The following reportedly is a transcript of a portion of a sermon by a man claiming to be a Primitive Baptist minister. It is an absolute abomination and travesty. Assuming that this is a correct rendering of what he said, this man, if he has any honesty and decency at all, should stop even pretending to call himself a Primitive Baptist immediately. It is nauseating! How ANY Primitive Baptist could try to defend someone who would make such a statement is a wonder to me!
Mark Green
"We have sinned against thee, both I and my father's house have sinned. Now here's what I want out of that. I want several things, but here's what I want, mainly. He said I and my father's house.
"You know what we're prone to do. We're prone to defend what our fathers have done whether it was right or wrong. We've got to get over that. I'm gonna tell you in 1832 there was a division in the Baptist family that sent the Primitive Baptists into one ditch on one side and the Arminian Baptists in one ditch on the other side. They were competing with each other to see which one could out do the best in getting away from the word of God, because both of them did.
"When you study that Black Rock Address and you study the attitude they had and bore the fierceness they claimed to be the vicar of truth and the measure and standard of orthodoxy, and the attitude that they had, I'm telling you, that was Phariseeism. And I believe that's when God withdrew his blessing from them. And we've been on a downward course ever since.
"Its time we as a people looked up and said our fathers have sinned. They had the wrong attitude. They had the wrong philosophy. In many cases they had the wrong motive for the decisions that they made. Nehemiah said our fathers sinned and so have I. "
10 comments:
I listened to his recorded comments, and yes, that is what he said. This is just Alexander Campbell Version 2, and that man should leave the Primitive Baptists. There is no reason to stay and trouble us with his "reformer" rhetoric. Sadly, a lot of young people, and those young in the faith, confuse his reformer policies with zeal and are enticed.
I am so distured that others who have heard about this automatically dismissed it because of the original source. We need to not be led by emotions but by the Bible.
When people continually are running down the Old Baptist church, then they should not be surprised if their children despise the church.
I haven't listened to "his" recorded comments (I'm not sure who the man is), but from what what he said, I honestly cannot see how this is anti-pb.
Our forefathers, great as they were, were not infallible. It is possible they exagerated their position as a defense against arminianism, even if you believe such a scenario highly unlikely. And to say they are sinners isn't that far a stretch, I'm sure you'll agree. In this excerpt, I cannot see anything that is radically anti-pb. Radically anti-status quo, perhaps. Radically phrased, perhaps. It is no doubt attacking the actions of some past pbs, but is that such a crime?
“In 1832 there was a division in the Baptist family that sent the Primitive Baptists into one ditch on one side and the Arminian Baptists in one ditch on the other side.” So, are we to conclude that he thinks our people were as equally in error as were the Arminians?
“They were competing with each other to see which one could out do the best in getting away from the word of God, because both of them did.” If they “got away from the word of God,” then they got away from the truth. If they got away from the truth, then we are no longer the true church, because it is the pillar and ground of the truth.
“And I believe that's when [1832] God withdrew his blessing from them. And we've been on a downward course ever since.” If God withdrew His blessing from the church 175 years ago and it has been going downhill ever since, then obviously that blessing was never restored. How could we possibly claim to be the true church without ever having had the Lord’s blessings?
“They had the wrong philosophy.” A man’s philosphy is his beliefs. His beliefs are his doctrine. Evidently he believes that the Primitive Baptists in 1832 had the wrong doctrine as related to missions.
Based upon his statement, why would this man have any desire to be a Primitive Baptist?
First, let me assure everyone that I have read the Blackrock Address and that I cannot find any errors. Whoever the person is, I disagree with him on that point.
I feel a little uneasy about defending this guy's comments since I do not know what his intentions were. If, for instance, he was trying to advocate a doctrinal shift toward arminianism, then of course he guilty of being anti-pb and should be treated accordingly. If, however, he meant that our predecessors had become anti-evangelistic when he said that we had gone into the "ditch," then he was undoubtably correct. For quite a while there were (and still are) some who consider it wrong to spread the word of God.
But let's talk about Church identity for a second. If our forefathers did go "into the ditch" on scriptural evangelism, does this mean they ceased to be true churches? Of course not. Churches can go into serious error, as can be seen in Paul's epistles, and still be true churches. Now, if they continue in the wrong paths for long, God will most likely remove their candlestick, as he warned in Revelations.
When Mr. X said that God withrew his blessing from us and that we've been on a downward spiral since then, I can only hypothesize what he meant. I seriously doubt Mr. X was saying that the pbs are no longer true churches, else he would have left. I think it is more likely a poorly worded sentence, which, translated, means that God is not blessing our churches the way he once was. Of course, if this is what he meant, this is true. Many (not all) of our churches, are decreasing rather than increasing in membership. Which isn't to say that they aren't true churches - it just shows that God isn't blessing our churches like he has in the past. A bias against evangelism, it seems logical to argue, is at least one of the contributors to the problem of our decreasing numbers.
When Mr. X stated that pbs of yore had "the wrong philosophy," he could have been referring to any number of philosophies. Although you deduct that he was advocating missions, I cannot see any basis for that claim in his words. Now, perhaps elsewhere he advocates missions, but from these words, he does not. Perhaps he was referring to the anti-evangelism philosophy some of our forefathers seemed to have. The two - missions and evangelism - are seperate, needless to say (I hope).
But in any case, I consider myself a staunch pb and am convinced that we are the true church, even if we, as mortals, are not perfect. Perhaps Mr. X is anti-pb...I don't know - all I'm saying is that his words are not, in themselves, anti pb, although (perhaps) they could be used as a launching pad for other attacks.
Nomos, would you care to, or can you, back up such an accusation?
You said "For quite a while there were (and still are) some who consider it wrong to spread the word of God."
I've met a lot of PBs, but I never met one who considered it wrong to preach the word of God. That is an accusation a lot of folks like to paint on good brethren in an attempt to void those same brethren's objections to other irregularities and errors, but I have never actually met a PB (and I've met a lot) who were anti-evangelistic or against spreading the word of God.
That's quite an accusation to make, methinks? Have you ever met a preacher who said "it is wrong to spread the word of God" or "it is wrong to preach where God says preach?" In fact, have you ever met one who admitted that God specifically told him to preach in a certain place and he did not?
And to say that our predecessors had become anti-evangelistic? You use the plural, so I am guessing you know of many men who did not go where God told them to go? Perhaps they were anti missions, but that is a far cry to anti-evalgelistic, as you noted.
I find many of our fathers, and current ministers, who were against unScriptural methods in spreading the Gospel outside of the pale of the church; but I have never met or read one who spoke against(or even discouraged) the preaching of the Gospel where God has directed a man to preach. There is a significant difference.
Be all this as it may, let it be known that no man who espouses that philosophy will EVER preach from a pulpit where I am responsible, assuming I know it beforehand.
End of this thread. Future posts will be deleted.
Post a Comment