The Authorized English Translation. Article 2 Part 2.

 Why are Primitive Baptists stuck on the old King James translation of the Bible? It’s really quite simple. Every word of God matters and there is no reason to believe that modern scholarship has restored any of them. The KJV-only question is really a contest between church tradition and modern seminary scholarship. The King James translation is the Primitive Baptist tradition (and of every English-speaking denomination uncontested for 300 years); every other version is a product of modern seminary scholarship trying to move us away from what has been given to us. I will prove based on the Bible that all the modern translations should be set aside as suspicious at best, so we should hold on to the King James translation.

We will first briefly consider our adversary Satan, lest he should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. Then we will lay down some basic axioms, state the argument, and prove it.

We just wrote an article about the Scriptures’ role as our only rule of faith and practice and so the next obvious question is what do the Scriptures say? It’s not nearly as complicated as the seminary professors want us to think it is. Paul asked the Galatians, Who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth? To bewitch is to deceive and mislead by juggling tricks or imposter (Webster 1828 defn 2). If you feel overwhelmed by all the scholarly work that has been done to “reconstruct” the text of the Bible, and decide that we just have to go along with the latest scholarship, then you know what if feels like to be bewitched. I respect that there’s so much that goes into textual criticism that is way over my head, and that’s ok. I don’t believe God makes it that hard for us to answer the simple question: What does God really say?

Let’s first consider that Satan is actively opposing the Lord’s people and undermining his authority. From the very beginning of time we hear: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Gen 3:1. Let’s state as an axiom, that just because something is subtle or is only a small change, does not mean that it isn’t dangerous. Let’s also note that Satan’s oldest trick in his bag is to create a question in your mind about what exactly God said.

Now the next axiom to be laid down is that we should strive for accuracy of God’s word when choosing a Bible above any subjective preferences. That’s obvious but how often do people just go straight to what language they are more familiar with or to other personal tastes without really addressing whether the changes in the words are accurate? I say we should establish what the words of God are and then submit our preferences to that. Choosing an inaccurate book because we like it better would be destructive.

The third axiom was stated in the introductory paragraph: The King James translation was the only authoritative Bible in our language for centuries. From about 1660 to 1960 there was no real rival to the KJV, except in only the most secular/progressive circles in the early 20^th century.

Finally, the fourth axiom is that the principles we use to select the proper translation should come from the Bible. The believer can understand the nature of God’s revelation laid out in Scripture without having a degree in classical languages or the philosophy of religion.

My argument is that all new translations should be rejected because their claims to better accuracy than the KJV undermines the promises of God that his words are pure and that they would be preserved.  The Bible describes every word of God as important, and that he promised that they would be available to his church in every age. If a modern translation does not claim more accuracy as the KJV, we eliminate it because of the many changes they made to the text. Whether or not someone says it affects a doctrine doesn’t matter! Someone who loves the very words of God will not tolerate such laxity with Scripture lest it obscures the truth in any way. If a modern translation had better accuracy than the the KJV, then some article of God’s word was lost for generations which violates God’s promises.

What does God say about the preservation of his words?

• He commands his people to hearken to them, not to add to them or diminish anything from them, but keep his commandments. Deut 4:2
• His people live by every word that proceedeth out of his mouth. Deut 8:3, Matt 4:4
• His words are pure and he will preserve them from this this generation for ever. Ps 12:6-7. Even if some say that he is talking about preserving the godly and faithful men, as we can see, the godly and faithful man is keeping his words, so either way it’s a promise that his words will be faithfully preserved pure.
•  Every word of God is pure. Prov 30:5
• For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Ps 119:89. Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught the Apostles things that came directly from the eternal Godhead. Jn 12:49-50, Jn 17:8, Jn 16:13. The word of our God shall stand for ever. Is 40:8. These references mean the fundamental substance of what we have in God’s revelation is something that never changes, so it makes sense for us to keep the text as constant and stable as humanly possible. Having a new revision every few years is the opposite of that.
• He gave us a new testament, which is a legal covenant. Heb 9. It’s not lawful to change the wording of even a man’s covenant. Gal 3:15.
• Jesus promised that the law had been preserved to him in every jot and tittle, and that his words would never pass away. Mt 5:18, 24:35
• Curses are given to those how add to or take away from the prophecy of this book. Rev 22:18-19.
• The faithful man of God loves God’s word, meditates in it, hides it in his heart, loves it above fine gold, and esteems it to be right concerning all things. Psalm 119: 11, 16, 97, 127-128, 140.
• The faithful man of God keeps his precepts, commandments, statutes, words, testimonies, word, law, and judgments. Psalm 119. Whatever may be entailed in the keeping of these things, a faithful written record is a minimal starting point.
• Paul charges Timothy that the Scriptures which he knew from his youth, as well the words and doctrine that he received from Paul, were committed to his trust and to be committed to faithful men who would teach others also. 1Ti 6:20, 2Ti 1:13, 2:2, 3:14-17.

