Old School Baptist Doctrinal Debates

[Bro. James Reed]

No meetings in these parts today, ice, but we had a good meeting last night.

We had upper-50s today. It actually got a little too warm in the church for me.

We had ice, freezing rain, and sleet on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday this past week. My cousin works for the Highway Dept. and he worked 3 straight shifts without a break. His girlfriend has been in the hospital too, and he told me he'd only been home for about 10 minutes total all last week. I could smell him through the phone.:laugh:

I'm glad we don't get weather like that very often. We're pressing it if we freeze a few times a year, rarely with snow and/or ice.

Hope it'll be bright and shiny for you next weekend.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Hmmmmmmmm
Let me get this straight.
You guys exclude someone for sin. They repent but are not reconciled to their spouse and in some cases the spouse has remarried. Yet you STILL exclude them?

Well, there is no post here that says if the spouse has remarried, the other spouse cannot be accepted back into membership.

Also, there is no individual decision here. These are corporate decisions, church decisions.

An individual member may not be in favor of excluding either spouses, or accepting back either or both spouses, remarried or not, but if the church votes contrary to his wants, then the church decision is adopted and he must abide by that decision.

Seems to me that you fellers have become PHARISEES.
Your fellowship is not of God.
God is in the restoration business. Seems you fellers are in the "we four and no more" business

It's easy to say that and judge because the topic is about heterosexual affairs.
Let's take homosexual affairs as an example.
Suppose one married spouse suddenly divorces his wife or husband because he or she is "gay" (I hate using that word to describe these abnormals) and shacks in with a new partner, would your church keep them ?
I suppose the answer is no.

 

[Brother Bob]

If they have changed the order I have no knowledge of it but I do not think so. If I have been told correctly, the one who made the move to put the order in, was excluded for having another woman, other than his wife. Also, the one who make the move to make it our order was at the very time he made the move, mixed up in adultery and was excluded.

"Old School Doctrine"? Seems it depends on the issue at hand. We lost one church over it which included Bro. Edwin and with orders like that, what is the purpose of an association?

Don't get me wrong, this is not the first time such an order, to keep all together at all cost. We have an order on "pant wearing" which don't say nothing and those who wrote it should of been politicians. It makes us look like school children who have to accept it.

 

[J.D.]

Brother Sloan, that's a nice web site. I've been listening to downloads all morning.

I grew up in the South Alabama/NW Florida area. I never heard of Old Regulars till I came to this board. But we had plenty of PB's around.

 

[old regular]

website/adultrey

Thanks for the positive comments on the website J.D.Cumberland Books manages the website. The sermon on thy brothers wife has been the most unpopular one posted. To the issue of restoration.How can we restore one who is living in adultrey,if they have repented, the fruit of that would be,they are no longer committing the act. Go and sin no more.Fornication takes in any act, sodomy as well ,outside of marriage,look @ I Corinthians the fifth chapter,were they to forgive and restore the man who had taken his father's wife? Would your church retain a dope dealer,who is still selling dope,or a drunkard that is still getting drunk.I hope not, we are not the advocate with the Father,let them go to Christ and recieve forgiveness, and let them depart from sin,seperate themselves from this. I am all for mercy, but mercy is not failing to keep order in the house of God.The act of withdrawing the right hand of fellowship may cause the person involved, to consider his actions and repent, by looking to Christ and a Godly sorrow setting up with in him. Brother Slone

 

[J.D.]

