Why the name Primitive Baptist?
Primitive Baptist ancestors
have been called by various names over the ages. The name Primitive Baptist
became popular in the early 1800s when the term primitive conveyed the idea of
originality rather than backwardness. Accordingly, Primitive Baptists claim to
maintain the doctrines and practices of the original Baptists, who are claimed
to be the New Testament church.
Primitive also conveys the idea of
simplicity. This well describes the Primitive Baptists, whose church services
consist of nothing more than preaching, praying, and singing.
Even though
this name can convey a misimpression under modern connotation, it also has some
benefits; one being that it provokes interest and questions, which is of course
the reason that you are reading this FAQ. (Elder David Pyles)
What is the
difference between Primitive Baptists and other Baptists?
We include this
question because it is likely the one question which is asked most frequently of
Primitive Baptists. Unfortunately, the extreme diversity of modern Baptists
makes the question almost impossible to answer without inaccurately representing
at least some Baptists. Consequently, we assume that the reader has his or her
own concept of what a Baptist is, and we leave it to the reader to make their
own judgment as to how this question should be answered. The reader should
examine the remainder of this FAQ to become acquainted with Primitive Baptist
practices. The Articles of Faith and the Abstract to the Doctrine of Salvation
will introduce the reader to Primitive Baptist views on doctrine. The Black Rock
Address of 1832 will acquaint the reader with the circumstances which lead to
the division between Primitive and other Baptists. (Elder David Pyles)
What is the
Primitive Baptist view of the scriptures?
Primitive Baptists view
scriptures as the divinely inspired word of God and as the sole rule of faith
and practice for the church. It is also believed that the scriptures have been
divinely preserved over the ages, and that the 1611 King James version is the
superior English translation of the scriptures.
Paul claimed that all
scripture is given by inspiration of God (II Tim 3:16). Accordingly, Jesus said
that scripture cannot be broken (Jn 10:35). Such infallibility could only occur
in writings under the power of plenary (full) inspiration.
The apostle
Peter said, ...no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (II Pet 1:20-21). Hence, scriptural
prophecy is void of any private opinions of the writers. They were actually
moved by the Spirit of God when writing.
Peter elsewhere tells us (I Pet
1:10-12) that these prophets examined their own writings to gain additional
information about Christ and His coming. Such behavior is reasonable only if
they wrote under inspirational power.
The assertion of plenary
inspiration does not necessarily imply that the Spirit masked or overrode the
writing styles or personalities of the writers; however, it does imply that the
informational content of the scriptures is of God.
It would be senseless
for God to inspire His word but then allow it to be lost to misplacement or
mistranslation. In Ps 12:6-7 it is written: The words of the Lord are pure
words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt
keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. If
this text has been preserved, then one must conclude that all scriptures have
been preserved. Accordingly, Jesus said, Heaven and earth will pass away, but my
words shall not pass away (Mt 24:35).
Since the scriptures are the word
of God, no man or ecclesiastical body has authority above them. Furthermore, the
instructions of the scriptures are sufficiently broad in scope to serve as the
sole rule of faith and practice. Paul said that in the scriptures the man of God
may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (II Tim
3:16-17).
All books of the King James Bible are regarded as scripture. No
books apart from these are so considered. The books of the Old Testament are
known to be scripture because Jesus and the apostles quoted them as such. The
books of the New Testament are known to be scripture because of Jesus' promise
that special inspirational guidance would be upon the apostles (Jn 14:26, Jn
16:13). This pertains to Paul also, as is implied by Peter in II Pet
3:15-16.
The inspiration of the Bible is further evidenced by its
internal consistency and its historical, scientific, and prophetic
accuracy.
Primitive Baptists strongly prefer in the 1611 King James
version. This preference is based upon evidence indicating the superiority of
its base manuscripts and upon evidence indicating the superior scholarship of
its translators. (Elder David Pyles)
How do Primitive Baptists use scriptural
precedent to resolve questions of church practice?
Primitive Baptists
believe that issues of practice which are not explicitly addressed by scriptural
commandment should be resolved, where possible, by scriptural precedent.