As I hope you can see, for our confidence in the accuracy and reliability of the text of scripture, we rely on the promise of God to preserve them. God’s method of preserving his scriptures is not by him and him alone such as election, redemption, glorification etc.; but it is by providentially guiding and protecting his people who by their active and loving effort keep his words. This means that the promise isn’t that his pure words would be available for all humans everywhere, but that he would have a witness—a pillar and ground of the truth—in his church. So, where you find his church, you will find the accurate and reliable text in your time and place.

What does the modern scholarship that delivers new versions or substitute bibles say about the preservation of God’s words?

• Texts discovered in the 18^th century, such as Sinaiticus Aleph, should be used to improve the accuracy of the Bible because they are older copies (4^th century) than the physical copies relied on by Erasmus when he assembled the Greek “Textus Receptus” used by the King James translators.
• Scholars reconstruct the Word of God based on all available manuscripts that have been discovered.
• External evidence is weighed from each variation of text such as the number of manuscripts containing a given variation.
• Internal evidence is weighed from each variation to help explain which variant is more likely to be an omission or an addition.
• The scriptures are inspired and inerrant in the original autographs. However, since none of the original autographs exist, the Bible you hold in your hand is not inerrant.
• The method of reconstructing God’s word should be the same method of reconstructing Homer and Plato etc.
• Modern scholarship, examining 5,800+ manuscripts that are 500 – 2000 years old, gives a more reliable presentation of God’s Word than the Bible delivered to us through the unbroken tradition of men who love and esteem God’s Word.

I believe the above are fair statements representing what I hear from even “conservative” circles of seminary authorities for what goes into us knowing what exactly God has given for us to believe. In fairness, I believe they are honestly trying to do their best to establish what is true and most are not actually trying to get us to swallow heresy (even though there has always been an element of that too). I’m hoping that you can see that the principles of modern Bible revision are in violation of God’s word.

For most people, I will not be as influential as those scholars that have devoted their lives to higher study and make their living off it. My arguments aren’t sophisticated and my intelligence is mediocre. I also don’t have a command of all the facts and details about the modern methods of textual criticism like those who study it do. However, I think my approach is based on faith and that is better than the wisdom of this world. Let’s keep in mind what the Apostle Paul says before we just keep putting faith in those with educational degrees. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty. 1Co 1:26-27.

I made an argument that common people like me can understand. It’s healthy to be skeptical of those that make their living off selling new revisions of the Bible. It’s not just the publishers and those that were directly involved in the work. The whole idea that you really need to learn and understand Greek and/or Hebrew to be a pastor, keeps the whole seminary industry going and helps those that have a degree to keep it profitable for themself. Having confusion in bible versions is all part of that racket. Consider the antithesis that our Lord had with the educated of his day in Mark 12:37-40. And the common people heard him gladly. And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation. That doesn’t make me right, it just means beware of those that live by priestcraft and don’t just take their word because they know more than you and me.

I’m not against textual criticism, archealogical findings, and advanced scholarship per se. I’m just against using those methods to change God’s word or substituting something new for what has been passed down to us from our good and faithful fathers. I think the discipline of finding and studying ancient manuscripts is very interesting and the results of textual criticism goes a long way in answering the critic with an amazing level of agreement in all the old evidence. That is scholarly work reserved for a few that choose to dedicate themselves to that field.

