I think it's a habit, but I know that for some it's their breathing pattern or rhythm that they get into when they "get in a big way" as Bro. James put it.

My grandpa's (from Mt Zion United Baptist) style of preaching was what they called the preacher's wail or moan. That sing-song style has pretty much died out, but I have heard some preach that way every once in a while. I don't believe that "style" has anything to do with being studied in the word, though. Regardless of how they preach, if they don't study, you can tell.

David

 

RE:Old School Baptst debates

When it comes to taking in members that have been married more than once because of divorce, it depends on if this happened before they were converted. Read Galatians 5:19 to the end of the chapter. Verse 19 talks about the works of the flesh. After reading all of these, we can honestly say that we have been guilty of more than one of these. Go to verse 24 in the same chapter and it tells us that they that are Christ's have CRUCIFIED the FLESH with the affections and lusts. Anything you did before was cast from them when God saved them. So, therefore, they are a NEW creature, the OLD man is passed away, and is now a NEW creature in the knowledge of Christ!! 1Cor 6:9-10 tells us what can't enter into the KINGDON OF HEAVEN, but verse 11 tells us that such were some of YOU:but you are WASHED, but you are SANCTIFIED, but you are JUSTIFIED in the name of the LORD JESUS CHRIST, and by the Spirit of our GOD. If someone comes and gives their hand to be baptized and they give a good confession, it is NNES business what they did before they were saved. No one has a right to go behind someone's conversion!! They asked God to forgive them of their sins, not man. After they come into the church and they do this, that's another story. Romans 8:7 says: Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. The bible does not take affect to a sinner until he is saved. It tells sinners what they can do, and have to do, to be saved. But, it doesn't take affect on one's life until the conversion. It would be better to have a millstone around your neck and cast into the depths of the sea, than to offend one of these little ones who believe in me. This is what Jesus said. May God Bless!! John 3:16!! :1_grouphug:

 

Bro. James, in addition to the "Absoluters" you mention, in Texas there are churches at Jasper, Buna, Cleveland, Tomball, Houston, Lufkin, Austin, Canton, Palestine, Ben Wheeler, Athens, Winnsboro, East Mountain, Linden, Big Sandy, Mt. Vernon, Dallas, New Boston, and maybe a few others I don't know about. And the Old Pilgrim church founded by Daniel Parker still meets near Elkhart (as Absolute Predestinarian, no longer "two-seed" as was Eld. Parker). Some of these churches teach God is the author of sin, though most do not (but take a stronger view of predestination than you present in you post).

As to "huffing", "hacking" and sing-song preachers, this is not confined to Old Baptists, or even Baptists necessarily. I know a few (very few) Missionary Baptists who still preach that way, and some of the holiness-type groups do as well. I suspect a lot of that way of preaching could be traced back to the Separate Baptists if we had the ability to trace it.

P.S. to James -- how did your articles of faith originally read on predestination?

 

Bro. Robert,

What strikes me as humorous, or maybe not, is that almost all of the small towns that you named which have an Absoluter church also have the Old Line (i.e. our side) counterpart. I would assume this is due to splits which occured in those old churches leaving 2 PB churches in one small town. I would not be surprised to find out that any of these churches, or their Old Line counterparts, have added "Original" or "In Order" to their names.

The church in Merryville, Louisiana that I mentioned (called Bethel or Bethlehem, I can't remember) has on their sign next to the highway, Bethel(Bethlehem) Primitive Baptist Church of the Absolute Predestinarian Faith and Order. (It's a big sign with small letters.:laugh: )

As per you question on our Articles of Faith:

Original (1974)
God's predestination has two aspects. The first is the eternal salvation of the elect, whose destination was determined before the world began. The second is the foreordination of earthly events. Although God does not predestinate all earthly events, He holds ultimate control over them.

Revised (2005)
God predestinated His people, before the world began, to be conformed to the image of His Son, and their salvation is forvever secured in Jesus Christ.

Basically, we just removed the part about the foreordination of earthly events and reworded the rest. Actually, we believe that predestination is part of foreordination, predestination including only His children and foreordination including anything, including predestination, in which He actively engages His will, so the original had our view backwards.

Hope it's not too cold in your neck of the woods.

