Disputing the Rantings and Unscriptural Charges of one RM Kane – a Stephen Garrett Disciple.
Coming in the Clouds is a reformed Calvinist website that mixes grace and works in a confusing mishmash of undecipherable dribble. For some unknown reason, RM Kane, the website owner has devoted a large effort to misrepresenting the beliefs of and attacking Primitive Baptists, branding them "True Hyper-Calvinists." He never defines that term or explains why he believes they fall into that category. Not once does he bring up the subject of 'double predestination' or 'absolute predestination' which are the most common doctrinal positions called Hyper-Calvinism. For the record, (see link) Primitive Baptists are not Calvinists, nor are they hyper Calvinists. Primitive Baptists are NOT Calvinists
Mr. Kane's webpage attacking Primitive Baptists is copied here. The link above and other provided links are to support and defend our position in response to his misrepresentation. OUR RESPONSES are in RED
https://comingintheclouds.org/about-protestant/denominations/primitive-baptists-true-hyper-calivinists/#pbarticles Published March 13, 2017
Primitive Baptists – True Hyper-Calvinists
This article is the result of several months of dialog with Primitive
Baptists (also known as Hardshell Baptists) and a good deal of time
spent reading their literature. The dialog primarily consisted of email
correspondence with a particularly outspoken apologist for that sect
along with some interaction with several people on a Facebook Primitive
Baptist discussion forum. I read articles by Primitive Baptists and
former Primitive Baptists and I listened to a number of Primitive
Baptist audio messages. In this article I am not out to convince the
unconvinceable (i.e. diehard Primitive Baptists with their minds made up
already). I am only out to warn those people who may be wondering where
Primitive Baptists are coming from. There are links below to Primitive
Baptist articles for further study should the reader want
additional information on this aberrant Christian sect. And please note,
no ill-will is intended towards anyone who is currently a Primitive
Baptist. I just strongly disagree with their “no gospel means” doctrine
and wish to point out from the Bible why I disagree. May God bless you
as you seek to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.
No Evangelists Allowed?
What I discovered was several things, namely that this group holds to a
heretical doctrine regarding evangelism: they genuinely believe that
there is no point to conventional evangelism – preaching to the lost as
a “means” of salvation. They believe that salvation only involves the
Holy Spirit without any assistance from preachers or evangelists or
other persons preaching the word of God to effect salvation in unsaved
sinners. They mistakenly believe that these two scripture passages:
We believe that salvation first involves the Holy Spirit without any
assistance from preachers or evangelists, and that preaching, teaching
and evangelism is to educate God’s children.
“salvation is of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9) and “not of
works” (Eph 2:9)
are saying that salvation does not even involve the efforts of an
evangelist preaching the law of God to bring conviction of sin to the
unregenerated.
The unregenerate are void of any spiritual life or understanding. They are dead in trespasses and in sins. They have uncircumcised ears that cannot hear, blinded eyes that cannot see and have no spiritual mind with which to understand the gospel.
The preaching of the gospel will bring conviction of sin, but it doesn’t factor into eternal life.
What About James 1:18?
If the Primitive Baptists are correct in saying that God does not use
preaching as a means to effect salvation, to bring about the new
birth, then what are we to make of James 1:18 which says:
“Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”
Isn’t this verse saying that God “begets” (gives birth to) sinners with
the Gospel (i.e. the word of truth)? Regarding the phrase “with the word
of truth”, the renowned theologian Bible commentator John Gill has
written:
Isn’t this verse saying that God “begets” (gives birth to) sinners with the Gospel (i.e. the word of truth)? It is not. In the beginning was the Word, and until you understand that God does not require sinful man to participate in bringing himself to life, you will continue to make these types of heretic errors.
“not Christ, who is the Word, and truth itself; though regeneration is
sometimes ascribed to him; and this act of begetting is done by the
Father, through the resurrection of Christ from the dead; but the
Gospel, which is the word of truth, and truth itself, and contains
nothing but truth; and by this souls are begotten and born again; see (
Ephesians 1:13 ) ( 1 Peter 1:23 ) and hence ministers of it are
accounted spiritual fathers.” [John Gill’s Exposition Of The Bible,
RE: James 1:18]
“not Christ, who is the Word, and truth itself; though regeneration is sometimes ascribed to him;
Sometimes ascribed to him? John Gill was a brilliant man, but erred greatly here. Will you take his projections over scripture? The gospel brings life and immortality to LIGHT. It doesn’t bring life.
