Every camp has it's doctrines that they have adopted. Even Calvinism has adopted doctrines from other religions, like RCC for instance. If IFB pastors agree with a doctrine from another camp should they reject it anyway because it wasn't their original idea? Of course not.
I believe that you are either intentionally missing the point (because of the original poster) or you have not thought through your response very well.
Yes, everyone HAS borrowed from those who came before in Christian circles. That is, in large part, because if the doctrine is "Christian" it has roots anchored firmly in Scripture and we all share that (or should!).
But that is not the question Luke2427 asked in this case, and in fact, your answer is the correct answer, but specifically, Luke asked why it was that IFB who disavow ALL other denominations or sects and offer a history (that they cannot validate) that states that they have "always existed" and stem directly to the original apostles of Christ, and in some cases directly from John the Baptist. In THAT CONTEXT, they cannot "borrow" from any other theological tradition and yet remain as autonomous and separate as their claims suggest.
Second, (again and again...) "Calvinism" is not a denomination, nor a sect, nor a group. It is a particular popular handle granted to a very specific set of
doctrines that pertain to a the logical steps used to describe an aspect of soteriolgy.
Everybody adopts some doctrines and rejects others. Basically, in my IFB church, we don't follow any creed or confession. We don't have a church covenent. Our beliefs are those passed down and evolving for hundreds of years. Along the way, light has been shed where it wasn't before and therefore doctrines have been added or dropped. But the basic Baptist doctrine of saved by Grace, and believer's baptism has endured for hundreds of years.
Agreed, save for the FACT that there are "fundamentals of the faith" (which is NOT the same as fundamentalism) that all MUST hold in order to be properly called "Christian." Anyone who disavows certain critical doctrines disavows the God of the Bible.
As far as not holding any creed or confession, I would beg to differ. You have one and everyone in your church knows it. You just call it something else. The proof of this is that you all know very clearly what it is that you stand for and what it is that you do not, and much of what is included in that set of doctrines is not found directly in a Bible proof-text, but rather is an interpretation of several or multiple verses and passages, and as such is effectively the same thing as a creed or confession. Your pride may blind you to that fact, but fact it is. That what you hold as truth has been "passed down and evolving for hundreds of years" speaks to my statement.
Also, you are not the sole arbiters of "believer's baptism" or "saved by grace." In case you haven't noticed, they are found in the Bible and held by most of the world's Christians past and present, and hopefully, prayerfully, future as well.
Luke has picked a fight here that is non-existent, so how can he win a round when there is no fight in the first place?
In this case, Luke2427 asked a series of questions that, so far, no one (save John of Japan) has even attempted to answer. Your character assassination and redirecting of the issue into rabbit trails, red herrings, and straw man arguments seems to indicate that Luke2427 hit a raw nerve with some on the board. What of Peter, who said, "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. (1Pe 3:15-16)
And how can any IFB respond to the ridiculous questions he has asked? All he has done is used some twisted logic in order to try to show how much smarter he thinks he is than the average IFB.
Very simply... IF there are answers. Of course, if it turns out that your history cannot be validated and you have no good responses for very good questions that should be asked, then it is not Luke2427 who is at fault. But, of course, it is far easier to attack a man than it is to search your own traditions to make sure that they are, in the Berean sense, biblical, true, and coherent.
Luke's questions have nothing at all to do with "how smart" he thinks he is, or how stupid you think he is. He just asked questions that ANY religious sect ought to be able to answer in less than 30 seconds -- IF -- they actually have the history that they purport to have. Any Catholic could answer the questions as can I, a Southern Baptist. Same for Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and other groups. Each knows that they have built their doctrines on the Bible and on the men whom God has enlightened to interpret that Bible down through the ages.
This whole thread is just a sad attempt by a hater to bash IFB.
I can see how and why you might think so, but again, you fail to notice that the questions are not that difficult but they DO probe your own groups inability to stand on their own published history. Nothing evil, nor particularly bashing about the questions posed -- except that you have no answers so you are forced to either attack the man or recant. I'd suggest recanting, it is better to repent and seek God's truth than to attack another believer, or is that also part of your doctrine "handed down and evolved over hundreds of years?"
:
