Old School Baptist Doctrinal Debates

One of my favorite preachers is Sonny Pyles, an old-time PB Pastor. You can hear him on sermonaudio.com. He has a message on there in which he rips in to the do-nothings. Seems there is a mission work in India and the Phillipines which God is blessing with many conversions and baptisms. The do-nothings can't stand it.

A do-nothing will look to justify their do-nothingness in their theology.

Of course, proportionally, there's as many do-nothings in the arminian churches as there is in the calvinistic churches, and in shear numbers they far exceed the do-nothing calvinists.

 

Not preching to the sinners

 

Along with what amity stated, I will add a few things about missionism.

As people who view God as the sovereign being he is, and fully capable of saving his people to heaven without the aid of men, we see the ultimate purpose of that "new" missionism, began in the early 19th century, as contrary to his word. The purpose of that missionism was to preach the gospel to heathen lands in order to save souls from hell. As Primitive Baptists, we do not believe preaching the gospel, or not, has no bearing on where a person spends eternity. That is one reason for the rejection of the missionism.

Another reason, as can be seen in the recent missionism occuring within some Primitive Baptist churches, is because of the method. I, for one, believe the evangelism in the Philippines, and elsewhere, began as good works following a scriptural precedent. However, it has devolved into the very thing our old brethren at Black Rock so many years ago wrote against. Without naming names, I will say many of us view the current missionism as a group of a few hundred churches being run by one man, or so he has stated, and a board which oversees monetary disbursements to the different churches in that area. The "board" also sends out a newsletter which includes a request for funds from people and churches to be disbursed by the board for a PB run orphanage, office and administrative employees, and the differenct churches in that country. This is the current protest against missions. There are many "independent" churches in the Philippines which have separated from the this block because they view this as unscriptural as well.

I am a firm believer that the "great commission" is still valid for the ministry and they should go and preach wherever God might send them. The problem I see is ministers are afraid now to go and preach in other lands for fear that they will be labeled with the missionary camp by some overzealous persons.

The biblical role of evangelism, as seen by the PBs with whom I associate, is for the minister to go where he feels led to go and preach the gospel. The people being preached to have the responsibility to care for that minister and make sure he is compensated for his time and cost for coming to them. Just as our church does not pay our Pastor on Sundays when he holds an appointment elsewhere (that church pays him), and just as we pay other ministers when they come and preach for us (their home churches do not) so do we expect that ministers ought to be taken care of by the very people they are preaching to, not by some board or church elsewhere.

Hope all that answers some of your questions about the rejection of missionism.

Evangelism = Yes
Missionism = No

God bless.

Bro. James

 

Yeah, that's a convenient excuse that many of the missionary PBs use against us "do-nothings". We just don't believe in preaching the gospel.

That's much more convenient than telling the truth about why we reject their work, because we believe they are using the wrong means, and now because many are preaching unsound doctrine.:BangHead:

 

That is really well stated, Bro. Reed.

The point needs to be made that Primitive Baptists are not a uniform body. There are some things that nearly all PBs hold in common, but it is surprising how little that amounts to, really. Even among mainstream PBs there is a big divergence of belief about issues like the Philippines.

And there is a big difference between evangelism, the scriptural model, and missionism as a modern institution.

And I also do not see evangelism as inconsistent with Calvinism. But I also do not see Primitive Baptists as Calvinists.

 

Well, there's always two sides to the story, isn't there? I'm open to hearing your side if you have time and care to share it. Didn't mean to offend, but it does seem like any time someone does anything, someone else is right there to criticize.

 

Well, as you probably know, I believe that predestination extends farther than just the aspects of salvation. But one of my primary objections is that the language that some people use, though probably unintended, does not assure us that "all aspects" of salvation are predestinated. Perhaps this is exacerbated because of "being afraid" that "accurate" language might sound too much like someone else (a reason Baptists don't use the perfectly Biblical word bishop).

Here is an area where we need to allow the Bible to interpret itself, rather than to apply our own distinctions. As noted in the earlier post, the Greek word proorizo is translated "predestinate" and "determine before", which is a Biblical way of defining the meaning of predestinate -- it is that which God has determined before. For example, in Acts 4:28 - "For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." What had God here determined before? That Herod, Pontius Pilate, Gentiles and the people of Israel would crucify Jesus Christ. See verses 24-27 and also Acts 2:22-24.

 

Some of the reasons why the "do-nothing" PB's won't have nothing to do with those "missions":

1. In the early years, they found this Filipino preacher whom they quickly ordained and gave some fancy sounding name. Turns out he was living with someone not his lawful wedded wife. Then they distanced themselves from him;

2. Hasty ordinations;

3. Mass "conversions". In some instances, Filipino pastors bringing in their entire congregation for baptism.

4. Doctrinal compromise. Example: here in the States, most of them don't teach and preach on tithing because PB's do not believe tithing is a New Testament practice. Well, tithing suddenly became one of the "non-essentials". As far as Filipino PB's go, you can tithe, you may not tithe, ain't essential doctrine.

Then there's preacher's conferences and pastor's seminars. Practices unheard of among the really, really Old School Primitive Baptists here in the States.

Oh, by the way, I am one of those "do-nothings", by God's grace.

