Thank you for this video. As a Primitive, I am happy to see a fair summarization of our beliefs. Your videos overall are truly some of my favorite on TH-cam.
I had no idea they believed that you can be elect and never believe the gospel. Bizarre in light of say...the entire Bible 😬 That is truly shocking and takes Calvinism/Reformed Theology to a whole new level that would make Calvin blush. Never met a Primitive Baptist but I see their churches when I drive through rural Georgia.
Calvin never had a "salvation experience" as would be understood in evangelical theology. In fact he believed that not only would infant baptism be sufficient, he taught that as long as the right words were said, it could be performed by even the most unbelieving priest (but absolutely NOT by a lay person). Even more so, if one was baptized as an infant, his/her children were automatically covered, and if they were covered, their children were covered, ad infinitum, "so long as they did not manifest to the contrary" anything that would question their being part of the elect.
Most Christians believe there are saved people outside the bounds of the preached gospel in the case of infants or handicapped. Further, both the Westminster and 1689 reference elect people who are outside of the bounds of the preached gospel. We just continue to hold to that, being primitive.
The Primitive Baptists I know think Calvin got some of his ideas from them. They also subscripe a version of the bloody trail that gets them back to Paul through Wales.
"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Romans 10:14 KJV
@@milanterzic859 One would have to delete or ignore most of the bible to hold this theology. The Great Commission. The life of Jesus, Paul, Peter, the Samaratian woman. The list goes on It's a decieption of Satan to produce disobedient "Christians."
All of your questions were already answered in the video. "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?" They believe God calls on them, not the other way around. "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" They don't believe that believing is necessary for salvation, but rather, Grace. Not sure how you missed that. It was kind of the main point. "and how shall they hear without a preacher?" First, they do have preachers. And Second, they don't believe that hearing is necessary for salvation, but rather, Grace.
My maternal grandparents were Primitive Baptists. My mom's siblings were raised Primitive Baptist, but as adults none stayed in the church, becoming Southern Baptist, United Methodist, or Presbyterian Church USA. A capella singing - one of my aunts wouldn't have her wedding in the Primitive Baptist church she grew up in because it wouldn't allow a piano to be brought in for the ceremony. Some Primitive Baptist churches in the Southern Appalachians maintained a holdover from pre-automobile days, at least when my grandparents were alive: services weren't held every Sunday, but every other Sunday or third Sunday or even just once a month, and not on Sunday mornings but early Sunday afternoons because when worshipers relied on the horse-and-buggy, they were more apt to be on time for church if the service started at 1 or 2. Also, Primitive Baptists in the Southern Appalachians would conclude services by going around and shaking hands, and that was when the preacher received the offering - a member would discreetly put money in his palm and pass it to the preacher when they shook hands.
@@hiltonchapman4844 Yes the hand shaking is a common practice in some of the Southern Baptist congregations I grew up attending but without the passing of the cash money :).
I am a PB, not raised one. Our church meets once a week, on Sunday at 1:00 because folks drive far to attend. Coming from SBC, where services are Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evening I realized the Scriptures don't designate how often to meet or when or even where but that we are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together. ~ We simply sing hymns acapella, pray, and hear expository preaching of the Scriptures. Something that could be done in a cave or a castle. ~ The main reason, in my mind, for not calling PBs Calvinists is infant baptism vs believers baptism and Calvin's views on the church. We believe the 5 Points. ~ My church is neither old line or progressive. We believe faith in Christ is the evidence of regeneration and that regenerated persons will be brought to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, led to the truth about Him. He that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God hath eternal life; he that believeth not, doesn't. We preach the gospel for the love of our Lord Jesus and because the Spirit is at work in the souls of people.
Thank you for sharing ...deterministic denominational doctrinal quirks aside...they sounds like real fine folks...I imagine their simple fellowship, humble unaccompanied hymns, and holy handshakes was a great blessing to yourself and family...a sweet hour of 𝐏𝖗𝖎𝖒𝖎𝖙𝖎𝐯𝐞 𝕮𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖘𝖐𝖎𝖆𝖓𝖎𝖙𝒚 is a sanctuary of mental sanity and spiritual peace ...the proper counter cultural antidote to the harpy, godless, multi-media, postmodern madness, we now call a culture...
As a Charismatic I think it’s always good to understand what other believers practice though we may disagree at some points. Thank you brother for your in-depth and fair presentation on Primitive Baptist beliefs and practice.🤔🙏🏻
Well said brother. All of God’s people have something to offer one another. Listening to each other even though we may not agree on everything is extremely beneficial. Not to mention a form of worship. God bless.
It's difficult to call someone a believer when they believe you can be saved without knowing the Gospel when Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 1-3 teach literally the exact opposite. Doctrine matters. Not saying they're not believers, mind you, but it is counter-biblical and suggests a poor understanding of scripture and the command of Christ in Matthew 28. And yes, this itself IS a Gospel/Salvation issue. One gets this wrong, it's likely they may miss the very Gospel itself
@@ronkelley1490 The elect shall eventually believe the gospel in God's appointed time by the quickening of the Holy Spirit. The belief is given to them. It is not an act of free will because the natural man is spiritually dead and does not have the ability to make him/herself spiritually alive. The Holy Spirit does that. No one caused their natural birth, so how can they cause their spiritual birth. Oh, and also, the thief on the cross never heard the gospel and Christ never preached it too him. All Jesus said to him was "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."
You did a really good job of explaining Primitive Baptist beliefs. Most portrayals are incorrect. You obviously studied the topic before doing the video. You also did it in a nonjudgmental way, which is appreciated greatly!
My grandparents and their parents and grandparents and further back to the early 1800s were Primitive Baptists. But when they left farming and moved away they joined a SBC. I'm really glad to have this very clear description as I was brought up in a Southern Baptist Church.
@@codydavis8014 Missionary Baptists include all Baptists who send missionaries lol. this would include southern baptists, independent baptists, ABCUSA baptists, GARBC baptists etc. just because they dont have "missionary" in their official name doesnt mean they arent missionary baptists
@Cody Davis @Grow in Truth Greetings my fellow Missionary Baptist Brethren. I’m stunned to find other Missionary Baptists watching this. Continue to pray for our churches, I have a good report of churches in The central Kentucky, Ohio area of countless souls saved during meetings in the past year. My home area of Middle Tennessee has division and needs prayer.
@@garrettharvey3785 a lot of people read the Bible trying to prove an idea that they already think is correct. They don't read the Bible with the intent to try what they believe to see if it is true.
There is a TH-cam channel of a Primitive Baptist church and I love to listen to their singing. Some of the theological views outlined is the WELL RESEARCHED AND WELL PRESENTED video are quite frankly mind blowing to me.
@@joshnestberg5717 Vestavia Prmitive Baptist Church. They have a youtube channel by that name. In recent years most of their videos only include the preach and not the singing, but if you will go to the video section where they are listed by most recent and go back six years you will find a lot of congregational singing. Great stuff.
I was a progressive Primitive Baptist for much of my life and think your summary of the theology and practices of Primitive Baptists is spot on. Good job, young man, and abundant blessings on you and yours.
If You Tube gave excellence in programming awards this should have one. The explanations were clear and concise and even a feeble minded old man such as me can easily understand.
Wow! This is great! I was raised Old Line Primitive Baptist in Southeast Georgia. You've mentioned lots of things I've not heard specifically, but I've always thought...nice to hear more details that support what I've believed all along.
It’s good to see someone actually listening to the theology instead of just bashing it because you may not have heard it before. Notice scriptures being given for every single instance.
@@mouthpiece200 There are things I definitely disagree with. The fact that the Great Commission is flat out ignored is a reason I will not attend of these churches probably ever. Although their commentary about how missionaries shouldn’t wait for someone to pay their way made me chuckle. The doctrine of election is biblical. Saying that anything other than grace is a work is not. They even say that repentance is passive but obedience is active, which is contradictory. Faith is a work of God, not man. Repentance is a work of God, not man. To call these things works is to misunderstand God. I don’t think it’s a pile of garbage but I don’t think it’s correct biblical interpretation either. I needed time to process. And I do find a lot of what they believe to be unbiblical. But not SO unbiblical that I wouldn’t consider them brothers and sisters in Christ. They get all the essential doctrine correct.
@@Pterodactylraptor Just because scripture is used doesn't mean the theology is "scriptural". The Bible says we must rightly divide the word of truth. I can use Bible verses to prove you should steal, get drunk, and a host of other things that are sin, but they would be taken out of context and used wrong. Which is what happens with churches with false doctrine.
Thank you for this informative video. I am a Christian Quaker from a pastoral Meeting. I have a dear friend who is Primitive Baptist. We actually had a discussion about her denomination at one point when she was trying to understand my denomination. I was surprised by the Calvinist leanings of a Baptist church, even if they were not actually Calvinist. She thought Quakers were an off shoot of Ana Baptists so she was surprised to learn that was not the case. I think it was interesting for both of us to look at what we thought versus what was. I still learned a lot from this video and am glad you take the time to make these in depth videos.
Thank you for taking the time in putting these denominational videos. It's interesting to see the different denominational beliefs and it can also be useful when I evangelize.
Hurt my head listening to this, lol! Applauding the Lecturer for being able to communicate this without missing a beat, nor becoming confused himself!! Some things seem biblically sound and then other parts so - “say what??!” Golly! Lord have mercy
I heard an old Calvinist say, "it's crazy how some people are the children of God and they don't know it yet." I was like... "What? Are you saying that they're saved even if they never heard the gospel?" He didn't deny it
I mean, I'm NOT a Calvinist but to pretend like this language cannot be directly drawn from the Bible is slightly silly. I'm John 10, we read of Jesus saying, "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10 says that Jesus calls them his "other sheep" before they even hear his voice. Or in Acts 18 we read of the Lord calling people who _would eventually_ be saved 'his people,' Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for **I have much people in this city.** And Paul continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. Or in John 11, we see the very language of "God's children" applied by the author to those who would ultimately be saved and brought into the church: And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. The children of God were scattered abroad across the face of the earth... the author of this gospel says that God should gather them via gospel proclamation into one body. Look, I'm not a Calvinist, I take much issue with the frozen chosen's predestinarian belief system (it's actually highly Talmudic!) but something that's healthy for all of us to do (me and you) is the practice of "steel manning" someone else's position, instead of "straw manning" it. Just some thoughts. I'm not saying the Calvinist you spoke with was right or his view of salvation is correct, but to pretend like such language is completely incompatible with biblical texts is a bridge too far. One man's opinion 😊 > Peace and blessings to you
@@AnHebrewChild yeah, you're mixing around a lot of unrelated ideas that's aren't coherent and applying presupposed interpretations to verses that aren't supported by the verses. So.. 🤷
Not a Primitive Baptist nor a hyper Calvinist here, but depending on what you mean by “saved” there is a long line of Reformed Theologians who believe Gods elect are justified in the eyes of God from eternity past.
I agree with most of what the primitive baptists believe with the exception of "the gospel has no part in salvation." That is a dark horse of damnable false doctrine. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation."
A Primitive Baptist would ask, "Salvation from what?" They would agree that the gospel is salvation, but not "eternal" salvation. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, because I agree with you. However, it is interesting that a word like "salvation", which most Christians take for granted means salvation from hell, when viewed through a different lens can completely change your view of the Bible.
I find it somewhat humorous that a Baptist group accepts as infallible a Bible translation produced by the Church of England, and which no Baptists had any role in translating.
that's because they know that Greek has plural/singular versions of words that tell to whom something is addressed. Any translation that doesn't include that is inferior to one that does.
There's no beauty in exclusivism and believing onself to be 'chosen', whilst forsaking one's fellow brother and sisters in Christ. These people are crazed heretics.
I visited one of these places at about twenty years old, and the leader was kind enough to give me some literature to let me know what they believed. Laying aside their very questionable theological views, even with the minimal knowledge of history that I had back then, it was obvious that these people had no idea what they were talking about. They were so sure that they must be "the original and historic church", that to demonstrate this claim, they formulated this long string of 'primitive baptists' all through history, identifying all sorts of heretical cults as their forebears. This video mentioned the Donatists, which is laughable enough. (If the Donatists would have anything to do with today's primitive baptists, or if today's primitives would accept their strict teachings, I'll eat my shirt.) Even worse, this leader I met back then suggested that the Montanists had been one of the primitive baptist groups. Montanus had taught that he himself was the Holy Spirit incarnate, as one example among many. Needless to say, I never visited again. Ridiculous.
I think it is worth poiting out that this doctrine isn't really a primitive baptist distinictive. The doctrine you are refering to is sometimes called baptist successionism or Landmarkism and these beliefs can be found in a variety of Baptist groups (e.g. some SBC, some IFB). It also isn't a view that is universal among primtive baptist as there are primitive baptists that I have met that would deny the doctrine or at least deny the doctrine as you articulated it. Furthermore, there are non-baptists groups that have a similar view of church origins. For example, some anabaptists groups (e.g. some Mennonites) believe that there is a chain of anabaptist churches that go all the way back to the early church.
@@appalachianmountain Anabaptists (e.g. some Mennonites) aren't exactly non-baptists, are they? I do get the distinction you're making between landmarkism per se, and the landmarkism that was distinctive of the particular primitive baptists I encountered. Strange heresy, nonetheless.
@@Giant_Meteor It is funny that you mention that point about Anabaptists not exactly being non-baptist because at least on some accounts of Landmarkism (e.g. The Trail of Blood) Anbaptists are one of the churches in the supposed unbroken chain of Baptist churches going back to the early church. 'The Trail of Blood' book is a complete fraud and anyone who bothers to lookup the sources that it cites will see all kinds of unusual doctrines being advanced by the groups that book is claiming are really Baptist.
@@appalachianmountain The roots of baptist / anabaptist, are somewhat vague, and it is contested how connected the two movements are to one another. (Regardless, neither can really be said to be non-baptist, no?) But no serious scholarship will point to anything prior to the sixteenth century as being a prior incarnation of these doctrinal developments. There are the historic churches, and then there came the late reformation with her many daughters, the baptists, anabaptists, and all.
@@Giant_Meteor Well it depends on what doctrines you need to count as "Baptist". Anabaptists and Baptists both practice a believer's baptism but Anabaptists often don't insist on immersion. Many Mennonites will baptize by pouring which Baptists typically won't accept as a valid. There are a few different accounts of Baptist church origins with the most likely being that it originated as a 17th-century movement within what are called the English Separatists. It is also plausible that Anabaptists movements might have influenced the origins of Baptists. You might be able to get some proto-reformation groups (e.g. Lollards, Hussites, Waldensians) that have an at least somewhat similar doctrine to Protestants at large, but you can't really go much earlier than Waldensians in the 12th century and that is a real stretch.
Not necessarily. You are going to heaven if you are among the elect, but if you aren't among the elect, you aren't going to heaven, and thee is nothing you can do about it.
I was born and raised in the PBC, my father was a preacher. In reading over all the comments this is my respnse; it's like the 'chicken or the egg' argument. Who cares. God is omnipotent and sits upon his throne regardless of what we believe. There are those led to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ (yes there are also PB missionaries though not all PB agree with it). No church/denomination, not one IMO, has everything doctrinaly correct because we are human because we want it to make sense to us. I had this conversation with my dad once and his response was, "Yes, but I believe it is the closest to the truth." We can pick and chose Bible verses and spar with one another all day long but in the end you have to find God on your own knees and follow the path you believe it right. I'll share a story then close. One day St. Peter was showing new comers the sites around heaven but when he came to one certain section he said, " Shhh, be very quiet here. This is where the Baptists are, they think they're the only ones here." LOL. Worship where you feel God leads you. That's my opinion.
