I'm a Primitive Baptist

[UMP]

Still you have not answered my question. What is the purpose of preaching the Gospel? If God saves His elect without it why preach it? It isn't a matter of what God can do but what He actually does. I believe He calls His elect to Himself by the means of the Gospel preached. There is no salvation apart from it. A man cannot have faith in Christ unless he has heard of Him. Rom. 10:14,15

First off, I don't feel like you're attacking me at all
It's hard to gauge "emotion" on the internet.

"The first part then of Christianity is the preaching of repentance, and the knowledge of ourselves... A man, therefore, is made a Christian not by working but by hearing; wherefore, he that will exercise himself to righteousness must first exercise himself in hearing the Gospel. Now, when he hath heard and received the Gospel, let him give himself to God with a joyful heart, and afterwards let him exercise himself in those good works which are commanded in the law" (Martin Luther—1540—on Galatians, pp. 104 and 185).

"When we meet with a precept, we should simply endeavour to obey it, without enquiring into God's hidden purpose.... Notwithstanding God's predestination is most certain and unalterable, so that no elect person can perish, nor any reprobate be saved, yet it does not follow from thence that all reproofs and exhortations on the part of God, or prayers on the part of men, are useless" (J. Zanchius—1562—"The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination," pp. 49 and 120).

"I say there is no simulation at all of God in this: that which He proposeth is but this; 'Whosoever believeth shall be saved, and whosoever believeth not shall be damned.' He sends His ministers to preach this, and to beseech them to believe, and to be reconciled unto God, yea, all they meet with." "He commands them to preach promiscuously unto all, persuade all, exhort all, unto faith and repentance" (W. Twisse—1653—"The Riches of God's Love" pp. 73 and 169).

"But you will say, if unregenerate men be dead men, to what purpose is it to persuade them to arise and stand up? This difficulty is solved in this very text (Eph. 5:14): though the duty is ours, yet the power is God's" (J. Flavell—1680—Vol. 2, p. 423).

The question is not whether God uses the Gospel as means to save, that is unquestionably true. However, I believe God can and does use other means as well. I like this discussion but it was not exactly what I had in mind in the op. This division among Primitive Baptists is not about whether or not God saves outside His using Gospel preaching, it's about those who DO HEAR Gospel preaching and DON'T respond to it. The "Conditional Time Salvationst" will say, "oh he's still a child of God he's just rebellious in this "time" on earth". The "absolute predestinarian" will say "no, he has been shown the gospel and does not give evidence of being a child of God" As I said in one of my previous posts, the time salvationist is trying to grasp hold to some kind of hope for a deceased loved one who died unrepentant.
I believe if one is a child of God, he should, in some manner, respond to the Gospel positively.
BTW- Our preacher is Lasserre Bradley Jr.
Sure you've heard him on the radio

 

[mlqurgw]

First off, I don't feel like you're attacking me at all
It's hard to gauge "emotion" on the internet.

"The first part then of Christianity is the preaching of repentance, and the knowledge of ourselves... A man, therefore, is made a Christian not by working but by hearing; wherefore, he that will exercise himself to righteousness must first exercise himself in hearing the Gospel. Now, when he hath heard and received the Gospel, let him give himself to God with a joyful heart, and afterwards let him exercise himself in those good works which are commanded in the law" (Martin Luther—1540—on Galatians, pp. 104 and 185).

"When we meet with a precept, we should simply endeavour to obey it, without enquiring into God's hidden purpose.... Notwithstanding God's predestination is most certain and unalterable, so that no elect person can perish, nor any reprobate be saved, yet it does not follow from thence that all reproofs and exhortations on the part of God, or prayers on the part of men, are useless" (J. Zanchius—1562—"The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination," pp. 49 and 120).

"I say there is no simulation at all of God in this: that which He proposeth is but this; 'Whosoever believeth shall be saved, and whosoever believeth not shall be damned.' He sends His ministers to preach this, and to beseech them to believe, and to be reconciled unto God, yea, all they meet with." "He commands them to preach promiscuously unto all, persuade all, exhort all, unto faith and repentance" (W. Twisse—1653—"The Riches of God's Love" pp. 73 and 169).

"But you will say, if unregenerate men be dead men, to what purpose is it to persuade them to arise and stand up? This difficulty is solved in this very text (Eph. 5:14): though the duty is ours, yet the power is God's" (J. Flavell—1680—Vol. 2, p. 423).

