Where is the IFB Sytematic Theology?

[Jerome]

"the Christian emperors were as bad as the Pagan, for the Christian emperors were not Christians, nor were they members, as I believe, of a Christian Church. The Christian Church, and especially that Church of which we are still members, which has never defiled its garments, but which, never having had any alliance with the Church of Rome, has never needed to be reformed,—that Church under its different names, Paulitians, Novations, Albigenses, Lollards, Wyckliffites, Anabaptists, Baptists, has always suffered. It matters not what state, what Church, may have been dominant, whether it has been Christian or anti-Christian, the pure Church of Christ has always been the victim of persecution" —Charles Spurgeon, "Fire! Fire! Fire!"


"On this very spot where you now sit, long before there were any Lutherans or Calvinists, we read that, “three Anabaptists were burnt at the Butts at Newing-ton.” Our sires were Protestants before the Protestants! They were part of a long line of men who stood firm when the mass of the Church turned this way and that! They were, in fact, the most bold and thoroughgoing of all the adherents of the Apostolic and Scriptural Church and, therefore, they were persecuted by prelates and abhorred by priests. When I hear Ritualists talking of their ancient Church, I blush to think that Englishmen should claim kinship with the Roman Antichrist, whose yoke our fathers tore from off their necks! The pedigree of every Anglican priest must, of necessity, have flowed through the Dead Sea of Popery. Our limpid streamlet runs not through that slough of filthiness, but comes down pure from earliest ages! Our doctrines and ordinances remain as they were delivered unto us by our Lord! Neither have we desired to add the traditions of men to them.
. . . .
By your sires who were drowned by the hundreds for refusing homage to a superstitious rite, men who neither feared Luther nor the Pope, and were hated of all men and even by Reformers because they occupied a standpoint still bolder, clearer, and more advanced than all others" —Charles Spurgeon, "The Unbroken Line"

 

[seekingthetruth]

We are best identified with what schools we went to. I went to BJU, Tennessee Temple (BA), Temple Baptist Seminary and Maranatha Baptist Graduate School (MA), which is now a seminary. Add all of that to John R. Rice's Christo-centric theology and you have what I am.

You are right. This gives me an oppurtunity to explain the teachings of the man I have studied under for 10 years now. He is my pastor. He has a Masters in Theology from New Brunswick Bible Institute.

http://nbbi.ca/

They are non=denominational and independent and fundamental. They don't call themselves Baptist.

Our church doesn't call ourselves Baptist by denomination, but by faith. We don't belong to a denomination but our befiefs and practices are Baptist in heritage and doctrine. This church is very similiar to the SBC church I grew up in down south 50 years ago.

All IFB are not the same. In my area there are 4 IFB churches. Two with NBBI grads as pastors and one with a Pensacola Bible College grad as pastor. All three of these are good churches with sound doctrine.

The fourth church in our area has a Hyles Anderson grad as it's pastor. And he is the typical tyrantical man-o-god. Very legalistic. The members kids have to attend their school, the members have to prove they are titheing 10% (they have a credit union to help keep up with this). you have to go to every service for 6 months to apply to be a member, and then you have to spend the next six months in a new members class before you are accepted. (That's one whole year you to spend for the sole purpose of proving that you are really saved). They even have a "give it all Sunday" once a year where every member is required to give every penney that comes into the household that week to the church. If a woman wears pants she is asked to leave. If a man has long hair or tatoos he is asked to get a haircut or cover his tatoos or leave. And dont even think about body peircings!!!!!

This is the kind of IFB church that gives IFB a bad name, but it is not the majority of churches. It is a trend in IFB circles to start your own Bible College. I think that if you checked you would find that the little schools that are legalistic have some kind of tie to Hyles Anderson, either directly or by graduates from there.

SBC has some issues with female pastors and gay membership. We all have some bad doctrines that have crept in, but don't label all churches within a group as bad because of a few.

Or worse, don't proclaim all IFB churches as cults and heretical, and theives of doctrine.