This was great. There are so many different takes on justification, I never thought Unconditional Election would have a blending with Limited Atonement and Universal Justification. This was fascinating.
I’m reformed Baptist and I share a lot with this group. One difference is we are very big on preaching the gospel and believe you have to hear the gospel before you can be saved.
None of the people from the Old Testament heard the New Testament gospel. In fact, Job asked, ‘ Job said, “I know it is so of a truth but HOW should man be just with God?” They are in a sense of given God’s given faith without ever hearing the gospel to begin with. Not everyone is going to hear the true gospel to begin with. Some may have been born through false preachings and false teachings, but may not have reached the true gospel. Some may have died since youth. Some maybe handicap and disabled. Are you saying that the God that is powerful to save His elected people who are sinners, the worst of the kind starting with the Israelites who reject King God so many times throughout the Old Testament, but can’t save you and I unless we heard the gospel and believed? That is crazy because faith is a fruit of the spirit. It is from Him. One can’t believe if they were not given God given faith in the first place, and therefore, faith is an evidence that one is a child of God who already have eternal salvation from above by the grace of God.
Regeneration precedes faith. If someone in North Korea who doesn't hear the gospel but is one of God's elect chosen from the foundation of the world and then dies before the preacher man arrives that elect person goes to heaven and is saved. The Good news doesn't make a child of God, it tells the child of God that he has been chosen by God to be conformed to Jesus Christ in glory for eternity.
““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.” Romans 1:16 KJV The apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said the Gospel of Christ is “the power of God unto salvation.” If we read and obey the Gospel we are saved, not of ourselves but by God.
Really appreciate your work on this. It is difficult to summarize this denomination because of the local church autonomy and independence you mentioned. They don't all believe the same and you can find many really fundamental disagreements from church to church and association to association. As with any denomination with any age, the disagreements tend to run deep. Of note, The Atlanta Primitive Baptist Church is Progressive to my knowledge - the distinction you made between old line and progressive is important. In fact, the pastor of that church is very involved in international mission work in Ukraine and beyond. I'm far less familiar with the other sources and churches cited and alluded to. Many (though not all) "Progressive" PBCs would consider themselves "Calvinists" and hold to more classical, reformed theology. The "Time Salvation" division is crucial here and it is impressive you found and touched on that. May the Lord continue to bless the important historical work you are doing!
As a Baptist myself and ordained Baptist minister, I want to make clear that all Baptists believe in the independence and autonomy of the local church due to the congregational government that is part of the Baptist doctrine (regardless of what kind of Baptist). Though there are some things unique only to Primitive Baptists, the independence of each local church is not one. All Baptists following a congregational government frown upon an episcopal government or hierarchy in the church that is more common among Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, and some Pentecostals. This includes Baptists that are part of organized denominations (like Baptist conventions). Some Baptist organize themselves in associations and conventions for mission purposes but not for any outside governing control over churches like the Vatican is the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church. There are also some Primitive Baptists that that have denominations like the National Primitive Baptist Convention. Many beliefs/doctrines held by Primitive Baptists are also held by many other Baptists including Missionary Baptists. These include such doctrines as predestination, election, regeneration, believer's baptism by immersion, perseverance of the saints (eternal security of the believer), etc. All Baptists (including Primitive Baptists) are vehemently against baptismal regeneration (salvation by water baptism). Mostly all Baptists with the exception of a small minority of Free-Will Baptists follow basically a Calvinistic theology whether they call themselves Calvinistic or not. There are variations from Calvinistic, Hyper-Calvinistic, or moderate Calvinistic. Free-Will Baptists not only believe that one is saved of their own free will, but one can lose his/her salvation of their own free will too. Most Baptists (not just Primitive Baptists) would consider this to be heresy or false doctrine. They believe that once saved, always saved. A true saint of God cannot lose his/her salvation.
Thanks for this thorough research. I knew nothing (but assumed some) about the Primative Baptist church and doctrine. My assumptions fell short. Now I know! 😁
Many years ago, one Church in a county just south of mine had a big split over the funding of missions. One side became a Missionary Baptist and the other became a Primative Baptist, but they both claim to be the original. I have family in both churches!
Ever heard of the "Black Rock Address of 1832"? Look it up and it explains the major split among Baptist churches across the country. One side remained in the original doctrine, (known as Primitive Baptists or Old School Baptists). The other side adopted a new doctrine and practices (such as Sunday Schools, Bible Societies, Tract Societies, and Missionary Boards). These new Baptists believed the Arminian doctrine (General Atonement or Free-Willers). Of course, there were some Arminian Baptists in the 1700s but I think the Address was to make the split official. I could go on but too much typing. Look it up though, there's a lot of historical information on the Baptist history in the United States
Wow, this was a great video. I've met a total of 1 primitive Baptist in my whole life and he really didn't get much into their denominational theology. Never knew they had so much interesting theology going on
There appears much wrong with so many denominations, it's a wonder Yeshua said for us to go and teach. When Christians teach the truth all denominations begin to fall apart. It's good not to be a calvinist but it stems from labeling someone. Calvin himself fell first by following a catholic, Augustine, which also fell after persecuting Christians while creating the Catholic doctrines. And that is what Calvin promoted after attacking the Baptists, although he upheld the Trinity he painted Anabaptists into a corner. And now appear to be infecting the compromised Baptist convention. To corrupt the last remant of the Fundamental (independent) Baptists, which is what I believe that's what they call themselves. All other denominations are a form of charismatic word of faith and lukewarmness doctrines mixed with.
Love your Speed Queen Washer Videos. Hope your carwash is getting all figured out. First watched you when Meet Kevin visited your laundromat. God Bless and Jesus Saves :)
It seemed like they were so close to being both Christians and good people. Then homosexuality, marriage, and abortion came up. If the elect are already saved independent of faith, then why are these people automatically excluded. Oh, it only people they approve of that are saved.
Gospel instrumentality aren't necessery for salvation? What's next? Christ himself aren't necessary for salvation? I'm not just confused, I'm in a state of shock
It's precisely BECAUSE Christ alone is necessary for salvation that they assert that preaching is not necessary for salvation. Your slippery slope suggestion is the opposite of what is actually going on.
@@CandyCinema but how do you know that Christ alone is so important, how do you know Christ? That is through the gospel, or through the preaching of the gospel, so don’t make the gospels as if they’re nothing, because they can be extremely crucial, you’re undermining the good news, don’t do that
@@MG-no1kx I know it from scripture, but my "knowing" it is not a requirement for God to save me. Just as Isaac Newton "discovering" gravity did not make gravity behave any differently than it always had, God's saving grace is given to whom he wills.
Great video. I’ve driven past several Primitive Baptist churches and wondered what exactly they believed, I only had a broad understanding of it. Can you also do a video on the Free Will Baptists too?
@@ReadyToHarvest Also Seventh Day Baptists. Also....examining the Hutterite beliefs including the different kinds of Hutterites. Also Different types of Catholics - thought that would be pretty hard to do! Thanks. I'm a new subscriber, but loving them so far!
You've presented Primitive Baptists in their own words and I appreciate that. I only want to clarify a few points: 1. I believe very much in evangelism and making disciples (Mth 28). Our contention with Missions had to do with boards and missionaries replacing churches and elders. The Black Rock Address clarifies this point with the following quote, "Previous to stating our objections to the mission plans, we will meet some of the false charges brought against us relative to this subject, by a simple and unequivocal declaration, that we do regard as of the first importance the command given of Christ, primarily to His apostles, and through them to his ministers in every age, to “Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” and do feel an earnest desire to be found acting in obedience thereunto, as the providence of God directs our way, and opens a door of utterance for us. We also believe it to be the duty of individuals and churches to contribute according to their abilities, for the support, not only of their pastors, but also of those who go preaching the gospel of Christ among the destitute. But we at the same time contend, that we have no right to depart from the order which the Master himself has seen fit to lay down, relative to the ministration of the word. We therefore cannot fellowship the plans for spreading the gospel, generally adopted at this day, under the name of Missions; because we consider those plans throughout a subversion of the order marked out in the New Testament." 2. While we believe in Immediate Spirit Regeneration (the Spirit quickens without human means) we believe the gospel brings conversion and assurance of salvation. John Gill described regeneration as God only, conversion being our response back to God. For this cause, ministries such as Marchtozion.com exist. While only God can quicken, we preach to the conversion of His people, their assurance, instruction, etc. I preach indiscriminately to all, knowing that I bear the savor of life to the living and the savor of death to the dead. Particular Baptists referred to our audience as "sensible sinners." 3. Modern Primitive Baptists only shied away from the "Calvinist" label because the face of Calvinism in the US became men such as John MacArthur and John Piper. When PB say they're not Calvinists, what they mean is 1) they're not Fullerites (well meant offer), 2) They reject Lordship Salvation, and 3) they hold to historic Baptist theology rather than Reformed theology on justification (your video did highlight one such quote). This rejection of the label only came after a period of theology controversy of men who held a position closer to MacArthur.
It sounds a lot like (but not the same as) closed Brethren. No instruments and the Lord's Supper only for those in regular fellowship. Also concerning elders and no pastor. Which is the same closed and open Brethren have. Possibly other similarities.
@@cherylcogan3542 Our ecclesiology and ordinances reflect common Baptist practice from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. A lot of historic groups share those similarities.
Thank you for this post, March to Zion. I would also very appreciate your further explanation of each of the three subpoints in your third paragraph here, if you wouldn't mind and would be so kind... Or in the alternative if not possible, a specific citation for the explanation and discussion of each. I am contending with some of this theology myself right now. Thank you again!
This is what happens when you use man's reasoning based on only part of the Bible. Evangelism is a commandment. It's funny they think foot washing is an ordinance when Jesus didn't say "You all must do this." But when Jesus literally did say "Go into all the world." Nah....he didn't mean that. Seriously!? Wow...
I'm sorry if you misunderstood. As a Primitive Baptist I can confirm we do believe in evangelism. In fact, I have done mission work in my local town and international mission work. The issue is with mission boards, not with missions themselves. We do believe, as you stated, that evangelism is a commandment. As for the foot washing, we do that because of John 13:14-16. Hope this helps!
@@reiclyx yes, thanks. And as the video said, not everyone believes the same thing too. I know how that is. There are more kinds of Baptists than there are people lol I am familiar with the foot washing belief. There are several group that do it. I'm fine with it, too. I just disagree that it's an ordinance of the church.
That commandment was given to the Apostles, but there IS an application for today as well, because Paul and Timotheus along with Silas established churches in Asia Minor of the which they assigned godly men like unto themselves to shepherd the flocks.
Watching this video has really confirmed to me that a truly Christian nation would really be impossible unless God came down and made it himself. When people choose "Christian" in those national poles it's really just a general vague definition. The problem with that is that governments aren't run on vague generalities they are run on specifics. All these questions of theology and practice seem incidental on social media or on a message board, but they would be huge bones of contention in a governing body.
Europe before the treaty of Westphalia (and for a little after) was a mosaic of Christian confessional states but these states were mostly specific to one expression or confession of Christianity rather than Christianity broadly speaking. For example Prussia, Saxony, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway were Lutheran states while The Habsburg States, The Commonwealth, The Italian States, and France were Catholic. Many Smaller German and Swiss States as well as the Dutch and Scottish were Reformed. In the East the Tsardom of Russia was Orthodox. The Treaty of Westphalia weakened the role religion had on policy and religious wars would never really be waged again between European powers again though Russia which wasn’t part of the treaty would continue to wage war on the Ottomans in order to slowly but surely liberate its Orthodox Christian brothers from Islamic Ottoman rule until the eve of world war 1. Secularization didn’t come to full fruition till the late 20th century with many European countries continuing to promote some kind of church for quite some time. A Christian state would probably have one church that receives preferential treatment over the others. If all churches had to share power and run a country together it would be a macrocosm of what the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem would look like, which is that no one would be fully satisfied or be able to cooperate.
I have great joy knowing that I have a person relationship with God the Father because His Son died for all my sins and I have His Sprit indwelling bearing witness. You too can have this assurance
Thank you! I had no idea my own beliefs aligned so closely with those of Primitive Baptists, who I had heard of but never knew much about. I have been derisively called a Calvinist, but this vid makes it clear how they differ from Calvinists. I'm glad I can identify with this group who believes in the absolute Sovereignty of God who selects and gives His Salvation to His Elect - which cannot be lost. Amen!
@@lbamusic There was a PB fellowship meeting there at one time, but I'm not sure it's status currently. I run the website this video cited most often, and we have several featured podcasts if you're interested in listening.
This is the logical conclusion of Calvinism. Again, thank you for a fair explanation of this denomination’s beliefs. You put a lot of effort into communicating these things without expressing your personal beliefs at the same time.
Confessional Reformed Baptist here. If a Primitive Baptist is reading this please respond: How do you then interpret Jesus when he says, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” - John 3:18 KJV
Probably believe that the word "name" refers to character as it does with "in the name of the law". The verse might read "... because he hath not believed in the character/brand of the only begotten Son of God". Who he is, what he stands for, what he did. Jesus repeatedly said to "believe my works."
The position on what it means to have "faith by grace alone" is fascinating. It will be something that will color my thinking on the subject forever - not because I agree with them, but because of the paradigm shift necessary to understand where they're coming from. For the rest of my life, I will feel obligated to define what I do and don't mean by "good works" when I argue that salvation does not depend on doing good works.
Not a new concept, Luther and Calvin felt that missionary outreach was ended when the Apostles died. It was their task to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth, so they did not send missionaries as they warred with Catholics and other Protestants who disagreed with them. It was only later when the Catholic Missions brought in more new people then lost in Europe to Secularism and Protestantism that many Protestant Churches started sending out missionaries to lands that were colonized by Protestant countries.
Yeah, it's wild. It's unfair to them but as the completely un-Christian WBC is the most well-known Primitive Baptist "church" I can't help but think of them when I hear the denominational name. Even the other ones though apparently have a lot wrong with their theology.
The Westboro Baptist Church identifies itself as Old School Primitive Baptist. "God does not love everybody." That explains their theology and behavior
Westboro had no connection with actual Primitive Baptists. Phelps was ordained by the SBC. They took the PB title because they were calvinistic and Baptists. To be a PB church, one must be officially constituted. They weren't. They were impersonators.
@@thursoberwick1948 I really don't know. I just know their false teacher died. PB are a pretty tight group with great networking. Since they're not actually PB, we really have no idea.
As they state on their website word for word: “A person may say that he believes in salvation by grace, but if he sets forth any act of man’s will, such as repentance, faith, baptism, or hearing the gospel, as a condition for obtaining it, then this position must be put on the works side.” Faith is considered a work to them, yet the Bible says: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast.”Ephesians 2:8-9 How do they get around clear biblical teaching like that???
Because the verse says, "For by grace (unmerited, unearned favor) are ye saved through faith (joyful trust conjoined with obedience, trust, compliance); and that (salvation) not of yourselves: it (salvation) is the gift of God: not of works (works of Jewish law and Jewish tradition), lest any man should boast." At least that's how I take it. Definitions above from Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Liddell/Scott. Faith is a work - not a work of man's invention - but nonetheless something that man does. The only other option is that God does it, forces it upon a man, and the man had no choice in the matter. Of course, the other types of Baptists define it differently than the lexicons, then tell you "there's nothing you can do" - then 30 seconds later they are telling you what all you have to do.