The question is not whether God uses the Gospel as means to save, that is unquestionably true. However, I believe God can and does use other means as well. I like this discussion but it was not exactly what I had in mind in the op. This division among Primitive Baptists is not about whether or not God saves outside His using Gospel preaching, it's about those who DO HEAR Gospel preaching and DON'T respond to it. The "Conditional Time Salvationst" will say, "oh he's still a child of God he's just rebellious in this "time" on earth". The "absolute predestinarian" will say "no, he has been shown the gospel and does not give evidence of being a child of God" As I said in one of my previous posts, the time salvationist is trying to grasp hold to some kind of hope for a deceased loved one who died unrepentant.
I believe if one is a child of God, he should, in some manner, respond to the Gospel positively.
BTW- Our preacher is Lasserre Bradley Jr.
Sure you've heard him on the radio

So then the concept of time salvation is as I described it? Yes I know Lasserre Bradly. MY parents had him in their home several times.

 

[UMP]

So then the concept of time salvation is as I described it?

I don't know, let's see.
Here is what you posted:

"It should first be understood that for most Primitives God saves His elect apart from the preaching of the Gospel. That is what I struggled with for so long as a believer. Now because of this belief many teach that those who join the chuch are saved in time. Those who don't join the church are saved eternally but not in time. Time salvation is being born again in this world. Time salvation is having the manifest blessings of God in this life. God's elect are saved either way only those who join the church are blessed in time. The difficulty lies in the preaching of the Gospel. It is a works based doctrine that rises out of Hyper-Calvinism."

Perhaps some see it that way and I believe the concept is incorrect and very confusing. I believe that is why Elder Bradley does not use the term. Again, If the child of God is exposed to the Gospel in this time, "time salvation" as Lasserre Bradley would put it, is not optional (for the child of God)
However, this still leaves room for God to save whom He chooses to save without the gospel. For example, a child who dies in his mothers womb, a mentaly retarded person, or a person who has never heard the gospel before.
The question becomes, Is God's hand too short that it cannot save ? No, it is not.

 

[mlqurgw]

I don't know, let's see.
Here is what you posted:



Perhaps some see it that way and I believe the concept is incorrect and very confusing. I believe that is why Elder Bradley does not use the term. Again, If the child of God is exposed to the Gospel in this time, "time salvation" as Lasserre Bradley would put it, is not optional (for the child of God)
However, this still leaves room for God to save whom He chooses to save without the gospel. For example, a child who dies in his mothers womb, a mentaly retarded person, or a person who has never heard the gospel before.
The question becomes, Is God's hand too short that it cannot save ? No, it is not.

It wouldn't be the first time Elder Bradley has gone against what is normally taught in the Old School Baptists. He has caught flack from several things if I recall.

EDIT: To answer the last part; This is why I am no longer a Primitive Baptist. While it is true that God's hand is not shortened it is also true that the Scriptures are clear that He doesn't apart from the preaching of the Gospel. I can't tell how many times I have been called an Arminian by Primitive Baptist elders for this.

 

[UMP]

EDIT: To answer the last part; This is why I am no longer a Primitive Baptist. While it is true that God's hand is not shortened it is also true that the Scriptures are clear that He doesn't apart from the preaching of the Gospel. I can't tell how many times I have been called an Arminian by Primitive Baptist elders for this.

I understand what you are saying.

You believe that God does not save any apart from those who actually hear and respond to the gospel. While it is clear that God DOES use the Gospel as means, is it AS clear in scripture that He does not use any other means? If so, please show me scripture that says God "ONLY" uses the gospel as means.

A couple other questions:
Can or does God save any unborn children?
Can or does God save any mentaly retarded?

 

[mlqurgw]

I understand what you are saying.

You believe that God does not save any apart from those who actually hear and respond to the gospel. While it is clear that God DOES use the Gospel as means, is it AS clear in scripture that He does not use any other means? If so, please show me scripture that says God "ONLY" uses the gospel as means.

A couple other questions:
Can or does God save any unborn children?
Can or does God save any mentaly retarded?

I will give you those passages that convinced me. Eph. 2:8. The question is what are we to have faith in? It is clear that salvation comes through faith not apart from it. We must have faith in the person and work of Christ. Rom. 10:13-17; It is impossible to believe savingly in Christ if you have never heard of Him. John 3:17,18,36. He that doesn't believe is condemned. Rom. 1:16, 1Cor. 1:18. The preaching of the Goespel is the power of God unto salvation.

I believe it is very clear that He doesn't use any other means. I find no one in the Scripture who was saved any other way. We simply cannot build doctrine from Scriptural silence. To believe that God is able to save apart from the preaching of the Gospel is to build doctrine on doctrine not on Scripture. To be sure God can do anything He pleases but that doesn't mean that He has not ordained the Gospel as the means used to bring His elect to Himself in Christ.

