What's the difference?

But, if churches are holding to these beliefs, they are certainly lacking the truth!

Practice MUST follow doctrine. If the practice is wrong, then I don't care what they preach, their doctrine is wrong.

Note that the divisions among the Peace and Trumpets were not solely, though they were in part, due to ministers and misunderstandings. There truly were doctrinal issues separating the two sects. Surely you can see this is the case with the Ephesus church. There can be no fellowship between us because what they are holding to is simply wrong.

I agree that having peace among the churches is a good thing, but had some "misguided ministers" and their "blind flock" not chosen to disfellowship certain churches in 1832, the Primitive Baptists would exist today as Missionary Baptists. While it wasn't a pleasant thing, it was something that had to be done to keep the truth in the church.

As far as salaried ministers go, I don't care who is or is not a salaried minister, or if they proclaim to be a Primitive Baptist. The simple fact is that Primitive Baptists AS A WHOLE have NEVER promoted a minister being full-time and having a salary. That's a historical as well as Biblical fact. That one thing brought into the church, whether preached word has changed or not, is enough to change the practice of the church and that changes the truth of the church.

I have no problem with so-called "missions" in general, though I really don't like the term missions. I have a problem, as do most PBs, with one person setting himself up as the "mission board" or pope, if you will, of the entire movement. That is absolutely not scriptural, but it is what has happened. When they are sending out petitions asking for money from churches here to support the people running the movement there and for us to support those churches over there, that is unscriptural. Churches are to be self-supporting. If they can not stand on their own without outside help, then they should not be there. Here is a good way to tell. If all of the preaches from the U.S. left those countries, and money from here to there quit going, would those churches still exist and would they still be Primitive Baptist?

Another issue would be the so-called "preacher meetings". Whether they want to call them so or not, they are seminaries. When such a thing is held with the express purpose of excluding all people except preachers and to teach those preachers how to preach, that is unscriptural. You can't, nor can anyone else, tell me that Primitive Baptists have ever been in favor of that. In fact, it is one of the things opposed in the Black Rock Address.

The churches and ministers who are practicing these things may call themselves Primitive Baptist, but I can guarantee you that their practice shows the truth that they are not.

we can not and will not allow these practices to creep into our church. That would be worse than people having hurt feelings over a split. I would rather be inline with God than man anyday.

 

I'm adding some additional comments on this subject because I want the larger audience to understand that Primitive Baptists are not represented by one common voice on this forum and that there are different opinions on certain issues. I doubt that's a suprise, but never the less, felt compelled to state it! The purpose of this forum, as I understand it, is to discuss the various denominations in order to gain better understanding. I don't have a license to speak for the Church, either my own or any others of our faith and order, so all my comments should be taken in that respect. I wouldn't want any of you to form a negative opinion of Primitive Baptists on my account if you should view my comments accordingly. On the other hand, since each Primitive Baptist church is fully independent, I suppose my thoughts are worth as much as any other.

As defined by whom? You? Me? The Pastor? Where is the list of churches with whom we "fellowship" or those we do not? I know there's not one and I don't advocate that there needs to be one. But, just how do we decide who we don't fellowship with? Do we stop because you decide to jump up and proclaim it? Do we stop because you studied on it for a month and explained it to us? Do we stop because a new Pastor doesn't like something another Primitive Baptist minister says? My point here is not personally directed to you, but rather to illustrate that non-fellowship between churches can be brought about by reasons and in a manner other than the right ones.

No kidding! Tell me something I didn't know Bro. James, not that there isn't a whole lot I don't! I know you're the "Primitive Baptist Encyclopedia" but you still seems a bit young to know it all. Maybe I'm wrong about some things. I sure have been before! But, were you trying to instruct me again? You, or any other self proclaimed spokesman, can not speak for all Primitive Baptists nor truthfully claim they represent the one true church even among our own faith and order. If we want that, we'd better establish a charter with a new name and trademark it so no one can use it that doesn't fully subscribe to the same criteria. It's not defined in the Holy Bible that I can discern!

Another thought, like I've mentioned before, I don't think the Lord will ask us "Are you a Primitive Baptist?" when we get to heaven and, so I'm not certain it matters nearly as much as we think it does.

I haven't met very many "fathers in the ministry" that I would trust to teach me. We don't live in the age of apostles! They may be called by God to preach but I don't always see the compelling signs of that. I prefer to, first, study the Holy Bible and be instructed by the Holy Spirit. Some good preaching with some real meat to it would certainly be helpful for an old fool like me! I certainly admit my feeble ignorance, but also haven't been overwhelmed by superior wisdom among my brothers. I don't mind exchanging ideas with them, nor learning from others, but I'm not going to be led along by any man, minister or otherwise, without carefully testing what I'm told. A whole lot of what I've heard recently doesn't match up with the truth as I otherwise understand it!