Primitive Baptists are very disinclined to treat scriptural practices as mere
cultural fashions of biblical times, and will do so only where this is obviously
the case (I Cor 9:19-23).
Scriptures themselves teach that adherence to
scriptural example is not a matter of indifference. Paul told the Corinthians,
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am a follower of Christ. Now I praise you,
brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances
(traditions), as I delivered them to you (I Cor 11:1-2). Accordingly, he told
the Thessalonians, Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions
which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle (II Thes 2:15). One
chapter later he wrote, Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh
disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us (II Thes
3:6).
Traditions which have no biblical authority are nonobligatory, and
to make them otherwise can reduce worship to vanity (Mk 7:5-13). On the other
hand, traditions which have biblical authority are clearly expected of us, and
are sufficiently important to be criteria of fellowship.
Since the New
Testament church was a highly multicultural institution, being found in many
nations of the world, practices uniformly observed in them cannot be dismissed
as cultural peculiarities. They clearly expected these practices of themselves
as churches of Jesus Christ, and we should view these practices the same
way. (Elder David Pyles)
How does the typical Primitive Baptist view his or her
role in society?
Primitive Baptists cannot consent with those who
compromise scriptural commandments in order to gain social acceptance. We deny
the claim that terms of truth and morality are to be guided by the ever changing
winds of social values (Eph 4:14). Instead, these are defined by our ever
constant Lord, and are revealed in His inspired word (Mal 3:6, Lk 21:33, Heb
13:8, I Pet 1:24-25).
Since it is our duty, both to God and man, to teach
God's revealed truth, and since we represent ourselves as doing such,any
compromise of this truth would deceive and betray our fellow man, even when such
compromise would serve to appease him.
However, it is not our purpose to
incite hatred or persecution against any man or sector of society. Since our
Baptist ancestry was greatly persecuted, and since we are also falsely accused
and ridiculed unto this day, conscience forbids that we should bring the same
upon others. Instead, the scriptures command us that the servant of the Lord
must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness
instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them
repentance to the acknowledging of the truth (II Tim
2:24-25).
Accordingly, we recognize that love and charity are the first
test of all that claims to be Christian (Mt 22:36-40, Jn 13:35, I Jn 2:9-11),
and though we have all truth, we are but nothing without it (I Cor
13:2). (Elder David Pyles)
Why do Primitive Baptists refer to their ministers as
elders?
The scriptures offer two alternate titles for preachers. These
are bishop and elder (I Tim 3:1-7, Tit 1:5-9, I Pet 5:1). The importance of
using these scripturally authorized titles is emphasized by Jesus' condemnation
of the Pharisees for taking aggrandizing titles to themselves (Mt
23:5-12).
The term reverend is use only once in the scriptures where it
has reference to God (Ps 111:9). We are therefore unworthy to wear this
title.
Though a minister can be a father in certain respects (I Cor
4:15), this term is never used as a title in the scriptures. In fact Jesus
commanded to call no man your father upon the earth (Mt 23:9).
The term
apostle is clearly used by the scriptures to mean a minister who is an
eyewitness to the sufferings and resurrection of Christ (Acts 1:1-3, Acts
1:21-26, I Cor 9:1, I Pet 5:1). Also, apostles were granted special powers not
possessed by ordinary elders (Acts 8:18, II Cor 12:12, Heb 2:3-4). Any man
claiming this title for himself today does so in error.
That elder refers
to gospel preachers is evidenced by the fact that both Peter and John claimed
this title for themselves (I Pet 5:1, II Jn 1, III Jn 1).
That bishop and
elder refer to the same office is proven by the interchanged usage of these
terms in Tit 1:5-9. However, Primitive Baptists typically refrain from the usage
of bishop because of the misimpressions that would be conveyed under modern
connotation. (Elder David Pyles)
Why do Primitive Baptists not have schools for
training ministers?