Also, please keep in mind our Annual Meeting will start Friday night before the 5th Sunday in September this year. If you have a mind to come then, we'd love to have you. Our church is just inside North Loop 610 at I-45. Address is on our website given in my BB profile.

God bless.

Bro. James:wavey:

 

Bro. James, it's been a little too cold to suit me, but things seem to be gradually warming. Thanks for the invite to your Annual Meeting. I believe that will be the same weekend as our Southwest Texas Singing Convention in Austin. I'll have to check on it.

Also, thanks for showing the difference of wording on your articles of faith. A church should certainly try to have them reflect what she actually believes.

As far as the idea that predestination refers only to people and not things, IMO, it is making a distinction where there is no difference. Consider the following factors.

1. The meaning of the Greek word proorizo: according to most concordances, Bible dictionaries, etc., it means "to predetermine or decide beforehand", "decreeing from eternity", "to foreordain or appoint beforehand". (IOW, our modern idea of "destination" is not bound up in the word, as usage will show)
2. The use of the Greek word proorizo. It is translated "predestinate", "ordain" and "determine before" in the following verses, and is not restricted from referring to things.
Acts 4:28 - For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel /determined before/ to be done.
Rom 8:29 - For whom he did foreknow, he also did /predestinate/ to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 - Moreover whom he did /predestinate/, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
1Co 2:7 - But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God /ordained/ before the world unto our glory:
Eph 1:5 - Having /predestinated/ us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:11 - In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being /predestinated/ according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
3. The English meaning of the word "predestinate": to foreordain or predetermine. (IOW, our modern idea of "destination" is not bound up in the meaning of the word)

4. The Latin root of the word "predestinate": it comes from the Latin root déstinàre, which means to establish or determine (see the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © 2006, for example)

To me to define "things" out of what God has determined before is to ignore the totality of Scripture, place too much weight a few verses without due consideration of the whole, and to ignore the meaning of the word. Finally, too much rests on reading back into it one of the meanings of our word "destination" -- "the place to which one is going". This ignores other meanings of the word, such as "an act of appointing or setting aside for a specific purpose". To say that God does not "predestinate" things is to say He does not "predetermine" things (which I don't think anyone means).

I realize this interpretaion is not popular among the majority of Old Line Primitive Baptists -- at least around here -- but at least you can have the satisfaction of knowing you are right!

 

Another thing I thought about relative to predestination:

How could God predestinate His people to eternal life without also predestinating the things/events -- such as election, redemption, propitiation, regeneration -- that would bring that about?

 

Mmm, perhaps what I said about predestination could use a little tweaking.

I do believe that these things are involved in predestination.

The main point I was trying to get across, which I did a poor job of, was that God predestinates His people, whether that be in election before the foundation of the world, or in redeeming them at the cross, etc.

The predestination is not of the things, but of the people in the things.

God did not predestinate me to take exactly 350 steps from my job to my car after work today, although He has always known that that would occur. That would have nothing to do with my eternal salvation. Now, let's say He used His power to actively save me from being mugged on my way to my car. That would have nothing to do with my eternal salvation. These are examples of God's foreknowledge, both passive(as in the first example, where He knew I would take so many steps) and active(as in the second example, where He actively caused some people to not mug me).

I hope that better explains my position.

I had, in fact, written another example to replace that original A of F. The committee assigned to the task was afraid the language, even though accurate, might reflect an idea that we did believe in God's predestinating all events.

My wording included most of the accepted revision, plus something like "and all aspects necessary in bringing about their salvation" or something like that.

Most on the committee had the less-is-more view, whereas I felt that a more lengthy article was appropriate, in the spirit of the other articles we have, some of which are fairly lengthy. Needless to say, I was outvoted, but I still agree with the accepted article. I guess I have to since I wrote it.:laugh:

 

God predestinated them he forknew to be conformed. I think all those other things come to pass in order to conform them to the image of his Son.

was Jesus like Adam in the Garden when considering him going to the cross? I was always told there were only two free moral agents, Adam and Jesus. I would say God did not predestinate adam to fall but forknew he would then directly decreed his purpose from his forknowledge, I would think the same for Christ to the Cross. I believe the whole purpose was to exalt Christ as the savior. But looking at Matthew 4:6 where it says :for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Also where Christ prayed If this cup pass from me but not my will but thine will be done. Did this not show Christ had control of his obedience. But I could use some enlightment on this subject I am a limited brother.