@@thomassimpkins4986 So that's why Paul and Silas, when asked by the jailer, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?", they answered, "Nothing. Just sit there. There's nothing you can do - and perchance God will see fit to let the faith of Christ save you." I see no evidence at all in the passage that the faith of Christ is even referenced - not when another meaning makes more sense. "The faith of Christ" usually means exactly what it means in "some shall depart from the faith", i. e. "the faith", the teachings, the doctrines - not something Christ possessed, but what He taught.
No, you are defining work in a different way than the Scriptures do. The response of inward faculties, secured by the grace of God, is not a work. You seem to think that because work is excluded, complete passivity is necessary?
@@lcs-salam Good to know when I get a bill from a lawyer! I'm curious to know why mental work - study, weighing the pros and cons, coming to a decision, loving God, etc - doesn't count as a work. You did it. Nobody did it for you. I'm actually just trying to understand why some things are considered "works" whereas other similar things are not.
John 3: 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” Titus 3 : 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Thank you for the video about their theology My father had been raised primitive baptists so I had went to several primitive Baptist churches in the seventies and eighties Your video provided a lot that I did not know about them but you also didn't say anything about the things I do know about them They would not have a TV or radio in their house or their vehicles the church did not have heating or air conditioning or electricity and they used an outhouse and a manual pump to get water Is considered fine for you to have heating and air and electricity and running water in your personal homes but not the church building Men sat on one side of the church women sat on the other side the women all wore hats inside the church the men wore hats 2 church but put them on our hat rack before going inside Many of the preachers actually chewed tobacco while preaching The sabbath was supposed to be honored pretty much like a Jewish sabbath no work no business
This doctrine doesn't seem to completely rule out babies in hell unless people are going to heaven on account of being innocent of actual sins, but the video said works have zero to do with it full stop. So everyone who dies before the age of reason is predestined to heaven, where does Scripture say it? As a Catholic, standard apologetic argumentation wouldn't work against this group, you'd have to get into historical weeds on the existence of groups with identical doctrines throughout history, and I think that conversation would be abandoned by the PB before it reduces to "is not, is too." No need to convert anyone, so no dialogue where apologetics is used. But I think the PB soteriology is consistent within itself and can be used against reformed protestants. It is true that a consistent "grace alone" theology would recognize belief as a verb that salvation can't be contingent upon. There is no assurance however, you could be a person who never converts and be saved, you could apostatize and be saved, or not be saved, so who is to say the non-apostate is more surely saved than the other groups? Who says zero people are called to obedience but not regeneration?
No, according to a Primitive Baptist, babies that die are saved and go to heaven if they are elected by God, and damned and go to hell if they are not. No other reason.
Original sin is a Platonic concept 390BC brought to Christianity by Paul via a simple sentence. Enlarged into a priestly science by Augustine, with even method of transmission (sex and semen) postulated and mysterious exceptions eventually granted Mary by official adoption of tradition doctrine in the 1850s/60s. Many sects and rites do not accept these ideas of birth under the curse of Cain, and that Eve and Adam's mistake and disobedience was not an overt and premeditated sin as was Cain's and his descendents of 9 generations... Remember they were wiped from the Earth. Orthodox Jews do not adhere to original sin, but that man is rational with the ability to do good and evil from birth. Mere childish disobedience is not sin worthy of Yam Kippur PB: This is a splinter, dissenter protestant group, but even liturgical groups such as The Patriarchs of the Eastern Byzantine Rite and the Archbishops of Canterbury rejected the Immaculate Conception as a clergy mistake by the Roman Pontiff leading potentially to a goddess concept not unlike ancient tales of Isis, perfect daughter of Ra the Creator, mother of Horus god of the Sun, wife of her dead brother-husband-God Osiris and rival of evil Set and the serpent Apophis. This is said objectively. My wife, daughter and granddaughter are Roman Catholic, and my best man and oldest friend is a parish priest and church scholar. Devout and practicing. Just as others must wrap their heads around your faith, tradition and reason... You too must accept that they may have come to their conclusions via a different tradition....just not for you. I'm not judging who is correct.
@@STho205 I thought at the beginning you were making a point about original sin doctrine being untrue and therefore the actually innocent go to heaven by default. This seems long winded and I'm not sure where it's supposed to lead. The very end sounds post modern, although the splinter group label seems dismissive. So I don't know which it is, understand everyone is different or, this groups doctrines aren't even worthy of examination.
@@StJohnPaulXXIII you just don't wish, by gut reaction, to consider anything not familiar in your tradition, but your tradition was applied atop the Gospel of Mark, the most straightforward ministry of Jesus account. Many reject those applied traditions, by gut, similarly. That is human nature to cling to pre-essence for personal meaning. Read the Second Book of the Republic one day when bored. You'll be shocked.... Especially remembering it was written in 5th cen BC Athens by a pagan philosopher. Focus on the fate of the pious man.
Can someone please explain to me If you part of the elect you go to heaven. But what's the point of the Resurrection of the faithful in the second coming?
KJV only always seemed like a strange belief to me. Are there any similar beliefs for other languages (that some particular old translation is to be preferred or exclusively used)?
for us in the Catholic Church the Douey Rheims version is the more authoritative translation from the Latin Vulgate into English. It’s preferred for English speakers but not mandated as the only version
The KJV is great, but it was the English people spoke in 1611. The NKJV and ESV are just as accurate and they're in an English people nowadays can understand.
They say they baptize those coming from other denominations and that "in this they keep company with the Anabaptists". Except the Anabaptists re-baptized people because at that time everyone was baptized as an infant. The whole thing with the Anabaptists is that they believed infancy baptism didn't count, as an infant cannot give testament to faith in Jesus. *That* is why they re-baptized (and were fiercely persecuted it).
That practice predates the denominational name. A pastor friend, John Burkett, reads many early American Baptist diaries and journals. Rebaptizing was extremely common then. It's not surprising then that PB rebaptize, being a continuation of much church practice of those days.
@@Marchtozion Well the argument would go that it is not rebaptizing. I was sprinkled as an unknowing infant and immersed as a fully cognisant adult. Who is to say which was the more valid and righteous in God's eyes. The rebaptism was an open confession of faith in front of witnesses and giving testimony. It is something I was moved to do having initially decried the ritual as absurd. I went to see an adult baptism, openly said at the time that it was absurd and unnecessary. I was told by a member of the congregation "you will be the next" and I was.
Many Baptists do this today because they are "Briders" though they don't like that term. They believe they can trace their baptism back to John the Baptist and that anyone not baptized by a Baptist who was baptized bay a Baptist etc. all the way back to John the Baptist is not part of the "Bride of Christ". Some of them think people who were saved but not baptized by the right person are save, but not part of the Bride, some think they aren't even going to Heaven. Silly because baptism doesn't save you.
I ran into the following while preparing a lesson on church history. In the mid 19th century a church was raising money to translate the Bible into an African language. One proper lady in the church said if English was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for these primitive people.
These videos are fair, balanced and impartial over-views of the church body at focus, and are greatly appreciated. I have to say something on the theology of this one though. I don't recall ever seeing such a body before that makes....so little Biblical and theological sense.
If they don’t believe in grace through faith then it’s not the gospel of Jesus Christ. Faith is not a work. They seem to call Jesus and John the Baptist a liar, as both of them declared “repent and believe”. You can believe this false church, or you can believe Christ. They say that the word of God in infallible , but they remove what they don’t like. You can’t have it both ways.
@Sephardim 4 Yeshua said "They say that the word of God in infallible , but they remove what they don’t like. You can’t have it both ways." Pick a denomination of christianity, hell, pick any religion at all that has a holy book and you could apply this to any one of them.
Read all of Romans 1 and study the context. Paul is writing to believers. He twice says that they were called. He reminds the readers, who are already believers, that the just will live by faith. Because they are already believers, how were they justified? Were they justified by Christ or was it their faith that justified them?
@@jasonjohnston94 The Greek word pistis is more like fidelity than mental sentiment. They are justified by fidelity, not some abstract idea of belief. Fidelity to a cause is different then mere mental acquiescence to it's tenets. Many people read Paul and come away with the notion that one can give into sexual harassment and have a relationship with a coworker to avoid economic suffering, and have nothing to worry about because of mental acquiescence to some tenet of faith. the Just will live by fidelity (pistis) which is different than the Just will commit adultery, kill people for economic reasons, believe voting eliminates culpability for sin (Sanhedrin much?). The Just will live by PISTIS, which is more like fidelity than it mere mental acquiescence.
There was an interesting version of Calvinism among the Puritans, called preparationism, IDK if it would merit a video of its own. These theologians and preachers accepted the five TULIP points of Calvinism, but said that the depraved person can prepare for the saving grace. Some of them said there is a preparatory grace which God gives to people, which allows them to prepare, tho most didn't mention such a thing but simply said that man can prepare. This preparatory grace view sounds similar to the Arminian prevenient grace view, but there is a difference. According to the prevenient grace view, this grace allows the person to choose to resist or not resist God's saving grace. Not so here, the saving grace is believed to be irresistible; the preparatory grace allows the person to prepare, and the point of the preparation is it makes them a suitable and likely candidate for the coming of God's grace. Preparationists were careful to say they do not deny the 2nd point of Calvinism - unconditional election. They held that God can and does save people who have not prepared, and also that preparation is not a guarantee that God's grace will come. But they did talk about probability, saying that the more one prepares, the likelier it is that God's saving grace will come to them. So, people are totally depraved, they can prepare for saving grace, God's atonement is just for those who will receive the saving grace, if God sends it to them it will be irresistible and necessarily make them persevere in salvation. The process of preparation was seen to consist in actions such as reading the Bible, attending worship, listening to sermons, and praying for born again experience.
Preparationism soon lapsed into a legalism and a form of works righteousness. Lay at the heart of the Antinomian controversy in 17th century Massachussets in which the great Anne Hutchinson was shamefully put on trial. She was a Calvinist who rigorously held to salvation by faith alone in Christ alone with no preparatory works needed. This predated the Lordship Salvation/Free Grace debate in many ways with similar issues at stake. The Primitive Baptists whose Calvinism is much, much higher than I would be comfortable with reject such acts of preparationism which sowed the seeds for later decisionist mass evangelistic methods of the mid 19th century onwards. Much blessing to you.
Coming from a family that once was part of this denomination, its sad to say it has a very weak hold on its congregants and is disappearing fast due to weak practice and theology.
This is so interesting. There are two primitive Baptist churches in my area. There is an Old Regular Baptist Church right by me. Please compare these extremely country churches. We are all in the woods in Southwest Virginia.
Calvinist determinism flies in the face of every scripture in Old and New Testaments where God calls people to choose between right and wrong. A sovereign God who delegates and enables all human beings to make such a choice is entirely Biblical. It is that God who sent his followers out to all nations to baptize and make disciples.
You know that Calvinists 100% beieve in going out and preaching the Gospel tho, right? I fear you dont even understand what you are criticizing. By the way i am a Traditional Eastern Right Byzantine Catholic and have no tie to Calvinism but i do try to represent them fairly, you arent.
@@jonathansoko1085 In the video, the narrator explained that some of these groups across the decades have taught that evangelism was not necessary to furthering the salvation of others. He said that was one of the reasons for the split between missionary and primitive baptists. It was that tendency among some Calvinist denominations to which I was referring. I never meant to imply that all Calvinists were against evangelism, which I know is inaccurate. If I offended you in any way, I certainly apologize.
@@jeffkardosjr.3825 Yes. If I remember correctly, the RCA began as an offshoot of the Dutch Reformed Church. The Primitive Baptists discussed here are an American formation descended from English Baptists that followed a Calvinist theology. As the narrator pointed out, the necessity of evangelism was the issue that created the split between Primitive and Missionary Baptists.
Correct, Therefore *whosoever* heareth these sayings of mine, *and doeth them* I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: {Matthew 7:24} "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But *whosoever* shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." {Matthew 10:32-33} "For *whosoever* will save his life shall lose it: and *whosoever* will lose his life for my sake shall find it." {Matthew 16:25} (Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24; 17:33) "For *whosoever* exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." {Luke 14:11} "Verily I say unto you, *Whosoever* shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." {Luke 18:17} "That *whosoever* believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that *whosoever* believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." {John 3:15-16} Jesus answered and said unto her, "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But *whosoever* drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." {John 4:13-14} Jesus answered them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, *Whosoever* committeth sin is the servant of sin." ) {John 8:34} "And *whosoever* liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" {John 11:26} "I am come a light into the world, that *whosoever* believeth on me should not abide in darkness." {John 12:46} To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name *whosoever* believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. {Acts 10:43} For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, *Whosoever* believeth on him shall not be ashamed. {Romans 10:10-11} And *whosoever* was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. {Revelation 20:15}
My family went on a camping trip to Lincoln State Park in southern Indiana to learn a little bit more about the 16th president of these united states. He was a Primitive Baptist. The church he served as a sexton still meets there. We did some reading on this group while we were there. This video clarified a few things for me. Thanks. Also... 18:30 - As a preacher for the faithful churches of Christ, may I say that we, along with the non-Progressive Primitive Baptists, do allow (actually, obey the mandate) for music in our worship. It's congregational and there are no mechanical instruments involved in its production (a cappella), but it's still music...The only kind authorized in the New Testament
...Abraham Lincoln was a baptized Primitive Baptist ? ...really?...I'd heard his father was...and also rumors one of the Baptist congregations where his father attended eventually did embrace the Stone Campbell movement, as so many Ohio Valley Baptist congregations did in those days...
legalistic arguments aside...a sweet hour of 𝐏𝖗𝖎𝖒𝖎𝖙𝖎𝐯𝐞 𝕮𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖘𝖐𝖎𝖆𝖓𝖎𝖙𝒚 is a sanctuary of mental sanity and spiritual peace ...the proper counter cultural antidote to the harpy, godless, multi-media, postmodern madness, we now call a culture...Dead and unloving twangs, banging gongs and sounding trumpets are not the music our Lord's invention, in fact an unrighteous son of Cain invented those machines (Gen 4:21)... Whereas the Praise, God Himself calls "perfected" is simply out of the mouths of babes...and what our Lord has declared "perfect" never needs accompaniment ...
I always find it so cringe when something that was created like over 1500 years after Christ, claims to trace itself back to early Christianity. This is just wishful thinking at best.
I used to live very near to Corinth Primitive Baptist Church, the one used as a background image in this video. I think they go by Heritage Primitive Baptist Church now.
frankly any theology that involves limited atonement just seems like a sad and mean way to live. I believe that Christ died for all (2 Corinthians 5:15). I also can't respect any version of Christianity that thinks a loving God would torture infants in hell.
Are you sure the spirits of infants are 'ages' like infant and not spirit beings who vote on the eternal disposition of the parents? “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” And "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?". If an infant was an elect, might it's spirit participate in the judgement of the parents? If an infant was not an elect, perhaps without believing parents, might it's spirit participate in the judgement of the parents in a more suffering way?
