Missions and Primitive Scriptural Position

Frogman, here is my take on what Elder Newman means: Since there were no missionary boards or societies before 1792, it would be foolish to contend that churches cannot be scriptural without them. If churches must engage in such modern mission methods to be Scriptural, there were no Scriptural Baptists until 1792. I think this is the MAIN thought distilled down.

I'm not sure how he got the 1784 years. I believe William Carey's society was started in 1792 (1792 - 8 = 1784??).

 

Bro. Glen and other PB Brethren:

I am from the Philippines, and of the PB in Columbia MD., here is our church's web site if you want to check it out columbia church ;
At the moment I am reserving my opinions about the work being done there, but if you want you can also check out the work at this url white unto harvest .
My pastor seems to find nothing wrong with it, but, of course, he is not Filipino so he is not familiar with the Filipino psyche. As a member of the Columbia church, I support my pastor's support of the work there, until such time I am able to vacation and see for myself.
They say that the PB's are growing there, but, what I can say, offhand, is that these are mostly formerly organized churches of other Baptist denominations, a big number of whom came from either the Fundamental Baptists or the Bible Baptist churches, so, basically, this growth is mainly by proselyting (correct me if this is a wrong term), and, personally, I feel uncomfortable with proselytes converting or switching churches in large numbers, even if led by their pastors.
Perhaps it is because in my own experience as pastor in the Philippines, all of the original and constituting members of the church I pastored were not proselytes from other Baptist groups, they came from either a very devout Roman Catholic background, or otherwise a non-religious
background.
And then, there is the matter of ordinations. The Bible says lay no hands suddenly on any man, and I suppose even those who were formerly pastoring churches of another denominations who are re-baptized into the PB's.
There are those who are in Georgia's PB's who have drawn up what they call the Pitts Resolution in Pitts, Georgia, who are totally opposed to the work, or at least the manner in which the work is being conducted, in the Philippines and India.

 

Primitive Baptists are not in disagreement with winning souls, after all it is Scriptural. (Pro 11:30).

But we simply know the difference between regeneration and conversion. This is a point that many critics of PB's misunderstand. Spiritual regeneration is caused by Christ himself without any other means. Conversion on the other hand, while also is produced by the Holy Spirit, employs the use of means such as preaching.

In addition, most everyone thinks Primitive Baptists are anti-evangelical, which is another misrepresentation. (Even PB's fail to properly set forth what they assert the Scriptures to teach on the matter.)
We are to 'do the work of an evangelist'(2 Tim4:5)
as Paul stated. The Book of Acts seem to indicate two major areas of evangelical work. One, an outreach to those unchurched, (Acts 8:4) and secondly, a discipleship or teaching ministry to those in the church, (Acts 11:26). Do we save sinners eternally? How can we, that is God's work based on His own good purpose.(2Tim1:9; Heb 8:10,11; Jn6:44) (Any Calvinist would agree to this!) But we DO preach the Gospel to encourage, instruct, warn, convert and admonish among other things. PB's do think for a variety of reasons that this distinction is properly dividing the Word and important to fully understand what the Scriptures teach.

And of course this is the difference between Missionism and Missionary work. Primitive Baptists do not believe in Missionism. Missionism is built on Arminian theology without respect to any thought of the effectual substitutionary death of Christ. Missionism is built on General Atonement. Herein lies the difference. This also defines positions historically between Andrew Fuller and J.C. Phillpot. The late J.D. Holder, an able PB minister defines what PB's believe when he said, "What we do not believe, and therefore oppose, is the false claim that ministers are used as God's ordained means to reach and save the sinners from the guilt of sin. Multiplied thousands who die without hearing these little saviors will go to hell. Now this theory is new under the Sun under the Baptist name..."


God Bless

Jeptha

 

"Brethren, if any of YOU do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." (James 5:19, 20)

Sinners, dead in trespasses and sins, are not the ones under consideration.

"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." (1 Corinthians 1:21)

Who does preaching save? "Them that believe not?" No, "them that believe."

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but UNTO US WHICH ARE SAVED IT IS THE POWER OF GOD." (1 Corinthians 1:18; cf. Romans 1:16)

In Romans 1, Paul wrote that he was anxious to preach the Gospel to those who were at Rome. They were saints by the way. Why? Because of the mutual faith. The righteous of God is revealed from "faith to faith," not "faith to no faith."

By the way, the commandment was "Go ye...," not "Send ye..."