Primitive Baptists elders are chosen by the
individual congregations from among male members who have proven to be faithful
to the church and its principles. These men are given the opportunity to speak
over a trial period to determine if they have a gift to preach. This trial
period typically lasts from one to five years. Those judged by the congregations
to satisfy scriptural qualifications for the ministry are then ordained by a
presbytery of elders.
All Primitive Baptist elders are expected to be
self educated in the Word of God and are expected to seek the counsel of
experienced ministers about questions of scriptural interpretation and other
matters pertaining to the church. Both young and old elders are expected to seek
the aid of the Holy Spirit in the furtherance of their wisdom and
understanding.
This system of education is preferred above ministerial
training schools because:
- Elders in the New Testament were primarily
self-educated in the scriptures.
- Elders in the New Testament learned under
the direction of the Holy Spirit and other elders rather than
academicians.
- The system makes the scriptures themselves to be the
curriculum.
- The elder learns in the same setting in which he is expected
to teach. Congregations taught by these elders will be expected to have the
discipline to educate themselves in the Word of God. The elder should therefore
prove himself to have the same discipline.
- The system is less vulnerable
to the widespread propagation of error so commonly found when numerous ministers
are trained under the same teachings of heretical academicians. (Elder David Pyles)
Why do Primitive Baptists require that elders be male?
This is a
requirement which is very clearly stated in the scriptures (I Cor 14:35-36, I
Tim 2:11-12, I Tim 3:2). Accordingly, there is no scriptural precedent for
female elders. Churches placing women in ministerial offices appear to regard
the authority of the scriptures to be subordinate to current social
fashions.
The requirement that elders be men does not relieve women of
their obligation and right to teach in other capacities (I Tim 5:14, Tit 2:3-5),
nor does it disallow the possibility of women possessing special spiritual
guidance and gifts (Jud 4:4, II Ki 22:14, Lk 2:36, Acts 2:17, Acts 21:9).
However, we are persuaded that any woman assuming a teaching capacity in the
church cannot do so under the influence of God's Spirit as this would place the
Spirit at contradiction with Himself.
Though certain modern teachers
offer alternate explanations to the scriptures cited above, an examination of
their arguments reveals prejudiced views and a willingness to resort to
unreasonable extremes to defend them. The same methods of reason would make
anything mean nothing. (Elder David Pyles)
Why do Primitive Baptists use real wine
and real unleavened bread in communion?
While scriptural descriptions of
the original communion use the terms bread, the cup, and fruit of the vine, it
may be conclusively inferred that the bread was unleavened and that the drink
was fermented wine. This follows from:
- The communion took place
immediately after the Passover. This was a time in which leavened bread was
prohibited, both by scriptural law and by Jewish tradition (Ex 12:3-8, Num
9:9-11, Deut 16:1-3, Mt 26:17, Mk 14:12, Lk 22:7).
- Leaven is used in the
scriptures as an emblem of sin (Lk 12:1, I Cor 5:6-8, Gal 5:7-9) and is
therefore an unsuitable representative of the Lord's body.
- Wine is
symbolically consistent with unleavened bread in that neither contain leaven. On
the other hand, unfermented grape juice would contradict all that is portended
by the unleavened bread because grape juice typically does contain leaven. There
are some who erroneously assert that the opposite is true - that wine contains
leaven but grape juice does not. The reader is invited to consult any authority
on wine chemistry to resolve the matter.
- Wine was a traditional part of
the Jewish Passover.
- Without modern methods of refrigeration, grape juice
could not be preserved for all times of the year. The Passover season was not
conducive to grape juice since it was well between harvests.
- The
Corinthians obviously used a fermented substance in their communion service
since they perverted it into a drunken festival (I Cor 11:20-30). Paul condemns
them for their impiety and excesses, but not for the usage of wine in
communion.
The importance of adhering to the scriptural example in this
matter cannot be questioned since God punished the Corinthians with illness and
death for departing from it (I Cor 11:29-30). The usage of a leavened substance,
such as grape juice, to represent the Lord is, in our opinion, a severe
negligence, and is at risk of being chargeable as failure to discern the body of
the Lord (I Cor 11:29). (Elder David Pyles)
Why do Primitive Baptists wash feet
during communion?