Thanks a lot, your videos are very informative and balanced. Am shocked just how grossly in error Christians are across almost all denominations. Satan has wrecked much havoc in the church and we seem ready for the falling away. This Primitive Baptists theology is such a confusion, as are many others that you describe in other videos... That man plays no part in his salvation and that regeneration comes before conversion??! Paul indubitably teaches how obedience and wilful cooperation with God is required in response to the Gospel. Certainly human effort of any kind cannot cause salvation, but is a necessary response to it! What's so hard to understand that?! I never cease to wonder the absurdity of such gross misunderstanding of the simple Gospel as the Bible presents it. In excessive pursuit and misapplication of teachings (such as predestination and election), which are certainly biblical but now completely twisted to fit an unfounded meaning, this denomination, like many others, have actually gone about to create their own form of faith and righteousness. I only find little that can actually be found in the teaching of the early church, yet they claim to be the bona-fide (primitive) representation of the early church doctrines. Notwithstanding that they deny it, IMHO Primitive Baptists practice a subtle calvinism variant... largely the same thing... All which I firmly reject as being the biblical teaching of the doctrine of election and predestination.
"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." (I Corinthians 2:14) What manner of man does Paul say is incapable of receiving and believing spiritual truth - the natural man (unregenerate) or one who has faith (regenerate)? ""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.For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith TO FAITH: as it is written, The just shall live by faith" (Romans 1:16-17) What does Paul say the gospel reveals the righteousness of Christ to? Is it "to faith" or "to one who lacks faith"? "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23) What does Paul say regarding faith - is faith a fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God or a produce of the natural man possessed by all? Proper, biblical answers to those questions are helpful in establishing the Primitive Baptist position on why regeneration must precede the exercise of faith, even as the verb tenses of scripture clearly state (John 1:13, 5:24, I John 5:1). God bless, TETH
@@theearstohear I HUMBLY DISAGREE... The Bible shows emphatically and repeatedly that WHOSOEVER is the target of the message of the Gospel... ANYONE who hears the message of the truth and believes it, is changed by God through it. This is the Gospel's basic proclamation. This is the natural, obvious and objective interpretation of the Scriptures. This is called EXEGESIS, "reading out" from the text what the the author says directly. The idea that you are alluding to, is one that you (the reader, or someone else you have trusted) are "reading into" the text, which is called EISEGESIS, a subjective and pseudo-advanced (a false sophistication) way to read the Bible. With this your approach, any sufficiently persuasive (crafty) person can teach anything they wish from the Bible, which is the main recipe of any error or heresy. The Scriptures that you point to mostly show the effect or result of regeneration; interestingly you even use the term FRUIT yet seem to miss it. The Gospel has the power to cause faith in those who receive it (hear its proclamation, accept its terms, agree with its demands, trust its promises), most certainly the hearer does not have the faith naturally nor do they need to be regenerated prior to properly responding to the message, which is obviously counterintuitive and illogical. It is very clear that FAITH COMES BY HEARING... And hence, the NEED to proclaim the Gospel. This is exactly what Paul argues in Romans 10 pointing to the goal of "WHOSOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED", and therefore spells out the a very logical 3-part order of achieving that goal being: 1) A preacher needs to be sent out with the Good News; 2) They must proclaim the message, so that a hearer can hear the message; 3) The hearer then must believe in the name of the Lord, upon which they call in faith (out of willful obedience) and are saved. We need be very careful to remain faithful to what the Bible actually teaches and resoundingly reject anything that twists or turns its orthodox, simple and straightforward meaning. Thanks for engaging, but am afraid that I find no merit in this your view.
EDDIE NDIRANGU: I HUMBLY DISAGREE... TETH: Humility receives correction. EDDIE NDIRANGU: The Bible shows emphatically and repeatedly that WHOSOEVER is the target of the message of the Gospel... TETH: No. It does not show this. It speaks of “whosoever BELIEVETH.” That is a subset of humanity, not all of humanity. EDDIE NDIRANGU: ANYONE who hears the message of the truth and believes it, is changed by God through it. TETH: Wrong. “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) You are suggesting that “Except a man be shown the kingdom of God, through the gospel, he cannot be born again.” It should give you pause that you’re teaching precisely the opposite of what Jesus Christ taught. EDDIE NDIRANGU: This is the Gospel's basic proclamation. TETH: Wrong. The gospel’s basic proclamation is what CHRIST has done. (I Corihtinians 15:3-4, II Corinthians 5:21) EDDIE NDIRANGU: This is the natural, obvious and objective interpretation of the Scriptures. This is called EXEGESIS, "reading out" from the text what the the author says directly. TETH: Some things the bible says “directly” include: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) “He who is of God heareth God’s words.” (John 8:47) “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.” (I Corithians 2:14) “The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.” (Psalm 10:4) TETH: These statements have far reaching theological implications on man’s incapacity for receiving truth and the nature and purpose of regeneration and the gospel message. EDDIE NDIRANGU: The idea that you are alluding to, is one that you (the reader, or someone else you have trusted) are "reading into" the text, which is called EISEGESIS, a subjective and pseudo-advanced (a false sophistication) way to read the Bible. TETH: This is an assertion, but you offer no proof to substantiate this. EDDIE NDIRANGU: With this your approach, any sufficiently persuasive (crafty) person can teach anything they wish from the Bible, which is the main recipe of any error or heresy. TETH: Sure. EDDIE NDIRANGU: The Scriptures that you point to mostly show the effect or result of regeneration; interestingly you even use the term FRUIT yet seem to miss it. TETH: Is faith a fruit of regeneration or a prerequisite to regeneration? EDDIE NDIRANGU: The Gospel has the power to cause faith in those who receive it (hear its proclamation, accept its terms, agree with its demands, trust its promises), most certainly the hearer does not have the faith naturally nor do they need to be regenerated prior to properly responding to the message, which is obviously counterintuitive and illogical. TETH: Totally false. A natural man is incapable of receiving gospel truth (I Corinthians 2:14). The gospel does not “cause faith.” The gospel reveals the righteousness of Christ from faith TO FAITH. (Romans 1:16-17) No faith; no ability to receive gospel truth. EDDIE NDIRANGU: It is very clear that FAITH COMES BY HEARING... TETH: Which means that faith is made manifest by someone’s hearing of the gospel. The gospel does not create faith in a man. EDDIE NDIRANGU: And hence, the NEED to proclaim the Gospel. TETH: Wrong. The need to proclaim the gospel is to inform those who have the ears to hear (those who are already regenerate) in order to make disciples of them. EDDIE NDIRANGU: This is exactly what Paul argues in Romans 10 pointing to the goal of "WHOSOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED", TETH: That is simply and affirmation that those who call are the elect. It is not suggesting that calling upon the name of the Lord is a prerequisite to obtaining eternal life through regeneration. EDDIE NDIRANGU: and therefore spells out the a very logical 3-part order of achieving that goal being: 1) A preacher needs to be sent out with the Good News; TETH: Who preached to Abraham, Job, Rachel’s Children? EDDIE NDIRANGU: 2) They must proclaim the message, so that a hearer can hear the message; TETH: The OT saints never heard the explicit NT gospel (Colossians 1:26) yet all were saved (Hebrews 11). EDDIE NDIRANGU: 3) The hearer then must believe in the name of the Lord, upon which they call in faith (out of willful obedience) and are saved. TETH: A man must have faith in order ot receive the declaration of the gospel (Romans 1:16-17). EDDIE NDIRANGU: We need be very careful to remain faithful to what the Bible actually teaches and resoundingly reject anything that twists or turns its orthodox, simple and straightforward meaning. TETH: The straightforward meaning is that man cannot believe until he has faith and he doesn’t have faith until he has been born again. (Galatians 5:22) EDDIE NDIRANGU: Thanks for engaging, but am afraid that I find no merit in this your view. TETH: That is because you zealously promote the false gospel that man in his natural state can choose to follow God unto the regeneration of his soul. The Lord taught, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). You are teaching “Except a man see the kingdom of God, as presented in the gospel message, he cannot be born again.” It should give you reverential pause that this is precisely the opposite of what Jesus Christ taught. As such, you are minister of the religion of Nicodemus, not a minister of the gospel of Christ. God bless, TETH
My family was born and was raised Primitive Baptist for generations several of my great uncles were ordained as Elders of the church they are mentioned in the book of Ministers by David Montgomery. I’ve been quite interested in the divide among the churches for years. But Primitive Baptist as we believe to be plain with no extravagant efforts to use musical instruments. There are churches on that list in your video that probably have steeples. Primitive Baptist Churches don’t have steeples as that is considered extravagant. There are some as in politics . That would deem some churches orderly and some disorderly
Many Baptists including Pastors have already converted to Catholicism ,the first and original Christian church since 33 AD ,matthew 16:18 .the church who also gave us the Bible around the 3rd century.its not just Baptist who are converting ,but thousands of former staunch and rabid anti Catholic Evangelical Pastors ,Bible Scholars,Christian Historians,Seminarians ,Theologians ,to name a few have also converted and many more are following their footsteps.Recently 4 virulently anti Catholic fundamentalist Baptists did a very intensive Bible study.all of them converted as well with one of them considering Priesthood.one of them has Ph D and other one his father is still a very anti catholic Pastor.their testimonies can also be viewed here on YT.
Seriously dude, the Catholic church was not formed in 33 AD. The church was up and running before the crucifixion for one, and another, there were already churches in the Middle East before the Vatican was set up. The real reason Rome took over was political power and Constantine.
@@thursoberwick1948 whom shall i believe,you or the thousands of staunch anti catholic pastors,bible scholars,christian historians,evangelical theologians,seminarians to name a few,who have now converted to the church they used to despise and label as the whore of babylon,unbiblical,idolators,mary worshippers which are all LIES.many more pastors,not just baptists are converting to catholicism.some of them took over a decade of intense quest for truth in christianity and they found in the church that Jesus Christ established in 33 AD ,matthew 16:18.read,read history and dig deeper.visit tons of video testimonies at chnetwork.org.
@@truthhurtsalways4uIt's not Baptists who are converting in hordes to Catholicism, it's Anglicans. That's partly because some Anglicans are practically there already, e.g. child baptism, non-immersive baptism, masses, cathedrals etc, and also because of the Anglican Church's attitudea on gays and female clergy. I've been to both Baptist and RC services and the difference is night and day. I prefer Catholic music and Baptist preaching put it that way.
@@thursoberwick1948 omg ,where have you been all these years ???there is a tv show on EWTN channel called "the journey home " ,which airs every Monday at 7 pm CST .the host is Marcus Grodi ,former Evangelical Minister ,now Catholic .For almost 2 DECADES ,he has been interviewing guests on said show on why they converted to Catholicism . Many of his guests have included several ex Baptist Pastors ,laymen/women,Evangelical Bible Scholars ,Seminarians ,Theologians ,Intellectuals ,Historians,Muslims,Buddhists,Hindus ,Atheists , Catholics ,who left the church and became anti Catholic Pastors .Some of his guests were rabid and virulently anti Catholic before they converted .his ministry, chnetwork.org include a former staunch anti Catholic Baptist pastor .
11:10 this claim that primitive baptists have: the belief of the position "justification by grace or by Christ's blood without faith as a necessary part" is biblical, is demonstrably false i think. Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God," The verse is uncannily explicit and its most basic exegesis is in direct contradiction to the claim that you are saved by grace without faith as a necessary part. Now im not a biblical scholar, so im not going to say "thats that case closed", but it seems to me that *some* of these doctrinal positions have very nebulous reasoning. Great video, very interesting :)
Thank you for this video. As a Primitive, I am happy to see a fair summarization of our beliefs. Your videos overall are truly some of my favorite on TH-cam.
You're very welcome! I'm glad to hear that.
I had no idea they believed that you can be elect and never believe the gospel. Bizarre in light of say...the entire Bible 😬 That is truly shocking and takes Calvinism/Reformed Theology to a whole new level that would make Calvin blush. Never met a Primitive Baptist but I see their churches when I drive through rural Georgia.
Calvin never had a "salvation experience" as would be understood in evangelical theology. In fact he believed that not only would infant baptism be sufficient, he taught that as long as the right words were said, it could be performed by even the most unbelieving priest (but absolutely NOT by a lay person). Even more so, if one was baptized as an infant, his/her children were automatically covered, and if they were covered, their children were covered, ad infinitum, "so long as they did not manifest to the contrary" anything that would question their being part of the elect.
Most Christians believe there are saved people outside the bounds of the preached gospel in the case of infants or handicapped. Further, both the Westminster and 1689 reference elect people who are outside of the bounds of the preached gospel. We just continue to hold to that, being primitive.
It's what I'd call "hypercalvinism".
@@fnjesusfreak that is a good thought.
The Primitive Baptists I know think Calvin got some of his ideas from them. They also subscripe a version of the bloody trail that gets them back to Paul through Wales.
"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"
Romans 10:14 KJV
Thank you!!!
This theology goes against the entire message of the New Testament. How do they know they are the "elect" and not some others?
@@milanterzic859 One would have to delete or ignore most of the bible to hold this theology. The Great Commission. The life of Jesus, Paul, Peter, the Samaratian woman. The list goes on
It's a decieption of Satan to produce disobedient "Christians."
All of your questions were already answered in the video.
"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?" They believe God calls on them, not the other way around.
"how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" They don't believe that believing is necessary for salvation, but rather, Grace. Not sure how you missed that. It was kind of the main point.
"and how shall they hear without a preacher?" First, they do have preachers. And Second, they don't believe that hearing is necessary for salvation, but rather, Grace.
@@milanterzic859 They don't claim to know that they are the "elect" and not some others. In fact, they claim not to know.
My maternal grandparents were Primitive Baptists. My mom's siblings were raised Primitive Baptist, but as adults none stayed in the church, becoming Southern Baptist, United Methodist, or Presbyterian Church USA.
A capella singing - one of my aunts wouldn't have her wedding in the Primitive Baptist church she grew up in because it wouldn't allow a piano to be brought in for the ceremony.
Some Primitive Baptist churches in the Southern Appalachians maintained a holdover from pre-automobile days, at least when my grandparents were alive: services weren't held every Sunday, but every other Sunday or third Sunday or even just once a month, and not on Sunday mornings but early Sunday afternoons because when worshipers relied on the horse-and-buggy, they were more apt to be on time for church if the service started at 1 or 2.
Also, Primitive Baptists in the Southern Appalachians would conclude services by going around and shaking hands, and that was when the preacher received the offering - a member would discreetly put money in his palm and pass it to the preacher when they shook hands.
Thanks for all the personal side notes about Primitive Baptists! Very interesting.
@@hiltonchapman4844 Yes the hand shaking is a common practice in some of the Southern Baptist congregations I grew up attending but without the passing of the cash money :).
I am a PB, not raised one. Our church meets once a week, on Sunday at 1:00 because folks drive far to attend. Coming from SBC, where services are Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evening I realized the Scriptures don't designate how often to meet or when or even where but that we are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together. ~ We simply sing hymns acapella, pray, and hear expository preaching of the Scriptures. Something that could be done in a cave or a castle. ~ The main reason, in my mind, for not calling PBs Calvinists is infant baptism vs believers baptism and Calvin's views on the church. We believe the 5 Points. ~ My church is neither old line or progressive. We believe faith in Christ is the evidence of regeneration and that regenerated persons will be brought to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, led to the truth about Him. He that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God hath eternal life; he that believeth not, doesn't. We preach the gospel for the love of our Lord Jesus and because the Spirit is at work in the souls of people.