And as referenced by Mr. Gill, Ephesians 1:13 and 1Peter 1:23 point out
the following:
“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the
gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye
were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise” – Eph 1:13
“For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of
imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.” –
1Pet 1:23
Your contention throughout is that YOU, as the preacher, proclaiming God's word ARE the LIVING and ENDURING word of God. Until you can separate the gospel (written) from the actual Voice of God, you will continue to have confusion about the new birth and salvation.
What About John 6:68?
“Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” – John 6:68
Wouldn’t you rather have that read: “to whom shall we go? Preachers have the gospel that gives eternal life.”
John 6:68 clearly points out the significance of the Word of God with
regards to salvation (i.e. eternal life), else Peter should have said
“You have eternal life”… There would have been no need to mention “the
words of eternal life” in that scripture passage.
Can you not the tell the difference between granting eternal life and explaining eternal life to one of God’s own?
They confuse the forest for the trees
One trap that Primitive Baptists may be falling into is equating the
“GOOD NEWS” of the Gospel as a means of salvation, with the entire
message of the Gospel, which includes the “BAD NEWS” of the Gospel:
judgment, wrath, sin, hell, God’s holiness, God’s Law,
sinners=law-breakers and so on. God indeed uses these things as a
schoolmaster to bring a person to Christ (Galatians 3:24). The fear of
the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10) and so the bad
news of the Gospel is an essential element of the Gospel and an
important tool used of God, by way of a preacher and the Holy Spirit, to
convict and convert sinners. Certainly, a sinner cannot see his need for
the Good News (i.e. a Savior for sin) if he is not shown WHY he needs
that Savior, via the preaching of the Bad News. And true Christians will
admit that any preaching will fall on deaf ears if the power of God is
not behind those words.
No Primitive Baptist I know of believes the nonsense in the paragraph above. You seem more intent in pointing out fallacies that don’t exist than in explaining what Primitive Baptists truly believe.
Redefiners Of Theological Terminology
Determining that these folks were teaching heresy regarding evangelism
took a while to figure out for a couple of reasons. I sort of fell into
a trap, following a trail of crumbs they laid out before me that led me
down the Primitive Baptist path of redefined words and reinterpreted
scriptures… Yes, they look at words like regeneration and conversion differently
than most Christians. And this causes them to interpret certain Bible
verses differently than most Christians. So, what should have been
obvious to me early on in my investigation, became obscured by my own
tunnel vision as I followed that trail of Primitive Baptist crumbs.
Please.
They Miss The Two Types Of Preaching In The Bible
Primitive Baptists apparently MISS two important things when they read
the Bible, perhaps because they have already adopted their own
definitions of things and perhaps because they are missing the overall
picture of what was going on in the New Testament Church. These two
important things are the 2 distinctions in the types of preaching
documented in the Bible, as being engaged in by the early Church…
Preaching type 1: The early church was evangelizing the unsaved,
(unbelievers/unregenerated) as can see by the biblical accounts of Paul
preaching at Mars Hill and in the synagogues, Peter preaching at
Pentecost, and Stephen preaching to the Sanhedrin. In fact, it is beyond
obvious that they were preoccupied with this mission.
Preaching is never of any benefit to the unsaved/unbelievers/unregenerated/dead
in trespasses and in sins. Preaching type 1 is not scriptural, and
sounds like a Straw Man argument you made to support your unbiblical
position.
Preaching type 2: The early church leaders were teaching the
saints (believers/regenerated) through the letters to the churches
(along with direct, in person teaching of course). And one of the
primary things they were teaching was the need to evangelize the lost,
by their example and by their epistles. And yes, the early church
leaders also spent time teaching about the importance of godly (Christlike)
living.
The Pattern In Scripture Of God’s Word Bringing Forth Life
Primitive Baptists must have ignored a whole lot of Bible verses to not
have noticed the BIBLICAL PATTERN of the Word Of God being used as a
MEANS God has employed in Creation, in bringing the physically dead to
life and in imparting spiritual life.
Again, and this is perhaps the lynchpin to all your errors, the
inability to separate gospel preaching from the actual spoken voice of
God.
1. God spoke the universe into existence, with His own voice (Genesis
1:3 – “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”).
Can you tell the difference between this creative action and a man preaching?
2. God used Ezekiel’s voice to bring life to a valley of dry bones
(Ezekiel chapter 34:9 – “Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the
wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the
Lord God; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these
slain, that they may live.”).
Can you tell the difference between prophecy, and literal or figurative application of scripture?
3. Jesus shouted “Lazarus come forth” to bring a dead man to back to
life (John 11:43 – “And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a
loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.”).
