Very sad commentary on the church today

These "so called claims" are not claims but facts included in the book of Acts.
The people of the Way are Christians in the early Church.

 

If you have the word in your heart you should be preaching with conviction.

 

Matt, you are an honorable man and I respect that greatly.
It is time for me to move on because studying the Bible is a better use of my time than spending it on this forum debating issues. I wish the very best blessings on you and your household from our Lord Jesus

 

May my Lord Jesus bless all who Love Him and are called according to His purpose.

 

Sir ,# 43 did include paraphrased statements from the Scriptures just not the references. [Romans 14:4 and James 4:12]

 

Is there something inherently wrong with being small, or not having Sunday School, or not supporting the modern missionary movement?

 

Back to original post.

I am preaching on Luke 16 this Sunday and found this from R. C. Sproul in studying:

 

I only named these things as a clue as to whether this man came from a Primitive Baptist background. If you had heard from him any of these qualities of the "small" church he had attended.

This being related to the question as to the doctrine of hell and that there are some Primitive Baptists "no-hellers".
As far as I know these are the only Trinitarian Universalists that I know of except for a church in Boston in the 18th century.

Apart from all that, these are subjective questions, the answers depend upon how you view the Scriptures concerning each.

I'll give my answers apart from the Baptist Distinctives.

I believe the question concerning "small" would be answered with a "no" by almost everyone including myself. I would say no there is nothing wrong with "small" from the Scriptures. Personally after having been involved with both small and big, I prefer "small". In addition what is "small" to one may be "big" to another and vice versa. Small for me would be less than 100.

The modern missionary movement? For one thing, that depends upon the mission board. There have been many compromises along the way with the history of modern missions as well as the church at large, so I can't answer concerning a particular mission board unless I knew their view on several areas of doctrine along with their biography.

Generally speaking, Yes, I personally believe it is wrong NOT to support missions. While I know that most Primitive Baptists believe the Great Commission was given only to the Apostles in Matthew 28 but so was the authority to baptize, yet PB's baptize for membership. Myself, I believe the Great Commission extends to the present day.

As far as I know there are some PB's who support missions but they don't call it a mission or missions as such. They are willing to send "helpers" or "workers" to another local church or area to "help" with the work.

Sunday School? I don't find anything for or against it in the Scriptures.

I do find that we should desire the word both milk and meat to grow in knowledge and discernment without restriction as to the confines of the local church or one's age (the only necessity is the ability to read and/or understand it if spoken).

I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction brother.

BTW, I have nothing against the Primitive Baptists and in fact I admire them because for the most part they are the "salt of the earth". They do seem to have a quarrelsome past but I believe all Baptists have that in common.



HankD

 

Actually, this refers to one verse with a factual error. The fact is that salt NEVER loses any of its saltiness. It is a property of salt.

 

Being in a small church means you get more attention. Doing ministry in a large church means you cannot expect to get much attention.

Some churches have chosen to remain small and plant new churches.

Seems to me that the focus of modern missions was to go into the interior of a nation rather than stay along the coast as was previously done.

 

Dump some gypsum in it and see what happens.

Mt. 5:13, "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men."

 

Gypsum can neutralize some effects of NaCl in certain applications, but as long as there is no chemical reactions changing salt to something else, it will always remain salty.

 

Again, quick with the ad hominems, eh bro? I know the verse very well. People are being likened to salt. Yet salt never loses it's saltiness, or savour. So the analog is flawed. I have though, wondered about the KJV translation of using a personal pronoun "his" in reference to a genderless chemical like salt.

 

Salt does lose it's saltiness, just ask some farmers around here.

 

Well, we will disagree. The analog is flawed.
As for the ad hominem, I was told by a mod that when I said someone was ignorant on an issue, it was indeed. Just trying to get consistency around here.