Thank you for sharing ...deterministic denominational doctrinal quirks aside...they sounds like real fine folks...I imagine their simple fellowship, humble unaccompanied hymns, and holy handshakes was a great blessing to yourself and family...a sweet hour of 𝐏𝖗𝖎𝖒𝖎𝖙𝖎𝐯𝐞 𝕮𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖘𝖐𝖎𝖆𝖓𝖎𝖙𝒚 is a sanctuary of mental sanity and spiritual peace ...the proper counter cultural antidote to the harpy, godless, multi-media, postmodern madness, we now call a culture...
Most primitive Baptist churches have no decoration inside
I was JUST reading about Primitive Baptists in a book on denominations this morning. Thanks for the intensive rundown!
As a Charismatic I think it’s always good to understand what other believers practice though we may disagree at some points. Thank you brother for your in-depth and fair presentation on Primitive Baptist beliefs and practice.🤔🙏🏻
As a charismatic you're deceived and believing heresy.
Well said brother. All of God’s people have something to offer one another. Listening to each other even though we may not agree on everything is extremely beneficial. Not to mention a form of worship. God bless.
It's difficult to call someone a believer when they believe you can be saved without knowing the Gospel when Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 1-3 teach literally the exact opposite.
Doctrine matters.
Not saying they're not believers, mind you, but it is counter-biblical and suggests a poor understanding of scripture and the command of Christ in Matthew 28.
And yes, this itself IS a Gospel/Salvation issue. One gets this wrong, it's likely they may miss the very Gospel itself
@@ronkelley1490 The elect shall eventually believe the gospel in God's appointed time by the quickening of the Holy Spirit. The belief is given to them. It is not an act of free will because the natural man is spiritually dead and does not have the ability to make him/herself spiritually alive. The Holy Spirit does that. No one caused their natural birth, so how can they cause their spiritual birth. Oh, and also, the thief on the cross never heard the gospel and Christ never preached it too him. All Jesus said to him was "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."
@@Tony-bp1nr Romans 10:9-17.
This is absolutely mind blowing.
You did a really good job of explaining Primitive Baptist beliefs. Most portrayals are incorrect. You obviously studied the topic before doing the video. You also did it in a nonjudgmental way, which is appreciated greatly!
Thanks! I try to treat everyone fairly. I hope you will find that my other videos on denominations meet the same standard.
My grandparents and their parents and grandparents and further back to the early 1800s were Primitive Baptists. But when they left farming and moved away they joined a SBC. I'm really glad to have this very clear description as I was brought up in a Southern Baptist Church.
Great video! As a Missionary Baptist, I always thought we were similar to Primitive Baptists, but wow, we are WAY different! Thanks again!
Finally, another missionary Baptist! I was beginning to think I was the only one watching this channel! 😂
@@codydavis8014 Hey!!! 😂 Now there are two!!
@@codydavis8014 Missionary Baptists include all Baptists who send missionaries lol. this would include southern baptists, independent baptists, ABCUSA baptists, GARBC baptists etc. just because they dont have "missionary" in their official name doesnt mean they arent missionary baptists
@Cody Davis @Grow in Truth
Greetings my fellow Missionary Baptist Brethren. I’m stunned to find other Missionary Baptists watching this. Continue to pray for our churches, I have a good report of churches in The central Kentucky, Ohio area of countless souls saved during meetings in the past year. My home area of Middle Tennessee has division and needs prayer.
@@growintruth2685 make that 3 lol
As a primitive Baptist, I appreciate your accuracy and research on this!! May God bless! :)
You folks are not reading from the same King James Bible that I am.
What is the purpose of the Great Commission?
@@akven0m do you go around insulting every religion you decide is wrong. Be careful if you do.
Hey Riley!
@@garrettharvey3785 a lot of people read the Bible trying to prove an idea that they already think is correct. They don't read the Bible with the intent to try what they believe to see if it is true.
There is a TH-cam channel of a Primitive Baptist church and I love to listen to their singing. Some of the theological views outlined is the WELL RESEARCHED AND WELL PRESENTED video are quite frankly mind blowing to me.
Hi I know you commented a year ago but could you tell me the name of this channel and maybe give a link? I'd love to hear their songs
@@joshnestberg5717 Vestavia Prmitive Baptist Church. They have a youtube channel by that name. In recent years most of their videos only include the preach and not the singing, but if you will go to the video section where they are listed by most recent and go back six years you will find a lot of congregational singing. Great stuff.
@joshnestberg5717 Elder Brian Moore Primitive Baptist has preaching videos also❤️
Also, its interesting there exist Primitive Baptist Universalist churches, although today only a few dozen congregations are left.
I was a progressive Primitive Baptist for much of my life and think your summary of the theology and practices of Primitive Baptists is spot on. Good job, young man, and abundant blessings on you and yours.
If You Tube gave excellence in programming awards this should have one. The explanations were clear and concise and even a feeble minded old man such as me can easily understand.
Wow! This is great! I was raised Old Line Primitive Baptist in Southeast Georgia. You've mentioned lots of things I've not heard specifically, but I've always thought...nice to hear more details that support what I've believed all along.
This is a very interesting theology. Thank you, Joshua. You’ve given me a lot to think about.
It’s good to see someone actually listening to the theology instead of just bashing it because you may not have heard it before. Notice scriptures being given for every single instance.
@@Pterodactylraptor Just because we've never heard it before doesn't mean we can't bash it. Garbage is garbage.
Don't think too hard, its a pile of garbage.
@@mouthpiece200 There are things I definitely disagree with. The fact that the Great Commission is flat out ignored is a reason I will not attend of these churches probably ever. Although their commentary about how missionaries shouldn’t wait for someone to pay their way made me chuckle.
The doctrine of election is biblical. Saying that anything other than grace is a work is not. They even say that repentance is passive but obedience is active, which is contradictory.
Faith is a work of God, not man.
Repentance is a work of God, not man.
To call these things works is to misunderstand God.
I don’t think it’s a pile of garbage but I don’t think it’s correct biblical interpretation either.
I needed time to process. And I do find a lot of what they believe to be unbiblical. But not SO unbiblical that I wouldn’t consider them brothers and sisters in Christ. They get all the essential doctrine correct.
@@Pterodactylraptor Just because scripture is used doesn't mean the theology is "scriptural". The Bible says we must rightly divide the word of truth. I can use Bible verses to prove you should steal, get drunk, and a host of other things that are sin, but they would be taken out of context and used wrong. Which is what happens with churches with false doctrine.
Man, your work is great! It clarifies everything. Thanks a lot for what you do!!!!!
Thank you for this informative video. I am a Christian Quaker from a pastoral Meeting. I have a dear friend who is Primitive Baptist. We actually had a discussion about her denomination at one point when she was trying to understand my denomination. I was surprised by the Calvinist leanings of a Baptist church, even if they were not actually Calvinist. She thought Quakers were an off shoot of Ana Baptists so she was surprised to learn that was not the case. I think it was interesting for both of us to look at what we thought versus what was. I still learned a lot from this video and am glad you take the time to make these in depth videos.
This channel is great. It is amazing to see how many different views and congregations come from one book.
Well done. Objective and unbiased assessment of the distinctives of the Primitive Baptist faith and practice.
Thank you for taking the time in putting these denominational videos. It's interesting to see the different denominational beliefs and it can also be useful when I evangelize.
Hurt my head listening to this, lol! Applauding the Lecturer for being able to communicate this without missing a beat, nor becoming confused himself!! Some things seem biblically sound and then other parts so - “say what??!” Golly! Lord have mercy
It hurt my head reading your comment.
Thanks for such an accurate summary of the Primitive Baptist Churches. I grew up Primitive Baptist and son and grandson of Primitive Baptist Elders.
I heard an old Calvinist say, "it's crazy how some people are the children of God and they don't know it yet."
I was like... "What? Are you saying that they're saved even if they never heard the gospel?" He didn't deny it
I mean, I'm NOT a Calvinist but to pretend like this language cannot be directly drawn from the Bible is slightly silly.
I'm John 10, we read of Jesus saying, "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."
John 10 says that Jesus calls them his "other sheep" before they even hear his voice.
Or in Acts 18 we read of the Lord calling people who _would eventually_ be saved 'his people,'
Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for **I have much people in this city.** And Paul continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
Or in John 11, we see the very language of "God's children" applied by the author to those who would ultimately be saved and brought into the church:
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
The children of God were scattered abroad across the face of the earth... the author of this gospel says that God should gather them via gospel proclamation into one body.
Look, I'm not a Calvinist, I take much issue with the frozen chosen's predestinarian belief system (it's actually highly Talmudic!) but something that's healthy for all of us to do (me and you) is the practice of "steel manning" someone else's position, instead of "straw manning" it.
Just some thoughts. I'm not saying the Calvinist you spoke with was right or his view of salvation is correct, but to pretend like such language is completely incompatible with biblical texts is a bridge too far. One man's opinion 😊
>
Peace and blessings to you
@@AnHebrewChild yeah, you're mixing around a lot of unrelated ideas that's aren't coherent and applying presupposed interpretations to verses that aren't supported by the verses. So.. 🤷
Not a Primitive Baptist nor a hyper Calvinist here, but depending on what you mean by “saved” there is a long line of Reformed Theologians who believe Gods elect are justified in the eyes of God from eternity past.
I agree with most of what the primitive baptists believe with the exception of "the gospel has no part in salvation." That is a dark horse of damnable false doctrine. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation."
A Primitive Baptist would ask, "Salvation from what?" They would agree that the gospel is salvation, but not "eternal" salvation. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, because I agree with you. However, it is interesting that a word like "salvation", which most Christians take for granted means salvation from hell, when viewed through a different lens can completely change your view of the Bible.
I find it somewhat humorous that a Baptist group accepts as infallible a Bible translation produced by the Church of England, and which no Baptists had any role in translating.
that's because they know that Greek has plural/singular versions of words that tell to whom something is addressed. Any translation that doesn't include that is inferior to one that does.
@@namelessbroadcaster An easily-remedied problem; simply put a footnote with any use of 'you' where the number is unclear.
Very good summery of the Primitive Baptists. I find their theology to have an austere beauty about it.
There's no beauty in exclusivism and believing onself to be 'chosen', whilst forsaking one's fellow brother and sisters in Christ. These people are crazed heretics.
I appreciate that you just deliver it without giving your personal take on it all. That’s very scholarly of you.
I visited one of these places at about twenty years old, and the leader was kind enough to give me some literature to let me know what they believed.
Laying aside their very questionable theological views, even with the minimal knowledge of history that I had back then, it was obvious that these people had no idea what they were talking about.
They were so sure that they must be "the original and historic church", that to demonstrate this claim, they formulated this long string of 'primitive baptists' all through history, identifying all sorts of heretical cults as their forebears. This video mentioned the Donatists, which is laughable enough. (If the Donatists would have anything to do with today's primitive baptists, or if today's primitives would accept their strict teachings, I'll eat my shirt.) Even worse, this leader I met back then suggested that the Montanists had been one of the primitive baptist groups. Montanus had taught that he himself was the Holy Spirit incarnate, as one example among many.
Needless to say, I never visited again. Ridiculous.
I think it is worth poiting out that this doctrine isn't really a primitive baptist distinictive. The doctrine you are refering to is sometimes called baptist successionism or Landmarkism and these beliefs can be found in a variety of Baptist groups (e.g. some SBC, some IFB). It also isn't a view that is universal among primtive baptist as there are primitive baptists that I have met that would deny the doctrine or at least deny the doctrine as you articulated it. Furthermore, there are non-baptists groups that have a similar view of church origins. For example, some anabaptists groups (e.g. some Mennonites) believe that there is a chain of anabaptist churches that go all the way back to the early church.
@@appalachianmountain Anabaptists (e.g. some Mennonites) aren't exactly non-baptists, are they?
I do get the distinction you're making between landmarkism per se, and the landmarkism that was distinctive of the particular primitive baptists I encountered. Strange heresy, nonetheless.
@@Giant_Meteor It is funny that you mention that point about Anabaptists not exactly being non-baptist because at least on some accounts of Landmarkism (e.g. The Trail of Blood) Anbaptists are one of the churches in the supposed unbroken chain of Baptist churches going back to the early church. 'The Trail of Blood' book is a complete fraud and anyone who bothers to lookup the sources that it cites will see all kinds of unusual doctrines being advanced by the groups that book is claiming are really Baptist.
@@appalachianmountain The roots of baptist / anabaptist, are somewhat vague, and it is contested how connected the two movements are to one another. (Regardless, neither can really be said to be non-baptist, no?)
But no serious scholarship will point to anything prior to the sixteenth century as being a prior incarnation of these doctrinal developments. There are the historic churches, and then there came the late reformation with her many daughters, the baptists, anabaptists, and all.
@@Giant_Meteor Well it depends on what doctrines you need to count as "Baptist". Anabaptists and Baptists both practice a believer's baptism but Anabaptists often don't insist on immersion. Many Mennonites will baptize by pouring which Baptists typically won't accept as a valid. There are a few different accounts of Baptist church origins with the most likely being that it originated as a 17th-century movement within what are called the English Separatists. It is also plausible that Anabaptists movements might have influenced the origins of Baptists. You might be able to get some proto-reformation groups (e.g. Lollards, Hussites, Waldensians) that have an at least somewhat similar doctrine to Protestants at large, but you can't really go much earlier than Waldensians in the 12th century and that is a real stretch.
I'm glad to know that, even though they think my church is a false church, they still think I'm going to heaven!
they do not "THINK" you are going to heaven. they preach the elect will go to heaven because it is the FATHER's will, not because of anything else.
@@ict-wf8ur - Yeah, like he said, because they think he's going to heaven.
No. Only that you _might_ still go to heaven. If God chose you, you'll go. If not, you won't. That's their view.
@@brindlebriar Well, not according to 6:13. They say if you have the desire to be saved, you are.
Not necessarily. You are going to heaven if you are among the elect, but if you aren't among the elect, you aren't going to heaven, and thee is nothing you can do about it.
I was born and raised in the PBC, my father was a preacher. In reading over all the comments this is my respnse; it's like the 'chicken or the egg' argument. Who cares. God is omnipotent and sits upon his throne regardless of what we believe. There are those led to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ (yes there are also PB missionaries though not all PB agree with it). No church/denomination, not one IMO, has everything doctrinaly correct because we are human because we want it to make sense to us. I had this conversation with my dad once and his response was, "Yes, but I believe it is the closest to the truth." We can pick and chose Bible verses and spar with one another all day long but in the end you have to find God on your own knees and follow the path you believe it right. I'll share a story then close. One day St. Peter was showing new comers the sites around heaven but when he came to one certain section he said, " Shhh, be very quiet here. This is where the Baptists are, they think they're the only ones here." LOL.
Worship where you feel God leads you. That's my opinion.
As a Primitive Baptist this comment was probably one of the best comments I have read.
This was great. There are so many different takes on justification, I never thought Unconditional Election would have a blending with Limited Atonement and Universal Justification. This was fascinating.
As someone who goes to a Primitive Baptist church here in Mississippi, I can safely say this thing was spot on...
I’m reformed Baptist and I share a lot with this group. One difference is we are very big on preaching the gospel and believe you have to hear the gospel before you can be saved.
None of the people from the Old Testament heard the New Testament gospel. In fact, Job asked, ‘ Job said, “I know it is so of a truth but HOW should man be just with God?” They are in a sense of given God’s given faith without ever hearing the gospel to begin with.