Right, "...none that would effect the truth.", the "truth" being based upon the Word of God! The issues I was writing about are issues that divide Primitive Baptist for no good reason. They include trivial things that don't really matter and some issues of practice that seem, to me at least, to be grossly misunderstood today and changed from their original meanings. Questioning some of those seems to lead to loud shouts proclaiming all sorts of "truths" but no real explanation that sounds like truth to me. They are things I don't believe are precisely, if at all, covered in the Word of God and, therefore, can not be labeled as "truth" in the biblical sense.

They include things such as using or not using notes, supporting (paying) preachers by the sermon or full time, having or not having organized Bible study, sending or not sending people to mission work, preparing verses not preparing for sermons, and rightly dividing the scriptures verses grabbing fragments to support a personal viewpoint.

Go back and do some more study! You will find that the Primitive Baptists, like all churches today, has evolved its particular practices over time. It did not suddenly appear at the time of Chirst! There was no Primitive Baptist church then. We made a change not too long ago when we stopped having Bible study. We made another when we started having singing and eating meetings. So, when you proclaim "ALWAYS" and "NEVER" and "PERIOD", you need to realize that you're describing something that has indeed changed with time. Were you shouting at me when you wrote that? The only thing, as far as I know, that hasn't changed is God! He is still the same. The Church, as the body of Christ, remains the same in Him but, as a body of men, it has changed to fit the particular customs and practices of men of the times in which they live. And no, that does not imply any change whatsoever in the basic doctrines as communicated to us in the Holy Bible. I've already stated that God remains the same.

I know people can get "excited" about this kind of discussion. I certainly do! So, I want to close this round by assuring you that I'm writing this in the interest of debate and learning rather than as a personal attack upon you or anyone else. We don't have to agree to retain mutual respect.

 

There are people among the Primitive Baptist who have devoted their life to mission work forsaking all the comforts, conveniences, and benefits of living and working in this great nation. They live among the people of foreign lands tending to their needs, helping them learn, and preaching to them. They are busy feeding God's children in places you or I wouldn't want to or might not be able to go. This behavior seems rather Christ like to me.

From a practical point of view such endeavors require funding. Since we still live in the land of plenty (although I wonder for how much longer) it seems that our contributions to support such people and their efforts is a contribution to the work of the Lord. There is absolutely nothing unscriptural about asking for support nor for a Church or group of churches to support such work!

It troubles me greatly when Primitive Baptist ministers and others here point their fingers at such with accusations of heresy, non-scriptural conduct, and even profiteering. The very statement you've made regarding what would happen if we stopped sending money came from the mouth of our Pastor who probably heard it from one of his "fathers in the ministry"!

That attitude is what is wrong and not the mission work! It is based in ignorance and staunch refusal to even entertain the facts. The original objection to missions had more to do with the centralized organization and management of mission work than with the performance of mission work. It is so sad that so many Primitive Baptists have taken the objection to mean we should stand against all mission work. So many say they have "no problem" with mission work but will, never the lesse, engage in or condone the rampant critisim of it. I suppose perhaps that is more comfortable for the pocket book!

When our nation was growing and expanding people were happy to have a minister or doctor in their community. If such people didn't come to where they were then they did without or traveled great distances to find them. If people didn't support the efforts with their earnings the work would not have been likely.

We are so blessed now in this nation. You should make a trip to some other countries some time and see for yourself what you find so distasteful. You have no idea of the differences, the needs, and the hunger both literal and spiritual that exists in some corners of this world.

 

There you go again, speaking for the Church (actually all Primitive Baptist churches) about what we "can not and will not allow"! Not that I'm suggesting anything specific, and surely not all the "evil" practices you've described, but I guess the rest of us have no voice in "your" Church? It's also good to know that you're so in line with God on these matters! I've been working at that but still have so far to go! Smile, I know you mean well! Okay, I'm being sarcastic here but also humorous. But, the fact is, Bro. James, you don't have all the answers and you're not entirely correct in all that you state. There are other Primitive Baptists who can and do take issue with several of your points. Personally, I haven't formed strong opinions on all the points but have on a few and they, surprise, don't match up with yours.

 

Actually, I was the one who first posed that question to our Pastor about their survival. The point is, you still did not answer the question. Our church is in need, do you see us sending out pamphlets to Tennessee and Cincinatti and the Philippines requesting money for our church and our Pastor? Absolutely not, nor will you ever. You pointed out that I'm rather young to know "everything", but you neglect to reveal that I have been in the church for my entire life, and my family has been invovled with the Primitive Baptist church since getting off the boat in 1640. Not to mention that my Swedish ancestors and Welsh ancestors were also members of the church before that.