Many other things could be said in favor of various features of the King James translation or refuting the arguments against it. I tried to be brief while still getting to what I believe is the heart of the issue. To restate my argument, based on the promises contained in Scripture, I trust what the church has done by the providence of God in real time when they decided which texts and translations that they would keep. Because they loved God and would not tolerate the adulterations which existed in every generation, I do believe the true church passed down what we need to hold on to and we don’t need to revisit those decisions with ancient evidence centuries after they were copied. May God bless you in your prayerful consideration of these issues and I hope my effort was able to shed some light for you. As always, give God the praise and glory for the light, but the fault is with me for any errors I have made.

Authority of Scriptures as God's Word. Article 2 Part 1

We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God and the only rule of faith and practice (Article 2). God has spoken to his people, and they have kept his words for us to keep and pass to the next generation. The Bible is the written record that God has given us to know the truth and is therefore the final standard by which we judge every thought or act. This second article states how we prove all the other beliefs we hold, so we should carefully consider how we prove that it is true. The Scriptures that have been handed down to us through the generations in the Primitive Baptist Church as the Bible are the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments and for our place and time translated into English as the King James Authorized Version.

The first point is that these Scriptures are the word of God. As stated in Article 1, we have a personal relationship with God when he regenerates us into spiritual life and reveals himself to us vitally. Our ability to recognize the words in the Bible as his words is possible because he has taught us to know him. See John 6:41-47. When the Jews in this passage looked at Jesus, they simply saw a man that was the son of Joseph and Mary. What Jesus was saying is that in order for men to see Jesus as more than just a man, as the Bread of God given for the life of the world, they have to be taught by God himself. Likewise, without being born of the Spirit, man can only see another book that is written by men when they look at the Bible. But by the grace of God, those who are drawn and taught by God can see the Bible as precious and true because they tell us of the will of God and how we have eternal life.

Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6), so his words carry all authority. When we validate this Bible as the truth, it must be validated on its own terms, else we must look to some more authoritative source to ground our knowledge. If God didn’t provide the means to validate his word in his word, then we don’t have enough information to know the truth and the whole enterprise of arguing is a useless and meaningless endeavor. But he has given us enough validation.

We must recognize the lack of neutrality on this matter. Every notion I have about God—his nature and character—is informed by this Bible. Therefore, if I were to validate this Bible without referencing this Bible (presupposing its truth), I would have contradicted it by appealing to something else that is actually more authoritative. Also please notice that when someone asks us to justify the Bible based on a “neutral” reasoning, they are not being neutral. We should ask them to give us the ultimate standard by which we should judge the text and see if they can justify their ultimate standard without referencing itself. They can’t. At the ultimate level, they will be relying on their own individual human judgement or on some other arbitrary proposition that we must accept as self-evident. If anyone says something is true without depending on what God says, they contradict the Bible and are therefore not neutral. You have to choose one horse or another from the beginning: either your own human mind is the standard or God’s word is. I will stand on the Bible as the ultimate standard of truth and put that up against any other standard in its ability to make sense of reason, morality, and other realities that we know.

 The Bible is proven to be true, because without it, knowledge is impossible. That is, if someone denies the truth of the Bible, they know no foundational truth that can prove anything without being arbitrary or meaningless.

The second point is that it’s our only rule of faith and practice. Christ established a spiritual kingdom on this earth to worship him. John 4:24, John 18:36, Luke 12:21. He set the example for us by appealing to the scriptures as having authority to settle every question. Paul commended the Bereans in Acts 17 as being noble for comparing his preaching to the scriptures. Every believer must test the words of elders and whoever has authority with the teachings of scripture. Those who are wise and know the Scriptures have an ability and responsibility to teach the sense and the meaning of the Scriptures, but there is no tradition or declaration made by men that equals the authority of the Scriptures. Every truth we need to affirm and every practice we need to keep in the church is established in the Scriptures. 2 Tim 3:16-17, and 2 Pe 1:3. This means that the revelation we were given in Scripture is perfect and complete. So, if a church practices anything that isn’t taught and regulated by God’s word, it is denying the scriptural teaching that God’s revelation delivered in the first generation of the church is perfect. This also means that to some extent or another, teaching or practicing it will hurt the church and diminish her witness in this world.

We feel the power of God’s words in our hearts because we have a vital knowledge of God, but to prove all our verbal, falsifiable, propositional beliefs (which are what articles of faith are), we rely on the text spoken by God.

