IFB compared to Baptist churches

The various churches are found in Rev. 2 & 3. They varied a lot.

 

Hmmmmph! Those who don't know to capitalize the name of our Lord and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, are probably preaching a false gospel right now. Learn some proper punctuation, and don't dishonor the Lord's name. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Amen.

I am IFB, we have ladies who wear pants,
men who wear tee shirts, we are internet savvy, and my IFB church has a website and a network of computers and sound equipment, but what
is more important is....

We heard a sermon tonight on "I preach Christ crucified" which was excellent and very heart-convicting. What our Pastor was preaching can be condensed to this:

If you attend a church that puts anything in front of Christ, get
out of it and go to one that puts Christ first.

 

What's that saying "apples and oranges"....we are talking about English. Not an archaic language that no one uses in day to day life.

 

I note that you set your IFB congregation against the others who do not see things as yours does. That is telling of itself.

I also notice that one of the primary traits of all Baptist congregations whether SBC, IFB, GARB, etc., is that we preach Christ crucified. That IS our message. The rest is still worthy of exposition, for we also preach the entire Bible, but the Cross is always THE issue and THE hurdle that we dare not lower.

 

I hope that you do not leave Jesus hanging on the cross in your theology and practice.

 

Are you trying to be obnoxious or do you really think that ANY Baptist church fails to recognize the Resurrection of Christ? I am no Catholic. Certainly Christ is resurrected from the dead and sits at the right hand of God the Father, and certainly we await His return!

When I wrote that, I had in mind this passage from Paul:

1 Cor. 1:23 (KJV)
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;


For, that is what we do -- those who are true believers and orthodox -- not heterodox -- in our biblical faith and practice.

 

No, not at all. About one year ago I spoke with a pastor in the city where I live and he pointed out how few pastors preach the resurrection of Jesus. Just look back at the sermons you have listened to and preached. How many of them include the resurrection of Jesus.

Recognizing the resurrection of Jesus and the death of Jesus is one thing but quite another to emphasize both of those. How often do we preach about the death of Jesus but leave him hanging there by failing to also preach the resurrection?

Paul preached, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,. . . "

 

No, praise God, we have an Easter Sunday -- properly called Resurrection Day!

Don't virtually all Christian churches -- even aberrations such as Catholicism -- have an Easter Sunday? That EVERY DAY is Resurrection Sunday in the true Church is true, but I've never heard of one that completely disregards the resurrection.

 

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
(Heb 5:12-6:2)

The resurrection is a very basic doctrine. Believers do not need to hear "preaching" on the first principles on a regular basis; any more than adults need to eat pureed baby food. Only babes want to constantly receive Biblical milk from the spoons of the unskilled who are unable to teach from God's Word in any meaningful way.

 

You missed my point. When you give an invitation or talk about Jesus do you leave him hanging on the cross and end the service or do you continue to talk about his resurrection too? I do not find very many cases that I have listened to which include both together each time the gospel s given. Jesus' sacrifice is talked about but there is no mention of the resurrection. Jesus did not just die he rose too. In 1 Cor. 15 Paul did not separate them. So why should we? Both are part of the gospel.

 

Why do you need to re-evangelize believers three times per week? This is the weakest of milk. Do you ask your wife to marry you every week or has your relationship gone beyond your request for marriage? Congregations that hear "the gospel" every time they gather are full of immature believers who are led by public speakers who cannot teach. The ability to teach is required of every elder. God does not call men who cannot teach to lead His people.

 

Read the article at http://www.ethicsdaily.com/why-most-of-your-church-dont-believe-in-tithing-cms-19279 and see how those who claim to believe the Bible are trusting God instead of themselves. They have forgotten the God who is an put themselves at the center of their faith.

Seems Like I find three books of the Bible devoted to the resurrection and second coming of Jesus and the impact it should have on our practical living.

Think about the time Jesus and Paul devoted to training new believers and what we see today. Jesus devoted three years and how many years did Paul devote? In that same time period what do we see in the average church attender? What percentage of the church you attend are making disciples? I have seen men and women start making disciples with one week of following Jesus. The average is closer to two years.

 

My point is that when we talk about Jesus death do we also include His resurrection or do we leave Jesus hanging there?

Yesterday I spoke to a congregation on the way Jesus made disciples and devoted a large amount of time to what a talmid was and did so that they understood what it meant when Jesus chose His disciples and immediately they followed Him. I also talked a little about Oral Tradition and what a talmid had to go through to become a rabbi. Then I led into what Jesus said to a scribe and disciple. When I talked about the scribe and how he addressed Jesus they understood what the process was for being a talmid and the scribe's approach to Jesus. When was the last time you heard a sermon on that? That is very basic to understanding what Jesus taught on discipleship.

