Old School Baptist Doctrinal Debates

Well Mike;
I can tell you before it starts that this will just be another C/A discussion, of which we have had over and over.

 

Just curious.
What do you mean by "more than one living companion" ?
Get the ball rolling and I'll see what I can pitch in.

 

I'll give it a stab. As you probably already know there is no set rule to force any Primitive Baptist Church into taking the same position as the next. But as a general thing in this part of the world, issues of divorce and remarriage are taken on a case-by-case basis. It depends on the circumstances involved. If a brother or sister is the victim of immorality on the part of their partner, the church will retain the victim of such and they may remarry. The offending member will be excommunicated and never taken back. In cases where there is no gross immorality, but the couple just bickers and divorces then both are cut off from the body until they may reconcile.

 

And here we have the first difference presented among Primitives.

Our church, and many, if not most or all, churches in this general area of the country, would take one back if they repent of their immorality.

There was a Cayce faction of Primitives who held to the view that one taken in adultery or fornication at anytime in their life could never be a member of the church, or if excluded, then never restored to fellowship. Those churches, all but a handful, have died off over the last 30 years or so. As it happens, we share the building with one of those churches. There are about 8 members there and they meet only once a month, while we meet all the other Sundays.

Now, there are some Primitives, of the liberal side, who will take back members who were excluded for adultery and who are married to someone other than the one they offended when excluded. I know of a deacon who was excluded twice fopr adultery, brought back both times after "repentence" and then ended up at a PB church where they accepted him in his 3rd non-scriptural marriage. In that case, most of us view him as still being in adultery, and would therefore not fellowship with him.

I am interested in some of the views on foot washing. I know there are Primitives, mostly in the north, I suppose, who do not wash feet. There are many people down here who would make that a test of fellowship. I don't know that I would, but I also know I would not join a church that didn't practice it.

 

BTW, I hope everyone had a good day in the Lord's House.

I just love Sundays.

 

I have yet to see this happen, but I would suppose that we would take them. I am of the opinion that you can not judge someone's works based on church/biblical principles if they were not subject to such things at the time of the offense.

1 Corinthians 6 tells us that there were presently members of that body who at times past were idolators, fornicators, adulterers, etc.

How do we justify judging people based on works when we freely admit that, as unregenerate people, they were incapable of living a godly life. If anything, we should expect that those who were living a worldly life prior to coming to the church would have been no different from others in the world. (I know that is contrary to what our Arminian Old Reg brethren would have, but this is how I take it as a "calvinistic" Primitive Baptist.)

Blessings.

BJR

 

Unfortunately I have seen it. around 30 years ago we had an elder just back from Vietnam, really messed up in the head, who divorced his first wife, supposedly for adultery, (I never knew the circumstances of that divorce first hand). He married another church member, and then he (the elder) proceeded to run around on her, and got another elder's wife pregnant. How in the world would you ever get that straight? That's when it was decided that the offender in gross sexual immorality would never be taken back. Of course we don't believe that church membership is a prerequisite for immortal glory, but the peace of the church is worth something here in this life, and that is the way it was decided. About four years ago this excluded elder sent word that he would like to come back, and I was consulted, and advised not to take him. Was I right or wrong, I can't say, but I have never lost the first moment's sleep about it.

 

No meetings in these parts today, ice, but we had a good meeting last night.

 

I would love to be part of a church that holds the peace of the church more important than the feelings of a member who was excluded or will be excluded for having more than one companion.

Personally I feel strongly against divorce for any reason.

 

THIS IS THE 1993 ORDER AND PREVIOUS FOR MANY YEARS
(19) In answer to the question, "Shall we receive into fellowship men or women having more than one wife or husband?" The Association by regular move and second said, 'We advise the Churches not to receive into their fellowship any such, except those who have put away their companion for the cause of fornication, such cases to have Gospel or Church evidence of same."


THIS IT THE ORDER WE HAVE NOW THAT WAS CHANGED OVER MY OBJECTION FOR MANY YEARS.