Also I always looked at the order of things as Forknowledge, Election, Predestination.

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. in 1peter 1:2 as well in Romans 8:29 For whom he did forknow, he also did predestinate.

 

I have to say I preach the word and sometimes it has a song sound to it. I do not huff. I also, preach according to how the Spirit lifts me up to preach and what the Spirit gives me.

I do believe the deliverance has a lot to do with the preaching. Maybe it shouldn't, but the sound plays a large roll in keeping the attention of the congregation. I have heard brethren who could preach more scripture than I ever will, but they just didn't have a deliverance and the crowd become restless, some fall asleep, others looking out the window. Usually these brethren, who are well versed, also take a great length of time. I have seen where the congregation dreaded to see them come, and its a shame but true. They usually "feed" the other preachers but completely leave the congregation out of it.

I have seen brethren, who don't know but very little scripture, and certainly can't connect the dots, but they have a sing song voice, that absolutely raises the crowd to their feet. That kind of meeting has very little value to the teaching of God's word, but does feed the souls of the hungry. I really think we need a meeting like that, every so often to just "lift us up", and then back to the word.

 

Here is my least favorite preacher habit: Preaching to the side benches. Making almost exclusive eye contact with the other elders while preaching .. looking for approval, I guess? Body language says "the congregation is not important."

 

Yes, I have noticed this in our churches too.

 

Yes me too, I was taught to not do that, by people who were unsaved, they asked me why did preachers do that. We have some that are very bad for that. I always preach to the crowd. I think Virginia ORB could attest to that, for what little he has been able to learn about me so far. He visited me last church time and we were pleased to have him.

 

In the past, I have had an attraction to the "Primitive Baptist" kind of churches.

However here in the west (WA State) they are few and far between.
I currently attend/fellowship at a GARBC church.

One item of curiosity on my part is why the disparaging view of the so-called modern "missionary movement"?

I have heard several explanations.
Can anyone give me the raw truth as to why it is so frowned upon by PB's?

Thanks

HankD

 

I can only give you my version, of course. The way I understand it, it is based on opposition on extra-scriptural agencies. IOW, the same reasons that PBs don't have Sunday schools, choirs, youth groups, pancake suppers, etc. In addition, although it is certainly not universal, some PBs state that the "great commission" was fulfilled during apostolic times, and that commandment does not apply to us today. Some others say that if someone is led, as Philip was, to go somewhere to preach (evangelize), that is fine, but the church does not set up a special organization to collect money for that purpose. It is fundamental anti-institutionalism.

Most PBs would likely say that the meaning of the term "evangelist" is someone who helps establish new churches.

 

Thanks amity, yes, these are some of the reasons I have heard. I realize it would be close to useless to give my own opposition to their reasons.

However I don't see many of those things you mentioned above being anti-scriptural but of course that is my opinion.

As to the "Great Comission" being "apostolic" so was the commandment to baptize but I have been told that PB's do indeed baptise church members.

I have also heard that there are universalists PB's (called "nohellers" I believe) and this perhaps would explain part of why there would be no perception as to a need for missionaries. Or if there is a strong 5 point Calvinist influence then of course missionaries could also be perceived as unecessary seeing that it's not a matter of anything but God's decree (which indeed seems the only alternative). However, to me, there seems abundant Scripture at least by way of example to GO, to TELL, etc...

Could the strong Calvinist influence be the underlying reason for the disdain of the missionary movement?

I am truly curious.

HankD

 

I can't speak for PBs, but I don't see any connection between calvinism and disdain for missions or spreading the Gospel -- certainly not historically, and I doubt if there's a connection today. Are some calvinists complacent because they think people will be saved no matter what they do? Probably. Are some free-willers complacent because they're just not motivated? Probably. Are there people from all camps who aren't mission-oriented for [insert your reason here]? Probably.

From my perspective as a calvinist, the Bible teaches election AND evangelism. Who am I to accept one and reject the other?