To answer the other questions: The Scriptures just aren't clear on the answer to this. The only place we even can conjecture about it is from the incidence of David's son. But we must be careful that we not build doctrine on just one instance. I would certainly like to think that they are saved but simply cannot say they are because it just isn't clearly shown.

 

[UMP]

I will give you those passages that convinced me. Eph. 2:8. The question is what are we to have faith in? It is clear that salvation comes through faith not apart from it. We must have faith in the person and work of Christ. Rom. 10:13-17; It is impossible to believe savingly in Christ if you have never heard of Him. John 3:17,18,36. He that doesn't believe is condemned. Rom. 1:16, 1Cor. 1:18. The preaching of the Goespel is the power of God unto salvation.

I believe it is very clear that He doesn't use any other means. I find no one in the Scripture who was saved any other way. We simply cannot build doctrine from Scriptural silence. To believe that God is able to save apart from the preaching of the Gospel is to build doctrine on doctrine not on Scripture. To be sure God can do anything He pleases but that doesn't mean that He has not ordained the Gospel as the means used to bring His elect to Himself in Christ.

To answer the other questions: The Scriptures just aren't clear on the answer to this. The only place we even can conjecture about it is from the incidence of David's son. But we must be careful that we not build doctrine on just one instance. I would certainly like to think that they are saved but simply cannot say they are because it just isn't clearly shown.

2 Kings 4:26
"Is it well with the child? And she answered, It is well"...

"Then came the question about her child, it was dead at home, and the enquiry would renew her griefs, "Is it well with the child?" Yet she said, "It is well," perhaps so answering because she had a faith that soon it should be restored to her, and that its temporary absence was well; or I think rather because she was persuaded that whatever might have become of its spirit, it was safe in the keeping of God, happy beneath the shadow of his wings. Therefore, not fearing that it was lost, having no suspicion whatever that it was cast away from the place of bliss—for that suspicion would have quite prevented her giving such answer—she said "Yes, the child is dead, but 'it is well.'"

Spurgeon.

This might be a very interesting read for you:
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm

 

[mlqurgw]

2 Kings 4:26
"Is it well with the child? And she answered, It is well"...

"Then came the question about her child, it was dead at home, and the enquiry would renew her griefs, "Is it well with the child?" Yet she said, "It is well," perhaps so answering because she had a faith that soon it should be restored to her, and that its temporary absence was well; or I think rather because she was persuaded that whatever might have become of its spirit, it was safe in the keeping of God, happy beneath the shadow of his wings. Therefore, not fearing that it was lost, having no suspicion whatever that it was cast away from the place of bliss—for that suspicion would have quite prevented her giving such answer—she said "Yes, the child is dead, but 'it is well.'"

Spurgeon.

This might be a very interesting read for you:
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm

I am familiar with the passage and with Spurgeon's sermon on it. I honestly think Spurgeon draws a little too much on it to make a case for infant salvation. The child is grown as is clear from verse 18. Noer is it clear that he was saved but only that he was raised from the dead by Elisha and restored to his mother.

 

[UMP]

I am familiar with the passage and with Spurgeon's sermon on it. I honestly think Spurgeon draws a little too much on it to make a case for infant salvation. The child is grown as is clear from verse 18. Noer is it clear that he was saved but only that he was raised from the dead by Elisha and restored to his mother.

Believe what you will.
Is the Bible as clear as I would like it to be on the subject? No, but so are many other matters and God's ways are indeed "past finding out"
As for myself, I agree with Spurgeon on the matter:

"First, we ground our conviction very much upon the goodness of the nature of God. We say that the opposite doctrine that some infants perish and are lost, is altogether repugnant to the idea which we have of Him whose name is love. If we had a God, whose name was Moloch, if God were an arbitrary tyrant, without benevolence or grace, we could suppose some infants being cast into hell; but our God, who heareth the young ravens when they cry, certainly will find no delight in the shrieks and cries of infants cast away from his presence. We read of him that he is so tender, that he careth for oxen, that he would not have the mouth of the ox muzzled, that treadeth out the corn. Nay, he careth for the bird upon the nest, and would not have the mother bird killed while sitting upon its nest with its little ones. He made ordinances and commands even for irrational creatures. He finds food for the most loathsome animal, nor does he neglect the worm any more than the angel, and shall we believe with such universal goodness as this, that he would cast away the infant soul I say it would he clear contrary to all that we have ever read or ever believed of Him, that our faith would stagger before a revelation which should display a fact so singularly exceptional to the tenor of his other deeds. We have learned humbly to submit our judgments to his will, and we dare not criticise or accuse the Lord of All; we believe him to be just, let him do as he may, and? Therefore, whatever he might reveal we would accept; but he never has, and I think he never will require of us so desperate a stretch of faith as to see goodness in the eternal misery of an infinite cast into hell. "

