Where is the IFB Sytematic Theology?

Let's start with this first. What exactly am I wrong about, that I'm too proud to admit?

And there you have it, folks; exactly what some of us have been trying to say.

Yup. Also read quite a few others.

First you intimate that all Christians should be the same; then you state that people who are alike NEVER do great things.

If people who are alike never do great things, why do you deny the scriptures you've been presented that say we all have different abilities--and thus support exactly what you say about being different? If you truly propose that we should all be different, then why do you want us all to do things the same exact way?

 

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.

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.

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)

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.

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?"

 

You sure add alot of things to my post that I didn't think in my head much less say.

I have nothing to recant. I have nothing to repent for. This thread is a diliberate attempt to bash IFB, plain and simple. There is no question to be answered.

i am IFB because of what I believe, not because of church history. And for Luke to make the argument that his history is better than my history is not only childish, but it is also unchristian. No caring pastor would put one's knowledge of church history over the teaching of the gospel.

No sinner is going to read Luke's childish tirades on here and want to be like him, which means they will be pushed away from the gospel rather than being drawn to it.

Luke is doing much to damage the Kingdom of God.

Luke's whole argument in this thread is immature and arrogant, and doesn't deserve an answer, except to be laughed at.

John

 

BTW Fredrick

I don't care if my church history can be validated or not. It doesn't change my faith in God or my feelings about my church, or the doctrine my church teaches.

It is immaterial, except to people like you and Luke

John

 

FIDDLESTICKS :

 

In reality it is sad.

For someone, like Luke2427, to feel such strong need to refer back to church history and the writings of others to justify their beliefs shows a desperate need for certainty they either don't possess or are unable to have confidence in. If he had confidence in the Word of God as he should have, he would be able to rest in the complete work of Christ on the cross, and the leading of the Holy Spirit to guide him into all truth.

Judging by his viewpoints, someone far removed from the higher institutes of learning, who had only God and His Word for instruction would be hopelessly doomed to failure. Perhaps with more maturity he will outgrow this need for support from others and learn to trust in God alone.

 

You and I are just talking past each other. You keep talking about standing against evil, which I've never argued; in fact, I can point to at least one post where I said you weren't wrong. Standing against evil was never my contention. I keep talking about your style/method of doing it, and your use of words that indicate violent destruction to justify yourself; and you keep coming back to standing against evil. You acknowledged that we should start in tenderness; at that point, the conversation was over.

 

This shows a sad ignorance of fundamentalist history, which has a clear origin and continued history within evangelicalism. There have been many scholarly books written about it. I suggest these (to just get started) by non-fundamentalist scholars for someone really serious about understanding the movement: Fundamentalism and American Culture by George Marsden, and The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism by Earnest Sandeen. For that matter, try my non-fundamentalist brother's recent volume: The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family, by Andrew Himes.

There are also many dissertations out there. Recently while visiting our son at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary I sat down in the library and read through the excellent Ph. D. dissertation of Nathan Finn, a history prof there: “The Development of Baptist Fundamentalism in the South.”

 

GLFrederick - a very reasoned answer to SeekingTheTruth.

One question, though, and this goes to STT's observation that this was a thread started to bash IFBers--while I agree with you that such questions should be able to be answered, why was this thread started with a focus on IFB?

Why not also Landmark Baptists? Or American Baptists? Or GARBC? Or Freewill Baptists? Are IFBers (or rather, some IFBers) the only ones making such historical claims?

When one particular group is singled out to ask the question of, doesn't that indicate a particular viewpoint towards that group?

 

This is why I said at the beginning that Luke was confused. He was attacking from the start Landmarkism rather than independent Baptists, his ostensible target.

(1) Landmarkism exists in many Baptist groups. Virtually all Missionary Baptists are Landmarkers. The belief is also rife in the SBC. I daresay the non-IBF group that Luke came out of (in spite of his occasional claims to be an ex-IFBer), the Freewill Baptists, have a lot of Landmarkers in them. And by the way, the Primitive Baptists are also very close to Landmarkism in their ecclesiology. Maybe Luke will pick on them next, just to be fair.

(2) On the other hand, many groups within the independent Baptist are not Landmarkers: the FBF, the GARB, etc. Graduates of MBBC, BJU, Calvary and Detroit and Central seminaries, Tennessee Temple and other schools are not/were not taught Landmarkism. I could go on.

 

Your OP title was about IFB. Yet the content was about Landmarkism. They are not one and the same by a long shot.

I've never thought you to be dishonest. Just mixed up. You have appeared in various places (don't ask for quotes) to equate the Freewill Baptists with independent Baptists, but they have completely different doctrines and histories. within the Baptist paradigm. For example, IFBs almost never believe that you can lose your salvation.

I suggest that before starting such a thread next time you take a good course in Baptist history if you have not done so yet. Or if you have, get up to date by reading for yourself a solid Baptist history such as The Baptist Heritage by Leon McBeth (SBC).

 

Wow. Just, wow.

I comment on how you're espousing the way we should stand against evil; you respond about standing against evil using destructive language. I further comment on your use of destructive language, you respond with we're all commanded to stand against evil. I respond that yes, we should all stand against evil, but we don't all stand against it the same way; you respond with we should all stand against evil, utilizing the same destructive language. I comment that you're not wrong, you just don't have to be a jerk about the way you do it; and you comment that we're all commanded to stand against evil. I respond that now your argument seems to be focusing on the command to stand against evil, which no one has said otherwise; and you respond with "it's about the way you stand against evil."

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

 

"Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech [be] alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man."

 

How do you espouse an opinion on the history of the church as "doctrine'?

It is not doctrine. There is nothing biblical or unbiblical about it.

This is why I say that this thread is a joke. It starts off with a premise that one's belief in church history equates to doctrine.

Well, it doesn't. As far as church doctrine or Bible doctrine go, it is a non issue.

This is totally ridiculous, and the only intent here is to bash IFB.

John