John

 

[John of Japan]

You are right. This gives me an oppurtunity to explain the teachings of the man I have studied under for 10 years now. He is my pastor. He has a Masters in Theology from New Brunswick Bible Institute.

http://nbbi.ca/

They are non=denominational and independent and fundamental. They don't call themselves Baptist.

Our church doesn't call ourselves Baptist by denomination, but by faith. We don't belong to a denomination but our befiefs and practices are Baptist in heritage and doctrine. This church is very similiar to the SBC church I grew up in down south 50 years ago.

All IFB are not the same. In my area there are 4 IFB churches. Two with NBBI grads as pastors and one with a Pensacola Bible College grad as pastor. All three of these are good churches with sound doctrine.

The fourth church in our area has a Hyles Anderson grad as it's pastor. And he is the typical tyrantical man-o-god. Very legalistic. The members kids have to attend their school, the members have to prove they are titheing 10% (they have a credit union to help keep up with this). you have to go to every service for 6 months to apply to be a member, and then you have to spend the next six months in a new members class before you are accepted. (That's one whole year you to spend for the sole purpose of proving that you are really saved). They even have a "give it all Sunday" once a year where every member is required to give every penney that comes into the household that week to the church. If a woman wears pants she is asked to leave. If a man has long hair or tatoos he is asked to get a haircut or cover his tatoos or leave. And dont even think about body peircings!!!!!

This is the kind of IFB church that gives IFB a bad name, but it is not the majority of churches. It is a trend in IFB circles to start your own Bible College. I think that if you checked you would find that the little schools that are legalistic have some kind of tie to Hyles Anderson, either directly or by graduates from there.

SBC has some issues with female pastors and gay membership. We all have some bad doctrines that have crept in, but don't label all churches within a group as bad because of a few.

Or worse, don't proclaim all IFB churches as cults and heretical, and theives of doctrine.

John

As you have aptly demonstrated here, anyone who tries to put all IFB churches in the same box is bound to be stymied. :smilewinkgrin:

And as long as I'm on it, there are Baptist groups that people lump together with us that are clearly not IFB, either by history or doctrine. Those include the Freewill Baptists, the Missionary Baptists, etc.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke

I am IFB, and I am a Christian saved by Grace.

Why do you think I am the enemy?

John the cultist

You and I have been over this more than a couple dozen times, STT.

It is PHILOSOPHY not PERSONS that I count the enemy.

I count the IFB philosophy which I have encountered in my life and which most members of BB attest that they have encountered in their lives- I count that to be one of my enemies.

I count it MY enemy because I think it is the enemy of Christ.

But that there are some good IFB's who do not employ these heretical viewpoints is without question.

I count them my brothers in Christ.





I suppose at this point you will say, "So where have I espoused heresy in all of our exchanges?"

And then we will go on the merry go round again...

 

[seekingthetruth]

You and I have been over this more than a couple dozen times, STT.

It is PHILOSOPHY not PERSONS that I count the enemy.

I count the IFB philosophy which I have encountered in my life and which most members of BB attest that they have encountered in their lives- I count that to be one of my enemies.

I count it MY enemy because I think it is the enemy of Christ.

But that there are some good IFB's who do not employ these heretical viewpoints is without question.

I count them my brothers in Christ.





I suppose at this point you will say, "So where have I espoused heresy in all of our exchanges?"

And then we will go on the merry go round again...

Nope, not gonna say that.

You are my brother in Christ and it is time we both acknowledge such.

As far as IFB, read my post #22. That's all I can tell you about my church.

John

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Know that DHK holds that there was a "First baptist Church of jerusalem", but is there ANY proof of there being baptists before Anabaptists movement?

Don't "baptists" as a while, regardless if reformed/free will etc hold to 'core essentials" doctrinal beliefs?

The Petrobusians, named after their founder Peter do Bruys (burnt at the stake in 1126) denied infant baptism, baptizing only those who made a profession of faith, refused to venerate the cross, denied transubstantiation and the Mass, denied that prayers or good works coulsd help those already dead, celibacy and the holiness of church buildings.

Many Waldensians also baptized only believers.

Steve

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Know that DHK holds that there was a "First baptist Church of jerusalem", but is there ANY proof of there being baptists before Anabaptists movement?