Article 1 Part 2: Trinity

 I love the Trinity and want you to as well. I'm not talking about an abstract doctrine, I'm talking about my God. The doctrine of the Trinity describes my God in living detail and it's glorious if you see it. The first objective is to define the doctrine precisely and plainly because most objections stem from misunderstanding. Abstraction is dangerous here. Abstractions are made to help us understand real things, but if we can't make it back from abstraction, we haven't understood anything real. The second objective is to prove the doctrine based on the Bible. Finally, once the properly defined doctrine is understood and established based on the Word of God, we want to consider why a philosophy grounded in this three-in-one God is so much better than any philosophy man can come up with.

Article 1. We believe in the one true and living God, the Father, the Word, the Holy Ghost.

The first description of God is that there is one God. He only is God and is completely unique--that is the first pillar of the doctrine of the Trinity. The article goes on to describe the one true and living God as the Father, the Word, the Holy Ghost. This is not merely three different names for a single person, but three distinct persons that partake in the being or essence of the one God--or the Godhead. The third pillar is that each of these three divine persons share the full and complete nature of God equally and eternally. Many complaints against the doctrine of Trinity act as if we're saying God is one and three in the same sense, which would be a logical contradiction, so we will clarify that the threeness is the persons and onness is the being. The three persons relate to each other in eternal love and communion, and each exist together in one self-sustaining, eternal being with divine attributes such as absolute power, absolute wisdom, and changelessness. 

The Old Testament emphasizes the unity and uniquness of God throughout.

De 6:4-5 Hear, O Isreal: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Is 43: 10-11 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Is 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Is 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

These are just a few examples where God declares himself as one God. He claims authority over the whole universe as its creator, and particularly over Isreal as his redeemer. This is the first boundary as we ponder the nature and person of God is that there is a fundamental unity and oneness relating to his existence and authority that is not shared with any other being.

The second pillar, relating to the distinctness of the three persons, becomes vivid in the incarnation and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Mt 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

I chose these two as examples showing Jesus revealed himself as the Son of God and showing a clear distinction between himself and the person of the Father and that of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit of God and Holy Spirit are just synonyms of the Holy Ghost so can be used interchangeably. But clearly the names of Father and Son are not synonyms and so must be talking about two distinct persons. The scene at the baptism shows while the Son was in the water, the Spirit descended; and then after the Spirit descended, the voice of the Father spoke from heaven. This can only be understood as three distinct persons and not merely three names nor three offices of the same person.

The Jewish leaders rejected Christ appealing to the Old Testament teachings of the unity of the Godhead, but the plurality of persons in the Godhead doesn't contradict the unity of God. I look at the pattern of the Beloved in Song of Solomon 2:8-9. In this story there is an account of the Shulamite woman seeing her beloved coming from the mountains, then seeing him behind her wall showing himself through the lattice of her window. I can relate to that image because when a person is close to you, more details about their appearance are visible than when they were distant. God was visible to his people in the Old Testament time, but he came closer in the incarnation. There were hints and evidence of the plurality in the nature of God in the Old Testament, but the distinct persons of Father, Son, and Spirit were not made explicit until God came in the flesh. The key is to not make a false choice between either accepting unity or plurality, but to learn how God combines both in his nature.

The third pillar is the full divinity and equality of each individual person. In Jn 5:17-23 we see that Jesus was claiming that God was his Father in a sense that gave him the same nature as his Father. We pray to the Father by the Spirit of Adoption (Rom 8:15), but Jesus was the only begotten Son (Jn 3:16). In this passage Jesus claims to do all the works as the Father including quickening the dead, executing judgment, and receiving honor from men. In the prologue of John, Jn 1:1-3, Jesus is ascribed being God, eternally present with God, and creating all things. This passage definitely identifies Christ as the one true and living God of the Old Testament as well as being present with the other persons who are also God. In Christ's prayer in Jn 17, he shines some light on that eternal presence with God as glorifying one another (v.5), being one (v.22), and loving one another (v.24). The Spirit was present in creation (Gen 1:2), inspired Holy Scripture (2Pe 1:21 + 2Ti 3:16), formed Christ's human nature (Lu 1:35), sent by the Father to guide the church into all truth, and reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment (Jn 16:7-16). Each of these actions attributed to the Holy Spirit prove that he is fully and eternally God. Finally, they are each named during each Baptism into his church (Mt 28:19), which wouldn't make sense unless they all were completely and equally divine.