Not everyone is going to hear the true gospel to begin with. Some may have been born through false preachings and false teachings, but may not have reached the true gospel. Some may have died since youth. Some maybe handicap and disabled. Are you saying that the God that is powerful to save His elected people who are sinners, the worst of the kind starting with the Israelites who reject King God so many times throughout the Old Testament, but can’t save you and I unless we heard the gospel and believed? That is crazy because faith is a fruit of the spirit. It is from Him. One can’t believe if they were not given God given faith in the first place, and therefore, faith is an evidence that one is a child of God who already have eternal salvation from above by the grace of God.
Regeneration precedes faith. If someone in North Korea who doesn't hear the gospel but is one of God's elect chosen from the foundation of the world and then dies before the preacher man arrives that elect person goes to heaven and is saved. The Good news doesn't make a child of God, it tells the child of God that he has been chosen by God to be conformed to Jesus Christ in glory for eternity.
@@janeyue7491 The Old Testament saints were justified by their faith in the promise of a future savior.
Before you can have faith ! It takes faith to please God !
However Salvation is of the Lord ! It comes by the grace of God !
lol Calvinism
““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.”
Romans 1:16 KJV
The apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said the Gospel of Christ is “the power of God unto salvation.” If we read and obey the Gospel we are saved, not of ourselves but by God.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Really appreciate your work on this. It is difficult to summarize this denomination because of the local church autonomy and independence you mentioned. They don't all believe the same and you can find many really fundamental disagreements from church to church and association to association. As with any denomination with any age, the disagreements tend to run deep.
Of note, The Atlanta Primitive Baptist Church is Progressive to my knowledge - the distinction you made between old line and progressive is important. In fact, the pastor of that church is very involved in international mission work in Ukraine and beyond. I'm far less familiar with the other sources and churches cited and alluded to.
Many (though not all) "Progressive" PBCs would consider themselves "Calvinists" and hold to more classical, reformed theology. The "Time Salvation" division is crucial here and it is impressive you found and touched on that.
May the Lord continue to bless the important historical work you are doing!
As a Baptist myself and ordained Baptist minister, I want to make clear that all Baptists believe in the independence and autonomy of the local church due to the congregational government that is part of the Baptist doctrine (regardless of what kind of Baptist). Though there are some things unique only to Primitive Baptists, the independence of each local church is not one. All Baptists following a congregational government frown upon an episcopal government or hierarchy in the church that is more common among Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, and some Pentecostals. This includes Baptists that are part of organized denominations (like Baptist conventions). Some Baptist organize themselves in associations and conventions for mission purposes but not for any outside governing control over churches like the Vatican is the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church. There are also some Primitive Baptists that that have denominations like the National Primitive Baptist Convention. Many beliefs/doctrines held by Primitive Baptists are also held by many other Baptists including Missionary Baptists. These include such doctrines as predestination, election, regeneration, believer's baptism by immersion, perseverance of the saints (eternal security of the believer), etc. All Baptists (including Primitive Baptists) are vehemently against baptismal regeneration (salvation by water baptism). Mostly all Baptists with the exception of a small minority of Free-Will Baptists follow basically a Calvinistic theology whether they call themselves Calvinistic or not. There are variations from Calvinistic, Hyper-Calvinistic, or moderate Calvinistic. Free-Will Baptists not only believe that one is saved of their own free will, but one can lose his/her salvation of their own free will too. Most Baptists (not just Primitive Baptists) would consider this to be heresy or false doctrine. They believe that once saved, always saved. A true saint of God cannot lose his/her salvation.
Thanks for this thorough research.
I knew nothing (but assumed some) about the Primative Baptist church and doctrine. My assumptions fell short. Now I know! 😁
Many years ago, one Church in a county just south of mine had a big split over the funding of missions. One side became a Missionary Baptist and the other became a Primative Baptist, but they both claim to be the original. I have family in both churches!
Ever heard of the "Black Rock Address of 1832"? Look it up and it explains the major split among Baptist churches across the country. One side remained in the original doctrine, (known as Primitive Baptists or Old School Baptists). The other side adopted a new doctrine and practices (such as Sunday Schools, Bible Societies, Tract Societies, and Missionary Boards). These new Baptists believed the Arminian doctrine (General Atonement or Free-Willers). Of course, there were some Arminian Baptists in the 1700s but I think the Address was to make the split official. I could go on but too much typing. Look it up though, there's a lot of historical information on the Baptist history in the United States
This is the most fascinating denomination I've ever heard of. It's very confusing but extremely interesting.
Wow, this was a great video. I've met a total of 1 primitive Baptist in my whole life and he really didn't get much into their denominational theology. Never knew they had so much interesting theology going on
The weird place in TH-cam where the counting money and theology meet.
There appears much wrong with so many denominations, it's a wonder Yeshua said for us to go and teach. When Christians teach the truth all denominations begin to fall apart.
It's good not to be a calvinist but it stems from labeling someone. Calvin himself fell first by following a catholic, Augustine, which also fell after persecuting Christians while creating the Catholic doctrines. And that is what Calvin promoted after attacking the Baptists, although he upheld the Trinity he painted Anabaptists into a corner. And now appear to be infecting the compromised Baptist convention. To corrupt the last remant of the Fundamental (independent) Baptists, which is what I believe that's what they call themselves.
All other denominations are a form of charismatic word of faith and lukewarmness doctrines mixed with.
Love your Speed Queen Washer Videos. Hope your carwash is getting all figured out. First watched you when Meet Kevin visited your laundromat. God Bless and Jesus Saves :)
@@aaronm8552 Thanks, yes he does.
It seemed like they were so close to being both Christians and good people. Then homosexuality, marriage, and abortion came up. If the elect are already saved independent of faith, then why are these people automatically excluded. Oh, it only people they approve of that are saved.
Gospel instrumentality aren't necessery for salvation? What's next? Christ himself aren't necessary for salvation?
I'm not just confused, I'm in a state of shock
There’s a few crazy people who say they believe in the Bible but they don’t really
It's precisely BECAUSE Christ alone is necessary for salvation that they assert that preaching is not necessary for salvation. Your slippery slope suggestion is the opposite of what is actually going on.
@@MG-no1kx ApPpPPPPPapal
@@CandyCinema but how do you know that Christ alone is so important, how do you know Christ? That is through the gospel, or through the preaching of the gospel, so don’t make the gospels as if they’re nothing, because they can be extremely crucial, you’re undermining the good news, don’t do that
@@MG-no1kx I know it from scripture, but my "knowing" it is not a requirement for God to save me. Just as Isaac Newton "discovering" gravity did not make gravity behave any differently than it always had, God's saving grace is given to whom he wills.
That was very good and I look forward to your video on the missionary Baptist.
Very informative video! I love your no-nonsence presentation style without any personal commentary.
What's the difference between Primitive Baptist theology and Fatalism?
This is a really great video.
Great video. I’ve driven past several Primitive Baptist churches and wondered what exactly they believed, I only had a broad understanding of it. Can you also do a video on the Free Will Baptists too?
Good news - I have a video on Free Will Baptists coming out before the end of the year.
@@ReadyToHarvest Also Seventh Day Baptists. Also....examining the Hutterite beliefs including the different kinds of Hutterites. Also Different types of Catholics - thought that would be pretty hard to do! Thanks. I'm a new subscriber, but loving them so far!
@@beckypetersen2680 you can read about seventh day baptists here
old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2022/06/a-unique-kind-of-baptist-seventh-day.html
This is a GREAT video! I have never heard of Primitive Baptists-
very interesting!
Thanks Jeff, glad you found my channel! Lots of other videos on interesting denominations and more coming soon.
Now you see why you have to get around men to get to God .So many are standing in the way of the Holy Spirit who is the real TEACHER
Very interesting! As a "Calvinist" there is much in common and sympathy for their positions where we differ.
You've presented Primitive Baptists in their own words and I appreciate that. I only want to clarify a few points:
1. I believe very much in evangelism and making disciples (Mth 28). Our contention with Missions had to do with boards and missionaries replacing churches and elders. The Black Rock Address clarifies this point with the following quote, "Previous to stating our objections to the mission plans, we will meet some of the false charges brought against us relative to this subject, by a simple and unequivocal declaration, that we do regard as of the first importance the command given of Christ, primarily to His apostles, and through them to his ministers in every age, to “Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” and do feel an earnest desire to be found acting in obedience thereunto, as the providence of God directs our way, and opens a door of utterance for us. We also believe it to be the duty of individuals and churches to contribute according to their abilities, for the support, not only of their pastors, but also of those who go preaching the gospel of Christ among the destitute. But we at the same time contend, that we have no right to depart from the order which the Master himself has seen fit to lay down, relative to the ministration of the word. We therefore cannot fellowship the plans for spreading the gospel, generally adopted at this day, under the name of Missions; because we consider those plans throughout a subversion of the order marked out in the New Testament."
2. While we believe in Immediate Spirit Regeneration (the Spirit quickens without human means) we believe the gospel brings conversion and assurance of salvation. John Gill described regeneration as God only, conversion being our response back to God. For this cause, ministries such as Marchtozion.com exist. While only God can quicken, we preach to the conversion of His people, their assurance, instruction, etc. I preach indiscriminately to all, knowing that I bear the savor of life to the living and the savor of death to the dead. Particular Baptists referred to our audience as "sensible sinners."
3. Modern Primitive Baptists only shied away from the "Calvinist" label because the face of Calvinism in the US became men such as John MacArthur and John Piper. When PB say they're not Calvinists, what they mean is 1) they're not Fullerites (well meant offer), 2) They reject Lordship Salvation, and 3) they hold to historic Baptist theology rather than Reformed theology on justification (your video did highlight one such quote). This rejection of the label only came after a period of theology controversy of men who held a position closer to MacArthur.
Thanks for dropping by to watch the video and for your valuable inputs.
It sounds a lot like (but not the same as) closed Brethren. No instruments and the Lord's Supper only for those in regular fellowship. Also concerning elders and no pastor. Which is the same closed and open Brethren have. Possibly other similarities.
@@cherylcogan3542 Our ecclesiology and ordinances reflect common Baptist practice from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. A lot of historic groups share those similarities.
Thank you for this post, March to Zion. I would also very appreciate your further explanation of each of the three subpoints in your third paragraph here, if you wouldn't mind and would be so kind... Or in the alternative if not possible, a specific citation for the explanation and discussion of each.
I am contending with some of this theology myself right now.
Thank you again!
Calvinism isn't MacArthur or piper.
This is what happens when you use man's reasoning based on only part of the Bible. Evangelism is a commandment. It's funny they think foot washing is an ordinance when Jesus didn't say "You all must do this." But when Jesus literally did say "Go into all the world." Nah....he didn't mean that. Seriously!? Wow...
wait til you find out that the actual true ancient church...doesn’t actively evangelize
@@cryosteam3944 sorry, I didn't follow.
I'm sorry if you misunderstood. As a Primitive Baptist I can confirm we do believe in evangelism. In fact, I have done mission work in my local town and international mission work. The issue is with mission boards, not with missions themselves. We do believe, as you stated, that evangelism is a commandment.
As for the foot washing, we do that because of John 13:14-16.
Hope this helps!
@@reiclyx yes, thanks. And as the video said, not everyone believes the same thing too. I know how that is. There are more kinds of Baptists than there are people lol
I am familiar with the foot washing belief. There are several group that do it. I'm fine with it, too. I just disagree that it's an ordinance of the church.
That commandment was given to the Apostles, but there IS an application for today as well, because Paul and Timotheus along with Silas established churches in Asia Minor of the which they assigned godly men like unto themselves to shepherd the flocks.
Very interesting and unique group.
Watching this video has really confirmed to me that a truly Christian nation would really be impossible unless God came down and made it himself. When people choose "Christian" in those national poles it's really just a general vague definition. The problem with that is that governments aren't run on vague generalities they are run on specifics. All these questions of theology and practice seem incidental on social media or on a message board, but they would be huge bones of contention in a governing body.
Europe before the treaty of Westphalia (and for a little after) was a mosaic of Christian confessional states but these states were mostly specific to one expression or confession of Christianity rather than Christianity broadly speaking. For example Prussia, Saxony, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway were Lutheran states while The Habsburg States, The Commonwealth, The Italian States, and France were Catholic. Many Smaller German and Swiss States as well as the Dutch and Scottish were Reformed. In the East the Tsardom of Russia was Orthodox. The Treaty of Westphalia weakened the role religion had on policy and religious wars would never really be waged again between European powers again though Russia which wasn’t part of the treaty would continue to wage war on the Ottomans in order to slowly but surely liberate its Orthodox Christian brothers from Islamic Ottoman rule until the eve of world war 1. Secularization didn’t come to full fruition till the late 20th century with many European countries continuing to promote some kind of church for quite some time. A Christian state would probably have one church that receives preferential treatment over the others. If all churches had to share power and run a country together it would be a macrocosm of what the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem would look like, which is that no one would be fully satisfied or be able to cooperate.
@Ruus That's what I'm saying, even within the Larger umbrellas of "Catholic" and "Protestant." there is a lot of diversity.
And we're one big happy family on constitutional secular legal terms alone....?
@Ruus there is so much more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophies Horatio.
I have great joy knowing that I have a person relationship with God the Father because His Son died for all my sins and I have His Sprit indwelling bearing witness.
You too can have this assurance
Thank you! I had no idea my own beliefs aligned so closely with those of Primitive Baptists, who I had heard of but never knew much about. I have been derisively called a Calvinist, but this vid makes it clear how they differ from Calvinists. I'm glad I can identify with this group who believes in the absolute Sovereignty of God who selects and gives His Salvation to His Elect - which cannot be lost. Amen!
Where ya from, Benalu?
@@Marchtozion New York city
@@lbamusic There was a PB fellowship meeting there at one time, but I'm not sure it's status currently. I run the website this video cited most often, and we have several featured podcasts if you're interested in listening.
@@Marchtozion . Thank you very much - I will chk it out!
Is there any primitive baptist church somewhere in San Francisco, California? Thanks!
My Grandfather on dad's side was a Primitive Baptist Preacher in the early 1900's and he was also the schoolteacher for southeastern Alabama.
This was fascinating. Thank you.
I found the study into them fascinating also. Glad you enjoyed it.
This is the logical conclusion of Calvinism. Again, thank you for a fair explanation of this denomination’s beliefs. You put a lot of effort into communicating these things without expressing your personal beliefs at the same time.
Helpful. Never met one
Confessional Reformed Baptist here. If a Primitive Baptist is reading this please respond: How do you then interpret Jesus when he says, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” - John 3:18 KJV
Probably believe that the word "name" refers to character as it does with "in the name of the law". The verse might read "... because he hath not believed in the character/brand of the only begotten Son of God". Who he is, what he stands for, what he did. Jesus repeatedly said to "believe my works."
The position on what it means to have "faith by grace alone" is fascinating. It will be something that will color my thinking on the subject forever - not because I agree with them, but because of the paradigm shift necessary to understand where they're coming from. For the rest of my life, I will feel obligated to define what I do and don't mean by "good works" when I argue that salvation does not depend on doing good works.
Jesus dying on the cross didn't just make it possible for salvation, it accomplished salvation for God's elect.
I think it's one of the more consistent/coherent interpretations of salvation by grace alone. After all, repentance, faith, etc., are all acts.
Not a new concept, Luther and Calvin felt that missionary outreach was ended when the Apostles died. It was their task to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth, so they did not send missionaries as they warred with Catholics and other Protestants who disagreed with them. It was only later when the Catholic Missions brought in more new people then lost in Europe to Secularism and Protestantism that many Protestant Churches started sending out missionaries to lands that were colonized by Protestant countries.