Do not patronize me by talking to me like Bro. Andrew. Youth does not ignorance. I have been in this church, and traveled to enough sister churches to know what Primitive Baptists believe, and have historically believed. Visit the website of the Carthage, Ill. Primitive Baptist Library.

About fathers in the ministry, all I can say is it is a shame that you have no more faith than that in God's ministers.

You came to the Primitive Baptist faith and have since criticized it every step of the way.

Brother, I may not be able to claim many things with my life, but I can most certainly claim to know what our people, the Primitive Baptist people, stand for. I can also, without a shadow of a doubt, proclaim that these points of dissent I have raised are not Primitive Baptist beliefs and neither you nor anyone else saying they are will change that. Read up on the history of our church.

These things are new, by your own admission. Anything new is not welcome in the Church of God. Having a singing is not new. We sing all of the time. Also, it is not a worship service. It is a voluntary event in which we come together to fellowship with one another.

Your point does not hold true. Mother Teresa did a lot of good among the poor and unfortunate of the world, does that make her Primitive Baptist. The church is not a welfare system. The sole purpose of the church is to give glory to God by praising His name.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you-know-who has set himself up over all of the churches in the Philippines. He has decided that he is in charge of all the money going in and out of the country, and which church needs it. That is not scriptural, and there are no two ways about. And yes, I can firmly say that I speak for the Primitive Baptist people in that regard. We do not believe in a pope, but he has made himself to be that. I heard from his own mouth that he sees his ministry as presiding over all of the churches in the Philippines. If that's not being a pope, then I don't know what is.

Just because there is good being done for the poor and hungry children over there does not mean that way it is happening is scriptural.

No I am not following blindly. I know what I have always believed and I know what Primitive Baotists believe, or rather true Primitive Baptists. Are the churches autonomous? Sure, but they are only Primitive Baptist if they agree.

 

You are geting to personal with this Bro. James and you are making some rather personal attacks. I presented my points in a non-specific manner so as not to draw in persons by percise name and location. I'm not going to engage in a shouting match with you at all, if I can avoid it, and certainly not in this public forum. I will engage in a public dialouge or debate in this forum but that's the extent of it. I do intend to continue posting my thoughts whether you like them or not although I certainly will not purposefully do it to anger you.

 

The whole purpose of God's creation is for His pleasure and all that we do should bring honor and glory to Him.

There are several purposes defined for the Church and for Christians among which include helping those in need who can not do so for themselves. No, it's not a welfare system but the Christian's attitude should include helping others in need. But, that aside, the primary purpose of the mission work is to preach to God's children just like it is here. No, Mother Teresa wasn't a Primitive Baptist. But, the ministers in the Phillipines that you mentioned are Primitive Baptists. The two parts of mission work can and do co-exisit.

Isn't it interesting how quickly we feel hurt and get angry when we think we're being attacked? Imagine how those working in Phillipines feel when they learn of the things said about them that aren't true.

 

Don't feel too bad! I get accused of not knowing anything all the time and I've been around a lot longer than you! Bro. James, the point I made wasn't intended to demean your knowledge, your ancestry, or any other aspect of your person. It was meant to point out that in a few places, in your posting, you came across to me as "putting me in my place" and, being farther along in this journey than you, it bothered me. That's probably the same point that was being made to you by the other person you mentioned. Also, keep in mind that, sometimes when we flaunt our resume to others it can make them feel like they're being viewed as somehow being lessor qualified. Our Church doesn't have levels of memembership. New members, old members, and life time members all have the same status.

 

That is not the feedback I have received from other ministers who have been there and observed first hand the work being done. The big problem is that people who don't have any real knowledge of the situation are making accusations about it. Worse, are the ones who spread it far and wide with only remote awareness of the situation. Again, imagine how the people actually involved in this ministry must feel about being so wrongfully attacked by their brothers and sisters in their homeland. Put yourself in that position and feel it!

 

Not at all! I'm actually rather positive about Primitive Baptists and speak highly of it to people throughout my travels. I am one!

I have observed some problems and am outspoken about it. Some of the problems seem to be localized. I have communicated those directly to the parties involved but there is a unwillingness to accept any constructive criticism and that's troubling. The attitude seems to be "take it or leave it" and that's troubling as well. I have also noted that many Primitive Baptists have no problem literally "slam dunking" other Christian orders and that's also very troubling.

 

Sorry to jump in here, but I disagree with this statement, yes, the church is to give glory to God by praising His name, but we are also charged with the task of evangelism.

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.'" -Matthew 28:18-20

Jesus left us with a commission to evangelize, thusly making that part of what the church is about.

