Correspondence Regarding "White Unto Harvest" versus the "Black Rock Address"

Dear Elder Bradley,

I read your article about the Philippines and India in this month's publication. I see that we are being introduced to a new concept. It seems that "rebaptism" is the new dish on the menu this month. Perhaps you can tell a poor confused man like myself what rebaptism is? Secondly, I am a Primitive Baptist and as a result have no first hand knowledge of what are called "mission boards." I was under the impression that these were organizations set up to fund missionaries (to distribute money and the preachers' salaries to sustain themselves). I am under the impression that these "mission boards" were an outreach group that solicited funds from members of the church and the world at large to advance the gospel. But then I guess I must be wrong because you say that the Philippines work and the India work has no mission boards? A non profit organization and a fund established for salaries is a mission board, isn't it? If not in title, isn't it the same thing in fact? The same thing called by another name? Are you seriously suggesting that these "set ups" have historical precedence with the Primitive Baptists? If so will you tell me when and with whom these models were evident?

Maybe you could help shed some biblical light on these subjects and help one that seems plagued with questions.

Bro. Marty Hoogasian

______________________

Dear Bro. Hoogasian,

I did receive both of your messages but I am sorry that with my travels and other duties it is impossible for me to reply promptly. You asked about "rebaptism." As you know, Primitive Baptists do not receive baptism from other orders, so those in the Philippines who have united with our people from other groups have been "rebaptized". As to the support of the work in the Philippines, the Black Rock Address not only condemns Mission Boards but indicates that those who do go under the direction of the Spirit of God should be supported by individuals and churches. Whether these funds are placed in the minister's personal bank account or in an account set aside for that purpose seems not to be of consequence. No Board to send men to the Philippines or to control their work has been established. May God bless you.

Lasserre Bradley

__________________

Dear Elder Bradley,

I notice that you put quotation marks around the word rebaptism in your response, but not in your editorial. I believe that you do that because we both know that the concept of rebaptism, by necessity, means that the individual was previously baptized, and we both know that the scriptures tell us there is one baptism. If there is one baptism as the scripture tells us, then one cannot be rebaptised with or without quotation marks around the word. The word rebaptism doesn't occur in the scriptures and you cannot convince me that there was ever an example of any ordained servant of God baptizing someone that was baptized previously, including those in Acts 19. In verse 5, we only see a change in narration from Luke in verses 1-4 to Paul in verse 5. So I assert again that the word rebaptise is a new thing that came in your last editorial. I might be wrong but I wish that you would show me that word in the scriptures?

You go on to say: "As to the support of the work in the Philippines, the Black Rock Address not only condemns Mission Boards but indicates that those who do go under the direction of the Spirit of God should be supported by individuals and churches. Whether these funds a placed in the minister's personal bank account or in an account set aside for that purpose seems not to be of consequence. No Board to send men to the Philippines or to control their work has been established."

I quote the Black Rock Address: "The ministers should be sent forth by the churches. But the mission plan is to send them out by a Mission Society. The gospel society or church is to be composed of baptized believers (again no mention of "rebaptised" believers); the poor is placed on an equal footing with the rich, and the money is of NO (my capitalization for emphasis) consideration, with regard to membership, or church privileges. Not so with Mission Societies; they are so organized that the unregenerate, the enemies of the cross of Christ, have equal privileges as to membership, &c. with the people of God, and money is the principle consideration; a certain sum entitles to membership...etc"

Am I to believe that at a business meeting at Bethany, or Jeff Harris's church, the congregation decided to send these ministers to the Philippines, and India, without any previous visitation from the ministers? Am I also to believe that this newsletter that says that it is "to get wide distribution" and continues to say "Please feel free to copy this newsletter and distribute it to your church or to your friends and family" is not aimed at soliciting funds from the unregenerate and enemies of the Cross of Christ? If not then why is there a web site on the "world wide web"? If it is the church's desire to send ministers as the Black Rock Address asserts, and you claim that is the case in these mission activities, then why does the minister say that one of HIS goals (not the churches' goals) in coming to the Philippines was to unify our people? In another place he says in this newsletter which is to be "widely circulated" that "your financial assistance is greatly appreciated and needed. PLEASE BE A PARTNER WITH US IN OUR FUTURE MINISTRY HERE." "A partner" means "by contributing financial support," correct? I am a simple and plain man, Elder Bradley. Please tell me how this conforms with the Black Rock Address?

I see pictures of a sign that has a Pepsi sign on it that says Welcome! First National Primitive Baptist Fellowship Meeting.

Since when is Pepsi part of the Primitive Baptists Church and a sponsor of the church? Has there ever been a National Primitive Baptist Meeting anywhere sponsored by anyone? Do you honestly believe that any sound Primitive Baptist should believe that this activity is condoned, or in the spirit of the Black Rock Address? "White Unto Harvest" isn't even a biblical name. The scripture says "white already to harvest"... it's almost scriptural.. that's the way of all of this. It's almost scriptural but if its almost scriptural its altogether wrong! Now I am a patient man by the grace of God. I am earnestly contending for the faith that was once delivered to the saints. That faith wasn't sponsored by the world, or Pepsi, and I am eager to hear how you could possibly rationalize these activities as scriptural or conforming to the Black Rock Address. I and many, many brethren are eager to have you explain these incongruities.

Now on April 29, 2001, Bethany granted the Harters letters. How can a church send someone that isn't a member of that church anymore? Secondly, why would they have their memberships transferred out of Bethany and instead of transferring membership into one of these so called orderly churches in that part of the world, he constituted a church out of his own family of 14 in Davao City? Could it be that as his wife tells us they don't understand the language? Yet they are telling us that the preaching that they hear in a foreign language which they cannot understand is sound and that they are hearing credible confessions of faith. How can that be when they say they cannot understand the language?

How can anyone build a case for this? Don't get me asking you questions about order in India. I would be satisfied if you could tell how to rationalize this as that which the Primitive Baptist's have historically embraced or should put up with today. If you can rationalize this then I have only one other question and that is this: is there anything at all that you would consider out of order?

Brother Marty Hoogasian

Please Note: No further reply was received from Lasserre Bradley.

This page maintained by: Robert Webb - (bwebb9@juno.com)