Luther taught firmly that God's grace is given through Word and sacraments. He would never approve Primitive Baptists approach.
I would love for you to do a video on the North American Baptist Conference.
Amazing how one denomination can be that strict and yet ignote the clear teaching of Scripture to share the Gospel with others.
Yeah, it's wild. It's unfair to them but as the completely un-Christian WBC is the most well-known Primitive Baptist "church" I can't help but think of them when I hear the denominational name. Even the other ones though apparently have a lot wrong with their theology.
The Westboro Baptist Church identifies itself as Old School Primitive Baptist.
"God does not love everybody."
That explains their theology and behavior
Westboro had no connection with actual Primitive Baptists. Phelps was ordained by the SBC. They took the PB title because they were calvinistic and Baptists. To be a PB church, one must be officially constituted. They weren't. They were impersonators.
@@Marchtozion I notice the past tense. Did Westboro fold?
@@thursoberwick1948 I really don't know. I just know their false teacher died. PB are a pretty tight group with great networking. Since they're not actually PB, we really have no idea.
@@Marchtozion Phelps? He actually got into trouble with his own church and they deposed him. A very smal group, a few hundred at most.
I think that is the Church of "God does not love anybody"
As they state on their website word for word:
“A person may say that he believes in salvation by grace, but if he sets forth any act of man’s will, such as repentance, faith, baptism, or hearing the gospel, as a condition for obtaining it, then this position must be put on the works side.”
Faith is considered a work to them, yet the Bible says: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast.”Ephesians 2:8-9
How do they get around clear biblical teaching like that???
Because the verse says, "For by grace (unmerited, unearned favor) are ye saved through faith (joyful trust conjoined with obedience, trust, compliance); and that (salvation) not of yourselves: it (salvation) is the gift of God:
not of works (works of Jewish law and Jewish tradition), lest any man should boast." At least that's how I take it. Definitions above from Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Liddell/Scott. Faith is a work - not a work of man's invention - but nonetheless something that man does. The only other option is that God does it, forces it upon a man, and the man had no choice in the matter. Of course, the other types of Baptists define it differently than the lexicons, then tell you "there's nothing you can do" - then 30 seconds later they are telling you what all you have to do.
It isn't by your own faith you are saved, but by the faith of christ 🙏
@@thomassimpkins4986 So that's why Paul and Silas, when asked by the jailer, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?", they answered, "Nothing. Just sit there. There's nothing you can do - and perchance God will see fit to let the faith of Christ save you." I see no evidence at all in the passage that the faith of Christ is even referenced - not when another meaning makes more sense. "The faith of Christ" usually means exactly what it means in "some shall depart from the faith", i. e. "the faith", the teachings, the doctrines - not something Christ possessed, but what He taught.
No, you are defining work in a different way than the Scriptures do. The response of inward faculties, secured by the grace of God, is not a work. You seem to think that because work is excluded, complete passivity is necessary?
@@lcs-salam Good to know when I get a bill from a lawyer! I'm curious to know why mental work - study, weighing the pros and cons, coming to a decision, loving God, etc - doesn't count as a work. You did it. Nobody did it for you. I'm actually just trying to understand why some things are considered "works" whereas other similar things are not.
John 3:
14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
Titus 3 :
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Thank you for the video about their theology
My father had been raised primitive baptists so I had went to several primitive Baptist churches in the seventies and eighties
Your video provided a lot that I did not know about them but you also didn't say anything about the things I do know about them
They would not have a TV or radio in their house or their vehicles
the church did not have heating or air conditioning or electricity and they used an outhouse and a manual pump to get water
Is considered fine for you to have heating and air and electricity and running water in your personal homes but not the church building
Men sat on one side of the church women sat on the other side the women all wore hats inside the church the men wore hats 2 church but put them on our hat rack before going inside
Many of the preachers actually chewed tobacco while preaching
The sabbath was supposed to be honored pretty much like a Jewish sabbath no work no business
Chewed tobacco while preaching?? My dad is a primitive baptist preacher and I could never in a million years see him doing that.
@@corbinrodgers3325 oh, my mom hated it.
I was amazed to hear the denomination not still existed, but has websites!
@@langreeves6419 Interesting they wouldn't have a TV but they now have websites.
Sounds like Southeast Georgia Primitive Baptists, one of my favorite places to worship.
This is how you slander a church. Just evil.
This doctrine doesn't seem to completely rule out babies in hell unless people are going to heaven on account of being innocent of actual sins, but the video said works have zero to do with it full stop. So everyone who dies before the age of reason is predestined to heaven, where does Scripture say it?
As a Catholic, standard apologetic argumentation wouldn't work against this group, you'd have to get into historical weeds on the existence of groups with identical doctrines throughout history, and I think that conversation would be abandoned by the PB before it reduces to "is not, is too." No need to convert anyone, so no dialogue where apologetics is used.
But I think the PB soteriology is consistent within itself and can be used against reformed protestants. It is true that a consistent "grace alone" theology would recognize belief as a verb that salvation can't be contingent upon.
There is no assurance however, you could be a person who never converts and be saved, you could apostatize and be saved, or not be saved, so who is to say the non-apostate is more surely saved than the other groups? Who says zero people are called to obedience but not regeneration?
No, according to a Primitive Baptist, babies that die are saved and go to heaven if they are elected by God, and damned and go to hell if they are not. No other reason.
@@spencerws8316 Right, and they are not elected universally, therefore on PB theology, some babies go to hell.
Original sin is a Platonic concept 390BC brought to Christianity by Paul via a simple sentence. Enlarged into a priestly science by Augustine, with even method of transmission (sex and semen) postulated and mysterious exceptions eventually granted Mary by official adoption of tradition doctrine in the 1850s/60s.
Many sects and rites do not accept these ideas of birth under the curse of Cain, and that Eve and Adam's mistake and disobedience was not an overt and premeditated sin as was Cain's and his descendents of 9 generations... Remember they were wiped from the Earth.
Orthodox Jews do not adhere to original sin, but that man is rational with the ability to do good and evil from birth. Mere childish disobedience is not sin worthy of Yam Kippur
PB: This is a splinter, dissenter protestant group, but even liturgical groups such as The Patriarchs of the Eastern Byzantine Rite and the Archbishops of Canterbury rejected the Immaculate Conception as a clergy mistake by the Roman Pontiff leading potentially to a goddess concept not unlike ancient tales of Isis, perfect daughter of Ra the Creator, mother of Horus god of the Sun, wife of her dead brother-husband-God Osiris and rival of evil Set and the serpent Apophis.
This is said objectively. My wife, daughter and granddaughter are Roman Catholic, and my best man and oldest friend is a parish priest and church scholar. Devout and practicing.
Just as others must wrap their heads around your faith, tradition and reason... You too must accept that they may have come to their conclusions via a different tradition....just not for you.
I'm not judging who is correct.
@@STho205 I thought at the beginning you were making a point about original sin doctrine being untrue and therefore the actually innocent go to heaven by default.
This seems long winded and I'm not sure where it's supposed to lead. The very end sounds post modern, although the splinter group label seems dismissive. So I don't know which it is, understand everyone is different or, this groups doctrines aren't even worthy of examination.
@@StJohnPaulXXIII you just don't wish, by gut reaction, to consider anything not familiar in your tradition, but your tradition was applied atop the Gospel of Mark, the most straightforward ministry of Jesus account. Many reject those applied traditions, by gut, similarly.
That is human nature to cling to pre-essence for personal meaning.
Read the Second Book of the Republic one day when bored. You'll be shocked.... Especially remembering it was written in 5th cen BC Athens by a pagan philosopher. Focus on the fate of the pious man.
Can someone please explain to me
If you part of the elect you go to heaven.
But what's the point of the Resurrection of the faithful in the second coming?
Your spirit and resurrected body will be united.
KJV only always seemed like a strange belief to me. Are there any similar beliefs for other languages (that some particular old translation is to be preferred or exclusively used)?
for us in the Catholic Church the Douey Rheims version is the more authoritative translation from the Latin Vulgate into English. It’s preferred for English speakers but not mandated as the only version
The KJV is great, but it was the English people spoke in 1611. The NKJV and ESV are just as accurate and they're in an English people nowadays can understand.
They say they baptize those coming from other denominations and that "in this they keep company with the Anabaptists". Except the Anabaptists re-baptized people because at that time everyone was baptized as an infant. The whole thing with the Anabaptists is that they believed infancy baptism didn't count, as an infant cannot give testament to faith in Jesus. *That* is why they re-baptized (and were fiercely persecuted it).
That practice predates the denominational name. A pastor friend, John Burkett, reads many early American Baptist diaries and journals. Rebaptizing was extremely common then. It's not surprising then that PB rebaptize, being a continuation of much church practice of those days.
@@Marchtozion Well the argument would go that it is not rebaptizing. I was sprinkled as an unknowing infant and immersed as a fully cognisant adult. Who is to say which was the more valid and righteous in God's eyes. The rebaptism was an open confession of faith in front of witnesses and giving testimony. It is something I was moved to do having initially decried the ritual as absurd. I went to see an adult baptism, openly said at the time that it was absurd and unnecessary. I was told by a member of the congregation "you will be the next" and I was.
Many Baptists do this today because they are "Briders" though they don't like that term. They believe they can trace their baptism back to John the Baptist and that anyone not baptized by a Baptist who was baptized bay a Baptist etc. all the way back to John the Baptist is not part of the "Bride of Christ". Some of them think people who were saved but not baptized by the right person are save, but not part of the Bride, some think they aren't even going to Heaven. Silly because baptism doesn't save you.
I ran into the following while preparing a lesson on church history. In the mid 19th century a church was raising money to translate the Bible into an African language. One proper lady in the church said if English was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for these primitive people.
These videos are fair, balanced and impartial over-views of the church body at focus, and are greatly appreciated. I have to say something on the theology of this one though. I don't recall ever seeing such a body before that makes....so little Biblical and theological sense.
If they don’t believe in grace through faith then it’s not the gospel of Jesus Christ. Faith is not a work. They seem to call Jesus and John the Baptist a liar, as both of them declared “repent and believe”. You can believe this false church, or you can believe Christ. They say that the word of God in infallible , but they remove what they don’t like. You can’t have it both ways.
@Sephardim 4 Yeshua said "They say that the word of God in infallible , but they remove what they don’t like. You can’t have it both ways."
Pick a denomination of christianity, hell, pick any religion at all that has a holy book and you could apply this to any one of them.
Read all of Romans 1 and study the context. Paul is writing to believers. He twice says that they were called. He reminds the readers, who are already believers, that the just will live by faith. Because they are already believers, how were they justified? Were they justified by Christ or was it their faith that justified them?
@@jasonjohnston94 The Greek word pistis is more like fidelity than mental sentiment. They are justified by fidelity, not some abstract idea of belief. Fidelity to a cause is different then mere mental acquiescence to it's tenets. Many people read Paul and come away with the notion that one can give into sexual harassment and have a relationship with a coworker to avoid economic suffering, and have nothing to worry about because of mental acquiescence to some tenet of faith. the Just will live by fidelity (pistis) which is different than the Just will commit adultery, kill people for economic reasons, believe voting eliminates culpability for sin (Sanhedrin much?). The Just will live by PISTIS, which is more like fidelity than it mere mental acquiescence.
Thanx, Joshua🌹🌹🌹
So Calvinism on steroids?
I suggest a video on Independent Baptist vs Reformed Baptist, also a video on KJVO vs Other Versions.
There was an interesting version of Calvinism among the Puritans, called preparationism, IDK if it would merit a video of its own.
These theologians and preachers accepted the five TULIP points of Calvinism, but said that the depraved person can prepare for the saving grace. Some of them said there is a preparatory grace which God gives to people, which allows them to prepare, tho most didn't mention such a thing but simply said that man can prepare. This preparatory grace view sounds similar to the Arminian prevenient grace view, but there is a difference. According to the prevenient grace view, this grace allows the person to choose to resist or not resist God's saving grace. Not so here, the saving grace is believed to be irresistible; the preparatory grace allows the person to prepare, and the point of the preparation is it makes them a suitable and likely candidate for the coming of God's grace.
Preparationists were careful to say they do not deny the 2nd point of Calvinism - unconditional election. They held that God can and does save people who have not prepared, and also that preparation is not a guarantee that God's grace will come. But they did talk about probability, saying that the more one prepares, the likelier it is that God's saving grace will come to them. So, people are totally depraved, they can prepare for saving grace, God's atonement is just for those who will receive the saving grace, if God sends it to them it will be irresistible and necessarily make them persevere in salvation.
The process of preparation was seen to consist in actions such as reading the Bible, attending worship, listening to sermons, and praying for born again experience.
Preparationism soon lapsed into a legalism and a form of works righteousness. Lay at the heart of the Antinomian controversy in 17th century Massachussets in which the great Anne Hutchinson was shamefully put on trial. She was a Calvinist who rigorously held to salvation by faith alone in Christ alone with no preparatory works needed. This predated the Lordship Salvation/Free Grace debate in many ways with similar issues at stake. The Primitive Baptists whose Calvinism is much, much higher than I would be comfortable with reject such acts of preparationism which sowed the seeds for later decisionist mass evangelistic methods of the mid 19th century onwards. Much blessing to you.
Coming from a family that once was part of this denomination, its sad to say it has a very weak hold on its congregants and is disappearing fast due to weak practice and theology.
people want to hear what tickles their ears instead of truth.
I agree with much of what they teach.
This is so interesting. There are two primitive Baptist churches in my area. There is an Old Regular Baptist Church right by me. Please compare these extremely country churches. We are all in the woods in Southwest Virginia.
Calvinist determinism flies in the face of every scripture in Old and New Testaments where God calls people to choose between right and wrong. A sovereign God who delegates and enables all human beings to make such a choice is entirely Biblical. It is that God who sent his followers out to all nations to baptize and make disciples.
You know that Calvinists 100% beieve in going out and preaching the Gospel tho, right? I fear you dont even understand what you are criticizing. By the way i am a Traditional Eastern Right Byzantine Catholic and have no tie to Calvinism but i do try to represent them fairly, you arent.
@@jonathansoko1085 In the video, the narrator explained that some of these groups across the decades have taught that evangelism was not necessary to furthering the salvation of others. He said that was one of the reasons for the split between missionary and primitive baptists.
It was that tendency among some Calvinist denominations to which I was referring. I never meant to imply that all Calvinists were against evangelism, which I know is inaccurate. If I offended you in any way, I certainly apologize.
@@stephenbailey9969 Yeah, one of the best known televangelists, was Robert Schuller who was from the Reformed Church In America.
@@jeffkardosjr.3825 Yes. If I remember correctly, the RCA began as an offshoot of the Dutch Reformed Church. The Primitive Baptists discussed here are an American formation descended from English Baptists that followed a Calvinist theology. As the narrator pointed out, the necessity of evangelism was the issue that created the split between Primitive and Missionary Baptists.
Correct,
Therefore *whosoever* heareth these sayings of mine, *and doeth them* I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
{Matthew 7:24}
"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But *whosoever* shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."
{Matthew 10:32-33}
"For *whosoever* will save his life shall lose it: and *whosoever* will lose his life for my sake shall find it."
{Matthew 16:25} (Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24; 17:33)
"For *whosoever* exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
{Luke 14:11}
"Verily I say unto you, *Whosoever* shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."