There are many more scriptures that demonstrate the Trinity and a long history of debates that we can't get into, but I hope there is enough there to understand what the doctrine teaches and that there is clear biblical support for it. Hopefully, it will convince those that agree that the Bible is the truth. However, for those that find the Trinity so unbelievable that it is a stumbling blockto accepting the Bible, I think taking some time to consider this issue from a secular standpoint would be helpful.

The conscious investigation of the nature of reality or being is called metaphysics or ontology. Historically in secular ontology, there have been beliefs set forth about the ultimate unit of realitythat goes in one of only two directions--monistic and atomistic. Monism is the belief that underneath all material and forces is one substance that explains the unity and harmony of all things. Atomism is the belief that the world is comprised of manydiscrete units or atoms that explain the variety and distinctions we experience. Monistic ontologies prioritize unity and try to explain change and variety in terms of the overall unified system. Atomistic ontologies prioritize diversity and try to explain relationships and laws in terms of the interplay betweenthe nature of individual things.

For the last couple hundred years, secular philosophy has not given metaphysics much attention as they realized that we can't resolve the differences of such ideas on the basis of our natural reason. Notwithstanding the suspicion of metaphysical arguments, one's belief about the fundamental nature of reality certainly determines what one considers good and bad approaches to wisdom in every aspect of life and society. Bible believers aren't neutral or accommodating to secular metaphysical theories. We believe that being is fundamentally aself-existent God that created everything we experience. So as we attempt to gain wisdom and learn the meaning and relationships of the various aspects of the world, our fundamental knowledge from God's word guides us. In God’s word we find that not only does a perfectly unified Godhead provide a basis for understanding and believing that there is harmony and order in all the diversity of life, we also find that particularity of individuals, and loving relationships are as equally fundamental as unity in the eternal Godhead.

The whole history of Western Philosophy is an unresolved tension between an ultimate reality that is one unchanging essence or several diverse particulars. Ignoring what ultimate reality is, and saying metaphysics is unimportant, hasn't changed the fact that in discussing moral norms, political authority, and factuality; people have fundamentally incompatible views and engage in bitter but unresolvable arguments because one position is based on a monistic metaphysic while the other is atomistic. If you want proof, just log on to social media, like X, and observe how intractable some of the discussions on politics/civil rights are. Monistic arguments always run in the direction that swallows up individuals and diminishes the freedom and uniqueness that we know and love; this understandably triggers a reaction from those to protect individuality. Atomistic arguments always tend to diminish meaningful relationships and obligations undermining social order and cohesion; this understandably triggers a reaction from those seeking to preserve order and harmony.

The Bible allows us to resolve this dilemma because it teaches about a God that need not prioritize unity over diversity norprioritize diversity over unity. The particularity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is not lost in the unity of the Godhead, neither is the unity lost in the particularity. They are one by sharing an eternal essence, exhaustively knowing each other, and absolutely loving each other. A Unitarian god could have created discrete particulars, but things like relationships, love, and distinction of individuals would be secondary or temporary and all things would ultimately resolve into the sovereign power of one. Likewise, polytheistic or subordinate gods might have love and individuality as eternal, but unity and harmony wouldn't be necessary or ultimate. I am not saying that the doctrine of the Trinity was thought up to be a solution to a philosophical problem—it clearly wasn't. Trinity is forced upon us by makingsense of the plain and clear teachings of scripture given to us by God. However, I do believe it gloriously avoids such an impossible dilemma that we've seen play out over history and gives comfort to those that believe it.

Article 1, Part 1. Faith in the one true and living God

Faith is so misrepresented by the world that it undermines faith and drives people to both extremes of skepticism and dogmatism. Is there a way to find certainty with the modesty fitting fallible human beings? I like to try. We must first better understand the role of faith and reason to save both. Reason—the justification of our beliefs—requires reflection on a knowledge that we already have. Our first article of faith plants our fundamental belief in a personal, living God who gave us a revelation to guide our reason on every topic. For this essay on part 1 of article 1, I want to notice two fundamentally different starting points for reason—one based on human nature and the other based on God’s word—then argue that we have to repent of the first to gain certainty in our belief.  A separate part 2 essay will address the Trinity.

Article 1: We believe in the one true and living God, the Father, the Word, the Holy Ghost.