No, I’m pretty sure that was a preacher and not God’s voice there…
4. Jesus commanded a lame man to “take up his bed and walk” and
instantly the man got up and walked (Mark 2:9 – “Whether is it easier
to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say,
Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?”).
What does this have to do with gospel means? It’s
not germane to your
position.
5. Peter spoke and a girl arose from the dead (Acts 9:40 – “But Peter
put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the
body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she
saw Peter, she sat up.”).
As is this. Is this the gospel being proclaimed by Peter granting eternal life? Have you read an ENGLISH bible? You sound confused.
John 5:25 makes it pretty clear that the preaching of the Gospel really
is the “means” God uses to effect salvation:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear
shall live.”
“by “the voice” of Christ is intended his Gospel, which is a voice of
love, grace, and mercy, of life and liberty, of peace, pardon,
righteousness, and salvation by him; and which being attended with his
power, is the means of quickening dead sinners” – John Gill’s Exposition
Of The Bible, RE: John 5:25
Again, you prefer Gill over the words of Christ. In John 5:25, the voice is not the preached word, else wise, you have a great conflict in John 5:28. The same VOICE that brings them out of the grave in 5:28 is the same voice that brings them to eternal life in John 5:25. A preacher capable of giving one eternal life in John 5:25 can (must!) raise them at the end of days in John 5:28. It's the same voice. (The Voice of God).
They Become Focused On Their Uniqueness
And as much as Primitive Baptists may try to focus on Christ, what they
end up doing is focusing on the uniqueness of their group, perhaps
inadvertently, but never-the-less that’s how it looked to me as an
outsider. I admire their desire to thoroughly examine Biblical issues.
However, I believe Primitive Baptists have locked themselves into a
compartment of doctrine with the words they have redefined and with the
teachers and elders they put so much faith in, preventing them from any
positive changes away from their erroneous soteriological doctrine.
It sounds like you focus on their uniqueness because you are unable to present sufficient scripture to prove your theories.
Why Would A New Believer Be Concerned About The Lost?
Looking at my own change of heart upon regeneration, I can strongly
testify, by way of the Spirit within me, that a genuine believer will
have a burden to evangelize the lost. One must question their salvation
if they do not have such a burden.
One must question their salvation if they do not have such a burden.
That’s subjection on your part. What authority have you to question anyone’s salvation and what scriptures do you have to support that nonsense theory?
Also, any doctrine that teaches and encourages Christians to not evangelize the lost (and to look for scriptural justification for that stance that involves redefining theological terms) is simply not of God and is of the evil one.
Because you have been brainwashed to believe the magic power of the gospel brings eternal life at your efforts of preaching – (vain, and not God-honoring by the way) which would make you equal or co-creator with God – have you no fear? – you unjustly and incorrectly conclude any doctrine you have not understood is evil.
The Unique Primitive Baptist View Of The Words Regeneration & Conversion
The central point that shows the error of Primitive Baptist doctrine
regarding salvation (“no gospel means” as they refer to it) is regarding
the biblical patterns for the 2 types of preaching in the New Testament.
Those patterns don’t go away, no matter how they define things.
Two types of preaching. I pointed out above Type 1 was unscriptural. It still is.
Whether they believe that regeneration is separate from conversion (which they do) or whether they believe in something they call “time salvation” or not.
Do you have a scripture that indicates that conversion occurs at the same time as the new birth?
They believe in the idea that conversion takes place over time,
gradually and can even take a lifetime. And so to them, conversion does
not necessarily coincide with regeneration.
That’s a pretty generalized statement, and unless you have read it in a Primitive Baptist Confession of Faith, you probably ought not to attribute it all PBs.
The Unique Primitive Baptist Concept Called “Time Salvation”
Primitive Baptists also believe that you can be saved and not know it
until some time after regeneration, at some time down the road, at which
someone explains salvation to you from the Bible. They call this “Time
Salvation”.
It’s actually known by several descriptors, ‘time salvation’ being one. Others include 'gospel salvation,' 'worldly salvation,' 'knowledge salvation' and ‘here and now’ salvation. That more than one TYPE of salvation is taught in the bible is without dispute. That most preachers are unable to rightly divide between those occasions is where much Armenian error and doctrine find root.
I guess they have not heard that the Scriptures are not of any private interpretation and yet they have this unique view of salvation – unique from the rest of biblical Christianity.
We are aware no scripture is of any private interpretation and I know of no group anywhere that puts as much stock in testing scripture against scripture than the Primitive Baptists. We believe the truth can withstand the most intense scrutiny. We are unique from the rest of “modern day” Christianity and I make that distinction because I don’t believe the majority of Christianity is biblically sound on God’s work in eternal salvation.
