I Have a Question

Obviously it came from a PB so thats what he used to describe his position. So it gave me the info he wanted me to have, and yes, it painted it pretty much as you say. Is that my fault?

So if that is what it is, so be it.

 

Steve, to be fair, though you currently "identify" with Primitive Baptists (and that is fine!) you have not actually joined a PB congregation, so to call yourself one remains yet in the future.

And, just for the record, I used the PB website as a source for material that I had already brought into the discussion. Please don't fall into the trap of thinking someone ignorant just because he or she seeks out a source to cite. Doesn't work that way.

I came by my information the good old fashioned way -- hard work, study, and a TON of reading, experience, etc.

That, and you have to realize that I'm not the enemy here, either for you or against the Primitive Baptists. :wavey:

 

Not sure that anyone said anything along the lines of "not biblical." What I pointed out was that there were a few tenets of the PB that stand apart from orthodox Christian practice.

As an aside, the Primitive Baptists were formed as a sect because of the missions question. They are not "technically" anti-mission," though in any search on the subject they will likely come up first in when anti-mission sects or denominations are mentioned, but rather they do not make missions a priority until they feel a call from God to actually move. That that call comes rather rarely in PB circles seems to indicate something contra Scripture.

That would be okay with almost everyone, save for the fact that the "call from God" for missions came in the Great Commission, for all people, everywhere, in every age, all the time. Also notice in that same Commission that the command is to "go ye..." In other words, y'all, all y'all, yous guys, the whole herd, the flock, the church, the body, well, everyone. :laugh:

And, cannot the Holy Spirit direct a mission board? If not, then the TONS of churches that have been started around the world by mission boards are not real churches, I guess. Sort of falls short at the end of the day IMHO. Again, they can decide that if they like, as long as there is another mechanism in place to fulfill the Great Commission, which, as I see it, is non-negotiable.

 

If it makes you feel any better, there are heathens EVERYWHERE... Even in the Bible belt, where people are cultual Christians. Sometimes I prefer that they own up to the fact that their salvation is nothing more than religious zeal, but that is God's work, and He will reveal all one day.

Gonna be a lot of people saying, "But, Lord, Lord..." That will NOT be a happy day... We will weep. God alone can fix that.

 

Yeah, no problem here, just relaying what I've read, and had a relative that was hardshell.

Not a jab, but perhaps you're more "missionary baptist" than PB? I know we get proud of our labels, but something to consider? Also, perhaps the cart before the horse here for you, as you don't really have a church home per se?

- Peace

 

lol, now you know I mean a local assembly!

If I were you I'd check out that preachers church where he is learning reformed doctrine.

Perhaps critique him in a setting after his sermons, ane make yourself a good friend!!! :laugh: :wavey: :thumbsup:

 

I have read this thread in this "fellowship forum" turn into a debate over Primitive Baptst doctrine. While I am not a Primitive Baptist I have the same background as the Primitive Baptist.

Calling the Primitive Baptist a sect is not correct. The Primitive Baptist formed as a result of a break in correspondence between two associations. The original Philidelphia Association which initially had no mission board formed one in the mid to late 1700's and the Ketocton Association (which was originally established by the Philidelphia Association)objected to missions and broke correspondence. This is far from the formation of a sect.

What about Relevation 14:6

Kind of sounds like another mechanism.

By the way I'm an Old Regular Baptist

 

Again, I'm not picking fights. Just stating what the doctrines are for that "group" of Baptists. If they wish to disavow themselves of their own stated doctrines, so be it. If they wish to hold them, so be it. But their doctrines are their doctrines and I have tried to be as fair as possible, even to citing from a PB website with a "frequently asked questions" page.

My broader concern is that Steve understands something of a group that he has an affinity with, but has yet to join. I'm not even making any remarks as to whether or not he actually unite with the Primitive Baptists! That is his business. I just sense from several conversations that he is searching, but not finding, and a search ought to, at least, be informed.

I am aware of the history of the start of the Primitive Baptists.

As for "sect," I am open to, and will call them whatever they wish to be called. I used the term "sect" as a way of differentiating them from other baptistic "sects" one of which is IFB, another is Missionary Baptist, another the SBC, another American Baptists, another Seventh Day Baptists, and on and on the list goes. I mean nothing untoward by the term, and it did not seem that they were a "denomination" because they still identify with "Baptist."

I reject post mortem evangelism in all cases, and I also fail to see how God finally causing the gospel to be preached to all who live AT THAT TIME, fulfills the Great Commission that He gave us 2000 years ago with the expectation that WE (in every age!) would go out and make disciples, teaching, baptizing, and yes, evangelizing. This is one of the reasons that PB are considered anti-missionary AND hyper-Calvinistic. Note that I am not making a value judgment here on PB and those like them. I am merely repeating what has been said in a scholarly sense since they split (according to the Black Rock Address and other PB writings) from other Baptists in North America.

These are some of the differences of theological doctrine that cause those who see some of these issues in another light to consider whether or not membership with Primitive Baptists is something they should seek -- or not. There are other, additional differences as well, such as the need to re-baptize all who join the PB group, as if their original baptism (if done in biblical manner) is not sufficient, which sounds very much like baptismal regeneration (but I'm willing to stand corrected on that point), and the fact that they radically separate themselves from others who have differences.

All of the above was gleaned from the Black Rock Address, Haskell's Articles of Faith, and articles written by certain PB Elders.