 

That was given specifically to his disciples. Only the twelve were with him when he told them this. If he had intended this to be for the church, why not direct it to all of his followers, or even just a few of his followers? Instead, he went privately with his 12 and told it to them.

This commission was given to the 12, not to the church.

Please look these up...I don't have my bible handy or I could tell you the exact quotes and exactly where they are.

(paraphrased) "Thou shalt no more teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying 'Know the Lord', for all shall know from the least to the greatest."

also, in one of Paul's letters, (paraphrased) it says, "...the gospel which was preached to every creature which is under heaven."

The bible teaches that evangelism will one day stop because all will have heard it. Paul tells us that the gospel has already been preached everywhere to everyone, so then was the time to stop "evangelizing". The so-called "great commission" was given to and fulfilled by the apostles.

Of course, don't get me wrong, I think all of God's children should be able to hear the gospel, but saying that it's a duty of the church is, I believe, faulty. As individuals, on the other hand, we do have a duty to share our beliefs with others, though not forcibly upon them like so many groups do today.

 

None of the Bible was written to you. So are you saying that none of it is for you?

In the appeals given in scripture there is often an imperative in the expected response.

 

I think it was directed to all of His followers, because, after all, it was seen necessary to mention it in the Bible, which, was put together to be our source of instruction on how to live faithfully for God. I don't understand why it would be published in God's word if it was directed at any follower of Christ.

After all, look what it says in II Timothy: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." -2 Timothy 3:16-17

I think that the Great Commission was meant to be an instruction to the entire church, because that's what the church has always done, evangelized and lead others to Christ. Even if it was written to the Apostles, check out this verse: "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens of the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth into a holy temple of the Lord" -Ephesians 2:19-21

If the apostles and prophets are a part of the foundation of the church, and they did evangelism, isn't it part of our responisibility to keep that foundation strong and do evangelism ourselves?

 

Certainly some words recorded in the Holy Bible were addressed to specific persons. But, many words so recorded actually apply to all persons. It depends on context and intent. There is no evidence that conclusively proves that the so called "great commission" was directed only to the twelve disciples except the venue in which is was made. But, if this is a valid assumption, then we'd also have to apply it to the whole verse. Thus the words "...I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world..." would be cause for great concern on our part because this too would have applied only to or ended with the twelve disciples.

Your reference to Hebrews 8:11 is taken out of context. Consider the message in larger context: Hebrews 8:8-13 "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

This is a contrast between the old and new covenants. The verses contrast things learned through teaching and practiced outwardly but not inwardly with things learned through the Holy Spirit and practiced inwardly and outwardly. It instructs us that our faith and its practice should be based in the new covenant ways in that we shall know the Lord through the work of the Holy Spirit and not through a rigid ceremonial system as prescribed in the old covenant. It does not suggest that the message should not still be proclaimed to all who will hear it according to His will. If that were true, then we'd have no need of the written word of God. There is no reference herein to this new covenant ending with the disciples.

Likewise, your reference to Colossians 1:23 is taken out of context. Again, consider the message in larger context: Colossians 1:19-29 "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily."

Paul's point with the phrase "...preached to every creature which is under heaven..." is, in Paul's typical bold style, to proclaim that the message the Colossians had heard was the same as that which had be proclaimed far and wide to Jews and Gentiles alike and that it was the truth for all men. It's not to be taken literally that the gospel was preached to every person, animal, or other creature that was alive at that time nor that those following them did not also need it. If this were so, then we'd not have need for the gospel today since the work would have been completed in the time of the disciples.

The only work that I know was completed was the work of Christ by His death, resurrection, and assent ion. We, on the other hand, still have much to do during our time on earth to follow His will. The argument that "evangelism will one day stop because all will have heard it" doesn't add up either since all have not yet been born to hear it. The need to evangelize is no more or no less today than it was at the time of the disciples. God's people still need to hear His word wherever they may be whether around the corner or across the ocean. This is a duty of the Church but certainly not the world. The challenge remains that the duty be exercised according to the will of God and not corrupted by the will of man. That is why we should be concerned about how evangelism is engaged rather than that it is engaged.

I do agree that we should not share our beliefs "forcibly" upon others. Our work, in itself, dos not result in anyone's salvation because that is the work of the Trinity of God. However, God is free to use His creation (both elect and non-elect) to accomplish His work however He deems appropriate. It is our duty to be ready to serve Him when, where, and how He wishes.

Primitive Baptists, and Christians in general, don't all agree on the matter of the so-called "great commission". I doubt they ever will during our time on this earth. We will hopefully "know" the whole truth some day when our Lord comes gain. In the mean time, we will continue to debate it in the interest of increasing our understanding or defending our positions as the case may be.