Of course if you consider salvation to be a work of man, then, it could be looked at as something that takes place over a period of time, though Primitive Baptists don’t believe salvation is a work of man.
You admit here you believe salvation is a work of man, discounting the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice in favor of your 'types' of preaching to bring men to life. Salvation, that is, the new birth, the granting of eternal life, the restoration of God's elect from their fall in Adam is a monogestic work that man does not, yeah, cannot participate in because he is dead in Adam (trespasses and in sins.)
The New Testament Church Was Preoccupied With Evangelism
The very thing that Primitive Baptists don’t believe in is the very
thing that the early Church was preoccupied with. Primitive Baptists
apparently don’t seem to understand just how much the New Testament
church was actively involved in preaching to the lost. They were as
mission-minded as you can get. They supported Paul in his missionary
journeys. In addition, the Bible is chock full of examples of God
sending messengers to preach to the unconverted.
Are you using the word ‘unconverted’ to mean the same thing as dead
alien sinner, one not yet born again?
This is the way God does things historically. He sends His messengers out into the world to preach to the converted and unconverted a like. Just do a word search on the word “hearken” in the OT starting with Jeremiah and this fact becomes painfully obvious.
Jeremiah was sent to preach to the back sliding and disobedient people of God not those outside Israel. Context is important.
Trying To Make A Case Based Upon A False Premise
Primitive Baptists try to blend together the works of the lost
sinner with the work of the ministry of the Gospel in an effort to build
a case for not preaching to the lost.
Not sure how to answer a nonsense statement like that. A ‘lost sinner’ that is, one not yet born again, can have no works pleasing to God.
That blending is obvious in this Primitive Baptist article http://pbgrace.org/means.htm. But when you read that brief article, you can see that the author is presenting what is called a “straw man” argument… stating a false premise and then attacking it.
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot. Of the 800 plus graphics on that site,
you should have learned more than you portray in this essay about
Primitive Baptists. I would have directed you to
http://pbgrace.org/purpose.htm and
http://pbgrace.org/purpose%20part%202.htm to clearly show that
“means” are not employed by God in the raising of one dead in trespasses
and in sins.
The false premise of the Primitive Baptists can be stated this way:
Since “evangelism” is a “work” of man, and knowing that the Bible states
that salvation is “not of works”, God therefore cannot use evangelism as
a “means” of saving someone.
Ironically, the term ‘not of works’ appears twice in the new testament, once speaking of God’s eternal election, and second, speaking of grace. It doesn’t appear with the term evangelism, which also a word one won’t find in scripture.
When you say ” and knowing that the Bible states that salvation is “not of works,” you do know the Bible doesn’t actually say that, right?
Who, other than a Primitive Baptist, would ever jump to the conclusion that Ephesians 2:9 is referring to both the sinner being preached to and the person doing the preaching?
The Wizard of Oz didn’t employ this many straw men. Again, no Primitive Baptist jumps to the conclusion of nonsense you state above. You build an argument, then criticize us for your misunderstanding? Ouch.
But “Not Of Works” Is NOT Referring To The Work Of An Evangelist
However, the problem with the above stated PB premise,
The problem with the above stated premise is you made it up.
is that verse 9 in Ephesians chapter 2: “Not of works lest any man should boast”, is only referring to the lost sinner, not to the evangelist. There are no biblical grounds for conflating the two parties (lost sinner and evangelist) Agreed.
as Primitive Baptists do Except we don’t.
in their effort to discount the need for evangelism Which thing we also don’t do. We don’t discount the need for evangelism. Our home pastor has recorded upwards of 2 dozen trips to Africa to educate, baptism, ordain men and aid in the constitution of churches and fellowships in strict New Testament fashion. We are aware of evangelistic efforts by Primitive Baptists in a dozen countries in Africa, Mexico, England, India, Russia and the Philippines.
– by their false claim that “not of works” also applies to the work of the evangelist in his preaching to the lost sinner.
Quit saying that. It makes you sound like you don’t know what you are
talking about.
Regarding evangelism, Paul said to Timothy:
“But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an
evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.” 2 Timothy 4:5
If Primitive Baptists were correct about “no gospel means” being needed
or wanted by God for the saving of souls, then Paul’s statement in 2
Timothy 4:5 would make no sense. Timothy WAS experiencing afflictions because
he WAS doing the work of an evangelist.
Again, your confusion over God’s work and man’s work and how one is born
again continues to blind you to the truth of God’s word.