 

Thanks for the info Pinoybaptist. Is that my foot in my mouth? I really shouldn't have said that "do-nothing" word. :tear: Let's blame it on Elder Pyles - yes, HE put that word in my head. :thumbs: Anyway, I'm not PB so I don't have a dog in the race. I didn't realize I was stepping into such a sensitive subject. I have a lot of appreciation for PBs, both "old line" and newer.

 

Don't worry about it, JD.
Anything going on between us PB's does not have anything personal in it. I am sure the Old Liners and the Missionary PB's love each other in Christ, but lines do need to be drawn, and this is a fact of life even among kinsmen.
:wavey:

 

Another name to look up would be that of Lasserre Bradley, Jr. He was the Southern Baptist preacher up in Cincinnati, Ohio, who joined the PB with most of his congregation a few decades ago. Has a radio show called the Baptist Bible Hour that is broadcast through much of the world. I am not aware of details, so may have my facts a little garbled, but I understand that it was this radio show, broadcast in the Philippines, that started the interest there.

 

IIRC, Lasserre Bradley was originally connected with the Baptist Bible Fellowship rather than the Southern Baptists -- no difference soteriologically, but maybe slightly methodologically.

 

I show my ignorance. Thanks, Bro. Vaughn.

 

Well, that is what I think, but may be subject to correction from someone more familiar with the facts of the case.

 

There could be some truth to that.
But from what I understand, there was a Filipino pastor, I think it is the first one they ordained, and later found out to be in an adulterous situation, that came upon somebody's web site and read about the doctrines and practices of Primitive Baptists.

This gentleman got in touch with a Primitive Baptist church member here in the States and had asked if they perchance would be planning to go to the Philippines to teach them. The letter got forwarded for some reason to a PB pastor in Virginia, who then got in touch with someone else, who then got in touch with someone else, and finally they had their first "mission" team assembled, and so got over there to my country.

They "ordained" a few elders, constituted a church, had the usual picture takings, and so on, came back to the States praising God for His (?) "mighty and wondrous" works, and then found out that their first boo-boo was they ordained somebody who was living with someone not his lawful wedded wife.

I was at that point in time a new member of a Primitive Baptist church in Maryland (which I later pastored), and was just happy that there were PB's working in the Philippines and teaching my people the Doctrine of Grace as we PB's understand the doctrine.

I had no idea that the PB's were being divided by the issues being brought up, until later. I read both the pros and cons, read the Black Rock address, and decided to stay in the middle because all these things I learned about in the internet, and have yet to hear about them firsthand, or see them up close and personal, and looked forward to vacationing in the Philippines to see for myself.

But then Elder Harter brought some Filipino PB's with him to the States to visit the churches, and that kind of piqued my curiosity further because to me that sounded like, to me, at least, a deputizing mission, a fund-raising mission, if you will. That was when I began to feel uncomfortable, but kept it to myself.

The second time Elder Harter brought in a bunch of Filipino PB's I was already pastor of the church, and had the privilege of speaking to two of my countrymen in private at my house where they stayed overnight.

During that time they gave me hints and indirect statements that all were not that well as things appeared on the surface and that certain doctrines and practices were being compromised. Also that a kind of "papacy" was emerging.

When they got back to the Philippines, one of them started communicating with me, and eventually, broke off from under the Harter "wings" if you will, preferring, as he put it, to rely solely on God for his needs as a family man, and as a minister.

At that point, I decided to publicly, among the PB's, beginning with the church I was pastoring, to disengage from any identification with the modernism and missionism that has crept in among our people.

It didn't sit well with some in the church, especially when I tried, as pastor and undershepherd for the Lord, to steer the flock away from the same identification with the errors, and was accused of trying to stir up foment among sheep and trying to just be identified with a group.

Eventually, I quit the pastorate.

 

I don't know where this fits in the timeline, but I distinctly remember a letter of interest to Eld. Tolley and the Christian Baptist paper by Teddy Badilles of the Philippines. The reason I remember this because I had met Bro. Badilles. He lived in Henderson, Texas (the county seat of the county I live in) and he attended a Missionary Baptist Seminary there.

This probably would have been in the early to mid 1980s? I subscribed to the Christian Baptist after reading one in the home of a Primitive Baptist friend in southwest Texas.

 

Thanks to all for the responses.

As to missions, I support them wholeheartedly.

Personally I would want to err on the side of the "do-somethins".

Don't get me wrong, I see all this squabbling as a symptom (misguided to be sure) of a passion for Christ and His Church(es).

Too bad it can't be focused in other directions.

I suspect that many of the "do-nothins" are serving the Lord in other areas called "evangelism" here and in "foreign lands".

Every person to be saved will be saved,

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.​

However only a few will enter into a partnership to participate in the human evangelical arm of the Father's redemption of the human race.

Luke 10:2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.​

So call them what you will; laborers, evangelizers, visiting teachers, itinerant preachers, missionaries...​

After reading the responses it seems to me to be a case of semantics.​

HankD

 

I appreciate your input, HankD.
But the issue goes far beyond semantics.
Most Primitive Baptists are also intelligent, no offense intended, and will not divide over semantics.
The issue goes deeper than semantics.

 

My opinion is that it is not unless of course the issue is not the obvious one.

Deeper if you mean the the tactics of the being behind the divisions and strife it has caused in the Body of Christ.

If we are so spiritual and smart why can't we agree?

1 Corinthians 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

​

IMO, we are carnal.

HankD

 

I think a lot of divisions is caused by pride. Being carnal and not spirtual is what gets us into trouble.