John explains that, at the end of the Last Supper, the
Lord began to wash the feet of the disciples. After performing this great act of
humility, the Lord said, If I then, your Lord and master, have washed your feet;
ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that
ye should do as I have done unto you (Jn 13:14-15). Primitive Baptists
understand that this commandment is to be followed in literal detail as well as
in spirit.
Many will dismiss these actions of Jesus as being no more than
symbolic gestures; however, these same persons understand the last supper to be
a literal example. We fail to see the consistency in this. If we are to take one
as a symbolic gesture, we must take the other as being such also. Conversely, if
the Lord intended literal observance of the last supper, then literal observance
must have been intended for feet washing as well. The scriptures leave no doubt
that the last supper is to be literally observed (I Cor 10:16-21, I Cor
11:23-30).
I Tim 5:9-10 indicates that feet washing was practiced by the
New Testament church. Neither this text nor the example of Jesus can be
dismissed as a cultural phenomenon since texts describing the cultural practice
of feet washing have individuals washing their own feet (Gen 43:24, Judges
19:21, Song 5:3).
Unfortunately, such plain reasoning is easily obscured
by human vanity, yet it was this very vanity that Jesus would have us destroy in
the act of feet washing. (Elder David Pyles)
Why do Primitive Baptists commune only
with baptized believers of like faith and practice?
The primary reason
for requiring communion participants to be baptized believers is expressed by
the words of Paul: Wherefore, whosoever shall eat of this bread, and drink of
this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink
of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body (I Cor 11:27-29). A person
who has not yet submitted to the obedience of baptism has yet to examine himself
in matters of Christian duty, and therefore, should not partake of communion.
Nor should the church sanction such participation since this would make baptism
appear inconsequential, thereby dulling the individual's sense of conviction
over their negligence in this matter. Such churches also carelessly treat others
in that they fail to alert them to the gravity of communion and the consequences
of being an unqualified participant.
Jesus' final statement to his
disciples clearly specified the proper order of gospel obedience: Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end
of the world. Amen (Mt 28:19-20). Hence, the proper order is: belief of the
gospel, then baptism, then observance of all that Jesus commanded. This pattern
is consistently followed elsewhere in the scriptures (Mk 16:16, Acts 2:41-42,
Acts 8:36-37, Rom 6:3-4).
Neither should baptized persons participate in
the communion of churches espousing principles contrary their own. Paul's
statement in I Cor 10:16-21 forcefully argues that communion denotes the highest
degree of fellowship in matters of principle. Communion is in effect a common
union with the implied principles. For this reason, Primitive Baptist communion
services involve only baptized individuals of like faith and
practice. (Elder David Pyles)
Why do Primitive Baptists require baptism by
immersion?
The example set by Jesus is clearly one of baptism by
immersion. Mark described Jesus' baptism with these words: And straitway coming
up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove
descending upon him (Mk 1:10). A baptism followed by one coming up out of the
water cannot be by sprinkling or pouring. We must take Jesus' example as being
the ultimate authority on the matter.
John baptized in AEnon because
there was much water there (Jn 3:23). An abundance of water is not needful for
sprinkling or pouring. Accordingly, the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized in a body
of water (Acts 8:36).
Paul explains in Rom 6:1-5 that baptism represents
a death, burial, and resurrection. Nothing about pouring or sprinkling depicts
these events. Immersion obviously does.
Finally, the Greek word for
baptism (baptisma) means immersion. (Elder David Pyles)
Why do Primitive Baptists
rebaptize persons joining them from other orders?
The scriptural
precedent for rebaptism is taken from Acts 19:1-7. These verses teach that
persons formerly baptized under improper principles should be baptized again,
and that failure to do so can prevent proper reception of the Holy
Spirit.
Since baptism is an ordinance of the church, it is necessarily
tied to the principles maintained by the church. When these principles are
significantly changed, the baptism should be changed also. The claim that
baptism is an ordinance of the church is proven by the fact it is the scriptural
means of induction to the church (Acts 2:41). Further proof is provided in
Paul's statement: Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel (I Cor
1:17). This statement refers to Paul's evangelical duties, and implies that
baptism is principally the responsibility of local churches and their
pastors.
There are cases where former baptisms are obviously in gross
error (e.g. infant baptisms, sprinklings, etc) and therefore necessitate
rebaptism; however, the scriptures offer few guidelines as to the exact point at
which rebaptism is required; consequently, the safest and most objective policy
is to rebaptize as a general rule. (Elder David Pyles)
Why do Primitive Baptists
not use musical instruments?
We can find no biblical precedent for the
usage of musical instruments in New Testament worship. The scriptures give
repeated instructions to sing in the church, but never to play (Rom 15:9, I Cor
14:15, Eph 5:19, Col 3:16, Heb 2:12, Ja 5:13).
It will occasionally be
objected that there are also many other things in all modern churches which are
without scriptural precedent - things such as electric lights, air conditioners,
etc; however, these items affect only the setting of worship and are not
integral to it. The scriptures have clearly afforded much liberty in such
matters (Lk 5:3, Jn 4:20-24, Acts 20:7-8, Acts 21:5). A distinction must also be
made between an addition to the New Testament pattern and an aid to this
pattern. Electric lights, song books, reference Bibles, etc. are aids to
worship, but musical instruments are additions to worship.
For a
discussion about the importance of adhering to scriptural example, we refer the
reader to the question regarding scriptural precedent.
It is commonly
objected that Psalm 150 offers instruction to praise the Lord with various kinds
of musical instruments. However, these instructions are not referring to New
Testament worship. Procedure used in Old Testament worship obviously cannot be
used to amend the New Testament pattern; otherwise, animal sacrifices, priests,
etc. could be legitimately introduced to the church. It should be observed that
Psalm 150 also commands to praise the Lord with dance (Ps 150:4), yet those who
use the Psalm to defend musical instruments would generally condemn dancing in
the church. (Elder David Pyles)
Why do Primitive Baptists not have Sunday
schools?
Bible study is greatly to be commended, and there are definite
benefits to studying and discussing scriptures with other Christians; however,
scriptural example dictates that such activitiesshould be conducted in contexts
other than formal church worship. There is nothing in scriptures to indicate
that worshippers, either in the church or in the law, were ever segregated by
knowledge, age, sex, marital status, or any other criterion. Instead, all
worshipped in a common assembly.
The importance of adherence to
scriptural example on this and other matters is considered in the question
treating scriptural precedent.
Some will say that Sunday schools are
necessary for the instruction of children; however, the Lord cautions against
assuming a posture which views the understanding of children with slight or
disdain. He tells us that their understanding can exceed that of the wise and
prudent (Mt 11:25, Mt 21:15), and that God has ordained praise in the utterances
of babes (Mt 21:16). Accordingly, Jesus rebuked His disciples for denying
admittance of children to His presence (Mt 19:13-15, Mk 9:36-37, Mk 10:13-15).
Hence, it should not be assumed that children are incapable of receiving proper
instruction from the general assembly. The modern practice of denying children
entrance to church sanctuaries is very much against the spirit of the
scriptures. (Elder David Pyles)
Why do Primitive Baptists not have organized
programs for the entertainment of youth?
Primitive Baptists do not
condemn entertainment when it is moral and in moderation. We also recognize that
men of God in the scriptures occasionally use humor and sarcasm (Is 40:18-23, Is
44:12-20, Lk 16:9), so this too is acceptable provided that it is clean,
purposeful, and moderate. However, the idea that it is the role of the church to
entertain is absolutely alien to all that is scriptural.
The Lord
condemned the priests of Israel, saying, ...they have put no difference between
the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean
and the clean... (Ezek 22:26). Again, the Lord said, And they shall teach my
people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern
between the unclean and clean (Ezek 44:23). When churches have taken sports,
games, comedy, and other amusement, and have commingled them with songs of
praise, prayer, and preaching, then no difference is being made between the holy
and profane.