The rest of the Church (those outside the Primitive Baptist camp) who
believe in the sovereignty of God in salvation,
How can you claim in one breath you believe in the sovereignty of God in salvation and in the next confess God can’t do it without your men, money, missionairies, microphones and machines? Will all those whom God elected to live with him in eternity not make it because you didn’t preach the right message to the right person at the right time?
would never deny that the sinner is dead in sin and cannot possibly reach out to God for salvation, cannot choose Christ, cannot accept Jesus as their savior.
I got to page nine before I saw something I could amen. I hope you don’t ruin it.
But they would not deny that God uses “means” – sends His laborers – into the fields to participate in the harvest. Nor would we. We pray for laborers into the field but strongly disagree with you on their purpose. They are not creators of new creatures in Christ.
God is not ashamed to use mere vessels of clay as his messengers and as his laborers in the fields.
Okay so far – don’t apply it to granting eternal life by preaching…
But Primitive Baptists seem to think He should be ashamed. Quit making up stuff about Primitive Baptists. We don’t seem to think He should be ashamed. You should be ashamed.
They claim that not only is the free-will gospel By free will gospel are you suggesting someone dead can make a decision, reach out to Christ, chose Christ, accept Christ? Because in a couple paragraphs above, you seem to claim otherwise. You must not be familar with this scripture: 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Or else you cannot understand it. When you are preaching to save one eternally, are you preaching to his natural mind? Or his spiritual mind? Again, I'll wait.
robbing God of His glory but that the evangelist is robbing God of His
glory.
I guess if Paul had had some Primitive Baptists to “straighten him out”
by telling him to not bother preaching to the lost as a means of
salvation, he could have saved himself a whole lot of trouble, which
trouble he summarized in 2 Corinthians, chapter 11:
I used to get in trouble in school for asking myself easy questions I could immediately answer to make myself appear smart.
24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.
25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered
shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in
perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in
the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils
among false brethren;
27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and
thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. (2 Cor 11).
Believers Evangelize For Rewards? Really?
The insinuation in that pbgrace.org
article mentioned above, that Christians who don’t believe
like Primitive Baptists, are just looking for rewards and crowns in
heaven (as a result of their evangelism efforts), is what I would call a
low blow. A
low blow? You publish an entire webpage calling Primitive Baptists
beliefs ‘heresy’ and cult-like and you take offense at a cartoon?
A true believer in Christ is interested in pleasing his Master, his Savior, his redeemer. He shares his faith and evangelizes the lost out of a genuine love of God and a genuine concern for those who are perishing. That does not mean that Christians’ motives for serving God are always entirely pure. Never-the-less, I personally believe that our reward in heaven, our crown, is the Lord Jesus Christ, who should be more than enough reward for any sinner saved by grace:
One of the things your master would desire of a true believer is to ‘Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.’ Otherwise, you might be serving in ignorance or propogating bad doctrine.
Genesis 15:1 –
“After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision,
saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great
reward.”
Isaiah 28:5 –
“In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for
a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people.”
Primitive Baptists’ Cult-Like Attributes
This very small, exclusive group of Christians who call themselves
Primitive Baptists, seem to exhibit some characteristics of a
Christian-like cult.
How many in your mind make us ‘very small, exclusive group’? And do you think we are Christians? I wouldn’t have known that from your unjustified attacks. And are we Christians? Or Christian-like?
1. They have cult-like “gatekeepers” who guard the truth “as they see”
it for their organization.
Who would that be? Each church is autonomous and if there are secret handshakes or required magazine subscriptions, I haven’t been let in on the secret in 35 years.
These are a few individuals who write the stuff that everyone else is expected to subscribe to, like a creed or confession would have been used by protestant denominations of years gone by and similar to how the Jehovahs Witnesses use their Watchtower Society to print and promulgate Witnesses dogma.
Really Mr. Kane. Who hurt you? This is insane hatred and lies. Name these individuals and writings. You rant like you were mugged by a gaggle of Primitive Baptists outside a town hall meeting.
So Primitive Baptists have their teachers and spokespersons who write books and post teachings in online blogs and forums.
Some of us like to discuss scripture online and write articles. Please don’t have us arrested.
Yes, it is true that many legitimate groups do this also.
2. They exhibit extreme exclusivity: They claim to be the ONLY group
currently around that represents the truest and purest form of
Christianity today, the most biblically accurate branch of the true
Christian Church.
But would you rather there
be a hundred different gospels instead? Gal 1:6-9 This
may surprise you, but there are not a dozen different truths.
http://pbgrace.org/truth.htm
3. They claim to be able to trace their roots back to the first century
church, a totally unverifiable claim that they never-the-less use, as a
means of attempting to add validity to their group, a validity that no
one can either prove or disprove… but the claim sure sounds impressive.