{Luke 18:17}
"That *whosoever* believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that *whosoever* believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
{John 3:15-16}
Jesus answered and said unto her, "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
But *whosoever* drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
{John 4:13-14}
Jesus answered them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, *Whosoever* committeth sin is the servant of sin." )
{John 8:34}
"And *whosoever* liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"
{John 11:26}
"I am come a light into the world, that *whosoever* believeth on me should not abide in darkness."
{John 12:46}
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name *whosoever* believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
{Acts 10:43}
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
For the scripture saith, *Whosoever* believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
{Romans 10:10-11}
And *whosoever* was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
{Revelation 20:15}
My family went on a camping trip to Lincoln State Park in southern Indiana to learn a little bit more about the 16th president of these united states. He was a Primitive Baptist. The church he served as a sexton still meets there. We did some reading on this group while we were there. This video clarified a few things for me. Thanks.
Also...
18:30 - As a preacher for the faithful churches of Christ, may I say that we, along with the non-Progressive Primitive Baptists, do allow (actually, obey the mandate) for music in our worship. It's congregational and there are no mechanical instruments involved in its production (a cappella), but it's still music...The only kind authorized in the New Testament
...Abraham Lincoln was a baptized Primitive Baptist ? ...really?...I'd heard his father was...and also rumors one of the Baptist congregations where his father attended eventually did embrace the Stone Campbell movement, as so many Ohio Valley Baptist congregations did in those days...
legalistic arguments aside...a sweet hour of 𝐏𝖗𝖎𝖒𝖎𝖙𝖎𝐯𝐞 𝕮𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖘𝖐𝖎𝖆𝖓𝖎𝖙𝒚 is a sanctuary of mental sanity and spiritual peace ...the proper counter cultural antidote to the harpy, godless, multi-media, postmodern madness, we now call a culture...Dead and unloving twangs, banging gongs and sounding trumpets are not the music our Lord's invention, in fact an unrighteous son of Cain invented those machines (Gen 4:21)...
Whereas the Praise, God Himself calls "perfected" is simply out of the mouths of babes...and what our Lord has declared "perfect" never needs accompaniment ...
Bro can you make a video about the Seventh Day Baptist.
@@sukt00 th-cam.com/video/cA93EZGF-CU/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for this excellent video.
I always find it so cringe when something that was created like over 1500 years after Christ, claims to trace itself back to early Christianity. This is just wishful thinking at best.
I used to live very near to Corinth Primitive Baptist Church, the one used as a background image in this video. I think they go by Heritage Primitive Baptist Church now.
frankly any theology that involves limited atonement just seems like a sad and mean way to live. I believe that Christ died for all (2 Corinthians 5:15).
I also can't respect any version of Christianity that thinks a loving God would torture infants in hell.
You believe that the atonement was limited, unless you are a universalist.
Are you sure the spirits of infants are 'ages' like infant and not spirit beings who vote on the eternal disposition of the parents? “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” And "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?". If an infant was an elect, might it's spirit participate in the judgement of the parents? If an infant was not an elect, perhaps without believing parents, might it's spirit participate in the judgement of the parents in a more suffering way?
I’m a Primitive Baptist; feel free to reply and ask about something you disagree with and I will try to respond.
Thanks a lot, your videos are very informative and balanced. Am shocked just how grossly in error Christians are across almost all denominations. Satan has wrecked much havoc in the church and we seem ready for the falling away. This Primitive Baptists theology is such a confusion, as are many others that you describe in other videos... That man plays no part in his salvation and that regeneration comes before conversion??! Paul indubitably teaches how obedience and wilful cooperation with God is required in response to the Gospel. Certainly human effort of any kind cannot cause salvation, but is a necessary response to it! What's so hard to understand that?! I never cease to wonder the absurdity of such gross misunderstanding of the simple Gospel as the Bible presents it. In excessive pursuit and misapplication of teachings (such as predestination and election), which are certainly biblical but now completely twisted to fit an unfounded meaning, this denomination, like many others, have actually gone about to create their own form of faith and righteousness. I only find little that can actually be found in the teaching of the early church, yet they claim to be the bona-fide (primitive) representation of the early church doctrines. Notwithstanding that they deny it, IMHO Primitive Baptists practice a subtle calvinism variant... largely the same thing... All which I firmly reject as being the biblical teaching of the doctrine of election and predestination.
"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." (I Corinthians 2:14)
What manner of man does Paul say is incapable of receiving and believing spiritual truth - the natural man (unregenerate) or one who has faith (regenerate)?
""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.For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith TO FAITH: as it is written, The just shall live by faith" (Romans 1:16-17)
What does Paul say the gospel reveals the righteousness of Christ to? Is it "to faith" or "to one who lacks faith"?
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23)
What does Paul say regarding faith - is faith a fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God or a produce of the natural man possessed by all?
Proper, biblical answers to those questions are helpful in establishing the Primitive Baptist position on why regeneration must precede the exercise of faith, even as the verb tenses of scripture clearly state (John 1:13, 5:24, I John 5:1).
God bless,
TETH
@@theearstohear I HUMBLY DISAGREE...
The Bible shows emphatically and repeatedly that WHOSOEVER is the target of the message of the Gospel... ANYONE who hears the message of the truth and believes it, is changed by God through it. This is the Gospel's basic proclamation. This is the natural, obvious and objective interpretation of the Scriptures. This is called EXEGESIS, "reading out" from the text what the the author says directly. The idea that you are alluding to, is one that you (the reader, or someone else you have trusted) are "reading into" the text, which is called EISEGESIS, a subjective and pseudo-advanced (a false sophistication) way to read the Bible. With this your approach, any sufficiently persuasive (crafty) person can teach anything they wish from the Bible, which is the main recipe of any error or heresy.
The Scriptures that you point to mostly show the effect or result of regeneration; interestingly you even use the term FRUIT yet seem to miss it.
The Gospel has the power to cause faith in those who receive it (hear its proclamation, accept its terms, agree with its demands, trust its promises), most certainly the hearer does not have the faith naturally nor do they need to be regenerated prior to properly responding to the message, which is obviously counterintuitive and illogical.
It is very clear that FAITH COMES BY HEARING... And hence, the NEED to proclaim the Gospel. This is exactly what Paul argues in Romans 10 pointing to the goal of "WHOSOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED", and therefore spells out the a very logical 3-part order of achieving that goal being:
1) A preacher needs to be sent out with the Good News;
2) They must proclaim the message, so that a hearer can hear the message;
3) The hearer then must believe in the name of the Lord, upon which they call in faith (out of willful obedience) and are saved.
We need be very careful to remain faithful to what the Bible actually teaches and resoundingly reject anything that twists or turns its orthodox, simple and straightforward meaning.
Thanks for engaging, but am afraid that I find no merit in this your view.
EDDIE NDIRANGU: I HUMBLY DISAGREE...
TETH: Humility receives correction.
EDDIE NDIRANGU: The Bible shows emphatically and repeatedly that WHOSOEVER is the target of the message of the Gospel...
TETH: No. It does not show this. It speaks of “whosoever BELIEVETH.” That is a subset of humanity, not all of humanity.
EDDIE NDIRANGU: ANYONE who hears the message of the truth and believes it, is changed by God through it.
TETH: Wrong. “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) You are suggesting that “Except a man be shown the kingdom of God, through the gospel, he cannot be born again.” It should give you pause that you’re teaching precisely the opposite of what Jesus Christ taught.
EDDIE NDIRANGU: This is the Gospel's basic proclamation.
TETH: Wrong. The gospel’s basic proclamation is what CHRIST has done. (I Corihtinians 15:3-4, II Corinthians 5:21)
EDDIE NDIRANGU: This is the natural, obvious and objective interpretation of the Scriptures. This is called EXEGESIS, "reading out" from the text what the the author says directly.
TETH: Some things the bible says “directly” include:
“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3)
“He who is of God heareth God’s words.” (John 8:47)
“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.” (I Corithians 2:14)
“The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.” (Psalm 10:4)
TETH: These statements have far reaching theological implications on man’s incapacity for receiving truth and the nature and purpose of regeneration and the gospel message.
EDDIE NDIRANGU: The idea that you are alluding to, is one that you (the reader, or someone else you have trusted) are "reading into" the text, which is called EISEGESIS, a subjective and pseudo-advanced (a false sophistication) way to read the Bible.
TETH: This is an assertion, but you offer no proof to substantiate this.
EDDIE NDIRANGU: With this your approach, any sufficiently persuasive (crafty) person can teach anything they wish from the Bible, which is the main recipe of any error or heresy.
TETH: Sure.
EDDIE NDIRANGU: The Scriptures that you point to mostly show the effect or result of regeneration; interestingly you even use the term FRUIT yet seem to miss it.
TETH: Is faith a fruit of regeneration or a prerequisite to regeneration?
EDDIE NDIRANGU: The Gospel has the power to cause faith in those who receive it (hear its proclamation, accept its terms, agree with its demands, trust its promises), most certainly the hearer does not have the faith naturally nor do they need to be regenerated prior to properly responding to the message, which is obviously counterintuitive and illogical.
TETH: Totally false. A natural man is incapable of receiving gospel truth (I Corinthians 2:14). The gospel does not “cause faith.” The gospel reveals the righteousness of Christ from faith TO FAITH. (Romans 1:16-17) No faith; no ability to receive gospel truth.
EDDIE NDIRANGU: It is very clear that FAITH COMES BY HEARING...
TETH: Which means that faith is made manifest by someone’s hearing of the gospel. The gospel does not create faith in a man.
EDDIE NDIRANGU: And hence, the NEED to proclaim the Gospel.
TETH: Wrong. The need to proclaim the gospel is to inform those who have the ears to hear (those who are already regenerate) in order to make disciples of them.
EDDIE NDIRANGU: This is exactly what Paul argues in Romans 10 pointing to the goal of "WHOSOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED",
TETH: That is simply and affirmation that those who call are the elect. It is not suggesting that calling upon the name of the Lord is a prerequisite to obtaining eternal life through regeneration.
EDDIE NDIRANGU: and therefore spells out the a very logical 3-part order of achieving that goal being: 1) A preacher needs to be sent out with the Good News;
TETH: Who preached to Abraham, Job, Rachel’s Children?
EDDIE NDIRANGU: 2) They must proclaim the message, so that a hearer can hear the message;
TETH: The OT saints never heard the explicit NT gospel (Colossians 1:26) yet all were saved (Hebrews 11).
EDDIE NDIRANGU: 3) The hearer then must believe in the name of the Lord, upon which they call in faith (out of willful obedience) and are saved.
TETH: A man must have faith in order ot receive the declaration of the gospel (Romans 1:16-17).
EDDIE NDIRANGU: We need be very careful to remain faithful to what the Bible actually teaches and resoundingly reject anything that twists or turns its orthodox, simple and straightforward meaning.
TETH: The straightforward meaning is that man cannot believe until he has faith and he doesn’t have faith until he has been born again. (Galatians 5:22)
EDDIE NDIRANGU: Thanks for engaging, but am afraid that I find no merit in this your view.
TETH: That is because you zealously promote the false gospel that man in his natural state can choose to follow God unto the regeneration of his soul. The Lord taught, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). You are teaching “Except a man see the kingdom of God, as presented in the gospel message, he cannot be born again.” It should give you reverential pause that this is precisely the opposite of what Jesus Christ taught. As such, you are minister of the religion of Nicodemus, not a minister of the gospel of Christ.
God bless,
TETH
I love your channel brother!
These comments are always fun to read. Bunch of Christians accusing each other of not being Christian because of a relatively minute detail
what is relativelu minute to you might not actually be a small detail in eternity
Havent seen much of that
I've seen one negative comment out of 25..
I don't question their sincerity as Christians, I just find many of their beliefs to be downright bizarre.
@@williamjameslehy1341 And your views are bizarre to them. Your point?
My family was born and was raised Primitive Baptist for generations several of my great uncles were ordained as Elders of the church they are mentioned in the book of Ministers by David Montgomery. I’ve been quite interested in the divide among the churches for years. But Primitive Baptist as we believe to be plain with no extravagant efforts to use musical instruments. There are churches on that list in your video that probably have steeples. Primitive Baptist Churches don’t have steeples as that is considered extravagant. There are some as in politics . That would deem some churches orderly and some disorderly
Many Baptists including Pastors have already converted to Catholicism ,the first and original Christian church since 33 AD ,matthew 16:18 .the church who also gave us the Bible around the 3rd century.its not just Baptist who are converting ,but thousands of former staunch and rabid anti Catholic Evangelical Pastors ,Bible Scholars,Christian Historians,Seminarians ,Theologians ,to name a few have also converted and many more are following their footsteps.Recently 4 virulently anti Catholic fundamentalist Baptists did a very intensive Bible study.all of them converted as well with one of them considering Priesthood.one of them has Ph D and other one his father is still a very anti catholic Pastor.their testimonies can also be viewed here on YT.
And many more haven't.
Seriously dude, the Catholic church was not formed in 33 AD. The church was up and running before the crucifixion for one, and another, there were already churches in the Middle East before the Vatican was set up.
The real reason Rome took over was political power and Constantine.
@@thursoberwick1948 whom shall i believe,you or the thousands of staunch anti catholic pastors,bible scholars,christian historians,evangelical theologians,seminarians to name a few,who have now converted to the church they used to despise and label as the whore of babylon,unbiblical,idolators,mary worshippers which are all LIES.many more pastors,not just baptists are converting to catholicism.some of them took over a decade of intense quest for truth in christianity and they found in the church that Jesus Christ established in 33 AD ,matthew 16:18.read,read history and dig deeper.visit tons of video testimonies at chnetwork.org.
@@truthhurtsalways4uIt's not Baptists who are converting in hordes to Catholicism, it's Anglicans. That's partly because some Anglicans are practically there already, e.g. child baptism, non-immersive baptism, masses, cathedrals etc, and also because of the Anglican Church's attitudea on gays and female clergy.
I've been to both Baptist and RC services and the difference is night and day. I prefer Catholic music and Baptist preaching put it that way.
@@thursoberwick1948 omg ,where have you been all these years ???there is a tv show on EWTN channel called "the journey home " ,which airs every Monday at 7 pm CST .the host is Marcus Grodi ,former Evangelical Minister ,now Catholic .For almost 2 DECADES ,he has been interviewing guests on said show on why they converted to Catholicism . Many of his guests have included several ex Baptist Pastors ,laymen/women,Evangelical Bible Scholars ,Seminarians ,Theologians ,Intellectuals ,Historians,Muslims,Buddhists,Hindus ,Atheists , Catholics ,who left the church and became anti Catholic Pastors .Some of his guests were rabid and virulently anti Catholic before they converted .his ministry, chnetwork.org include a former staunch anti Catholic Baptist pastor .
Good video mate, I definitely don't agree with this branch of theology. However, your presentation is great as usual.
"Faith without works is dead." -James 2;24
11:10 this claim that primitive baptists have: the belief of the position "justification by grace or by Christ's blood without faith as a necessary part" is biblical, is demonstrably false i think.
Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,"
The verse is uncannily explicit and its most basic exegesis is in direct contradiction to the claim that you are saved by grace without faith as a necessary part.
Now im not a biblical scholar, so im not going to say "thats that case closed", but it seems to me that *some* of these doctrinal positions have very nebulous reasoning.
Great video, very interesting :)
I see they like games with words a lot.