 

[mlqurgw]

Believe what you will.
Is the Bible as clear as I would like it to be on the subject? No, but so are many other matters and God's ways are indeed "past finding out"
As for myself, I agree with Spurgeon on the matter:

"First, we ground our conviction very much upon the goodness of the nature of God. We say that the opposite doctrine that some infants perish and are lost, is altogether repugnant to the idea which we have of Him whose name is love. If we had a God, whose name was Moloch, if God were an arbitrary tyrant, without benevolence or grace, we could suppose some infants being cast into hell; but our God, who heareth the young ravens when they cry, certainly will find no delight in the shrieks and cries of infants cast away from his presence. We read of him that he is so tender, that he careth for oxen, that he would not have the mouth of the ox muzzled, that treadeth out the corn. Nay, he careth for the bird upon the nest, and would not have the mother bird killed while sitting upon its nest with its little ones. He made ordinances and commands even for irrational creatures. He finds food for the most loathsome animal, nor does he neglect the worm any more than the angel, and shall we believe with such universal goodness as this, that he would cast away the infant soul I say it would he clear contrary to all that we have ever read or ever believed of Him, that our faith would stagger before a revelation which should display a fact so singularly exceptional to the tenor of his other deeds. We have learned humbly to submit our judgments to his will, and we dare not criticise or accuse the Lord of All; we believe him to be just, let him do as he may, and? Therefore, whatever he might reveal we would accept; but he never has, and I think he never will require of us so desperate a stretch of faith as to see goodness in the eternal misery of an infinite cast into hell. "

I just wanted to let you know that I love to read Spurgeon and do so often. I just don't always agree with him as I don't always agree with my pastor, Don Fortner. This happens to be one of the issues I disagree with him on ( both Spurgeon and Don). I just cannot build a dogmatic doctrine on something that is unclear. BTW; you haven't answered the passages I gave you on salvation through the means of the preaching of the Gospel. Its OK if you don't, I still believe we can be great friends and can fellowship on those things on which we do agree.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

I haven't read the thread so I don't know what the discussion is about but I saw the title and just wanted to say that my grandfather was a Primitive Baptist preacher for many, many years. He was a very godly man and I'm sure it was the values he and my grandmother exhibited as well as taught me as a young child that kept me from wandering as far from God as I could have when I was living in rebellion.

 

[UMP]

I haven't read the thread so I don't know what the discussion is about but I saw the title and just wanted to say that my grandfather was a Primitive Baptist preacher for many, many years. He was a very godly man and I'm sure it was the values he and my grandmother exhibited as well as taught me as a young child that kept me from wandering as far from God as I could have when I was living in rebellion.

That's good to hear !
I'm not your typical primitive baptist. I was born in Algeria and left the country as a refugee during the French\Arab war. I NEVER went to church but befriended a Christian in high school in the states. I became a "Christian" at 15 but was clearly an Arminian. 11 years ago I started listening to Lasserre Bradley jr. on the radio on the way to work, I listened every morning. The "Doctrines of Grace" which I had NEVER heard before gripped me like nothing else. Shortly thereafter I became a member.
Even though I don't really "fit in" to the southern cliquish Primitive Baptists, I am however so glad God drew me to the truth and to these wonderful people.

 

[UMP]

I still believe we can be great friends and can fellowship on those things on which we do agree.

Yes, to be sure.
However, I'ma gunna make you an old school baptist again even if it kills me !!

 

[mlqurgw]

Yes, to be sure.
However, I'ma gunna make you an old school baptist again even if it kills me !!

I am looking forward to your efforts. I must warn you though it is going to be an extremely hard job. Since you obviouly live in the Cincinnati(sp?) area, I take that from Elder Bradley being your pastor, perhaps we could get together sometime. I only live 1 1/2 hours from there.

 

[UMP]

I am looking forward to your efforts. I must warn you though it is going to be an extremely hard job. Since you obviouly live in the Cincinnati(sp?) area, I take that from Elder Bradley being your pastor, perhaps we could get together sometime. I only live 1 1/2 hours from there.

Anytime.

 

[mlqurgw]

Anytime.

I will PM you as to a good time for me and we can discuss where. Looking forward to it.