Why do you say that is a totally unverifiable claim?
Disprove some of these. I’ll wait. http://pbgrace.org/lnks.htm
http://pbgrace.org/founder.htm
http://pbgrace.org/baptist%20names.htm
http://pbgrace.org/timeline.htm
4. They have a unique view of certain passages of scripture that enables
them to support their totally unorthodox doctrines.
If by unique you mean scriptural, then Amen. We are willing to test scripture against scripture as nothing explains the bible like the bible itself.
Obvious "Gospel Means" Passages In Scripture
There are plenty of passages in the Bible that indicate rather clearly,
that preaching the gospel is the “means” by which God uses His
messengers to effect salvation in the sinners He intends to save – in
conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit of course.
Oh boy! We’ve hit the ‘Case Studies.’ This should be good.
Case study #1: Acts 14
Primitive Baptists say that there is no point in preaching the gospel to
the unsaved, unregenerated, because God is going to save them by way of immediate
Holy Spirit regeneration without any Gospel preaching (without
any Gospel “means”). Amen!
They believe that Christians should only preach to believers, Not true. We can’t know who has and hasn’t been born again. We preach to all in attendance, hoping to impact God’s children who HAVE been born again.
those who need to be taught of God about the “Good News” of salvation through Jesus Christ and taught how to live the Christian life. We teach and preach the good news and how to live the Christian life. 2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
PBs say that once Christians hear the “Good News” and understand it, they will then have become “converted”, We really don’t say that, but you’ve pretty much just made up stuff until now, so why not continue.
even though they may have been regenerated a long time ago. Is this idea
really biblical?
If, contrary to PB teaching, God really does use the preaching of the
Gospel to actually convert sinners to Christ, then we ought to be able
to find examples of that in Scripture. And indeed, that is the case as
we see here in Acts 14:12-17 where Paul and Barnabas are preaching the
Gospel of Jesus Christ to people who they surely know are not yet saved
or regenerated – people who just called Paul “Mars” and Barnabas
“Mercurius”…
12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he
was the chief speaker.
13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen
and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the
people.
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their
clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like
passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these
vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the
sea, and all things that are therein:
16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.
17 Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did
good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our
hearts with food and gladness.
If the preaching of God’s word was not a “means” used by God to convert
souls
Gonna stop you right there – convert souls to truth is not the same as bringing the dead to life in Christ Jesus. What an ego you must have.
to Christ, would the apostle Paul have bothered to say: “We … preach
unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God”?
We preach likewise. And that men would turn from false and vain worship
to the living God.
Clearly Paul understood that his preaching to the lost was not in vain
(1 Corinthians 15:58). And clearly he understood the proper meaning
behind this passage in Ezekiel 37:4…
Twice you’ve used this verse…
“Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them,
O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.” – Ezekiel 37:4
With God all things are possible… If dead dry bones can hear the word of
the Lord, then surely a spiritually dead sinner can also – if the Lord
wills it.
“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall
not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I
please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” – Isaiah
55:11
Thank you! You finally found a verse – oh wait, you read it wrong. It should read like this according to your understanding:
“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of the preacher’s mouth: it shall not return unto him void, but it shall accomplish that which he pleases, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto the preacher sent it.” – Isaiah 55:11
Case study #2: 1Thes 2:16
In 1 Thessalonians 2 we see a strange statement of the apostle Paul, if
in fact Primitive Baptists are correct in saying that God does not use
the “means” of gospel preaching to SAVE sinners:
14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in
Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of
your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have
persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved,
to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the
uttermost.
And of course, context is new to you as well. This is not eternal salvation, but timely or knowledge. Learn the difference and your life will change.
http://pbgrace.org/Time-Salvation.htm
http://pbgrace.org/time%20on%20my%20side.htm
Was Paul unaware of something that only Primitive Baptists happen to be
aware of regarding salvation? Paul
knew, and passed it on to the Primitive Baptists, although haters of the
doctrine would give them many names through the years:
http://pbgrace.org/baptist%20names.htm
He knew they would teach the same doctrine.
2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Why would Paul say what he said in verse 16 above if God was not using Paul’s preaching to bring about the salvation of souls? Of course the Holy Spirit would have to be involved in the conviction and regeneration of these souls. No one is denying that.
But in reality, you are denying that. You place the preaching of the gospel of higher value than the work of the Holy Spirit.
But to say that preaching is not a part of the process is to deny the Word of God.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
You probably won’t understand this, but it’s power to those whom already believe… not to the dead and unregenerate.