Don't "baptists" as a while, regardless if reformed/free will etc hold to 'core essentials" doctrinal beliefs?

The Petrobusians, named after their founder Peter do Bruys (burnt at the stake in 1126) denied infant baptism, baptizing only those who made a profession of faith, refused to venerate the cross, denied transubstantiation and the Mass, denied that prayers or good works could help those already dead, celibacy and the holiness of church buildings.

Many Waldensians also baptized only believers.

Steve

 

[dcorbett]

The Petrobusians, named after their founder Peter do Bruys (burnt at the stake in 1126) denied infant baptism, baptizing only those who made a profession of faith, refused to venerate the cross, denied transubstantiation and the Mass, denied that prayers or good works could help those already dead, celibacy and the holiness of church buildings.

Many Waldensians also baptized only believers.

Steve

And this is the line that we believe ALL Baptists came down through....and every Independent Baptist Church is different....that is why they are called INDEPENDENT!!! But we all believe the Baptist Distinctives. That is what makes us Baptists.

I don't know what the fascination and obsession is in ripping up IFB people. THAT is something I would love to have the answer to.

 

[Don]

And this is the line that we believe ALL Baptists came down through....and every Independent Baptist Church is different....that is why they are called INDEPENDENT!!! But we all believe the Baptist Distinctives. That is what makes us Baptists.

I don't know what the fascination and obsession is in ripping up IFB people. THAT is something I would love to have the answer to.

Well, ya know, sometimes folks believe they're standing for something, and they get so caught up in standing against just about everything else, that they sometimes reach a point where they forget that standing for is more important than standing against.

Just sayin'.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Well, ya know, sometimes folks believe they're standing for something, and they get so caught up in standing against just about everything else, that they sometimes reach a point where they forget that standing for is more important than standing against.

Just sayin'.

Very well put!

Dr. John R. Rice said it about the same way, as I recall.

 

[Rippon]

Very well put!

Dr. John R. Rice said it about the same way, as I recall.

In Murray's bio of Dr.D.M. Lloyd-Jones it says that the latter had a meeting with T.T.Shields in Toronto, I think. Shields was a proud polemical preacher --his preaching was primary devoted to denouncing. The young DMJ tried to get him to see that it was necessary at times,but focusing one's energies in that way is not so productive or God-honoring.

 

[JesusFan]

The Petrobusians, named after their founder Peter do Bruys (burnt at the stake in 1126) denied infant baptism, baptizing only those who made a profession of faith, refused to venerate the cross, denied transubstantiation and the Mass, denied that prayers or good works could help those already dead, celibacy and the holiness of church buildings.

Many Waldensians also baptized only believers.

Steve

but that would be the FIRST time that we would recognize 'baptists" within the Christian Church?

and that we CANNOT claim "Apostolic" succression back to the Apostles as being the First baptists, as catholics do for their papacy?

 

[John of Japan]

but that would be the FIRST time that we would recognize 'baptists" within the Christian Church?

and that we CANNOT claim "Apostolic" succression back to the Apostles as being the First baptists, as catholics do for their papacy?

In my view, "apostolic succession" is unbiblical and unneeded by Baptists. The apostles were just missionaries.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

but that would be the FIRST time that we would recognize 'baptists" within the Christian Church?

Absolutely not. The earliest Christian writings to mention baptism (Didache and Justin Martyr) know nothing of infant 'baptism' but only the real thing.

and that we CANNOT claim "Apostolic" succession back to the Apostles as being the First baptists, as catholics do for their papacy?

If we don't believe that the Apostles were baptists, we'd better all become Presbyterians!

Actually, all that matters is that the Bible teaches Believers' baptism by immersion. I only mentioned the Petrobusians as a point of interest.

Whether the practice of Believers' Baptism was lost for a period of time or whether it continued down the ages is an interesting question, but not an important one.

Steve

 

[JesusFan]

Absolutely not. The earliest Christian writings to mention baptism (Didache and Justin Martyr) know nothing of infant 'baptism' but only the real thing.

