To all new movements (like IFB, etc...)

[robt.k.fall]

If you restricted your comment to KJVOism and other matters, I would be writing this. However, you used the IFB in your thread title.

Yes, the description "Independent Fundamental Baptist" is less than 100 years old. The concept it refers to is not. Baptist churches by they very nature are Independent and autonomous. Please read your Hiscox and Wayland on this point. Regarding "Fundamental", my home church, Hamilton Square Baptist of San Francisco, California, was organized in 1881. That's a good 20 years before "The Fundamentals" was published. Further. 1881 was over 40 years (a generation) before the Modernist controversy came to a boiling point in the Northern Baptist Convention. Doctrinally, HSBC stands where it stood ("we hold to the commonly held doctrines of the Regular Baptist churches") in 1881.

Shouldn't there be some humility if your way of thinking is no more than a century old?
Like KJV onlyism- this is a new doctrine. The church never believed this for 1900 years!!! But YOU GUYS are right about it! Is that not arrogance?

Or this hodge podge of doctrine ecclectically chosen from Arminianism and Calvinism- which believes in Substitutionary Atonement which is picked from Calvinism AND Unlimited Atonement which is picked from Arminianism at the same time. Which believes in eternal security (Calvinism) AND resistable grace (Arminianism)- doctrines that simply do not go together.

But new movements make up this NEW set of doctrines and ACT LIKE JESUS OUGHT TO BE VERY THANKFUL THAT THIS MOVEMENT CAME AROUND WHEN IT DID! Because without it the church would have continued in darkness. But these NEW movements have the truth- thank heavens!

 

[Jerome]

Fundamentalism, as most of us on baptistboard are familiar with it, (Dr. Bob is a glaring example) is not much better than Pentecostalism along these lines.

Dr. Bob is a glaring example of whatever you are trying to denigrate with this thread? Are you serious?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Somehow, I think Luke wants all of us to rejoin the Mother Conventions (SBC\ABC). There are, however, many Primitive and Old Regular Baptist churches which have never belonged to either.

Dr. Bob is a glaring example of whatever you are trying to denigrate with this thread? Are you serious?

 

[Rippon]

Fundamentalism, as most of us on baptistboard are familiar with it, (Dr. Bob is a glaring example) is not much better than Pentecostalism along these lines.

Did you mean Dr.Bob is a glaring exception, rather than example? The adjective glaring is very negative. A glaring omission for example. But a glowing example is quite positive.

 

[Luke2427]

Dr. Bob is a glaring example of whatever you are trying to denigrate with this thread? Are you serious?

Dr. Bob is a great example of someone who was delivered by the grace of God from the Phariseism that is much of "fundamentalism".

Yes. I am serious about that. And he is too every time he gives a wonderful testimony to that fact.

 

[Luke2427]

Somehow, I think Luke wants all of us to rejoin the Mother Conventions (SBC\ABC). There are, however, many Primitive and Old Regular Baptist churches which have never belonged to either.

Allow me to clarify.

Thinking is the object of this thread.

Since movements are most often characterized by the thinking that gave rise to them, I addressed the subject of movements.

The Pentecostal movement is the result of pentecostalism which is a new way of thinking. The NEW THINKING is the problem. The new movement is OFTEN a result of new thinking.

KJVonlyism is new.

The thinking is the problem- not NECESSARILY the movement.

But if the movement is BASED on new thinking- it is a HUMONGOUS problem.

There are movements that are very new but are based on old thinking. By old thinking I mean thinking that has roots throughout much of church history.
These new movements are not the targets of my condemnation.

New movements based on new thinking- like dispensationalism or pentecostalism or KJVonlyism or silly fundamentalism (to be distinguished from the fundamentals of the faith)- these are the targets of my fiercest possible condemnations- and I think all Christians should join with me in this endeavor.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I would assume then you have no problems with the IFBs as they represent a thread present among Anglo-American Baptists going back to the London Confessions of the 17th century, through the Philadelphia Confession of the 18th and the New Hampshire of the 19th. Otherwise, would you have us merge with the Reformed and Lutherans or even the RCC?

Allow me to clarify.

Thinking is the object of this thread.

Since movements are most often characterized by the thinking that gave rise to them, I addressed the subject of movements.

The Pentecostal movement is the result of pentecostalism which is a new way of thinking. The NEW THINKING is the problem. The new movement is OFTEN a result of new thinking.

KJVonlyism is new.

The thinking is the problem- not NECESSARILY the movement.

But if the movement is BASED on new thinking- it is a HUMONGOUS problem.

There are movements that are very new but are based on old thinking. By old thinking I mean thinking that has roots throughout much of church history.
These new movements are not the targets of my condemnation.

New movements based on new thinking- like dispensationalism or pentecostalism or KJVonlyism or silly fundamentalism (to be distinguished from the fundamentals of the faith)- these are the targets of my fiercest possible condemnations- and I think all Christians should join with me in this endeavor.