A church involved in such indiscretions should not expect
the blessings of God in its efforts to preach the gospel. The Lord told
Jeremiah, ...if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my
mouth... (Jer 15:19). We are therefore the mouth of God only when we make a
difference between the precious and the vile. The Hebrew for vile can sometimes
mean gluttonous, which condemns modern practices yet further. Modern Americans
are essentially baptized in entertainment every day of the week, yet some are so
worldly that they expect even more of it from the church.
The scriptures
suggest that Paul had an interest in some sports (I Cor 9:24, II Tim 2:5, Heb
12:1), yet he condemned competitiveness in the church (I Cor 4:7, I Cor
11:21-22). This further illustrates that things which are appropriate in
everyday life are not necessarily appropriate in a church
context.
Preoccupation with entertaining youth often leads to neglect in
teaching youth. This is particularly true when such entertainment is purposed to
be a diversion from sinful activities common to young people. The instruction of
the scriptures are both necessary and sufficient to guide young people as well
as old, and to strengthen them against the temptations of the world (Deut 6:6-7,
Ps 119:9-11, I Tim 5:14, II Tim 3:15-17). (Elder David Pyles)
Why do Primitive
Baptists not have crucifixes or pictures of Jesus in their churches and
homes?
The scriptures unequivocally forbid images of God of any kind (Ex
20:4-5, I Cor 10:14, Gal 5:19-21, I Jn 5:21). Since Jesus is the Son of God, and
therefore equal with God (Jn 5:18, Philip 2:5-8), pictures of Jesus must also be
censured by these commandments.
Pictures of Jesus are in every sense
idols. The popular portraits of Jesus are products of man's imagination, and
misrepresent Jesus in dishonoring ways. If Jesus' hair had in fact been long,
then Paul would have never condemned this practice (I Cor
11:14). (Elder David Pyles)
What is the attitude of Primitive Baptists towards
tongues and other miraculous spiritual gifts?
Any true Christian should
firmly believe in the possibility of miracles (Mt 17:19-20, Mk 9:23, Mk 11:23),
and most prayerful Christians can witness to the fact that miracles do occur.
However, scriptures and experience lead us to expect such miracles to be
elicited by the general prayers of God's people rather than the workings of
someone possessing a miraculous spiritual gift.
New Testament occurrences
of miraculous gifts are almost always observed either in apostles or in those
upon whom apostles had laid hands. The apostles had special gifts, and had the
ability to confer them upon others. However, it appears that those receiving
miraculous gifts from the apostles were not able to transmit them to third
parties. Hence, Philip received special gifts from the apostles (Acts 6:5-6,
Acts 8:5-8), but was unable to confer these same gifts upon the Samaritans (Acts
8:5-19). Since there are no apostles in the world today, any modern occurrences
of extraordinary spiritual gifts would represent an exception to the scriptural
pattern.
This is not to say that such exceptions are impossible, and it
certainly is not intended to say that miracles can no longer happen. However,
the scriptures lead us to expect such miracles to be elicited by the individual
and collective prayers of God's people (Mt 17:19-20, Mk 9:23, Mk 11:23, Philip
4:6, Ja 5:13-15, I Jn 5:14-15).
Paul told the Corinthian church: Truly
the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and
wonders, and mighty deeds (II Cor 12:12). This verse implies that extraordinary
spiritual gifts were signs of apostleship. This raises the simple question: If
ordinary gospel ministers also possess these gifts, then how could such
abilities distinguish an apostle from other ministers? If it is true that modern
charismatic ministers have the ability to heal, speak in tongues, etc, then Paul
appealed to invalid grounds for confirmation of his apostleship.
The
reasoning above is further substantiated by Heb 2:3-4, How shall we escape, if
we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken to us by
the Lord, and was confirmed to us by them that heard him; God also bearing them
witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the
Holy Ghost, according to his own will? This text appeals to the signs and
wonders of those that heard the Lord, but says nothing of miraculous gifts being
observed in the current generation of Christians. Since miracles within the
observation and memory of the reader would serve as greater confirmation than
reports of miracles in the past, one should certainly expect the writer of
Hebrews to have advanced these as proof if miraculous gifts were still occurring
with equal degree and frequency.