 

[UMP]

I will PM you as to a good time for me and we can discuss where. Looking forward to it.

OK

 

[bradfordl]

Don't mean this as an insult, just a funny anecdote.

Back when I was a young 'un, I thought Primitive Baptists were like Fred Flintstone or something. Later, when I was a confused arminian, my Nazarene pastor's parents had been PB's, but had left to become Nazarenes. Very weird.

 

[Lavola]

First off, I don't feel like you're attacking me at all
It's hard to gauge "emotion" on the internet.

"The first part then of Christianity is the preaching of repentance, and the knowledge of ourselves... A man, therefore, is made a Christian not by working but by hearing; wherefore, he that will exercise himself to righteousness must first exercise himself in hearing the Gospel. Now, when he hath heard and received the Gospel, let him give himself to God with a joyful heart, and afterwards let him exercise himself in those good works which are commanded in the law" (Martin Luther—1540—on Galatians, pp. 104 and 185).

"When we meet with a precept, we should simply endeavour to obey it, without enquiring into God's hidden purpose.... Notwithstanding God's predestination is most certain and unalterable, so that no elect person can perish, nor any reprobate be saved, yet it does not follow from thence that all reproofs and exhortations on the part of God, or prayers on the part of men, are useless" (J. Zanchius—1562—"The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination," pp. 49 and 120).

"I say there is no simulation at all of God in this: that which He proposeth is but this; 'Whosoever believeth shall be saved, and whosoever believeth not shall be damned.' He sends His ministers to preach this, and to beseech them to believe, and to be reconciled unto God, yea, all they meet with." "He commands them to preach promiscuously unto all, persuade all, exhort all, unto faith and repentance" (W. Twisse—1653—"The Riches of God's Love" pp. 73 and 169).

"But you will say, if unregenerate men be dead men, to what purpose is it to persuade them to arise and stand up? This difficulty is solved in this very text (Eph. 5:14): though the duty is ours, yet the power is God's" (J. Flavell—1680—Vol. 2, p. 423).

The question is not whether God uses the Gospel as means to save, that is unquestionably true. However, I believe God can and does use other means as well. I like this discussion but it was not exactly what I had in mind in the op. This division among Primitive Baptists is not about whether or not God saves outside His using Gospel preaching, it's about those who DO HEAR Gospel preaching and DON'T respond to it. The "Conditional Time Salvationst" will say, "oh he's still a child of God he's just rebellious in this "time" on earth". The "absolute predestinarian" will say "no, he has been shown the gospel and does not give evidence of being a child of God" As I said in one of my previous posts, the time salvationist is trying to grasp hold to some kind of hope for a deceased loved one who died unrepentant.
I believe if one is a child of God, he should, in some manner, respond to the Gospel positively.
BTW- Our preacher is Lasserre Bradley Jr.
Sure you've heard him on the radio

UMP
Your post above is very interesting, especially the part "The question is not whether God uses the Gospel as means to save, that is unquestionably true." I know you said it is "unquestionably true", but are you certain?

The reason I ask is because from the research I have done on the Primitive Baptist Church, it has led me to the conclusion that they DO NOT believe the gospel is EVER USED as a MEANS in any shape or form for eternal salvation. Although I am faily convinced with my conclusions, there is always a posibility that you are right and that I have overlooked something.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you think Primitive Baptists believe the gospel is used as a means for eternal salvation. Just interested as to the data and process you used to come to your conclusion.

Lavola

 

[UMP]

UMP
Your post above is very interesting, especially the part "The question is not whether God uses the Gospel as means to save, that is unquestionably true." I know you said it is "unquestionably true", but are you certain?

The reason I ask is because from the research I have done on the Primitive Baptist Church, it has led me to the conclusion that they DO NOT believe the gospel is EVER USED as a MEANS in any shape or form for eternal salvation. Although I am faily convinced with my conclusions, there is always a posibility that you are right and that I have overlooked something.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you think Primitive Baptists believe the gospel is used as a means for eternal salvation. Just interested as to the data and process you used to come to your conclusion.

Lavola

Yes,
I see what you mean.
The question is, does perception determine reality?
The Primitive Baptist would answer that question in the negative, for the spirit quickens as it pleases, kind of like the wind We believe that the Holy Spirit effectually calls, regenerates and sanctifies all the elect of God. (John 6:37; 2 Timothy 1:9; Jude 1)

"Knowledge" of this regeneration or gracious condition is "learned" through the gospel.
I guess that ones positive responce to the preached gospel would not be the actual means of salvation (for the Primitive Baptist) but bringing the knowledge of such to God's elect.
Thanks for correcting me.