I have read this thread in this "fellowship forum" turn into a debate over Primitive Baptist doctrine. While I am not a Primitive Baptist I have the same background as the Primitive 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.
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.
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."
What about Relevation 14:6 Kind of sounds like another mechanism.
By the way I'm an Old Regular 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.