 

[Luke2427]

I would assume then you have no problems with the IFBs as they represent a thread present among Anglo-American Baptists going back to the London Confessions of the 17th century, through the Philadelphia Confession of the 18th and the New Hampshire of the 19th. Otherwise, would you have us merge with the Reformed and Lutherans or even the RCC?

The advantage IFB's have in such a discussion as this is the slipperyness of the title IFB.

Many of us, if not most of us, who are not ourselves IFB but who've had dealings with the IFB are most familiar with it as a narrow minded, pharisaical, petty movement with a lot of new and silly extrabiblical standards and doctrines that are preached with great zeal on a regular basis from their pulpits.

But since there are also many good IFB churches, what happens in such a conversation as this is that someone like John of Japan comes along and claims that the MAJORITY of IFB churches are not as I described above.

Since that is not the experience of most of us the conversation comes to a stalemate.

My experience is based off of many churches I've personally been to, many more preachers whose tapes and cd's I've listened to, many camp meetings I am familiar with, the STATED standing of many of the more popular colleges in the IFB, the fact that what was for years and probably still is the LARGEST IFB church in the WORLD is First Baptist in Hammond Indiana which is terribly backwards and meets the descriptions above perfectly, etc...

It is this thinking that I condemn and I think it permeates a large protion of the IFB movement. You can argue otherwise if you like. You might be right. But I cannot help but speak the things which I have seen and heard.

Now if your thinking is not like that, as I am sure that MANY IFBs' thinking is not, then you do not fit in the category I am condemning.

But I am saying that that thinking which I enunciated above is new and should be condemned.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Luke.....my own brother has moved from a IFB Church that was totally "Nuts" to a IFB in NJ that has a Calvinist as the head pastor & rejects KJO mindsets.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Like many, you are making the mistake of conflating those who came out of the Southern Baptist Convention and those who came out of the Northern Baptist. As one author put it, "Separation from the Southern Baptist Convention was based on reaction to worldliness. Separation from the Northern Baptist Convention was based on doctrine." So, yes, in your region you'd see one type of IFB church. While out here in Northern California, I see another.

The advantage IFB's have in such a discussion as this is the slipperyness of the title IFB.

Many of us, if not most of us, who are not ourselves IFB but who've had dealings with the IFB are most familiar with it as a narrow minded, pharisaical, petty movement with a lot of new and silly extra biblical standards and doctrines that are preached with great zeal on a regular basis from their pulpits.

But since there are also many good IFB churches, what happens in such a conversation as this is that someone like John of Japan comes along and claims that the MAJORITY of IFB churches are not as I described above.

Since that is not the experience of most of us the conversation comes to a stalemate.

My experience is based off of many churches I've personally been to, many more preachers whose tapes and cd's I've listened to, many camp meetings I am familiar with, the STATED standing of many of the more popular colleges in the IFB, the fact that what was for years and probably still is the LARGEST IFB church in the WORLD is First Baptist in Hammond Indiana which is terribly backwards and meets the descriptions above perfectly, etc...

It is this thinking that I condemn and I think it permeates a large protion of the IFB movement. You can argue otherwise if you like. You might be right. But I cannot help but speak the things which I have seen and heard.

Now if your thinking is not like that, as I am sure that MANY IFBs' thinking is not, then you do not fit in the category I am condemning.

But I am saying that that thinking which I enunciated above is new and should be condemned.

 

[Luke2427]

Like many, you are making the mistake of conflating those who came out of the Southern Baptist Convention and those who came out of the Northern Baptist. As one author put it, "Separation from the Southern Baptist Convention was based on reaction to worldliness. Separation from the Northern Baptist Convention was based on doctrine." So, yes, in your region you'd see one type of IFB church. While out here in Northern California, I see another.

You are probably right.

What I am criticizing is the thinking of the IFB's I am familiar with- like Jack Hyles, Tony Hudson, Phil Kidd, etc, etc, etc...

These types and hundreds of churches like them are the ones who promote this new doctrine of KJVonlyism, extrabiblical standards, etc...

 

[Don]

You are probably right.

What I am criticizing is the thinking of the IFB's I am familiar with- like Jack Hyles, Tony Hudson, Phil Kidd, etc, etc, etc...

These types and hundreds of churches like them are the ones who promote this new doctrine of KJVonlyism, extrabiblical standards, etc...

"Hundreds"?

 

[michael-acts17:11]

"Hundreds"?

It's hard to find one in the South that isn't centered on extra-biblical standards & pastoral authority over spiritual liberty. I am familiar with dozens of them & the only one I ever found that was focused on true Biblical teaching was in Pennsylvania; not a single one in the South.

 

[Don]

It's hard to find one in the South that isn't centered on extra-biblical standards & pastoral authority over spiritual liberty. I am familiar with dozens of them & the only one I ever found that was focused on true Biblical teaching was in Pennsylvania; not a single one in the South.