Our faith is rooted in the one true and living God. There are fundamentally two types of people: people who know this one God, and those who don’t. By knowing him I mean having a vital relationship with him. This happens by being taught of God in new birth (Jn 6:45; Heb 8:10). Faith is given in the new birth and is the starting point for belief. Barely having faith is like a newborn that knows his mother but doesn’t have any maturity in that knowledge. That newborn cries at the first sign of hunger showing very little knowledge about her and faith in her. Some children of God grow very quickly in faith and knowledge after their new birth and are like David who said to the Lord “Thou hast made me to hope when I was upon my mother’s breast” (Ps 22:9). On the other extreme, Psalms 14 and 53 both begin by saying “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’”. This means that no matter how much evidence and sound reason is presented to some people, they have already determined not to believe it. Belief in God does require faith which comes from God and is not innate to our cursed human nature. However, the gift of faith does not mean we’ll necessarily gain any level of confidence or certainty which comes from loving God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. People who are struggling with doubt are good people and we should try to lift them up and not question if they really even know God.

Since our faith in God is based on a personal relationship, the way we argue in favor of believing in God should be consistent with the way we argue for believing in a person—not a mere concept or idea. First comes personal (vital) knowledge, then we must listen to what he says and evaluate his faithfulness. But what do we choose to evaluate his character according to? Well, it has to be according to his own word—his own law—otherwise he isn’t really God.

The next point is that God is not just another being in the world; he is the absolute being who alone created everything else and therefore has perfect knowledge and power over everything without exception. He is self-existent, and his name is I AM (Ex 3:14). Just like his being doesn’t depend on anything outside of himself, neither does the truth of his words depend on any authority outside of himself. Everything exists the way he made it, and everything means what he says it means. Some would call on us to set aside God’s word and argue from neutral assumptions acceptable to all men. But to make an argument with someone, there has to be an agreed understanding of what truth is, otherwise what are we judging the proposition by? Therefore, the moment we set aside God’s revelation, we grant some concept of truth that is independent of God’s word and that’s not an acceptable starting point. Without the Bible, which is the verbal revelation of God, anything we may say about him would be ignorant conjecture and not suitable to convince anyone’s faith.

How ought we to speak up when someone is blaspheming? They offend God’s children and should be contradicted with sound doctrine (Tit 1:9-11). The rational justification of belief in God is two steps. First, apply the whole counsel of God in application to our situations in life. Second, show that denying divine revelation leads to foolishness by critically examining all the assumptions that are required to make arguments, do science, plan for the future, judge moral behavior, or whatever question comes up (1 Co 1:19-20). I don’t think there are any shortcuts to finding certainty. You really have to submit to the whole thing as a child (Mt 18:3) and then see the blessings and assurance that come with belief (2 Pe 1:5-11). God gets angry when people tempt him or demand a miraculous sign. So those that want to keep their own sovereignty (what’s in it for me?) and demand some kind of proof before submitting are denying God’s sovereignty from the outset and are never going to believe unless they get knocked to the ground in a “road to Damascus” type of moment. Just like we like our privacy and the option to choose to whom we reveal certain things, God does the same thing and doesn’t have to give anyone a sign.

In Sum, because we humans were created by God, proper reasoning is to align our beliefs with his word given to us (faith) instead of trying to prove God’s word by principles we have come up with in our own heart (foolishness). In loving God with all our mind, is not good enough to just say: I have my faith and that’s enough. We need to rationally justify both the Bible and our belief in God, but you can’t do it piecemeal, i.e. belief in God is justified by believing the content of scripture and the content of scripture is justified by revealing the secrets of our heartfelt relationship with God. Finally, it’s important to remember that anyone who pretends to ground reason in a better starting point is actually relying on very arbitrary assumptions that can be revealed by critical examination.

 Truth matters. After so many Christians have set aside doctrine and adopted slogans such as “doctrine divides”, I can’t imagine a more divided country than what we have now. Not only is knowing the truth still very high on everyone’s priority list, but we’re starving for coherent and cogent answers to fundamental questions. This essay is the first in a series to go through each article of faith that the Primitive Baptist church of my membership stands for. The intention is to better understand them and to show that they are true in love for the glory of God. This first essay is focused on what they are and why we have them. I will start by mentioning the origin and purpose of the church, then describe how the articles of faith aid our worship, unite us, and comfort the brokenhearted.

