What's the difference?
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by peteyo69, Jan 25, 2004.
Page 2 of 2
-
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.
Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
While the exact term "fellowship" is not present, the implied meaning of the term "churches of gospel order" denotes those churches with whom we are in fellowship.Click to expand...
Let me remind you, simply because our Articles of Faith read similarly or even exactly as those of another church does not mean we are in fellowship with them. That would be like saying we use the Bible, therefore we are in fellowship with all who use the Bible. It simply will not work because there are so many interpretations and underlying beliefs that simply stating we will fellowship any similar church will not work.
It would be quite hard, if not impossible, to go down and make a list of every single thing that Primitive Baptists believe.Click to expand...
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.
Therefore, we just have to study and read from our fathers in the ministry to know what we believe and why we believe it.Click to expand...
I agree that we should allow for subtle differences, but none that would affect the truth. For example, right now there are difference among ministers regarding whether, while Jesus was on the cross, if God turned His face from Jesus or simply withdrew His presence. Now, this is something not specified in scripture, so the difference of opinion is tolerable.Click to expand...
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.
The above is quite different than say, having a Sunday School, which the PB church has ALWAYS stood against. Having full-time salaried ministers...another thing that the PB church has ALWAYS stood against. I heard one preacher preach on re-thinking timely salvation. There is NEVER ANYTHING which should be re-thought in the church!!! The church holds the truth. PERIOD. Anything else brought in is simply worldly illusions.
So, you see, while these things aren't specifically spelled out in our Articles of Faith, they have and forever will be entwined in the beliefs of the true Primitive Baptist church.Click to expand...
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. -
Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
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?Click to expand...
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. -
Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
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.Click to expand... -
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"!Click to expand...
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.
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.Click to expand...
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. -
Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
....Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
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.Click to expand...
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. -
Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
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.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
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.Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
You came to the Primitive Baptist faith and have since criticized it every step of the way.Click to expand...
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. -
Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
The sole purpose of the church is to give glory to God by praising His name.Click to expand...
"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. -
Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
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.Click to expand...
In the appeals given in scripture there is often an imperative in the expected response. -
Originally Posted by Bro. James Reed:
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.Click to expand...
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? -
Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
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.Click to expand...
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.
Page 2 of 2