What Makes a Baptist Church an Independent Baptist Church?

1) The OP was not asking if you like it or not - rather - what makes a church independent.
2) All IFB's are NOT legalistic - unless you mean they take a stand against alcoholic, divorce, ect.

 

A church CAN be in an association, convention or fellowship and still be independent!
A church is independent when no outside group exercise any control over that local church.

From the link - "The definition for the word "independent" is fairly simple: not subordinate or subject to; not dependent upon; not subject to the control or influence of something; not connected or related to another group."

Our church is affilated with the SBC - but we are NOT subordinate, NOT subject to, NOT dependent upon, NOT subject to the control or influence of something.

The last item -says "not connected or related to another group. This would infer that no Independent Baptist church should support any missionary from a mission board - as that would make a church related to another group.

 

To me, it's more of a matter of mindset rather than what's in print. In principle, all Baptist churches are independent. Otherwise, the church is just a deep water Presbyterian. As to mindset, the kerfluffle over independence arose in the 50s and continues to today. By the 50s, after losing fight after fight over twenty some odd years, Consevative\Fundamentalists had separated from the Northern Baptist Convention (the GARBC in the 30s). Considering the problems in SBC schools, they looked askance at why churches and men would stay in the SBC.

 

Sounds about right to me (insofar as I understand the IFB denomination). The only part that I'd disagree with is :

"If it were scriptural for a church to redelegate the authority to another organization to send out missionaries, then it would be just as scriptural to redelegate that authority to another to baptize, to administer the Lord's supper, to exercise discipline, etc. The Bible does not teach or condone such action. There is no scriptural justification for the formulation of mission boards."

I disagree for a couple of reasons (I am SBC, so this goes without saying). First, when we look in Acts we can see a corporation between churches (I believe in the coming together to determine what doctrine is appropriate for the Gentiles and also with Paul's collection for the poor).I realize that my "evidence" is not above challenge, but this is one reason I believe in churches supporting one another. I also see in the New Testament a type of corporation when it comes to the support of the Apostles, and I believe this extends to evangelism in general. I think, for example (again, this is my opinion and not above challenge), that Paul intended his support for those in the early mission field to extend beyond a single church.

So I strongly disagree that there is no scriptural justification for the formulation of mission boards. Churches should be in corporation with one another (I think this is also very evident in the tone of 2 John....again, not above challenge [I view the "lady" and "sister" to be referring to local churches).

 

In reality, an association or convention - will only give advice or recommendation - of which we have the choice of do or not doing.
Our DOM has many years experience as a church planter and as a DOM. He has some very good advice. Normally, it would be a good
ideal to follow his advice. (BTW, in addition to being our DOM, he is also the church planter/pastor of a mission church!

 

So would it be wrong for a church to join the local chamber of commerce?

 

Nothing, as long as it is willing to give it up if the government goes into persecution mode. Until then it protects the assets of the members.

 

as well as the church officers