Thanks for the positive comments on the website J.D.Cumberland Books manages the website. The sermon on thy brothers wife has been the most unpopular one posted. To the issue of restoration.How can we restore one who is living in adultrey,if they have repented, the fruit of that would be,they are no longer committing the act. Go and sin no more.Fornication takes in any act, sodomy as well ,outside of marriage,look @ I Corinthians the fifth chapter,were they to forgive and restore the man who had taken his father's wife? Would your church retain a dope dealer,who is still selling dope,or a drunkard that is still getting drunk.I hope not, we are not the advocate with the Father,let them go to Christ and recieve forgiveness, and let them depart from sin,seperate themselves from this. I am all for mercy, but mercy is not failing to keep order in the house of God.The act of withdrawing the right hand of fellowship may cause the person involved, to consider his actions and repent, by looking to Christ and a Godly sorrow setting up with in him. Brother Slone

I haven't listened to that one yet. My church does not have a stated position on that issue and neither do I, so I'll observe this conversation as a student. Do I understand that you hold that a remarried divorcee should leave the second wife and return to the first? I think the bible prohibits that somewhere.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

Do I understand that you hold that a remarried divorcee should leave the second wife and return to the first? I think the bible prohibits that somewhere.

I believe it says something along these lines in Leviticus, I think that's the book anyway.

Some elders were "hardshelling" about this about a year ago, or more, but I was not tuned into the conversation well enough to remember exactly where they were reading.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

To the issue of restoration.How can we restore one who is living in adultrey,if they have repented, the fruit of that would be,they are no longer committing the act. Go and sin no more.Fornication takes in any act, sodomy as well ,outside of marriage,look @ I Corinthians the fifth chapter,were they to forgive and restore the man who had taken his father's wife? Would your church retain a dope dealer,who is still selling dope,or a drunkard that is still getting drunk.I hope not, we are not the advocate with the Father,let them go to Christ and recieve forgiveness, and let them depart from sin,seperate themselves from this. I am all for mercy, but mercy is not failing to keep order in the house of God.The act of withdrawing the right hand of fellowship may cause the person involved, to consider his actions and repent, by looking to Christ and a Godly sorrow setting up with in him. Brother Slone

Bro. Slone,
Who is the addressed to?

If me, I would say I agree with you. I hope I didn't give any other impression.

If a man is still taken in adultery, which I do believe can be a state of living rather than only a singular act, and excluded from the church, then he has no right to restoration if he is still living as an adulterer.

Now, if a man is excluded for adultery and comes back to the church later and confesses his sin, repents, and shows fruit thereof, and is no longer living an adulterous life, the church should take him back. He is manifesting the mercy, love, and forgiveness of God by fleeing from his sin of adultery and coming back to the fold for forgiveness of his brethren.

How many times shall we forgive our brethren? Jesus tells us 70 times 7. I believe that is applicable to our daily lives as well as our church lives. Forgiveness doesn't mean there is no chastisement and/or consequences for the trespass, but it does mean you move on in love and don't dwell on the matter.

God bless.

BJR

 

[pinoybaptist]

I've heard that somewhere before, too.
But wouldn't that compound the errors ?
I hold, personally, that divorcing a spouse is error.
However, once done, and the state or the law rules the divorce final and executory, and one of the spouses marry another, then that marriage is legal before the law.
If he leaves the second wife, to go back to the first, doesn't that violate the Scripture that says submit to the authorities ?
Now, error is compounded.
As an aside, I don't recall having read of a Bible character having divorced his wife, or maybe I just missed one.
Any of you know of one ?

 

[rstrats]

Another old school Baptist proscription is physical relations before marriage because it might lead to dancing.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

Another old school Baptist proscription is physical relations before marriage because it might lead to dancing.

I'm an Old School Baptist, and I love to dance. My grandmother, mother, and aunt, all of them PB, taught me how to dance. How is that connected to fornication?

 

[Brother Bob]

Bro. Mike;
On the way home from church Sunday this very issue came up and my wife and my sister said "well, we don't do that at our home church".
I ask them if that really made a difference being we fellowship it at all the other churches we go to?

Do you think it makes a difference if we fellowship that which we do not believe in and was practiced and preached in the Old School?

 

[pinoybaptist]

I'm an Old School Baptist, and I love to dance. My grandmother, mother, and aunt, all of them PB, taught me how to dance. How is that connected to fornication?

I think it has something to do with the gyrating and hip swiveling and the temptations that come with watching a female body quivering and quaking and all that jazz.
And the touching of cheeks and sometimes brushing of the woman's breast on the man's chest and stuff.
At least that's what my old pastor in the Philippines said.