My question is not about the extra-biblical teaching; I, too, spent a few years in Mississippi and am familiar with dozens of them throughout that area.

My question is exactly as I wrote it: "Hundreds"?

 

[Luke2427]

My question is not about the extra-biblical teaching; I, too, spent a few years in Mississippi and am familiar with dozens of them throughout that area.

My question is exactly as I wrote it: "Hundreds"?

Sure. There are thousands of IFB churches.

It is no stretch to based on the sampling information that many of us have experienced first hand that hundreds of them are like this.

 

[Don]

Considering that you've already admitted one statistical error (northern baptist vice southern baptist), let's consider the rest of the sampling: there are GARBC baptists, landmark baptists, reformed baptists, southern baptists who aren't members of the SBC, and oh-so-many others of differing titles and/or associations that can be identified as independent, fundamental, and/or independent fundamental. That can certainly lead to a conclusion of thousands.

Now, the number of those in the circle of Hyles-Anderson vice Bible Baptist out of Springfield, or Heartland out of Oklahoma City, or any of the several on the west coast, just to name a few that distinguish themselves from the HAC crowd. . .Not to mention the Ruckmanites, who are separate from HAC or the others. . .and the growing conclusion is that your "sampling" is merely conjecture based on anectdote.

Whereas, if you had avoided the concrete terminology ("there are hundreds") which tends to sensationalism, and said something along the lines of "there are possibly hundreds," there would be no fault with what you wrote. But since it's obvious that you were trying to vent rather than actually make a point, your appeal to emotion is understandable.

 

[thomas15]

Shouldn't there be some humility if your way of thinking is no more than a century old?
Like KJV onlyism- this is a new doctrine. The church never believed this for 1900 years!!! But YOU GUYS are right about it! Is that not arrogance?

Yes of course Luke2427 and we should also remember that anything that is old, say 1000 years old like the old Catholic Church should not be questioned due to it's old age. Old doctrine good, new doctrine bad.

 

[JesusFan]

Allow me to clarify.

Thinking is the object of this thread.

Since movements are most often characterized by the thinking that gave rise to them, I addressed the subject of movements.

The Pentecostal movement is the result of pentecostalism which is a new way of thinking. The NEW THINKING is the problem. The new movement is OFTEN a result of new thinking.

KJVonlyism is new.

The thinking is the problem- not NECESSARILY the movement.

But if the movement is BASED on new thinking- it is a HUMONGOUS problem.

There are movements that are very new but are based on old thinking. By old thinking I mean thinking that has roots throughout much of church history.
These new movements are not the targets of my condemnation.

New movements based on new thinking- like dispensationalism or pentecostalism or KJVonlyism or silly fundamentalism (to be distinguished from the fundamentals of the faith)- these are the targets of my fiercest possible condemnations- and I think all Christians should join with me in this endeavor.

remember though that the pentacostal/Charasmatic "camp" is much broader than what you are portraying, as not ALL feel the same way theologically!
"old time" costalists do see second act of Grace, tongue speaking evidence of that, but baptist in eschatology/bible/, fall under free will side...

"new" ones, charasmatics, tend to see it more as 'fulness" of the HS, tongues a sign of that, tend to be also though more into "kooky" theology like WOF/prosperity etc!

Would say DR Gorden fee/wayne Grudem examples of 'scholarly" teachers within those who are open to the "bapticostal" camp![/quote]

 

[Luke2427]

Considering that you've already admitted one statistical error (northern baptist vice southern baptist), let's consider the rest of the sampling: there are GARBC baptists, landmark baptists, reformed baptists, southern baptists who aren't members of the SBC, and oh-so-many others of differing titles and/or associations that can be identified as independent, fundamental, and/or independent fundamental. That can certainly lead to a conclusion of thousands.

Now, the number of those in the circle of Hyles-Anderson vice Bible Baptist out of Springfield, or Heartland out of Oklahoma City, or any of the several on the west coast, just to name a few that distinguish themselves from the HAC crowd. . .Not to mention the Ruckmanites, who are separate from HAC or the others. . .and the growing conclusion is that your "sampling" is merely conjecture based on anectdote.

Whereas, if you had avoided the concrete terminology ("there are hundreds") which tends to sensationalism, and said something along the lines of "there are possibly hundreds," there would be no fault with what you wrote. But since it's obvious that you were trying to vent rather than actually make a point, your appeal to emotion is understandable.

My motivation was not JUST to vent. It was to confront this, what I consider to be, wickedness.

But you are probably right. Better language would be, "possibly hundreds..."

I concede that good point.

 

[Luke2427]

Yes of course Luke2427 and we should also remember that anything that is old, say 1000 years old like the old Catholic Church should not be questioned due to it's old age. Old doctrine good, new doctrine bad.

You missed it.

No one on this thread has made an argument that old things should not be questioned.

The argument is that new things SHOULD be questioned.