Item 8. By regular move and second, it is ordered that Item (15) of our 1999 Minute be reprinted as follows:

AIt is a sin for anyone to put away their wife or husband for any cause except for fornication and marry another. In regards to going behind one=s experience or receiving one in the Church with more than one living companion, we say that each Church shall be the sole judge to the validity of one=s experience. Churches should not be forced to receive members, however, that would destroy the body. (Receive should be interpreted to include all means of receiving members.)@


I fought the changing of this order for years and was finally outvoted. They did give all churches the right to hold their own Key and that is what the Church I moderate does. We still hold to the “old” order. The new order gives a church the right to take whom they want and no other church has a right to object to their being the sole Judge of the validity of that canidate's experience, even if someone knows personally that the canidate is not the innocent party. It is one of the lessenings of holding to the old orders.

Anyone who knows will tell you Bro. Bob fought hard to keep the Old Order, but was out voted and the Majority rules according to our Constitution.

 

Well, based solely on what you provided since I don't know the whole situation, I would say that the offending elder should have been excluded for adultery and his credentials stripped. The woman he got pregnant should have been excluded as well.

Now, if he came back a few years ago and repented, and there was obvious evidence of that repentance, and he was to remain unmarried, I don't see what grounds I would have to keep him out. I certainly would not be in favor of his preaching anymore though. That said, it is a church decision, and I was not party to the goings-on nor was I a member of the church being petitioned, so I really can't say for certain.

I do believe that peace in the church is worth a lot, but I wouldn't want to forsake one of God's children for the sake of peace. Doing so much for the sake of peace has led many to fall in line with the current missionary movement, just for the sake of peace.

In my view, if God has caused a person to truly repent of his misdeeds to the church and seek to be reunited in our fellowship, I just don't see how we can't forgive what God has forgiven.

But, again, that is a difficult decision that a church must make on its own when faced with such a situation.

We have exlcuded many people for different things, and restored several of them after repentance, but never have we had one who was excluded for adultery come back to be restored.

What I think is really in left field is those who now state that adultery is an act, rather than a state of living. There are some churches, of the liberal stripe, who say, if Brother X runs around on Sister X, he should be excluded for adultery. Brother X then divorces Sister X and marries Miss Y. Brother X comes back to the church after a few months and asks to be reinstated. Now, he is married to one who was not his wife when he was excluded, yet some churches will take him back since he repented of that act of adultery. Our church, and most others down here, would say that Brother X is still living in adultery because he is married to one who was not his wife when he was excluded.

You want to talk about confusing?:tongue3:

 

I'm right there with you.

But, there are times when it is necessary.

We have an Elder down here who caught his wife cheating on him, for the 3rd time, after he returned home from a church meeting out of town. She had been cheating, on and off, for about 10 years. He filed for divorce and he seems to be pretty happy now. I think it was final in November last year.

My brother's wife filed on him and was pregnant by her boyfriend within 2 months of serving him the papers; they had not even gone to court yet.

I would rather folks try to work out their problems, but it takes 2 to make a marriage, and if one person doesn't want it, then it just ain't happening.

Maybe that's why I'm still single.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Hmmmmmmmm
Let me get this straight.
You guys exclude someone for sin. They repent but are not reconciled to their spouse and in some cases the spouse has remarried. Yet you STILL exclude them?

Seems to me that you fellers have become PHARISEES.

Your fellowship is not of God.
God is in the restoration business. Seems you fellers are in the "we four and no more" business.

 

The old school Baptist show much mercy, it just understanding of the scripture and trying to uphold the word of God. Like in Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultry. Now lets say a brother in your church Jim, who has professed a hope in Christ and has been baptized and then he does this. Do you allow them to keep the second wife if they are in error or do they need to separate from the second before they can be restored. Its not that we are not all sinners saved by the Grace of God we all believe that. its just upholding the scripture. This seems to be the most varied in the old baptist. Maybe your Church never had this problem when members are split and peace is lost, thank God for that.

and what about Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Does this make a Church a bunch of pharisees if they go with the teaching here in scriptures. Isn't it better for the eye or hand to burn than the whole body. Shouldn't the Churches standard be a little better than the worlds, are we not sanctified and called unto good works. This doesn't mean that they are not one of God's elect and will not land safe in heaven but they have brought an offense to the Church. To repent of a sin is just not saying i am sorry but its fleeing from that sin. But i may not understand your post to your intent.