Heck, I love to dance, and I love watching ballroom dancers.
I most especially love Spanish and Latin dances.
I see no malice. Just graceful movements.
I guess it all depends on the one watching, or dancing.

 

[old regular]

Leave the second go back to the first

No, I do not think going back to the first will solve the issue, seeing the first has a lawful reason to put the party away, but seeing they have married the second this second marriage was not lawful.It is not lawful for you to have your brother Phillip's wife.He is in a bad state, and it would be better for him to remain unmarried. As to Brother Bob's question, each church in Revelations was judged individually.One church was not punished over a sister church, Paul wrote to churches about practices he felt were wrong, yet he never cut them off.In your line of correspondence generally anyone who corresponds with you can take communion with you, so this double married ,not innocent party has been in correspondence with your church for years, some of the Union had been taking members that way for along time, some of the New Salem churches would take no one who was divorced and remarried.In our association communion is set by each church and they invite what churches they will take communion with.I do not have all the answers on this issue, I can see where people not enlighted can and will make mistakes and sin by unlawfully putting away their wife or husband. There is also some of the cases where members of churches have done the same which case I am speaking of above.We have never been faced with an excluded member who remarried coming back and asking for membership, but I would say they most likely would not be received back. I do Bro.Bob understand the double standard, and would like to see all Old School Baptist in agreement on these issues but I do not believe they have been yesterday or today, if they were we would not have seen all queries on it through the years.The NNS most of them made difference between those coming out of the world and those who were already members, they took them years before that order was passed. I know the Sardis has been very loose on the pants issue for along time, I visted a church in that association afterwards we went to dinner, and some of the sisters had their pants on.The Union has this also the NNS yet they were very cruel to the Thorton Union and Indian Bottom.Do not get me wrong, that doesn't make it right, but those who live in glass houses should not throw rocks. The order I drafted, I told them was not the answer at the time, but was agreeable. All Baptist are supposed to believe in the local autonomy of the church, associations are the product of the churches not the other way around. A church is still a church even if it has not joined an association, but at one time your churches position was the majority view on double marriage but now it is not, at one time my home churches view on salvation was the majority view of those calling themselves Regular Baptist but over time, we became the minority, the majority may rule , but are not always right. As to the website I am thankful so many have enjoyed it, but I also understand every one doesn't agree with everything I or any other Elder, preach.Nor do I assume that one does because they like the site.I disagree with brothers all the time but most of them, I still enjoy their preaching, and I don't have to leave my own correspondence for this to occur.We should all strive for unity, but until that happens which make for Romans14:19"Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace,and things wherewith one may edify another. '' Bro.Mike

 

[Brother Bob]

If I chose, I certainly could defend my position. I choose to not discuss this on the board.

I know the Sardis has been very loose on the pants issue for along time, (maybe where you visited but don't paint with such a broad brush.) You must of not been in KY. Of course, even they have given in a lot now, still don't make it right.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Now, I wonder who you mean by that Mike?

You say the seven churches of Asia were judged individual. Does that mean there was a Gospel for each of them?

 

[old regular]

Glass House

The glass house comment was not aimed at Brother Bob or his church, the comment was meant for a group of associtions to judge one, while allowing the same things in their own body is like the beam and mote. I try to understand all the brothers views on the subject.My home church has its order on the subject, which I intend to keep. the sermon on the web was more about ordaining men ,that have been married before.Our group of churches do not preach brothers that have been married and divorced and remarried.Some Regular Baptist do, but almost none of them ordain them , unless it would be the Solid Rock Association, this association has no correspondence at present with any other Regular Baptist Associations, Bro.Daryl Newsome was the moderator at their last session, they currently have five churches with 230 members. Brother Slone

 

[old regular]