And: 2Ti 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
But so far, you don’t seem to want to believe what the bible says about things…
Additional passages related to evangelistic gospel preaching
“Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ
was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation” – Rom
15:20 Amen.
Now go see who Paul was talking to. Believers in Rome. He was
personally acquainted with 27 of the 35 mentioned in the last two
chapters.
“For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not
God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them
that believe.” – 1 Cor 1:21
Amen.
“To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made
all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” – 1
Cor 9:22
Amen.
“I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. … For we
are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are
God’s building.” – 1 Cor 3:6&9
How Did Primitive Baptists End Up With Their Unbiblical Ideas?
Probably the more important question here, HOW DID YOU END UP WITH YOURS? Seriously RM Kane. Who hurt you so badly?
As convincing as Primitive Baptists can be, I could find no solid
evidence that traces their beliefs back to the early church as they
claim, RM
Kane is also a trusted historical researcher in addition to a skilled
theologian. How hard did you look. I gave you links. I also
recommend historical marks of the church, and Hassells History of the
Church of God from Creation to AD 1886.
nor do I think that they can convincingly deny that the beliefs they have, simply originated with a certain group of Baptists who splintered off from the “Missionary Baptists” in the 1800s.
Ahh. Finally, the Stephen Garrett influence shows up. If you think Missionary Baptists preceded the Old School Baptists, I’ll wait while you look up their pedigree and lineage. The doctrines of the Primitive Baptist pre-date Missionary Baptists, and the London Confessions.
And then, over the years, their group developed this anti-missionary and anti-evangelism theology with corresponding new word definitions regarding the gospel, to suit their original position against missionary societies. Now it’s beginning to sound like discounted therapy.
And now that so much time has passed, they no longer realize the
occurrence of that transition themselves, that such a theological
metamorphosis has taken place in their denomination.
History, theology, therapy. He's got every base covered.
I personally have not found the Primitive Baptist brand of Christianity
showing up in the preaching and teaching of men of God who are I’ve
grown to trust and whom so many other Christians have grown to trust
over the centuries. That observation of mine in and of itself is not a
“rock solid” case against the Primitive Baptist “no gospel means”
doctrine.
Nothing personal here, but that’s just bad writing. It adds nothing, says little and opens your entire essay up to personal speculation and conjecture. Really, take a look at that sentence and see if you understand what you are trying to say. It should be taken out and beaten on a rock until it confesses it makes no sense.
But it is noteworthy when taken into consideration with the points I mentioned above about the two types of New Testament preaching and teaching. 2 types of preaching and teaching. Not found in scripture.
Some PBs will say “Well what about John Gill? He shared our views regarding “no gospel means” in salvation.”. To that all I can say is that John Gill seems to be on both sides of the fence. Some of his commentary seems to lean on the Primitive Baptist “no gospel means” side and some commentary seems to lean more towards the traditional, historical, orthodox “gospel means” side.
Again, wordy and unnecessary. I can find more places to disagree with
Mr. Gill than you can, and I’m a Primitive Baptist.
Primitive Baptists are in a very narrow camp, dangerously narrow.
Subjective. Speculative. And 'dangerously narrow?'
Have you ever seen the lunch spread at a big meeting?
Which is a mark that other groups have, groups who claim to be the exclusive purveyors of the truth. Awkward and incomplete sentence structure.
Granted, narrowness does not necessarily negate the possibility of
truth. But, it is a pretty common characteristic of a cult or unbiblical
Christian sect.
RM Kane, Cult Expert. How can you fit all these titles on one
business card? Again, unneeded sentence adds little to the discussion.
Believe me, I have had to sort out many unusual ideas and doctrines
since God saved me 31 years ago.
31 Years. Who was the actual preacher who saved you? I know you tried to credit God in the sentence above, but come on, that destroys your entire essay.
Like with many cults and unorthodox sects, a lot of what Primitive Baptists teach seems to make a lot of sense and sounds biblical, and on many points even is biblical, especially regarding the sovereignty of God in salvation. Wait a minute. You can’t claim we have the truth regarding sovereignty of God and be ignorant of how the new birth comes about. This is the kind of inconsistency that sends young searching Christians off into confusion.
But then there is a little bit of leaven that leavens the whole lump. Meaning something snuck in there that does not belong, and so certain words had to be re-defined to accommodate the unorthodox and unbiblical beliefs that are being promulgated by Primitive Baptists.
I can’t believe how long I have gone without typing BS. Unorthodox
means they don’t fit your understanding. Unbiblical? You can’t prove
that if you know anything about scripture.