Jesus taught discipleship to His disciples both by word and practice within a three year period well enough that they carried on the work. I begin to teach new believers how to make disciples with a short time after becoming a new believer. It usually takes on the average of about 2 years for someone to catch the vision and shortly they begin meeting with someone to help them grow. Maybe you are in a different America than I am, but I find few who are making disciples in churches. So if what I am saying is true then the average church is less then three years old in maturity when compared to Jesus' disciples.

I have found that the average amount of time it takes to lead someone to Christ is about 20 min. to 2 hours, but it takes 20 months to 2 years to get them going in such a way that they can begin to make disciples. The problem is that the chruch as a whole has been making babies as a parent might but not giving them the care and guidance necessary to be mature adults who can make disciples.

How long have most believers in churches today been believers? I would contend that the majority are listening to sermons each week and few if any have obeyed the command Jesus gave in Mt. 28:19, 20 to help them grow. They know all the right doctrines and can argue the faith but remain as babes.

 

Actually, I didn't miss your point at all. You are trying to make some hay at my expense -- for what reason I don't really know.

In any case, I preach the whole gospel, which includes our eventual glorification becasue of Christ's resurrection. That IS the Christian message.

I speak as much about where we end up and that we end up there because of Christ's COMPLETED WORK -- including the Resurection -- as anything.

Now, can we get back to the OP?

 

The purpose was not to make hay at your expense but it reminded me of the denomination you are in and a question that was asked several pastors I meet with each week.

It was not but a few months another pastor asked some of us the same question and it made us think about what we actually do and teach. All of us came to the conclusion that too many times Jesus is left dead on the cross but is not followed up with the fact that He was buried and rose.

Since you claim to preach the whole gospel then would you not be required to tell them what Paul declared the gospel to be in 1 Cor. 15?
In every invitation you give and invite people to receive Jesus do you not only tell them that Jesus died but also tell them that Jesus was buried and rose again? If not then I would say that you have not given them all of the gospel according to what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 15.

 

Actually, before you reference "my denomination" and anything we may or may not be doing (and you offer a thinly veiled attempt to lump us together with Catholicism, which I both reject and am insulted) you must "prove" exegetically that the altar call is a required part of any service of worship.

Other than that, yes, when I preach the passage of 1 Cor 15, I preach what God, through Paul, caused to be written in exegetical style. However, I do not preach 1 Cor 15 every Sunday. Right now I am preaching through 1 Peter, which is also a book of the Bible in case you were not sure. Peter also shares the gospel in an inspired manner after his own fashion as directed to write by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Do you preach 1 Cor 15 every week? And if so, I greatly feel for your starved people...

 

Am I to assume you are a Baptist-Catholic? I ask the question because I never once ever thought about lumping you and your denomination together with the RCC. So now I wonder why you would possibly think that.

Could you provide at least one example of where I ever lumped you and your denomination together with the RCC? If I ever pointed that direction then I will apologize but I am unable to even think of one time. So I am asking you to point that out to me.

I am sure you could tell us what part of the letter 1 Peter 1:3-12 is. However I was wondering what your point was in your attempt to demean someone. It has changed the opinion I once had of you which is only to your detriment.

Did you net read what I mentioned that I preached on yesterday? When was the last time you taught what a talmid was and related it to Jesus' ministry in light of first century Judaism as background to teach on Matthew 8:18-22? Is that starvation according to you?

When I give an invitation and give the points of the gospel I do include Jesus' resurrection now. That is what I have changed as a result of the conversation several of us had with another pastor.

Sadly I never had the impression of you from before, that I do now. I always thought you were more open to things and learning than what I seem to be getting now. If I would have thought that you were not able to think about something else then I would not have mentioned anything.

 

First, all this lengthy conversation came to be when YOU mistook my very brief answer -- where I had a particular verse in mind, which I promptly share with you -- to a question you posed.

Second, you have "TRANSFERRED" onto me something that you learned from some pastors in your community without knowing whether or not I actually preach and teach the resurrection -- which I had already assured you of both knowing and doing.

Third, you are now in a snit, and thinking evil of me, and that simply because I respond to your points.

Fourth, the reference to Catholicism is because THEY are the group that actually teaches what you accused me of above. THEY have the crucifix with Christ yet hanging in each of their buildings that they pretend are actually the church. What else was I to think about your response?

Fifth, why on earth would you call me a Catholic-Baptist when I use Catholicism as the antithesis of my own position. That is both mean spirited and a blatant ad hominem against me personally. Of course I'm going to rip you right back...

Sixth, if your opinion of me is so easily set aside then one of two things has happened. First, your opinion was not very high to begin with, or second, you have again transferred to me your feelings due another. There is a possible third point... I've touched a nerve and you feel the need to tear me up because of it. Whatever... You can play the role of accuser of the brethren all you like. Doesn't effect my preaching in the slightest.