There are other indications that the
frequency of miraculous gifts tended to diminish toward the end of New Testament
times. Paul told Timothy to take wine for a chronic stomach problem (I Tim
5:23), and spoke of leaving Trophimus sick at Miletum (II Tim 4:20). In earlier
times, one would have expected these to have been healed by apostolic
powers.
The decreased frequency of miracles was partly due to expiration
of the apostolic era, and partly due to the gospel being carried to the
Gentiles. Paul said that it was the nature of a Jew to require signs, but the
nature of the Gentiles to demand wisdom (I Cor 1:22). Accordingly, the
experience of scriptures indicates that the Lord is most apt to give signs when
dealing with the Jewish people.
The practice of counterfeiting miracles
in the name of Christ is to be condemned (Mt 7:21-23), not only because it is
deceptive, but because it tends to discredit the true miracles recorded in the
Bible, and diminishes belief in the power of prayer (II Pet 2:1-2). (Elder David Pyles) |
Your blog is very blessed. I have followed it for sometime. I am curious to your identity. Feel free to contact me anytime at either OxfordChurch.org or Marchtozion.com.
ReplyDeleteAlso, thank you for your recent comment on MarchToZion.com. Feel free to use any of the content on MTZ for your blog.
God bless,
Josh Winslett
Teth, I've been trying to get my pastor to rebaptize me, but we differ on the finer points of doctrine, even though I do not distrust his confession of faith or belief. But a quick search revealed that there are no Primitive Baptist churches anywhere near me. I'm starting to panic. I'm worried that I'll be rebaptized by the wrong person and I'm also worried that my improper baptism might be the reason for my weakness in resisting temptation. I don't know what to do for fear of doing wrong.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I'm not sure that my pastor was even baptised by immersion. I don't know why I'm so frantic about this.
DeleteMy thoughts...
DeleteRC: I've been trying to get my pastor to rebaptise me, but we differ on the finer points of doctrine, even though I do not distrust his confession of faith or belief.
TETH: I don't doubt that your pastor is a sincere, child of God, but if you are to be rebaptised, you should do it in a place where you believe the doctrine they teach in what you believe is the Lord's church.
RC: But a quick search revealed that there are no Primitive Baptist churches anywhere near me. I'm starting to panic.
TETH: Email me your location and I'll see what I can come up with. It is true that there are many places where there is no PB church. May I ask why you are tied to living where you do? I know another brother who moved from California to Alabama so that he could join the Primitive Baptist church after encountering and being delighted by the truths we proclaim. Everyone's situation is a little different, but have you considered moving? It might be a very good thing for you.
RC: I'm worried that I'll be rebaptised by the wrong person
TETH: I guess it's obvious that I would recommend that you be baptized by an Elder of the Primitive Baptist church, provided you believe as we do.
RC: and I'm also worried that my improper baptism might be the reason for my weakness in resisting temptation.
TETH: I don't know if that is true but I sincerely doubt that this is the case. I assume that your profession of faith was sincere at the time you were baptized the first time. But if you are to be rebaptised, you should certainly do it with the people who believe as you do - the Primitive Baptist church if this is indeed your belief.
RC: I don't know what to do for fear of doing wrong.
TETH: I would not be rebaptised until you were being baptised by those who believe as you do. To do otherwise is sort of like saying, "I was baptised a Catholic but now that I've heard the truth of the Primitive Baptists I've decided to be rebaptised by a Presbyterian." That doesn't make good sense to me.
RC: Furthermore, I'm not sure that my pastor was even baptised by immersion.
TETH: Then he himself is not properly baptised. This will only lead you to the same dilemma again a short while later after the newness of thinking you did the right thing wears off, IMO.
RC: I don't know why I'm so frantic about this.
TETH: You shouldn't be frantic about it, I don't think. But it is a matter that deserves sober consideration. That said it's probably best to discuss this via email rather than in the comments section of the blog. You know where to reach me. :)
I'll close by reiterating that you might ought to give moving some real consideration.
God bless,
TETH