If we don't believe that the Apostles were baptists, we'd better all become Presbyterians!

Actually, all that matters is that the Bible teaches Believers' baptism by immersion. I only mentioned the Petrobusians as a point of interest.

Whether the practice of Believers' Baptism was lost for a period of time or whether it continued down the ages is an interesting question, but not an important one.

Steve

My point was that we baptists should NOT be tracing back to Apostles nor early Church as being where we all started at, as the Church was Just "Christian" untill the official formation of RCC...

 

[Luke2427]

In Murray's bio of Dr.D.M. Lloyd-Jones it says that the latter had a meeting with T.T.Shields in Toronto, I think. Shields was a proud polemical preacher --his preaching was primary devoted to denouncing. The young DMJ tried to get him to see that it was necessary at times,but focusing one's energies in that way is not so productive or God-honoring.

I think there's something to that.

I think our primary task is to preach truth; not expose error.

But exposing error that blinds minds from truth is very important as well. It is largely neglected today in our religious culture, imo. Our pulpits are very "wormy" here.

Because it is largely neglected, the few of us who believe it ought to be done have to do more of it because we have little help.

We see this on bb.

I don't think I'd have to be so aggressive if more right thinking people believed in demolishing arguments and EVERY pretense that sets itself up against the knowledge of God on here. (II Corinthians 10:5)

I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the idea that God does not always know all there is to ever know about everything at all times.

I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the idea that the King James translation is inerrant and infallible.

I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the idea that it is not necessary to realize, yield to and confess the fact that Jesus Christ is LORD for salvation (This IS repentance, This IS faith).

I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the idea that God speaks to people apart from Scripture and that these people do not need the Historic Christian Faith for anything.

I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the flawed hermeneutic that leads people to believe, and worse to preach, that things are sin and wrong which the Bible does not condemn- because this same hermeneutic is what gives rise to all kinds of heresy.

And the list goes on...

 

[Don]

....I don't think I'd have to be so aggressive if more right thinking people believed in demolishing arguments and EVERY pretense that sets itself up against the knowledge of God on here. (II Corinthians 10:5)

I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the idea that God does not always know all there is to ever know about everything at all times.

Who's been denying God's omniscience? If you think every one of us needs to gang up on that individual or group of people, let's be crystal clear about who we're lynching.

I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the idea that the King James translation is inerrant and infallible.

No argument there. But let's not stop with the King James; let's make sure we include the other, even more errant and fallible versions.

I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the idea that it is not necessary to realize, yield to and confess the fact that Jesus Christ is LORD for salvation (This IS repentance, This IS faith).

Again, let us know who is proposing this, so we can pull together the mob and string the blasphemer up.

I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the idea that God speaks to people apart from Scripture and that these people do not need the Historic Christian Faith for anything.

Just me thinking here, but shouldn't this be two different subjects? "Apart from Scripture," I totally agree with. We should be fully embracing the idea that God speaks to people through Scripture.

Not needing the historic Christian faith for anything...well, that's actually a separate issue from the one about "apart from Scripture."

I think EVERY ONE of us ought to be demolishing the flawed hermeneutic that leads people to believe, and worse to preach, that things are sin and wrong which the Bible does not condemn- because this same hermeneutic is what gives rise to all kinds of heresy.

To a degree, I disagree with you here. Simply because it's not specifically identified in the Bible, does not lend itself to saying we shouldn't identify it as sin. Cocaine is not specifically identified in the Bible; but the principles exist in Scripture that tell us a biblically-based thinking person knows that cocaine use is sinful.

On the other hand, since you're obviously thinking about this from a hyper-fundamental IFB point of view, you have a point: Some hyper-IFBs do decide that skirt length and tithing is more important than God's love for sinners.

And the list goes on...

Hmmm...there's a lot of "demolishing" going on there. One has to wonder, when do you have any time to build something?

 

[Luke2427]

Who's been denying God's omniscience? If you think every one of us needs to gang up on that individual or group of people, let's be crystal clear about who we're lynching.


No argument there. But let's not stop with the King James; let's make sure we include the other, even more errant and fallible versions.