Before diving into the beliefs, let’s consider the church.

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Dan 2:44

The Primitive Baptists trace the origin of our church to Jesus Christ himself, who is God Almighty in flesh. Nominally, we began being called Primitive Baptists in the nineteenth century; but the church has a succession of baptism and ordination back to Christ during which time the names used for us have changed. Likewise, the articles of faith have adapted over time although the substance of the faith hasn’t changed. The articles of faith, like the name, help to identify the church in reference to the changing world we live in. Over time we have clarified and articulated beliefs differently as our experience has developed in responding to various innovations and confusions. The articles of faith are not meant to supplement the Bible as God’s word or to have any such authority to settle disputes. They are, however, a guide to help us understand Bible doctrines. As a guide, it keeps us connected with the tradition of the church over time, which is extremely valuable—see Proverbs 22:28 and Jeremiah 6:16. The articles of faith are an ancient landmark, set by our fathers, that show the good way to walk with our Lord.

Seeking the truth is obeying the Lord.

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. Jn 4:23

Since Jesus also said “If you love me, keep my commandments”, I could say seeking the truth is loving the Lord. When teaching Timothy how to behave in the church, the Apostle Paul referred to her as the pillar and ground of the truth. Keeping in mind that Jesus Christ said he is the truth (Jn 14:6), we are a place where people in the world can come and learn about Christ, and we should be as clear and accurate as possible. This also means that we need to check ourselves when we care too much about being right in doctrinal disputes. That is pride and not at all what doctrinal discussion should be about. It is about us all coming to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God…growing up into Christ (Eph 4: 13-15).

The articles of faith aid unity and peace.

I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Eph 4:1-6

Jesus established his kingdom on earth, the church, to be a light and salt in a dark and bitter world. To fulfill that role, we must be on the same page and growing together in the knowledge of the Son of God. This unity requires a separation from those who teach another doctrine or preach another gospel. Gal 1:8 commands us plainly that we are to let them be accursed who preach another gospel. Since good brethren can disagree about fine points and still be working productively together in the kingdom, there must be some limit or line within which we can tolerate, but beyond which we cannot. The articles of faith are the line. They have been developed as a recognition of the things that must be believed to have fellowship with the church. During every split there is almost always a faction that pleas for toleration and when cut off from fellowship calls those that separated “schismatics” or “divisive”. However, there is clearly a mandate for separating from false doctrine to be the ground of truth, and it’s the only way for peace in that scenario. Since the church is the body of Christ, cutting off a member of the body is not something that is done lightly or without angst, but as Paul explains in 1 Co 5:6-8, failing to separate will spoil the whole church. Therefore, the ones that teach a new doctrine (or push a new practice) are truly the divisive ones.

This doctrine gives rest to the weary soul, comfort to the broken hearted, and freedom to the captives.

 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins. Is 40:1-2

When the sinner who is burdened by the weight of his guilt sees these truths come together in their mind to form a coherent picture, they rest in joy and freedom as they no longer constantly wonder if they’ve done enough to be justified in the eyes of God. In the early 19^th century, there was a sweeping movement in the American Baptist churches to raise funds and send out missionaries all over the continent and across the world. In 1828-1832 Old School Baptist Churches formally withdrew from those making merchandise of the church by articulating clearly our belief that the warfare of the eternal salvation of every child of God is accomplished (it is finished) with the victorious death of our Redeemer, Christ. This faith allows the believer to rest from the laborious (yea impossible) task of finishing Christ’s work of redemption. Others, teaching what mostly resembles the doctrine of sovereign grace, by twisting and stretching the meaning of “Perseverence of the saints” have offended God’s little children causing them to doubt they or a loved one belong to the Lord because their perseverance does not measure up to the standard of a faithful servant of Christ. Most sound churches changed the word in their articles from perseverance to preservation emphasizing the biblical precept that we are passive in keeping our eternal inheritance. There simply is no comfort in a doctrine that leads us to question one’s home in heaven based on their hearing the gospel or the quality of their confession and obedience.

In conclusion, the purpose of our articles of faith is to keep peaceful fellowship in obedience to Christ.

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.  If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth; But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 1 Jn 1:5-7

Lord willing, I will go into the specifics of each article in the coming days and weeks.