The Seven Churches

There is one gospel for all the churches to be judged by, but God will not punish Narrows Branch for what Mount Zion does. I ,for one, have been against divorce in the world and the church, and I have never been for sisters violating the scriptures concerning hair,wearing mens garments etc..but I do think associations and churches should clean their own houses first,before trying to clean someone elses, our children have seen what we as Old Regular Baptist have done to each other,and how we have treated one another and it has hurt us not helped us. I am most likely closer in agreement with you on some of these issues than you realize, I am also thankful that you stand up,for what you believe even if its not popular, nor would I get on a website, and try to slur you in any way.Everyone who knows me, would tell you that, is not how I operate. You can disagree with me all day,and I will not be upset with you for doing it. I am not trying to defend that draft, I never thought it was the answer but it avoided a split. the majority was already practicing the other way and would have taken all the rights of the minority side away, thats all I tried to avoid. It would be wonderful if the same key fit every churches door, but at the present it does not, someone is wrong, someone may be right or maybe both sides could be wrong but like you I do not think both sides are right. Brother Slone

 

[Brother Bob]

All I am saying is if Narrows Branch fellowshiped Mt. Zion and worshiped with them then we would be held responsible for what Mt. Zion does for it is not the name over the church but how we worship God together and he plainly told us with those who walk disorderly to not take part with them, not bid them in your house or bid them God Speed.
I am not saying this to you in particular Bro.Mike, I am saying we are all going to be held to these standards and we better get it right if we can. Of course we all have to give as much as possible without leaving the doctrine, to have fellowship with churches and then associations but lets us not give to the point where we have fellows like Haggard all over the place and I have your orders here in my hand and know that you believe what I just said. That is why, I am a little surprised to learn you in particular wrote that order being you hold so strong where you are at now.

 

[old regular]

Drafted Order

Brother Bob I was 27 years old at the time, I drafted it setting in my pew afraid that the people that I loved were about to divide, also my home church only took the innocent party, if the majority side had gotten exactly what they wanted at the start, each church would have to take in all cases no matter what or be put out of the association ,the request in NNS 1991 was to change item 16 in the 1990 minutes,it failed 50 to 7.So item 16 stayed.I was young and afraid of our church being put out, and they would have done it. A few years latter we were out, they used the wine issue to start the trouble with, yet they still correspond with churches that take wine in communion, it was nothing more than politics, and if you get the wrong ones upset, they will do you the same.I had a brother disagree with me on this , but his whole church got the axe. The question should have been settled with the Bible, not with a double standard answer from a 27 year old. I am telling you this so you know, I once set in on most of the meetings, that the leaders had among themselves .I saw some good judgements and I also saw evil, and men trying to build themselves up to gain some so called power and esteem. I broke ranks and stood for the record of God and my name has been put out as evil.The divorce question will ever remain, I am afraid one of which the Baptist people will remain divided on. I thought the Primitive Baptist had more unity on this issue than the Regulars{ but some of them are also divided} I do not know where the Uniteds are on it. I would like to see more Bible Answers to the question. Bother Mike

 

[Brother Bob]

I know Bro. Mike and really do understand. When I was speaking above, I was talking to myself as much as you, for I too have had to do some of what you did, to keep us together. As a matter of fact, I had to swallow that order we are talking about, or leave one, and I decided to stay. There have been other things ,and will be more and I hope to be able to stay until I die, which at the rate my health is, that don''t look like it will be that long. The reason I stand it, I know the lord knows what I do, and when I stand before Him, I can say Lord I tried. I have been, and still are left out of some of the meetings anymore you speak of, and think its because I might be to hard headed but not sure. I do understand though Bro. Mike, and I am sure you did the best you knew how. Maybe it was the right thing after all, who really knows for we have the double marriage problem, whether we like the order or not. I have studied that issue problem more than any other and can not find a scripture that lets me agree to let it pass. To be honest, I really wish I could. It would be so much easier. Blessings,

Sometime I really would like to meet you at Shoney's in Pikeville for breakfast, if you are ever in this area. Call me and I will meet you there. I am a breakfast man myself and I love Shoney's breakfast bar.