Again, let us know who is proposing this, so we can pull together the mob and string the blasphemer up.


Just me thinking here, but shouldn't this be two different subjects? "Apart from Scripture," I totally agree with. We should be fully embracing the idea that God speaks to people through Scripture.

Not needing the historic Christian faith for anything...well, that's actually a separate issue from the one about "apart from Scripture."


To a degree, I disagree with you here. Simply because it's not specifically identified in the Bible, does not lend itself to saying we shouldn't identify it as sin. Cocaine is not specifically identified in the Bible; but the principles exist in Scripture that tell us a biblically-based thinking person knows that cocaine use is sinful.

On the other hand, since you're obviously thinking about this from a hyper-fundamental IFB point of view, you have a point: Some hyper-IFBs do decide that skirt length and tithing is more important than God's love for sinners.


Hmmm...there's a lot of "demolishing" going on there. One has to wonder, when do you have any time to build something?

I think you know better than most of this. I'm not going to respond to it. But I will say to you that you have to demolish before you can build up.
Scripture affirms this as I'm sure you know.

 

[Don]

I think you know better than most of this. I'm not going to respond to it.

Well, that there's the problem, ol' boy. You must be specific in your claims, or you end up irritating a lot of people that you're not actually addressing. Why do you think you end up defending yourself so much?

But I will say to you that you have to demolish before you can build up.

I think my point is clear: You're so busy on this board "demolishing," that it's nigh impossible to point at anything you've "built."

Just a caution: when all you ever do is focus on demolishing, it becomes easy to miss the parts that should be left.

If I were to put it another way: When it comes to communication, most of your wording is "negative" ("demolish" is a negative connotation, for example); very rarely do we see positive. That kind of mentality breeds more negativity, until all you're doing is thinking about the negative aspects, and becoming a negative person. I'm not saying that's happening to you; just cautioning so that it doesn't.

 

[Luke2427]

Well, that there's the problem, ol' boy. You must be specific in your claims, or you end up irritating a lot of people that you're not actually addressing. Why do you think you end up defending yourself so much?

Because people do not like to be told that what they preach is wrong. And because they are not used to being told that- this is because so few will do what God commanded them to do in this age of tolerance and acceptance.

It's that simple.

Being right biblically both doctrinally and methodologically is a lot more important to me than whether or not I am accepted.

Wesley said, "Law to the proud- grace to the humble." That's the biblical pattern.

When I say, "I think you are dead wrong on this and I wish you'd reconsider," and they say, "You may be right. Let me tell you why I think the way I think and you critique it," that's humility. We address that kind of attitude with grace.

When they say, "I don't NEED any body to help me interpret the Bible- not YOU, not the Historic Christian Church- not anybody!! God speaks to me!"

That is arrogance and it ought to be condemned- not coddled, like you would have Christians do.

I think my point is clear: You're so busy on this board "demolishing," that it's nigh impossible to point at anything you've "built."

And you ought to point out where you've done much demolition yourself- because there is a HECK of a lot of it you are supposed to be doing on this forum.

When you build before you demolish what is there- you are simply building a good house on a terrible foundation- and your effort is wasted.

If I were to put it another way: When it comes to communication, most of your wording is "negative" ("demolish" is a negative connotation, for example); very rarely do we see positive.

That is also what you see in the Gospels and epistles and prophets as well.

You really, really, really ought to pause and consider that, Don. You really should.

That kind of mentality breeds more negativity, until all you're doing is thinking about the negative aspects, and becoming a negative person.

So?

Where is being negative condemned in Scripture?

The prophets were a negative bunch, weren't they?

The Apostles were, too.

And Jesus was forever saying, "Your thinking is dead wrong on this."

That's what I am doing on bb. And it is what God commands you to do, too.

This idea that building is good and demolition is not as good is cultural- not biblical. It is a fad in this tolerance obsessed culture in which you and I were raised.

This has subconsciously driven the way you think about this. And it has done the same to most of us in this culture.

People who are willing to stop and question that thinking and submit it to biblical scrutiny, imo, will leave it for the glory of God.