To see things the Primitive Baptist way, you have to put on a certain
special pair of “glasses” … you have to use “the Primitive Baptist
dictionary” if you will, before their views make sense.
I think I’ve figured it out. You had a girlfriend at one time who was Primitive Baptist and she broke up with you. That’s the only thing that makes any sense. Your hatred for a doctrine you can’t understand is aimed at her, not us.
And for me personally, I would have to throw away the heart of God that I’ve had for the 31 years since my new birth… a heart for lost souls to come to Christ, a burden to warn the lost to flee the wrath of God. 2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Flee from the wrath of God? Again, brother, context. If you believe you can warn people away from ‘eternal death’ the lake of fire or eternal damnation, you do not understand or appreciate a Sovereign God as you claim.
The very thing representing the greatest change in me since my conversion (and I us the word ‘conversion’ in the traditional sense, not the Primitive Baptist sense), is the thing that Primitive Baptists say we should not even be doing, sharing God’s Word that souls might be saved….
What constitutes ‘soul-saving’ in your doctrine? Is the preacher bringing one to life in Christ, making a new creation by his convincing words? Are you a conduit for the Spirit that can only work through your voice? How is that position not blasphemous?
sharing God’s Word that the Lord of the harvest might see fit to convict and convert the Elect among those being preached to – that the Spirit of the living God would “give ears to hear” to some in the field where the Word is being sown.
When you separate some of these sentences from the ramblings, I can find things with which to agree, (except the granting of ears to hear comes before conversion.)
Just as God used Noah to bring salvation from the Flood to that small elect group of eight individuals,
And then just as quickly, you go off the rails again. This was not an eternal saving of Noah and his family, it was a timely saving by water. The scriptures clearly demonstrate that fact.
so God uses mere mortals to bring salvation to a lost and dying world.
Not only is this unbiblical, it’s practically demonic. Christ brought
salvation to a lost and dying world. Quit trying to place yourself on
equal footing with God.
Sometimes we are so busy “selling” something for so long that we don’t
even realize that what we are selling does not have the “features” that
we think it has. We get to the point where we just repeat a script and
stop thinking critically about some foundational points that would
undermine our sales pitch. Also, we can get into trouble theologically
if we avoid – and look down on – the creeds and confessions that were
put in place to guard against the kind of error that the Primitive
Baptists have developed.
Physican, heal thyself.
Similarly, in conjunction with a distain for the “old paths”, we can get off track theologically if we trust the views and interpretations of any one particular man, in our local church, in our denomination, or anywhere. I personally believe that ignorance of the respected creeds of historical Christianity (The 1689 London Baptist Confession & Westminster Confession for example) is a major reason why the false “free-will” gospel is so prevalent today.
Neither of those documents guide the Primitive Baptists.
Conclusion
If Primitive Baptists are wrong on gospel “means”, which I believe they
are, then there is no other conclusion that they have a doctrine that is
the one doctrine that the Devil himself wishes all Christians would
have, a doctrine that tells them they should not be doing the very thing
that God commands them to do to:
At this point, you are so convinced of your errors that if God himself
declared you wrong you would probably call him a liar.
bring salvation to lost souls
Where is this biblical command?
The Bible is replete with examples of God using weak, sinful, fallible
mortals to accomplish His purposes here on earth. We dare not think we
have a “higher” view of God, that does not require God Himself to use
such broken tools, such broken vessels of clay as those He has adopted
into His family.
Nonsense.
It does not seem to matter to Primitive Baptists that their founders
came up with their unique views “out of nowhere” after more than 1800
years of church history.
Again, awaiting your proof.
The way I see it, some person or group simply wanted to justify their
case against missions and/or mission societies back in the 1800s and so
they came up with an unorthodox view of regeneration and conversion to
accomplish their “mission”, no pun intended. After repeating their
fabricated story often enough and long enough, and embellishing that
story as time went on, they came up with what they consider to be a
lock-tight case for no gospel means. And they now point to errors in
theology of modern day Reformed churches, as if those errors somehow
validate the PB “no gospel means” doctrine. — RM Kane
It is interesting to note that the 1800s was a time in the history of
America when a number of significant abberant offshoots of Christianity
were born:
Mormonism – Founded by Joseph Smith in Western New York in the
1820s.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – Founded in the late 1870s by Charles Taze
Russell as “Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society”.
Seventh Day Adventists – Founded in 1863 by William Miller with
additional doctrine coming later on from Ellen G White.
Primitive Baptists – Founded around the time of the Kehukee
Association Declaration of 1827.
|
|
